The most discussed subject at the Hong Kong discussion forums is a short 'rape' video taken by a mobile phone camera. The video clip is not being posted anywhere given the criminal charges filed against those posted the Edison Chan photos earlier this year. The video clip is being distributed via the peer-to-peer system Foxy as well as via mobile phone. A Foxy user would only need to know the keyword/file-name to fetch the video, and that information is published at some discussion forums.
The video clip is 1:48 in duration. Five persons are involved: the victim, the rapist, a male accessory, the person using the mobile phone camera and a female who was unseen but heard to say "Call 999." There is no date for the video. The location appears to be a business office. The three persons shown on the video wore the uniform of a well-known Japanese restaurant in Hong Kong. The victim is struggling and screaming, and tried to use her hands and clothes to cover up her face.
The police said that they have the video and have started an investigation.
<Love In A Fallen City> is a famous novel written by Chinese writer Eileen Chang. The story is about a beautiful and sad romance which ended happily (apparently) after the fall of Hong Kong to the Japanese army in December 1941.
<Love In A Fallen City> is therefore a well-recognized brand name.
Now the virtual world website Dance Street has just a new community known as <Love In A Fallen City> where people can meet and their avatars can dance wild in the street.
Here are some screen captures.
What is Eileen Chang (or her literary executor) going to do about this? Most likely, nothing.
(Sunday Times) Peter Mandelson official in cash for secrets row. September 7, 2008.
A top official in Peter Mandelson’s European Union trade department has leaked highly sensitive commercial information in return for the promise of financial benefit.
In a six-month investigation, The Sunday Times tape-recorded Fritz-Harald Wenig, a trade director, passing secrets to undercover reporters posing as lobbyists for a Chinese businessman seeking insider information.
Wenig discussed the possibility of payment or taking a lucrative job with the businessman. He said he would decide further once he had provided “results”.
He leaked the names of two Chinese companies likely to get special status if the EU imposes a protective tariff barrier against Chinese candle-makers. The information is potentially worth millions to those trading with these companies.
...
In conversations with the undercover reporters whom he believed to be lobbyists, he also: Disclosed that Mandelson will back moves for further tariffs on Chinese footwear imports – the decision will be revealed to fellow commissioners on Wednesday. Offered to help a company linked to the lobbyists’ Chinese client if it applied for special status to exempt it from the footwear tariffs. Agreed to find out about other companies who may be given special tariff rates in a commission investigation involving aluminium foil.
(Southern Metropolis Daily) September 10, 2008.
On September 7, the Sunday featured an article titled <Peter Mandelson official in cash for secrets row> prominently. The article said that EU trade department official Fritz-Harald Wenig received bribes from two fictive Chinese companies to provide their candlesticks and shoes products with special favors. The reporter pretended to be a lobbyist for the Hong Kong trader company owned by a fictive Chinese businessman named Zhou Liping and they met at the Comme Chez Soi to discuss the bribes and other EU commercial secrets.
This seemingly typical anti-corruption exposé is permeated with hostility against MADE IN CHINA -- of all the many products on the EU market, why did the Sunday Times choose Chinese businesses? And they had to pick the biggest Chinese exports to the EU: shoes and candlesticks. The "anti-corruption investigation" of the Sunday Times is just another exhibition of the shopworn "China threat" talk linked to western self-protectionism behind.
Unlike the directness of CNN's Jack Cafferty, the Sunday Times had classical English subtlety, which is especially dangerous. Both are characteristics of Occidentalism.
Taking place immediately after the Olympic closing ceremony, the action of the Sunday Times is tantamount to a strong reaction against the global trend towards diversity. The possibility of re-shuffling the world order with the rise of developing nations has caused the west to be worried and scared of the future.
How does one reconcile the technical analysis of exit polls in the Hong Kong Legco election with the auctioning of the unwashed underwear of the Olympic cheerleaders (see the entry further down)? For the answer, I will quote from Jimmy Lai, who is the principal owner of Apple Daily (via Next Weekly).
[translated in summarized form]
I was at a forum with several academic-type professors. They emphasized that the media ought to base the reporting on rational knowledge and the commentary on objectivity, fairness and rationality. In their eyes, the present media contents are just vulgar and unserious entertainment gossip. They believe that the media should be reporting on the major issues such as environmental protection, inequality of wealth and so on as opposed to the light-weighted, frivolous entertainment news.
Yes, I can deal with these criticisms. But if the media only reported their major issues of our times, don't the newspapers become just like the research reports in their ivory tower? How long can newspapers publish their serious but boring research reports without alienating the readers?
Yes, it is true that people are rational and the media should also be rational too. But people are not only rational. People are sometimes emotional beings. In people's lives, the emotional side is often more important than the rational side.
A life is a story of joy, anger, sorrow and happiness. News is supposed to reflect the stories of the people, such as the unexpected disasters, the tragedy borne from love and hatred, the moral clashes ... and negative emotions of people are frequently involved. Such news stories gain resonance, empathy and sympathy among people, and they induce emotional responses more than rational reflections. When the media reports cover these stories, they have to be more emotional than rational.
News is a part of life. Everybody reads it every day. When people read the news, they share the controversies, emotions, worries, sorrows, joys and glories of life. We also enjoy the rumors and the gossip. Through the news, we learn about the environment in which we live in. Which place is safe? When is it safe? Under what circumstances is it safe? What are the government policies? What are the social trends that may affect us? What is beneficial to us? How will the trends in social fashion and technology affect our health, occupation, education and consumption? ...
There are undoubtedly major serious issues to think about. But a normal person will not sit around to contemplate these issues all the time. Most people come into contact with these issues in partial, disparate and emotional ways. In other words, people's knowledge about these major issues comes from the accumulation of small bits of information as opposed to sitting down to conduct a very thorough research over a long period of time. Every day, news occur and these news are inevitably -- albeit partially -- connected with the major issues of our time.
News is a part of our life. Therefore, media report should analyze every part of our life. People do not lead monolithic lives; they live diversified lives, which inevitably includes many conflicting aspects. A citizen who loves to read entertainment news can still have his lofty demand for democracy. Such is the reality for the majority of the people.
Such being the case, why can't a newspaper that advocates democracy also publish emotion-rousing entertainment gossip? Why did the professors attack <Apple Daily> on the grounds that a pro-democracy newspaper should not carry emotion-rousing entertainment gossip? Aren't they talking rubbish?
These professors are intellectuals who live in the ivory tower. They are a small minority in society, and their ideas do not gain currency in society at large. The majority of news readers are unlike the professors because they are people live real lives. Just because they don't dwell in the ivory tower, does it mean that they have to right to pursue democracy? If they have the right to do so, then why should their demand of democracy be segregated from their real lives?
[ESWN Comment: I tend to be economical with respect to explaining my motives. Usually, I offer no explanation at all. Here is an illustration. There was a reason why I presented the story about the auctioning of the unwashed underwear of the Olympic cheerleaders. The major issue behind it is the globalization of culture. For the global event of the Olympics, the Chinese cheerleading squad included foreign members. When asked to donate personal items to auction to help earthquake victims, the Japanese cheerleaders offered their unwashed underwear, which is commonplace enough in Japan. How did the Chinese take that? Not well, at this moment in time. At what point in time of the globalization process will it become acceptable? I will keep tracking ...
I don't have time to explain all my interests in these so-called 'frivolous' stories. If I explained everything, I would be nagging you. It is up to the reader to think about the reasons, or not to think about the reasons, or not to come to this website at all. I can't help it and I don't care because I am only doing this for my own interest and enjoyment.]
(SCMP) September 8, 2008.
Anson Chan Fang On-sang was not seeking re-election but her campaign schedule was no less hectic than those of the candidates. Busy lobbying for votes for allies from dawn to dusk around the city, the outgoing lawmaker flew in a helicopter from The Peninsula hotel to Sai Kung, where she made a whirlwind stop to canvass for the Civic Party's Ronny Tong Ka-wah.
"Anson has only 45 minutes for me. I hope every minute of hers can be used for canvassing. So we decided to hire a chopper for her," Mr Tong said. He rented the helicopter from the hotel for HK$10,000, while the landing site charged another HK$2,000. Mrs Chan was then ushered to a Mercedes escorted by a fleet of four motorbikes to begin her grand tour, starting in Tseung Kwan O. She spent the day covering several dozen spots for different pan-democrats.
Now for a different version from EastWeek (no link):
According to an informant, someone with the Civic Party came up with the brilliant idea that they would get a helicopter to air-drop Anson Chan Fang On-sang from the city out to New Territories East to support the campaign of Ronny Tong and his teammate Tsang Kwok-fung. The associated media coverage would be an awesome boost. But it was not easy to find a landing spot. They wanted to lift off from Hong Kong Island and stop in Taipo, but they could not find a suitable spot. Finally, they arranged to take off from the helicopter pad on top of the Peninsula Hotel in Kowloon (note: the hotel provides helicopter service for its VIP clients), and they would stop at a flower garden near the University of Science and Technology.
With these arrangements in place, Mrs. Chan spent the morning campaigning on behalf of Tanya Chan and Audrey Eu on Hong Kong Island. Then she traveled by car across the harbor and got on the helicopter at the Peninsula Hotel. At the time, people who saw her entering the hotel were perplexed that she could afford the leisure to have lunch at the Peninsula Hotel on election day. They did not know that she was just there to board a helicopter.
Within moments, she was already at Sai Kung. Ronny Tong and his team members were waiting there. Mrs. Chan got off and hugged the team. The television and print media reporters had been alerted beforehand and they rushed over to film. Ronny Tong was expecting that the noon news would be showing this special event with amazing advertising effect. Unfortunately, this event never made it onto any television election coverage. It is possible that certain television station senior executives decided that this was blatant advertising (and not just news) which would be unfair to the other candidates if shown. For whatever reason, the video was held off the air. So the episode of the amazing army from the skies was futile. The HK$10,000 to rent the helicopter might as well as have been thrown into the sea (but it still counts as campaign expenditure).
At the Chinese auction site Taobao, a netizen representing the cheerleaders known as the "Candy Party" is offering to sell the clothes that they wore during the Olympics, including the cheerleading uniforms as well as their 'unwashed' bras and panties. The asking prices range from 1 RMB to 5,000 RMB. The rousing introduction said: "Right now, we are solemnly offering you the wonderful stuff that was issued by CCTV and made by the sponsor Li Ning for the Olympics! We guarantee that everything is authentic. Furthermore, they are very romantically stimulating. When you hold them up to your nose to sniff, you will get to smell the youthful fragrance of these young girls. Hehe, it is definitely satisfying. They have not been washed yet, and they are genuine."
Shortly afterwards, netizens wrote to condemn the sales effort as being "vulgar and shameless" and "an insult to the Olympic spirit." In reply, the agent for the "Candy Party" explained that the revenue would be given to disaster relief for earthquake victims. The agent knows that the girls agreed to sell their stuff, including dolls and jewelry. But she is not sure about the underwear. The girls come from mainland China, Hong Kong and even Japan. It may be that the unwashed underwear were offered by the Japanese members and the agent will have to check with them to find out.
From the press conference:
NHK (Japan) reporter: I would like to ask Minister Zhang Huoping. During the opening ceremony when the Norway contingent entered the stadium, someone intruded and was arrested. Can you please describe to us what happened?
Zhang Huoping: I am sorry, but we were mainly responsible for the performance and the ceremony. We do not have full knowledge of some of the things that happened.
MC Wang Wei: Let me answer that. As the reporter just described, a female audience member entered into the field when the athletes were entering the stadium. Once she got on the field, she attempted to remove her dress top off. The workers stopped her and advised her to leave. Afterwards, they spoke to her. They learned that she was from Guangdong province and she was a mental patient. Her action was an indecent act that she did on her own.
Here is the photoplay of what happened:
Netizen ID "KV53103" made a post titled <What a wonderful waste product beauty; she would rather scavenge for recyclables to sell than be someone's kept mistress> about a poor female university student in a certain Xi'an private university. This post has already drawn more than 330,000 page views and almost 1,000 comments. But the netizens did not praise her or shower sympathy. Instead, they accuse "DV53103" for being an Internet promoter who wanted to turn this girl into a celebrity.
Netizens were cynical about the clean look and fashionable clothing of the girl in the photo. "How much money does her clothes and hair-dyeing job cost? Does she look a scavenger?" "How many bottles does she have to gather to dye the hair? How does her skin stay so white? How many recyclables can she pick up with those skinny arms? "The photographer is a professional using professional equipment. This is too obvious for a prmotion." "The lighting arrangement and the expression of the model are based upon the standard art practice between 1997-2007. But the clothing on the model was an obvious failure." "Why does this girl who needs to scavenge everyday to meet her daily needs wear a gold ring on her left hand?"
The netizens were more resentful of the Internet promoter than the girl herself. "Will the shameless Internet promoter please don't insult our intelligence?" "If you have to run another promotion again, please be a little bit more professional. We are already immunized to these tricks."
(Ming Pao)
The first example is in the New Territories West district. In Kwai Tsing and specific stations in Tuen Mun, the DAB votes decreased massively compared to the 2004 election. Meanwhile their ally Wong Kwok Hing of the Federation of Trade Unions got a lot of votes in those areas. This is indirect evidence that the two parties coordinated their votes by geography. For example, in the two large counting stations in Tuen Mun and Tai Hing, the DAB recieved 3,454 votes the last time. This time, they got only 618 votes. Meanwhile, Wong Kwok Hing (who did not run last time) got 2,432 votes this time. Overall, the DAB list headed by Tam Yiu Chung got 92,037 votes, which was 23,000 fewer than last time but still enough to get two seats. Meanwhile, Wong Kwok Hing was elected with 35,991 votes.
In Kowloon West, the Federation of Trade Unions did not have its own candidate. But it did separate mailings to its membership roll of 40,000 persons. To 23,000 members, the FTU recommended Starry Lee Wai King of the DAB. To the other 16,900 members, the FTU recommended 'independent' candidate Leung Mei Fun. In the last election, the DAB received 60,000 votes. This time, the DAB received 40,000 votes and Starry Lee Wai King was elected. Leung Mei Fun (who did not run last time) received 20,000 votes and was elected as well. Geographically, it was also noted that Starry Lee Wai King had more votes in Shum Shui Po while Leung Mei Fun did better in Kowloon City. The two were about even in the Yau Tsim Mong district.
[ESWN Comment: Other parties coordinate their campaigns as well. For example, the Democratic Party has two lists in New Territories West headed by Albert Ho and Lee Wing Tat respectively. In the Kwai Tsing district, Ho received 2,476 votes and Lee received 27,092 votes; in Tuen Mun, Ho received 24,273 votes and Lee received 3,476 votes. Both were elected handily. The activity is perfectly legal, because the Election Affairs Committee cannot enforce where and when the candidates must campaign. The point here is that the result can be seen in the voting data at the counting station level.]
The Ming Pao article also covered the case of Hong Kong Island, where the DAB was unable to hold the two seats that it won last time. It was estimated that the pro-establishment camp has 150,000 votes on Hong Kong Island or just over 40% of the votes. With six seats, it requires great coordination to win 3 seats (two for the DAB and one for the 'independent' Regina Ip; alternately, one for the DAB and two for Regina Ip's list).
In the end, the six winners and their votes were:
Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Civic Act-up), 30,887 votes
Kam Nai Wai (Democratic Party), 39,808 votes
Jasper Tsang Yok Sing (DAB), 60,417 votes
Tanya Chan, Audrey Eu (Civic Party), 82,600 votes
Regina Ip, 61,073 votesWhat sort of coordination is required? Either the DAB gives 25,000 or so to Regina Ip, or Regina Ip gives 25,000 votes to the DAB. A shift of that magnitude is unthinkable without destroying the morale of their putative supporters.
Alternately, you may note that the final vote distribution was unknown at the time. Instead, the only thing available was the HKRA Exit Poll . If we use those numbers without any adjustments, the projected votes were:
Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Civic Act-up), 28,209 votes
Kam Nai Wai (Democratic Party), 31,029 votes
Jasper Tsang Yok Sing (DAB), 82,432 votes
Lo Wing Lok, 21,313 votes
Tanya Chan (Civic Party), 57,358 votes
Regina Ip, 65,507 votesThe DAB would still need 2,000 votes one way or the other to go past Lo Wing Lok.
[ESWN Comment: Of course, they can unleash their legendary 20,000 people sitting at home waiting for the 8pm message about whom to vote for ...]
The youngest Legislative Council member Gary Chan Hak-kan was tongue-tied when interviewed in English after his victory in the election. He kpe saying "er ... er ... er ..." The video of that interview is an Internet hit.
Previously, Chan Hak-kan worked at the office of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. He is an elite from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and has a bachelor's degree. But his stuttering English was distracting. Apple Daily invited the English-language star tutor Richard Eng to give an appraisal of Chan Hak-kan's English.
Eng pointed out that Councilor Chan is quite so-so in speaking English. The most egregious aspect to to pronounce 'try our best' as 'try our breast' with an extra 'r.' The same word was pronounced this way twice, so it is not clear that he really knew how to pronounce 'best.'
The second mistake was to say that he won't concentrate solely on criticizing government 'policy' when he enters the Legislative Council. Instead he would make some suggestions as well. Eng pointed out that the government has more than one policy and therefore it should have been 'policies' in the plural.
The third fatal mistake is to pronounce 'livelihood' as 'liver hood.' Can an American or Englishman tell what he is saying?
After listening to Councilor Chan, Eng appraised his oral English skill as between Form 5 and Form 7 in secondary school, and definitely not up to university-level. But since he actually have the courage to speak in English, Eng would give a pass in the Advanced Level Exam. However, there was no way that the hesitant speech would pass the University Entrance Exam.
Given that this video has gone viral on the Internet, the electronic media should always remember to ask him questions in English because it will be popular among netizens afterwards. Please bear in mind that this is not a problem about a Legislative Councilor not speaking good English, because that happens with others too. The resentment is about he ever got a high-paying job as a special assistant at the office of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and that was present for other reasons even before this video.
(SCMP) 'Long Hair' disrupts rally. By Joyce Ng. September 08, 2008.
Tempers flared in New Territories East yesterday when "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung showed up to protest at a DAB gathering.
The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong's Lau Kong-wah and Gary Chan Hak-kan staged a rally on a street corner in Tai Po in the afternoon. But 10 minutes after the pair started to speak, Mr Leung appeared, holding a mask with a snake moving through its mouth. "The Buddha's mouth and the snake's heart," the candidate for the League of Social Democrats shouted. His placard bore the same slogan. However, DAB supporters with their own placards and banners stood in his way, stopping him from approaching the two candidates. They also shouted: "Peaceful elections! No provocations!"
The two sides pushed and shouted at each other. Mr Leung demanded an apology from Mr Chan, who had said at an election forum that Mr Leung "always sits in the [Legislative Council] meeting for one minute", which Mr Leung called a slander. The confrontation ended after 10 minutes when the DAB candidates left.
Headline News: The DAB becomes the largest party
am730: Turnout Rate Tumbles Down; Pan-democrats In Trouble
Sing Tao: Selina Chow and Choy So-yuk face ouster
Ming Pao: 45% voting rate the lowest
since the return of Hong Kong to China
Apple Daily: Pan-democrats admit failure
Oriental Daily: Beware of parotid gland cancer
from overusing mobile telephone
The Sun: Dead because he forgot to bring his door key
After I voted at the Caritas Centre in Kowloon Tong yesterday, I was approached by a Hong Kong Research Association interviewer. I was asked three questions: Which list did you vote for? I did not know the list number. So she asked for the name instead. The second question was about the reason why I voted for this candidate and she read off a list which includes political party affiliation, professional qualifications and previous experience. The third question was: Did you vote in any functional constituency? The answer was no. That was the exit interview. All answers were recorded on a PDA by the interviewer.
(SCMP) Exit poll organisers fail to comply with election watchdog's guidelines.
Some exit poll organisers failed to comply with guidelines laid down by the election watchdog, appearing keen only to find out how electors voted rather than carrying out academic analysis.
Although the Electoral Affairs Commission required all exit poll researchers to tell voters they had the right to refusal before being asked questions, some interviewers did not comply with this rule.
A South China Morning Post reporter interviewed at the Lai King Community Hall voting station in Kwai Chung, in the New Territories West constituency, was not reminded of the right to refusal when approached by a Hong Kong Research Association interviewer yesterday morning. When asked about the purpose of the survey, the interviewer said it was for a "post-election review" and the data would not be used to affect election results.
Only three questions were asked: who the reporter had voted for; the reason; and whether the vote was registered in a functional constituency.
Another Post reporter was interviewed by a member of the research association at a polling station in Mid-Levels.
The researcher asked who the reporter had voted for and why. Regina Ip, the reporter replied, because "I love her political background". The researcher also asked how the reporter had voted in the previous election, to which the reporter replied, "The DAB."
In contrast, a University of Hong Kong pollster asked more than six questions, including whether the respondent had taken part in any July 1 demonstrations, and the respondent's age and occupation, and voting choice.
Outside a polling station in Tsuen Wan, a Post reporter was interviewed by a pollster from the Association of Community in Hong Kong, which is reportedly affiliated with Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong candidate Cheung Hok-ming in New Territories West. The pollster only carried a white card to show the identity of his group, but did not mention the group when asking questions.
During the brief interview, the pollster recorded the voting choice, but not the reason. Neither did he disclose the purpose of carrying out the poll until asked. "We use it for research and will release it tonight," the interviewer said.
He appeared uneasy when asked if the results were used for "vote allocation", after suggestions that parties in the government-friendly camp were using exit poll results to maximise the chances of winning among allies.
Three of the pollsters recorded their answers on PDAs.
(SCMP) Poor response as voters heed call to shun exit polls. By Ng Kang-chung. September 8, 2008.
The response rate to exit polls shrank to about 50 per cent, University of Hong Kong pollster Robert Chung Ting-yiu said last night. The figure was much lower than in the previous Legislative Council elections - the response rate was 67 per cent in 2000 and 75 per cent in 2004. Dr Chung, who heads the university's public opinion programme, said a recent controversy had undermined people's confidence and warned that the university might stop carrying out exit polls in future. He said some of the exit polls carried out by other groups were not scientific. "They should not just ask who people voted for."
Meanwhile, Electoral Affairs Commission chairman Mr Justice Pang Kin-kee promised a thorough investigation of allegations that exit pollsters had misled voters by claiming that the group they worked for had been commissioned by the government.
Exit polls have proved largely accurate in the past. But they became contentious recently after the pan-democrats complained about the possibility of abuse of the data by their rivals in the Beijing-loyalist camp, who could set up groups to conduct polls and use the results to revise their election strategies. The pan-democrats urged electors to boycott exit polls. Many electors seemed to respond to the call and waved away pollsters when approached, some even saying they had lied to pollsters.
New Territories East voter Mandy Chan, of Sha Tin, who turned down an interview, said: "I would not even tell my husband who I voted for. It is private." In Tsim Sha Tsui, part of the Kowloon West constituency, a voter told a pollster from the Hong Kong Research Association that she had voted for Cyd Ho Sau-lan, who was standing in Hong Kong Island. The voter, giving her name as Ms Chu, said: "I did it intentionally. I do not want any abuse of the data by any parties, whether they are prodemocracy or anti-democracy."
Democrat Zachary Wong Wai-yin lodged a formal complaint after being approached by the pollsters outside a polling station in Yuen Long yesterday morning. Mr Wong said he was approached for an exit poll outside the Long Ping Community Hall polling station by an interviewer representing the Hong Kong Research Association. "I asked her about the background of her group. She said she did not know but then a partner of hers said they were commissioned by the government. I challenged them and they walked away," he said. Mr Justice Pang said neither the government nor his commission had hired any group to conduct exit polls.
Hong Kong Research Association spokeswoman Mak Yin-mei denied any malpractice by her staff. "All were given proper training and had been asked to identify themselves to interviewees," she said. "So far, we do not know who made the complaint and so far the authorities have not approached us for investigation. We have confidence in our pollsters."
The group was one of six authorised to conduct exit polls yesterday (see LIST). Besides the University of Hong Kong's public opinion programme, the others were unfamiliar groups, many of which were said to be linked to the Beijing-loyalist camp. Ng Man-to, who was in charge of the Hong Kong Investigation and Research Centre's exit poll project, admitted voters seemed more suspicious about exit polls this year.
Voters said the surveys by the University of Hong Kong appeared more comprehensive and academic, while those by other groups were mainly brief and seemed to be mainly interested in who people had voted for.
Independent pollster Timothy Wong Ka-ying, of Chinese University, said a poll comprising some 10 questions would be comprehensive enough. "There should also be questions to check against possible contradictions in replies made by an interviewee," Professor Wong said. He declined to comment on the methodology employed by other groups but said they had to decide whether to trust the results of their polls if they only asked one or two questions.
The exit poll data of the Hong Kong Research Association were posted on the Internet just after midnight (see link in Chinese). The exit poll data of the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme were released to the electronic media sponsors which then disclosed them to the public after the polls closed. The exit poll data by other organizations do not ever seem to surface, either in the news or for academic purposes.
Geographical Constituency List Party Exit Poll # Seats Hong Kong Island 1 Lam Chui Lin Liberal Party 1.2 2 Ho Sau Lan Cyd Civic Act-up 9.0 X 3 Kam Nai Wai, Yeung Sum Democratic Party 9.9 X 4 Tsang Kin Shing League of Social Democrats 4.1 5 Tsang Yok Sing Jasper, Choy So Yuk DAB 26.3 X 6 Siu Man Wa Myra 1.5 7 Lo Wing Lok 6.8 X 8 Chan Tanya, Eu Yuet Mee Audrey Civic Party 18.3 X 9 Ip Lau Suk Yee Regina, Shih Tai Cho Louis 20.9 X 10 Lai Chi Keong Joseph 2.0 Kowloon East 1 Wu Chi Wai Democratic Party 8.1 2 To Kwon Hang Andrew League of Social Democrats 9.7 3 Chan Kam Lam DAB 29.0 X 4 Leong Kah Kit Alan Civic Party 14.2 X 5 Li Wai Ming Democratic Party 17.4 X 6 Wong Kwok Kin Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 21.6 X Kowloon West 1 Chong Wing Charn Francis 1.0 2 Lee Wai King Starry DAB 25.4 X 3 Lung Wai Man James 0.5 4 To Kun Sun James Democratic Party 11.4 X 5 Mo Man Ching Claudia Civic Party 6.6 6 Lam Yi Lai 0.5 7 Leung Mei Fun 11.9 X 8 Wong Yuk Man League of Social Democrats 14.1 X 9 Tien Michael Puk Sun Liberal Party 5.8 10 Fung Kin Kee Frederick ADPL 16.1 X 11 Lau Chin Shek 5.3 12 Lau Yuk Shing 0.4 13 Tam Hoi Pong 1.0 New Territories East 1 Tien Pei Chun James Liberal Party 8.5 X 2 Siu See Kong Party for Civic Rights & Livelihood of the People of Hong Kong Limited 0.8 3 Lau Wai Hing Emily The Frontier 7.7 4 Wong Shing Chi Democratic Party 9.5 X 5 Leung Kwok Hung League of Social Democrats 9.9 X 6 Lee Chi Wing Alvin 1.8 7 Cheng Kar Foo Andrew Democratic Party 10.3 X 8 Tong Ka Wah Ronny Civic Party 9.4 X 9 Pong Scarlett Oi Lan 6.0 10 Lau Kong Wah, Chan Hak Kan DAB 36.1 XX New Territories West 1 Cheung Chiu Hung Civic Party 5.8 X 2 Lee Cheuk Yan Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions 10.2 X 3 Tam Yiu Chung, Cheung Hok Ming DAB 27.3 X 4 Ho Chun Yan Democratic Party 8.7 X 5 Tandon Lal Chaing ADPL 2.4 6 Yuen Wai Chung 1.1 7 Chan Wai Yip Albert League of Social Democrats 6.6 X 8 Chow Ping Tim 1.0 9 Wong Kwok Hing 9.0 X 10 Cheung Yin Tung 2.4 11 Leung Suet Fong Blue Intelligent Union 0.6 12 Chow Liang Shuk Yee Selina Liberal Party 5.6 13 Leung Yiu Chung Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre 9.7 X 14 Lee Wing Tat Democratic Party 9.6 X
Hong Kong Island:
Extremely high chances: Kam Nai-wai (DP), Jasper Tsang (DAB), Tanya Chan (CP), Regina Ip (IND), Cyd Ho (CA)
Equal chances (for the last seat): Choy So-yuk (DAB), Lo Wing-lok (IND), Audrey Eu (CP), Louis Shih (IND)Kowloon East:
Extremely high chances: Chan Kam Lam (DAB), Wong Kwok Kin (FTU)
High chances: Alan Leong (CP)
Equal chances (for the last seat) Andrew To (LSD), Fred Li (DP)Kowloon West:
Extremely high chances: Raymond Wong (LSD), James To (DP), Frederick Fung (ADPL), Starry Lee (DAB)
Equal chances (for the last seat): Claudia Mo (CP), Leung Mei Fun (IND), Michael Tien (LP)New Territories East:
Extremely high chances: Wong Shing Chi (DP), Leung Kwok Hung (LSD), Andrew Cheng Kar-foo (DP), Lau Kwong-wah (DAB), Chan Hak-kan (DAB)
Equal chances (for the last 2 seats): James Tien (LP), Emily Lau (The Frontier), Ronny Tong (CP), Scarlett Pong (IND), Mok Kam Kwai (DAB)New Territories West:
Extremely high chances: Lee Cheuk-yan (CTU), Tam Yiu-chung (DAB), Cheung Hok-ming (DAB), Wong Kwok-hing (FTU), Lee Wing-tat (DP)
Equal chances (for the last 3 seats): Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre), Cheung Chiu-hung (CP), Albert Ho (DP), Chan Wai-yip (LSD), Selina Chow (LP), Leung Che Cheung (DAB)
(My1510.cn) Voting Is Not Just To Express Public Opinion. By Leung Man-tao. September 7, 2008.
[in translation]
On the average each week, I receive one recorded telephone call such as this: "How are you? This is the interviewing center with <Newspaper XX>. We are conducting a public opinion poll ..." Each time, I hang up immediately. If the call comes from a real person, I have a ready-made excuse for refusing: "Sorry, I work in the media business. Based upon the custom practice in survey research, I cannot accept an interview."
What person living in Hong Kong has not come across such polls? Hong Kong people express their opinions every day. They express opinions on everything and the polls capture their opinions. Public opinion polls have become a part of our normal daily lives.
This Sunday is voting day for the Hong Kong Legislative Council election. According to public opinion polls, the turnout rate this time will be lower than last time. A customer at a tea restaurant told me: "That's because there have been too many public opinion polls. Since we have already expressed our opinions, why should we bother to go and vote?" This reminded me of a question from a student many years ago: "If the public opinion polls are sufficiently scientific, is it necessary to hold a referendum on a single issue?" Actually, since the exit polls in many countries are getting closer and closer to the actual election results, will public opinion polls be the principal tool for democratic systems?
Before answering this question, let me make a big digression to talk about the so-called "Internet opinion." In recent years, many mainland Chinese government departments are getting on the Internet to solicit public opinion. The leaders at various levels of government sometimes get on the Internet to meet with netizens and answer their question. If these leaders can get on the Internet in the spare time, browse the various forums, check out the hot issues and read the ideas and leanings of the netizens, it would be a good thing. Right?
Of course, that is a good thing. But this so-called "netizen enthusiasm" is confusing. At the Internet forum, most people only read and extremely few people leave comments. At the famous blog by Hecaitou, "Using my blog as an example, the average daily traffic is 10,000 unique IP addresses. This means that 10,000 different people come here every day. Among these 10,000 people, how many leave comments? On the average, it is fewer than 100 per day. That is to say, less than 1% of the people will join in the discussion."
If we scrutinize carefully the most popular and most controversial posts at the Internet forums, we will see that most netizens are 'noiseless submarines.' They come, they see but they don't say anything. Why won't the submarines surface? Perhaps some feel that others have already articulated what they are thinking. Perhaps because they are not interested. Perhaps because they are too lazy to type. As for those who left comments (whether it is just a few words or a long essay), they are more emotionally involved, they are willing and they have time on hand. Can you say the comments of the latter represent the former? Can you use the comments from some netizens to represent the opinions of all netizens? Yet, we are willing to state broadly that "the netizens think XXXX."
Perhaps some day we will be able to find a tool that will analyze netizen comments precisely and then extract the will of the entire population. Perhaps some day survey methodology will contain so little error that we will know the election result without having to vote.
Even so, elections are still necessary. Because the difference between voting and public opinion polling is not just technical. The two things are different by nature.
People change their thinking. Today, they like to eat apples. Tomorrow, they like to eat oranges. For a public issue, I may have just a rough feeling at first and therefore my first reactions are tentative. As more information arrive and my knowledge increases, I may change my position. Public opinion polls always take place somewhere during this process.
As for the voting, this is the decisive moment of the process. When I have to cast the vote, I must conscientiously assemble the known information and analyze/weight them. I know that this is not just a simple expression of opinion, but it is a decisive choice. If the food is bad, I can send it back to the kitchen. If I vote for someone who is bad, I will have to wait for the next election. As low as Ma Ying-jeou's poll numbers are right now, the people of Taiwan cannot send him packing easily; when British Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored the almost 70% public opinion and sent troops into Iraq, there wasn't anything the British people could do to him. They could initiate a recall, but that is another decision.
Why are elections sometimes called "sacred"? That is because it is a decision whose consequences we have to accept. This is not just a haphazard reflection or comment left somewhere. "Respecting public opinion" and "the decision of the people" are politically different because the people are not responsible in the former case whereas the people own the burden in the latter case. It is clearly very democratic practice to respect the will of the people in governance, but that is not the same as letting the people be their own masters. Therefore I told the restaurant customer who said that there was no need to vote: "You should go to vote on Sunday, unless you think that life is truly happy and easy when you don't have any responsibility. If you think that the system of elected representatives is undemocratic, you ought to say out aloud to ask more a more radical democratic system."
Yesterday, the news got around that the leftist supporters received telephone calls to make their votes after 8pm. According to the conservative estimate by pan-democrats, the leftists wants to hold back more than 100,000 'iron' (='sure') votes until the final two hours so that the pan-democrats won't be able to react. These votes may change the outcome of the battle of the last Legco seat. "When the time comes, they will pour the votes over to the pro-Beijing candidates who have a chance and giver the pan-democrats no chance to counter-attack (到 時 邊 個 親 北 京 陣 營 中 人 有 機 會 贏 就 掟 票 落 去 ， 等 泛 民 冇 機 會 反 擊 。)."
(Those Were The Days) (see also Facebook Tell the pollster: "I voted for DAB!")
The only way [to deal with the unfair advantage that certain political parties gain by having access to exit poll data] is: Every voter should cooperate with the exit polls and say that the voted was for the DAB candidate (凡是選民，投票後必定要回應所有票站調查，但一定要說自己投了民建聯候選人一票！).
The assumption of the first piece of information is flawed. Even if the "iron" votes were cast at 1pm, the pan-democrats still could not react. The reason is that they have multiple candidates and nobody is willing to hand over their votes to another pan-democrat. Martin Lee took care to remove that likelihood in 2004 when his crisis appeal on election eliminated Cyd Ho from another pan-democratic list.
But let us suppose that both pieces of information are true. At 8pm, all the exit poll data show that the DAB candidates have huge leads. Where will the 'iron' votes go? Look at the consequences on a district-by-district basis.
Hong Kong Island: There are two pro-establishment lists. The last public opinion polls before election day show that the Regina Ip will easily get one seat. There is an outside chance of Louis Shih on the same list getting a second seat. The DAB list will get one seat, but the chances of getting a second seat for incumbent Choy So Yuk look very remote (certainly less than that for Louis Shih). At 8pm, the exit data show that the DAB will easily get two seats, while Regina Ip gets one seat with no chance for Louis Shih. Where should the 'iron' votes go? (1) DAB; (2) Regina Ip/Louis Shih; (3) stay home. It looks like (1) is still the correct answer, because they simply have to appear to continue to support one of the greatest 'loyalists.' So nothing changes in Hong Kong Island.
Kowloon East: There are six lists, which are separated into a first-tier of four lists (two pro-establishment and two pan-democrats) with a second-tier of two lists trailing significantly behind. It is a foregone conclusion that the four seats will be divided equally among the top four lists. There is no need to even wait until 8pm in Kowloon East. Just bring the 'iron' votes in anytime and there is no need to even check the exit poll data.
Kowloon West: There are six seats being contested. The DAB candidate Starry Lee looks safe among the top three. The other pro-establishment candidate is Leung Mei Fun, who is running a couple percentage points behind in seventh place. At 8pm, the exit poll data show Starry Lee with a huge lead. The 'iron' votes are sent out to Leung Mei Fun and she gets the sixth and final seat. Meanwhile that transfer was not enough to cause Starry Lee to lose. Therefore, the consequences are opposite to the intent of those who lied about voting for the DAB list.
New Territories East: There are seven seats here. The DAB looks safe with two seats. The last two seats are being fought over by three pan-democrats Emily Lau, Leung Kwok Hung and Wong Shing Chi. The other pro-establishment candidate Scarlett Pong Oi Lan is trailing them by two or three percentage points. At 8pm, the exit poll data show the DAB with a huge lead. The 'iron' votes are sent out to Scarlett Pong. She may get the seventh and final seat and that would be opposite to the intent of those who lied about voting for the DAB list. Or she may not get that seat, in which case things were just as before.
New Territories West: There are eight seats here. The DAB looks safe with two seats. The eight and last seat is being contested hotly by pan-democrat Cheung Chiu Hung and pro-establishment unionist Wong Kwok Hing. At 8pm, the exit poll show the DAB with a huge lead. The 'iron' votes are sent out to Wong Kwok Hing and hands the seat to him.
The call to voters to say to exit pollsters that they voted for the DAB comes out of anger. The intent was to frustrate the allocation strategies of the powers behind their private exit polls. Given the actual campaign situations, this may actually result in unintended consequences.
I don't believe in the story about holding the wave of 'iron votes' back until 8pm. From the outset, the pan-democrats have too many lists and they rationally won't sacrifice themselves for their peers. I believe that exit poll data help their sponsors to allocate their manpower. For example, if the election situation seems firmed up for the DAB in Kowloon East, their workers will be sent over to Hong Kong Island where the situation is critical for their second candidate. This is meaningful because if means that there will be several hundreds (or even thousands) more workers out there. That is not a luxury that candidates like "Long Hair" Leung Kwok Hung has (Daisan McLane: "... Besides the 6 person team I'm working with today, there's only one other Long Hair leaflet-handing team working this sprawling district of 1.6 million people that's about the size of Brooklyn.").
Time of Day 2000 2004 2008 08:30 0.91 1.33 1.04 09:30 3.03 4.03 3.07 10:30 6.19 7.86 5.66 11:30 9.61 12.17 8.83 12:30 12.75 16.39 11.76 13:30 15.48 20.26 14.42 14:30 18.34 24.36 17.46 15:30 21.12 28.21 20.23 16:30 23.87 32.15 23.52 17:30 26.56 35.87 26.78 18:30 29.41 39.67 30.03 19:30 32.30 43.42 33.33 20:30 35.25 47.39 36.66 21:30 38.85 50.94 40.43 22:30 43.57 55.64 45.20
[in translation]
When I was young, I was very radical and I was once a fellow-warrior of "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung. But I did not carry on the "revolution" with him. The reason was that I began to feel that this "revolutionary path" has no chance to succeed and it will only bring misery to the people without any hope of redemption.
It is the characteristic of radicals to be idealistic, and that is the reason why they are usually so domineering. When a person becomes superstitious about an idea, he will try to change the world according to this idea. He will ignore the reality at the moment. He will ignore what other people think and need. He will insist on hoisting his ideal model onto others. He will fit the real world into his model. When it does not fit, he will lop off those parts that do not fit while ignoring the consequences of their elimination on society as a whole.
There are many radical idealists among the Hong Kong democrats. They don't understand that the world will always be imperfect. If it were perfect, where is the room for progress? Therefore, all progress start from the reality of the present and seek gradual improvement step by step.
The British philosopher Karl Popper is very much opposed to the utopian enterprise of idealism. He would rather have piecemeal social engineering (when your head hurts, get the doctor to treat your head; when your leg hurts, get the doctor to treat your leg). That is to say, society cannot be changed in one blow but it has to be done piecemeal gradually like having a meal à la carte. Unfortunately, the Hong Kong democrats do not understand this. They cannot accept that the reform of the Hong Kong political system can be done part by part. Apart from the own ideal model, they regard all other models as anti-democracy or faux democracy. This domineering pose itself is restrictive and undemocratic.
Actually, all our political systems evolved from existing foundations rather than being forged from some ideal model. Thus, England still has a peer system in which parliamentary seats are inherited within family; the USA had a situation in which Al Gore received more popular votes but George W. Bush became president. If England and USA refused compromises during their reforms and insisted on the most ideal model, they may still be stuck in the original models. The intransigent position of the Hong Kong democrats has actually obstructed the progress of democracy in Hong Kong.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong seems to getting increasingly radicalized in recent years. The media promoted the radical ideas. Anyone who dares to remind the people of Hong Kong that they cannot just ignore the position of Beijing or the interests of the businesses will be regarded as 'loyalists' and be subjected to a mass attack.
Yet, if we don't consider and address those concerns, is that any real hope for our reforms to succeed? When I was a student, I studied the reform proposals of Wang Anshi. I thought that they were ideal and the Song Dynasty could be saved if they were implemented. But Wang Anshi was unsuccessful because he was too radical and ignored the interested parties in reality.
Therefore, if we want to see concrete results in reforming Hong Kong, we don't need radical idealism. Instead, we need a conservatism that dares to hold the radicals back. Hong Kong needs a conservative party that will fight the radicals for the moral high ground and put an end to the social tendency for rabid action.
Related Link: Response to Shih Wing-ching's Essay Alice Poon, Asia Sentinel
信報 2008年9月5日
傳奇未完——看張愛玲的遺物
譚艾敏...
八月二十四日的下午，我懷着敬畏的心情到張愛玲遺產管理人宋以朗先生的家去。那天陽光正好，加多利山靜悄悄的，這兒曾經是張愛玲住過一陣子的地方。那是冬天，她的第二任丈夫賴雅在美國中風了，她急需要錢，醫治這位曾被摯友炎櫻形容為「crazy for her」的丈夫。她的好友宋淇當時是電影公司的高層，很快為她弄來一份編劇工作。時間無多，張愛玲惟有留在香港，躲在加多利山宋淇的家裏，閉關寫寫寫，幾個星期後寫成了《紅樓夢》及《南北一家親》電影劇本出來。
我在商台(note:雷霆881)的節目《發現新大陸．張愛玲篇》已去到尾聲了，整個系列長達十九集，最尾一集在九月七日晚上七時半播出，也就是張愛玲的死忌（應為遺體被發現時）前一天—張愛玲離開人世間已經有十三年！朋友說我喜歡尋找，我在上海的時候，曾去過張愛玲和姑姑張茂淵合住的常德公寓一次，升降機門還沒關，已被喝罵「人都死了，還看什麼？」趕了出來。這天，我去到宋先生的家，終於讓我一睹張愛玲的遺物。
...
信報 2008年9月5日
傳奇未完——看張愛玲的遺物
譚艾敏...
八月二十四日的下午，我懷着敬畏的心情到張愛玲遺產管理人宋以朗先生的家去。那天陽光正好，加多利山靜悄悄的，這兒曾經是張愛玲住過一陣子的地方。那是冬天，她的第二任丈夫賴雅在美國中風了，她急需要錢，醫治這位曾被摯友炎櫻形容為「crazy for her」的丈夫。她的好友宋淇當時是電影公司的高層，很快為她弄來一份編劇工作。時間無多，張愛玲惟有留在香港，躲在加多利山宋淇的家裏，閉關寫寫寫，幾個星期後寫成了《紅樓夢》及《南北一家親》電影劇本出來。
我在商台的節目《發現新大陸．張愛玲篇》已去到尾聲了，整個系列長達十九集，最尾一集在九月七日晚上七時半播出，也就是張愛玲的死忌（應為遺體被發現時）前一天—張愛玲離開人世間已經有十三年！朋友說我喜歡尋找，我在上海的時候，曾去過張愛玲和姑姑張茂淵合住的常德公寓一次，升降機門還沒關，已被喝罵「人都死了，還看什麼？」趕了出來。這天，我去到宋先生的家，終於讓我一睹張愛玲的遺物。
...
The Edwin Morgan International
Poetry Competition 2008
3rd Prize : Arthur Leung - What the Pig Mama Says. Arthur Leung was born and raised in Hong Kong, and received degrees from the Universities of Hong Kong and Cambridge. He is a regular performer of his poetry and has poems published in anthologies such as Fifty-Fifty and Hong Kong U Writing, as well as in numerous magazines and journals including Pulsar Poetry Magazine, Crannog Literary Magazine, Smartish Pace and Loch Raven Review.
He was a Finalist for the 2007 Erskine J. Poetry Prize and short-listed for the 2007 Margaret Reid Poetry Prize for Traditional Verse.
==============================
What the Pig Mama Says
The pupoh stopped to cheer. Leklek
was took away. He was mine biggest boy.
A good heart. Saved the best for Yenyen
and Hokhok. His- self eating leftovers.
I cried I cried. Not knew the bastang
took him where. Gokgou told me was hell.
We ate much as we liked. The white fence
put us safe safe. Always we talked, cheered.
The pupoh liked to play with Hokhok.
Mine little boy talked to them sweet.
He knew how make make community.
But Hokhok too was took away by same
same bastang they took Leklek before.
Mine only girl Yenyen too sad to see
her little brother went. She kept quiet
everydays think think. I begged the bastang
not took mine boy. They not understood.
Heard only something like “pok is good ”.
The pupoh talked little little. Yenyen
stopped to eat. She said, “No Hokhok play
wis me !” I sorry sorry for her. The bastang
came to take Yenyen. I saw her away.
I not cried. Maybe it better for Yenyen.
She will stop to think. No more think.
No more think think. Maybe I say
too much. Who is listening to my story?
(The Standard) Poll guru in threat to quit. Diana Lee and Adele Wong. September 5, 2008.
Hong Kong's top pollster says he might boycott the next election if the professional standards of polling organizations do not improve. Robert Chung Ting-yiu also blamed a lack of mudslinging in the Legislative Council election campaign for putting exit polls in the spotlight this time round.
He was speaking at a forum organized by Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor in Wan Chai yesterday. Representatives of 17 institutions that conducted exit polls in 2004 or at last year's Legco by-election were invited, but only Chung turned up. After saying there had been a "decline in professionalism" among polling groups, Hong Kong University's Chung added: "Maybe there's not much mud-slinging in this election, so the focus is on the exit polls."
This whole exit poll issue is a false issue designed to distract. First of all, how hard is it to conduct an exit poll? In (SCMP) Democrats urge restrictions on groups taking exit polls. By Eva Wu. March 11, 2008. (no link, of course): "... organisations deployed 2,100 people to conduct polls outside 300 polling stations." If true, then this favors the big political parties that have the money and manpower.
What is the reality? The gold standard here is the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme. Here is their manpower requirements for the 2004 Hong Kong Legco elections (see HKU POP):
20 stations, 20 interviewers: Hong Kong Island
16 stations, 16 interviewers: Kowloon East
13 stations, 13 interviewers: Kowloon West
24 stations, 24 interviewers: New Territories East
28 stations, 28 interviewers: New Territories West6 more floating interviewers across all districts
101 stations, 107 interviewers across the whole of Hong Kong
By all accounts, everybody believes that HKU POP get good quality and reliable data with these sample sizes. So who needs 2,100 people to conduct polls outside 300 polling stations? (Further explanation can be found at Banning Exit Polls in Hong Kong).
A candidate runs in one (and only one) of the five districts. How hard is it to draw a sample of 20 stations and send 20 volunteers/paid workers to work for one day? This is readily feasible for most of the major political parties. If a candidate cannot afford to do so personally, isn't it possible to pool resources within the same camp?
The reality is that the answer is a resounding NO. The candidates within the same camp are mostly bent on cannibalizing each others' votes because they have little or no hope of drawing votes from the other side (unless they mask their true identifications carefully). None of them are willing to join in a consortium and then agree to transfer votes amongst themselves based upon exit poll results. Everyone wants every vote for himself. So rather than deal with this reality of their perfectly understandable selfishness, the candidates attack the exit polls.
Actually, I really don't care about the exit poll results, because I think that this is very much missing the point.
There is an effort to organize voters to either refuse to cooperate with the exit pollsters, or else tell them their vote was for the DAB (see, for example, Those Were The Days). To my mind, this is very much missing the point. The issue is not about the exit poll results. The issue is really about what happens next afterwards.
Let us say that the exit poll data are made available to everybody. What, if anything, happens? There are two ways in which something happens.
First, there are some forces with immense manpower which can mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers who visit homes or make telephone calls to make crisis appeals for their candidates. "XXX is falling behind and needs your vote!" The advantage goes to these big parties. These forces may have multiple candidates in the election and the exit poll boycott may misdirect their allocation of effort (as in voting candidate XXX instead of YYY of the same camp). But this cannot negate their huge advantage. And that is the true issue. With or without the correct exit poll data, tens of thousands of people will be working for them out there. How can candidates with lesser resource counter-act that? In Banning Exit Polls in Hong Kong, I argued that it was stupid to send out "2,100 people to conduct polls outside 300 polling stations" because the job can easily be done by a lot fewer people. But if exit polls are banned or crippled, those 2,100 people would be send out to solicit votes instead and the impact on the election would be a lot greater.
Is it right for some political parties to possess such tremendous resources? That is hard to say. Were they bankrolled by the central government? Or 'hostile foreign forces'? In the United States, it has always been the Democrats and the Republicans, with a lot of minor parties. It is impossible to regulate party resources to ensure equitable competition among all candidates.
The second way by which things can happen is through the media. On the day of the 2007 Hong Kong Island Legco by-election, Apple Daily printed a freely distributed extra edition for a crisis appeal on behalf of Anson Chan in order to save democracy. This has been regarded as a pure political ploy (not based upon any exit poll data) by a media organization, which is not illegal per se. If and when the exit poll data are actually published for the general public to see, what will happen? All the candidates will be able to spin their cases. The leading candidate will say that a few extra votes will get the second member of the list in; the chasers will say that they can take over the lead with a few extra votes, or that they may lose if they miss a few votes; the laggards will say that a few more voters will get them in. It will be just a cacophony of opinions to suit personal agendas.
When all said and done, the election results will be turned in. What if the exit poll data are different? Well, the exit poll could be flawed and they should be banned forever afterwards because they mislead voters. Or the exit polls are correct at the time (say 12 noon) and the voters changed their behavior out of strategic voting afterwards (late in the day). Neither case is desirable if you want an election in which the voters consider the attributes of the candidates in an objective manner and vote accordingly.
So should exit polls be banned altogether? I believe that this a total misunderstanding of the purpose of exit polls. In the western world, exit polls are not used to direct and mobilize GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts. Rather, they are used afterwards to analyze why the voting occurred in certain ways. For example, candidate XXX won through huge majorities among the women, the middle-class and the politically independents. This is supposed to provide feedback about the true public concerns of the voters as manifested by their votes. In Hong Kong, much of those types of analyses are buried in academic reports issued much later than the elections themselves.
Additional discussion: The article in The Standard has this additional information:
Chinese University professor Timothy Wong Ka-ying said more people had declined to be interviewed after a pan-democrat call for people to ignore pollsters. In response, Chung said a low response rate is normal in Western countries but admitted it would be harmful to academic research if the situation persisted.
[ESWN Comment: HKU POP usually reports a response in the 60%'s. So a 10% drop would bring it to the 50%'s. In America, the typical response rate for a telephone poll is more like in the 30%'s. That is why this is not quite the end of the world in Hong Kong yet. But there is no way to know what the poll biases are. Bias is defined as the expected value of the poll result versus the true value. Since the latter is unknown by definition (or else you would not need to conduct any polls), it is tautologically unknown and unknowable. It is entirely possible for a poll with 30% response rate to be less biased than a poll with 60% response rate. There is no way to tell until the actual election results can be compared to the poll results afterwards.]
A mass incident has occurred in the city of Jishou in northwestern Hunan province. The incident began when the companies including Rongchang Group and Sanguan Group raised capital for its real estate projects in return for promises of high interest rates. Recently, people claimed that they cannot extract the 300,000 RMB that they had invested and they suspect that the organizers have fled with the money.
On the day before yesterday, protestors went to protest at the county government building. In the evening, several hundred people went to the train station and unfurled banners. They also sat down on the railroad tracks to prevent trains from moving. The authorities sent out a large number of police officers to the scene. The demonstrators dispersed.
Yesterday, the situation worsened. Several thousand people blocked the train station and the principal roads of Jishou city. The train station was paralyzed once again. People also sat in the middle of the roads to stop vehicular traffic. More than 10,000 police officers were sent to the scene. A Tianya post said: "The masses threw rocks at the armed police officers. The stones fell down like the rain of arrows in ancient legend causing a rattling sound."
At 10pm last night, Xinhua reported that there has been a mass incident in Jishou. The masses were said to be dispersing and normal train/vehicular traffic has been totally restored.
(Washington Post) In China, Police Clash With Protesters Who Invested in Illegal Schemes. By Maureen Fan. September 6, 2008.
Tens of thousands of angry protesters, many of whom lost their life savings in illegal investment schemes run by legitimate real estate and mining companies, clashed with police this week in Hunan province, residents and news agencies reported Friday.
Crowds in Jishou city blocked traffic and trains Wednesday and Thursday and gathered in front of government offices demanding the return of their money.
Since 2004, high-return investment schemes have been a popular way for real estate and mining companies and even local associations of private businesses to raise money. Typically, they offer investors returns of 3 to 10 percent a month, as compared with bank account interest rates of about 5 percent a year. The funds collapse when investors panic and demand their money back en masse.
"Over 90 percent of the people in Jishou have participated in these programs," said a Jishou shopkeeper who gave his surname as Luo and said he invested $11,428 in Sanguan Real Estate Co. for a return of 5 percent, or $571 each month. "Before the Olympic Games, some government officials already told me to get my money out quickly, otherwise I'd be in trouble." But Luo believed he could afford to risk the money and now can't get his money back.
Luo said other victims included laid-off workers investing their pensions and farmers who had sold their land to developers and therefore had no other way to earn a living. Some elderly residents even sold their coffins to participate, residents said. The chairman of the board of one real estate company, Fuda, was a well-known local entrepreneur and a member of the local political consultative congress, according to the Sing Tao Web site. Nearly 40 companies raised about $1 billion this way, but beginning in July, when some companies had difficulty repaying, people began to panic.
This week, demonstrators began arriving at Jishou railroad station about 10 p.m. Wednesday, a receptionist at a hotel near the station said. From nearly midnight until 8 p.m. Thursday, "there were no trains coming in or out because of the protest," the woman said, declining to give her name.
An electrician at another hotel near the train station gave his surname as Mo and said he had invested $7,142 in April, comprising his life savings, his family's savings and $1,428 borrowed from friends. He was promised an interest rate of 6 percent a month.
"I don't know what to do now," Mo added. "Although the government mobilized soldiers and stopped the protest, people will not remain silent. They will continue to fight for their rights."
Sheng Jun had been Chief Judge of the Fuyang City Middle Court, deputy mayor in Fuyang city, deputy party secretary in Fuyang city and deputy director of the Anhui provincial Department of Health. In March 2006, she was arrested for corruption. On February 2, 2007, she was convicted in court and sentenced to ten years in jail.
In August 2006 when Sheng Jun was being held under detention, the Hubei-based magazine <Vanguard> published an article <Why hooking onto two deputy provincial governors could not safe her career> with the authors being Ding Xiang and Xiao Zhong. The article was carried broadly by many newspapers and websites inside and outside of China under the title of <Sex scandal of the female senior government official> and so on. The reason for the popularity of the article was that it contained many salacious details of how Sheng Jun used sex with two deputy provincial governors named Li and Wang to ascend in her career path.
In March 2008, Sheng Jun filed a lawsuit against the owner of <Vanguard> (the Hubei Daily News Group) for defamation. She asked for a public apology and mental damages in the sum of 320,000 RMB. She claimed that there is no evidence whatsoever that in her trial records that there was any flavor of sex. While she admitted to being corrupt (as in accepting bribes and having large amounts of unexplained money), she reserves the right not to be defamed. In late May, the court ruled for her and ordered Hubei Daily News Group to apologize to her and pay her mental damages of 60,000 RMB. Yesterday, Sheng Jun filed a lawsuit against the author of the said article. She is asking for a public apology and mental damages in the sum of 200,000 RMB.
This is the photo of Sheng Jun. Is that magazine article even credible if accompanied by this photo?
CUHK RAHK HKUPOP Lingnan PGP Average # Seats Geographical Constituency List Party Aug 28-Sep 3 Aug 27-Sep 1 Aug 28-Sep 5 Aug 31-Sep 3 Hong Kong Island 1 Lam Chui Lin Liberal Party 1.3 0.5 <2 1.7 1.2 2 Ho Sau Lan Cyd Civic Act-up 8.5 7.9 9.1 14.3 10.0 X 3 Kam Nai Wai, Yeung Sum Democratic Party 12.0 11.1 12.9 15.1 12.8 X 4 Tsang Kin Shing League of Social Democrats 2.2 3.6 <2 0.8 2.2 5 Tsang Yok Sing Jasper, Choy So Yuk DAB 16.2 22.6 17.3 16.8 18.2 X 6 Siu Man Wa Myra 0.4 0.5 <2 0.0 0.3 7 Lo Wing Lok 7.7 4.1 7.8 8.4 7.0 8 Chan Tanya, Eu Yuet Mee Audrey Civic Party 25.0 23.7 27.4 22.7 24.7 XX 9 Ip Lau Suk Yee Regina, Shih Tai Cho Louis 26.3 22.4 20.6 20.2 22.4 X 10 Lai Chi Keong Joseph 0.4 3.8 <2 0.0 1.4 Kowloon East 1 Wu Chi Wai Democratic Party 8.1 6.8 6.6 7.0 7.1 2 To Kwon Hang Andrew League of Social Democrats 11.4 12.0 7 10.9 10.3 3 Chan Kam Lam DAB 21.1 20.6 18.7 16.4 19.2 X 4 Leong Kah Kit Alan Civic Party 22.1 25.0 22.7 25.8 23.9 X 5 Li Wai Ming Democratic Party 18.4 16.1 18.4 26.6 19.9 X 6 Wong Kwok Kin Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 18.9 19.5 22.7 13.3 18.6 X Kowloon West 1 Chong Wing Charn Francis 0.6 0.4 <2 2.0 1.0 2 Lee Wai King Starry DAB 16.7 19.2 15.8 15.3 16.7 X 3 Lung Wai Man James 0.0 0.4 <2 0.0 0.1 4 To Kun Sun James Democratic Party 14.9 13.2 12.9 10.2 12.8 X 5 Mo Man Ching Claudia Civic Party 13.6 10.0 11.1 13.3 12.0 X 6 Lam Yi Lai 1.8 0.4 <2 0.0 0.7 7 Leung Mei Fun 8.0 12.8 9.3 3.1 8.3 8 Wong Yuk Man League of Social Democrats 16.1 10.8 15.7 16.3 14.7 X 9 Tien Michael Puk Sun Liberal Party 7.4 9.2 6.9 8.2 7.9 10 Fun Kin Kee Frederick ADPL 14.9 12.0 19.4 17.3 15.9 X 11 Lau Chin Shek 4.9 9.6 7 14.0 8.9 12 Lau Yuk Shing 0.6 0.8 <2 0.0 0.5 13 Tam Hoi Pong 0.6 1.2 <2 0.0 0.6 New Territories East 1 Tien Pei Chun James Liberal Party 9.0 12.6 11.7 12.5 11.4 X 2 Siu See Kong Party for Civic Rights & Livelihood of the People of Hong Kong Limited 0.3 2.0 <2 0.0 0.8 3 Lau Wai Hing Emily The Frontier 9.0 6.6 9.8 9.2 8.6 X 4 Wong Shing Chi Democratic Party 10.2 7.0 8.4 6.0 7.9 5 Leung Kwok Hung League of Social Democrats 9.0 11.9 9.2 10.9 10.2 X 6 Lee Chi Wing Alvin 1.0 1.0 <2 6.0 2.7 7 Cheng Kar Foo Andrew Democratic Party 18.3 12.3 13.1 13.0 14.2 X 8 Tong Ka Wah Ronny Civic Party 14.2 12.9 15.5 16.3 14.7 X 9 Pong Scarlett Oi Lan 6.1 4.6 7.6 7.6 6.5 10 Lau Kong Wah, Chan Hak Kan DAB 23.0 29.1 23.7 22.3 24.5 XX New Territories West 1 Cheung Chiu Hung Civic Party 7.1 4.3 6.0 9.6 6.7 2 Lee Cheuk Yan Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions 10.3 12.7 13.4 10.3 11.7 X 3 Tam Yiu Chung, Cheung Hok Ming DAB 21.0 28.0 23.5 24.7 24.3 XX 4 Ho Chun Yan Democratic Party 11.3 13.3 <2 17.1 13.9 X 5 Tandon Lal Chaing ADPL 1.8 0.9 <2 0.7 1.1 6 Yuen Wai Chung 0.0 0.3 <2 0.0 0.1 7 Chan Wai Yip Albert League of Social Democrats 6.0 5.2 4.9 3.4 4.9 8 Chow Ping Tim 0.0 0.3 <2 0.0 0.1 9 Wong Kwok Hing 7.8 6.7 6.5 6.2 6.8 X 10 Cheung Yin Tung 2.9 3.2 <2 1.4 2.5 11 Leung Suet Fong Blue Intelligent Union 0.4 0.3 <2 0.7 0.5 12 Chow Liang Shuk Yee Selina Liberal Party 9.9 9.0 7.6 3.4 7.5 X 13 Leung Yiu Chung Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre 12.8 8.4 14.1 11.0 11.6 X 14 Lee Wing Tat Democratic Party 8.8 7.5 7.8 11.6 8.9 X Note: The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme only releases its polling data to its sponsoring media organizations and not to the general public. So far, it is clear the some of the media organizations are selectively releasing partial data to satisfy certain political agenda. Therefore, the only data that will be shown here are only when one of the media organizations release the full dataset.
Aug 27-Sep 1 Geographical Constituency List Party Hong Kong Island 1 Lam Chui Lin Liberal Party 0.5 2 Ho Sau Lan Cyd Civic Act-up 7.9 3 Kam Nai Wai, Yeung Sum Democratic Party 11.1 4 Tsang Kin Shing League of Social Democrats 3.6 5 Tsang Yok Sing Jasper, Choy So Yuk DAB 22.6 6 Siu Man Wa Myra 0.5 7 Lo Wing Lok 4.1 8 Chan Tanya, Eu Yuet Mee Audrey Civic Party 23.7 9 Ip Lau Suk Yee Regina, Shih Tai Cho Louis 22.4 10 Lai Chi Keong Joseph 3.8 Kowloon East 1 Wu Chi Wai Democratic Party 6.8 2 To Kwon Hang Andrew League of Social Democrats 12.0 3 Chan Kam Lam DAB 20.6 4 Leong Kah Kit Alan Civic Party 25.0 5 Li Wai Ming Democratic Party 16.1 6 Wong Kwok Kin Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 19.5 Kowloon West 1 Chong Wing Charn Francis 0.4 2 Lee Wai King Starry DAB 19.2 3 Lung Wai Man James 0.4 4 To Kun Sun James Democratic Party 13.2 5 Mo Man Ching Claudia Civic Party 10.0 6 Lam Yi Lai 0.4 7 Leung Mei Fun 12.8 8 Wong Yuk Man League of Social Democrats 10.8 9 Tien Michael Puk Sun Liberal Party 9.2 10 Fung Kin Kee Frederick ADPL 12.0 11 Lau Chin Shek 9.6 12 Lau Yuk Shing 0.8 13 Tam Hoi Pong 1.2 New Territories East 1 Tien Pei Chun James Liberal Party 12.6 2 Siu See Kong Party for Civic Rights & Livelihood of the People of Hong Kong Limited 2.0 3 Lau Wai Hing Emily The Frontier 6.6 4 Wong Shing Chi Democratic Party 7.0 5 Leung Kwok Hung League of Social Democrats 11.9 6 Lee Chi Wing Alvin 1.0 7 Cheng Kar Foo Andrew Democratic Party 12.3 8 Tong Ka Wah Ronny Civic Party 12.9 9 Pong Scarlett Oi Lan 4.6 10 Lau Kong Wah, Chan Hak Kan DAB 29.1 New Territories West 1 Cheung Chiu Hung Civic Party 4.3 2 Lee Cheuk Yan Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions 12.7 3 Tam Yiu Chung, Cheung Hok Ming DAB 28.0 4 Ho Chun Yan Democratic Party 13.3 5 Tandon Lal Chaing ADPL 0.9 6 Yuen Wai Chung 0.3 7 Chan Wai Yip Albert League of Social Democrats 5.2 8 Chow Ping Tim 0.3 9 Wong Kwok Hing 6.7 10 Cheung Yin Tung 3.2 11 Leung Suet Fong Blue Intelligent Union 0.3 12 Chow Liang Shuk Yee Selina Liberal Party 9.0 13 Leung Yiu Chung Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre 8.4 14 Lee Wing Tat Democratic Party 7.5
According to the latest issue of <Next Weekly>, former president Chen Shui-bian and his wife Wu Shu-jen had two big quarrels on August 13 and 14 respectively. On the afternoon of August 14, Wu Shu-jen went to Chen's office in the company of her nurse and her aide and tried to stop him from holding the press conference to admit to overseas money laundering. They shut the door in the office to quarrel, but the people outside could hear Wu yell at Chen: "You can admit it if you like. But the overseas money belong to our children and they must not be returned. No matter what, you have to delay past September 27 until Switzerland unfreeze the accounts." At the time, Chen replied: "Even the Swiss account numbers have been made public. It is impossible to cover up anymore. If we speak out now, we can at least sleep better at night!" Wu realized that Chen was firm and she left before leaving one sentence: "If you want to talk, you can talk. But the money cannot be sent back ... The KMT people also save money overseas for their children. We have sacrificed so much for politics, so why can't we!?"
(SCMP) Pan-democrats caution voters on exit pollsters. Eva Wu and Fanny W.Y. Fung. September 3, 2008.
A row is looming over the release of exit poll results before the close of voting in Sunday's Legislative Council election, despite pollster Robert Chung Ting-yiu's assertion that his survey for broadcasters will be leak-proof.
Dr Chung's public opinion programme (POP) at the University of Hong Kong will conduct the biggest exit poll.
... Responding to candidates' concerns that leaks could affect the election results, Dr Chung insisted the scenario was unlikely. He has been carrying out exit polls since 1991, and said there had never been a leak of data from within media organisations sponsoring the polls.
He said the pan-democrats' stance was worrying and would make polling unprofessional.
Five broadcasters are sponsoring the POP exit polls on Sunday. This year, for the first time, they will be told at 12.30pm, 5pm and 9.30pm which candidates have more chance of being elected and which have less chance. Only after voting ends at 10.30pm will they get figures for each candidate's support.
... Asked if the contracts signed with sponsors required them not to disclose findings to candidates, Dr Chung said: "We keep reminding them to study carefully the election rules."
... The public opinion programme's interviewers will collect information from electors at 120 polling stations.
Related Link: Professional Ethics are Indispensable. Robert Chung Ting-yiu.
District List Party Aug 29-Sep 1 Hong Kong Island Lam Chui Lin Liberal Party 2.9 Ho Sau Lan Cyd Civic Act-up 8.6 Kam Nai Wai, Yeung Sum Democratic Party 16.2 Tsang Kin Shing League of Social Democrats 1.9 Tsang Yok Sing Jasper, Choy So Yuk DAB 19.0 Siu Man Wa Myra 1.0 Lo Wing Lok 2.9 Chan Tanya, Eu Yuet Mee Audrey Civic Party 28.6 Ip Lau Suk Yee Regina, Shih Tai Cho Louis 19.0 Lai Chi Keong Joseph 0.0 Kowloon East Wu Chi Wai Democratic Party 6.8 To Kwon Hang Andrew League of Social Democrats 12.8 Chan Kam Lam DAB 20.5 Leong Kah Kit Alan Civic Party 27.4 Li Wai Ming Democratic Party 22.2 Wong Kwok Kin Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 10.3 Kowloon West Chong Wing Charn Francis 1.8 Lee Wai King Starry DAB 17.3 Lung Wai Man James 0.9 To Kun Sun James Democratic Party 9.1 Mo Man Ching Claudia Civic Party 13.6 Lam Yi Lai 0.0 Leung Mei Fun 5.5 Wong Yuk Man League of Social Democrats 17.3 Tien Michael Puk Sun Liberal Party 8.2 Fung Kin Kee Frederick ADPL 20.9 Lau Chin Shek 5.5 Lau Yuk Shing 0.0 Tam Hoi Pong 0.0 New Territories East Tien Pei Chun James Liberal Party 10.1 Siu See Kong Party for Civic Rights & Livelihood of the People of Hong Kong Limited 0.5 Lau Wai Hing Emily The Frontier 5.9 Wong Shing Chi Democratic Party 6.4 Leung Kwok Hung League of Social Democrats 8.5 Lee Chi Wing Alvin 2.7 Cheng Kar Foo Andrew Democratic Party 15.4 Tong Ka Wah Ronny Civic Party 14.4 Pong Scarlett Oi Lan 5.3 Lau Kong Wah, Chan Hak Kan DAB 30.9 New Territories West Cheung Chiu Hung Civic Party 4.9 Lee Cheuk Yan Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions 11.8 Tam Yiu Chung, Cheung Hok Ming DAB 22.2 Ho Chun Yan Democratic Party 14.7 Tandon Lal Chaing ADPL 1.4 Yuen Wai Chung 0.0 Chan Wai Yip Albert League of Social Democrats 5.7 Chow Ping Tim 0.0 Wong Kwok Hing Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 6.9 Cheung Yin Tung 0.7 Leung Suet Fong Blue Intelligent Union 0.7 Chow Liang Shuk Yee Selina Liberal Party 7.6 Leung Yiu Chung Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre 15.3 Lee Wing Tat Democratic Party 8.3
Here are my selected thoughts on the three of the mailing pieces. Here I am only referring to the outside of the mailers before cutting over the tape to read the inside. This is what I saw as I picked it up. The other side of the mailing is partially covered by a mailing label. So I am talking about first impressions upon picking it up.
The first mailer is from Candidate #12: Lau Yuk Shing.
"True Democrat, Save Hong Kong, Implement Double Universal Suffrage Earlier"
"Received by President Clinton and Vice-president Gore in Washington DC in 1996"
[ESWN Comment: I cannot possibly vote for someone who thinks handshakes with Clinton-Gore has any relevance for qualification to the Legco.]
The second mailer is from Candidate #4: James To.
[ESWN Comment: The ethnic vote is a very small fraction in Kowloon West. Is it necessary to devote so much space to Japanese, Korean, Arabic, ...? Remember, this is the first impression and it may even affect whether the recipient would want to tear off the tape to read the inside.]
The third mailer is from Candidate #10: Frederick Fung Kin Kee:
This is a reprint of a June 12, 1998 article in Ming Pao about how Frederick Fung lost his bid for a Legco seat. This was a huge upset as he was the favorite. However, since he was so far ahead in the polls that the voters decide to vote other pan-democrats. This time, Frederick Fung is also among the leaders in the polls and it would seem that his seat is safe. But he does not want to see a repeat of 1998. Therefore this is a reminder for people to vote for the most practical thing and forget about strategic voting.
Trust in HK SAR government:
45%: Trust
16%: Distrust
Trust in Beijing government:
49%: Trust
14%: Distrust
Trust in Taiwan government:
12%: Trust
40%: Distrust
Confidence in Hong Kong's future
74%: Confidence
20%: No confidence
Confidence in China's future
89%: Confidence
7%: No confidence
Confidence in "one country, two systems"
74%: Confidence
20%: No confidence
The most interesting part is the historical trending of trust in Taiwan government (trust/distrust):
December 2007: 5%/70%
February 2008: 7%/53%
April 2008: 19%/29%
June 2008: 23%/20%
August 2008: 12%/40%
During the Olympics just weeks ago, there was endless hand-wringing over the efforts by the Chinese Government to squelch dissent and incarcerate protesters. On August 21, The Washington Post fretted:
Six Americans detained by police this week could be held for 10 days, according to Chinese authorities, who appear to be intensifying their efforts to shut down any public demonstrations during the final days of the Olympic Games. . . .
Chinese Olympic officials announced last month that Beijing would set up zones where people could protest during the Games, as long as they had received permission. None of the 77 applications submitted was approved, however, and several other would-be protesters were stopped from even applying.
On August 2, The Post gravely warned:
Behind the gray walls and barbed wire of the prison here, eight Chinese farmers with a grievance against the government have been consigned to Olympic limbo.
Their indefinite detainment, relatives and neighbors said, is the price they are paying for stirring up trouble as China prepares to host the Beijing Games. Trouble, the Communist Party has made clear, will not be permitted.
Would The Washington Post ever use such dark and accusatory tones to describe what the U.S. Government does? Of course it wouldn't. Yet how is our own Government's behavior in Minnesota any different than what the Chinese did to its protesters during the Olympics (other than the fact that we actually have a Constitution that prohibits such behavior)? And where are all the self-righteous Freedom Crusaders in our nation's establishment organs who were so flamboyantly criticizing the actions of a Government on the other side of the globe as our own Government engages in the same tyrannical, protest-squelching conduct with exactly the same motives?
Just review what happened yesterday and today. Homes of college-aid protesters were raided by rifle-wielding police forces. Journalists were forcibly detained at gun point. Lawyers on the scene to represent the detainees were handcuffed. Computers, laptops, journals, diaries, and political pamphlets were seized from people's homes. And all of this occurred against U.S. citizens, without a single act of violence having taken place, and nothing more serious than traffic blockage even alleged by authorities to have been planned.
Links: Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis; Scenes from St. Paul -- Democracy Now's Amy Goodman arrested
According to the evidence, a worker for the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority claimed to have purchased issue number 936 of <Next Weekly> from a Wanchai newsstand. There was a supplement titled <The complete record of the the storm over Edison Chen's obscene photos>. The cover of this supplement contained a number of pornographic photos that are labeled obscene. This supplement had not been wrapped in plastic and it did not contain any warning notice. Upon examination, it was found that the supplement contained 93 photos of Edison Chen with different female artistes. Although the female breasts and human reproductive organs were covered up with black boxes, the accompanying text depicted the sexual activities to the readers.
In defense, Next Media said that the photos were widely available on the Internet at the time. <Next Magazine> had merely obtained the photos from the Internet and published them after suitable handling. Next Media also showed a copy of <Oriental Sunday> to the magistrate. This magazine had similar cover and contents. Previously, <Oriental Sunday> had been fined HKD 30,000 for publishing indecent material.
Upon weighing the evidence, the magistrate imposed a fine of HKD 35,000 on Next Media.
The amount of the fine has to be put into the context of the financial situation of Next Media (HKSE 0282). For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, total revenues were HKD 3.4 billion with net income of HKD 52 million. This judgment will knock HKD 35,000 off that bottom line. It is also a safe guess that this issue of <Next Weekly> sold out an additional print run (which is probably more than 35,000 copies). So what is the purpose of this charade? Either you junk this law or you impose fines that will make a material impact on the perpetrator.
Geographical Constituency List Party Aug 25-30 Hong Kong Island 1 Lam Chui Lin Liberal Party 1.3 2 Ho Sau Lan Cyd Civic Act-up 9.4 3 Kam Nai Wai, Yeung Sum Democratic Party 11.9 4 Tsang Kin Shing League of Social Democrats 2.5 5 Tsang Yok Sing Jasper, Choy So Yuk DAB 17.4 6 Siu Man Wa Myra 0.0 7 Lo Wing Lok 7.7 8 Chan Tanya, Eu Yuet Mee Audrey Civic Party 26.0 9 Ip Lau Suk Yee Regina, Shih Tai Cho Louis 23.4 10 Lai Chi Keong Joseph 0.4 Kowloon East 1 Wu Chi Wai Democratic Party 9.5 2 To Kwon Hang Andrew League of Social Democrats 11.3 3 Chan Kam Lam DAB 18.9 4 Leong Kah Kit Alan Civic Party 23.3 5 Li Wai Ming Democratic Party 17.6 6 Wong Kwok Kin Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 19.4 Kowloon West 1 Chong Wing Charn Francis 0.7 2 Lee Wai King Starry DAB 16.6 3 Lung Wai Man James 0.0 4 To Kun Sun James Democratic Party 15.9 5 Mo Man Ching Claudia Civic Party 13.2 6 Lam Yi Lai 1.3 7 Leung Mei Fun 9.3 8 Wong Yuk Man League of Social Democrats 13.9 9 Tien Michael Puk Sun Liberal Party 7.3 10 Fung Kin Kee Frederick ADPL 15.2 11 Lau Chin Shek 5.3 12 Lau Yuk Shing 0.7 13 Tam Hoi Pong 0.7 New Territories East 1 Tien Pei Chun James Liberal Party 11.6 2 Siu See Kong Party for Civic Rights & Livelihood of the People of Hong Kong Limited 1.2 3 Lau Wai Hing Emily The Frontier 8.9 4 Wong Shing Chi Democratic Party 9.3 5 Leung Kwok Hung League of Social Democrats 8.5 6 Lee Chi Wing Alvin 1.2 7 Cheng Kar Foo Andrew Democratic Party 15.1 8 Tong Ka Wah Ronny Civic Party 14.9 9 Pong Scarlett Oi Lan 6.6 10 Lau Kong Wah, Chan Hak Kan DAB 22.6 New Territories West 1 Cheung Chiu Hung Civic Party 9.3 2 Lee Cheuk Yan Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions 11.1 3 Tam Yiu Chung, Cheung Hok Ming DAB 19.1 4 Ho Chun Yan Democratic Party 12.3 5 Tandon Lal Chaing ADPL 2.1 6 Yuen Wai Chung 0.4 7 Chan Wai Yip Albert League of Social Democrats 6.4 8 Chow Ping Tim 0.4 9 Wong Kwok Hing 4.7 10 Cheung Yin Tung 2.9 11 Leung Suet Fong Blue Intelligent Union 0.0 12 Chow Liang Shuk Yee Selina Liberal Party 8.9 13 Leung Yiu Chung Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre 13.6 14 Lee Wing Tat Democratic Party 8.9
District List Party Aug 26-30 Hong Kong Island Lam Chui Lin Liberal Party 1.7 Ho Sau Lan Cyd Civic Act-up 7.6 Kam Nai Wai, Yeung Sum Democratic Party 14.0 Tsang Kin Shing League of Social Democrats 2.3 Tsang Yok Sing Jasper, Choy So Yuk DAB 17.4 Siu Man Wa Myra 1.7 Lo Wing Lok 7.0 Chan Tanya, Eu Yuet Mee Audrey Civic Party 26.7 Ip Lau Suk Yee Regina, Shih Tai Cho Louis 20.3 Lai Chi Keong Joseph 1.2 Kowloon East Wu Chi Wai Democratic Party 5.9 To Kwon Hang Andrew League of Social Democrats 8.9 Chan Kam Lam DAB 23.7 Leong Kah Kit Alan Civic Party 27.8 Li Wai Ming Democratic Party 19.5 Wong Kwok Kin Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 14.2 Kowloon West Chong Wing Charn Francis 2.2 Lee Wai King Starry DAB 20.9 Lung Wai Man James 0.7 To Kun Sun James Democratic Party 10.8 Mo Man Ching Claudia Civic Party 10.8 Lam Yi Lai 0.0 Leung Mei Fun 8.6 Wong Yuk Man League of Social Democrats 13.7 Tien Michael Puk Sun Liberal Party 7.2 Fung Kin Kee Frederick ADPL 19.4 Lau Chin Shek 5.0 Lau Yuk Shing 0.7 Tam Hoi Pong 0.0 New Territories East Tien Pei Chun James Liberal Party 13.7 Siu See Kong Party for Civic Rights & Livelihood of the People of Hong Kong Limited 0.8 Lau Wai Hing Emily The Frontier 5.1 Wong Shing Chi Democratic Party 10.2 Leung Kwok Hung League of Social Democrats 9.8 Lee Chi Wing Alvin 0.4 Cheng Kar Foo Andrew Democratic Party 15.7 Tong Ka Wah Ronny Civic Party 12.2 Pong Scarlett Oi Lan 5.5 Lau Kong Wah, Chan Hak Kan DAB 26.7 New Territories West Cheung Chiu Hung Civic Party 4.3 Lee Cheuk Yan Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions 12.3 Tam Yiu Chung, Cheung Hok Ming DAB 21.3 Ho Chun Yan Democratic Party 16.2 Tandon Lal Chaing ADPL 0.4 Yuen Wai Chung 0.0 Chan Wai Yip Albert League of Social Democrats 5.5 Chow Ping Tim 0.0 Wong Kwok Hing Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 6.0 Cheung Yin Tung 3.0 Leung Suet Fong Blue Intelligent Union 0.9 Chow Liang Shuk Yee Selina Liberal Party 8.1 Leung Yiu Chung Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre 11.9 Lee Wing Tat Democratic Party 10.2
Archives
- August 21-31, 2008
- August 11-20, 2008
- August 1-10, 2008
- July 21-31, 2008
- July 11-20, 2008
- July 01-10, 2008
- June 21-30, 2008
- June 11-20, 2008
- June 01-10, 2008
- May 21-31, 2008
- May 11-20, 2008
- May 1-10, 2008
- April 21-30, 2008
- April 11-20, 2008
- April 1-10, 2008
- March 21-31, 2008
- March 11-20, 2008
- March 1-10, 2008
- February 21-29, 2008
- February 11-20, 2008
- February 1-10, 2008
- January 21-31, 2008
- January 11-20, 2008
- January 1-10, 2008
- December 21-31, 2007
- December 11-20, 2007
- December 1-10, 2007
- November 21-30, 2007
- November 11-20, 2007
- November 1-10, 2007
- October 21-31, 2007
- October 11-20, 2007
- October 1-10, 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
