(1) 9.28-30 佔中啟動 Occupy Central Live Broadcast   9.28-9.30 Occupy Central started, by HK Apple Daily with more than 3.3 million viewings

(2) 【 一口'梁'氣 - JFung Remix 】Official MV  A remix of a music video about the family of Chief Executive CY Leung, with more than 1.5 million viewings

(3) 03OCT2014反佔中人士衝擊銅鑼灣路障,攬少女大髀,鑽褲襠  October 3, 2014 an anti-Occupy Central person charges a Causeway Bay roadblock, grabbing the thigh of a young woman and getting into her pants, by SocREC, with 1.38 million viewings. For a transcript of the incident, see #001.

(4) 孩子問︰誰還未覺醒, music video adapted from the song Do You Hear The People Sing? with 1.21 million viewings.

(5) 內地女人車箱食野:「『你厚多士』 An aggressive mainland woman gets into an argument with a Hong Kong woman over eating food in the MTR subway, with 670,000+ viewings.

Bonus: Photo of the year: Intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street, Mong Kok. Anti-Occupy demonstrators surround the Occupy demonstrators, with only the Evil Police to from human chains to save them.

(TIME) Hong Kong Police Arrest Prominent Radicals in Home Raids. By Elizabeth Barber. December 11, 2014.

Hong Kong police on Wednesday and Thursday arrested several dissidents at or near their homes, as authorities concurrently prepared to clear the citys main protest camp. Wong Yeung-tat, head of the anti-Beijing organization Civic Passion, was arrested near his home at 1 p.m. on Thursday on 59 counts of unlawful assembly, according to his partys news outlet ... Civic Passion is perhaps the most recognizable of the vocal, insistent groups at the fringes of Hong Kongs democratic movement. It has had choice words not just for the government, but for the protests unofficial student leaders, accusing them of timidity in confronting the government for the right to free and fair elections here.

(YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTD-kpJ8_kE  The first part of this video was recorded inside a car going down a Mong Kok street.

0:07 (Man) This one is solo. Very few police officers go solo.
0:11 (Wong) You shouldn't call them "evil police" whenever you see one. But he looks like one.
0:13 (Man) Giving a ticket, giving a ticket.
0:14 (Wong) Damned guy. He fucking looks like one. Fuck his mother! Yes. Actually, it is nitpicking to call them "police dogs." Don't call them "police dogs" because that is an insult to dogs. It is nitpicking to call them "evil police." If you lose a flower pot, you can get it back some day. Right or not? It is two days later now. Are you going to get it back?
0:28 (Man) Fucking break it. (laughter) The flower pot isn't mine. Fucking break it!
0:36 (Wong) The flower pot. You shouldn't say that. "French Guy" (note: Cheung Ka-hin, also known as "French Guy" is seated on the front passenger seat) said it. I didn't say it. I wouldn't say anything like that. I only call people to come out to stimulate the economy, to buy things. You attack. Not retreat. If you don't retreat and you don't defend, then you are attacking. So it's attacking. Right now, this is mobile. More fluid. Buy things. The Buy Things Movement. But is "Buy Things" ... that is, how shall I say? ... Over the past couple of days, many people got injured. Many people got injured. Especially on Wednesday night. The most number of injured persons. Heads broken, blood flowed. They got injured and then they got arrested for assaulting the police. Yesterday, the person from Apple Daily was arrested. He was accused of trying to seize the policeman's gun. He was accused of assaulting the policeman. But ... the Hong Kong people is still missing one step. That is, everybody knows what that one step is. Obviously, we won't say it out. We wouldn't be fucking stupid enough to say here that we are going to do whatever it is. Then you are going to charge us with dishonest use of a telephone. Right or not? Dishonest use of live broadcast. We will not openly talk about illegal matters. Our is just a Buy Things channel. There is no instigator. What is going to happen in Admiralty? We will see what the Federation of Students do. Hey, we ... hey, we are not the organizers, even though we see many Hot Dogs (=members of Civic Passion) on the street just then. Right or not? But we don't fucking care. For the Hot Dogs, people call us Hot Dogs out when something goes awry. But when everything works, people say the Hot Dogs were nowhere in sight.
2:11 (Man) Very hard to follow.
2:11 (Wong) There is something else that can be done. That is, you take a yellow umbrella. You take a yellow umbrella. You disseminate on the Internet. You are not inciting anything. You are reporting on conditions all over. Actually, you say that several hundred people have gathered together. You bring a yellow umbrella. Fuck your mother! You go down to Peking Road. You tell your friend to raise a yellow umbrella. You take a photo.
2:28 (Man) Take a photo.
2:32 (Wong) You disseminate on the Internet that several hundred persons have gathered together. You post the photo of the yellow umbrella. People will think that it is true. Right or not? Eight or nine o'clock. Especially on Saturdays and Sundays. Tomorrow is Saturday, followed by Sunday next. Which busy district does not have several hundred persons present? There are several hundred persons on every street. You ... it is necessary to pay attention to the time. That is to say ... for example, late night for me ... the last two nights, I left quickly and I even made a post to tell others to leave. That is, don't do anything if there are no passersby.
2:55 (Man) Hmmm.
2:56 (Wong) Because if there are no passersby ... if there are no passersby, they will know who you are. You will be surrounded. Right or not? If there are passersby ... where are we going? ... for example, the whole thing ... should the whole thing be called the Umbrella Revolution or not?  I think t it has evolved into the Shopping Revolution. So you are walking with two feet. For example, the Federation of Students ... Brother (Joshua Wong) Chi-fung ... Brother Chi-fung is telling people not to come to Mong Kok. How can you not come to Mong Kok? No way.
3:22 (Wong) Everybody has to recognize one thing. No political figure, no social activist can reap any result from this movement. That would the fucking best thing. The times have changed. You need to have people from the new era to emerge. We are the resisters in an new ear. You are still talking about those who are carted away, or perhaps carting something yourself. Not fucking doing this sort of thing anymore. Not fucking doing this sort of thing anymore. Have you manufactured a shield before? Right or not? That is, have you done this sort of thing before? We are not asking, "Have you been arrested by the police before as a resiter?" We are not talking about this sort of thing anymore. "Have you fought the police before?" This is what people are talking about now.
3:57 (Man)
3:57 (Wong) It is not about being hit. It is not about being hit. I don't want to say out the next step. Hey.
4:03 (Man) Understood.
4:04 (Wong) I don't want to say it out. They are still talking about that era.
4:09 (Wong) I have already said that I am not going to be the leader of this resistance movement. Do you know what I mean? In the Umbrella Revolution, the masses lead ... they progress very rapidly, they evolve very rapidly, whether it is their thinking, or their action, or the borderlines that they can cross. For example, for our generation, our generation grew up during the British colonial era. With respect to rules and regulations, we have some fucking great ...  how shall I say? ... that is, I saw that while I attended court the past couple of days. Fuck your mother! I was showing the videos in court about the clash at the entrance to the Legislative Council. I was talking on the programme. I had a can of Coke in my hand. When I wanted to throw it away, I went up to a garbage can to put it in there. Do you know?
4:58 (Man) Actually, that is how it is. That is, you follow the rules and regulations absolutely.
5:04 (Wong) Yes.
5:04 (Man) We know that clearly.
5:05 (Wong) We are like that. We are like that. The new generation isn't like that. The new generation isn't like that. Completely new people are needed. Completely new thinking. Completely new ideas. Also, you are still talking about bringing some energy back together and go to Admiralty. Then you tell people not to wear masks when they go out. Be careful and don't go down to Mong Kok. Fucking crazy! CY Leung tell people to shop, and you do the exact opposite. Do you fucking think that this is the same as opposing the government? Is this equal the same as opposing the establishment? Of course, that is not the way to fucking do it. How to do it? We have to following the motion of the masses. Follow the masses' ... that is, follow the masses. That is something very important. Therefore, in this movement, ... of course, we have to go after the "evil police". And ... don't fucking talk about whatever, don't make the focus turn fuzzy ... the fuzzy focus about getting genuine universal suffrage ... one single demand ... fuck your mother! Overturn the table with the 'evil police' now! What the fuck is there to talk about? It doesn't fucking matter what the focus is. The most important thing now ... simply put ... that is ... French Guy, you say once more: Do you want the flower pot?
6:10 (Cheung) The flower pot? Don't want it anymore, brother! That is, the flower pot was used to threaten. If you don't give me back the money, I will break the flower pot. Right or not? Break the flower pot. What's the fucking big deal?
6:23 (Wong) French guy, how can you say something like that?
6:23 (Man) Way out of line.
6:24 (Cheung) I am only talking about a flower pot.
6:25 (Man) Wow!
6:28 (Wong) If the flower pot is broken, it is not as like burning a piece of rock together with a piece of jade (= destroying indiscriminately). A flower pot. You can get another one. So how can you say something like that.
6:33 (Man) Yes.
6:36 (Wong) No wonder you got arrested so easliy. (laughter)
6:41 (Wong) But once this ideology is transformed into the Buy Things Movement, there is a fresh army. But ... but this is not sustainable. But it is not necessary to sustain it. The point is not to sustain it. The point is not ... the whole thing has changed. Right or not? Not to guard it. We have to think one more step ahead. Think a bit more. Whether we can think of it depends on the luck of the people of Hong Kong. The luck of the Hong Kong people. Everybody thinks differently. Everybody think about it. Actually, it is still Mong Kok, if you ask me. In truth, they are keeping a curfew. The actual situation is a curfew. They are actually keeping a curfew but they won't say that it is a curfew. They won't say openly that it is a curfew. Hey, if you can force CY Leung to impose a curfew, the stock market would collapse to whatever fucking level. You should notice that it will be December soon. I have said so before. Europe is not fucking allowed to buy through the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connection. Not fucking allowed in Europe. Even if the European funds have not made purchases, some funds must have gotten in. The Fund guys always take their Xmas vacation. Let me tell you. Right or not? If you give them a curfew before Xmas, it would be a disaster. This is great. Right or not? So ... where are we now? ...
7:51 (Man) Mong Kok.
7:52 (Wong) Another step. Need to think an extra step ahead. At the same time, that is ... French Guy, how about it? What ...?
7:59 (Cheung) Eh ... simply put ... look up what the overseas guys do ...
8:03 (Wong) What?
8:04 (Cheung) Look up what overseas ...
8:06 (Man) Ferguson. Those ...?
8:07 (Cheung) Hey, I won't speak brashly. Right or not? Borrow materials. Always. Watch more YouTube. Spend more time on the Internet. See what they do overseas. Consult some references ...

Here is a comparison of the Occupy Movement and the Shopping Revolution:

Occupy Movement:

- Description: A group of demonstrators occupied the roads in Admiralty, Causeway Bay, Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui up to more than 70 days.

- Objective: Create public pressure on the authorities to make concessions on the political system (civil nomination in the Chief Executive election; elimination of the functional constituency in the Legislative Council).

- Size: Usually several hundred in Admiralty and Mong Kok; several dozen in Causeway Bay and Tsim Sha Tsui. More in the evening after school/work.

- Impact for the duration of the occupation

  • Blocked traffic, causing cancellation of some public transportation routes and creating traffic jams that increased travel time for many citizens and businesses

  • Caused economic losses for some businesses in the affected neighborhoods

  • Annoyed some local residents (access, noise, quarrels, thefts, etc)

- Results:

  • No concessions from the HKSAR government/Central government

  • The Hong Kong Police Force cleared the sites after waiting for the public opinion to coalesce into an overwhelming majority in support of clearance.

Shopping Revolution ("Buy Things"): (see, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=025MbmqsZNc)

- Description: Groups of shoppers walk around the streets in Mong Kok and Causeway Bay at nighttime (usually between 7pm and 2am), chanting slogans, window shopping and blocking pedestrian crossings by dropping coins, tying shoelaces, etc.

- Objective: Create public pressure on the authorities to make concessions on the political system (civil nomination in the Chief Executive election; elimination of the functional constituency in the Legislative Council).

- Size: Usually several dozen or hundred in the Mong Kok district.

- Impact when the shoppers are walking around

  • Caused economic losses for some neighborhood businesses.

  • Annoyed some local residents (access, noise, quarrels, etc).

  • Lots of fun for participants because they can harass the police and chant obscenities together aloud.

- Results (still unknown):

  • Unlikely for such a smallish action to gain any concessions from the HKSAR/Central Government.

  • The police has been shadowing the shoppers nightly, sometimes stopping them for ID checks and making arrests. The small numbers are not sufficient to overwhelm the police.

  • The public does not support this kind of infantile behavior.

  • [Cultural note: In Cantonese, such people are known as primary school chicken (小學雞), defined as "a person (of any age) who behaves immaturely and loves to pick fights." The image is that of primary school students running around the playground.]

During the Occupy movement, some people were inconvenienced and this led to economic losses for businesses. For example, when buses didn't run on Nathan Road, a shopper can still take alternate transportation (MTR or re-routed buses/minibuses) and walk over (that is, the bus may be stopping instead on Shanghai Street two blocks away). However, businesses suffered all the same because some shoppers don't want go to through the hassle and end up going elsewhere. Transportation companies also did not want to deliver merchandise into the Occupy areas. The overall economy did not necessarily suffer, but some businesses in the affected areas took heavy losses.

During the Shopping Revolution, several hundred people may walk down the street and decide to stop in front of a store, gawk at the display windows, chant slogans ("I want to buy things", "I want genuine universal suffrage) but they seldom buy anything. Some store managers (especially the jewelry stores) are inclined to play it safe and shutter the store when these "shoppers" approach. If you open the door for business, you may or may not get some business during the Occupy Movement. If you close the door for business during the Shopping Revolution, you will get zero business with certainty. Fortunately, the Shoppers only come out in the evening and not all day.

Addendum: Here are some expansions to the original Mong Kok Shopping Revolution

(Oriental Daily) At around 730m, a dozen or so Shoppers arrived at the Hong Kong Brand and Products Expo. Once they entered, they raised yellow umbrellas. The security guards told them that banners must not be shown inside the grounds and advised them to leave, but the Shoppers ignored them. The shoppers walked around the grounds with security guards and plainclothes policemen shadowing them. Some citizens saw them and said in disgust that this was "nonsensical."

(YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2yPrN7QGEo ) A Xmas carol choir gathered in Causeway Bay with lyrics adapted for the Umbrella Movement.

(YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sndpb_ZmqYM ) Shoppers congregate in front of the Sogo Department store in Causeway Bay. At 2:34, they play the coin dropping trick. At 3:56, a man wearing blue jacket appears. At 4:06 the man punches a young man wearing a green school uniform jacket and carrying a yellow umbrella. The police jumped in immediately. At 4:33, the policeman says: "There wouldn't be a problem if you didn't play dropping the coin." at 4:45, the policeman says: "If you want to cross the street, please use the pedestrian overpass." At 5:15, the crowd chants: "Cross the road! Cross the road! Cross the road! ..."

Addendum: This sort of tactic reminds people of the extortion racket by triad gangs. The gang demands a protection payment from a restaurant. The restaurant refuses to pay. Dozens of gang members show up at the restaurant. Each one sits at a different table, and orders a plate of rice plus a drink. They sit there for hours without leaving. Everything they do is within the law. They do this repeatedly until the restaurant pays up.

[See the 1998 movie Young And Dangerous Part 5 beginning at 62 minutes into the film, when Elkin Cheng enters his restaurant and finds a rival gang taking up the seats, one person per table. He summons a police friend to talk to them. The rival gang leader Mark Cheng says that the law is on his side (he has the right to choose when and what to eat, and he has the money to pay the bill). The policeman does not use the law directly. Instead he orders ID checks for everyone. Although they sit at separate tables, some of them are obviously related to others. Then he says: "I believe that you people all know each other. I have the right to charge you with unlawful assembly. You may have the money to pay the restaurant bill, but not enough to pay the bail down at the police station. At $2,000 bail per person, you need to have several hundred thousand dollars with you." The rival gang leader decides that it is better to leave.]

As the curtains close on the Occupy Movement, the demonstrators blamed the government, the anti-Occupy forces and the silent majority who neither supported nor opposed. That is, everybody except themselves.

The reasons of failure are actually plain to see.

If the Occupy Movement people use their own well-being to pressure the HKSAR government/Central government, how could the masses not stand behind them? The masses would have considered the demonstrators noble and courageous! But, without consulting the willingness of the masses, the Occupy Movement people used the well-being of the entire population as their bargaining chip with the government in the name of the people. Now, the masses felt that they were being "represented" without obtaining their consent first.

Besides just harassing the police, the Occupy Movement people inconvenienced most citizens and caused economic losses to businesses and workers. The Occupy Movement people also show disrespect for the opinions of other citizens. When they encounter dissident voices, they often react inappropriately (such as singing the Birthday Song to drown the other side out). As someone pointed out, if genuine universal suffrage means putting these people in charge, we are better without it.

The Occupy Movement people are also stubborn and egotistical. Every one of them has his own ideas which/she he think are correct whereas the ideas of everybody else (friends and foes) are all wrong. So what is the result?

Today, Party A wants to hold negotiations with the government. Party B sabotages it by escalating the street action to occupy more areas. Party C wants to stop street politics and move back into the arena of the Legislative Council.

Party A says that an irrevocable demand is that the current Chief Executive must resign, Party B says the political reform committee must resign too, and Party C says that the resignation of this Chief Executive means the election of another by the same method, and therefore the election system must be changed first.

Party A wants to bypass the HKSAR government and negotiate directly with the Central Government. Party B says all negotiations with any of the authorities are futile anyway. Party C wants to negotiate with all possible parties.

Party A calls for a withdrawal because no results have been realized after months of occupation. Party B wants instead to call a general business/worker/student strike to paralyze Hong Kong indefinitely. Party C calls for more multi-party meetings to reconcile differences.

Party B wants to assault government buildings. Party A says Party B's violent tactics do not represent the movement as a whole. Party C says that they want love, peace and non-violence too, but they also appreciate the frustrations felt by Party B.

Party A wants to turn themselves into the police, Party B stays away because they say that it is much more important to continue the armed revolution valiantly outside and Party C says that it is not necessary to turn themselves in in accordance with the theory and practice of civil disobedience.

Well, it is nice to call this a "spontaneously self-organized mass movement." Hence, the word "stigmergy" is constantly invoked. In reality, this is a fig leaf to cover up the fact that the movement was directionless, leaderless, disunited and unfocused. The goals, objectives, strategies and tactics are shifting all the time. After a while, who can keep up the plot development? Who knows where the goal posts are located on any given day?

When the Occupy Movement first began, they played the sympathy card. Thus, they looked like a formidable force at first. But they did not know when to stop. As time goes by, more and more people saw through the reality of the prolonged illegal blocking of streets -- social rifts among friends, relatives, colleagues and citizens; verbal and physical clashes with local residents; economic losses to local businesses; health/hygiene problems; molestation of minors; legal theorizing to justify illegal acts; violence acts in the name of a movement of love and peace; etc. The sympathy and hence the support wore out.

When a ship is rudderless, it is a matter of time before it runs aground.

(Apple Daily) December 11, 2014.

Right before the clearance of the Occupy Admiralty area today, an anti-Occupy "blue ribbon" person showed up. She went out on the road to provoke the citizens at the scene. After she was surrounded by Occupy people, she suddenly pushed an old woman at the scene. The other Occupy people followed her and accused her of "physically assaulting people." This Blue Ribbon person yelled: "Why are you using your hands and feet?" There was some shoving and pushing.

A man who claimed to be a pastor escorted this Blue Ribbon person away. When she got to the entrance to Admiralty Centre, she turned around and held up V-signs to the Occupy people. This caused her to be surrounded by Occupy people again. The two sides pushed and shoved. The Blue Ribbon person attacked a reporter who was taking photos. Although someone yelled "Call the police," no police came up to learn about what happened. Finally she succeeded in entering the Admiralty MTR station and leaving.

You should click on the Apple Daily webpage and watch the video.

Ready? And now for the full video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7id7FhWgg (or https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1746785638879197&fref=nf) taken at 1:27pm on December 11, 2014. Here is the transcript:

0:11 A man holds an umbrella in his right hand and makes a middle-finger salute with this left hand.
0:14 (Male voice on megaphone) It's time to get off work. Get off work.
0:19 A middle-aged man in a down jacket jumps up and swipes the sign that the woman is holding up. The two struggle and fall off the meridian wall onto the road.
0:28 (Counter-demonstrator woman) Using your hands and feet.
0:31 (Another man) Who is using his hands and feet?
0:31 The man with a dark shirt and a red cross-belt pushes the woman back.
0:33 (Male voice on megaphone) Fuck your mother!
0:39 (Male voice on megaphone) Fuck your mother!
0:41 (Male) Go away! (Cacophony)
1:15 The woman raises her arms and make V-signs. She removes her spectacles and wipes her face.
1:16 (Male) Miss, what did you come here today for?
1:17 (Male) Provocation.
1:19 (Male) Please, what did you come here today for?
1:23 (Male voice on megaphone) May your whole family die!
1:30 (Crowd) Stinking cunt! Stinking cunt! Stinking cunt! Stinking cunt! Stinking cunt! Stinking cunt! Stinking cunt! ...
1:40 (Counter-demonstrator woman) Why are you using hands and feet?
1:46 (Counter-demonstrator woman) Hey, you touched me!
1:51 (Man in blue jacket wearing cap) I am a pastor.
1:52 A stream of water flies by.
1:56 (Counter-demonstrator woman) He was pouring water on me!
2:03 (Man) Fuck your mother's stinking cunt!
2:11 (Another woman) Damned shrew! You go away! You deserve to die!
2:15 A bespectacled man in a grey jacket swings his arm and makes contact with the counter-demonstrator woman's arm.
2:16 (Woman) Stinking cunt!
2:18 (Yet another woman) You can't be touched?
2:18 (Pastor) Leave, leave, leave.
2:23 (Man) Miss, do you have any demands today?
2:26 A man in a black jacket tugs at her from behind. She turns around and slaps his hands.
2:27 (Man) Use hands, use hands!
2:30 (Woman) You hit me!
2:32 Counter-demonstrator woman waves her hands at a reporter in blue/neon green filming with a camera, but does not make contact.
2:33 A man in a white helmet and black long-sleeved shirt sneaks up and punches the counter-demonstrators with a straight right punch.
2:35 The woman hits the man in a white helmet and black long-sleeved shirt on the back.
2:36 (Another woman) Don't hit the reporter!
2:38 (Another woman) Physical assault! Physical assault! (cacophony)
2:49 (Man) You go away.
2:57 The woman walks down the stairs to the Admiralty Centre MTR station, while raising V-signs.
3:08 (Young man) I witnessed you assault someone. I am a witness. Don't leave. (He pushes her shoulder.) Don't leave! Don't leave!
3:18 (Counter-demonstrator woman) I am calling the police.
3:18 (Young man) You call the police.
3:20 (Counter-demonstrator woman) I am wet all over my body.
3:21 (Young man) Call the police. Call the police.
3:21 (Counter-demonstrator woman) I am calling the police.
3:25 (Counter-demonstrator woman) I am calling the police immediately. (She wipes saliva off her face).
3:25 (Male voice on megaphone) Report your mother!
3:27 (Counter-demonstrator woman) My whole body is wet.
3:28 (Male voice on megaphone) I recognize you. Blue Ribbon. Fuck your mother! Do you recognize me?
3:33 The woman takes out a mobile phone to call the police.
3:35 (Policeman) Police!
3:35 (Young man) Sir. Physical assault.
3:36 (Man) Arrest her!
3:39 (Young man) Sir.
3:40 (Police) What is the matter?
3:42 (Woman) This person assaulted someone.
3:43 (Counter-demonstrator woman) My whole body is wet.
3:45 (Man) Physical assault.
3:48 (Policeman) You people move away first.
3:50 (Counter-demonstrator woman) Ah Sir has arrived.
3:52 (Woman) This person committed physical assault.
3:55 The policeman takes the woman down the stairs.
3:55 (Man) Hey, letting her go?
3:57 (Woman) This person committed physical assault.
3:58 (Man) Letting her go?
4:01 (Woman) She committed physical assault.
4:02 (Policeman) Stop making noise!
4:04 (Woman) She committed physical assault. She committed physical assault.
4:07 (Policeman) Do not block my path!
4:12 (Policeman) It is too noisy here. (cacophony)
4:36 (Policeman) Who got assaulted? Were you assaulted? Who got assaulted?
4:41 (Another policeman) Does anyone want to complain about being assaulted?
4:43 (Policeman) Who got assaulted?
4:44 (Another policeman) Who got assaulted? Stand up, please!
4:47 (Policeman) Is there a victim?
4:49 (Another policeman) The police are here. Please come up here. Whoever got assaulted come up here, please.
4:55 (Policeman) Who is the victim?
4:58 (Policeman) If there is no one, please disperse!
5:09 The police look around and nobody says a thing. All those people who claim to be eyewitnesses have slinked away.
5:13 (Man) You are supposed to enforce the law. There was a physical assault.
5:17 (Policeman) Do not block the passageway. Please. Please make way for our colleagues to pass through. Friends from the press, please be careful about falling down the stairs. Move over a little. Yes. Thanks, everybody.

Here are some screen captures in case you miss the quick actions:


Hand on the back of the neck.


One hit on the left upper arm, one hand on the back of the neck


A masked young man poured a bottle of water on the woman


Two hands on the back


A straight right punch from the man with the white helmet and black long-sleeve shirt on the right.

So what happens to all this talk about staying calm and holding rational exchanges of ideas? And what about journalistic ethics in cutting the start and end of this video for its readers and completely misrepresenting the story? If someone actually lodged a formal police complaint and the police initiated an investigation, a lot of other people may be indicted for physical assault against the alleged perpetrator based upon this video.

HKTV decided to launch an Internet-based television service instead. Users can view HKTV through either Viewing-On-Demand (VOD) or Live-Channel-Viewing. VOD viewing is done by a number of devices such as smart television sets, mobile phones (using iOS/android operating systems), tablets (iOS/android) and personal computers. Live Channel viewing requires a special set top box that when enables viewing HKTV when connected to the Internet. This implies extra costs for set top box purchase, installation and an Internet connection.

HKTV launched officially on November 19, 2014. This is the same day as market leader TVB was founded, indicating the desire to challenge directly. Some people think that the emergence of HKTV against all odds means that there are now more choices beyond the two duopolistic incumbents, just like "genuine universal suffrage" will provide more choices for Chief Executive beyond the two or three designated by the "establishment."

However, people won't support a new television station just because it offers another choice. Support here means actually watching it regularly, and not just giving it a "like" on Facebook.

After 44 weeks, here are the weekly audience numbers from HKTV:

  1st week
ending 11/25
2nd
week
ending 12/2
3rd week
ending 12/9
4th
week
ending 12/16
5th
week
ending 12/23
6th
week
ending 12/30
7th
week
ending 1/7
8th
week
ending 1/14
9th
week
ending 1/21
10th
week
ending 1/28
11th
week
ending 2/03
12th
week
ending 2/10
13th
week
ending 2/17
14th
week
ending 2/24
15th
week
ending 3/3
16th
week
ending 3/10
17th
week
ending 3/17
18th
week
ending 3/24
19th
week
ending 3/31
20th
week
ending 4/7
21st
week
ending 4/14
22nd
week
ending 4/21
23rd
week
ending 4/28
24th
week
ending 5/5
25th
week
ending 5/12
26th
week
ending 5/19
27th
week
ending 5/26
28th
week
ending 6/3
29th
week
ending 6/10
30th
week
ending 6/17
31st
week
ending 6/24
32nd
week
ending 7/1
33rd
week
ending 7/7
34th
week
ending 7/14
35th
week
ending 7/21
36th
week
ending 7/28
37th
week
ending 8/4
38th
week
ending 8/11
39th
week
ending 8/16
40th
week
ending 8/25
41st
week
ending 9/1
42nd
week
ending 9/8
43rd
week
ending 9/15
44th
week
ending 9/24
Viewing-on-demand viewing
  Average daily viewers
  Average duration (in minutes)
 

205,000
53
 

174,000
69
 

159,000
71
 

140,000
78
 

125,000
77
 

125,000
87
 

130,000
86
 

127,000
80
 

105,000
76
 

73,000
75
 

60,000
75
 

58,000
74
 

55,000
77
 

57,000
92
 

45,000
90
 

40,000
89
 

45,000
83
 

52,000
84
 

54,000
84
 

59,000
97
 

62,000
95
 

48,000
89
 

44,000
83
 

43,000
82
 

41,000
80
 

36,000
82
 

33,000
87
 

31,000
80
 

28,000
78
 

25,000
74
 

22,000
74
 

19,000
68
 

16,000
73
 

14,000
69
 

13,000
67
 

17,000
69
 

21,000
78
 

23,000
80
 

27,000
92
 

29,000
92
 

31,000
87
 

31,000
92
 

23,000
90
 

21,000
88
 
Live channel viewing
  Average daily devices
  Average duration (in minutes)
 

358,000
42
 
183,000
49
195,000
51
172,000
56
152,000
64
146,000
63
142,000
61
131,000
61
117,000
62
89,000
66
99,000
55
121,000
44
110,000
46
116,000
45
99,000
44
90,000
45
95,000
42
106,000
38
109,000
36
123,000
33
115,000
35
95,000
38
92,000
34
95,000
32
87,000
31
73,000
36
78,000
32
70,000
33
69,000
30
64,000
29
60,000
30
52,000
32
47,000
33
41,000
34
43,000
33
48,000
34
61,000
30
77,000
28
70,000
31
70,000
33
71,000
31
72,000
29
56,000
34
50,000
34

How does HKTV stack up against the incumbents TVB and ATV? Here the comparison can be made for live channel viewing for which comparable data exist.

In the television advertising market, the currency is the average audience. That is to say, if I run an 15-second commercial on a certain station at a certain time, what is the audience? Therefore, it does no good to tell me that you reach 358,000 unique persons over the course of the entire day. My commercial spot does not run over the entire day. It runs for 15 seconds at one point of the day. I want to know the average audience for an advertising spot.

For comparison, we need to convert the HKTV channel data into an average audience. For the first week, there were 358,000 unique devices per day viewing 42 minutes on average. Thus, the total number of viewing minutes is 358,000 x 42 = 15,036,000 minutes per day. Assume that the population of persons aged 12 or over is about 6,500,000. Assume that the only relevant daypart for HKT is 8:00pm - 10:30pm per day for now (two drama series plus one variety show), giving 150 minutes per day.

The average audience = 100 x 15,036,000 / (6,500,000 x 150) = 1.5% in Week 1.

By comparison, TVB had an average audience of 21.5% and ATV an average audience of 2.1% for the same time period, according to the Nielsen Television Audience Measurement system.

Similar calculations show that HKTV had an average audience of 0.9% in week 2 and 1.0% in week 3.

In conclusion, HKTV has not made much of a dent in TVB's business. As for ATV, it is rumored that its license would not be renewed due to poor management, as indicated by the poor prime time ratings in the 1% to 2% range as well as inability to pay bills and salaries.

According to the Nielsen Television Audience Measurement system, during the week of November 19-25 between 8pm and 1030pm, TVB had a daypart cumulative audience of 3,480,000, ATV had 337,000 and HKTV had 246,000.

Apart from audience quantities, HKTV also has other problems. For the first few weeks, HKTV experienced bandwidth problems. Many users came across sporadic stoppages in the streaming. This was immensely frustrating. HKTV promises to do everything possible to fix this problem. The shows are currently presented at 720pi resolution, not the HD 1080pi as originally promised. This is one way of conserving bandwidth.

A larger problem is with the quality of the television programmes. The first two drama series are The Election and The Borderline are supposed to be refreshing after decades of the staid TVB routine. The Election concerns the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong in 2024 (see SCMP). The Borderline is a police story supposedly with extraordinary gunfights.

If that is what is being marketed, then some viewers are disappointed with the hype.

(SCMP) HKTV crashes with popularity on launch day. November 21, 2014.

More than 640,000 viewers tuned in to HKTV programmes on its inaugural day on Wednesday, crashing the internet television channel's server and sending 300,000 viewers to other websites carrying its feed illegally.

Data from Hong Kong Internet eXchange showed that internet traffic reached a new peak for the year from 8pm to 10pm on Wednesday - surpassing the level from the soccer World Cup and the height of the Occupy protests.

HKTV said that its server could host a maximum of 400,000 concurrent viewers, and its server was overloaded on Wednesday night.

But the figures did not beat dominant free-to-air broadcaster TVB, which claimed its online streams had 1.57 million total views on Wednesday.

TVB said that 1.6 million television viewers and 129,401 online viewers tuned in to its anniversary gala, which was also held on Wednesday night.

HKTV said that more than a million people had downloaded its app - some 723,000 via mobile devices, and 340,000 via smart televisions and set-top boxes.

Episodes of crime thriller Borderline and political drama The Election were available on demand from 6am on Wednesday, and the streaming went live on Wednesday night at 8pm.

People who could not log in turned to other websites for the HKTV live broadcast. One of them, Ustream, recorded more than 300,000 users.

Social media was flooded with messages saying people could not access HKTV's website after the streaming started at 8pm. HKTV apologised for the technical problems and said its technical team has been fixing the issues, but it condemned the illegal feeds on other sites.

"HKTV understands that it was out of kindness and support, but it was copyright infringement that will impair the benefits of overseas buyers and HKTV's advertising income," HKTV said in a statement.

TVB said it recorded 25 rating points for its anniversary gala. Based on the survey conducted through a sample of 800 viewers, with one point being an equivalent to 64,800 viewers, TVB estimated that it had around 1.62 million people watching.

However, the audience was 240,000 lower than last year's anniversary gala. TVB said ratings were normally two to three points lower on Wednesday due to competition from racing.

Internet comments:

- Avoid Yellow Ribbon Zombie television at all cost!

- The bandwidth problem will be solved automatically as fewer and fewer people watch it.

- A new toilet smells like fragrance the first three days. After that, it smells like shit (which it is). So just wait for the novelty factor to wear off and see what happens to HKTV.

- Just as dumb as TVB crap.

- Slightly better than the TVB crap, but not enough to make me watch HKTV on any regular basis.

- Young Hongkongers like to watch American, Japanese and Korean dramas, which have production qualities that are much higher than those in Hong Kong. USA has a population of 300 million, Japan 128 million and South Korea 51 million. Hong Kong has a population of 7 million. Large populations generate large advertising revenues, which support lavishly-made productions. HKTV (or TVB) can never outdo the Koreans and Japanese.

- Of course, the biggest television market in the world is right next door -- China has a population of 1.4 billion. But by politicizing itself, HKTV has shut itself out of the China market.

- Look at the programme lineup for Sunday: 12:30 The Election Chapter 4; 13:30 Shopping Hero Chapter 16; 14:15 The Borderline Chapter 9; 15:15 The Borderline Chapter 10; 16:00 The Borderline Chapter 11; 17:00 The Borderline Chapter 12; 17:45 The Borderline Chapter 13; 18:45 The Election Chapter 4. It's re-runs all the time. How do they expect to compete? HKTV does not have enough content to support one channel, and Ricky Wong applied to run 30 free over-the-air channels?

- What kind of television channel is this? No news, no music, no finance, no current affairs, no sports, nothing good to watch.

- HKTV recruited a bunch of over-the-hill rejects (= "worn out batteries") from TVB for their name recognition while at TVB, including the actors/actresses, scriptwriters, directors and producers and that is why these programmes look just like the TVB ones. Did you really expect a miracle?

- The HKTV website is supposed to be shopping platform. The revenue will be used by HKTV to support the television service. But they are selling stuff that you would never ever buy.

- How do I rate this 'restaurant'? First of all, it is faraway (= takes a long time to set up by downloading, installing and registering). The food is served slowly (=takes a long time to load the programme, with intermittent outages). The food is not particularly good (= the programmes aren't particularly impressive). So why do I want to go to this 'restaurant'? Just because it is one more choice? ATV is already another such choice, but nobody goes there. Why? Because the food there sucks.

- Nowadays, nobody watches television the way it was in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's.

- Some people will like it and other won't. There is no accounting for taste. But audience ratings don't lie.

- The drama series are full of mistakes. How can I believe that the Chief Executive in 2024 would still be using a 2014-vintage LG mobile telephone? In ten years' time, LG and Samsung would be defunct and the whole world will be using Xiaomi phones.

- Ricky Wong claims that those drama series cost $1 million per episode to make. He is just burning money. And burning money doesn't automatically bring in the audience.

- Ricky Wong is going to blame government suppression for the lousy audience ratings. But shouldn't he be asking all those people who swore they would support by HKTV by watching it? I mean those idiots who swore that HKTV is better than TVB without having viewed a second of the new channel yet.

- Ricky Wong can threaten: "If you don't watch HKTV, you won't get 'genuine universal suffrage'."

- It is just so like the so-called "democrats." They yearn for some perfect ideal. They praise it to the high heavens before it happened. But reality turns out to be very different. Such is HKTV, such is "genuine universal suffrage."

- Apple Daily is trying to pump up HKTV in its "news reporting." I hope that HKTV is not going to be to television like Apple Daily is to newspaper -- All rumors all the time.

- I downloaded the app as soon as I learned about it. But when I saw the amount of information that they are demanding to know in order to register as a user, I deleted the app immediately. They have no business collecting that level of detail from everybody.

- The third drama series to be broadcast was known as Hakka Woman originally. Now it has been the new title of I Don't Want To Be A Hongkonger In My Next Life. So where do you want to be born in for your next life? Ferguson, USA?

- One of my Yellow Ribbon colleagues think that HKTV audience ratings = democracy index. So he was upset at the poor ratings, and he watches HKTV all the time on his mobile telephone to try to support them.

- I will never watch HKTV because of what Ricky Wong wrote on November 28, 2014 in Sky Post: "I was planning to go to bed early but I obviously could not sleep well after seeing the live television broadcast in Mong Kok. On television news, I saw how the police dealt with the citizens and I wanted to tell them to stop, because they are merely facing off defenseless students. In the morning meeting, a female colleague said that the police lose their heads as if they were on drugs. Now I finally understood how the Japanese soldiers went berserk after days of fighting in which they saw their comrades got injured or killed to launch a massacre in revenge." And Ricky Wong also explained why he couldn't get on the dais to support the students: "Students, sorry, I am powerless. I can only admire and envy you brave young people for being carefree and able to be reckless. I have to worry not just about my personal life, but also the lives of the families of several hundred colleagues. I am cooperating with several hundred companies to develop an Internet shopping platform. What company will agree with what I do?"

- Ricky Wong is not much of a freedom fighter. The word is that he tried to strike a deal with Tencent/QQ to distribute HKTV in mainland China, but it was squashed by the supervisory government agency. Ricky Wong is an opportunist -- in business as well as in politics.

- In Hong Kong today, it is risky to use politics to boost your business. If you please one side, you offend the other side.

- Why does Ricky Wong draw so many negative comments about HKTV and himself? There is no reason why any citizen would object to the introduction of a new television channel. It is the manner in which he turned this into a political issue, and his political position is highly unpopular.

- (Oriental Daily) January 15, 2016. More than 40 New Territories delivery persons for HKTV Mall called in sick together on January 14 in order to call attention to their plight. A HKTV spokesperson denied that there was any work action, but admitted their manpower was stressed today. They said that they will pay more attention to schedules and work assignments in order to provide an even better work environment for their workers. The workers were outraged when they heard that: "Actually, we have told them many times before and we waited for them to come and talk to us. But the company seemed to have no sincere intention to do so."

Addendum: (Bastille Post) December 19, 2014.

For the first four weeks, the average daily cumulative audiences are 563,000; 357,000; 354,000 and 312,000 respectively. For a population of 6,500,000, the rating points are 8.6%, 5.5%, 5.4% and 4.8%.

The above is the sum of the VOD and Live Broadcast audiences through the entire day. For the evening prime time, HKTV has a rating of less than 2%, which is lower than ATV and far behind TVB's 20+ rating. Thus, HKTV may erode TVB's audience slightly, but it is not making enough to stay afloat itself.

According to insiders, it is likely that HKTV will end up in the 200,000's after a few more weeks. In that case, HKTV will lose a lot of money even if the cost of production of drama series is $500,000, half as much as the $1 million figure that is currently being boasted about. Will Ricky Wong keep the faith? Let us watch to see if any new drama series begins shooting soon. HKTV is currently unloading its existing inventory.

Addendum: (South China Morning Post) HKTV still hopeful of free-to-air television licence despite HK$240m loss.  March 27, 2015.

Hong Kong Television Network has not given up its quest for a free-to-air broadcasting licence despite reporting a HK$237 million loss in the 16 months ending December last year. The broadcaster, now using an over-the-top platform to air its programmes, does not wish to give up considering the use of other transmission standards for broadcasting, it said in a financial report.

Its current platform, launched in November last year, can only be viewed on computers, smartphones, smart TV or via TV boxes. It contains a television programme platform and an online shopping platform. A loss of HK$237 million was recorded for the 16 months ending on December 31 last year. The company changed its financial year from previously 12 months to 16 months. A HK$40.3 million loss was recorded in the 12 months ending August 2013.

For the month ending March 15, 988,000 viewers watched programmes on HKTVs television programme platform while more than 1.13 million users browsed its online shopping platform, the station said. The figures might include overlapping, it said.

HKTV, chaired by Ricky Wong Wai-kay, filed its latest application for a free-to-air licence in April last year, about six months after Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying announced his decision against its previous licence application.

(Apple Daily) June 20, 2015.

Yesterday Ricky Wong said: "There is no television business. Especially given what happened yesterday, there is no way to give any more thought. There won't be any more television!"

Reportedly, HKTV is waiting for the judicial review of their application for a television license. But even the Internet television channel is not financially viable. "The cost of producing serial drama is as much as $1 million per episode. The Internet advertising revenue cannot cover the costs." HKTV has not produced any more serial drama for more than a year. At the current rate, their inventory will be exhausted by September this year.

(SCMP) June 23, 2015.

Hong Kong Television Network fell 4.9 per cent to HK$2.33 after it forecast a significant increase in losses, attributed to production costs outstripping revenues, investment in e-commerce and potential impairment loss.

(HKTV) March 26, 2016.

HKTV announced that it lost $810 million last year compared to $240 million the year before.

(Bastille Post) Mary 19, 2016.

Ricky Wong said on radio today that a reliable source of information told him he could not get a broadcast television license because senior TVB representatives appealed to Beijing. Wong said that he learned from the failure to be humble and respectful. If he had been less showy in hiring away a large number of workers from TVB, he might have gotten his license already.


AM730:
Page 1: "Occupy Admiralty" cleared; 209 persons arrested
Page 2: "Occupy Admiralty" ended peacefully after 75 days; 209 persons arrested


Apple Daily: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/first/20141212/18966579
Do not forget the original aim, we'll be back


Headline Daily:
Curtains fall for "Occupy"
Admiralty cleared; occupies did not resist


Hong Kong Commercial Daily:
Admiralty successfully cleared,
"Occupy Central" completely failed


Ming Pao:
Site cleared in 13 hours
Roads cleared


Oriental Daily:
Jimmy Lai who gave the money, the pan-democrats who took the money
"Occupy Central" black hands arrested together


The Sun:
"Admiralty" over, recover
Seven hours, zero force, no bloodshed
7,000 police out in force, 209 persons arrested


Sing Pao:
Curtains down on final act of "Occupy"
Police arrest 247 persons, Admiralty "recovered"


Sing Tao:
"Admiralty" finishes/disperses/folds the umbrella
The police clear the site peacefully, 209 persons arrested


South China Morning Post:
Orderly end to 75 days of turmoil


The Standard:
209 arrested as Occupy cleared


Ta Kung Pao:
Admiralty over
Clearance, arrested one by one, the police arrested 247 persons


Wen Wei Po:
Admiralty cleared; "Occupy Central" defeated
The roads are clear again; the police clear the site

Q1. Do you support the High Court in issuing injunctions for the Occupy areas?
72%: Support
18%: Do not support
5%: Don't care
5%: No opinion

Q2. Do you support the government clearing all the Occupy areas?
75%: Support
13%: Do not support
9%: Don't care
3%: No opinion

Q3. Do you support the manner in which the police cleared the obstacles in Mong Kok earlier?
55%: Support
35%: Do not support
6%: Don't care
4%: No opinion

Q4. Some people have called for "shopping groups" to gather and continue to express political demands. Do you support this?
16%: Support
74%: Do not support
5%: Don't care
5%: No opinion

[Q4 is the first piece of survey data on the Shopping Revolution, although you really don't need any polling to know the answer. The common opinion is that this is just what "primary school chickens" would do. The only people who are really hurt are the local businesses (and their workers). And it will only make "genuine universal suffrage" recede even more as public resentment grows over this sort of action and the cause that its participants espouse. Yes, on the night of the clearance of the Occupy Admiralty, the Shopping Revolution even made its initial appearance near the Occupy Causeway Bay area. This provides the perfect excuse to clear the one remaining Occupy area.]

The Kowloon Federation of Associations announced the poll results. 2,863 citizens aged 18 or over were randomly selected and interviewed December 6-9 by telephone. Here are some highlights:

27.72% are opposed to "using the illegal Occupy Movement to change the Hong Kong political system."
32.44% are very much opposed to "using the illegal Occupy Movement to change the Hong Kong political system"

23.88% support the "Hong Kong Police to clear the obstacles in the Occupy Admiralty area"
47.35% very much support the "Hong Kong Police to clear the obstacles in the Occupy Admiralty area"

55.52% agree that the Occupy Movement has created severe social divisions so far
30.24% agree that the Occupy Movement has created social divisions so far
8.83% agree that the Occupy Movement has created minor social divisions so far
3.14% agree that the Occupy Movement has not created social divisions so far

79.96% agree that they are concerned or very concerned about the social divisions
22.80% agree that they are unconcerned about the social divisions

76.05% want/very much want to see one-person-one-vote implemented for the 2017 Chief Executive election

54.12% said that they have always wanted to follow the National People's Congress decision to implement the direct election of the Chief Executive
6.15% said that they changed from opposing to following the NPC's decision as a result of the two-month-plus long Occupy Movement
2.93% said that they changed from following to opposing the NPC's decision

18.65% think that there is a good chance that the political reform package will be passed
39.32% think that there is still a chance, however slight, to pass the package

As to how the government should address the young people's demands,
23.25% say that the government should improve housing for young people
21.82% say that the government should improve the educational system

(Wen Wei Po) December 10, 2014.

Although these shoppers seem to come out of nowhere in response to calls on the Internet, they are actually not "directionless." Here are always a few "instigators" in the crowd. These people distribute placards to passersby. As more people gather, they being to chant loudly: "I want genuine universal suffrage," "Buy things, buy things" but they don't move forward. Clearly they had motives other than shopping. As more people gathered on the sidewalk, these leaders suddenly disappeared. Clearly, these leaders were there to incite the emotions of the crowd and then try to control things from behind the scene. According to informed sources, these leaders are mostly middle-aged whereas the participants are mostly young people.

Here are some detailed scenes. Scene #1: A thin middle-aged man has been showing up nightly around Soy Street. He walks back and forth holding a placard saying "I want genuine universal suffrage." According to informed sources, this person is a member of People Power. Scene #2: At around 9pm one night, a private vehicle came to a stop in the Shopping Revolution area, and Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat rolled down the window to wave to the crowd while yelling: "Continue, continue, buy things, buy things." (note: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za00EBYLuc @5:09) Scene #4:  On Soy Street, a short man kept giving instructions to people. According to information, this man is a Cheung Kwun O district triad gang member nicknamed Dwarf Chu. Early last month, he led his gang members to challenge the police many times. He has allegedly been paid a lot in order to come from Cheung Kwun O to Mong Kok.

Many of the participants are members of radical groups such as Civic Passion and People Power as well as triad gang members. Civic Passion is a small radical political party. Although their numbers are small, they are central in the planning and execution of violent acts. The assault on the Legislative Council is their doing in retaliation for the clearance of Mong Kok. Meanwhile People Power is a radical alliance of different pan-democrat groups. Many people characterize this group as "the Sect of Fists" and "the Bath Salt Army."

As the Occupy Admiralty area gets ready to be cleared today, there is talk of starting a Shopping Revolution there too. Here is a reminder as to what Occupy Admiralty already did to the local businesses there.

(Oriental Daily) December 10, 2014

Many shop owners applaud the coming clearance of the Occupy Admiralty area. According to worker Ms. Chan at a florist in United Centre, the shop has been in business for ten years and business fell by 50% during the Occupy period. Traffic in the area has been re-routed due to road blocks, making it hard to unload supplies. "Every time I see the television coverage of the Occupy areas, I get very angry!" Ms. Chan said that the florist did not even make enough to pay rent the past two months. She said that young people have never had to suffer and therefore they don't understand suffering. She said that the government should chase them away as quickly as possible.

According to Mr. Chow who has been running a computer shop for three years at United Centre, business has fallen by 20%. Due to traffic problems, it was hard to bring in large computers and equipment. He originally supported the Occupy Movement. But when he looks at his 5-figure monthly losses, he thinks that it is time for the Movement to stop.

Meanwhile over at Admiralty Centre, Ms. Chan who sells handmade accessories said that the Occupy Movement has been an unmitigated disaster for her. Most of her regular customers get there by car, and they cannot come due to the road blockage. And now she can't even get anyone to come during the golden Xmas period. Ms. Chan also objected the shopping centre management for permitting people to sleep on the floor, to re-charge mobile phone batteries and use the restrooms. People are even gambling publicly there. She wondered if these people are genuinely fighting for democracy. She angrily accused Occupy Central founder Benny Tai of being a legal scholar who teaches his students to break the law.

Meanwhile for the restaurant industry as a whole:

(Oriental Daily) December 11, 2014.

According to the Hong Kong Federation of Restaurants & Related Trades, October and November are supposed to busy months of the year for the restaurant industry. The normally expected volumes are $8 and $9 billion respectively. During these two months, the Occupy Movement caused a contraction of 10%, mainly concentrated in the Occupy areas of Sheung Wan, Central, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay. In those areas, the restaurants lost an average of 40% in business.

For a typical Chinese cuisine restaurant, the actual net profit is only about 2%. To recoup the lost of one month's business, it would require more than 10 months of profit. More than 260,000 workers are affected.

As for the minimum wage being increased to $32.50 per hour, waiters and servers already start at $35.0 and cleaners at $40.0. So restaurant workers already make more than the proposed minimum wage. Even so the restaurant industry is still looking at a shortfall of 30,000 workers. The Federation urges the government to study the possibility of importing workers to deal with the labor shortage problem.

Wave 3
December 8-9, 2014
Respondents: Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents aged 18 or over
Methodology: Telephone interview by interviewers
Sample size: 514
Response rate: 65.2%

Q1. To what extent do you support or oppose the Occupy Movement initiated by students and citizens?
14.3%: Strongly support
17.1%: Quite support
18.5%: Half-half
14.6%: Quite oppose
34.7%: Strongly oppose
0.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. To what extent do you support or oppose how the government handles the participants of the Movement?
21.4%: Strongly support
16.0%: Quite support
14.0%: Half-half
17.3%: Quite oppose
28.4%: Strongly oppose
2.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. Have you participated in the mass gatherings of the Occupy Movement recently?
12.3%: Yes
87.3%: No
0.4%: Don't know/hard to say

[The above Q1 seems to say that 14.3% + 17.1% = 31.4% support the Occupy Movement while 14.6% + 34.7% = 49.3% oppose. This is lower than the 80% lower than is often being cited nowadays. Well, it all depends on how the question is phrased. In Wave 2 (November 19, 2014), two questions were included:

Q1. To what extent do you support or oppose the Occupy Movement initiated by students and citizens?

12.1%: Strongly support
16.2%: Quite support
13.9%: Half-half
18.3: Quite oppose
39.9%: Strongly oppose
0.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Q6. Should the Occupy movement continue or stop? (If the respondents think it should continue, interviewer reads out answers 1 to 3; if the answer is stop, read out answers 5 to 6; if "don't know/hard to say", there is no need to prompt further. Only one answer allowed.)

4.4%:Continue, with a larger scale
6.1%:Continue, with the scale unchanged
3.3%:Continue, with a smaller scale (include reducing the number of occupied areas)
42.0%: Stop, use other ways to fight for universal suffrage
8.9%: Stop, because the goals have been attained
28.3%:Stop, because occupying is wrong
7.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Wave 2 Q1 says that 12.1%  + 16.2% = 28.3% support the Occupy Movement initiated by students and citizens and 18.3% + 39.9% = 58.2% oppose. These numbers are similar to those obtained for Wave 3 Q1. Wave 2 Q6 says 4.4% + 6.1% + 3.3% = 13.8% want the Occupy movement to continue, while 42.0% + 8.9% + 28.3% = 79.2% want it to stop. This is where the 80% comes from. But HKU-POP decided not to ask Q6 in Wave 3 for whatever reason. So some people now have the impression that opposition to the Occupy Movement has just tumbled down from about 80% (Wave 2 Q6) to under 50% (Wave 3 Q1).

The Wave 3 HKU-POP press release includes this piece of editorializing:

On the latest PopCon Survey, Director of POP Robert Chung observed, Our survey shows that those who support the students or the government are both minorities. To overcome this lose-lose situation, both sides must exercise restraint, try to understand, tolerate and not agitate each other, in order to resolve the problem in a civilized and rational way.

The second sentence can be used in any context. The first sentence is true in terms of survey outcome for Q1, but not true for Wave 2 Q6. What is the difference? Q1 refers to the Occupy Movement "initiated by students and citizens" as a protest against the August 31st decision by the National People's Congress. As originally conceived, Occupy Central with Love and Peace would not last more than a couple of days and would only take place in the Central business district. Wave 2 Q6 refers to the Occupy Movement as it stands today. It is now more than 70 days later. It has taken place in some mixed business/residential areas. It has inconvenienced almost everybody and inflicted economic losses on some businesses and workers, some more so than others. And it has no discernible impact on the Central Government and the HKSAR government on the issue of "genuine universal suffrage." That is why 79% said "Stop" with 42% saying to "use other ways to fight for universal suffrage." The HKU-POP editorial talks about mutual understanding and toleration, but it doesn't address how to deal with the occupation of the streets. Should it stop? HKU-POP did not editorialize on the significance of Wave 1 Q6 and Wave 2 Q6 in their press releases (Wave 1 and Wave 2). That had been the focus of press coverage. Instead, Q6 was eliminated in Wave 3 of this tracking study and an editorial statement was made with respect to Wave 3 Q1.]

Day 70.

We are made by our times. If I wasn't a policewoman today and I was still a student, I might be one of you. This is not surprising at all. All our information come from the media. If they want to write us up a certain way, then I become such a person in your eyes.

Our team began working on September 27. On the first day, I worked 39 hours straight. I slept for less than six hours and I was back at work again. I thought that this would go on for only a week or so. But today turns out to be the 70th day ...

I thought that I aged ten years over these 70 days. During the first month, we worked the night shift most of the time. Even now, we work 13 to 14 hours a day. As a mother, one such workday is too many already, much less than 70 days. Suddenly I feel sorry about my two children, especially since my son is just learning to work. The other say, he was still unable to stand up. When will he be ready to walk steadily? Suddenly I felt that something was lost ... my daughter told her teacher that she doesn't get to see her mother ... my heart feels sad ...

When I am at home, I spend the time sleeping. Never mind taking care of the children, because I don't even have the energy to play with them. Obviously, my husband has to take care of them. If you are a parent, you note that it is tiring enough to put two children to bed. As a Yellow Ribbon supporter, he suddenly said one day that he hoped Occupy Central would stop soon ...

Yes, you heard right. My husband is one of you. I remember clearly the day when a Yellow Umbrella profile picture appeared on his Facebook. I broke into tears immediately.

Yes, we have to accept other people's opinions. Besides, he is my husband. When society overwhelmingly says that the police are wrong, even your bedside partner says so too ... but I am grateful to him because he let me know how to tolerate others. That sounds easy, but it is so hard to carry out. God let me know that I am imperfect. He wants me to continue to love, to love God, to love people, to love those who hold ideas different from mine.

On the day when tear gas was released, I was over at Tim Wa Avenue. On the night when Mong Kok was occupied, I was there. I also dealt with the Shopping groups. I don't know whether it was right or wrong to use tear gas, but I know that I began to be cursed everyday on the street and on the Internet. The police faced its greater challenge in history.

Actually, I was born in the same era as you. You and I should get the same respect. So why do you want to say "Shame on you!", "Shameful," "Evil police," "Beasts," "Police dogs" and use obscene language against us? You won't even spare our children or grandchildren? My friends, why do you say on your Facebook, "If you still think the police are righteous now, please unfriend me." Even my Christian brothers and sisters are like that. We get surrounded and cursed out in the street. Do you know how we feel at that instant? When I read my friends' comments on Facebook about the police force, I was so hurt that I couldn't sleep all night. I told myself not to visit Facebook anymore, but I couldn't help myself ...

However, I believe that some of you are silent people who go and march in the streets for an ideal.

I have not insulted or assaulted any demonstrator. As you say, we are not your enemies. As for the news reports about the police assaulting people, I cannot say that they are false. But the media only report the key segment of the assault but completely ignore what happened before or afterwards.

As a frontline police officer, I have seen how my colleagues deal with citizens. I don't always agree with how the police deal with citizens. But even if I disagree, I nevertheless understand them. It is not that they are correct. But anyone who has gone through what we went through will feel just as angry. Yes, we have undergone training and we should know how to restrain our selves. But I am sorry that we are not always able to do that. We are humans and we are frail.

We all hope that this will end quickly, but we don't see a way out.

As a civilized society, Hong Kong should be able to accept different ideas, different voices. It is wrong for anti-Occupy people to attack the Occupy people that day. But I don't see any humor in Occupy people drowning out the anti-Occupy voices with the loud singing of the birthday song.

I also support democracy. As a student, I attended the June 4th candlelight vigil and the anti-Article 23 march. I also know how to sing The Flowers of Freedom. Today, it is not as if I don't support democracy, but I wonder how important is democracy. Is it truly the best government system? For mankind, it may be. But as a Christian, I wait more for the Heavenly Kingdom to come.

I remember that I joined the Police in order to be a public servant to help others. Today, I still regard myself as serving others. Please do not treat us as your enemies.

You may well ask whether I hate those Occupy people. If I say no, you won't believe me anyway. Occupy Central caused me to miss witnessing my children grow up and insufficient rest. My husband reminded me that this is the Devil's work. The Occupy Movement has caused enough damage to my friends, family and society. I really don't want it to surface in my home too. This is not what God want to see. Really, when the demonstrators stand in front of us to curse our children, I told myself that God also loves them.

Prior to the Occupy Movement, the police held training sessions to conduct large-scale arrests. On that day, as an observer, we saw how much resources was put in to deal with this. Tears were in my eyes.

This is my beloved Hong Kong, the home in which I grew up. Since when do we end up only criticizing and attacking each other?

I know that there is nothing we can do. We can only pray in tears. On some days, when things calm down, I want to cry. Cry for the police, for Hong Kong, for my church ... In the worst moment, I thank my university Christian roommate for reminding me that God is watching everything. God has not forgotten us, He has not forgotten Hong Kong.

As Occupy goes into the 70th day, we will continue to work everyday on Occupy Central. Each day, we work 13 hours or longer, we can't be with our families, we can't see our friends and I can't see when this movement will end in the near future. Helplessness. But life has to go on.

You can continue to criticize us, but please do not curse and demonize us. When we ask you to step back on the sidewalk, please do not say: "The government doesn't listen to our demands, so why should we listen to you?" Please do not say that we are dogs or we are being used by the government. Law enforcement is our job.

Christmas is coming soon. We hope that there is more love and understanding among us.

(HKU POP) December 9, 2014

For the period June 25-30, 2014

  • Satisfaction rate of Hong Kong Police Force = 56%

  • Dissatisfaction rate of Hong Kong Police Force = 19%

  • Net satisfaction rate = 56% - 19% = 36%

For the period November 25-28, 2014

  • Satisfaction rate of Hong Kong Police Force = 56%

  • Dissatisfaction rate of Hong Kong Police Force = 27%

  • Net satisfaction rate = 56% - 27% = 29%

So here was a change of 29% - 36% =-7% in the net satisfaction rate.

The HKU-POP editorialized:

In terms of absolute ratings, all top 5 disciplinary forces get more than 60 marks, four of which are above 70, which is very good. In terms of net satisfaction, Hong Kong Fire Services Department registers positive 93 percentage points, and is definitely the most popular disciplinary force in Hong Kong. However, that of Hong Kong Police Force registers positive 29 percentage points, which is record low since July 1997 ... The popularity drop of the Police is obviously due to the recent Occupy Movement, which has caught the Police in between different political forces. To overcome this problem, the Police will have to strengthen its professionalism in executing its duties, and also its affection and care for the society. It should not lean towards any political force, nor resort to improper means, just let political problems be resolved in political ways.

[HKU-POP was asked by the press to justify this interpretation. TVB reported that HKU-POP refused to offer any more comments beyond the above. This interpretation is problematic because it may not be the only possible explanation. An alternate interpretation is that people are dissatisfied with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force because it did not act forcefully enough to enforce the law and restore social order in a timely manner Instead, the police waited more than 2 months while watching the demonstrators cause inconveniences and economic losses. This kind of view is prevalent at certain Internet discussion forums. If you need to distinguish between these two opposite interpretations, you need some further probing (e.g. Asking "Why are you dissatisfied with the performance of the Hong Kong Police Force?" among those who are dissatisfied). Otherwise, this is just one person's personal opinion.

This HKU-POP editorial is also unprofessional in another aspect. For the November 25-28 poll, margins of sampling error are included. For the 29% net satisfaction rate for the Hong Kong Police force, the 95% confidence interval is 29% +/- 7% = (22%, 36%). For the June 25-30, 2014 survey, the 95% confidence interval is 36% +/- 7% = (29%, 43%). The difference in satisfaction rate of -7% has a 95% confidence interval of -7% +/- 10% = (-17%, 3%). That is, I see that the standard error for each net satisfaction rate is 3.5%. Therefore the standard error of the difference in net satisfaction rates is SQRT(3.5%**2 + 3.5%**2) = 5%. Therefore the 95% of the difference in satisfaction rates is 2 x 5% = 10%. In summary, the result is not significantly differently from zero for these sample sizes. This was not pointed out by HKU-POP. Actually, why bother providing 95% confidence interval if you are going to ignore them anyway? Instead, they spent a lot of time making a particular political point of theirs ("The popularity of the Police is obviously due to the recent Occupy Movement ...", which is unsupported by the data.]

(Sing Tao via Yahoo.com.hk) (This screen capture is used to preserve a news report which may well be deleted or corrected later).

[The sentence "警隊民望跌至歷來新低,評分只有61分,滿意率僅29%" is translated as "The popularity of the Hong Kong Police fell to a record low with a popularity rating of only 61 and a satisfaction rate of only 29%." Well, the HKU-POP reported a net satisfaction rate of 29% which became a satisfaction rate of 29% in this news report. The reporter who wrote this and the editor who approved it are careless and/or innumerate. This is a huge mistake because of the bad impression given by "a satisfaction rate of only 29%".]

For comparison, here are some approval ratings for other persons/organizations/countries:

Wouldn't these people like to have a net approval rate of +29%? (Forbes) But Russian President Vladimir Putin has no such worries.

[On the Internet discussion forums, most people were not reacting to the contents of this poll. Instead, they were ready to reject the results as soon as they saw that the pollster was the HKU-POP. They do not treat polls from other universities with the same contempt. The backdrop was the relationship between the HKU-POP and the Occupy Central Movement (see The Standard). Specifically, the HKU-POP received a donation from an anonymous donor through Benny Tai, a founder of the Occupy Central. When asked to identify the source, Tai said it was Occupy Central co-founder Chu Yiu-ming who in turn got it from an anonymous donor. That $800,000 was spent on a referendum on constitutional reform as a prelude to Occupy Central. Some Internet users believe that this constitutes a conflict of interest which taints any polling by HKU-POP on political reform.

Some Internet comments:

- I am not satisfied with the police. They were too restrained. They hit too lightly! Too few people bled, too few people were arrested!
- I am anti-Occupy Central and I am disappointed with the police. They should have beaten up the rioters just like the American police do.
- I tend to believe in this poll. Simply put, 80% to 90% of Hong Kong citizens are opposed to Occupy Central. The police are too gentle to these Yellow Ribbon thugs and have not yet cleared the sites. As a result, the normal lives of the citizens are disrupted. That is why they are dissatisfied with the police! The only way for the police to regain public support is have no mercy on these Yellow Ribbon thugs. The police should beat the hell out of them until they get down on their knees and beg for mercy!

- A truism: Lawbreakers don't like the police.

- Yet another black gold public opinion poll!

- How much money did HKU-POP receive under the table to conduct this poll?

- "(The police) should not lean towards any political force, nor resort to improper means, just let political problems be resolved in political ways." This sentence implies political judgment, and it is sufficient to make this poll fucking rubbish. Oh, I see, it's HKU-POP. Obviously. Never mind ...

- "Just let political problems be resolved in political ways"? It is news to me that blocking the road is a political problem. Hey, it is breaking the traffic laws. Therefore, it is a law enforcement problem. And the police should be enforcing the laws.

- In that poll, the Hong Kong Police Force has a satisfaction rate of 56% versus a dissatisfaction rate of 27% for a net satisfaction rate of 29%. Previously, HKU-POP found that 83% think the Occupy Movement should stop, while 13% think it should continue. The net approval rate for the Occupy Movement is 13% - 83% = -70%! But HKU-POP did not editorialize that the Occupy Movement should stop in view of the overwhelming public opinion.

- Why don't they run a public opinion poll on confidence/no-confidence in HKU-POP? They won't like those results!]

Addendum: (SpeakOut.HK via Hong Kong Economic Journal) Evidence required in accusation of "improper means" of Hong Kong Police Force. By Cheung Chi-kong. December 11, 2014.

HKU-POP announced the latest survey on the Hong Kong Police Force, which received an average rating of 61, satisfaction rate of 56% and dissatisfaction rate of 27%. Based upon these numbers and other data such as the median and quartiles, these are good numbers. But the interpretation says that these hit a 17-year low, which makes it sound less than satisfactory.

I have previously said criticized the limitations of using average ratings, because the tendency for people to choose a rating towards the middle. The police have to handle many controversial matters which means support is necessarily polarized. In this case, the satisfaction rate is unchanged at 56% but the dissatisfaction rate rose by 8%. As a result, the net satisfaction rate went down.

Overseas polling organizations usually only publish the numbers in their polls, especially when the subject pertains to governments or officials. Readers are left to decode and interpret the results themselves. After all, they conducted the study themselves, and they want to avoid taking a fixed political position. However, Robert Chung has the habit of inserting his comments and making subjective analyses of his data, including certain terms and concepts not included in the polling process. For example, "dangerous level" and "edge of failure." What is danger? What is failure? Only Robert Chung knows.

On the current poll about the Hong Kong Police Force, Robert Chung once again interceded. He called for the Hong Kong Police Force to exercise professionalism and social concern without using improper means. Political issues should be solved by political means.

Robert Chung does not explain what the "improper means" are. It is serious charge to say that the police is using "improper means." The police are the main force in law enforcement. Obviously, professionalism is required of them. Over and above professionalism, they are required to uphold the law themselves. If someone thinks that the police are using "improper means," they need to produce concrete evidence and forward the charges to the relevant departments.

As for solving political issues by political means, I am 200% in agreement. But is "Occupy Central" a political issue that should be resolved by political means? Of course not. Political means are presumed to be in accordance with the law. So the Palestine issue is a political issue. But the 9/11 incident cannot be resolved by political means because it is an act of terrorism. In the context of Hong Kong, the development of the political system and the 2017 election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage are political issues. However, "Occupy Central" was not a political solution. Instead, it was an attempt to resolve by illegal means. If these political issues are to be resolved by political means, then Admiralty should never have been occupied on day one, the Legislative Council should not be assaulted and the Central Government Office should not have been besieged. All these means were illegal. The relevant persons attempted to use illegal, even violent, to achieve their political goals.

If the Occupy Central founders did not initiate "Occupy Central" and nobody assaulted the Legco, and instead they went to hold forums and conduct marches, the police would not have intervened. They would have even helped the organizers to maintain order during their activities. But Occupy Central broke the law and the police have to enforce the law according to court injunctions and government orders. On the television screen, everybody can see how the actions of the Occupy people made the police resort to using force. Under these actual conditions, it is nonsense to insist that political issues must be resolved by political means.

I personally think that dissatisfaction against the police has risen, because the police are the frontline force for the government to deal with the illegal blocking of the roads. I have seen certain public opinion polls in which only more than 20% support "Occupy Central" while more than 30% oppose the government using force to clear the sites. It is reasonable to assume that the 20% is a part of the 30%. This leaves more than 10% who are opposed to Occupy Central but, at the same time, they don't support clearance by force. These people cannot offer a reasonable way to solve the problem but, no matter what, they just don't want to see a clashes of forces!

It is therefore reasonable that the dissatisfaction rate should rise to 27%. After all, more than 20% support Occupy Central, and their impression about the police has gotten worse. In these terms, the 27% dissatisfaction rate is not unreasonable.

Legislative Councilor Kwok Ka-Kee (Civic Party) set up a table at the Tsuen Wan MTR station to urge citizens to support democracy/genuine universal suffrage. Here is the video of the reception from citizens.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=843365572371483&set=vb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqp0-_jT-bk
Several men directed their words at Kwok, who did not say a thing.

0:03 (Man) Go away! Go away! Do not make trouble here! You don't know me? Go away, don't make trouble!
0:16 (Man) Are you working for Hong Kong citizens? If you are working for Hong Kong citizens, then it is inconvenient to get around town right now. Inconvenient for citizens.
0:18 (Man) Look what you have done! Look at this!
0:20 (Man) Shit stirrer!
0:24 (Man) Look at the results. Democracy? What democracy? It is inconvenient for us. Who is helping us? Who is helping us?
0:33 (Man) It is just right that you came here. I didn't have time to visit you in Admiralty.
0:34 (Man) You are crazy! You have nothing but grass inside your brain! Democracy? What democracy? Look what you got us into! We have nothing now. You are stupid!
0:43 (Man) What are you looking at? You don't know me? Hong Kong citizen. Chinese person.
0:50 (Man) Support you? Support you?
0:51 (Man) Support you! You eat shit!
0:57 (Man) Go back to Admiralty, go back to Mong Kok!
0:58 (Man) You came to Tsuen Wan so that I can scold you. It is good that you came here for us to scold you. The roads were blocked for several dozen days.
1:05 (Man) Eat shit!
1:11 (Man) No buses. What for? You caused such a bloody mess (actually, he said "Chicken feathers, duck blood").
1:20 (Man) I am fucking cursing you out. The Civic Party! What is so great about you!?
1:24 (Man) You conducted so many public opinion polls and you know that many people do not support Occupy Central.
1:39 (Man) Civic Party lawyers caused so many lawsuits.
1:32 (Man) You bastards!
1:25 (Man) You conducted all those public opinion polls. Did you ever publish any result? So many people are opposed to Occupy Central. They don't support you. Why won't you publish the results? You hid all that research.
1:47 (Man) Public opinion is not the most important thing. It is more important to have your photos taken. So what happens to us?
1:52 (Man) Go call the police. Dickface!!
1:57 (Man) You hid everything in the drawers. Which of you democrats now dare to show his/her face?
2:03 (Man) You have great education credentials, but you think like an elementary school chicken. You wasted so many lawsuits on us citizens.
2:15 (Man) When you want to, all of you twenty or so people show up together for a 9 o'clock press conference. When the students got their heads beaten into a pulp ... dozens of them ... bleeding ... why didn't you Civic Party people come out?
2:22 (Man) You pushed the students out to die. You fucking dick!
2:23 (Man) You pushed them out there. You should have come out.
2:27 (Man) But you went home and slept.
2:30 (Man) You come out and announce to the public ... to condemn ... Now even the citizens are cursing you out. You are besieged everywhere you go. You are scolded everywhere you go. The citizens are angry. I am telling you.
2:40 (Man) Pack up this station!
2:43 (Man) For more than sixty days, I've had to go to work. I didn't have time to look up you people and pay you back. You came here today just at the right time. You listen to the sounds of the citizens of Tsuen Wan. Does anyone wear black clothes anymore? Does anyone wear yellow ribbons anymore? Nobody does that.
2:58 (Man) Support China. I don't even dare to wear yellow clothes. Black clothes? Are you in mourning because your parents passed away? Black clothes. Your parents died? Black clothes.
3:14 (Man) Pack up this station!
3:18 (Man) You think that you always get the say. In the end, the citizens must be allow to have a living. We can't even live now.
3:21 (Man) Harmony is the greatest justice. This is not the justice that you are talking about. You have the troublemakers' justice.
3:26 (Man) We can't even live now. So why are we talking about pursuing some kind of ideal? You look at the Occupy Central trio. They are pursuing an ideal. All they've got is an ideal. They have been reading too many books and their brains are rotten. Divorced from reality. Occupy Central. Sit down and wait for the police to arrest them. Non-resistance. Even held rehearsals. So what happened to the Movement in the end? It deviated thoroughly. Because such is your idealism.

(InMediahK) December 13, 2013. By Kong Kwai-seng.

At the time of writing, the Occupy Admiralty area is being cleared. The two-month-long Umbrella Movement is coming to a close. But this does not mean the end of the Movement, because it will be transformed into a long-term fight ...

At this time, I frequently hear people talk about "reaching out to the communities." In the later stages of the Occupy Movement, the students and other political groups realized that public opinion was reversing and so they decided to reach out to the communities. Discussion teams, street booths, home visits and other things were tried. But these encountered an unprecedented blowback. I personally witnessed what happened to an "umbrella" street booth in which several students passed out flyers and promoted the Umbrella Movement concepts via megaphone. They were cursed out by more than 100 citizens. In the end, the students were forced to retreat. This was a horrible experience. I remembered the students saying that the Occupy areas are completely different worlds from the local communities, and that vast gap is very discouraging.

Here I am reminded of how the pan-democrats began the campaign to seize Legislative Council seats thirty years ago. Today, many people accused these pan-democrats of being "moderates" who are weak and indecisive. Thirty years ago, they bet their entire lives and careers to go into the communities to organize and educate the masses. They seized the Legco seats one at a time until they built up an democratic force that is still not replaceable. What explains their success? I think that apart from the post-June 4th anti-Communist sentiments, their attitudes and techniques were crucial.

As organizers who want the people to agree with our ideas, what should we do? The currently popular method is to set up a street booth and use the megaphone to expound your ideas so that people will listen carefully, agree with and join you in action. You also pass out flyers to describe your ideas.  Based upon experience, this will only appeal to those who already agree with you. Those who believe will believe, and those who don't believe won't believe. For those who don't pay attention to current affairs, they will neither hear nor listen. The two worlds have no contact point.

Reaching out to the communities is not just giving a speech or holding a debate. We need to realize that the movement needs to have fellow travelers. We need to have the understanding, support and participation of the masses. That is why we reach out to the local communities, and establish a relationship and mutual trust with the masses, so that they can gradually understand our ideas and join us. The most basic requirement is that we sincerely live together with the masses, actually solve their various problems and organize them to solve collective problems. This allows them to see how we work hard on their behalf. And hence, they will agree with our democratic ideas. We can call this process "community work", "organization" or "infiltration."

Over the past 30 years, the pan-democrats have been quietly doing this. But community work is a lot more difficult than short-term fights. First of all, we have to invest our youth and career, and take a bet that may go on for decades with no return. We have to face the pro-establishment camp with their organizations, connections and infinite resources. We need to be convincing and we cannot retreat. We cannot treat the masses as inferior beings. We need to learn from them.

At this time, plenty of people in the Occupy Movement accused others of being "Hong Kong pigs" who have not waken up yet. They accuse people of being asleep, they want to educate people, they despise people who run around trying to make a living for being so selfish. They never go out and understand what the masses really have to put up with. When they go out to the communities with these kinds of attitudes, they are clearly running against their goals, and their ideals get farther and farther away from reach.

As the common saying goes, our greatest enemy is ourselves. I hope that we can adjust and restart.

(Oriental Daily)

On December 3, a Facebook user posted a call on behalf of the "Leadership Party". There was a plan to incite supporters to gather at the Mong Kok Chao Luen minibus stop, the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street and the Legislative Council on December 24-26 at 6pm. The participants are reminded to wear heavy armor and bring other supporting materials.

The group is organized into 6 teams of 60 persons each. The teams are:

- The brick team, which is equipped with bricks, metal bars and hammers
- The fire extinguisher team, which is equipped with portable fire extinguishers to use against the riot police
- The bomb squad, which is responsible for setting fire to police vehicles as well as fire walls to isolate the riot police
- The shield team, which is equipped with iron/steel/wooden long shields to stand in front to hold off the police charge
- The long rod team, which is equipped with long bamboo poles and will stand behind the shield team
- The "Shopping Revolution" team, which is the reserve.

This post was circulated via mobile phone and computer. On December 4, the police arrested a 31-year-old man named Koo at his home in Cheung Kwun O on suspicion of "accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent." The police removed a computer and a mobile phone for further investigation. The individual admitted to having written and disseminated the said Facebook post.

According to the police, the suspect came from a well-off family. He attended a boarding school in England, and returned to Hong Kong to attend the University of Science and Technology. Six years ago, he was arrested for theft and drug possession. Four years ago, he started a home decoration company in Kwun Tong. He has no political party affiliation, and he is active on Facebook, especially at the Occupy Central groups.

(Apple Daily)

The police made the arrest on Thursday but waited until yesterday noon before issuing the press release. Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao had already reported on the case one day earlier.

Tertiary institution student Mr. Yip said in Mong Kong during his second attendance of the Shopping Revolution that the police arrest of this Internet user was clearly intended to manufacture White Terror. "They don't want us Shopping Revolutionists to come out. They are stupid. We come out to shop, and how can that be illegal? They can try to arrest all of us!" Mr. Yip said that he will continue to "window shop" until the government responds to the demand of the Hong Kong people for genuine universal suffrage.

Three middle-school students Cheng, Wong and Lam came together to "window shop" in Mong Kok on Saturday. They thought that the police arrested the Internet user in order intimidate the "window shopping" teams. They are prepared to be arrested and they won't give up as a result.

(Ming Pao)

The Internet user named Koo said that he was only forwarding some information about a Christmas cosplay party. He said that there was nothing inflammatory therein and the police are being over-sensitive.

Previous link: Internet Crackdown In Hong Kong - Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7IiXgz1ors

0:00 (subtitle) After the Umbrella Revolution began, people began to debate whether the umbrella is a weapon (this question even merits a debate).
0:05 (subtitle) Legislative Councilor Leung Che-cheung stated at the Legislative Council that the umbrella is a weapon. He was made fun of by various people. Let us look at what the "Poisoned Fruit" newspaper has to say.
0:10 (Apple Daily) Can you guess the answer to the question on the big television screen?
0:12 Leung: "During the early days of the Republic of China, the umbrella was an offensive weapon. If you have watched the Wong Fei-hung series, you know that Wong Fei-hung used an umbrella to fight with the bad guys ... fight with our so-called Bad Guy Kin (note: a character played by a famous bad-guy actor Shek Kin)." Is the answer: Umbrella? Wrong! If these umbrellas are used as weapons, they can injure people. So this basic knowledge ... or can we say that our colleagues have absolutely none of this historical knowledge?" Is the answer: Sophistry? Right!
1:00 (subtitle) So the "Poisoned Fruit" newspaper says Leung is using sophistry.
1:01 (Apple Daily) Quite a few Internet users question these film segments. How can you take them for real? Movies are fictional. But what about reality? A fourth-generation pupil of Wong Fei-hung, Peng Chi-ming, was interviewed by phone: "There is such a set of kung fu skills. It is called the 'Hung Fists Dragon and Tiger Umbrella.' Many of the objects in our daily lives can be developed as a weapon. So we have 'bridge chairs,' 'pipes,' 'fans,'  even ropes." Wow! This is so awesome! Legislative Councilor Leung was not totally wrong.

1:34 (subtitle) Let us look at how Legislative Councilor Raymond Wong Yuk-man made fun of Leung Che-cheung.
1:37 Wong: I marked it all down today. I teach him one at a time. For example, Leung Che-cheung said that Wong Fei-hung had an umbrella. Your mother ... (laughter) So I would ask ... fuck your mother! ... did you know that Tso Tat-wah used the Buddha's Palm technique? This was in the Legco meeting records.

1:59 Video segment from the movie "Silent Night Deadly Night 2"

2:51 Video segment from a Japanese anime video

4:09 (subtitle) How do kids learn to use the umbrella as a weapon?
4:10 Q: "Do you think that the umbrella is a weapon?" A: "Of course it is. Have you watched Whack Your Boss?" Q: "What is that?" A: "You kill your boss. It is a game with twenty-four ways to kill your boss." Q: "What has that got to do with the umbrella?" A: "One of the ways is to use an umbrella to kill your boss. Don't you know?" Q: "Really? Is there such a thing now?" A: "Of course there is ... you are so deficient in knowledge."
4:37 Video segment from Whack Your Boss.
4:52 (subtitle) There is even a Whack Your Teacher that the child may not know about (or maybe he is just pretending not to know)
4:56 Video segment from Whack Your Teacher.
5:06 (subtitle) You can even watch Whack Your Ex on YouTube.

5:13 (subtitle) How do you kill someone with an umbrella in real life? Here are some news stories:
5:16 (subtitle) On September 7, 1978, a dissident Bulgarian reporter named Georgi Markov was waiting for the bus when someone used a modified umbrella to stab his leg and inject the poison ricin. He died four days later.
5:19 (subtitle) On July 13, 2004, two young persons quarreled at the tram station. The 14-year-old stabbed the 12-year-old in the head, causing a 9.5cm gash. The 12-year-old died later.
5:23 (subtitle) Brian Hann was a mathematics professor at the University of Cape Town. He quarreled with his student Maleafisha Steve Tladi and the latter beat him unconscious with an umbrella. Hann was taken to the hospital where he died several days later. This happed on May 2, 2014.
5:27 (subtitle) On November 15, 2011, 51-year-old Pudkov killed a man with a umbrella for refusing to give him a cigarette. The medical examiner said that the victim was hit hard at least three times in the head, and then stabbed in the chest.
5:30(subtitle) On December 13, 2012, 9-year-old Karissa McDonald was killed when she was hit in the head by a parasol blown down by a strong gale.
5:35 (subtitle) 54-year-old taxi driver Orji-Ama Uro argued with a couple of passengers. The male passenger used an umbrella to stab Uro through the right eye up into his brain. Uro died. The couple fled.
5:38 (subtitle) On December 12, 2009, 31-year-old Lordtyshon Garret use an umbrella to severely injured the 4-year-old cat belonging to his maternal grandmother. The cat eventually died, and Garret was arrested by the police who found cat furs and blood on the umbrella.

5:49 Video segment to advertise an unbreakable umbrella as an ideal self-defense weapon.
7:37 Video segment demonstrating how to use an umbrella for self-defense, but it is clearly more offensive in nature (as in the adage "The best defense is a good offense")

8:21 (Raymond Wong) He does not know that our umbrellas are used to shield against pepper spray. Why are there so many umbrellas? The pepper spray is not the one that can be kept in a pocket. The kind that we were sprayed with in the past. I have been sprayed several times before. It was the kind that looked like Indian Sacred Ointment. A small sprayer. Fuck you! Now they use a big tool. They spray you. So we use umbrellas to shield. On September 27, we set up a station at Admiralty Centre. We bought many umbrellas. That was how umbrellas came. Why is this called The Umbrella Revolution?  That is why. There was a formation of umbrellas. The umbrella is not a weapon. It is used to shield against the pepper spray. Right or not? It does not matter what you fucking wear? They are spraying you with a large tool. So you use the umbrella as shield. Fuck you! Leung Che-cheung talks about Wong Fei-hung and "The umbrella is a weapon." Jackie Chan used a towel to kill a lot of people too.

9:24 (subtitle) Let us see whether the Occupy Central gang used umbrellas to shield the pepper spay or to stab the police. (News clip of umbrella-waving demonstrators charging the police line)

10:32 (Animated film) I am the Umbrella Revolution warrior. My mission is to eradicate all dissidents and achieve genuine universal suffrage. All those who stand in my way must die! The ultimate target: 689 (= Chief Executive CY Leung). Other targets: pro-government party members; Blue Ribbons and groups with the word Love in their names. All those Communist bandits, Communist dogs and leftist retards. Even spontaneously anti-Occupy Central citizens will not be spared. You are not allowed to oppose, because you will be eradicated. No one can object to what I do, because I am carrying out civil disobedience.

11:42 Just when you think you are so awesome, the ill effects of brainwashing begin to show up.

11:43 The time is up, and you will get your just rewards. A brain that keeps looking at the Poisoned Fruit on the computer marshal. Our warrior is falling into a stupor from Occupying. He is going to expire soon. "It appears that if you give him another fifty cents, he will recover." "How much longer can he still be put on display?" "Not much longer." "I must become Chief Executive, and then I can sell Hong Kong out. So the action must be speeded up. I have another mission for him. He will charge up to Beijing." "And then?" "Why ask? Of course, we are going to disavow him immediately and let him live or die as he can."

(Oriental Daily) September 13, 2015.

At 2am this morning, two young men were playing electronic games at a gaming centre in Kingswood Richly Plaza, Tin Shui Wai. They entered into a competition against six men and won. There was a quarrel. The two young men were assaulted by men wielding umbrellas. Both were injured in the head.

- Singapore woman assaults Malays with umbrella: https://www.facebook.com/news.ebc/videos/1089468991088191/

- Martial arts moves by a guy wielding two umbrellas:
https://www.facebook.com/JYW.kikyuS/videos/1648782275433867/

(SCMP) Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong gives up on hunger strike after five days. December 6, 2014.

Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong stopped his hunger strike at noon today over health concerns, but may return and consider resuming the fast to press for universal suffrage. Wong had not eaten food, subsisting on water and energy drinks, for 110 hours. He had joined several other student leaders on hunger strike on December 2. "After more urging from medical staff and seeing [Wong] being extremely weak to the point of breaking, he has ceased his fast," said Derek Lam Shun-hin at a Scholarism press conference held at 3.30pm.

The other remaining three strikers are continuing the action but are physically weak, Lam said.

...

Days into the strike, Wong's sugar levels had dropped to 2.7, requiring him to be given a spoonful of glucose. His last sugar level record was 4.1 taken this morning, according to doctor Chan Shuk-ying, who is part of the team marshaling the hunger strikers' health. His heartbeat had also been dangerously fast, with the highest recorded at 108 - the normal level being not more than 100, said Chan.

...

Meanwhile, a fourth, Isabella Lo Yin-wai, among the first group who started the hunger strike on Monday night, quit on Friday on doctors orders. Dr Wong Yam-hong, spokesperson of the medical team for Occupy, said he had been most worried by Lo's condition. He said Los heartbeat had been quite fast and she had low fever on Thursday night. If she goes on, it is possible that her body would experience permanent damage. We strongly ordered her to resume eating gradually later tonight. Lo said she felt ashamed for the decision to cease fasting. She said she was born with a condition that caused irregular heartbeats. But I will not give up striking for democracy. I will still come back to fight with everyone," she said.

...

Of the remaining three hunger strikers, Prince Wong has been fasting for over 113 hours, while Gloria Cheng Yik-lam and Eddie Ng Man-hin have been fasting for over 75 hours. All of them have only been drinking water.

(Oriental Daily) December 6, 2014.

The third Scholarism hunger striker Prince Wong has abandoned her hunger strike after 118 hours.

(Wen Wei Po) December 7, 2014.

After "surreptitiously taking" glucose and getting caught, Joshua Wong quietly stopped his fasting yesterday morning to "go home and take a short rest." Open University president Wong Yuk-shan asked a university worker to personally bring a letter to Joshua Wong at Admiralty to ask him to take care of himself. It was then discovered that Joshua Wong had already left. Only afterwards did Joshua Wong admit on social media that he had stopped fasting. He said that he felt "extremely uncomfortable" including dizziness, weakness in the limbs and constantly low sugar level. He stopped fasting at the "strong insistence" of the doctor. He said that he did not immediately announce his decision because he wanted to make sure that he wouldn't be disturbed while leaving.

(Oriental Daily) The constant liar is trying to fool the world with his hunger strike. By Lo Wing-lok, columnist, politician and medical doctor. December 6, 2014.

I have been asked many times to attend to hunger strikers, and I always tell them up front: "Hunger strike means not drinking, not eating, not injecting any nutrient that provides energy to the body. Therefore, if you drink glucose, you are not on a hunger strike."

A hunger strike is going to do harm to the body, starting with the brain. The brain depends on glucose as the source of energy. When your sugar level is too low, you lapse into unconsciousness, your brain may suffer permanent damage and you may even die. The human body can convert body fat into glucose, so your brain can still function normally without taking in sugar or even eating. But this cannot go on forever. Once past the limit, body acid levels soar and you die. Body proteins can also be converted into glucose, but burning up protein is destroying your body organs at the same time. Once past the limit, death awaits.

How long can you go on a hunger strike? In 1981, the Irish Republican Army prisoners went on hunger strike against the British government. Ten people died, with the time of death ranging from 47 to 72 days. They were ready to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to put pressure the British government. Having the above knowledge, hunger strikers do not need medical support in order to fight a sustained battle. But when they summon medical help to examine and check sugar levels whenever they feel uncomfortable, they clearly value their own bodies too much! But how can they apply pressure on the other side when they value their own bodies so much?

Scholarism convener Joshua Wong claimed that his sugar level fell below 2.7 after more than 60 hours of fasting. Therefore, he received emergency aid in the form of glucose. Compared to the IRA hunger strikes, what is a few dozen hours? Nobody is demanding that Wong make the ultimate sacrifice, but he can't even hold on a bit longer to increase the pressure of a hunger strike on the government. At most, Wong's show consists of not eating for more than 60 hours while under medical supervision. Even more shamelessly, he claimed that he was fasting after he took the glucose while promising that he would reveal openly the next time that he took glucose.

Joshua Wong should openly acknowledge that his hunger strike was over the moment that he took glucose and he should apologize for lying about it! But it is unknown whether citizens are still interested in hearing from this "constant liar."

(Oriental Daily) Lo Wing Lok. December 8, 2014.

... On Saturday morning, a media outlet incorrectly reported that Joshua Wong had fasted for more than 100 hours (the correct figure is 60 hours because he took glucose after 40+ hours). The media outlet also added more details in order to make the lie seem more real -- Joshua Wong had took an "electrolyte drink." Everyone knows that electrolyte drinks contain electrolytes such as potassium, calcium, magnesium etc as well as glucose. These drinks are used to replenish body fluids, electrolytes and energy after sporting. When a person who is fasting takes an electrolyte drink, it is the same as eating. The fasting is over ...

Internet user comments:

- Golly gee, I thought that the hunger strike was for an indefinite period of time.

- (in English) The fasting was so fast!

- 講就天下無敵,做就有心無力 ! When it comes to talking, he is undefeatable! When it comes to doing, he is useless in spite of his good intentions!

- An embarrassment for Hong Kong! An international joke! A farce from start to finish!

- The hunger strike was a huge success because Joshua Wong is on the front page of every Hong Kong newspaper. Pity the two other latecomers because nobody will remember them.

- December 6th is the last day of voting for the TIME magazine Person of the Year. So there is no point in fasting anymore, right?

- His mother wrote that poignant letter in Apple Daily for nothing.

- Come to think of it, how much are people willing to put in for Occupy Central? Most of them show up occasionally. They don't mind giving up other people's interests, but they think very hard before giving up any of their own interests.
- Chin Wan's Facebook:

  - Chin Wan: I support the indefinite hunger strike by Joshua Wong to his death. I hope that he keeps his word and Hong Kong will be free of his evilness. Until all the "lefttards" are dead, Hong Kong will continue to suffer through calamities.

  - The Federation of Students/Scholarism called for brave and strong warriors to charge at Government Headquarters against the brutal police. Afterwards, these moral leaders said that the warriors behaved rashly. Well, you don't even have the right to be shit-eating dogs! You must not be allowed to speak on the dais. We cannot allow these morally corrupt people to represent us in our fight. We don't even have a sliver of hope left for them. Whether Joshua Wong goes on a hunger strike or commits suicide will not matter to us. We will continue our resistance on our own. Our Hong Kong will come from our own fists.

  - What fucking hunger strike, you bastard! So many of us fucking suffered because of you. Go back to school! If you starve to death, many people will set off firecrackers in celebration! It is no fucking use to corral sympathy!

  - I don't think they will last more than 36 hours. How can a group of people who don't dare to charge at police lines fast to their deaths?

  - If fasting works, it would have been successful 25 years ago against the same regime.

- An iconic photo of young hunger strikers working hard on their indefinite hunger strike:

Famous saying: "When you have to eat congee because you are hungry, you are not just eating because it is counted as being on hunger strike too."

Here is YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TS_97n4g3k  taken by a bicyclist going down a street. You can fast forward to 1:50 or so. The bicyclist comes up to a green light and hits an old woman. The old woman is at fault for ignoring the traffic lights (a red light for pedestrians and a green light for vehicular traffic). The bicyclist does not stop at all, showing no interest in the condition of the old woman.

The bicyclist Stanley Lam went home and posted the video on his Facebook. He wrote: "You damned old woman. You fucking broke the rules to cross the road. You wanna fucking get me into big trouble?" To which a commentator named Pierre replied: "You damned bastard, be careful that one of these days your bicycle will be fucking slammed into the air by a car."

Stanley Lam replied to Pierre: "Your mother, what the fuck is this to you? I fuck your mother. Did I fucking ram some family member of yours to death? May your family be fucking shot to death by someone. Fucking dickhead!"

What has this incident got to do with Occupy Central? Nothing, really. Except for some photos posted by Stanley Lam, and an assortment of subsequent Internet comments, such as:

- May the bastard hit a truck next time!

- His cycling skills are terrible. There is only one person on the road and he failed to avoid hitting him. The person was walking from left to right, so all the bicyclist had to do was veer slightly to the left.

- What was the brake on the bicycle for?

- Failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident are both serious traffic violations. And he has the nerve to post the video onto the Internet as if there is a lack of evidence!

- Even if you get a green light, you should not charge over when there is a pedestrian. And then you curse the person out afterwards on Facebook. What kind of person is this?

- Let us make more forwards and comments until this item reaches the mainstream newspapers.

- Oh yes, Oriental Daily has it!

- He works for the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department of the Hong Kong Government. Let us file a complaint at his workplace.

- It is typical of Yellow Ribbon zombies to always think that they are right in whatever they do and be completely oblivious to the feelings and sufferings of others.

(New York Times) What Next for Hong Kong? Benny Tai on Why Occupy Central Should End. By Benny Tai Yiu-ting, December 4, 2014.

The peaceful protesters occupying the streets of Hong Kong for more than two months have been surprisingly persistent in their pursuit of genuine universal suffrage. It is welcome news that some student leaders are considering bringing the occupation to an end. They are exhausted and have been unwilling to go home without substantial concessions from the Hong Kong and Beijing governments.

Many protesters still think too little has been achieved. They see the lack of concessions from the Hong Kong government as a reason to continue pressing on. I disagree. The Umbrella Movement has awakened the democratic aspirations of a whole generation of Hong Kong people. In this sense, we have achieved much more than what we could have hoped for.

There are clear signs that the occupation is losing public support. In the latest poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong, close to 80 percent of the respondents did not support the continuation of the occupation. That does not mean that support for genuine universal suffrage is in decline but that more supporters are questioning the effectiveness of prolonging the occupation.

Its also clear that elements of the protest movement are starting to deviate from the original intention of nonviolent civil disobedience. The safety of protesters is now a concern.

The police have clamped down hard on protesters recently, and increasingly police officers on the front lines are out of control, letting their emotions take over. Police violence may provoke violence from protesters. For the sake of the occupiers safety, it is time for the protesters to leave their tent city. Occupation is now a high-risk, low-return business.

The Umbrella Generation must regroup and devise a new strategy for winning the support from those Hong Kongers who are still undecided about our democratic future. The occupation has won over as many Hong Kongers as it ever will, and we should consider new ways to convince the public that fighting for full democracy is in their interest. Only when the majority of Hong Kongers are on the side of the democracy movement will the people in power be willing to change the system to make it more just.

Blocking government may be even more powerful than blocking roads. Refusal to pay taxes, delaying rent payments by tenants in public housing estates and filibustering in the Legislative Council, along with other such acts of noncooperation, could make governing more inconvenient. No government can govern effectively if the majority of its people are unwilling to cooperate.

Democratic virtues need to be cultivated throughout the city. More forums on democracy should be organized on the neighborhood level. Through home visits, younger Hong Kongers can meet face-to-face with elderly people living in public housing estates and explain to them the significance of genuine universal suffrage.

Its also important for practitioners of civil disobedience to bear the legal consequences of breaking the law. This shows that they respect the system of law as a whole but want to expose the injustice of some of the laws.

Many young people have already been arrested for protesting. As the police have not taken any action to arrest the older leaders of Occupy Central with Love and Peace, which I co-founded, we turned ourselves in to the authorities earlier this week. We were not arrested, though the officials stated clearly that my case will be dealt with in strict accordance with the law.

Prosecution in open court would be another opportunity for us to explain to all Hong Kong people the goals and underlying reasons for the acts of civil disobedience we have committed.

But the most powerful weapon in winning democracy for Hong Kong is the people of the Umbrella Generation. Compared with the previous generations of Hong Kong democrats, the young people of today are more aggressive, flexible, creative and much tougher.

These young people grew up in a vastly different Hong Kong from that of their elders, who were raised with much less prosperity and security. For many older people, survival was a daily challenge. Having had that past, older generations prioritize economic security and social order, even though many have transcended the tougher times of their youth.

The younger generations, meanwhile, came of age when economic and physical security were no longer major concerns. Their values reflect this: They focus much more on self-expression, sustainability, fairness and justice.

The end of the occupation will not signal capitulation, especially not for young Hong Kongers, who have had a political awakening over the last several months. An undemocratic system and a lack of effective civic engagement by the government will not satisfy the demands of the Umbrella Generation. A more serious crisis will break out in the future if the source of the problem is not dealt with properly and adequately. And the next outbreak will be fiercer.

Even if the Hong Kong government can successfully force the end of the occupation, it will still have to face the demands of the Umbrella Generation in the years to come. Focusing only on how to clear the streets cannot resolve the deep-seated conflicts that led to the protests.

If we can make full use of the momentum gained in the Umbrella Movement to widen the support and deepen the commitment for true democracy, Hong Kongers will see genuine universal suffrage in a not too distant future.

Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, is the co-founder of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace movement.

Here are some reactions aggregated from the Internet news discussion forums and blogs (see, for example, Bastille Post; Bastille Post).

First of all, when Professor Tai talks, you should be wary.

Previously, Professor Tai co-founded Occupy Central with Love and Peace. On January 16, 2013, Professor Tai published an article in the Hong Kong Economic Journal in which he proposed an act of non-violent civil disobedience carried out in Central, the business and financial centre of Hong Kong, to put pressure on the government. In his imagined scenario, ten thousand people will show up, lay down on the streets and passively wait for the police to cart them away one by one. With sufficient numbers, it will take the police days to complete the clearance and years for the courts to prosecute and try everyone. On 28 September 2014 at 1:40am, Professor Tai announced the official start of the "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" civil disobedience campaign with the occupation of Government Headquarters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxjJuic3iyg).

Reality did not match Professor Tai's vision. He called for Occupy Central. The students went and occupied Admiralty instead. Then other persons occupied Causeway Bay, Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui. The latter are not business and financial districts. Instead, they are mixed commercial and residential neighborhoods that are also traffic hubs. The resulting Occupation caused traffic jams everywhere and inconvenienced the majority of the population. The surrounding businesses (and their workers) suffered economic losses, and local residents were greatly vexed (how do you sleep when hundreds of people are chanting slogans outside your window?). If at first the population was sympathetic towards the students and their causes, public opinion turned after months of occupation. As Professor Tai pointed out, "In the latest poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong, close to 80 percent of the respondents did not support the continuation of the occupation."

Therefore, Professor Tai's Occupation Central with Love and Peace was a scholar's idealistic theory which went awry when reality stepped in.

On the issue of violence, Professor Tai wrote in the New York Times: "Its also clear that elements of the protest movement are starting to deviate from the original intention of nonviolent civil disobedience. The safety of protesters is now a concern. The police have clamped down hard on protesters recently, and increasingly police officers on the front lines are out of control, letting their emotions take over. Police violence may provoke violence from protesters. For the sake of the occupiers safety, it is time for the protesters to leave their tent city. Occupation is now a high-risk, low-return business." From day one, Professor Tai chose not to see the actual violence. On September 28, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfUTqQmF_vU. On December 1, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkArnelAKSU.

On the ending of Occupy Central with Love and Peace, Professor Tai predicted a new world record of 10,000 persons turning themselves in to the police simultaneously. On the designated day, 68 people did so.

The Umbrella Movement did not unfold according to Professor Tai's rosy script.

So when Professor Tai proposes more ideas, we should be wary. Will they hold up to the reality test? Let us look at some of his proposals in the New York Times.

  • Blocking the government by refusing to pay taxes. This seems to imply tax evasion. Actually, there is another proposal in which taxes are partially withheld. For example, Inland Revenue sends you a tax bill of $50,000 and you send in a check for $49,999. That will make Inland Revenue go through the paperwork to chase you for the shortfall of $1. Or you can pay your tax bill in increments of $68.9 per day until you reach the full amount. Professor Tai thinks that if enough people do this, the Inland Revenue will be overwhelmed by the increased workload. Besides, the interest penalty would be tiny (5% on $1 is just $0.05).

Of course, Professor Tai is assuming that the hundreds of thousands of non-payments will overwhelm Inland Revenue. But what if only several hundred people responded to this call? Inland Revenue will take all of them to court, possibly for the more serious crime of acting together to obstruct government functions. All of those involved may end up with criminal records.

In reality, some people will choose to believe that tax evasion is an act of civil disobedience and pay no taxes.

Suppose you are a middle-class family which earns $40,000 per month (=$480,000 per annum). Your first $180,000 is tax-free. You pay 15% on the remaining $300,000, for a tax bill of $45,000. At $68.9 per check, you have to write 654 checks! Who is suffering more (in personal time spent as well as possible costs)? You or the civil servant who has to process those checks?

Let us say that you go ahead anyway.

If you work for a company, you may suddenly find your monthly salary reduced. You check with the company payroll manager and you are told that the government is directly deducting your back taxes plus penalties from your paycheck. You switch jobs but the same thing happens there too.

One day, maybe five or ten years from now, you are going through immigration control and the red light comes on. You are invited into the backroom and you are informed that there is an arrest warrant for back taxes plus penalty to the amount of $310,743.23 (or something). You should not expect Professor Tai to defend you because everybody is supposed to know that civil disobedience does not constitute a defense for tax evasion.

In another scenario, you apply for a mortgage and the bank loan officer tells you that the government has a lien against you for unpaid taxes. You explain all that about civil disobedience. Because you may have the ability to pay but not the willingness to pay, you are classified as a high-risk applicant. The bank may reject your loan application altogether or it may grant you a loan at a much higher interest rate. Or maybe you already own an apartment. You decide to sell it and immigrate to Canada. You find that you cannot sell the apartment because the government has a lien against your property for unpaid land taxes.

Professor Tai will say that your action has deviated from his original intentions, just like he only intended to have a one-day loving and peaceful sit-in in Central and not a two-month-plus violence-ridden takeover of Mong Kok.

Worse yet, you even go down to Inland Revenue to demonstrate, clash with the security guards and get arrested. In that case, Professor Tai will deny that you are a member of his non-violent civil movement and his volunteer lawyers won't offer you legal aid.

  • Blocking the government rent payments by tenants in public housing estates. This seems to imply rent evasion altogether. Actually, there is another proposal in which rent payment is partially withheld. For example, you withhold $1 from your monthly rent payment of $1,200. This will make the Housing Authority go through the paperwork to chase you for the short fall of $1. In reality, some people will choose to believe that rent evasion is an act of civil disobedience and pay nothing. Then one day, maybe several years from now, you will get an eviction notice. You go to court and explain about civil disobedience. The magistrate will have no sympathy. After all, he has no way to distinguish between genuine civil right activists and scofflaws who use that excuse. Your rental agreement clearly states the consequences of not making rent payments. Professor Tai will say that he told you to carefully consider the consequences before you take action, and "its also important for practitioners of civil disobedience to bear the legal consequences of breaking the law. This shows that they respect the system of law as a whole but want to expose the injustice of some of the laws."
     

  • Blocking the government by filibustering in the Legislative Council. There are a number of techniques. One way is for pan-democrat Legislative Councilors to attach thousands of amendments to proposed legislation and require all of them to be read and voted upon. This will tag many more days onto the schedule. Another way is to constantly motion for roll calls. When quorum is not made, the session is adjourned. Then there is outright vetoing of proposed legislation, such as the political reform package based upon the August 31 decision of the National People's Congress. Filibustering is a double-edged sword. When the Legislative Council becomes paralyzed, nothing gets done and cost overruns accumulate from the delays, who will the voters blame in the 2015 District Council elections and the 2016 Legislative Council elections? Is it the government? Or the filibustering pan-democrats? This is by no means certain. There is a proposal for some (or all) pan-democrat legislators to resign and trigger a by-election that will be considered a de facto referendum. The pan-democrat legislators are reluctant. What if they lose and give the pro-government side a super-majority to ram through all sorts of legislation (including the political reform of the Chief Executive election and the much dreaded Article 23 on national security)?
     

  • Professor Tai wrote: "Democratic virtues need to be cultivated  throughout the city. More forums on democracy should be organized on the neighborhood level." Here is what happened to previous attempts:
    - Scholarism Reaches Out To Local Communities (2014/11/16) On November 17, Scholarism set up stations at five locations across the city to share their views on universal suffrage.
    - Reaching Out To The Local Communities - Part 3 On November 24, Occupy volunteers, students and pan-democrat lawmakers will be stationed at 21 locations across the city to share their views on universal suffrage.
    - Reaching Out To The Local Communities - Part 1 A collection of YouTube videos. In each case, a small number of Occupy Movement activists try to set up a beach head in a densely populated residential district. Immediately and spontaneously, they are surrounded by a large crowd. The situation gets heated and the activists have to summon the police to help them leave in a hurry.
     
    If Professor Tai hands out leaflets outside an MTR station in New Territories, he will have to call the police to help him leave safely. If he holds an open town hall meeting, it will be a wild egg-tossing, shoe-throwing affair. If he holds a forum with pre-screened supporters, it will be pointless. That applies to him as well as anyone else associated with the Occupy/Umbrella Movement/Revolution right now. They know it, and that's why they don't try it. If this is not true, they would be doing it everywhere to show how popular they are.
     

  • Professor Tai wrote, "Through home visits, younger Hong Kongers can meet face-to-face with elderly people living in public housing estates and explain to them the significance of genuine universal suffrage." The reason why Professor Tai emphasized "elderly" is that the University of Hong Kong showed that while about 80% of the population wants the Occupy Movement/Umbrella Movement to cease, that percentage is near 100% among the elderly. Scholarism convener Joshua Wong does not help by essentially saying that the future belongs to the young people of today who will be in charge in 30 years' time while the elderly people today will be mostly dead by then.
    Here is what happened on some previous attempts:
    - Knocking On Doors (2014/11/24)
    - Reaching Out To Local Communities - Part 2 (2014/11/14)

If Professor Tai wants to visit some elderly persons in public housing estates, he is going to find himself talking at cross purposes with them. He says that he wants to talk to them about "the importance of genuine universal suffrage." They want to complain to him about the bus route cancellation due to Occupy Central which forces them to walk a long way to make that hospital appointment.

What is one to do with a legal scholar who keeps teaching people to do illegal things that he hasn't carefully thought through?

Addendum: (SCMP) December 14, 2014.

Students and civil groups are launching a non-cooperation movement urging people to delay paying their rent and to pay their tax bills in trickles as an offshoot of the Occupy pro-democracy protests.

Alex Chow Yong-kang, secretary general of the Federation of Students, said in a press conference this morning that the actions were entirely legal and hoped to draw the participation of busy workers who were unable to join the months-long protests.

Under the non-cooperation plan, Hongkongers are urged to express their displeasure at the government and the current political system by splitting their tax payments into small sums and for tenants to delay paying their rent till the last possible moment.

Franklen Choi Kin-shing, a community college lecturer in social science, suggests people split their payments into cheques worth HK$689 or HK$6.89 a mocking reference to the number of people in an election committee that elected the current chief executive, Leung Chun-ying. The unrepresentative government has no right to collect taxes from the people, Choi said, but people should pay using tricks rather than default on the bill altogether. This would bring pressure on civil servants, but all sorts of non-cooperation movements inevitably do that, he said, adding the idea had been circulated among Occupy protesters in the past month.

Speaking about the new action following the protests close, Choi said protesting through the tax bill has been historically employed in the United States and Britain to protest war or fight for womens right to vote. There are 1.74 million tax-paying individuals and 2.3 million residents of public housing in Hong Kong. High housing costs and the inability of the younger generation to get on the property ladder has been widely said to be one of the issues that drove people to the streets during the Occupy protests.

An alliance of public housing tenants said some residents had in the past deferred their payments to protest the governments refusal to cut the rent in an economic downturn. It said it would promote the idea among residents in as many as possible of the 180 housing estates, hoping that the first attempt would start on December.

This is most bizarre. There are many different strands of anarchism (see Wikipedia). "Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful." "Anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system." So how can these purported anarchists profess the desire to support the fight for a genuine universal suffrage to elect a Chief Executive and a Legislative Council? That's a self-contradiction and an existential crisis.

The interesting thing is that the demonstrators found a pile of bricks. That would be hard to move one by one. Then they found a handcart on wheels that contained a number of bricks. Should they move this cache to the front line to throw at the police? Previously, the standard stance of demonstrators is to raise their hands to show non-aggressiveness. On this night, someone threw plastic water bottles and soda cans, which may cause some bruises and cuts. However, throwing those bricks may be lethal. And some of the hundreds of press reporters will see or record the action. This may provide an excuse for the police to escalate their use of force. So this video is about a discussion between the moderate and radical wings of the Umbrella Movement.

At 0:20, the young bespectacled man in a black t-shirt is recognized as Eason Chung, a leader of the Federation of Students. Chung was one of the three students who attempted to travel to Beijing to meet with senior government officials.

0:45 Chung: It is very dangerous. Actually, if you have this cart, it should be enough.
0:49 Masked man: I want to know if you have been beaten up?
0:53 Chung: This is dangerous.
0:54 Masked man: I ask you, Have you beaten up before?
0:57 Chung: I know. If you move this out, it won't do much good for defense. But if you move this out, it will be very simple ... the police are going to charge in and beat people up.
1:03 Masked man: You think so? It makes no difference.
1:11 Masked man: Are you concerned that the police will clear the site even quicker if these things show up.
1:13 Masked man: It makes no difference.
1:18 (The masked men tried to push the cart forward, but Chung blocked their way) (cross talk simultaneously)
1:38 Masked man: Then we might as well as do nothing.
1:42 Chung: We can use other things.
1:48 Masked man: Can we use smaller bricks?
1:49 Masked man: They are all large bricks.
1:50 Masked man: You say that it is dangerous to throw large bricks.
2:05 Masked man: If we wanted to throw bricks, we would have already thrown them when the police bashed us earlier.
...
3:27 Masked man: Tell me who the two of you are, first.
3:28 Chung: We are from the Federation of Students.
3:29 Masked man: The Federation of Students. You are the ones who told us to escalate. 3:35 Chung: We want to surround, not assault.
3:36 Masked man: So we are surrounding. Fuck you!
3:39 Chung: There is no need to use such ...
3:45 Masked man: How are we supposed to surround ...?
3:46 Student: We have already occupied. We are trying to defend it. Do you know? Do you know? We are at Tim Wa Road. Do you know? Answer me.
4:00 Chung: I ask one question. I ask one question. How can we defend with these things up at the frontline? This is going to be used as an excuse by the police.
4:11 Masked man: Anything can be used as an excuse.
4:14 Chung: The problem is that nothing else is going to be like this.
4:17 Masked man: You are fucking getting in our way.
4:21 Masked man: This is an assault weapon.
4:25 Masked man: Everybody is angry. Do not make it as if the whole world is your enemy.
(cross talk)
4:46 Masked man: Let's talk about democracy. Will all those in favor of moving this out raise your hand!
4:47 Masked man: Raising hands is not necessarily democracy. Democracy is everybody joining in discussion.
4:55 Masked man: You must respect everybody's opinion and that is democracy.
4:58 Masked man: You must not say that a vote makes it democracy.
5:00 Masked man: Who says that this isn't democracy?
5:01 Masked man: It does not have to be be. Everybody should discuss. We have to listen to the dissident views.
5:06 Masked man: And then what?
5:07 Masked man: If everybody ... if ten persons vote on whether to rape someone and nine of them say yes, then should the tenth be raped? There has to be discussion within democracy.
5:22 We are going to move ...
5:23 Masked man: Let us go and move metal barricades.
5:24 Masked man: You find me some metal barricades. You go and move some metal barricades here. Go and move them!
5:25 Masked man: Let's go. Let's go.
5:30 Masked man: Fuck you, you said to move metal barricades. I'll help you move them.
(the demonstrators move the cart back)
5:55 Masked man: Again and again. Fucking beaten by them.
6:04 Chung: There is no need to quarrel over a little materiel. We are all striving for the same goal. Alright? Let us not quarrel. Alright?
6:12 Masked man: It is very hard to defend against the police.
6:12 Chung: We are going to surround them until ...
6:18 Masked man: You raise your hands up in the arm and then you kick them beneath.
6:30 Masked man: If you throw a brick, it is the problem of the motion. Not any problem with the danger. There are a lot of bricks out there. You go and seal those bricks again.
6:38 Chung: There are bricks up front?
6:39 Masked man: There are a lot of bricks ahead. I am telling the truth. I am not lying to you. I am not lying to you. I can prove it to you.
6:42 Chung: So let us leave these here. We don't have to move them. Let us go and look for metal barricades. If there aren't any, we will take them then. Alright?
6:53 Masked man: It is no help for us to keep quarreling.
6:55 Chung: Let us go and find metal barricades. If there aren't any, then we come back. Alright?
6:58 Masked man: The Federation of Students has an aura.
7:04 Chung: Let us move on. Do not quarrel about this anymore. Alright?

The two highlights are (1) the discussion of democracy by these "pro-democracy" activists beginning around 4:46; (2) the live demonstration of the proper unarmed technique to attack the police at around 6:18.

- (House News http://thehousenewsbloggers.net/2014/12/01/麻鷹捉雞仔/richard-scotford/ )

Last night, I spent a fair amount of time discussing with protesters who had found a huge stash of bricks right next to Lung Wo Rd, the heart of the battle. After being routed once by the police, people were angry and wanted to use the bricks against the PTU. Everyone knew they would come again, no one was surprised and some protestors wanted to hit back at the PTU when they came cockily charging. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and we managed to convince them that bricks would not help the cause. So the bricks remained untouched!

The point is, which Ive said all along is it is beyond preposterous to say that the reason there have been no major injuries so far is because of the restraint of the police. This is both ignorant and naive to believe or say. The reason why there has been no extreme violence is because of the restraint and good sense of an ad-hoc group of protestors who constantly squabble and bicker over method but all share the same high goal.

There is no rational or logical connection between no negotiation and therefore straight to violence. People try to sell us this idea, and often we accept it blindly as though this is a normal state for citizens to be in with their government and police. But its not rational. Just like in our homes, if a person is being defiant, were not justified in going Route One to physical violence. The same is true for politics, or I cant negotiate with these people therefore I will just brutalise them.

So in this light, how can we see last nights event? Certainly the police got routed twice to start and then the police routed the protesters twice. So was it a draw? Maybe the police won? Their rout took minutes whereas the protesters push took hours.

The fact is, this is a true Civil Disobedience Movement and in such a fight, the protestors need to show the inhumanity and unreasonableness of the Government. And the best way to do this is to prove that the Gov will choose violence over discussion and negotiation and will brook no dissent and instead violently clamp down on it.

After 64 days, the HKFS call to action proved that the government will not and can not compromise. Maybe you already knew that and think people didnt need to push it so far to show this. But again this is naive. Theres a significant difference between personally believing and proving. Whatever your thoughts on the Occupy Movement, your opinions on the HK Gov and Police are changed forever and will never return back to what they once were. As for the young people of Hong Kong, The police and Gov have lost an entire generation. they will not forget what they saw. This is the success of the Occupy Movement. This was the victory from last night.

Everyones future in HK is at stake here. The Government has proved itself to be unashamedly malign to a significant proportion of the population and the HK Police have proven beyond doubt that they will happily run any of the governments detractors off the street time and time again. The Police Force and Gov are stripped of any shame. They may well win by shear brute force , but they will never be able to get peoples trust. That has gone forever.

We ask that the United Nations Human Rights Council launch a formal and unbiased enquiry on the Hong Kong SAR Police Force and Hong Kong SAR Government over the abovementioned actions that have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as to investigate the Peoples Republic of China for the violation of Hongkongers right to take part in their government by denying their right to democratic elections for Hong Kongs legislature and government. We also ask that the United Nations to ban the use of chemical weapons, including teargas, which are banned in war, against civilians and protesters.

At the Internet discussion forums, some commentators noted the irony behind the whole campaign. Indeed, it would be very amusing if the United Nations Human Rights Council investigated and found against the Hong Kong government.

First of all, the so-called "international standard" of "genuine universal suffrage" of "civil nomination of Chief Executive candidates" does not exist in four of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (United States of America, United Kingdom, France and China). Only Russia has it. To say that it was wrong for Hong Kong not to have it means that it was wrong for the USA, UK, France and China not to have it.

Secondly, the Hong Kong police handled the "clashes" (called "riots" in most other places in the world) in much more gentler fashion than elsewhere:

(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7joK9QumOU for a comparison, American action up to 0:45, Hong Kong action after 0:45;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6VmmKrFkaY Occupy DC clearance in 2012;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTLRL4vSHa4 Occupy Riverside clearance in 2011;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg Occupy Oakland clearance in 2011;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO-lJr2BQY Occupy Oakland clearance in 2011)

Do you want the Hong Kong police to adhere to "international standards"?

Q1. What is likelihood of having universal suffrage in the Chief Executive election in 2017?
29.2%: Very pessimistic
32.8%: Somewhat pessimistic
25.6%: Half-half
9.2%: Somewhat optimistic
2.1%: Very optimistic
1.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. Do you agree with the statement "The Central Government takes Hong Kong seriously"?
42.6%: Tend to disagree
25.6%: Half-half
31.8%: Tend to agree

Q3. Do you think it is effective to use the economic development of Hong Kong as the chips to bargain with the Central Government to open up the democratic system?
45.1%: Tend to be ineffective
22.6%: Half-half
28.7%: Tend to be effective
1.5%: Hard to say/don't know
2.1%: Refused to answer

Q4. If the Federation of Students/Scholarism are forced to leave the Occupy Admiralty area, would you also leave?
10.8%: Yes
75.9%: No
11.8%: Don't know/hard to say
1.5%: Refused to answer

Q5. If the Federation of Students/Scholarism leave the Occupy Admiralty area on their own after due consideration and encourage other citizens to do likewise, would you also leave?
33.3%: Yes
35.4%: No
29.7%: Don't know/hard to say
1.5%: Refused to answer

Q6. If the Occupy movement were to end without achieving "genuine universal suffrage", what would you recommend to do in order to gain democracy?
57.3%: Reach out to the communities and persuade the masses
28.6%: Carry out even larger-scale and more extreme activities
4.0%: Give up the fight
8.5%: Don't know/hard to say
1.5%: Refused to answer

Q12. In the next Legislative Council elections, what would you do for your preferred candidate?
49.2%: I will vote and I will lobby my friends
42.6%: I will vote but I won't lobby my friends
2.1%: I won't vote but I will lobby my friends
3.6%: I will neither vote nor lobby my friends
0.5%: Don't know/hard to say
2.1%: Refused to answer

Q13. If the 2017 Chief Executive election is held under the August 31 framework set by the National People's Congress, would you vote?
53.3%: Yes
28.2%: No
16.9%: Don't know/hard to say
1.5%: Refused to answer

(Apple Daily video report) "Levi's worker suspected of using violence: Do you have the film?" November 29, 2014.

0:07 Reporter: We received several complaints. Did you assault someone yesterday?
0:09 Man: Huh?
0:10 Reporter: Yes.
0:10 Man: Do you have a film? Show me a film.
0:11 Reporter: We have photos etc. You lowered the gate. Therefore I want to ask if such an incident took place.
0:15 Man: Alright, show me a photo first.
0:17 Reporter: Was there such an incident, first?
0:17 Man: No.
0:19 Reporter: You didn't assault anyone?
0:20 Man: Yes.
0:21 Reporter: Did you lower the gates yesterday? That is, did some citizens quarrel with you?
0:27 Reporter: That is ...
0:29 Man waving to the police: Nobody. Sir, someone is interfering with us conducting our business.
0:32 Reporter: Did you assault anyone?
0:37 Man: I am ignoring you. Please do not interfere with us conducting our business.
0:39 Reporter: Actually, did you assault anyone yesterday? There is a complainant who complained that you assaulted someone and the person wanted to file a police report.
0:45 Man: Please do not interfere with us conducting our business, okay?
0:47 Reporter: Did you assault anyone, mister? Or maybe is there a company telephone number that I can call and ask?
0:53 Man: Hmmm?
0:53 Reporter: Is there a company telephone number that I can call and ask your company?
0:56 Man: Call 999 (=police).
0:58 Reporter: Oh. Thanks a lot.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1029942010366063&set=vb.160696287290644&type=2&theater; On December 2, a group of "shoppers" showed up outside the Levi's store and caused the staff to lower the gate again.

Some comments by Internet users (sarcastic?):

- This is so fucking funny!

- Bad people deserve bad outcomes. The guy had it coming.

- We are just supporting CY Leung's call to shop, thus helping the local economy. I don't understand why the store wouldn't let us in.

- I will visit the store every day, to provide the sales people with a chance to assault me.

- I will visit the store every day. I will unfold any folded jeans and then put them back in a heap on the display table.

- I will visit the store every day. Levi's has so many different styles. It will take a long while before I can try all of them on.

- Because the action of this one salesman affected business, the company should fire him immediately. Then the problem will be solved!

- Some people object to messing up people's livelihood. But the whole point of Occupy Central is to mess up the economy and transportation.

- I think I am pro-Occupy Central, but this is really fucked up! Stop messing around with people! It will make people hate us even more.

TVB video: http://news.tvb.com/local/547e99036db28c8021000001/ (00:00 to 01:20) "Shoppers" won't let Levi's lower the gate. In the second half of the video, the "shoppers" moved down to the minibus stop belonging to the company that obtained the court injunction to clear the Occupy Mong Kok area. The police formed a line to keep people on the sidewalk. At 1:57, a woman said: "I only want to go home. I am standing here crying for help. Does this group people care about how I feel? I am eight months pregnant. What kind of attitude is this of yours?" The policeman said: "Miss, we are trying to protect you." This leads Internet users to question why an eight-month-pregnant would still want to go out and demonstrate. Or maybe she has a pillow stuffed inside her dress?

Apple Daily video: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141204/18957282 For another night, the Shopping Revolution came to visit the Levi's store in Mong Kok. The manager tried to lower the gate, but more and more people entered. The gate was lowered halfway and the manager hid in the changing room. Some shoppers asked to try on jean, others fumbled through the clothes. One shopper took out a thick wad of money and asked why the salespeople don't like local consumers. Another shopper spent more than HKD 300 to buy a shirt and came out to display his trophy, saying that he was genuinely trying to stimulate the local economy. The police came and asked the customers leave. On this night, Levi's closed early at 9pm.

Internet comments:

- Two hundred shoppers and all they did was buy one HKD 300 shirt? The economy would be dead if it has to depend on these so-called "shoppers".

- I don't see any connection with universal suffrage. This is just a bunch of muddled thugs disrupting the rule-of-law and people's livelihoods.

- What Occupy Central has done is to create a class of bullying thugs who can do anything to anyone anywhere in the name of Democracy.

- I see that Civic Party legislator/senior barrister Alan Leong has said that these activities may not be illegal. But the real question is, Does he think it is right? And what would he do if people like that show up at his office and pretend to shop for legal advice? I think he would call the police.

- Yellow Ribbon democracy means that anyone with different views will have neither democracy nor freedom.

- If the whole point of democracy is to create a system to put people like these in charge of governance, then we are all screwed! I don't want this kind of democracy. I will do anything to stop them.

- Such are the high-quality, high-income and highly educated Umbrella Revolutionaries.

- You are only hurting the neighborhood businesses. CY Leung, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang won't feel any pain. Why oh why are you doing this?

(YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t70s2Giu4WQ ) (audio recording of radio interview with Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats starts at 0:32) Most of the people who continue with Buy Things ... the tactic is to resist the police. What is the result of resisting the police? I think that people need to think about this. That is, are we wasting the police's energy, or are we wasting our own energy?

There is a prequel here at https://www.youtube.com/embed/M-bDGDXgiWE?html5=1 (0:06 to 0:55) in which the man who got hit was arguing with another man who accused the first man of raising the middle finger at the crowd.

(RTHK via The Standard) The Secretary-General of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Alex Chow Yong-kang, admitted that the plans to escalate the civil disobedience campaign were ultimately unsuccessful -- even if protestors disrupted government operations for a short time. "The aim was to disrupt the government. We can say we were successful for a short time (note: namely, Government Headquarters operations was suspended for Monday morning). But it ultimately failed and there is room for improvement," Chow said.

(Ming Pao) Scholarism convener Joshua Wong has announced that he is going on hunger strike. Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow admitted that he was surprised when Scholarism announced that decision. Previously, the organizations had agreed upon accepting responsibility for the failed escalation, but postponed discussion of future plans. But Chow said a hunger strike is "one method." He emphasized that the two organizations are merely dividing labor and not going their separate ways.

(Bastille Post) Last evening, a large group of volunteers stood on the Admiralty stage and demanded the student leaders explain the causes for failure. Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow blamed poor coordination, but the frontline volunteers disagreed. They called Chow's explanation "utter lies." Prior to the escalation, the Federation of Students met thrice with the volunteers to explain the arrangements and tactics. They rejected all the suggestions from the volunteers. The volunteers said that right before the demonstrators retook Lung Wo Road, police presence was sharply reduced whereas their numbers increased largely on the east side of the Central Government Office. The volunteers asked Chow to call from the grand stage for the demonstrators to withdraw. But Chow said "Let's give them more time". The result was that the police surged in and cleared the field, causing many demonstrators to be injured. The volunteers said that the Federation called for an escalation with insufficient numbers, leaving them "arrested and injured." They demanded an explanation. On that evening, there were around 4,000 demonstrators at the peak, but they were facing more than 3,000 police officers. When the demonstrators became fewer near daybreak, they could not defend against the clearance which everybody knew had to come before the workday starts. But the Federation refused to withdraw, and many demonstrators were injured as a result.

(Oriental Daily, with 6 photos and 1 video) At around 9pm last night, more than a dozen masked men suddenly rushed up to dismantle the speaker's dais in the Occupy Admiralty area. They cut off the plastic strips and removed the metal barriers. They complained about the failure to call for another escalation. This aroused the anger of other attendees who yelled at these masked men. There was some physical contact, but no fight.

(http://youtu.be/YJSsi1gHWqM) A bespectacled man wanted the Federation of Students/Scholarism to get on stage and debate. But the student leaders failed to appear. So how did it all end? Someone fainted and drew attention away.

(Oriental Daily) A number of Occupy Mong Kok veterans have moved into the Occupy Admiralty area. They complained about the Admiralty leadership. During the siege of the Central Government Office, the Mong Kok veterans led the frontline charge while the Admiralty people were too scared to charge. After the Mong Kok veterans seized territory, the Admiralty people did not know how to defend the gains. As a result, the campaign failed. They also criticized Joshua Wong's hunger strike as being useless. They are now mobilizing more than a hundred people to "take action," which does not exclude extreme actions.

(The Sun) As the bloody battle of Lung Wo Road raged on, the Occupy Central trio of Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and Professors Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man were nowhere to be seen. Early morning, Benny Tai showed up as a keyboard warrior on social media to criticize the government and the police. "Even if they can successfully defend the Central Government Office, they cannot prevent the downfall of governance in Hong Kong." For his troubles, Tai was pilloried by Internet users for exploiting the situation to his personal advantage, once again.

(RTHK via The Standard) The chairwoman of the Democratic Party Emily Lau says if pro-democracy protesters resort to violence, they'll lose the support of people who originally backed the Occupy movement. Lau told RTHK this morning that the Occupy movement had to make sure its message got across, adding that most people in Hong Kong supported democracy but might not support the occupation strategy.

(Oriental Daily) Legislative Councilor Ronny Tong said that the pan-democrats explained the difficulties to the students beforehand, but the latter "refused to listen." Tong was pessimistic about whether the demonstrators will voluntarily withdraw. Tong said that he saw the demonstrators moved up in a phalanx with ample supplies of helmets, etc. They looked as organized as an army. Since it is illegal to form a militia, these demonstrators are clearly breaking the law although they may not know it. Tong said that an honorable retreat may help the political reform process a little bit. Otherwise all is lost. He was also concerned that if the pan-democrats lose popular support as a result of their support of Occupy Central, then they may lose veto power in the Legislative Council.

(Bastille Post) 23 pan-democrat Legislative Councilors made a joint statement last evening to urge the Federation of Students/Scholarism to quickly end the action to lay siege to the Central Government Office. There should not be any more calls to escalate to avoid more injuries. The movement should not incorporate violent elements because this will provide an excuse for police clearance.

(Bastille Post) City University's Dr. James Sung said that the government used delay tactics to cause the Occupy leaders to divide among themselves. The major clashes in the previous evening caused the Federation of Students/Scholarism to lose popular support. Subsequently, the government can use court injunctions to clear sites.


(Oriental Daily, with 12 photos) A summary of developments of the two police clearances
01:00 About 2,000 demonstrators gathered at Lung Wo Road
01:30: About 100 Special Tactical Squad members used pepper spray, tear gas spray and batons to disperse the demonstrators and retake Lung Wo Road
01:45 The police pursued the demonstrators into Tamar Park and disperse them
03:10 The police re-opened car traffic on Lung Wo Road
03:30 With reduced police presence, the Federation of Students called for demonstrators to re-take Lung Wo Road
06:35 About 1,500 demonstrators set up barricades at Lung Wo Road and made plans to paralyze the Central Government Office
07:00 The police cleared the field again. 200 Special Tactical Squad members dispersed the demonstrators, using tear gas spray and water hose. They pushed forward to Tamar Park, Admiralty Centre and Harcourt Road.
07:30 Lung Wo Road was re-opened for car traffic
07:40 Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow showed up and appealed for calm. The clashes stopped for now.
09:06 Three off-duty police officers and one on-duty police officer were assaulted by two middle-aged men when they went through the Admiralty Centre mall. A 30-year-old man was arrested.
09:16 The police set up a wall outside Admiralty Centre. The demonstrators charged at them. One person was arrested and two persons were hospitalized.

[Strategic analysis by an armchair television viewer:

Before beginning battle, one should study the terrain carefully first. It is very important to note that Lung Wo Road is a length of road without any natural barriers (such as hills or walls). Thus, it is hard to defend across the entire road. Furthermore, there is an underground tunnel in the middle and a group can be trapped in the tunnel if both ends are blocked. Any group can breach the defensive line by concentrating its forces at any one point. For this reason, the Occupy leadership had been against any takeover of Lung Wo Road because they won't be able to defend it. However, Lung Wo Road appears to be an obsession with the radical elements. In particular, any takeover of Lung Wo Road would mean the total paralysis of all east-west vehicular traffic in the harbor front. If all east-west traffic have to wind through the narrow Mid-Levels road, it would be living traffic hell. In addition, Lung Wo Road borders the Chief Executive's Office and the Central Government Office, both symbols of government power.

On this day, the police tried to hold the defensive line at the pedestrian passage leading from Tamar Park to Lung Wo Road. There were only about 100 police officers manning the defensive line. But because the passageway was narrow, they managed to hold their own against the numerically superior demonstrators with pepper spray and batons after repeated clashes. Meanwhile, another group of demonstrators breached Lung Wo Road further down and walked through the tunnel to come out next to the passageway. They were met by around 10 police officers who held the hundreds of demonstrators at bay. The deployment of the police was very odd. It was reported by the media that the police had almost 4,000 police officers deployed in Admiralty. But fewer than 200 can be seen at this hot spot of the evening. There were some seesawing skirmishes. The police on the road now numbered around 30. Periodically they surged forward, gained some ground and removed some barricades. But they declined to pursue the demonstrators. In fact, they actually took one step forward and two steps back so that the demonstrators were encroaching on them. Eventually, the demonstrators swarmed the entire roadway in front of the Chief Executive's Office.

At that point, the police line was backed up with the police cars parked right behind them. They had nowhere to retreat now. Or so it seemed.

It was at that moment (circa 1:30am) that a Blue Team (Special Tactical Squad STS) of about 100 police officers was unleashed in a flying wedge that drove through the demonstrators' front line and scattered them. From then on, it was just a chaotic retreat. The police did not make many arrests. They were more focused on making the demonstrators leave. The police did not venture far into Tamar Park in hot pursuit, because the park was dark. At this point, Lung Wo Road was cleared. The Blue Team took less than 20 minutes to do their job. The uniformed police came forth, cleared the debris off the road and re-opened it for traffic. After that, the police withdrew most of their people (including the Blue Team) from Lung Wo Road.

After a while, the demonstrators noticed the reduction of police presence. They reappeared in numbers (circa 3:30am) and established barricades to block car traffic again. The police did not return immediately in numbers. There was a long standoff as both sides did nothing.

At 7am, about 100 or so Blue Team members suddenly hurdled the metal barricades strung together by the demonstrators and advanced towards the slowly retreating crowd. Meanwhile, it could be seen from the corner of the eye that another 100 or so Blue Team members sprinted down the left side into Tamar Park and then swung right to come out on the right side of the demonstrators. This caused the demonstrators to retreat quickly in disarray. The police did not make many arrests which they could have. They wanted the demonstrators to move on. Since there was daylight by now, the police could see where the demonstrators were. The police herded the demonstrators down to the main Admiralty camp.

On the strength of the rout, the police could have cleared the Admiralty camp that morning as well. But they stopped short, leaving the job for another day when they will help the bailiffs enforce court injunctions.

The spirit of the demonstrators was broken after two defeats in one night. They did not return, and they probably never will again. It should be clear that the Blue Team can clear any site anytime. But they were previously held back for political reasons as the government waited for public opinion to swing in their favor.]

Here are the details:

9:00pm (The Standard) Hong Kong Federation of students committee member Nathan Law Kwun-chung issued the rallying call to rapturous cheers from the crowd. "Surround the Central Government Offices, target the regime," he told the crowd. "We want to paralyze, completely paralyze the government's operations," the crowd chanted. More than 10 members of Scholarism, wearing full protective gear, were in the frontline, leading activists in confronting police at the Tamar Park entrance to Lung Wo Road. They screamed: "Open up the roads! We want genuine democracy!"
(SCMP)
Oscar Lai Man-Lok, spokesman for student group Scholarism, said the crowd was the biggest in at least two weeks. He told protesters to stick to their non-violent principles and not to provoke or charge at police.

~930pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTa4QoLGEkc Confrontation at the stairwell from Tamar Park to Lung Wo Road.

9:35pm (The Standard) Violence quickly escalated at about 9.35pm as police used pepper spray on at least 15 protesters, shoved them backwards and tore up umbrellas as the two sides clashed near the Lung Wo tunnel. The offensive by activists was short-lived as riot police moved in to disperse the crowd. One activist who fell to the ground was surrounded by police and dragged through a sea of officers.
(RTHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDJ6GyL91p8 First confrontation at the top of the stairway leading from Tamar Park to Lung Wo Road, action beginning at 0:36.
(TVB iNews) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TxguAfsbxo Live action begins at 1:21 of this video, corresponding to 10:01pm.

(Speakout HK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gisNixIsJZk Regimentized quality of the demonstrations. At the bottom of the stairwell from Tamar Park to Lung Wo Road, shields were passed from the back to the front.
0:03 (Public announcement system): Friends, this is the appeal from Scholarism. Our action tonight has non-violence as the principle. Non-violence as the principle.
0:14 (slogan chanting) Surround Government Headquarters. Surround Government Headquarters. Surround Government Headquarters. Surround Government Headquarters. Escalate action. Escalate action. Surround Government Headquarters. Escalate action.
0:31 (female voice): Everybody continue ahead. Tonight we will surround Government Headquarters and the Chief Executive's Office. Right now, we are crossing Tamar Park towards Lung Wo Road.
0:42 (Police): To avoid causing physical harm to people, please do not push forward.
0:51 [shield being passed from the rear towards the front line people]
0:52 (Demonstrator): Evil cop! Evil cop! Evil cop! Evil cop!
1:00 (Demonstrators) Chu King-lun! Keeps a mistress. Chu King-lun! Keeps a mistress. Chu King-lun! Keeps a mistress. Chu King-lun! Keeps a mistress.
1:10 (Demonstrators) Open the road! Open the road! Open the road! Open the road! Open the road! Open the road! Open the road! Open the road!
1:26 (Police): Will the people up front not charge at the police defensive line? There are many people on the stairway. Do not push forward. Because it may affect the safety of everybody."
1:38 (Demonstrator using megaphone): If you continue to suppress our right to proceed to the front of the Chief Executive's Office to lay siege for a little bit, we will use our own method to get out.
1:45 (Demonstrator): Will the police show some restraint and retreat!?
1:46 (Police): Please do not charge at the police defensive line. Thank you for your cooperation.
1:55 (Demonstrator using megaphone): Friends up front! Friends up front! Our fellow warriors! Do we want to get out there!?
1:58 (Crowd): We do!
2:00 (Demonstrator using megaphone): Do you want to get out there!?
2:01 (Crowd):  YES!
2:02 (Demonstrator using megaphone): Are you determined?
2:02 (Crowd): YES!
2:04 (Demonstrator using megaphone): One! Two! Three!
[Crowd surges forward.]
2:11 (Crowd): Open the road! ...
[Subtitle: So much for the Federation of Students' plea "to stick to the principle of non-violence and not to provoke or charge at the police."]

09:42pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gAOI4GlTgg Charge at police line at the stairwell from Tamar Park to Lung Wo Road.

10:08pm (Oriental Daily, with four photos and a video) Hundreds of demonstrators have just broken out of Tamar Park onto Lung Wo Road towards the Chief Executive's Office/Central Government Office. They have blocked the eastbound and westbound car lanes.

10:23pm (Oriental Daily, with eight photos and a video) The demonstrators who had been facing off the police suddenly decided to make a countdown and charge at the police. The police responded and detained a number of demonstrators. Several demonstrators were wounded.

(InMediaHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti16aIqahJw Police surged forward and make arrests.

10:30pm (TVB iNews) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE0W_nwXJYM Lung Wo Road confrontation, with a masked bystander getting very excited and threatening to jump off the wall if the police doesn't stop. The demonstrators set up metal barricades.

10:39pm (TVB iNews) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymkpwAy73M (45:36 in length) Live coverage of the events of the night.

10:56 pm (Oriental Daily, with six photos and a video) Almost 200 demonstrators faced off against 20 police officers in the lane next to the Tamar Park public restroom. At 10:55pm, the police raised the red banner to warn the demonstrators not to charge. The demonstrators ignored the warning and pressed forward. The police used pepper spray.

11:00pm (memehk.com) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qv6JMzue58 Umbrella vs. pepper spray/batons

11:00 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFPkTr3HvmE Police line gradually backing up on Lung Wo Road.

11:00pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRp3oSC8WEE Police line gradually backing up on Lung Wo Road

~11pm (SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Xz_KgGrhU; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EXkjg29wd0  Police line gradually backing up on Lung Wo Road.

11:11 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1gNMrsMyW8 Battling on Lung Wo Road near the tunnel.

11:35pm (Oriental Daily, with three photos) At around 1130pm,a large number of demonstrators went out on Lung Wo Road again and clashed with the police near CITIC Tower. Some demonstrators were arrested, and some were injured.
(Apple Daily; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r6ZbBehLps ) An aerial video showing how demonstrators poured onto Lung Wo Road.

00:04 am (Oriental Daily, with four photos and 1 video) At around midnight, some demonstrators laid down wet rock pieces on Lung Wo Road in the Wanchai direction. They said that they wanted to "make it hard for the police to come in" and they themselves have no intention of leaving the Occupied area. Another demonstrator converted a police traffic cone into a funnel to pour water into the water barriers.

00:26 am (Oriental Daily, with five photos) The Federation of Students called for citizens to occupy five key locations to prevent government workers from going to work the next day.

01:23am (Oriental Daily, with 10 photos and 1 video) At around 130am, a group at Lung Wo Road asked Legislative Councilor Lee Cheuk-yan to lead the way and charge the police. Lee refused, because he wanted "peace and non-violence." The demonstrators decided to charge without him. The police counter-attacked and used baton, tear gas spray and pepper spray. In addition to the uniformed police, the Blue Team (formed from the Anti-Terrorism Squad and the Airport Security Unit) also took part in clearing Lung Wo Road quickly. The whole action took less than 20 minutes.

01:23am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3jYnF03Fr0 This is taken from above to the right of the police charge.

01:25 am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEU6dXY7Jro Chasing down into the tunnel.

01:26am (Cable TV news, http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=446950 ) Live coverage of the clearance, just before the Blue Team surged.

01:22am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG4tCs7Lgks This video covers the clearance from a lower altitude. Basically, people at ground level cannot see what is happening in the frontline. Real action starts at around 8:00.

01:25am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEU6dXY7Jro The Blue Team chasing demonstrators into the Lung Wo Road tunnel.

~01:30am (InMediaHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0CEQ6CjY7k

~01:30am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33mVkZOt548 Shot with a GoPro Hero 4 Silver and set to music.

~01:30am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx6F64bztx4 A view from the front line. Lot of yelling and screaming.

~01:30am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GpvPY_tvoM This video covers the clearance from behind the police line. After the action moved on, there is a detailed look at the debris (helmets, umbrellas, shoes, bags, etc) left on the ground.

~01:30am (Memehk news) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmX8lEaB4vg A view from above across the street.

01:30am (TVB iNews, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7j9hoiPPKA ) Live coverage of the clearance, just after the Blue Team surged.

01:30am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOOZ2SKUjwY A demonstrator used a fire extinguisher against the police. [This would be described by Reuters as "a cloud of tear gas".] You would think that the police would go crazy and go on a hitting spree? But all the police did was to tell the demonstrators to move on. At 1:07, the policeman said: "Just go! We won't be crossing over."

~01:30am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPJ8MjHdHzo This is taken from the viewpoint of demonstrators who were forced to retreat into the Lung Wo Road tunnel.

01:43am (Oriental Daily, with 2 photos and 1 video) During the clearance, the demonstrators countered with a fire extinguisher. The police also found a cart loaded with bricks that may be intended to be used as throwing objects. The police arrested a man who was found carrying two ninja sticks on him.

01:45am (Oriental Daily, with 8 photos) Police cleared Lung Wo Road and pressed towards Tamar Park.

01:49am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c64QmMDn4dQ Police pushing down Tamar Park

03:13am (Oriental Daily, with 1 photo and 1 video) Police announced that Lung Wo Road is opened for cars again.

03:24am (Oriental Daily, with 5 photos and 1 video) After the police cleared Lung Wo Road, they withdrew. Around 3:30am, the demonstrators returned and blocked Lung Wo Road again with water barriers, metal barriers, wooden pallets and other obstacles. The police returned but did not take immediate action. The two sides faced off each other.

03:25am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiMJobE5fI Demonstrators spread small pebbles on the road which are supposed to impede police progress.

07:00am (Oriental Daily, with 1 photo and 1 video) At around 7am, a group of police officers (including the Blue Team members) suddenly jumped over the metal barricades and charged at the Lung Wo Road demonstrators. The demonstrators dispersed, with some being arrested. During the clearance, the police sprayed water at demonstrators. (Some reports said that a water cannon was deployed, but that is inaccurate because the police used a fire hose connected to a fire hydrant. Observers described the water sprout as "feeble".) The whole action took just over 10 minutes.
07:00am (TVB iNews) Second clearance of Lung Wo Road.
07:00am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAlk7raBLR8 Video was taken from the meridian between the police and the demonstrators. Not much action, but it explains the deployment (as well as the so-called water cannon).
07:00am (InMediaHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9JUz8-0nzo Clearance of Tamar Park
07:00 am (INT News Channel) The Blue Team chases demonstrators into Tamar Park

07:13am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S704jYpF324 Fisheye camera lens view, taken from above the ground.

09:00am (TVB) After an argument over the placement of obstacles on Harcourt Road, demonstrators assaulted a plainclothes police officer outside the MTR exit in Admiralty Centre. A police officer was injured and taken to the hospital for treatment.
(Bastille Post, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLqm1yHe5bc ) Demonstrators dump garbage on the escalator to the pedestrian overpass from Admiralty Centre to the Central Government Office.

09:20am (Oriental Daily, with 5 photos and 1 video) An off-duty police officer passed through Admiralty Centre to go home. He was identified by demonstrators as a policeman. They shouted: "Don't let him get off work" and assaulted him. The police officer passed out and was taken to a hospital by ambulance. When other police officers arrived at the scene, the demonstrators chanted: "Evil police causing trouble!" They charged at the police officers, some of whom took out batons and peppery spray canisters. The police arrested one man. Another man was injured in the head and hospitalized.
(SCMP) http://www.scmp.com/video/hong-kong/1652942/occupy-protesters-fight-suspected-undercover-police-officers-one-knocked-out (Pay special attention to 1:30)
(Now TV) http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=119350 More in this video about what happened afterwards.

Video collections:

(ATV) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yh7KProt3c This is the evening news report which covers everything that happened the night before. At around 4:50, the crowd is throwing objects and someone is shining a bluish laser beam at the police. Also at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqeUN6oQwOc

(TVB) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMi3y0pRk6g This is the evening news report which covers everything that happened the night before.

(Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPUiqCJFWDE A compilation of highlights from the night.

(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IYDdqycTw0 (2:17:19 in length) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VUIMprhBds (53:02 in length) A compilation of highlights from the night.

(Coconuts TV) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ578ae9ZRU A compilation of HD highlights from the night.

(Apple Daily) A man who said that he was a retired policeman named Chu called in to an Apple Daily radio show and claimed to be an eyewitness at the scene. He said that the three plainclothes policemen came into Admiralty Centre from the pedestrian overpass and used obscene language to curse at the demonstrators. The policemen did not identify themselves and were not carrying any police identification. When a female student demonstrator argued with them, one of them said: "If you make any more noise, we will arrest you, take you back to the police station and rape you." The crowd was in an uproar. At that point, the three identified themselves as police officers. The female student was angrier and continued to argue with them. The three police then grabbed the her, and she fell in fear down the stairs. At this point, other demonstrators surrounded the three policemen. One of them took out a flexible baton but he was subdued. Another policeman fell down and pretended to lose consciousness. The third policeman called for help. The eyewitness then said that two groups of policemen came, yelling: "You hit our colleagues!" Then chaos broke out in Admiralty Centre. The allegation by that radio caller has not been corroborated by any one of the hundreds of persons present at the time.

Other related matters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkArnelAKSU (from Speak Out HK) Detailed depictions of demonstration tools.
0:33 Police warned that the wooden shields may be considered "assault weapons."
0:55 Police: "Put your wooden shields down immediately!"
1:00 Demonstrator: "This is merely cardboard."
1:07 Police: "You are holding wooden shields whose sharp corners may cause physical injuries to other persons. Put your shields down immediately!"
1:23 A shield with screws jutting out front is being passed from the back to the front line.
1:35 Water bottles being thrown from the rear
1:47 Laser beam being shined from the rear at the eyes of police officers
1:58 Bricks being carted. What for?
2:31 Metal chain
(Oriental Daily) Photo of shields with screws jutting out and photo of policeman's arm with punctured holes from such a shield.

(Ming Pao Editorial) A violent departure from the principle of peace   December 3, 2014.

IN AN ATTEMPT TO paralyse the government and put pressure on it, the Federation of Students and Scholarism in the Admiralty occupied area called on the demonstrators to surround and blockade the government headquarters. However, in the attempted blockade yesterday, they resorted to violence, and were met with strong police responses. As a result, many were wounded on both sides. If the students are to lead the democratic movement in this way, progress can hardly be expected. Indeed, the movement may suffer irreparably. This is something we should all be concerned about.

On the 18th of last month, a handful of radicals stormed the Legislative Council building late at night and broke a glass window. The violence was condemned by almost all sides, including the pan-democrats, who took care to keep themselves apart from radicalism. However, the Federation of Students and Scholarism did not join in the condemnation, drawing criticisms (even from some of the occupiers in Admiralty) that they connived at violence. Their attempt to blockade the government headquarters yesterday may well explain why they were reluctant to condemn the storming of the legislature - a reluctance which may go to show that they did not resort to violence on the spur of the moment.

The lengthy Occupy movement has now run out of steam and can hardly go on. The public, disillusioned and demoralised, is almost unanimously calling for the end of the movement. The Federation of Students and Scholarism, understandably disheartened by the lack of any positive response from the government since the Occupation movement started two months ago, are known to have discussed with their supporters and sympathisers how to escalate the movement. However, most of the pan-democratic parties did not agree with the plan to blockade the government headquarters, dismissing it as ineffective and risky. Instead, they suggested that the students should now try to bring the movement to a close honourably. Unhappily, the students turned a deaf ear to all such advice, and their wilfulness has tarnished the Occupy movement.

A statement made by the pan-democratic legislators about yesterday's attempted blockade criticises some police officers for using excessive and unnecessary force against the protesters, but makes no mention of the protesters' extremist behaviour. This is disappointing since it shows the legislators' lack of moral courage to tell what is right and wrong.

The Federation of Students and Scholarism, which have come to lead the Occupy movement, are not prepared to listen to others' opinions. Many of the students believe, erroneously, that the forerunners of the democratic movement have over the past thirty-odd years failed to achieve anything through purely peaceful means. However, their "no peace" strategy seems to lie only in the occupation of roads, which harms society as well as the interests of the majority of the people. After what has happened over the past two months or so, only the very naive or the very ignorant will believe that you can secure genuine universal suffrage by occupying roads.

Now that the Occupy movement is drawing to an end without achieving anything, the reckless and the desperate, unhappy with the result, may try to revitalise the movement by an escalation of violence. Given their present plight, the Federation of Students and Scholarism are not immune to this possibility. However, daring recklessness can lead to no positive results, but will only do further damage to the democratic cause.

(Beyondnews.net) Observations and Revelations from the Defeat at Lung Wo Road. December 7, 2014.

On live television broadcast, those on the line of skirmish were all  young students. The calls to charge came from behind them. These leaders passed the shields to the front instead of standing in front with the shields in hand. When the students reached the police defensive line, they seemed to have stopped but the people behind them pushed them forward to face the batons. Compared to past battles, how can the December 1st demonstrators not be defeated?

We all know who commands the valiant warriors. These gangster mercenaries have dispersed when the money dried up after Mong Kok was cleared. As for the strong-men marshals, who knows where they went? When the elite soldiers are absent, how can defeat be averted?

Another important question is: Why attack Lung Wo Road? Everybody knows that Lung Wo Road is the bottom line for the government. When the Occupy Central people recovered Admiralty and then went ahead to occupy Lung Wo Road earlier, the police conducted the most intense battle in the Occupy Movement history to retake this important thoroughfare. If the demonstrators take over Lung Wo Road, they would completely paralyze east-west traffic on Hong Kong Island. Attacking Lung Wo Road was a full declaration of war and guaranteed to draw instant counter-attack.

For the police, Lung Wo Road was the site of their greatest shame (see, for example, the police retreat down the tunnel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I6v9W-jnOE ). During the initial siege of Government Headquarters, police vehicles delivering food were subject to inspections by demonstrators. When the police came on and off duty, they had to line up and be subjected to verbal abuse form the demonstrators. What comes up must come down. When the other side sets the battlefield on Lung Wo Road, how can the police not be worked up? With one side on the rise and the other side on the decline, isn't it obvious who the victor will be?

Perhaps spectators only understand today why some police officers clapped and cheered on the Admiralty Centre overpass after the clearance. They had not only achieved their tactical objective, but they regained their honor with this victory.

Some people may not understand why the police stopped after they chased the demonstrators back to Admiralty? Anyone who understands strategy can see that Lung Wo Road is a piece of terrain that cannot be defended. To defend Lung Wo Road, you must control Tamar Park. If you allow the other side to station large numbers of people in Tamar Park, you are giving up control and you face certain defeat. If the police cleared Lung Wo Road but did not clear Tamar Park, it would be the same as giving up Lung Wo Road! If you lose Lung Wo Road, you lost Government Headquarters and you lose Hong Kong traffic.

After the first recovery of Lung Wo Road, why did Tamar Park become a no man's land? Suppose Occupy Central and the government/police had a secret agreement/understanding: if the demonstrators don't go to Lung Wo Road, then Admiralty won't be cleared. I fully believe this. Therefore, Tamar Park was a de-militarized zone. It cannot be proven that Occupy Central and the legislators had this secret arrangement with the government. But once the understanding is breached, how could the police not drive all the way down.

When the Federation of Students/Scholarism and other groups discussed laying siege to Government Headquarters, did anyone told that this important piece of information? If not, then why not? In a battle of defense/attack, you have to know yourself and your enemy well. But when you don't even understand what you need to know, it would be a miracle for you not to lose!

The defeat at Lung Wo Road had more to do with internal problems than police power. Basically, the police force has always been there but they were defending and not attacking. Perhaps someone thought the students need to experience a defeat before they withdraw. The people who don't deserve this are those students and their supporters who were not aware of what went on behind the scenes and charged at the police. They were arrested or injured for a battle that never should have happened but happened anyway because people had other secret agendas.

(The Fragrant Harbour) Fast Losing Moral Ground. December 1, 2014.

The Occupy/Umbrella Movement's credibility is sinking faster than a lead balloon with what has happened in the last 24 hours.

Around 10pm last night, protesters tried to storm the Hong Kong government offices, particularly the Chief Executive's offices in a bid to paralyze the authorities into having a dialogue.

Not exactly the most diplomatic way of going about things, but perhaps when the government ignores you for more than a month you get frustrated...

But the police were prepared, and armed with batons and pepper spray, they also escalated, and from the footage I saw, they had no mercy in hitting people, spraying them and arresting them.

Some of the young people seemed shocked by what was happening, but should they? The occupation of Admiralty, Mongkok and Causeway Bay has lasted 65 days. The majority of people in Hong Kong have had enough with the protests and want life to return back to some kind of normality.

Someone from above had instructed the police officers to do whatever it took to keep Lung Wo Road clear, and also try to clean out several areas including Tamar Park, where several tents had been there for weeks.

The Hong Kong Government is to blame for its inaction, with no interest in having any kind of dialogue with the students. The authorities [Beijing] don't want to be seen as bending to the students' will, so it is a losing battle.

So the clashes in the end didn't make many advances, and it was shocking to see protesters with doors acting as shields, and some kind of metal sticks as weapons as well as bricks. This is not what the protest is supposed to be about.

Meanwhile how many cans of pepper spray have the police used?

Some 40 people were arrested and 58 sent to hospital for injuries.

Protesters are now fighting amongst themselves or angry at the student leaders for not having a concrete plan. Alex Chow Yong-kang apologized tonight, but that won't retain support for the movement anymore. Some people are angry at them -- these protesters have been camping out for two months only to see things devolve into this.

And now the latest is that Scholarism's Joshua Wong Chi-fung is starting a hunger strike with two others in a bid to secure talks with Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

Really? Is that your solution? No one really cares if you starve... to death... people conduct hunger strikes everyday. And having lost so much credibility, pulling the sympathy card is not going to work this time.

It's conflicting and sad to see the protest movement quickly falling apart now after all this time. And now the government has every reason to shut down the protest sites because people are getting violent.

How much longer will it last? Hard to say but could be less than two weeks now that the movement has lost moral credibility. Who is going to continue to stick it out and at what cost?

Regardless, the Umbrella Movement has made it harder for Beijing to influence the next generation. And for Hong Kong, that's a victory to remember.

The above compilation of mostly Chinese-language reports should be contrasted with the depiction by western media. We are talking about different spatio-temporal dimensions and realities.

(Reuters) Hong Kong protesters clash with police near heart of financial district. By Clare Baldwin and James Pomfret. November 30, 2014.

Hong Kong police baton-charged and pepper-sprayed thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators in the early hours of Monday who were trying to encircle government headquarters, defying orders to retreat after more than two months of protests. The skirmishes were perhaps the most violent in recent weeks, with the protesters answering a call by two student groups leading the campaign to escalate their actions, after two months of stalemate in their push for full democracy.

The crowds, chanting "Surround government headquarters!" and "Open the road!", had blocked a major road running in front of the offices of Hong Kong's leader in the Admiralty district, next to Hong Kong's central business district, late on Friday.

Hundreds of riot police scattered the crowds in chaotic scenes, forcing protesters back with pepper spray and batons, aimed at the backs and heads of those trying to scramble over walls to safety in a crush of bodies. A cloud of tear gas rose up in the middle of one particularly violent scuffle. Scores of volunteer medics attended to the injured, many with open head wounds. Police said at least 18 arrests were made.

Despite the relatively swift clearance of Lung Wo road outside government headquarters in the early hours of Monday, large crowds, many in protective goggles and makeshift body armor, refused to leave the area and continued to press against police lines, chanting "We want universal suffrage!". Others held up yellow umbrellas, a flimsy defense against police batons and pepper spray that have become a symbol of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, which reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997.

The protesters are demanding free elections for Hong Kong's next leader in 2017, not the vote between pre-screened candidates that China's Communist Party has said it will allow. The movement has threatened to become the biggest challenge to the party since its bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy student protests in and around Tiananmen Square in Beijing, as a new generation demands greater political freedom.

The Hong Kong rallies drew more than 100,000 on to the streets at their peak, but numbers have since dwindled to a few hundred and public support has waned. The Admiralty flare-up came after four nights of clashes in the working-class district of Mong Kok, one of the city's largest and most volatile protest zones, which police had cleared of protesters on Wednesday.

(Additional reporting by Diana Chan and Kinling Lo, Editing by Anne Marie Roantree and Kevin Liffey)

(TIME) Hong Kong Protests Reach Violent High as Students Clash with Police Overnight. December 1, 2014.

Hong Kongs pro-democracy protests descended into the worst violence seen so far early Monday, as demonstrators ended more than two months of largely peaceful civil disobedience with a dramatic escalation in tactics.

Thousands of protesters clashed with police overnight at the demonstrations main encampment near government headquarters in well-heeled Admiralty district, at one point storming into a main thoroughfare and bringing evening traffic to a sudden stop. Police in riot gear fought back with a liberal use of batons and pepper spray, hurling protesters to the ground to make arrests. At least 40 people were hospitalized in the bedlam.

The night marked a major reversal in direction for what student leaders have long maintained was a movement principled in nonviolence. Student groups, who bristle at the Chinese governments insistence on vetting candidates for Hong Kongs top political leader, have urged protesters to show their readiness for the right to free elections by exercising restraint.

But months of waiting in the streets for an increasingly unlikely turnaround from either Beijing or the Hong Kong government, as well as seething anger at perceived police brutality, appear to have sharpened protesters ambitions.

I think weve had enough, said Doug Lee, 20, a musician, on Monday morning. Im ready to fight, ready to protect our people, ready for revolution.

Speaking over a megaphone on Sunday night, two of the student leaders, Nathan Law and Oscar Lai, called for assembled protesters to surround the government offices and prevent employees from getting to work in the morning. Yet leaders gave little direction as to what should happen in the hours between their speeches and the start of the new working week.

There is no plan, said one protester, first-named Danny, as he stood at one entry to the headquarters. The 20-year-old insisted, though, that he at least knew that protesters would not charge at police and would remain peaceful.

Yet just minutes later, a group of protesters in helmets, goggles and face masks counted down and charged at police lines near Tamar Park, a swath of green hemmed by skyscrapers and lights wishing Seasons greetings to this freewheeling metropolis of 7 million. A second group of demonstrators charged at police blocking access to nearby Lung Wo Road, and protesters surged while cheering and clapping into the key thoroughfare.

Umbrellas were passed hand to hand toward the front line as protesters, reeling from pepper spray and bloodied by batons, were hurried out of the crowd and passed to medics. Protesters linked hands to surround wounded demonstrators and form the most makeshift of hospitals on the grass. One volunteer medic, Shane Lee, 21, said that he had treated at least 30 people overnight, including four head wounds and an arm fracture.

As the confrontations intensified, with police forcing protesters out of Lung Wo Road overnight, government employees were told they did not have to report to work.

By morning, intermittent clashes between protesters and police continued, with protesters showing a visible anger not seen before at a camp where protesters spend most of their time tapping at smartphones, studying, and passing around cakes and noodle dishes. In some instances, protesters threw water bottles at cops and raised middle fingers amid raucous jeers.

Police also heckled protesters, tearing down their banners calling for real democracy, and it at times became unclear who was aggressing on whom. Police say they made 40 arrests overnight.

Why would Hong Kong police do that? said one man, surnamed Tam, a 30-year-old hairdresser who told TIME he had been hit several times with a baton.

Protesters in Admiralty district had over the past few weeks entered a period of reckoning after Hong Kongs political leaders had shut down any possibility of future talks with student groups. Student leaders plans to take their demands to Beijing ended at Hong Kongs airport, when the Chinese government revoked their permits to visit mainland China. Meanwhile, polls put public support for the street occupations on the decline.

Questions about the future of the movement became all the more potent when police acted on an injunction brought by transport companies frustrated by the traffic disruption and cleared a virulent satellite protest site across the iconic Victoria Harbor in Kowloons raffish Mong Kok district.

Joshua Wong, a student protest leader, defended the evening of tumult in a Facebook post, saying that students [were] forced to take this step, after all other options were exhausted and after weathering months of police violence. Seven cops were arrested last week for the alleged beating of a protester during an earlier attempt to occupy Lung Wo Road, and local journalist groups have filed complaints at police headquarters over the violent arrest of two reporters covering protests in Mong Kok. Protesters have on recent nights convened in the neighborhood to they insist go shopping or wait for a bus, bringing traffic to an almost comic standstill as police chaff at protesters cross[ing] the roads slowly.

Students occupy peacefully, but are faced with police violence, wrote Wong, who has accused police of assaulting him, including punching him and touching his groin, during his arrest in Mong Kok earlier this week.

Hong Kong Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok denied the police used excessive force. Batons and bricks were found in the bags of the protesters, he told reporters.

Lam Cheuk-ting, chief executive of the Democratic Party, said that student leaders had not discussed their plans to surround government headquarters with either the pro-democratic legislators or the leaders of Occupy Central, the group that originally called for pro-democracy sit-ins here but later ceded the face of the protests to two student groups. I understand why they dont retreat because the government hasnt responded to our demands, any of the demands, he tells TIME. But we all know that if the deadlock continues we will gradually lose support from the public.

Q1. The Hong Kong government is delaying the clearance of the Occupy areas, and the Occupiers are refusing to obey the court injunctions. What does this show?
41%: When the law is being broken, it encourages law-breaking
25%: Political bickering has destroyed the authority of justice
19%: The last defense of rule-of-law has been breached
9%: There isn't any problems here
6%: No opinion

Q2. The pan-democratic Legislative Councilors are starting a non-cooperation movement. What do you think?
43%: Livelihood policies will be blocked and citizens will suffer
23%: Legislation will be paralyzed and governance will be blocked
14%: New policies will be hard to introduce and old policies will be hard to implement
17%: There isn't any problems here
3%: No opinion

Q3. The Legislative Councilors are filibustering and the Hong Kong government cannot push policies. What does this show?
34%: Governance is being obstructed
31%: The foundations of social stability are being eroded
26%: Failed policies mean failed governance
8%: There is no problem here
1%: No opinion

Q4. In Hong Kong, justice, legislation and administration are being challenged. What is the crisis?
36%: Social instability with unimaginable damage
31%: Failed governance and hardship
17%: Business will be hindered, and investment will be dampened
14%: There is no crisis here
2%: No opinion

Q5. Who bears the biggest responsibility for the Occupy movement?
37%: The Occupy Central trio/the Hong Kong Federation of Students/Scholarism
25%: Jimmy Lai and other backroom financiers
23%: The pan-democratic Legislative Councilors
10%: Nobody has to bear responsibility
5%: No opinion

Q6. What is the price that pan-democratic Legislative Councilors will have to pay?
35%: Bankruptcy of public trust and popularity
24%: Rejection by voters who will make them pay
22%: Election setbacks and loss of elected seats
15%: No price needs to be paid
4%: No opinion

The anti-Occupy website SpeakOut HK announced that it has detected a malicious imitator SpeakOut Hong Kong. The imitator uses the same logo with the change of one word (which sounds the same in Cantonese). If you can't beat them, join them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs5FFrz1TxM (from SpeakOut HK)
0:10 Woman: "Buy things."
0:15 Woman: "If you can squeeze outside, you can buy things."
0:18 Woman: "I want to buy things."
0:20 Man: "I want to buy things."
0:26 Crowd: "Buy things, buy things, buy things ..." (all the stores are shuttered long since)
0:37 Girl in school uniform: "I want genuine universal suffrage." Crowd: "I want universal suffrage."
0:48 Girl in school uniform: "I want to walk across the street."
0:58 Girl in school uniform: "Police and citizens cooperate." Crowd: "Occupy Mong Kok."
1:10 Girl in school uniform: "I want (martial arts grandmaster) Wong Fei-hung." Crowd: "I don't want (Police Commissioner) Tsang Wai-hung."
1:20 Crowd: "Fuck you mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother!..."
1:26 Man: "You have Lee Si-yin (note: an iconic anti-Occupy activist). I have Shum-yau Baby (note: an actress)."
1:36 Police officer: "Everybody please get off the roadway. Do not cause a jam. Thank you for your cooperation."
1:39 People gathered around in the middle of the road and pretended to drop money accidentally. They exclaimed in surprise and took photos.
3:15 A bar of soap was found on the ground as people wondered who left it there. A man said, "Police sir, let me stand behind you and you can pick up the bar of soap."
3:37 Police officer: "Do not stop and stand on the roadway, please."
3:55 Police officer to man: "You pick it up." Man: "I don't dare to pick it up." Police: "Please move back to the sidewalk. Are you picking it up? Do you like to pick up soap bars?"
4:12 Police officer: "Please move back onto the sidewalk. Cars are coming through. Thank you for cooperating. Please move back, excuse me. Let the cars through."
4:27 A man drops a money bill on the ground and picks it up. Other people pick up coins, drop them, pick them up again, etc.
5:16 Man: "I want genuine universal suffrage."
5:22 Man: "I want genuine universal suffrage."
5:30 Crowd: "I want genuine universal suffrage. I want genuine universal suffrage. I want genuine universal suffrage."
5:44 Crowd: "Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother!"
6:00 Crowd imitating dog barks: "Woof! Woof! Woof!"
6:13 Police officer: "Citizens, please do not stay around here."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqOpIbbL_rc (from SpeakOut HK)
0:03 Crowd: "Evil police, evil police, evil police ..."
0:18 Man: "Go back and eat dog food."
0:21 Photo of Tsui Po-ko is shown (with a young boy giving him the middle finger at 0:40)
0:48 Crowd: "Eat shit! Eat shit!"
0:56 Crowd: "Evil police, evil police, evil police ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8jf4o9nx-s
0:06 Policeman: "Citizens, please make way because a car is coming through. Please get back on the sidewalk as quickly as possible."
0:20 Crowd: "Louder. Louder. Louder..." (as if they can't hear) "Can't hear you. Louder. Can't hear you. Louder..." A truck approaches.
0:58 Policeman: "Please get back on the sidewalk. A car is coming to Soy Street."
1:00 Crowd: "Putonghua, putonghua, putonghua ..."
1:13 Crowd: "Nathan Road, Nathan Road, Nathan Road ..."
2:08 Crowd: "Buy things, buy things, buy things ..."
2:28 Crowd: "Nathan Road, Nathan Road, Nathan Road ..."
2:43 Crowd: "Buy things. Nathan Road. Buy things. Nathan Road ..."
3:56 Crowd: "Buy things. (two bangs on a garbage can/recycle bin) ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRKqlhQ64I8 (INT News Channel)
20:26 video, action mainly within the first five minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAG7CYDrX5M
Kicking a bar of soap in the middle of the road

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onDaTMuPHR0 Mobile Occupy Mong Kok
0:00 Watching big screen television
1:20 Play-gambling
3:00 Milling crowd along Nathan Road; jewelry store Chow Sang Sang lowers gates
3:12 Crowd: "Open the doors, open the doors, open the doors ..."
4:03 Jewelry store Chow Tai Took lowers gates
4:37 Crowd: "Cross the road, cross the road, cross the road ..."
5:04 Cars coming down the pedestrian street Sai Yeung Choi Street South.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_qfbwfH_Uc&list=UUVCcf9cH4F_THEiEtCY5Fbg (INT News Channel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjcMA-Qxosg Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Argyle Street (~12:47am 11/29/2014)


Federation of Students/Scholarism has this poster for the event of November 30 (Sunday) 6pm at Umbrella Square, Admiralty. The slogan is "Do not forget our original intentions/Resistance by all of the people." Indeed, what have the incidents in Mong Kok over the past several days to do with the original intentions? This is just a bunch of people chanting slogans including obscenities, crossing the road slowly back and forth, watching the large-screen television as a group, lining up to wait for buses which are bypassing the bus stop anyway, play-acting to drop coins on the road and looking for them, finding a bar of soap on the ground and debating who should pick it up, throwing paper airplanes, waiting to cross the street while chanting "I want Little Fat Sheep (= name of a hot pot restaurant on Argyle Street)", etc. They are only making themselves (and therefore the cause that they espouse) even more unpopular than ever.

P.S. The phrase "Buy things" was chanted many times during these demonstrations. The demonstrators claimed that they were responding to Chief Executive CY Leung's plea to citizens to go out to the formerly "occupied" Mong Kok area and spend money (consume) to help out the local economy. So they chanted "Spend money (consume 消費)" in Cantonese. But they also chanted "Buy things (購物)" in putonghua. In fact, these particular demonstrations are being named the "Buy Things" Movement or the "Shopping Revolution". The psychological backdrop is interesting.

The main demonstration is now off the major thoroughfares Nathan Road and Argyle Street and onto the pedestrian street Sai Yeung Choi South between Argyle Street and Dundas Street. If you walk down this street, you will find electronics stores (Broadway, Fortress, Chung Yuen, Suning, etc), telecommunication services (PCCW, Now TV, 3, HK Broadband, Cable TV, China Mobile, Wilson, etc), pharmacies (Mannings, Watsons and many independent stores), beauty products (Sasa, Bonjour, etc), jewelry (Chow Tai Fook, Chow Sang Sang, TSL, Luk Fook, etc), fashion wear (G2000, Bossini, Mirabell, Levi's etc). Thus, the main part of the customer base for this busiest shopping street of Hong Kong is mainland individual travelers who sweep up everything with wads of cash. Meanwhile the beloved traditional stores (fish ball noodle shops, used books stores, etc) have been squeezed out by high rents. Therefore, going out there and hurting business is a measure of revenge. By the way, most of the stores here belong to big companies with many branch stores and can easily absorb any losses in their Mong Kok branch stores.

But even if all the pharmacies and jewelry stores go out of business, the traditional small stores are not going to return. The calculations are simple: How many fish balls do you have to sell a day in order to pay the rent for a 200-square-feet stall in Mong Kok? Would you believe 50,000? You can't make that many fish balls by hand; if you order ready-made ones, then they are not "traditional"; even if you hire 50 people, get up at 2am and make 50,000 fish balls every morning, you won't have that many buyers (50,000 fish balls per day at 5 fish balls per order is 10,000 orders per day, which divided by 12 business hours = 833 orders per hour = 14 orders per minute that you have to string five fish balls on a stick, collect money and give change).

P.P.S (Wen Wei Po) November 30, 2014

Our reporter visited a number of upper-floor businesses on Sai Yeung Choi Street South to see whether they benefited from the "spending spree" of the demonstrators.

According to Ms. Yeung for a coffee shop, the nightly gatherings have meant that they go zero business three nights in a row. During the Occupy period, the business volume had dropped to 30% compared to before. However, since rent and salaries still have to be paid, she continued to open doors. "If the doors are open, then there is a chance of some business. If the doors are closed, there is zero chance." Ms. Yeung said that the demonstrators made a lot of commotion at the street entrance and pretended to watch television. But they have no intention of buying anything. She characterized the demonstrators as "elementary school chickens."  She was worried that the demonstrators would continue and cause her business to suffer. She said angrily: "If I jump out the window onto the street, business may become better!"

According to co-owner Mr. Cheng of the coffee shop, the demonstrators are not college students. "A lot of people are slipping in." He was worried enough that he closed the coffee shop early. He will have to see how things are on the weekend before deciding. Mr. Yeung and Mr. Cheng supported the clearance to normalize their business. They declined to be photographed because of fear of retaliation from the demonstrators.

Mr. Chan owns an 11-year-old upstairs bookstore. Business has been down 35% since Occupy Mong Kok. After the police clearance, business still hasn't improved due to the continuing demonstrations. "Basically, there is nothing to be afraid of. I'll just have to take it one step at a time." When asked about Scholarism urging the demonstrators to leave Mong Kok, Mr. Chan said that the demonstrators have said that Scholarism does not represent them and therefore they may return. He supports the police for clearing the area in accordance with the law. Again, he declined to be photographed because of fear of retaliation from the demonstrators.

Mrs. Cheung owns a 20-year-old upstairs bookstore that specializes in student textbooks. During the Occupy period, business fell by 50%. Since she sells mainly textbooks, there was no other way to reduce loses. "Business has never been this bad." Mrs. Cheung supports the police clearance. It is too soon to tell whether business will improve. She is concerned that Mong Kok will be re-occupied. She will look at the situation before deciding whether she will close the early.

Mr. Lo is the owner of an upstairs eyeglass shop. Traffic and business was clearly lower during the Occupy period. After the clearance, business has picked up 20% to 30%. He said that he can only accept passively: "Nothing to fear. I don't control things." He hopes the police clearance will bring business back to normal levels. He declined to be photographed, because of fear of retaliation from the demonstrators.

Mr. Wong runs a sports gear shop upstairs. Business has not picked up since the clearance because some people continue to make "trouble" the past few evenings. The shop closed several hours early on Friday. He expects to close early on Saturday and Sunday as well. He said that his business is only temporarily affected. Compared to the chaos in society, his business losses are trivial. He supports the police enforcing the law.

In the end, you have to ask one important question: Is this going to bring "genuine universal suffrage" any closer?" Methinks that it will be even further away.

(SCMP) Tramways loses HK$7.8 million revenue after being stopped in its tracks. November 29, 2014.

Hong Kong Tramways has urged pro-democracy demonstrators to release its occupied track in Causeway Bay, saying it had lost 3.9 million passengers and HK$7.8 million in revenue during the Occupy Central movement.

Tramways reached an agreement with Admiralty protesters to unblock the Queensway section, and services to Happy Valley resumed on October 14. But it said the occupation of Yee Woo Street in Causeway Bay had left 50 vehicles unable to return to the main repair depot in Whitty Street, Western District.

... Vivant said the company had lost up to 55,000 passengers a day since the Occupy movement started in late September. Before its Admiralty section reopened, the company was losing 45 per cent of its passengers, but this had been trimmed to 25 per cent, he said.

That was what Hong Kong Tramways said. But there are three parties involved here. Hong Kong Tramways is the operator of the tram service, and is owned and operated by a French company. The fact that a big foreign company might be losing some money won't bother too many Hong Kong citizens.

Then there are the citizens who use the tram service to go about. Finally there are the Occupy people who have staked out a tent city in Causeway Bay over one of two tram rails. What do they think about the situation? Here is a video that illustrates some of the thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKeaVOHtoPs (from SpeakOut HK)
0:01 Title: "86 year-old Grandma Ng and Central-Western District and Southern District councilors went to Admiralty to persuade demonstrators to open the roads."
0:10 Location: intersection of Queensway and Cotton Tree Drive
0:15 Grandma Ng: "I am 86 years old now. The government lets us take public transportation for two dollars.  But now even two dollars is rendered useless. No trams, no buses, nothing. I cannot walk too far. My feet hurt. I have a male companion at home. He is in the fourth stage ... liver ... lungs. If we have to call the ambulance and the ambulance can't come, he is going to die for sure. Right down you are occupying Central. How are you different from taking over by force? Taking over by force. I can't go here, I can't go there. I can't walk. I can't take transportation. I want you to communicate this for me. Tell them to give us our roads back. Tram routes, bus routes, all the roads. All that has to be given back to us."
1:02 Occupy man: "If you want to look for someone (to speak to), you should look for the Federation of Students folks. You shouldn't be talking to us."
1:04 District Councilor Chan: "Are you taking part in Federation of Students activities? Are you together?"
1:09 Occupy woman: "We are following the positions of the Federation of Students to do things."
1:10 District Councilor Chan: "Citizens have to take buses."
1:02 Occupy man: "About the buses. You can check with Citybus, New World First Bus. They have also ... helped the Southern District and your Central-Western District citizens.

1:24 Title: "Lobbying a second individual"
1:30 Grandma Ng: "I am getting angry now."
1:30 District Councilor Chan: "You are making life ..."
1:32 Occupy man: "So there is an opposite effect."
1:33 Grandma Ng: "Yes, an opposite effect."
1:35 Grandma Ng: "I ask you. I plead you."
1:39 Occupy man: "If they re-open Civic Square. Or in the preceding incident ... Tsang Wai-hung ... if he resigns, then this road will re-open immediately."

1:45 Title: "Lobbying a third individual"
1:51 Grandma Ng: "It is very bad for us, because we have ailments.
1:57 An Occupy man continues to eat his instant noodles and does not even look at Grandma Ng.
2:00 Another Occupy man: "This is none of our business. You ..."
2:00 Grandma Ng: "I hope that you can relay on my behalf ..."
2:01 Another Occupy man: "You go ..."
2:02 District Councilor Chan: "You are affecting ..."
2:03 Grandma Ng: "I am sorry. We want to ask you: If it is none of your business, then why are you sitting here?"
2:08 Second Occupy man: "We sit here ..."
2:10 Title: "Occupy friends, please give us a road to use!"

On the tram users side, it is straightforward. If Hong Kong Tramways lost 3.9 million passenger-trips, then some of those users can accept it by using alternate modes of transportation, but others are very much inconvenienced and cannot help but be displeased.

On the Occupy side, one response is "This is not my problem. You need to go and talk to those in charge." Those in charge are not necessarily illuminating (see, Alex Chow On The Record). Another response is to recite a list of conditions for re-opening the roads:

- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Chief Executive CY Leung must resign
- The Political Reform trio of Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen and Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam must resign
- Hong Kong Police Commissioner Tsang Wai-hung must resign
- A formal and thorough investigation of police violence must be conducted
- The proposed political package must be withdrawn
- The National People's Congress must rescind its August 31st decision about the 2017 Chief Executive election procedure
- The National People's Congress must apologize to the people of Hong Kong
- Civil nomination must be used in place of the nomination committee for Chief Executive election in 2017 (and the relevant part of the Basic Law will be amended to reflect this change)
- The Functional Constituencies of the Legislative Council must be eliminated in the 2016 elections (and the relevant part of the Basic Law will be amended to reflect this change)
- The forecourt of the Central Government Complex shall be formally named Civic Square and be open to the public
...

On one hand, some citizens want their roads back and don't care much about the Occupy issues. On the other hand, the Occupy people want their demands met and don't care much about what those citizens need. And they don't even have consensus on the list of demands. The net result is a huge public opinion swing against the Occupy movement.

In its original conception, Occupy Central involves 10,000 persons in a sit-down in the Central district. Some roads may be blocked temporarily, and it may take the police two to three days to remove all the people. Then those people will willingly go to court and plead guilty to unlawful assembly. The point will be made about the demands of these people. In practice, the Occupy movement resulted in the spontaneous occupation of major thoroughfares in Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, causing inconveniences (extra commuting expenses and time spent) for most people and economic hardship for some people, with some more so than others.

Here is another tram news story.

(Oriental Daily) November 28, 2014.

According to Hong Kong Tramways, the blocking of Yee Woo Street by the Occupy people in Causeway Bay has stranded about 50 trams on eastern Hong Kong island. These trams are unable to return to the Whitty Street depot on western Hong Kong island for maintenance/repair. The Occupy people in Causeway Bay apologized for the impact of the Occupy movement on tram service, but they said that they government caused it.

Occupier Ms. Wong apologizes for the impact of the Occupy movement on the tram service. But she does not agree the trams are not being maintained/repaired because she has observed maintenance workers working on trams near the Occupy zone.

Ms. Wong also pointed out that Hong Kong Tramways should question the government about using forceful, violent and unpopular means to make the people bend to its will, and also not engaging in negotiations to respond to public opinion. Ms. Wong said that she also has the habit of taking the tram. But she pointed out that the reason why Hong Kong Tramways is losing its competitive edge against alternate modes of transportation is that the government has introduced the HK$2 fare for senior citizens and qualified physically handicapped people on all public transportation. She said that impact (on tram service usage) is even larger than the Occupy movement.

Student Tse said that there are many factors that can cause Hong Kong Tramways to lose customers. If there is a traffic jam, the tram cannot take an alternate route. Besides there are many other substitute transportation for the tram, such as the MTR and buses. Therefore, the problem cannot be solely attributed to the Occupy movement. Besides Student Tse said that she has seen workers working on the tram by the roadside. Therefore, she does not think that the trams need to return to the depot for maintenance/repair.

[Note: It is true that some minor maintenance/repair can be made right there and then. However, major activity may require the entire tram be raised by a crane at the depot.]

The Occupy people keep saying that they 'apologize' for the inconvenience (but very seldom about the economic hardships) caused by their movement. But saying "I apologize" is not enough to be an 'apology.' A genuine apology contains these ingredients:

1. State what you have done
2. State why that was wrong
3. Make a statement of apology
4. Promise that you will cease and desist
5. Promise that you will make amends for the damage caused by you

For example, consider a hypothetical oil company:

1. Statement of what was done -- "An oil tanker belonging to our company went aground off the coast last night and spilled 1 million barrels of crude oil into the ocean."

2. Statement of why that was wrong -- "The resulting oil leakage has polluted the surrounding environment and negatively impacted the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people in the fishing, tourism and other industries."

3. Statement of apology (simple and direct) -- "Our company apologizes for what has happened." Do not say: "Our company is sorry that some people don't like what's happening" as if it's their fault to be so particular about some shit that happens all the time in daily life.

4. Promise of future action -- "Our company will be responsible for cleaning up the site, starting immediately with all available resources. We will review our safety procedures to insure that this never happens again."

5. Promise to make amends for damages -- "Our company accepts our responsibility in this matter and we will compensate all those affected for their losses. We will also make a contribution of $10 billion to an environmental fund to help restore the ecology in the impacted areas."

Switch to the Occupy movement and it may go something like this:

1. Statement of what was done -- "During the Occupy movement, we blocked a number of major thoroughfares in Hong Kong and prevented access by trams, buses and automobiles."

2. Statement of why that was wrong -- "Although our intention was to apply pressure on the government, the fact was that we have created inconveniences for many citizens, some more so than others. We have also caused economic hardship for a number of businesses and workers. This was never our intention, and it was wrong to have done so."

3. Statement of apology: "We apologize to those people who were inconvenienced and/or suffered economic hardship."

4. Promise of future action -- "We will immediately open all the roads again. We solemnly promise that we will not repeat this in the future. No social/democratic movement can succeed if its actions directly and negatively impact the people."

5. Promise to make amends for damages -- "We will reach out to those who have suffered economic hardships as a result of the Occupy movement, and assist them to the best of our ability."

Nobody has ever said anything like that.

Addendum: (Apple Daily; YouTube backup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwv5ZqUaNMI ) December 9, 2014

The Occupy Causeway Bay people thanked Hong Kong Tramways for accepting the economic losses without getting an court injunction (like certain other businesses did), thus not being exploited by the Hong Kong SAR government. They also apologized to the local residents and businesses who have been inconvenienced by the continual road blockage.

They took a bow at 0:19 in the video. The press complained that they were not ready at the time, and requested them to take another bow at 0:27 to the call of "One, Two, Three." At 0:55, the spokeswoman said: "Sorry, sorry about that. Like this." This is not an apology. It is an insult by characterizing the economic losses as "inconveniences."

Addendum: (Bastille Post) December 13, 2014

Occupy Central continued for 75 days. The businesses in the Occupy areas suffered, and many transportation companies suffered tremendously. The Kwoon Cheung Company and the Mong Kok-based Chiu Hing Minibus Company obtained court injunctions. But these are not the largest transportation companies out there. Does this mean that the largest companies did not suffer economic losses? That doesn't seem to be the case.

In the case of Hong Kong Island, the Hong Kong Tramways was most affected. Because of the blockade in Causeway Bay, about 50 trams were stuck on the east side of Hong Kong Island. The Hong Kong Tramways spent more than $200,000 to transport equipment back to the Sai Wan depot to repair and back to Sai Wan Ho for re-installation.

But the repair costs are nothing compared to the lost revenue. Due to the Occupy Movement, five of the six routes were affected. The company lost 3.9 million passenger trips at $7.8 million revenue. But the Hong Kong Tramways said that it is not contemplating legal recourse at this time.

I can see that the Occupy Movement was clearly impacting traffic in Hong Kong, especially the transportation industry. But this is seldom reported in the media, which deliberately sought out persons who are not affected. For example, after the police cleared Mong Kok, a media outlet interviewed a taxi driver who said that it made no difference to revenue. It is not hard to find exceptions, but why won't the media interview some typical cases in which people are negatively impacted?

I wondered why the large bus companies did not try for court injunctions, leaving it only to the medium-sized companies. I spoke to senior persons at large companies and I found that they were angry but also afraid. If they seek a court injunction, they would be standing on the opposite side of the Occupy people. They are afraid of being attacked, besieged and boycotted. Even though the Occupy Movement was illegal and hurt the interests of the passengers, companies and workers, they were too afraid to speak up.

The case of the Hee Kee Crab Restaurant owner is an example. Internet users started a boycott campaign against him. So it is understandable that the big companies are keeping quiet in spite of their anger. I often hear that freedom in Hong Kong is lost because people are engaging in self-censorship due to their fear of the mainland authorities. Perhaps that is the case. But on the other side, should keeping silent because of the fear of what demonstrators might do be counted as self-censorship too?

Q1. Have you been unhappy over the increasingly severe social conflicts?
26.0%: No
73.0%: Yes
1.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. How unhappy were you? (Among those who said that they were unhappy in Q1)
24.9%: Slightly unhappy
37.7%: Somewhat unhappy
36.7%: Extremely unhappy
0.7%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. Have your relationship with other people gotten worse due to differences in political opinion?
80.0%: No
18.5%: Yes
1.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Q4. With whom has relationship gotten worse? (Among those who said that relationships have gotten worse)
58.8%: Friends
27.0%: Immediate family members
22.3%: Colleagues
19.6%: Relatives
9.5%: Fellow students
4.1%: Neighbors
6.8%: Other
1.4%: Don't know/hard to say

Q5. Do you accept the increasingly radical behaviors of anti-government people?
68.8%: No
19.3%: In-between
8.7%: Yes
3.1%: Don't know/hard to say

Q6. Do you accept the increasingly radical behaviors of pro-government people?
61.8%: No
21.4%: In-between
12.9%: Yes
4.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Q7. Are you concerned that these social conflicts will frequently take place in Hong Kong?
22.7%: No
19.5%: In-between
54.8%: Yes
3.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Q8. What is the trend for these conflicts over the next years?
40.4%: More severe
25.8%: About the same as now
19.1%: More moderate
14.7%: Don't know/hard to say

Q9. Do you agree that only extremely radical methods can make the government respond?
62.6%: Disagree
22.6%: In-between
12.4%: Agree
2.4%: Don't know/hard to say

Q10. How should one fight for social/public rights?
14.4%: Hold on to the principles, never yield
76.3%: Both sides should take a step back and seek common ground
2.6%: Neither
6.6%: Don't know/hard to say

Watch this video of the Mong Kok clearance on November 27: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwOBd4fkIyw. At 1:51, a young man told the TVB reporter: "After work, I came to stroll in the streets. The Chief Executive asked us to come and shop. I bought a cup of ice cream when I got here. Without any cause, a police officer grabbed me on the chest."

An Internet user pointed out that a doppelgnger was previously seen in a Scholarism t-shirt handing out Occupy Central leaflets.

In another case, a taxi driver was first interviewed about business conditions after the Mong Kok clearance. "There was no traffic jams prior to the clearance. There are now traffic jams after the clearance. (During the Occupy period), people waited for taxis. Now my taxi is waiting for people. Things have gotten worse." Later, the same individual was photographed by Oriental Daily walking his dog in support of Occupy Central. He did not even change his clothes after work.

These are the second and third instances of TVB  interviewing people without disclosing the conflict of interest. The first case is at #013. Why is TVB so "lucky"? These events cannot be happening on a random basis, because the probability of three lightning strikes in a row is infinitesimally small (unless you have a magnetic personality).

(Oriental Daily)

The Luk Fook Jewelry Group has three branch shops in Mong Kok. They re-opened for business at 1pm. During the Occupation, "our workers would shutter the shop whenever there seems to be trouble on the street. This was bound to affect business. Mong Kok should have been cleared after the first couple of weeks. But it went on for two months. Our losses are tremendous."

The manager of Hai Yun Pharmacy on Shan Tung Street said that tourists disappeared during the Occupation, and they lost about 20% of their business volume.

At New Town Mall and Mong Kok Centre, the shop owners had previously petitioned the landlord to reduce rents due to smaller crowds. Our reporter observed that there were about 20 customers on the third floor of New Town Mall, which was triple the number during the Occupation. At Mong Kok Centre, there were also more customers.

New Town Mall accessory shop owner Mr. Yan said that this autumn was the worst in terms of business volume across the eight years that his shop has been in business. Mong Kok Centre accessory shop owner Ms. Yang said that she was glad about the clearance, and said: "I hope to make up the business during the Christmas season. I am worried that those Occupy people may return. If this goes for another six months, I would have to close the job and go out to look for a jog."

By the evening, clashes began to break out. Shan Tung Street Kowloon Tax Free Pharmacy manager Mr. Yeung said, "I lowered the shutters twice today already. With so many people around, no customers would dare enter!" The pharmacy usually closes at midnight, but he decided to close early today.

The demonstrators returned in another form for the next couple of nights. This time, they did not pitch tents on Nathan Road. Instead, they stood around the pedestrian mall of Sai Yeung Choi Street South and pretended that they were shopping. When the store managers saw the large crowd outside, they shuttered their stores and so they did zero business. The crowds chanted loudly in the streets until 4am. It was a great party for them. The residents upstairs got no sleep. This is why the Occupy movement is not welcomed in high-density commercial/residential districts. The demonstrators either don't know or don't care, and they wondered why public opinion is swinging against them, or why resident throw objects down onto the street at them.

Here are some videos of the night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4MrOJ2nFUQ Chants of "Spend money, spend money, spend money ..." in Cantonese and then "Buy things, buy things, buy things ..." in putonghua.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QHiHV-yNNs November 26, 2014 1130pm. Police woman asked people to leave because the situation is getting dangerous, but she is booed by the crowd. At 0:48, the crowd chants "I want genuine universal suffrage." At 1:02, the crowd raised their middle fingers to salute. From 1:22, there is a series of make-believe games by the people. A 1:23, happy-looking people raised ostensibly lost-and-found objects in search of their owners. At 1:35, the crowd chanted "Spend money, spend money, spend money ..." in Cantonese. At 1:44, a man yelled "I want to buy a telephone." At 1:54, the crowd chanted "Buy things, buy things, buy things ..." in putonghua. Of course, they were just standing around and all the shops are shuttered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9LUzc7CEtQ&list=UUD6ApgB89vPuRplh6y5GjEw&index=2 Street fighting. Once upon a time, the movement began as the organization named "Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP)". The love and peace have long gone since.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXyiz8PL1Hw A group of demonstrators have trapped a small number of police officers in a cul-de-sac. The police just stood there, while the demonstrators chant obscenities at them. At 1:27, they began chanting "Fuck your mother, fuck your mother, fuck your mother ..."

This brings us to Friday, for which a much larger turnout is expected. After all, people work during the week and protest during the weekend.


The front page A1 story in The Sun is: "Battle sure to restart in Mong Kok tonight."

(The Sun, Wen Wei Po) Yesterday, the self-proclaimed Facebook group "Hong Kong V-mask team" called for a "people's arm insurrection". They called the masses to show up to do "shopping" in Mong Kok. They made a list of protective gear such as helmets, goggles, body armor, and umbrellas which can be purchased at hardware stores, war game shops and bicycle stores. Shields cannot be purchased at this time, but they can be converted from pot covers, luggage or large wooden boards.


The V-mask banner says:
"November 28 Friday
Armed insurrection by all the people
The people of Hong Kong ... defend firmly ... counter-attack"

[The description is puzzling. What is being defended here? The already cleared Nathan Road tent city? The Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall? The original goal of genuine universal suffrage? And what is the objective in counter-attacking? Set up a tent city on Nathan Road/Sai Yeung Choi Street South and defend it until the end of time? Beat up a few police officers? By the way, what percent of the populace will support an armed insurrection?]

The explanation for this event is:
"We are not violent thugs ... we wear protective gear solely in order to protect ourselves.
In the face of powerful authorities, we have no other choice but to resist with our blood and flesh."

[This explanation is incoherent. First of all, "全民武裝起義" means "armed insurrection by all the people." According to Google, an insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." An "armed insurrection" is an insurgency, "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict." If insurgency is the action, you need offensive weapons and not protective gear.]

Reference reading: Manual for an Armed Insurrection (1866) by Auguste Blanqui.

The police already have 4,000 officers in and around Mong Kok, and they intend to bring in another 3,000 on Friday night.

(SCMP) Students threaten to target government buildings after night of clashes in Mong Kok. November 27, 2014.

The Federation of Students has threatened to target government buildings in response to the police clearance of the Occupy camp in Mong Kok following violent clashes overnight. "I think we have made it very clear that if [the police] continue the violent way of clearing up the place, we will have further actions," Federation of Students core member Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok said on an RTHK radio programme this morning. "The further actions include a possibility of some escalations pointed at government-related buildings or some government-related departments," she said. Leung, president of the University of Hong Kong students' union, said details would be released later but not before tomorrow.

Here is a priority list of Occupy targets as graded by perceived strategic importance.

Level 1 (top): Chinese People's Liberation Army Forces Hong Kong Building, Central district, Hong Kong Island. This building is the symbol of the rule/sovereignty of the Chinese Central Government in Hong Kong. An Occupation (or even an attempted assault) is an open declaration of insurrection/rebellion/war, and will likely bring the PLA into the fray. The guards won't let you in without a fight. They have guns and you don't PERIOD. There is also a PLA base on Stonecutters Island, but it won't be easy to move large numbers of attackers there and supply them for a long occupation period.

Level 2: Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Sai Wan, Hong Kong Island. This is the representative of the Chinese Communist Party/Central Government in Hong Kong. This is like occupying the consulate of a foreign country against which one has some kind of gripe. This is an open declaration of hostility.

Level 3: Police stations, such as the Hong Kong Police Headquarters at Arsenal Street, Wan Chai, Hong Kong Island. If the police are the tools of repression, then it is logical to counter-attack their headquarters. More importantly, everybody knows that there are guns and ammunition inside. There are many possible consequences, not all of them favorable. If this happens, it will probably a bunch of guys in V-masks charging in, seizing the guns and handing them out to the following students. Then the V-masks guys will disappear in a hurry, leaving the students holding guns that they don't know how to use and looking down at the heavily armed Special Duties Unit ("Flying Tigers") rushing in. That is the pattern so far for the guys in V-masks.

Level 4: The major traffic hubs/arteries: Hong Kong International Airport, the tunnels and bridges and the Mass Transit Railway. The airport is different from the rest because its security is operated along the Airport Authority Bylaw which means security units carrying H&K MP5 A3 sub-machine guns and Glock 17 pistols. The tunnels and bridges are easy to block but impossible to hold due to supply problems. That is to say, you can block a tunnel/bridge by blowing up the tires of a few trucks. If you are few in numbers, you will be arrested and the trucks towed away in less than one hour. If you bring one thousand friends with you, then you won't have a continuous supply of food and water. That is why Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung once suggested a four-hour blockade of the Hung Hom Tunnel only. The MTR is easy to stop. You can just jump onto the tracks and the authorities will have to shut down the system to avoid electrocuting you. If you don't want to take the risk yourself, you can throw a pet animal on the track (see Dog killed on MTR track). The storm of public opinion backlash of these actions will be incredible, because there is no other way for some people to get around at all (e.g. a truck delivering perishable goods from the airport to Hong Kong Island). You will have inconvenienced a lot of people, but this won't bother CY Leung and the Central Government. You will also be much hated by animal lovers all over the world.

Here is a YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc_G-m_YUIY video of someone giving a speech to "occupy" the Hong Kong International Airport. His idea of Occupy HK International Airport is to stand at the entrance to the terminal building with an umbrella in hand in order to be interviewed by the arriving foreign correspondents about the current situation. He says to memorize your speech in English beforehand.

Level 5: Major government buildings: Government House, Chief Executive's Office, Government Headquarters, Legislative Council, High Court. There is some symbolic value (e.g. "today we have taken over the heart of the government"), but the government won't stop running as a result. Government workers will go to back-up locations to continue to work.

Level 6: Major financial institutions: IFC (which houses the Hong Kong Monetary Authority; Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme Authority; Hong Kong Mortgage Authority), also the tallest building on Hong Kong Island; Exchange Square (which houses the Hong Kong Stock Exchange); ICC, also the tallest building in all of the Hong Kong SAR housing the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley; Bank of China Tower; HSBC Building; Citibank Plaza. The major financial institutions should all have contingency plans in place to take their operations off-site.

Level 7: Major pedestrian/vehicular hubs, major commercial/residential centers: Admiralty, Central, Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui, Mong Kok have already been occupied before with the result of having a massive public opinion swing against those actions. Right now, more than 80% of the people want the Occupy people to retreat. It hurts the local businesses and vexes the local residents, and it inconveniences almost everybody. It does not hurt CY Leung, the Hong Kong SAR government or the Central Government. The initial targets were the most obvious ones, and others (Tsuen Wan? Kwun Tong? Quarry Bay?) are seen as lesser targets chosen out of desperation.

Level 8: Government departments: Immigration Department; Inland Revenue Department; Land Registry; Security Bureau; Food and Health Bureau; Independent Commission Against Corruption; etc. Much less symbolic value than Level 5. Like, so what if you block foreign visitors from extending their visas? How does that hurt CY Leung or the Central Government?

Level 9: Major tourist attractions: Golden Bauhinia Square; Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre; Ocean Park; Disneyland; Wong Tai Sin Temple; The Peak. It will hurt those who make a living at those locations, but not CY Leung and the Central Government.

Level 10: Government institutions: Hong Kong Public Library; Hong Kong Cultural Centre; Hong Kong City Hall. It will inconvenience some citizens who use these facilities, but not CY Leung and the Central Government.

If the students want to escalate Occupy actions, then there is nothing here that will simultaneously (A) win public support for the actions because they won't hurt people and businesses while still fighting for "genuine universal suffrage" and (B) force CY Leung and the Central Government to come to the table and give concessions on "genuine universal suffrage."

Two months ago, the Hong Kong Federation of Students issued a statement (see BBC) that if the government does not respond by midnight on September 28, then they will escalate their protest movement. Specifically, they called for work strike (罷工), business strike(罷市) and class strike(罷課) for an unlimited time period until "victory for the people" is achieved. Some students went out on strike for a period of time; a hundred or so workers at the Swire Beverages Factory went on strike for one day; and no business was known to have joined the strike. That was then, and it will be even harder now to join a discredited and unpopular movement.

According to Wen Wei Po (2007 February 26), Portland Street is the centre of the local sex industry. The Sun Hing Building used to be the base for solo brothels (note: In Hong Kong, prostitution is legal on a one-to-one basis between prostitute and client, but it is illegal for someone else (e.g. pimps, agents, websites, etc) to make money off the activity). The building was erected in 1966, and most of the residents are elderly. The building is 18 stories tall, with 19 units per floor. At the peak, there were more than 50 one-woman brothels. Through soft persuasion of landlords to rent more selectively, there are only about 10 solo brothels left at this time.

According to Apple Daily (2010 February 15), a young woman was visiting a friend on the 26th of the Sun Hing Building when she decided to climb down the water pipes on the outside of the building to burglarize the apartment on the 25th floor. The owner heard some noise and called the police. The perpetrator was caught later in Ta Kok Tsui. She is allegedly a drug abuser.

According to The Sun (2013 June 6), the Sun Hing Building has a concentration of Finnish bath houses and mahjong houses. According to resident Mr. Tong, who has lived there for more than a decade, "all sorts of people come and go here. I never answer any knocks on the door!" She constantly reminds her children never to open the door for strangers. There are multiple entrances to the building. The Sun reporter waited around one security post for more than 20 minutes, but did not see any security guard.

According to Apple Daily (2013 August 26), at around 2pm, a man left a Sun Hing Building night club after drinking and sat on the sidewalk to rest. His $10,000 neck chain drew the interest of a robber. The robber hit the man from behind with a hard object and attempted to snatch the gold chain. But the injured victim refused to let go. The robber fled.

Here are the recent search results at Oriental Daily about this building since Mong Kok was "occupied" in early October 2014.

October 19 2014: http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141019/00176_011.html A 34-year-old dim sum chef named Yeung was returning home with his wife and mother after a company dinner. When they got to the front of the Sun Hing Building, they found a pile of garbage cans and metal barriers erected by the Occupy people. So Yeung moved the materials aside in order to go home. Suddenly five men wearing surgical masks with long hair and dyed-blond hair rushed up and accused Yeung of being an anti-Occupy person. There was some arguing and shoving, and Yeung was beaten up with a metal rod and an umbrella. Yeung said that he was hit eight to ten times. He suffered a broken bone in his right hand. Yeung said that his family depends on his salary, but now he is worried that he won't be able to work until the bone heals. The doctor says that Yeung needs three months to recuperate.

October 19 2014: http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141019/00176_015.html At around 3am, three water bombs were thrown down the street from high up on Sun Hing Building, seconds apart, hitting the ground with loud bangs. The demonstrators thought at first that the police had fired tear gas canisters at them. The demonstrators attempted to enter the Sun Hing Building to find the perpetrator. But a dozen or so tough-looking men working as bouncers for the motels/spas/night clubs in the building chased them out.

October 23 2014:
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141023/00176_002.html At around 2pm, about 50 taxis drove down to Argyle Street to support counter-demonstrators removing the barricades. There were violent physical clashes. The police formed a human wall to separate the two sides. At around 5pm, there were further clashes outside Langham Place. As precaution, the Sun Hing Building erected a wooden wall to close down the main entrance.

October 28 2014:
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141028/00176_008.html At 10pm, someone threw glass bottles from the Sun Hing Building. A female demonstrator was cut by the broken shards.

October 29 2014:
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141029/00176_016.html Another glass bottle was thrown down from the Sun Hing Building. Nobody was hurt.

October 31 2014:
http://www.orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141031/00176_013.html
Last time, Crime Investigation Department officers arrested a man and a woman who were suspected of throwing glass bottles down on the street from the Sun Hing Building. There have been at least three incidents stemming form the Sun Hing Building over the past two weeks. The two individuals are believed to have been "high" on drugs.

November 1 2014:
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141101/00176_010.html A 36-year-old man and a 42-year-old woman have posted bail after being detained on suspicion of throwing objects from above at the Sun Hing Building. The Occupy volunteers have decided to erect nettings in the area to catch flying objects from above.

November 6 2014:
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141106/00176_016.html
Early in the morning, a drunkard entered the tent city and yelled: "You are not allowed to sleep in this street ... I don't want your parents to worry about you." The man was taken away by the police.

November 14 2014:
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20141114/00176_037.html A Sun Hing Building night club mama-san was beaten up by a papa-san after one of the girls complained that a customer was hard to "please."

November 24 2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5fypDVhD0E League of Social Democrats member Raphael Wong Ho-ming and fellow students were walking by the Sun Hing building in Mong Kok when several drunken men used obscene language to curse out Occupy Central. Wong and friends approached the men who began swinging fists, hitting the students on the chest and head. Wong and friends worked with Occupy people to subdue two of the drunkards. The police came 10 minutes later. One of the attackers entered the Sun Hing Building with the police. More than 100 citizens demanded that the police arrest that person. But the suspect and the police left through the back door.

November 26 2014:
http://hk.apple.appledaily.com/realtime/breaking/20141126/53167784
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvUSCH41R5g&list=UUD6ApgB89vPuRplh6y5GjEw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWuu0gFKcb4
Such being the situation, then what happened today was expected. On this day, when Nathan Road was being cleared by the police, the demonstrators began retreating south. The Sun Hing Building owners/tenants blocked off its front entrance with a wooden wall. The guards behind the wall got into a verbal fight with the demonstrators, and objects were thrown at each other before the police showed up to put a stop to things.

Addendum:
September 11 2015:

Resistance Live: https://www.facebook.com/resistancelive2014/videos/1618105631787119/?video_source=pages_finch_main_video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC9kQVAbesM
At around 11pm, some Shopping Revolutionaries went by the Sun Hing Building when one man attacked one Shopping Revolutionary. The revolutionaries surrounded the police and the perpetrator and demanded that the police should rigorously enforce the law. Meanwhile several other passersby also attacked the revolutionaries, resulting in several clashes. About 10 plainclothes policemen were dealing with the case when more than 10 tough-looking guys came out from inside the Sun Hing Building to attack the revolutionaries. It was chaos. The plainclothes policemen lost control. Fortunately, a dozen or so Police Tactical Unit officers arrived to put things under control. The police arrested at least three attackers. Two male and one female revolutionaries went down to the police station to give statements. At midnight, several dozen citizens are gathered outside the Mong Kok Police Station to give support.

Apple Daily http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150911/54195442 Report says: "After the Occupy Mong Kok area was 'cleared', every night citizens holding yellow umbrellas spread the message of genuine universal suffrage in the Mong Kok pedestrian wall. In recent months, they have done so in a peaceful manner ..."

Internet comments:

- Law breakers seeking protection from 黑警 (evil police), ROFLMAO.

- Notice how Apple Daily had to qualify "in a peaceful manner" with "in recent months." If you go back a little bit further, you will find that the Shopping Revolutionaries were very belligerent and violent (see, for example, #138, #134). The reason why there is less violence in recent months is that they aren't even reported in the news anymore as they have become a fixture in the background just like the jugglers, musicians and dancers on the pedestrian walk. And they won't be reported unless violence breaks out.

April 25, 2016.
Oriental Daily
http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160425/bkn-20160425002842042-0425_00822_001.html
Two men with triad backgrounds were on their way to an entertainment venue on the eighth floor of Sun Hing Building. When they stepped out of the elevator, they were attacked by several men armed with knives. The two men were injured. The police came and came across seven men with tattoos. These men were taken back to the police station for further investigation.

Now TV described the incident as follows (see the news video too):

At around 9pm, the police used pepper spray again on Shan Tung Street. An engineer who was reporting for our station was subdued by the police. They accused him of assaulting the police and arrested him.

After warning the demonstrators to leave, the police used pepper spray on people again and drove the demonstrators onto the sidewalk.

The demonstrators retreated to Shanghai Street. More police pushed forward. During this time, a engineer working for our station was suddenly pulled away by the police, who accused him of shoving a ladder at the police.

The engineer attempted to explain, but he was pressed onto the ground by several police officers. The accompanying reporter went up to identify himself and explained that the engineer was gathering news with him. The police ignored him. Our station's engineer was held down on the ground, and our reporter was chased away.


Statement from the Hong Kong Journalists Association:
- The police accusation is incredible
- No motive to assault the police
- No cause for arrest, quite shocking
- Release the arrested news reporter as quickly as possible

You can watch the Now TV video. The relevant action occurs around 0:34. Was there an assault? Two extreme opposite types of conclusions are being made by Internet users. They see what they want to see.

There is a slow motion version at https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=837786186262755

A backup of that video is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H4TjPxE41g&feature=youtu.be where the relevant action occurs around 0:09. The backup was made by an Internet user who thinks Now TV cannot be trusted with making the full crime evidence available.

Another angle of the incident is at https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=759957907413162&fref=nf. The relevant action is around 0:23.

Follow-up: The police have unconditionally released the individual.


Oriental Daily News front page:
Big Chaotic Battle in Mong Kok
They talk about fighting for universal suffrage, but they are deliberately destroying rule-of-law

(Reuters)

Hong Kong riot police arrested 80 pro-democracy protesters on Tuesday in running clashes after several thousand demonstrators erected street barricades following clearance of part of a protest hotspot. Several thousand police were deployed after a court ordered the reopening of a blocked street in the working-class district of Mong Kok, scene of some of the most violent confrontations in the two-month long "Occupy Central" civil disobedience campaign. They met with little initial resistance but protesters regrouped in the evening to block traffic on side streets in the bustling Kowloon district across the harbor from the main protest site at Admiralty on Hong Kong island. Riot and tactical unit police rebuffed the crowds with pepper spray, batons and direct force, making 80 arrests according to a police statement. Protest leaders or perceived ring leaders chased down, wrestled to the ground, zip-tied and bundled into waiting vans.

"They want to arrest key people on the frontline to sap the resistance of the movement, but they will fail," said Vincent Man, a 26-year-old activist in a blue T-shirt and bandana. We will keep fighting and win new streets to expand the occupation zone," he added. "Tomorrow will be another big battle," he said, referring to a second court order to clear away a major protest encampment on a major road in Mong Kok. "We won't allow them to do that. Many people will come out."

You can watch the videos of the freedom fighters versus Darth Vader and his minions:

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)

The distribution of the locations of the small businesses was:
4%: Fa Yuen Street
13%: Tung Choi Street
12%: Sai Yeung Choi Street
18%: Nathan Road (including Mong Kok Centre, New Town Mall, Hollywood Plaza and Bank Centre)
11%: Portland Street
6%: Shanghai Street
11%: Dundas Street
1%: Soy Street
9%: Shantung Street
2%: Nelson Street
13%: Argyle Street

The distribution of tenure (=number of years in business) was:
26%: 0-2 years
51%: 2-10 years
14%: 10-20 years
6%: 20-30 years
2%: 30 years plus

Type of establishment:
33%: Establishment with street-level entrance
19%: Establishment in upper floors above street
43%: Establishment in shopping mall
2%: Tung Choi Street (Women's Street) stall
3%: Newspaper vendor stall

Type of business:
8%: Restaurant/food
4%: Snacks/beverage/buns/fruits
3%: Bookstores
11%: Accessories/shoes
11%: Fashionable items/decorations/toys
12%: Mobile telephony/maintenance/repair/spare parts
1%: Groceries
3%: Eyeglasses
3%: Massage/beauty salon/nail salon
4%: Construction materials/interior design
4%: Pharmacies
3%: Newspaper/magazine vendor stall
7%: Music/video/sound equipment/studio
1%: Furniture
2%: Sports/health products
22%: Other

What is your business volume in October 2014 compared to the same month last year?
4%: Increased
76%: Decreased
20%: Same

How much was the change in business volume?
(Among the 76% which saw decreases)
4%: less than 5%
10%: 5%-10%
12%: 10%-20%
16%: 20%-30%
21%: 30%-40%
34%: 40%+

What was(were) the main reasons(s) for decreases (among the 76% which saw decreases)? (multiple choices allowed)
89%: Occupy Mong Kok
12%: Increased competition in area
2%: Product-related factors (lack of new products, unpopular products, deteriorating quality)
2%: Less promotion/advertising
44%: Consumer demand
8%: Other

How did the Occupy Movement affect business volume (among the 76% which saw decreases)? (multiple choices allowed)
6%: Occupy Mong Kok has nothing to do with it
65%: Traffic blockage/jam forces customers stay away
11%: Suppliers unable to bring in merchandise
69%: Customers stay away out of concern for personal safety
50%: Fewer mainland individual travelers
40%: The Occupy Movement reduces overall desire to consume
17%: Other reasons

What is(are) your main source(s) of customers? (multiple choices allowed)
42%: Mainland individual travelers
41%: Local residents
78%: Regular customers
54%: Passersby
10%: Other

What do you expect your November business to be, compared to last year?
11%: Increase
54%: Decrease
31%: Same
1%: Other

(Wikipedia) Sectarianism

Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, class, regional or factions of a political movement.

The ideological underpinnings of attitudes and behaviours labelled as sectarian are extraordinarily varied. Members of a religious or political group may believe that their own salvation, or the success of their particular objectives, requires aggressively seeking converts from other groups; adherents of a given faction may believe that for the achievement of their own political or religious project their internal opponents must be converted or purged.

Sometimes a group that is under economic or political pressure will kill or attack members of another group which it regards as responsible for its own decline. It may also more rigidly define the definition of orthodox belief within its particular group or organization, and expel or excommunicate those who do not support this new found clarified definition of political or religious orthodoxy. In other cases, dissenters from this orthodoxy will secede from the orthodox organisation and proclaim themselves as practitioners of a reformed belief system, or holders of a perceived former orthodoxy. At other times, sectarianism may be the expression of a group's nationalistic or cultural ambitions, or exploited by demagogues.

(The Free Dictionary) Factionalism

1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group.
2. Conflict within an organization or nation; internal dissension: "Our own beloved country . . . is now afflicted with faction and civil war" (Abraham Lincoln).

Within the Occupy movement, a number of factions/sects have come out to speak on behalf of the movement. There is a so-called "five party platform" in which some (but not all) of the factions/sects get to meet, make decisions (sometimes, decisions to not make decisions) and announcements.

Here is a partial list of the factions/sects:

  • Democratic Party (6)

  • Civic Party (6)

  • People Power (3)

  • Labour Party (4)

  • League of Social Democrats (1)

  • Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre (1)

  • Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (1)

  • Neo Democrats (1)

  • Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (1)

  • Independent democrats (3)

On this night, there is news related to possible sectarian/factionalism clashes:

(Oriental Daily News)

At around 7pm, Legislative Councilor Albert Chan Wai-yip came down to the Occupy Mong Kok area along with other People Power members. They were ready to speak at 8pm. But a group of Civic Passion supporters showed up, some of them wearing surgical masks. They said that they were not happy with the League of Social Democrats saying that anti-Occupy elements have infiltrated Civic Passion as well as condemning Civic Passion members for attacks against the Legislative Council.

About 40 police officers came to separate the two sides. Chan was surrounded by certain people, and there was some physical action. Citizens supporting the sides got into argument. Some people accused People Power of: "Keep telling us to charge, but you never charge yourself!" and "When will you pay the bill?" Meanwhile, other people said that if Civic Passion were up front and open, they wouldn't be wearing surgical masks.

Other citizens raised placards in front of the People Power members, with photos of League of Social Democrats' Andrew To Kwan-hang and the People Power's Stephen Siu, Erica Yuen and Chan Wai-yip to denounce them for "helping to arrest citizens, aiding the police to persecute dissidents and being undercover police."

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-c2KlXJzu8

(Apple Daily)

At around 11pm, Stephen Siu left after finishing an Internet radio show. He got on to the car driven by his chauffeur. Suddenly, another car cut in front of his and people jumped out with knives and rods to smash the windshield of Siu's car. The chauffeur tried to reverse gears to leave, but another car came in from behind to stop progress. The chauffeur alertly drove onto the sidewalk and got away. The police was called for assistance.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV0qVsrFKf4

(SCMP) Occupy Central co-founders hold 'community dialogue day'  November 24, 2014

Occupy Centrals founders may have become less visible at the protest sites, but they have been planning ways to take the fight for democracy beyond the occupied zones starting with a community dialogue day today.

The news emerged after a three-hour discussion involving over 100 volunteers yesterday, which also addressed when or if the three co-founders, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and Dr Chan Kin-man would turn themselves in to police.

While Tai, Chu and Chan declined to comment, others said the trio favoured turning themselves in early next month, although no consensus was reached as some felt they should focus on doing the groundwork for democracy first. Some were concerned that if they followed the trio and turned themselves in, they wouldnt be able to contribute any more, a volunteer said on condition of anonymity.

Today, Occupy volunteers, students and pan-democrat lawmakers will be stationed at 21 locations across the city to share their views on universal suffrage.

Ideas discussed yesterday included sending volunteers to knock on doors and set up street booths in neighbourhoods to explain more about democracy. Others involved encouraging people to patronise small shops instead of chain stores to break the economic dominance of conglomerates and developers.

This entry is a collection of news and video links to the reception of the Occupy volunteers, students and pan-democrat lawmakers at the various locations on November 23.

Po Lam
http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=118648 NOW TV news report on how a number of water bombs were dropped on the station. Nobody was hit. At the time, Scholarism convener Joshua Wong was at the location. Passersby stayed away from the location to avoid being hit. Scholarism decided not to summon the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0uifjD2phg This is a later development as the students were surrounded by screaming citizens and the police was called. Scholarism convener Joshua Wong was allegedly pushed to the ground by a telecommunications service salesman. The police asked for eyewitnesses to the incident. Wong declined to pursue the matter with the police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmGeuLWbUV4 Hong Kong Economic Journal video of water bombs falling from above.
But that doesn't mean he wouldn't pursue the matter. On his Facebook, Wong has posted the photo of the man and a mobile telephone number.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYUK9OXhCPo Police protect Joshua Wong from citizens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FehwQ87JDi0&list=PLqHNLnhqyId6v25QhzjfTO6dz0AAxhlat Police protect Joshua Wong from citizens:
0:21 "Go away! Go away! Don't mess with Cheung Kwun O!"
0:36 "What? You are getting police protection again?"
0:37 "Go away, bastard!"
0:39 "Are you very scared?"
0:44 "Go away, bastard!"
0:45 "You are very much detested!"
0:51 "If you don't fucking like Hong Kong, you should leave. Scram back to America!"
0:58 "Scram back to America!"
0:59 "Eat shit!"
1:02 "You think that you are very fucking welcomed?"
1:06 "Fuck your mother's cunt!"
1:11 "You don't have a clue about what you are doing."
1:12 "Fucking getting in the way!"
1:18 "Look at that dickface."
1:22 "Shut up!"
1:44 "Fucking chase him away!"
2:24 A young man tries to film the cameraman, who films him back. The young man turns around to leave.
2:29 "Not fucking filming? Don't leave yet."
2:34 "Hey, if you film me, you should expect that I will film you back. Why are you leaving? His mother's stinking cunt! Fucking get in the way!"

Hung Hom
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10202170087133728&set=o.725310540815680&type=2&theater Democratic Party legislative councilor Helena Wong Pik-wan uses a megaphone to tell people how the Occupy movement came about. The megaphone was turned up to a high volume, because otherwise nobody could have heard her over the chorus of loud boos.

Whampoa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdJGLI4SRmU A student uses a megaphone to address the crowd, but they refused to listen and just yell back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=748i7iQNIAI More people yelling at the students in the evening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT71_DJcmxY Two aunties snarled at charges of being barbaric: "You are the ones who are barbaric! You are blocking the roads! We stand for justice!" A pro-Occupy woman tells them to go away. The old lady said: "Of course you want us to leave." The Scholarism volunteer named Wilson said: "We expected that people would be present nearby and they may infringe upon us. But we did not expect that we haven't even finished speaking yet and they already came over and heaped abuse upon us." The old lady continues: "You are causing grief for your children! I am telling you. No wonder when your daughters get married, they don't bear children. It is bad people like you!"

Tuen Mun
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10203356731016339&set=o.312693275508654&type=2&theater Labor Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan uses a megaphone to address the citizens. But the megaphone is not loud enough, and it is hard to hear him. At 1:43, a young man is trying to explain that this was about justice. A woman's voice came in loud and clear: "Justice? If justice is the thing, then don't sleep in the streets. Don't give the leaflet to me. Justice? If you want justice, then you shouldn't be blocking the streets and preventing us from earning a livelihood. Justice! He should come clean about his 'black gold' (=secret political contributions) first. He took money from someone. You tell him to come clean about his 'black gold.' He took so much money."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we7DRIi6y7M A woman kept yelling "Running dog!" at Lee Cheuk-yan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEGrcDyeMdY A female yellow-ribbon supporter of Lee Cheuk-yan yelled back at the citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgH6WUvgwlo Obscenity-laced cursing from unseen men

Lok Fu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzWFbri_6r8 Students surrounded by an angry mob.

Wanchai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-GLtQY3GcI Video uploaded by Hong Kong Federation of Students supporter

Tung Chung
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_t2_CgH0HM Students surrounded by screaming citizens who want them to leave. Earlier someone overturned the table containing the propaganda material.

Tai Po
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7sdx4mEics
0:02 (Man) Nobody in the world likes you. Nobody in the world likes you.
0:07 (Man) You leave! You leave!
0:10 (Woman) Not welcomed.
0:11 (Man) Tai Po does not welcome you. Go away!
0:15 (Another man) Hey, you bastards have come to Tai Po to cause trouble!
0:24 (Another man) If you want to cause trouble, you go to Mong Kok!  You are coming to Tai Po.
0:27 (Another man) Fuck your mother!
[A young woman clearly became emotionally distraught, wrapped herself in a yellow banner, turned against the wall and shut her ears.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkBFjtEE_Gc Labor Party legislative councilor Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung and his companions departed from the site to the cheering of citizens: "Have a good journey! Have a good journey!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcQdDKwIb70 Cacophony!

Tsuen Wan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GqC2gDEC8o Students (including two Scholarism celebrities and Civil Human Rights Front's Jackie Hung) surrounded by citizens. The police was called.

Fortress Hill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZRcq40Spts Democratic Party legislative councilor Albert Ho is handing out leaflets outside the MTR station. Not many people are taking whatever he is handing out, except for one person in a blue-striped yellow shirt whom Ho refused to give a leaflet to. Democratic Party member Yeung Sum is trying to address the passersby but this man is yelling at his side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=185b6jO2tdU A 26:18 compilation of the highlights from the above.

(Wen Wei Po) November 24, 2014

Many street booths were faced with spontaneously organized boycotts and harangues from citizens.

Democratic Party legislative councilor Helena Wong Pik-wan is also a Whampoa district councilor. Yesterday, she was cursed out by many citizens who told her to leave: "Please leave! You caused chaos for Hong Kong! I won't vote for you!" The police separated the sides and kept order.

Hong Kong Federation of Students standing executive committee members Yvonne Leung and Tommy Cheung were at the Mong Kok East Station handing out leaflets. Some citizens took the leaflets and ripped them up immediately to show their disapproval. Tommy Cheung said that because the various street booths were being besieged by citizens, they will adjust their strategy and have volunteers visit buildings instead.

At around 3pm at the Lok Fu MTR Station, student volunteers were surrounded by a large number of citizens who wanted them to leave. The citizens said: "If you want to make trouble, you go back to your own place and make trouble," "We don't welcome you," "Have you asked us first whether you can be here?" The police was summoned.

In Sham Shui Po, before the students even began, some business owners asked them to fold up. A business owner said: "We support democracy, but we don't want you to cause trouble for us! Some business owners heard about what you are up to and are very angry. They want to come here and curse you out!" This street booth was closed after 45 minutes.

Labor Party legislative councilor Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung and a bunch of Occupy people set up a street booth opposite the Tai Po Market East Station. They were surrounded by a group of citizens, and engaged in verbal arguments. The citizens chanted that the Occupy people wanted to create chaos in Tai Po and they cursed Cheung for "not being a Chinese person." Some citizens threatened to charge at the volunteers, but fortunately there was no physical clash.

In Tuen Mun, Labor Party legislative councilor Lee Cheuk-yan was besieged by citizens who told him that he was not welcomed and they wanted him to leave.

At the Po Lam MTR station in Cheung Kwun O, Scholarism convener Joshua Wong was cursed out by citizens. Some citizens attempted to remove the leaflets at the street booth. Some citizens threw water bombs at the street booth. Joshua Wong was also pushed to the ground by an individual wearing a Hong Kong Broadband coat. Wong got up and said that he did not wish to pursue the matter. The man was taken away by the police.

(Sky Post) Reflections after the Clearance. By Wat Wing-yin  November 26, 2014

The Federation of Students, Scholarism, Occupy Central, the pan-democrats and various civic organizations made November 23 an Umbrella Community Day so that they can promote their ideas and unite the communities all over Hong Kong under the same umbrella. But they ended up encountering citizens who were waiting for them with glee. If the Occupy people hoped to see flowers bloom everywhere, then what they got was their backsides kicked.

The Occupy people came out claiming to represent public opinion. They kept talking about "the people of Hong Kong." After more than one month and after 1.83 million signed the petition against them, recent public opinion polls have shown that more than 80% of the people want them to leave. But they refused to listen. An outfit that claimed to represent the people turned out to be the most disdainful of public opinion.

They don't want to believe in the numbers. So they decided to reach out to the local communities. I am all for them setting up stations in 19 districts quickly, instead of hiding in the Occupy areas and feeling good about themselves. The true public opinion in the local communities can manifest itself.

On the day when the Yellow Ribbons went out to the communities, my phone kept receiving videos from various districts. It must be the first time that these young people have been surrounded and cursed out with obscenities this way. They were at a loss. In Tai Po, a young woman wrapped herself in a yellow "genuine universal suffrage" banner, covered her ears and turned to face the wall in order to escape the crowd. Hey, didn't you come out to listen to public opinion? How can you communicate if you cover your ears? Anger is a form of public opinion.

After being hounded around like rats in the street, the Occupy people have now tested the temperature of the water. Will they learn even more? They used to run around demanding so-and-so resign and so-and-so apologize. Will they now understand that it is really not easy to apologize; and even harder to step down from the dais.

(International Policy Digest) Why Did Hong Kongs Umbrella Movement Fizzle Out? By Peter Lee. November 24, 2014.

The abrupt fizzling-out of the Occupy Hong Kong a.k.a. Umbrella Movement is still something of a mystery. Everything was going so well. Burgeoning street demonstrations, the concentrated and largely favorable attention of the Hong Kong citizenry, increasingly vocal support by educational and liberal elites, breathless coverage by the international press, achievement of direct dialogue between the students and the government, a televised debate that, for Umbrella Movement enthusiasts at least, could be spun as an awesome Speaking Truth to Power moment, then pfffffft.

A botched referendum appears to be the proximate cause. Benny Tai, the university professor who is one of the three elders of Occupy Hong Kong With Peace and Love, apparently intended a street referendum that would validate the rejection of measures the government put forth to address student concerns during the debate, and ringingly reconfirm the occupation and further confrontation. The wheels came offpossibly because Tai unwisely proposed a accept & leave vs. reject & stay framing that raised the threat that anti-OKHPL pro-Blue forces would freep the poll and skew its outcome in order to send off the occupiers.

Discussions among the various Occupy groups on the wording of the referendum went nowhere and it was called off with some ignominious apologies and mea culpa bowing from Tai and the student leaders. The student leaders of the demonstrations have tried to restore the old fire with some provocative japes like trying to confront the CCP leadership in Beijing, but gained little public traction. The students call for pro-Dem legislators to resign their Legco posts and trigger a by-election that would serve as a referendum on direct nomination failed to find favor. I wonder if the juice also went out of the street protests since Benny Tai and the other elders came to the conclusion they werent going anywhere and, for that matter, a rebuke had to be delivered to the students who thought they were running the show but were actually just running it into a ditch.

The pro-Blue united front didnt seem to be cracking, Occupy leaders were under personal attack (strategic and apparently authentic dumps of embarrassing documents about Benny Tai and other top dogs may have convinced them their ability to lead the movement from a position of moral strength had been compromised), and the Hong Kong populace was clearly tiring of the disruptive and now apparently directionless Occupy circus. And a few members of the Western media who had been covering or perhaps more accurately blanketing the Occupy movement with non-stop favorable coverage apparently wandered off to other assignments.

Though it will offend the vociferous advocates of the 100% homegrown purity of the Occupy movement, I also wonder if the US government passed the wordto paraphrase the anguish of Terry Malloy in On the Waterfrontthat This aint your year, kid.

President Obama, I expect, was more interested in closing his climate deal with the PRC than providing moral and political encouragement to the Umbrella Movement and let it be known that there would no cookie distribution a la Nuland in Kyiv for this particular bunch of idealistic pro-Western demonstrators. (Parenthetically, Im looking for the movements motto to be A revolution is a dinner partyand Americas bringing the cookies! Maybe next year.)

In any case, as the Hong Kong government started rolling up largely unresisting Occupy encampmentsand Hong Kong public opinion was suitably appalled by the spectacle of some pro-democracy hotheads smashing a window at Legco with a metal barrierthe question of What next? has been left hanging.

Benny Tai answered that question on November 22, in the form of an open letter to Long Hair a.k.a. Leung Kwok-hung a pro-democracy legislator of a leftist cum Trotskyist bent who has vowed not to cut his hair until Beijing apologizes for the Tiananmen massacre.

In the letter, which Ive reproduced below as it was posted on a message board and Im assuming is accurate, Benny Tai wanders into Marxist terrain by acknowledging Long Hairs complaint that he did not arouse the masses and was guilty of being out of touch, but excused himself on the grounds that he was no streetfighter, indeed hailed from petty bourgeoise intellectual backgroundwith which he was coming to terms.

Tais supporters in the West will breathe a sigh of relief that he does not wander off the neoliberal res after all, and asserts that street confrontation will not win the hearts of the people of Hong Kong who, Tai reports, are pretty evenly split between pro and anti-Occupy sentiment.

The terrifying shadow, in other words, of a violent overthrow of the city government by the cadres of Occupy Hong Kong With Peace and Love has, thankfully, been lifted.

Tais solution is to 自首, voluntarily surrender which I take it mean he will submit himself to the Hong Kong legal system. I for one see potential comedy gold in Tai and perhaps his OHKPL partners determinedly trying to provoke their arrests and the Hong Kong government equally determinedly trying not to arrest them. In the end, I guess, Tai hopes to effect his arrest and martyrdom, at least under the relatively benign conditions of the Hong Kong penal system, and use the bully pulpit of his trial to spread the word about universal suffrage and also persuade a perplexed world why direct popular nomination of chief executive candidates, though not as far as I can tell a feature of any major democracy , is the inescapable sine qua non for Hong Kong.

Tai promises to use the city of Hong Kong as his lecture hall, a prospect that perhaps thrills connoisseurs of professorial verbosity but may elicit groans or Zzzzzzzzzs from the less intellectually engaged. I wonder if Benny Tai is going to rely exclusively on his rhetorical talents to reignite the universal suffrage movement, or if the students will match his performance in the courtroom with feet on the street. It looks like something needs to be done, and not simply to justify the ruckus of the last two months to the students who took to the streets and the citizens who tolerated their presence.

The student demonstrators must be willing to reappear in their enthusiastic, disciplined numbers as further milestonesand opportunities for principled outragesuch as the Legco vote on electoral reformare reached. So the pot has to be kept boiling. Maybe Tais adoption of a two-pronged approach also represents a recognition that the student movement cant be perfectly controlled or exploited, and the most effective strategy might be for Benny Tai to do his remonstrating scholar thing, the students do their firebreathing activist thing, and hope for some effective tag team escalation.

Otherwise, the electoral process will take over and, quite possibly, in 2016 (Legco) and 2017 (Chief Executive) the Hong Kong electorate will be successfully reconciled to committee-vetted but reasonably attractive, well-financed and, at least in the pan-Blue realm, enthusiastically supported candidates. To counter municipal complacency, street heat, confrontation, martyrs, and maybe even cookiesperhaps delivered courtesy of a more confrontation-minded Hillary Clintonmay turn out to be necessary.

長毛大哥:

請容我稱呼您一聲大哥,因您比我年長,也是我非常欽敬的一位政治家。雖然我們在一些政見上或有不同,但我們對民主的信念及執著都是一樣的。但更重 要是,我看到您是一位坦蕩蕩的抗爭者,您把您的觀點想法,盡現人前,不會為了贏取掌聲而會說一套做一套。我絕對相信您並不如一些政客般,在一些冠冕堂皇的 說話背後,卻隱藏着不可告人的政治目的。

在您上星期給我的信中,也反映了一些我們政治判斷上的不同,但卻不損我們的共同信念,就是追求香港能有真普選。如您所說,在2013年初我提出 「佔領中環」的建議,的而且確是受到您在2013 年元旦日凌晨一人在中環非法集會所啟發。我看到要能透過佔路行動產生影響,人數是關鍵所在。之後有機會在您辦公室「論道」,聆聽您縱論古今抗爭史,如您所 說,我們同意和平非暴力原則是當今抗爭的不二法門。而和平抗爭就是要挑釁出當權者的暴力行為。

當然我也不能不承認,我正屬您信中所說的那些「本地的中產階級及知識菁英」。這是一項事實,亦是我難以割離。因着我的成長歷史、生命經歷及在這種 處境下的所思所想,我也只能以此有限的視野看世界、政治發展、社會現態,去作出策略判斷。或許我們真如您所說,會是一廂情願地寄望當權者能有天向善,也真 有些因自恃而輕看了普羅群眾的智慧,因而作出了您會認為是錯誤的政治判斷。您的教訓我常記在心,時刻提醒自己這種「離地」中產必須注意。

但最近我對自己的「離地」有了新的體會,把這「離地」特質,由弱點轉化為一種新的思考方向。唯有有一點兒離地,我才能跳出現有處境下的各種局限, 不致被地上的各種枷鎖纏着。唯有離地,我才可以用另一種視角去俯瞰全局。也唯有離地,我才不會被任何過激的情緒而影響我作冷靜及理性的判斷。

信中您認為自首是浪費前功,認為我們應繼續佔領行動,集體抗命,並以辭職公投去把運動轉向民眾,感召民眾。撫心自省,由提出「佔領中環」的第一天開始,我 也知自己並不是一個稱職的街頭抗爭者,即使我仿效大哥一言一行去作一個街頭抗爭者,也只能是東施效顰。如大哥信中所說,在過去年多以來,若我對香港民主運 動能有寸功,是因我身體力行不間斷地在香港倡議公民抗命、和平抗爭的精神。誠然,在「雨傘運動」之中,萬千民眾起來響應,是遠超我事前所想。

「雨傘運動」發展至今,在特區政府無恥作為(或不作為)下,運動現在陷入膠着的狀態,實是不爭之事實。因此運動必須尋求轉向,而方向就是走向民 眾。我也非常同意應以辭職公投為轉向之導引,惜因各種原因,現辭職公投的成數不高,故我必須再謀轉向之路徑,此為我提出自首的因由。

回到公民抗命的根本,公民抗命行動能改變不公義的制度,重點不在於干擾社會秩序去製造社會張力,而是透過製造社會張力去促使人們不得不面對社會現制的不公義。當社會絕大多數人都不能接受現制不公義之處,那麼當權者若要繼續其管治,就不能不改變現制,令其符合公義的要求。

這也是說唯有改變人心,改變社會絕大多數人的心,令他們不能再接受現制的不公義可延續下去。但要改變人心,單靠施加外在壓力是難以達到的,更重要 是促使人內在良知的自我醒悟。公民抗命者承擔罪責,意在透過自我犧牲,暴露制度的暴力,去衝擊其他人內在的良知,促使他們反思原有抱持的價值觀。這正與大 哥透過抗爭行動去感召人心的想法不謀而合。

相信我們都同意「雨傘運動」已帶來不少港人的覺醒,但社會內起碼還有接近一半的人未接受「雨傘運動」要求真普選的目標及和平非暴力的抗爭手段。當 中包括很多都是只求安定的普羅市民。「雨傘運動」若只保留現在繼續佔領街道的形態,相信短期內是不能改變得到這些人的想法。若不能取得這另一半人的支持, 要改變得到現行不民主的制度仍會面對很大的困難。

要突破這困局,自首承擔罪責,或可帶來新一輪對人心的衝擊。能否成功仍是未知之數,但卻肯定是另類的進擊,而不是退讓。與其兵聚一處力抗前敵,不如兵分多路,籌劃再闢路徑,或能另建奇功。這就是自首背後的想法,其實與大哥要達到的果效是相容的,只是路徑不同而已。

從策略回到我自身的局限,我坦承因着我的背景,我不可能是一個稱職的街頭抗爭者。我的長處是當一個教書先生。過去那麼長的日子,我就是用我的生命去

從策略回到我自身的局限,我坦承因着我的背景,我不可能是一個稱職的街頭抗爭者。我的長處是當一個教書先生。過去那麼長的日子,我就是用我的生命去在香港 社會這大講堂,講了二十多個月民主普選及公民抗命的課。透過自首可能製造另一次講課的機會,與其死守在佔領區,這或許能讓我更好發揮在這場民主運動中的長 處。

但我上述的所思所想,可能最終都被證明是錯誤的,但以當下滿有局限不足的我,也只能想出這個我現在認為是最適切的方法。我冀望您能接受體諒我在這場多元的民主運動中,或許是錯但也有可能是對的決定。也願因着大家的共同努力,民主能早日來到香港。

敬祝身體健康!
弟耀廷敬上
2014年11月16日
文/戴耀廷

Table 1. How would you characterize your overall position with respect to the Occupy movement?
66%: Oppose
16%: So-so
10%: Support
8%: No opinion

Table 2. So far, has your daily life been affected by the Occupy movement?
65%: Yes
35%: No

Table 3. If "Yes", then in what way?
92%: Transportation
39%: Emotions/moods
33%: Daily shopping
29%: Social life
28%: Study/work
18%: Family relations
1%: Other matters

Table 4. By what methods did you learn about Occupy Central?
87%: Radio/television
67%: Newspapers
34%: Social media (Facebook, Internet discussion forums, etc)
23%: Friends/groups
5%: School/teachers
1%: Other methods

Table 5. Since the Occupy movement started, have you gotten into arguments with families and/or friends due to difference in politics?
37%: Yes
63%: No

Table 6. How has the Occupy movement affected the relationship between you and your family and friends?
8%: Positively
30%: Negatively
63%: No impact

Table 7. Have you been emotionally affected by the Occupy movement?
53%: Yes
47%: No

Table 8. What do you think is the impact of the representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Students going to Beijing?
8%: Positive
35%: Negative
35%: No impact
22%: No opinion

Table 9. Do you agree that the Occupy people should retreat as soon as possible?
82%: Agree
6%: Disagree
12%: No opinion

Table 10. Do you agree that if the Occupy people ignores the court injunction, then that would be a blow on rule-of-law in Hong Kong?
83%: Agree
17%: Disagree

As the Occupy Movement enters its 57th day, many people wondered if the Occupiers "feel good about themselves" and therefore fail to appreciate the reversal of public opinion. But many students have indeed gone into the local communities to reach out to citizens.

Over the past 3+ weeks, about 80 volunteers have visited 230 buildings and spoke to almost 500 families. At past 7pm on November 20 (Thursday), more than 20 volunteers divided themselves into teams of twos or threes, with each team responsible to visit two buildings. Hong Kong Institute of Education fourth-year student Ah Chu did this for the first time. Previously, she had been making umbrella decorations at Admiralty to support the Occupy movement. But after a while she began to wonder what she was doing. A week ago, the reversal of public opinion in the Chinese University of Hong Kong poll woke her up. "Obviously, people inside the Occupied area support the movement. But we have to see what opponents are thinking, and hence continue in reaction." So she decided to visit the local residents after she saw the call for volunteers.

Her partner Ronnie graduated in England and came back to Hong Kong to work as an accountant. He has participated in six previous visits. He has the same idea as Ah Chu. His company is located near Admiralty and he goes there often. But he feels that the movement is stuck. Most of his colleagues are indifferent to the Occupy movement. Sitting on the pavement, he asked: "Is there something an ordinary person can do?" So he finally took the questionnaires and leaflets to visit people. The third member of the team is Hong Kong University third-year Social Work students Johannie.

In two hours, the three-person team knocked on more than 20 doors in a private building. Most of the families either did not answer the knock, or said they were eating, or gave other reasons of refusal. Some just slammed the door on the team. They left the leaflets at the door, and recorded the result for future reference.

On that day, two families were successfully spoken to. In one case, a middle-aged man said that the Occupy movement has affected traffic and demanded the demonstrators to withdraw. His wife joined the discussion and said that the Occupied area was dangerous and she was concerned about the safety of her son who is tutored nearby. She said: "Your grandfathers and your fathers are Chinese people. The Central Government are your parents. They don't want you to die. If my children are like you, I would jump out the windows and commit suicide." The volunteers responded: "That is not good. There is no need to get so excited." The two sides kept interrupting each other. Finally, the resident said: "I am not going to argue with you. I don't care who you are. If you enter the Occupy area, you are a member of Occupy Central." Then they slammed the door. From behind the door, the couple continued to say aloud: "No matter what we say, you just don't get it. You are just bums." Afterwards our reporter followed up with this couple. They said that they were willing to spend some time to listen to the students' opinion. But in the end, "After talking for so long, I understand what they are saying but they don't understand us." They decided that it was pointless to talk and they will not welcome the volunteers to come back.

Afterwards, the team discussed their experiences. Ah Chu was glad that she got out of the Occupied area. She thought that the couple was self-contradictory. On one hand, they said that the decision of the Central Government cannot be overturned. On the other hand, they said that they want democratization. But she was too anxious and did not know how to rebut them with accurate information. Johannie said that the opponents always used to be all "Blue Ribbon" people. So visiting them helps to reduce the gap. As for this experience, Johannie said: "We share their feelings. We understand you in that Occupy Central has had some impact. But I have my faith and values, which you don't understand."

According to the person in charge Kwan Man-lun, "I don't know if this was a special case." Previously, most volunteers encountered positive experiences. About one-third of volunteers will continue with their work. "During the visits, mistakes will be made. The volunteers are not professionals and they do not have enough techniques. It is difficult to get them to communicate according to set ways." He also said that according to imprecise statistics, about half of the people support universal suffrage, but they have different opinions about the ways of achieving that. About 30% wish that Occupy Mong Kok would stop, but they accept occupying government buildings or Admiralty because that doesn't affect residents. Another 30% are opposed or don't care about universal suffrage one way or the other.

Q1. Compared to one year ago, how is the financial situation of you and your family?
15%: Better
21%: Worse
63%: The same
2%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. Looking ahead to the next year, how will the financial situation of you and your family be?
17%: Better
22%: Worse
51%: The same
10%: Don't know/hard to say

Q4. Looking ahead to the next year, what do you think is the overall business environment in Hong Kong will be?
9%: Good
34%: Bad
51%: So-so
6%: Don't know/hard to say

Q5. What do you think of the overall economic situation will be in Hong Kong over the next five years?
21%: Optimistic
41%: Pessimistic
31%: Same as now
6%: Don't know/hard to say

Q6. What do you think the unemployment situation will be in Hong Kong for the next year?
11%: Improve
36%: Worse
45%: Same as now
8%: Don't know/hard to say

The published report also contains the poll results of the June and September waves. The major impact of Occupy Central is captured in this statement:

The survey also found that 36% of the respondents expected the employment situation would "deteriorate" in the coming year and 11% thought it would "improve". Comparing with the survey in September, those choosing "deteriorate" sharply increased by 6 percentage points and those choosing "improved" remained the same. This reflects that the occupy movement might have negative impact on people's perception about the employment situation in the coming year.

On the night before yesterday, someone made the call for people to escalate. At around 10:30pm, several dozen masked men got together outside the Legislative Council demonstration area. Some of them went to Harcourt Road and used a megaphone to summon citizens to "escalate." In less than 10 minutes, almost 200 persons followed them.

During that time, several masked men tried to charge out onto Lung Wo road, but the Occupy Admiralty marshals stopped them. After discussing among themselves for 20 minutes, they used the megaphone to announce that the Legislative Council will be voting on the Internet Article 23 bill and they wanted people to lay siege to the Legislative Council. (In truth, the bill is not up for discussion until the middle of next year). Several dozen masked men responded and quickly moved iron barricades to block the various entrances to the Legislative Council. Some of them tapped on the glass doors to test the hardness of the glass. This caused Occupy Admiralty people to angrily ask: "What do you want to do? The Legislative Council has so many entrances. How many do you expect to block." The masked men replied that the Movement cannot sit there and die, so they must escalate.

After the masked men set up the metal barricades, they tried to run guerilla warfare. By late night, the masked men realized that things were not working out in their favor. They went to the Harcourt Road main stage and wanted to use the stage to issue a general call to action. But the Occupy Admiralty people refused. There was a rumor that the marshals beat up some of the masked men. This caused a large number of masked men to rush to the stage. Some of them tried to get on stage and seize the microphone. But the marshals defended the stage. Failing to seize the stage, the masked men turned to assault the Legislative Council.

The police arrested six men during the incident. About a dozen more are being sought.

Arrestee #1 is named Tai, who claimed to be a 24-year-old Japanese restaurant chief.

Arrestee #2 is named Chang, who claimed to be a 23-year-old unemployed person.

Arrestee #3 is named Cheng, who claimed to be an 18-year-old Chinese restaurant chef.

Arrestee #4 is named Shek, who claimed to be a 24-year-old unemployed person.

The above four were arrested on suspicion of causing criminal property damage.

Arrestee #5 is named Yuen, who claimed to be a 18-year-old salesman.

Arrestee #6 is named Auyeung, who claimed to be a student studying in the United States.

The above two were arrested on suspicion of assaulting the police.

Of the six, only one had a prior police record, namely having sexual intercourse with an under-aged girl.

Although the six wore masks, they left plenty of traces behind them on the Internet (namely, Facebook). In particular, one of them thinks that he looks like Bruce Lee and therefore idolized his look-alike. However, his statements on Facebook appears somewhat logically confused. For example, he makes anti-Occupy statements like saying that the Occupy people are worse than triad members. He inverted the Occupy statement "We will save our own Hong Kong" into "We will destroy our own Hong Kong." He also says that his philosophy is "Don't be rash. Be patient and peaceful in everything."

The police investigation shows that the masked gang that assaulted the Legislative Council was had the same methods and ideas as the masked men who were causing trouble in the Occupy Admiralty area two weeks ago. Back then, they charged onto Lung Wo Road late night but retreated due to lack of numerical strength. They also blocked the overpass from Admiralty Centre to prevent government workers from going to work. They also laid siege unsuccessfully to the Occupy Admiralty main stage to seize the "megaphone."

What seems amazing to me is the photos of these arrestees (see the page for all of them). Here is one of them:

If this was what you are going to do and you are all going to wear surgical masks, then shouldn't you all wear the same non-descript black sports suits and black sneakers so that you become indistinguishable from each other? As it stands, there is going to only one person in the whole scene dressed like this, and the arrest (and eventual trial) is a no-brainer (see 0:20 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAbUX9WIbF8 for evidence).

In the videos, it can be seen that one (and only one) person made it into the Legislative Council after an opening was created in the glass window (see 4:36 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAbUX9WIbF8). Here are the screen captures from videos. That person is the one in the red jacket with white letters on the left sleeve, with a red hat.

Here is the screen capture from the closed circuit television inside the Legislative Council building. The man in the red jacket also wears red shoes.


Caption: A demonstrator has entered inside the Legislative Council

Internet users quickly found a person wearing the same red hat, red jacket with white letters on the right sleeve and red shoes doing a street Internet radio show earlier in Mong Kok. His nickname is "French guy" and he hangs around with the radical Civic Passion party. Does this person have any other clothes other than this amazing combination of red clothing/accessories/shoes that no other person in Hong Kong can be wearing?

The two newspapers above did not report it, but the average rating for the Hong Kong government, the Central Government and the student organizations were 4.3, 3.9 and 4.1. The students led on the number of zeros at 24.6%.

Also, of the 82.9% who said that Occupy Central should stop, 40.4% said that they should look for some other way of fighting for what they want while 31.2% think that Occupy Central should not have taken place at all.

(Bastille Post) November 19, 2014.

Public opinion is eroding for Occupy Central. The court issued a temporary injunction and instructed the police to assist. On Tuesday, the area around CITIC Tower was cleared in a somewhat smooth manner. But it does not require too much political smarts to know that the radical elements will come out to counter-attack. The radicals surrounded the Legislative Council. When some Occupy Central people tried to dissuade them, they charged at the main stage and went back to plot their assault. This was an internecine struggle between the moderates and radicals. The same type of thing was seen in the 1989 Beijing student movement as well as the Sunflower movement in Taiwan.

As Occupy continued, more and more people are wavering. But the roads are occupied by the radicals. The more radical they are, the more vocal. When Occupy Central Trio member Chan Kin-man called for a de facto referendum tied in with a withdraw, the radicals said that the three Trio should withdraw.

Some people say that the radicals were sent in by the Chinese Communists. I think many demonstrators will disagree and consider that to be a smear. On television, we see girls in school uniforms help move metal barricades to assault the Legislative Council. No matter who is the instigator, there are surely plenty of sincere people who take radical actions.

At this time, the pan-democrats, Federation of Students and Scholarism feel that the movement is beyond their control. They may even harbor thoughts on how to withdraw. But nobody can stand the ignominy of calling out to surrender. Therefore, some student leaders even wish for the government to clear the sites. They would be heroes if they get arrested. They would be bums if they stood up and tell people to withdraw.

As some pan-democrat describes it, "The Trio invited people to dinner, the Federation of Students/Scholarism ordered the food, the civil organizations waited at the table, and the pan-democrats will pay the bill." My question is that since the pan-democrats feel so innocent, why don't they stand up and call for a withdrawal? The answer is that when the pan-democrats supported Occupy Central, they lost a number of moderate supporters. If they stand up and call for a withdrawal, they would lose the radical supporters as well, so that they lose everyone. In the final analysis, they look after their own interests and not after everyone in Hong Kong.

Why should the government hurry to clear the sites? If Occupy continues and becomes increasingly radicalized, the resentment of the citizens will build and the pan-democrats will pay. Who do you think wants to see this happen?

(The Standard) November 19, 2014

Hong Kong police clashed with pro-democracy demonstrators Wednesday after a small group attempted to break into the city's legislature, with tensions spiking as court-ordered clearances of protest sites get under way.

Around 100 police used pepper spray and batons as they battled hundreds of protesters, some in helmets and waving umbrellas -- a symbol of their movement -- in an angry confrontation that broke out in the early hours. Officers made four arrests.

"Police strongly condemn such acts by the protesters, which disrupted public order,'' the police force said in a statement.
The clashes were sparked when a group of around a dozen protesters smashed their way through a side entrance to the southern Chinese city's Legislative Council using metal barricades as improvised battering rams.

"Smash it open then get inside,'' one protester was heard saying in footage aired by the local TVB channel.

"We want to escalate our protest,'' a masked protester told TVB. "The government has not responded to the demands of protesters and residents.''
Police scouring the building on Wednesday took away at least one demonstrator who remained on the site as the working day began, according to the Apple Daily newspaper.

(New York Times)  Protesters Attempt to Break Into the Hong Kong Legislature.  November 19, 2014.

Demonstrators attempted to break into Hong Kongs legislature late Tuesday night and early Wednesday by smashing windows. Police officers in riot gear used pepper spray to help quell the protest and arrested four men. Witnesses said the attempted break-in was in retaliation for court-ordered clearances of some parts of the protest area that began on Tuesday.

...

Behind a police cordon at the legislatures building were two smashed windows, one with a hole large enough for people to slip through.

For weeks, the main protest area in the Admiralty district of Hong Kong has been largely peaceful, as a festive tent city gradually spread out over a wide thoroughfare and demonstrators filled their new occupied zone with art. The overnight clash marked a shift and involved at least some people from the more militant protest zone in the Mong Kok neighborhood, across Victoria Harbor in Kowloon. They wore the characteristic hard hats and surgical masks of those protests.

On Wednesday morning, a group of helmeted demonstrators huddled together near the police lines outside the Legislative Council, watching news reports of their attempted break-in on their cellphones.

One man, a 23-year-old employee at a Japanese noodle shop who called himself Kuroros, said the action was aimed at taking over the building, just as protesters in Taiwan occupied the legislature there earlier this year. If we keep sitting here, doing nothing, nothings going to change, he said. Kuroros, who said he helped smash the windows with concrete blocks and metal rods, declined to give his real name because he feared arrest. This isnt about law, its about politics, he said.

Posts on HKGolden, an online message board, rallied people to take part in the break-in. One post used thinly disguised code words, calling the Legislative Council the Garbage Council, for example. The words sound similar in Cantonese. The forum has been a popular place for more radical groups to organize rallies and is closely marshaled by the police. Those who champion peace, reason and nonviolence are the governments agents, one person wrote on the forum Wednesday morning.

Here are the videos:

Apple Daily http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAbUX9WIbF8
Oriental Daily http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycnik3RxhWA
Cable TV News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VFcFJ0Xzs0
TVB Jade http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpPABhJJjrY
Phoenix Satellite TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snpQEZjTw
InMediaHK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDqEPxCqLvM

(Post852.com) Seven suspicious points about the assault on the Legislative Council building. November 19, 2014.

(1) After some demonstrators broke the glass door, they did not seem to want to enter and occupy the building. According to the InMediaHK video, the demonstrators rammed the glass door and created a whole. But nobody went through. A demonstrator yelled: "Go in! Get someone to go in!" But nobody responded. One demonstrator went through and came back out shortly afterwards. Then the police came and nobody could go in again. Also, the first group of assaulters wore masks. Nobody knew who they were.

(2) The most important requirement for escalation is "numerical strength." But these demonstrators chose to escalate in the early morning hours when most people are asleep and the buses/MTR have stopped running. They couldn't have rallied any backup forces. By 10am in the morning, fewer than 10 people remained at the scene. The whole action just fizzled off.

(3) The first group of demonstrators who assaulted the Legislative Council and told the press that they are escalating in order to prevent the Legislative Council from discussing the so-called Internet Article 23 bill (formally known as Amended Copyright Bill). But this subject was not on today's meeting agenda. So who spread the misinformation? Labor Party legislative councilor Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung went to the scene in the early morning and kept telling people that the Internet Article 23 was not on the meeting agenda today. He asked people to get on the Internet to check. But the demonstrators pushed him aside and kept ramming the glass windows.

(4) Senior Hong Kong SAR government reacted to this incident quickly. Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen said that the rule of law must not be destroyed. Meanwhile, mainland party media such as Xinhua and People's Daily labeled the assault as being committed by the Occupy people. In other words, the authorities have assigned the responsibility of this assault to the entire Occupy Movement.

(5) Legislative Council chairman Jasper Tsang came in the morning to inspect the damage to the building. The police has the situation under control and the atmosphere was peaceful. But Tsang canceled today's session, including the presentation of a new report from the Audit Commission.

(6) The most perplexing thing was that the electronic media had reported early on that people were planning on an assault. When the action started, the media were able to take close-up videos. However, the police who were nearby took a long time to arrive. Thus the assaulters had ample time to break the glass windows. Scholarim convener Joshua Wong said that it was unusual for the police to have too few numbers in the early morning and to fail to stop the assault immediately.

(7) Yesterday the pro-establishment camp was said to be planning to build a 3-meter tall wall around the Legislative Council, just like the one in Civic Plaza. Then the early next morning, there was an assault. Subjectively speaking, this gave the pro-establishment camp the reason why a wall is needed.

No matter what, the students and the pan-democrats have indicated to various degrees that they disapproved of this assault incident. Joshua Wong said that he does not understand the purpose of this action, and he doesn't understand why these people didn't notify him first. The pan-democrat Legislative Councilors condemned people for spreading the news about debating the Internet Article 23. The pan-democrats also opposed violent assaults. Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung said that this action may determine whether the Occupy movement will fail.

Ultimately, irrespective of the Internet discussion over whether those assaulters are agents provocateurs and even if we believe that they were acting sincerely on behalf of the movement, their actions this morning were definitely ill-conceived/ill-prepared.

The Occupy movement originally began with the full name of "Occupy Central with Love and Peace."

But on this day, what people are seeing is this:

This will probably lead to another 10 point swing in public opinion.  On this day, the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme said it found 83% of the people wanted Occupy to stop and 13% wanted it to continue. Those interviews were conducted before this incident took place.

Addendum: (This is the most detailed account of what happened.) (Ming Pao)  November 19, 2014

Those who supported the action tonight said that they were unhappy that the team of Occupy Central marshals were preventing them from escalating to break the stalemate and fight for universal suffrage. They said that the Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan also took over the Parliament, so why can't Hong Kong people too? They criticized the Occupy people for holding double standards in that they approved of the assault on Civic Plaza by the Federation of Students/Scholarism but not in this case? They also demanded the the team of marshals been disbanded and the Occupy Central stage be dismantled.

Those who opposed the action tonight said that the Sunflower Movement and the Federation of Students/Scholarism took over the institutions purposefully in an organized fashion. But the action tonight was a blind charge that was all destruction and provided the police with an excuse to clear the sites. They said that using "stopping the Internet Article 23" as the reason to assault will make it hard to win public opinion.

The quarrel between the two sides continued on the Internet discussion forums after the physical one ended.

Here are the details about what happened:

At around 10pm, a group of demonstrators calling themselves "Internet users" gathered near the Legislative Council. Some of them had participated earlier in the Lung Wo Road action. They came prepared with surgical masks and plastic strips. Several dozen attempted to charge into the Legislative Council building but failed. They rocked the metal barricades for about a minute. The Occupy people at the scene condemned these Internet users as doing something meaningless. The Legislative Council security guards locked all the doors to the building.

According to an Internet user, they wanted to charge into the Legco building and blocked all entrances/exits so that the Legislative Councilors won't be able to come and go. This will put pressure on the government as well as respond to the court injunctions to clear the sites. He condemned the Occupy Central marshals for blocking these activists, including calling them agents provocateurs on behalf of the government/police.

At 11:04pm, a group of demonstrators started a second wave of assault. They now had a different motive. They said that they are surrounding the Legco building to prevent the passage of the so-called Internet Article 23 bill. But this was a mild effort, moving the metal barricades forward by just a little.

At 11:40pm, an Occupy Central volunteers said that they a group of Internet users went to the main stage in Admiralty and demanded to make an open plea on stage for people to support the assault on the Legco building.

At 11:45pm, several dozen Internet users clamored to get on stage to speak. The marshals told them that must remove their surgical masks if they want to speak. A demonstrator wearing a blue coat used his own megaphone and spoke from down stage. He explained that they were wearing surgical masks to protect themselves. These Internet users then took turns addressing the assembly. They called for people to assault the Legco building. They said that while people have different methods to fight back, they should respect each other. They questioned why the Occupy Central marshals keep hampering their actions.

One Internet user claimed that the marshals pushed him around. He accused the marshals of spreading rumors. He demanded the Occupy Central marshals be disbanded and the stage be dismantled. "These politicians are pretending to act on behalf of the people!" The two sides argued until past midnight. These Internet users said that the marshals are the same as the evil cops. Some say that it was pointless to occupy the stage, because they are better off dismantling it. Someone remove some of metal barricades around the stage. Shortly afterwards, someone attempted to seal off the entrance into the Legco Building near Civic Plaza.

At around 1am, several dozen persons wearing surgical masks launched an attack a glass door and a glass window in the Legco Building, using metal barricades and bricks. Among these were the Internet users who demanded the marshals be disbanded.

During this time, someone kept yelling "Go!" and someone else yelled "Quick! Not much time left!" When an opening was finally made in the door, someone kept urging other demonstrators to charge into the Legco Building. According to eyewitnesses, only one person entered. Other demonstrators who helped to create the opening just stood outside and yelled. They did not enter en masse as they promised beforehand. This lone "Internet user" eventually withdrew. One assaulter then said: "Enough! Enough! Let's leave quickly!"

During this time, Legislative Councilor Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung and others tried to stop the action, but they were pushed aside. These Internet users who took part in the assault said that they were doing so to prevent the passage of the Internet Article 23 bill. Cheung told them that the meeting agenda did not include such an item, but to no avail.

Several policemen arrived. The demonstrators held them off with metal barricades. Three policemen used pepper spray. A large number of police reinforcements came, and they also used pepper spray to disperse the demonstrators. Many demonstrators were sprayed, and so were reporters. The demonstrators held up umbrellas, and the police clubbed the umbrellas. The police hoisted the red warning signs at least twice. Someone complained about being injured by the police. The police subdued some demonstrators and took them away.

Afterwards, there were some sporadic clashes between the police and the demonstrators. The police asked the demonstrators to stay calm, and they were only enforcing the law while public property was being destroyed. They asked the demonstrators not to incite others. Some demonstrators shone flashlights in the policemen's faces, threw debris at them and used obscene language to curse them out. The police charged many times to counter-attack. Many demonstrators fell to the ground, so were subdued. Many claimed to be injured. The demonstrators said that they were dissatisfied with the police pushing forward without cause and pressuring their defensive line.

As of 6am, the sides are still engaged in a tense stand-off.

{Addendum: By 10am, fewer than 10 demonstrators can be seen.}

This harks back to this Oriental Daily story on November 9, 2014.  That is, these "Internet users" start something dramatic, run off before the police arrive and leave the Occupy people to deal with the consequences.

A group of masked demonstrators suddenly attempted to block anew the access to Government Headquarters. They used metal barricades and garbage cans to block the pedestrian overpass from Admiralty Centre to Government Headquarters. They said that they wanted to escalate the action and prevent government workers from going to work.

Another group of people who claimed to be Occupy Central marshals rushed over to quarrel with the masked demonstrators. These Occupy Central marshals complained that the masked men had planned to take over Government House initially but came over here after that attempt failed. One of them cursed out the masked demonstrators for only inciting others to block the roads, but quickly vanish when the police show up.

More than 50 police officers were dispatched to the scene. They quickly removed the barricades. The masked demonstrators proceeded to the main stage, where they demanded to speak but were told that the speakers' schedule was already fully booked. They said that they would charge the dais, and they accused the Federation of Students, Scholarism and the pan-democrats of "all talk and no action." They demanded a more intense resistance effort. Scholarism convener Joshua Wong bowed to these demonstrators in apology, for having denied them the opportunity to speak.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 14, 2015.

Protesters who smashed into the Legislative Council building during last years pro-democracy Occupy protests have each been sentenced to 150 hours of community service.

The four protesters Cheng Yeung, Tai Chi-shing, Cheung Chi-pong and Shek Ka-fai, aged between 18 and 24 previously pleaded guilty to criminal damage and unlawful assembly. On Monday, they agreed to serve the community service and pay court costs of HK$500 each at the Eastern Magistrate Courts in Sai Wan Ho.

Principal magistrate Bina Chainrai refused the prosecutions request that the accused pay a total amount of almost HK$587,000 in reparations, saying that the prosecutors report failed to illustrate the value of the destroyed items. She suggested the prosecutor commence civil proceedings instead if they wish to receive compensation through the court.

The four were among numerous protesters who gathered outside the legislature in November in response to a false rumour that an Internet Article 23 bill would be passed that day. The rumoured ordinance proposed to regulate internet use in the territory and potentially criminalise popular online parodies.

The incident was also seen as an attempt to escalate the stagnant Occupy movement, thereby applying more pressure upon the government. The move was met with disapproval by the majority of protesters, earning condemnation from pan-democrats and student groups.

Although Labour Party vice-chairman Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung attempted to persuade protesters to leave the scene, he was dismissed immediately. The accused used metal barricades and bricks to break the buildings glass doors, making way for dozens of protesters to enter the LegCo complex.

The event was a turning point for the pro-democracy movement, precipitating a split between mainstream pan-democrats and those pressing for more forceful forms of protest.

- (Sing Tao Daily) August 29, 2016.

19-year-old Cheng Yeung was charged with unlawful assembly and criminal damage, found guilty and sentenced to 150 hours of community service. Today, the court learned that Cheng has managed to serve only 122 hours and is unable to serve any more hours. Why? Cheng is involved in a narcotics case and being held without bail pending trial. So the court declared that since Cheng has finished 80% of his community service, it proves that he is sorry for what he did and learned his lesson. Therefore the magistrate reduced his sentence from 150 hours of community hours to time served (122 hours). As for the narcotics case, the next hearing is scheduled for September 12.

Here are some YouTube videos about Occupy CITIC Tower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ox0mKiIF6U Police and demonstrators clashed on the footbridge leading to CITIC Tower, September 27 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF_68Bc9NMA Police and demonstrators clashed on the footbridge leading to CITIC Tower, October 3 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og5K5_uPbj4 Demonstrators refused to obey court injunction, October 21, 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Loritlw0M "Students" guarding the barricades, November 10 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl7tCvJGD0I Bailiffs removed obstacles outside CITIC Tower, November 18, 2014

For a change, let me tell you a personal story. I was having dinner with some friends, most of whom are restaurant workers. Here is what one of them told me. The Victoria City Seafood Restaurant is located on the fifth floor of CITIC Tower. It has approximately 200 seats. Its monthly revenue should be about HKD 3 million, and it generates a steady monthly profit of a couple of hundred thousand. When Occupy Admiralty began, the road in front of CITIC Tower was blocked with metal barricades. Cars could not enter or exit. Business-wise, the restaurant did not lose much during lunch. After all, its patrons are office people from the higher floors of CITIC Tower or nearby office buildings. Evening dinner was a completely different story, and business was non-existent. CITIC Tower is located in a central commercial district. There are no residents who live near by and can walk over for dinner. Instead, the evening patrons have always drove there by car and parked in the building garage. Per capita spending is lower during lunch than dinner. October-November was also hairy crab season which is usually the year's peak period for a seafood restaurant. So this was a big hit on income.

The restaurant tried to adapt to the situation. Manpower-wise, they hire a number of part-timers, who do so by choice. Full-time workers put in 9 hours a day (for example, 10am to 3pm and 6pm to 10pm, with rotation by day of week and time of day). The restaurant pays relatively well. For example, the standard rate for an evening-shift part-time waitress is $55/hour for four hours (6pm to 10pm) compared to the minimum wage of $30/hour. But a housewife may choose to work only Monday to Friday 10am to 3pm at $45 per hour, twenty-five hours per week, leaving enough time for childcare, food shopping and cooking. The restaurant has laid off all of its part-time evening workers. The full-time workers were told to use up their unused vacation days. If there are no more vacation days left, they were told to schedule unpaid time-off. Salaries are only a small part of the business expenses, but they needed every cent that they can get.

In the restaurant business, you can order less raw materials when business is slow. That helps somewhat. But some fixed costs (such as rent and utilities) must be paid. The net result was that the restaurant was losing money at the rate of several hundred thousand dollars a month during Occupy Admiralty. This restaurant is part of a chain which was recently acquired by a renowned commercial real estate speculator. So this restaurant will not go out of business in the short run. Not so lucky are the part-timers who were laid off or the full-timers whose hours (and therefore wages) were cut.

Now that the bailiffs have cleared away the obstacles in front of CITIC Tower, will business pick up? That is hard to say. Another restaurant worker told a story. Since it has no details, it appears to be an "urban legend" which becomes reality if enough people repeat it. On September 28, someone parked his car in an Admiralty garage. When he came back from dinner, the road was blocked and he could not retrieve his car. The car has been in the garage since that time, at the rate of $500 per day (or $15,000 per month). Whether the person will have to pay in full remains to be seen. But what is for certain is that he lost the use of his car during this period. This being the case, would you still park and dine in Admiralty? If the roads are blocked again, you become will like that poor sod. It may take a long time before consumer confidence comes back.

At our dinner, the restaurant workers expressed bewilderment at the whole Occupy movement. They don't know anything about the details of this "genuine universal suffrage". I offered to explain but they told me not to bother. They were saying, "In Hong Kong, people can protest all they want. If you want to cause trouble, do it to CY Leung and his government. Why are we being victimized?" and "Democracy is 民主. That is to say, the people are the masters, but how come we the people are being bossed around by these Occupy people?"

The Occupy movement does not have a clear message for these restaurant workers. According to the polls, public opinion is changing quickly and inexorably. Various Occupy people have acknowledged this shift in public opinion, and they emphasized the need to reach out beyond the now shrinking Occupy areas to the outside communities. But what do you say when you come face-to-face with these people? Before you try to decide which district to cover next Sunday, why don't you formulate an effective message first? And if you really do have an effective message, you wouldn't even need to go out there because the media will broadcast it for you.

Later on this day, there was a news story in Oriental Daily. East Lake Seafood Restaurant located on Paterson Street is closing down tonight after a 20-year run. The restaurant is only 100 meters away from the Occupy Causeway Bay area and has 720 seats. According to a restaurant worker, business volume is down by 50%. For the month of October, the restaurant ran up a loss of $1 million. The number for the month of November is expected to be similar. On this final evening at 9pm, there were only eight seated tables.

Internet comments (mostly ironic sarcasms):

Q1. Do you support the Occupy Movement?

  November 5-11 October 8-15 September 10-17
Very much support 17.2% 18.6% 14.2%
Somewhat support 16.7% 19.2% 16.9%
So-so 19.5% 23.2% 20.5%
Somewhat not support 8.1% 8.7% 12.5%
Very much not support 35.4% 26.8% 33.8%
No opinion/refused to say 3.1% 3.5% 2.2%

Q2. Do you think that the Occupy people should withdraw completely from the Occupied areas?

48.9%: Very much should
18.5%: Somewhat should
16.3%: So-so
7.1%: Somewhat should not
6.8%: Very much should not
2.4%: No opinion/refuse to say

Q3. Do you think the response of the government after the dialogue with the students is adequate?
15.0%: Very much adequate
14.5%: Somewhat adequate
24.2%: So-so
17.2%: Somewhat inadequate
22.5%: Very much inadequate

Q4. Do you think the government should make further concrete concessions to resolve the present situation?
52.1%: Yes
38.3%: No
9.7%: No opinion/refuse to say

Q5. Are you satisfied with how the government has handled the Occupy movement?
7.5%: Very satisfied
13.6%: Somewhat satisfied
28.1%: So-so
19.7%: Somewhat dissatisfied
28.8%: Very dissatisfied
2.3%: No opinion/refused to say

Q6. Do you think the Legislative Council ought to pass the 2017 Chief Executive universal suffrage proposal?

  November 5-11 October 8-15 September 10-17
Pass 36.1% 37.1% 29.3%
Reject 46.7% 48.5% 53.7%
No opinion/refused to say 17.2% 15.4% 17.0%

Q7. If the nomination committee eliminates voting by companies and company directors and uses only individual votes, do you think the Legislative Council should pass the 2017 Chief Executive universal suffrage proposal?

45.4%: Yes
35.0%: No
19.6%: No opinion/refused to say

Here are the weighted distributions of political affinity:
September 10-17
3.7%: Radical democrats
35.8%: Moderate democrats
24.1%: Middle/neutral
4.1%: Pro-establishment
1.9%: Business/industry
3.1%: Pro-China
21.5%: No political affinity/party affiliation
5.8%: Don't know/hard to say/refused to answer
October 8-15
3.1%: Radical democrats
33.3%: Moderate democrats
27.1%: Middle/neutral
4.8%: Pro-establishment
1.0%: Business/industry
3.7%: Pro-China
22.7%: No political affinity/party affiliation
4.3%: Don't know/hard to say/refused to answer.
November 5-11
2.1%: Radical democrats
28.0%: Moderate democrats
30.0%: Middle/neutral
5.4%: Pro-establishment
0.9%: Business/industry
1.8%: Pro-China
26.2%: No political affinity/party affiliation
5.5%: Don't know/hard to say/refused to answer.

In the 2012 Legislative Council election, the pro-establishment DAB party received 20.22%, the pro-China Federation of Trade Unions got 7.06% and the pro-business Liberal Party got 2.69% of the votes.  The total was (20.22% + 7.06% + 2.69%) = 29.97%.  This is ignoring certain "hidden Red elements."  Yet in the November 5-11 survey here, the sum total of (pro-establishment, pro-business/industry and pro-Beijing) was only 5.4% + 0.9% + 1.8% = 8.1%.  This can't be true, unless people don't understand the question or the selected sample was skewed  If people don't understand the question, then only the cross-tabs are affected. If they don't get enough pro-establishment respondents, the results would be skewed towards the pro-Occupy Central side.

Internet comments:

- According to Commercial Radio, Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary Yvonne Leung made the comment that public opinion is always in flux, and therefore the drop in public opinion support is not the sole indicator. She believes that public opinion may shift after the attempted Beijing trip by Federation members. She acknowledged that the Occupy movement has affected people's lives, but it was more important to let society know what the Occupy people are doing.

- According to Ming Pao, Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow acknowledged more people are having reservations about the Occupy movement, including questioning the effectiveness of the current actions as well as the need to look for alternate methods. But Chow said that withdrawal is not even the main issue here. Instead, they need to do more community work to explain to people the motive behind the Occupy movement and how the benefits behind will outweigh the current losses.

- With respect to 67% wanting the Occupy movement to withdraw completely, Scholarism convener Joshua Wong said that Scholarism will not retreat unconditionally without finding some other way to compensate for the political chips that will be lost as a result of withdrawal.

- What have we got so far?
Chinese University of Hong Kong poll: 67% said Occupy should withdraw completely, 14% said not to withdraw
Hong Kong University POP: 70% said to stop Occupy, 24% said to continue Occupy
Polytechnic University: 73.2% said to stop Occupy, 26.8% said to continue Occupy
Ming Pao: 38.8% said to withdraw completely, 36.1 said to stay away from major thoroughfares, 16.5% said to stay
Hong Kong Research Association: 70% said not support Occupy, 24% said support.

- When public opinion is on your side, you pound on public opinion. Thus you criticize the government for ignoring public opinion. When public opinion is not on your side, you move the goal posts around to divert attention. Thus you say public opinion can be ignored because this involves matters of Great Right versus Great Wrong.
- When a democracy can ignore public opinion, then how is it different from a dictatorship?
- This is not a democracy versus dictatorship issue. This is just something that is necessary when the majority is ignorant and needs to be guided as Hong Kong pigs to feed at the trough.


(translation)
S
cholarism announces the first Umbrella Movement community day at 4pm-6pm November 16 (Sunday). They will set up promotional stations in five districts around Hong Kong to gain citizen support for the Umbrella Movement and ask the government to withdraw the August 31 decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

Hong Kong street booth: Paterson Street, Causeway Bay
Kowloon East street booth: Kowloon Bay pedestrian overpass
Kowloon West street booth: Mong Kok Sai Yeung Choi Street
New Territories East street booth: Shatin East Rail station
New Territories West street booth: Kwai Fong MTR station

Go among the people, immerse into the local communities, more to come

(Oriental Daily) Kowloon Bay

At around 4pm, a woman came to challenge them. She accused them of blocking the passageway with their table and summoned the police. There were about 10 Scholarism members at the time. They had set up a table and they used a megaphone to promote their cause. The police heard the complaint and told them to remove the table, although they could continue to hand out leaflets. At around 5:20pm, six or seven anti-Occupy citizens showed up and got into an obscenity-laced shouting match with the Scholarism members. The police came back. By this time, the number of anti-Occupy citizens had increased to about 50, and they were booing the Scholarism members. Upon advice from the police, the Scholarism members packed up and left early at 530pm.

(Oriental Daily) Causeway Bay

[Note: this is supposed to be friendly territory because it is already Occupy zone.]

Scholarism set up a street booth around 330pm. About 50 citizens watched alongside 15 police officers.

Anti-Occupy citizens showed up with banners saying: "We demand that the police arrest Occupy Movement leaders," "We beg the students to return the roads to the people and the rule of law to Hong Kong, and go home soon." They also said: "No thinking person could possibly block the roads for fifty days." They accused the Occupy people of having no conscience and not worth of being a decent Hong Kong person of Chinese descent. The police used barriers to separate the two sides. They stopped a person who tried to push aside Scholarism's megaphone.

At around 5pm, Scholarism convener Joshua Wong showed up to hand out leaflets. Some citizens shook hands with them. An anti-Occupy person cursed him as "Neither human nor ghoul."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYuk8nx6nEw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_G5HTIJgiI (anti-Occupy birthday song wishing the students to sleep in the street every day just like today)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuU8vlbCPUQ&feature=youtu.be (female counter-demonstrator speaking in English)

(Oriental Daily) Shatin and Kwai Fong

Five Scholarism members set up a street booth outside the Shatin East Rail station. They were prevented by more than a dozen anti-Occupy people. These people said that the Scholarism members have been goaded by others and should leave. They also told them not encourage other citizens to join the Occupy movement. At the peak, there were were 50 spectators. The Scholarism members did not object to what the anti-Occupy people said. Some pro-Occupy people supported the students and said that they were not wrong. It was stalemate with no body contact. The police was not present.

Elsewhere, several Scholarism members handed out leaflets outside the Kwai Chung MTR station. They were cursed out by pedestrians who accuse them of not studying and participating in the illegal Occupy movement. One Scholarism member got into a heated shouting match with a citizen.

Scholarism convener Joshua Wong said that many of their volunteers encountered verbal abuse from anti-Occupy people. He admitted frankly that many student volunteers were emotionally depressed over their experiences. But this only shows that they need to do their community work better. Therefore, Scholarism will continue to reach out to the communities next Sunday.

(TIME) Hong Kongs Pro-Democracy Student Leaders Refused Entry to Beijing.  By Rishi Iyengar. November 16, 2014.

Entry, like democracy, denied

Student leaders of Hong Kongs pro-democracy protests are officially persona non grata on the Chinese mainland after they were not allowed to board a flight to Beijing where they planned to press their demands for free local elections.

Alex Chow, Eason Chung and Nathan Law of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) were booked to fly to the Chinese capital on Saturday but were refused entry after their return-home cards equivalent to a permanent visa given to Hong Kong residents of Chinese ancestry were revoked by the mainland authorities.

Chow told reporters that the trip was to voice the opinion of Hong Kong people to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. The movement in Hong Kong will be ongoing, he adds. Hong Kong people have been pursuing democracy and democratic reform for more than three decades and we are still on our way to restructure the concept of democracy.

The HKFS trio intended to urge Li to reconsider an Aug. 31 decision by the Chinese Communist Party that said all candidates standing for election for Hong Kongs top job of chief executive in 2017 must first be vetted by a 1,200-strong nominating committee perceived as loyal to Beijing.

Democracy activists see this as a betrayal and tens of thousands of protesters have occupied three main thoroughfares of Hong Kong since Sept. 28, although numbers have dwindled significantly in recent weeks. Pressure is mounting on student leaders to clear the streets as discontent grows about the ongoing disruption to transport and local businesses.

According to local media, the Hong Kong government may enforce multiple injunctions against the protesters as soon as Monday or Tuesday, and the Beijing foray was seen as something of a last resort after discussions with city officials mired.

We dont want to go to Beijing, but [Hong Kong's top civil servant] Carrie Lam says not all of Hong Kongs problems can be solved by the Hong Kong government, Chung told media the night before their scheduled departure. Lam said Tuesday that there was no need for the students to go to Beijing if they were going to repeat the same demands they have made of the Hong Kong government. The HKFS received a similar response from former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, after they sent an open letter beseeching him to set up a meeting with Beijing authorities.

The entry denial was largely expected; a member of Scholarism, another student group championing the protests, was denied entry into the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, across the border from Hong Kong, earlier in the week, according to local news channel RTHK.

The following is some of what is written in Chinese:

(Bastille Post) Magnanimous Act or Showboat Act. November 16, 2014.

The Federation of Students trio went to Beijing to meet with Premier Li Keqiang. But the mainland authorities had already canceled their mainland travel permits, so they could not even get beyond the Hong Kong International Airport. As I have heard beforehand, the Chinese authorities did not even want them to land in China because it would be troublesome if there was any demonstration there with pushing and shoving.

I went to a dinner with former fellow students. This turned into an argument fest. Those who support Occupy Central said that this was an magnanimous act for the sake of public good (namely, fighting for genuine universal suffrage on behalf of the people of Hong Kong). They said that it was unimaginable that a grand nation like China would be scared of letting some students come in and hold discussions.

The anti-Occupy Central side immediately countered: If some Americans want to fight for better treatment for Guantanamo prisoners and want to meet with the president, do you think Barack Obama will meet with them? The Federation of Students saw that the Occupy Central was slowly waning. So they changed the subject and wanted to meet with state leaders in Beijing. The pan-democrats knew that this was infeasible, but the Federation insisted. This was just a show which provided daily updates for three weeks. First they said that they would go during the APEC meeting. Then they said that they would go afterwards. One day they said that they want (former Chief Executive) Tung Chee-hwa to help them. The next day they said that they want (Hong Kong delegate to the National People's Congress) Rita Fan to forward the message. There were plenty of news items, none of which was practical. All of it was done for the sake of keeping the fervor up for Occupy Central. Why would we want to go crazy together with them?
 
The two sides argued incessantly and the dinner ended in sour mood. Now that the flow of news on the Beijing trip has stopped, what will the Federation of Students/Scholarism do next?

(Oriental Daily) Hidden "B" team once again deceived the public. November 16, 2014.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students has a record of deceiving the public many times before. Once again, they lied about the Beijing trip. The Federation publicly stated that they would not secretly send members to Beijing, but they actually arranged for several lesser known members to take a later flight to Beijing. The goal was to sneak these people through while there is turmoil over the "A" team at the Beijing International Airport. However, the Chinese authorities were aware of the ruse and knew of the identities of both teams. Since the "A" team had their mainland travel permits canceled, the "B" team decided not to go through with the boarding process. However, the information was that the "B" team also had their mainland travel permits canceled as well. But "A" team member Eason Chung insisted that there was no "B" team.

After the "A" team was turned away and left the Hong Kong International Airport, several other Federation members (including Lester Shum and Yvonne Leung) who came to see them off did not leave immediately. They realized that our reporter was following them, so they strolled around the airport. Then they went into the underground parking garage and spoke to someone in a van. Afterwards, they went off in a different direction to take a taxi.

The following is a collection of Internet comments about the students' petition trip. These are mostly negative, because I am seeking a balance here. One side is "pro-democracy" and their voices are readily heard in English-language western media reports (see, for example, the TIME article in the beginning). The other side is not "anti-democracy" as such. You need to understand that the two sides are talking on different planes (or levels).

The "pro-democracy position is basically this: We want "genuine universal suffrage" which means civil nomination, and Occupy Central is a way of forcing the government to yield.

The other side is better called "anti-Occupy" and its position is basically this: We support the demands for democracy, but we object to the Occupy method which inconveniences everybody and devastates the livelihoods of many citizens, some much more so than others; therefore we want Occupy Central to stop and seek some other way that doesn't hurt people. This "anti-Occupy" position is seldom heard in English-language western media reports, even though it is in the majority among the citizens by a wide margin. Western media will have you believe that there is only "pro-democracy" versus "anti-democracy."

Now for the Internet comments:


 
Leung was self-conscious, giggled before starting and made some lousy grammatical mistakes. What she really fumbled were certain terms, such as the "Return Home Card" (which is the Mainland Travel Permit for Hong Kong and Macao residents, also colloquially known as Home Return Permit or Home Visit Permit) and "certificates" (which are "boarding passes" to everyone who has taken a commercial flight). How can she be so ill-prepared given that this event was known to happen? Leung should have brushed up on the relevant English vocabulary instead of improvising with instant word-for-word translation.
 
As it stands, she only shows that she has no understanding about traveling (boarding pass?), especially about between Hong Kong and Mainland (return home card?).
 
Also, how can a third-year Hong Kong University student majoring in Government and Laws speak such poor English and know so little about the world outside? And to think that the students are saying that they represent the future of Hong Kong!
 
Why should Yvonne Leung's English-language skills be a subject of discussion? At the Hong Kong Discussion Forum, the post "Pretty person, proper English, sure win, can't lose" has already collected 163,738 page views and 1,196 comments within a day or so. This is just one post among many at one of many discussion forums. The term "Where is your Return Home Card?" is trending hot right now and will probably become an Internet cultural milestone.

Here is another post at the same forum with 59,010 views and 600 comments:

Now, consider yourself a business owner in some other district. You can see from recent history that when an area is "Occupied", business dies, possibly down to 10% of normal volume initially and then holding at 50% in the long run. As much as you might support this idea of genuine universal suffrage, you still have to pay your bills.

You can also see from recent history that when your area gets "Occupied" and your business is in dire straits, the Occupiers won't care, the Hong Kong SAR government won't care, the police won't care, the Legislator Councilors won't care, the District Councilors won't care and the Central Government won't care. Therefore, you are on your own.

So your best solution is to get prepared to stop it before it happens. If you try to do it by yourself, you will be outnumbered. So it is best to get together with your neighbors and do it together, because you are in this together.

The Occupy Mong Kok zone runs along Nathan Road between Argyle Street and Dundas Street. Nathan Road is the main north-south thoroughfare in Kowloon, and Argyle Street is a major east-west thoroughfare. Therefore, the Occupy Mong Kok zone is choking north-south and east-west vehicular traffic, which has to take detours through smaller streets (e.g. Nathan Road has three lanes in both directions, but unidirectional parallel-running Portland Street has only one south-north lane).

If the Occupy people have to leave Mong Kok, then where will they go? Northwards are the Prince Edward and Shum Shui Po districts, which are high-density, low-income residential areas. There are some small businesses such as the Golden Plaza arcade with their computer accessories/repair shops, companies dealing with recycling, used mobile phones, wholesale clothing, tea restaurants, etc. An Occupy Shum Shui Po movement would probably raise public anger (see, for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9_y9Q5DcQM which took place outside the Golden Plaza). Westwards is Tai Kok Tsui and eastwards is Ho Man Tin, both residential areas with little strategic value. You can occupy them, get into verbal/physical fights with local residents many times a day but the government and the real estate hegemons won't really feel any pain.

Immediately south of Mong Kok down Nathan Road is the Yau Ma Tei district, which runs from Dundas Street in the north down to Austin Road in the south. It covers two major east-west thoroughfares, Waterloo Road and Jordan Road. An Occupy Yau Ma Tei movement would choke east-west traffic and force everything to go through Argyle Street, as well as the north-south traffic through Nathan Road. The area is mainly mixed residential and commercial.

(Ta Kung Pao)  November 15, 2014.


Anti-Occupy Roads volunteers wearing red ribbons

The Yau Ma Tei Neighborhood Association met on Wednesday to discuss how to deal with a potential Occupy Yau Ma Tei movement. They came up with a plan whereupon each business is asked to provide one volunteer and each night club is asked to provide ten volunteers for the purpose of making sure that no roads are blocked. They expect to have a total of 400 to 500 volunteers. Businesses which cannot provide manpower can make monetary contributions instead.

Beginning Thursday night, the volunteers will work three shifts a day around the Jordan Road area. 60 people will be assigned outside the Yue Hwa Chinese Products Emporium at the corner of Nathan Road and Jordan Road. Another 20 to 30 are assigned along Kansu Street. Each store will be patrolled by one or two volunteers. These volunteers will wear red ribbons for identification purposes.

Local residents say that they have spotted people with yellow ribbons roving around the Jordan area. There are also Internet discussions about an Occupy Jordan movement. On the evening of the day before, a dozen or so persons believed to be in the Occupy movement were spotted around Jordan Road looking around and making gestures to each other. Yesterday around 4pm, our reporter spotted a suspicious-looking man with a map in hand at the intersection of Jordan Road and Nathan Road. Then the man looked around the Yue Hwa Chinese Products Emporium for around a minute and taking photos of the intersection. It would seem that the man was scouting for the "southern immigration."

Earlier, about eighty wooden pallets mysteriously appeared outside the Chi Wo Commercial Building at Number 20 Saigon Street. According to a security guard in a nearby commercial building, the nightshift guard saw some men wearing surgical masks unloading about 80 wooden pallets in a back lane between the Chi Wo Commercial Building and a nearby hotel for unknown reasons. Because the wooden pallets were blocking the fire lane, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department was summoned to remove the pallets. Some people think that these wooden pallets were going to be used to block the Yau Ma Tei roads after the police clear the Mong Kok area.

(Oriental Daily) November 15, 2014.


Wooden pallets outside 20 Saigon Street

Yesterday evening at the intersection of Jordan Road and Nathan Road, more than a dozen anti-Occupy Roads signs with red ribbons were posted. An explanatory note said that if they will take action against anyone who attempts to block the roads.

According to Temple Street Chamber of Commerce chairman Chan Kam-wing, "Nothing has happened so far, but we are obviously very concerned. Many of us Temple Street vendors live from hand to mouth. If we stop working, we stop eating. If they really come down here, we will fight back."

If you are REALLY careful about reading the above, you may have noticed that I said that there are two east-west thoroughfares in the Yau Ma Tei district -- Waterloo Road and Jordan Road. So far, all the news reports above are about actions by Jordan residents and businesses. What about Waterloo Road? Well, Waterloo Road is legendary in Hong Kong because the wholesale Fruit Market is located there. Every night, hundreds of workers load/unload cartons of fruit from lorries and carts. In other words, these people already occupy the roads and the police have never tried to interfere with the illegal double- and triple-parking, because there would be a mass riot otherwise. The general rule-of-thumb if you have to drive through Waterloo Road at 1am is that you should roll up the window, lock all your car doors, look straight ahead and never at the laborers, inch along slowly along the single passing lane in a theoretically three-lane road and never ever honk your horn. If the Occupy people try to block Waterloo Road, they would be looking down at thousands of raging working people trying to defend their livelihoods. Here is a sample blog post about that legend: Drugs, triads and a bit of fruit on the side.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) November 17, 2014. With respect to the suggestion to shift the Occupy area from Mong Kok to Jordan, Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow said that people should consider the meaning and significance of relocation.

Another way is to send out small teams of students to knock on doors and speak to residents in a more amiable atmosphere.  The group dynamics are different when it is one small group chatting with another without any specific agenda, as compared to one small group facing a large group of strangers including some very angry people with strong pre-conceived notions. But of course the number of people who are reached is relatively small.

Here are several press reports on the results of this kind of effort effort.

(Now.com via Yahoo.com.hk)

A Concern Group for the effect of the Occupy movement on small businesses has been spontaneously organized by social workers, teachers and students. The members have different attitudes towards the Occupy movement itself. Early this month, they interviewed more than 140 businesses in shopping malls near the Occupy Mong Kok area, including Sino Centre, Mong Kok Centre and New Town Mall. They found out that at least 40% of the businesses said that their business volume has fallen by at least 50% during the Occupy period. Another 30% said that their business has fallen by 30% to 40%.

The concern group said that 70% of the businesses hope that the landlord can give them rent reductions in the short run. More than 20% of the people wish the Occupy people would retreat in a hurry.

(Oriental Daily)

The Occupy movement has gone on for 48 days. A concern group about small businesses in Mong Kok has been formed by university students, teachers and social workers has studied the effect of the Occupy Mong Kok movement on nearby small businesses. They interviewed about 150 small business between November 5 and 13. They found out since Occupy Mong Kok began, there were fewer citizens and tourists and business volume has fallen down by 90%. They hope the landlords would consider rent reductions and the government would render aid.

Due to the tremendous losses, the businesses want the landlords to reduce the rent by 30%, or even 100% in order to pass through the hardship together. They hope the government would actively take measures to help the small businesses through.

The Concern Group recommended that the government should carefully consider the demands of the Occupy movement and urge citizens to support small businesses. Also District Councilors should actively facilitate communication within the community and spend more time understanding and solving people's livelihood problems.


"Jointly share the responsibility, reduce rent by 30%"

(Apple Daily) (YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvqPifzpsI; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_nTEI_h0O0 )

While the Occupy movement is going on, nearby residents and businesses are affected. In view of this, the University Political Reform Concern Group and the Hong Kong Federation of Students established the "Occupy Mong Kok Propaganda Team". They hope to explain the ideas of the Occupy movement to residents through personal visits at home.

Victor is a member of the Hong Kong Federation of Students Standing Committee and he is a member of the team, and Ah Q is studying for an associate degree at Polytechnic University. They spoke with our newspaper on their experiences.

Victor pointed out that many small businesses were affected during the Occupy period. Some vendors told them heatedly that their businesses were heavily impacted.

Victor has attempted to speak to the street cleaners who work near the Occupy area in order to understand how they feel. During the process, he drew the attention of the nearby vendors and senior citizens. These people said that they all opposed Occupy. One said that businesses have suffered 70% losses and called for others to condemn the team. Another said that two restaurant chefs were "laid off" and got those two to come over too to join the argument. Victor was even concerned because "I was afraid the chefs would bring their kitchen knives with them when they came out to scold us."

Victor pointed out that the conversation with the restaurant chef was unforgettable. The chef opposed Occupy Central. He smeared the next door neighbor's child for taking money to join Occupy Central and he also insisted that Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai gave iPhone6's to the Hong Kong Federation of Students. However, his daughter who is a teacher is pro-Occupy Central and even took her students to the Occupy Admiralty site. As a result, there were disagreements, arguments and even fights in the family.

Upon further discussion, the chef criticized CY Leung's governance: "CY Leung said terrible things, such as people would make less than 14,000 dollars a month are less than human." This made Victor realized that many citizens share common views with the students in their disaffection with the CY Leung government. However, they disagree on using the Occupy method to fight for democracy.

Some (mostly negative because hardly anyone could find anything nice to say) Internet comments:

- When you can't even buy food to put on the table, do you still fucking want to talk about grand ideas? The bastards just don't get it!

- If your action is fine, there would be no fucking need to soothe the local residents. You have a big fucking problem now. By your actions, you have hurt many people and businesses, and you still can't own up to that fact.

- You can talk nice to the business owners about your sympathy with their plight, but in the end the question that they want the answer for is: "How to pay the expenses (including rent, utilities and salary) now?" Democracy (civil nomination of Chief Executive in 2016!) won't do it. Alex Chow argues that things would eventually be a lot worse for everybody if civil nomination of Chief Executive does not occur. Well, Alex, how do I pay the rent on December 1st? That's my immediate problem. Here and now. And you don't care, of course, because you are a rich kid ...

- Why should the landlord accept responsibility and split the bill? Why don't you Occupy guys fucking pick up the bill, given that you are responsible for the Occupy Movement and the landlord is not? Oh, I hear that your organization has been taking in tons of donations too ...

- Young people need to realize that the masses do not oppose civil nomination. They just object to the Occupy approach.  People always do the wrong things for the right reasons.

- The Chinese have a saying: "Breaking someone's rice bowl is like killing their parents." You broke their rice bowls and you still want to sell democracy to them. You are lucky that the chef did not chop you up into ground meat.

- Basically many people agree with democracy, but they don't agree with Occupy. These students are trying to say that Democracy = Occupy. Not true.  Not true at all.

- Stop acting as if you are too stupid to know! For weeks, people have been saying that they don't agree with your method, because you are sacrificing people's livelihood in order to achieve your political goals. It does not matter how noble you make this sound, because people won't support this. But you refuse to listen and you use all sorts of fancy reasons to dress up your ideas. It is shameless to quote citizens hating CY Leung's government to make as if they must also agree with Occupy Central. You still haven't accepted the fact that you have done wrong. The first step for an alcoholic is to admit that you have a problem. A next step is to make a list of people who you have hurt and make amends to them. Finally, you promise that you will never repeat the action. You haven't even taken the first step.

Hong Kong came in with an EPI score of 52.50, which is considered "moderate proficiency." But the introductory fact sheet says:

Adult English skills in Hong Kong are at a delicate point.
The citys proficiency scores have declined steadily since 2007. Hong Kongs English skills are on par with the world average, and only slightly above average for Asia, calling into question the citys reputation as an English-speaking hub for business. Meanwhile, major cities in Mainland China have made consistent progress. This year, for the first time ever, adults in Shanghai have higher English proficiency scores than those in Hong Kong. Adults in Beijing and Tianjin score as well as their Hong Kong counterparts.

For China, the scores for the top five provinces/cities are: Shanghai 53.75, Beijing 52.96, Tianjin 52.73, Taiwan 52.56 and Hong Kong 52.50. The introductory fact sheet says:

Adult English skills in China remain weak , but proficiency levels are slowly rising.
Our most striking finding is that, for the first time, adults in Shanghai have on average higher English proficiency scores than their counterparts in Hong Kong. Women in China speak English better than men, although the gender gap is slight. The differences in English skills between adults of various age cohorts is in line with regional and global averages, with Chinese adults aged 25 to 44 speaking the best English among Chinas age cohorts.

Between 2007 and 2013, the EPI for Hong Kong went down by 1.95 whereas the EPI for China went up by 2.53.

This news report drew comments at the discussion forums about the relative positions of Hong Kong and Shanghai as the business centre of China. Some commentators point to this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuDmn7-u9fQ in which an Occupy Central university student got interviewed on CNN as an example of Hong Kong students' deteriorating English-language skills.

But that is only one example, and it doesn't mean that all Hongkongers speak lousy English. Here is Civic Party chairperson Audrey Eu being interviewed on ATV World about genuine universal suffrage. She is fluent and articulate in English. Then there is also the famous moment when pro-establishment DAB legislator Gary Chan responded that "it is a little bit of a surprise for us ... but we will try our breast ... er... er ... still try our breast to ... not just criticize the government's policies but also make some good suggestions in order to improve the people's livelihood."

[Technical note: (SCMP

The annual study, known as the English Proficiency Index, is compiled by the Swedish-owned global language instruction company EF Education First. This year's index is based on test results gathered last year from about 750,000 people across 63 countries and regions.

...The index is based on results of a free online test and the enrolment tests for those taking the company's courses. Both tests include grammar, vocabulary, reading and listening sections. Only countries and regions with a minimum of 400 test-takers were ranked.

... The Education Bureau said the rankings might not reflect English proficiency in different regions because the samples could not represent the whole region. In many other local and global tests, the city scored better than neighbouring regions, the bureau said.

EF Education First conceded that the scores could have been skewed because only those who wanted to learn English or were curious about their language skills might have taken the test.]

(SCMP) November 6, 2015.

The English-language skills of Hong Kong's adult population have slumped to the level of South Korea, Indonesia and Japan, according to new rankings of 60 countries and territories.

Despite rising in the global rankings for English proficiency, over the past six years, the city's actual score has dropped and it now sits fourth in Asia.

Experts put the blame partly on the switch from teaching mainly in English to mainly in Chinese since the handover. They said English skills must be improved if job-seekers were to remain competitive with mainlanders, whose English skills were improving.

Anita Poon Yuk-kang, associate professor in Baptist University's department of education studies, said mother-tongue teaching had had a "very negative influence" on the efficiency of English learning. She said having two standard written languages - English and Chinese - and three standard spoken languages - Putonghua, Cantonese and English - had further lowered the importance of English.

Business consultant Joseph Luc Ngai said the performance of Hong Kong job applicants was "very pathetic", with weaknesses in both English and Putonghua. "Language ability has become a basic requirement [in job seeking]," Ngai, director of McKinsey and Company's Hong Kong practice, said. "There is no option but to improve Chinese and English at the same time. Too many people are fluent in both."

While mainland China ranked 34th, just above Thailand, the study by language learning company EF Education First showed its English skills have been improving.

The annual rankings cover countries and territories in Europe, Asia, North Africa and Latin America where English is not the native language. Although Hong Kong ranked 22nd among all countries and territories - three places up from last year - its score, at 53.5, has fallen a full point since the first survey in 2011. South Korea, Indonesia and Japan were ranked, respectively, 24th, 25th and 26th. Malaysia, ranked 11th overall, came first in Asia.

The rankings are based on tests taken last year by 750,000 people aged 18 and over. The company also analysed the trends of English proficiency in these countries and territories over the past six years, based on test data from almost five million adults. The minimum sample size in each country or territory was 400 and the tests covered English vocabulary, reading, listening and writing.

Poon said that with the influence of mainland tourists and more frequent business exchanges between Hong Kong and the mainland, more parents, job seekers and employees had focused on learning Putonghua.

Ngai said if Hongkongers wanted a language advantage over mainlanders, they needed good English, as their Putonghua would, at best, put them on a par with mainland graduates. He said many potential employees he interviewed were poor at writing e-mails in English, with many grammatical and spelling errors, while others, although fluent in English, were "very mediocre" in Putonghua.

Smaller European countries proved to be the most proficient in English, occupying the first seven places and led by Sweden. The analysis showed that they believed better English could help them improve their international competitiveness. France was ranked one lower than mainland China on the list, making it the worst English-learning country in Europe.

(Chinese University of Hong Kong Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey) November 2014.

The survey respondent is asked to choose among four different answers on Hongkonger/Chinese identity:
  (1) Hongkonger;
  (2) Hongkonger but also Chinese;
  (3) Chinese but also Hongkonger.
  (4) Chinese;

Year HongKonger Hongkonger
but also Chinese
Chinese but
also Hongkonger
Chinese Other
1996 25.2% 32.9% 14.7% 25.7% 1.5%
1997 23.2% 31.9% 11.6% 32.1% 1.3%
1998 28.8% 30.0% 15.6% 24.5% 1.2%
1999 22.8% 35.8% 17.0% 23.5% 0.9%
2002 24.8% 36.0% 14.5% 23.6% 1.1%
2006 21.5% 38.1% 21.2% 18.6% 0.5%
2008 16.8% 40.0% 25.0% 17.8% 0.4%
2010 17.3% 44.1% 21.9% 16.5% 0.2%
2012 23.4% 41.8% 22.1% 12.6% 0.2%
2014 26.8% 42.0% 22.3% 8.9% -

(South China Morning Post) Poll finds fewer Hongkongers identifying as Chinese, thanks to Occupy. November 11, 2014.

Hongkongers' sense of Chinese identity has hit a record low, a Chinese University survey conducted during the Occupy Central protests found, as local student organisers plan their overtures to state leaders in Beijing.

Only 8.9 per cent of the 810 people polled last month identified themselves as "Chinese", according to the telephone survey carried out by the university's Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey.

That was one of four options presented to respondents of the poll, 26.8 per cent of whom chose "Hongkongers" as their identity. Forty-two per cent chose "Hongkongers but also Chinese" and 22.3 per cent went with "Chinese but also Hongkongers".

(Ta Kung Pao) Selective reporting with ulterior motives. By Guan Zhao. November 12, 2014.

(in translation)

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Communication and Public Opinion Survey Center conducted a telephone telephone on national/ethnic identity.  The results were that 42% think that they are "Hongkongers but also Chinese" while 26.8% think that they are "Hongkongers."

Such public opinion polls have been done quite often in recent years. But the survey questions and topics are often biased and misleading, such as forcing people to choose between either "Hongkonger" or "Chinese."

Yesterday Apple Daily used the headline "8.9% Hongkongers feel that they are Chinese, new historical low." Meanwhile the so-called intellectuals' newspaper Ming Pao highlighted that 40% of the post-80's generation feel that they are Hongkongers.

After reading these headlines and not reading other news sources, you may become very worried. After all, less than 10% of Hongkongers think that they are Chinese. Doesn't that mean that more than 90% of Hongkongers think that they are not Chinese? So what is going to happen to Hong Kong? What happens to "One country, two systems" and the SAR government?

But if you pore through the contents carefully, you will find that this is not what is happening. There is an option for "Hongkonger but also Chinese" -- this was chosen by 42% of all respondents and 44.5% of those in the 18-34 age group. So why did Apple Daily and Ming Pao isolate and play up the lowest item (namely, 8.9% of people chose "Chinese")? Apart from playing up the subjective unspoken message that "Hongkongers don't want to be Chinese citizens", what other explanation can there be?

News reporting must be objective and fair. This is what those two newspapers often say. On this very serious issue of national identity, they tossed objectivity and fairness out the window and produced biased, partial reporting. An overwhelming majority of Hongkonger are Chinese, and that is a fact that nobody (including Apple Daily and Ming Pao) can alter.

A somewhat different question was used by (Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme):

In their original Chinese-language questionnaire, they have:

Q1-你會稱自己為 (訪問員讀出首四個答案)
香港人
中國人
香港的中國人
中國的香港人
其他 (請列明)
唔知/難講
拒絕回答

I translate this question from Chinese into English as:
Q. You would identify yourself as a (Interviewer to read out the first four choices)
  (1) Hongkonger
  (2) Chinese
  (3) Chinese in Hong Kong
  (4) Hongkonger in China
  (5) Other (Please specify)
  (6) Don't know / hard to say
  (7) Refuse to answer).

But their own English translation is as follows:

Q1-You would identify yourself as a : (Interviewer to read out the first 4 choices)
  (1) Hong Kong Citizen
  (2) Chinese Citizen
  (3) Hong Kong Chinese Citizen
  (4) Chinese Hong Kong Citizen
  (5) Others (Please specify)
  (6) Don't know / hard to say
  (7) Refuse to answer
 
 Date of survey Hong Kong Citizen Chinese Hong Kong Citizen Hong Kong
Chinese Citizen
Chinese Citizen Other  DK/HS 
  6-12/6/2014  40.2%   27.1%   11.6%   19.5%   0.2%   1.3% 
  9-12/12/2013  34.8%   27.6%   15.0%   21.8%   0.8%   0.1% 
  10-13/6/2013  38.2%   24.3%   12.0%   23.0%   1.1%   1.6% 
  14-17/12/2012  27.2%   33.1%   16.1%   21.3%   0.6%   1.7% 
  13-20/6/2012  45.6%   22.8%   11.5%   18.3%   1.1%   0.7% 
  12-20/12/2011  37.7%   25.3%   17.8%   16.6%   0.6%   2.1% 
  21-22/6/2011  43.8%   21.3%   10.3%   23.5%   0.4%   0.6% 
  13-16/12/2010  35.5%   27.6%   13.8%   21.1%   0.4%   1.5% 
  9-13/6/2010  25.3%   31.3%   14.8%   27.8%   0.4%   0.5% 
  8-11/12/2009  37.6%   23.9%   13.1%   24.2%   0.2%   1.0% 
  8-13/6/2009  24.7%   32.0%   13.3%   29.3%   0.2%   0.4% 
  9-12/12/2008  21.8%   29.6%   13.0%   34.4%   0.5%   0.7% 
  11-13/6/2008  18.1%   29.2%   13.3%   38.6%   0.1%   0.7% 
  11-14/12/2007  23.5%   31.5%   16.0%   27.2%   0.7%   1.1% 
  8-12/6/2007  23.4%   31.8%   16.7%   26.4%   0.3%   1.4% 
  6-12/12/2006*  22.4%   24.3%   20.1%   31.8%   0.6%   0.7% 
  13-15/6/2006*  24.8%   25.1%   14.9%   34.6%   0.3%   0.3% 
  9-14/12/2005  24.8%   26.5%   16.9%   30.7%   0.0%   1.1% 
  6-8/6/2005  24.0%   21.2%   14.7%   36.4%   0.5%   3.3% 
  6-9/12/2004  25.9%   23.1%   16.2%   31.6%   0.4%   2.8% 
  7-11/6/2004  28.0%   21.2%   14.3%   33.0%   0.4%   3.1% 
  10-14/12/2003  24.9%   23.4%   15.6%   32.5%   0.3%   3.3% 
  13-18/6/2003  36.7%   19.2%   11.9%   29.0%   0.7%   2.5% 
  1-4/3/2003  28.5%   22.3%   15.0%   32.3%   0.3%   1.6% 
  13-18/12/2002  31.1%   21.3%   14.3%   29.7%   0.6%   3.0% 
  2-5/9/2002  28.9%   22.0%   15.0%   32.5%   0.4%   1.2% 
  4-5/6/2002  32.2%   18.1%   13.0%   32.5%   0.4%   3.9% 
  12-13/3/2002  27.5%   23.3%   17.9%   28.3%   0.0%   3.0% 
  7-9/12/2001  31.9%   20.5%   10.4%   31.5%   0.3%   5.4% 
  13-21/9/2001  26.1%   27.9%   17.6%   25.8%   0.4%   2.1% 
  1-5/6/2001  36.1%   18.3%   13.3%   28.4%   0.0%   3.8% 
  22/3-2/4/2001  31.4%   21.7%   16.0%   28.2%   0.4%   2.3% 
  4-12/12/2000  35.6%   19.1%   13.8%   25.2%   0.9%   5.5% 
  21-25/9/2000  37.0%   26.8%   14.5%   17.4%   0.4%   3.9% 
  7-8/6/2000  35.5%   22.9%   14.0%   22.8%   0.7%   4.1% 
  6-7/4/2000  38.7%   21.4%   14.2%   20.4%   0.2%   5.1% 
  1-2/2/2000  38.3%   23.2%   19.5%   13.8%   0.5%   4.6% 
  13-15/12/1999  39.0%   20.9%   17.2%   19.9%   0.2%   2.8% 
  26-27/10/1999  31.2%   23.7%   16.2%   25.5%   0.7%   2.6% 
  6/8/1999  30.3%   23.3%   17.5%   25.3%   0.3%   3.2% 
  8/6/1999  39.9%   25.0%   11.2%   17.0%   0.6%   6.3% 
  15/4/1999  43.4%   20.0%   13.1%   18.0%   0.4%   5.1% 
  8-9/2/1999  41.0%   20.9%   15.3%   17.6%   1.2%   3.9% 
  21/12/1998  40.7%   22.3%   15.1%   17.2%   0.6%   4.2% 
  29/9/1998  39.4%   22.9%   15.5%   20.6%   0.4%   1.2% 
  14/8/1998  29.7%   25.2%   19.6%   22.0%   0.2%   3.2% 
  22-24/6/1998  30.2%   18.0%   16.1%   31.6%   0.4%   3.8% 
  3-4/6/1998  34.2%   18.6%   18.7%   24.8%   0.2%   3.4% 
  8-9/12/1997  35.8%   22.9%   18.9%   18.2%   0.2%   3.9% 
  28-29/10/1997  36.6%   22.6%   20.1%   17.5%   0.2%   3.0% 
  23-24/9/1997  36.2%   24.2%   20.3%   17.5%   0.2%   1.6% 
  26-27/8/1997  34.9%   24.8%   20.1%   18.6%   0.4%   1.3% 

Now, if I were randomly selected and asked either the CUHK or HKU-POP question, I will have to reply: "I don't know what you are talking about!" They may have a point somewhere, but this is splitting semantic hairs too fine for me to discern.

Here is the blogger Kursk back on January 3, 2011 about the HKU-POP survey data:

When I first saw the question, I spent twenty minutes thinking before I figured out what the meaning of "Hongkong Chinese citizen" versus "Chinese Hongkong citizen" etc. Maybe I was over-thinking or maybe my understanding is poor. But I really wondered how many seconds the telephone respondent has to comprehend this test of academic skills or preferences.

Actually, the question of "Do you consider yourself as XXX?" has different answers in different situations. For example, when we see Chinese athletes in competition or a natural disaster in China, we call ourselves Chinese. When we are talking to a foreigner or someone from another Chinese province, we call ourselves Hongkongers. Furthermore, to claim to be a Hongkonger is not denying being Chinese. It doesn't really mean anything.

But the most dangerous part about this study is that it will serve the purposes of various special interest groups, to each his own reading based upon his hidden political agenda.

... I want to add that this survey topic does not mean much. It is not a sin to say that you are a Hongkonger, just as it is not a virtue to say that you are Chinese.  As for being a "Chinese Hong Kong citizen" as opposed to a "Hong Kong Chinese citizen," there isn't much difference and doesn't deserve any deep reading. Most likely, the respondents have no idea what the difference is.

If I had to answer, I would say that I am Hongkonger as well as Chinese. That is to say, my answer is: "Other -- Hongkonger and Chinese."

Actually, if the issue is national identity, the international standard is the Moreno question, which was first developed in Spain and introduced to Scotland to ask respondents to balance the relative weight of two identities, usually a sub-state level against the state level (Scotland inside Great Britain, Catalonia inside Spain, Quebec inside Canada, etc):

In Scotland (Great Britain), the question is:

Which, if any, of the following best describes how you see yourself?
  (1) Scottish not British
  (2) More Scottish than British
  (3) Equally Scottish and British
  (4) More British than Scottish
  (5) British not Scottish
  (6) Other description
  (7) None of these

In Catalonia (Spain), the Moreno question is:

Which, if any, of the following best describes how you see yourself?
  (1) Catalan not Spanish
  (2) More Catalan than Spanish
  (3) Equally Catalan and Spanish
  (4) More Spanish than Catalan
  (5) Spanish not Catalan
  (6) Other description
  (7) None of these

In 1990-1995, the data showed:
  12.5% Catalan not Spanish
  18.9% More Catalan than Spanish
  38.9% Equally Catalan and Spanish
  9.8% More Spanish than Catalan
  16.7% Spanish not Catalan
  3.1% Don't know/no answer

I would have chosen "Equally Hongkonger and Chinese" in a Moreno question where my understanding of "Chinese"-ness is based upon cultural factors and not political factors.

After 45 days of Occupy Admiralty, the number of villagers at the "Harcourt Village" tent camp is estimated to be 400 to 500 each night after the last MTR train departs.

On the night of November 5 and 6, our newspaper interviewed 182 "Harcourt Village" residents who stayed the night.

Our survey found that 20% of the interviewers are students, 10% are office workers, 7% are teachers, 7% are in the finance industry, 6% in advertising design or arts. Others include media workers, technicians, information technology workers, accountants, sales, import/export, healthcare, airlines/travel, insurance, etc.

More than 60% of the interviewees are under the age of 30; about 25% are age 31 to 40; 10% are over age 40.

69% have university degrees, of which 11% have masters or high degrees.

23% have monthly income less than HKD 10,000, noting that many of them are students who are not working; 52.7% have monthly HKD 10,000 to 30,000; about 20% have monthly income HKD 30,000 to 50,000; 3.8% have income more than HKD 60,000.

Thus, the die-hards in the Occupy movement are mostly young, educated people.

37% of the interviewees have stayed for more than one month; 35% have stayed between half a month and one month; 10% said that they have never left Harcourt Village since the Occupy movement began; 15% said that they have stayed two weeks or less.

85% of the interviewees said that they do not support withdrawal. Most of them explained that it would be a complete waste of their previous efforts if they leave without achieving any results while the government has not provided any sincere answers to their demands. Only by insisting to the end will this be a bargaining chip for the Federation of Students and others to apply pressure on the government. One interviewee said that he supports a partial withdrawal but not a complete withdrawal. Some villagers emphasized that they are staying to protect the students and they will not leave as long as the students are there.

As for the 10% who support a withdrawal, some of them are worried that the movement is not accomplishing anything this way and there needs to be a transition into the local communities for a long-term battle. Others said that they think that they would lose public opinion backing if this goes on. One student admitted frankly to be "tired."

Occupy Central founder Benny Tai called for the Occupy people to turn themselves in. Our survey found that 58% of the interviewees will not turn themselves in while 35% said they would. Another 8% said that they are undecided (or declined to respond to this question).

At the APEC meeting in Beijing, Associated Press reported on the encounter between Xi and Abe: "Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping hold a frosty handshake at APEC summit." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnFQmh1Xya8. This is an encounter not to have than have. So much has been said about the frostiness.

All of which leads to Hong Kong netizens to wonder what might have happened if the Hong Kong Federation of Students honchos Alex Chow, Lester Shum and Yvonne Leung actually get to fulfill their wish of meeting with Xi Jinping. How much more grim could Xi look? Here is the chronology of events about who to see.

On October 14, 2014. the Hong Kong Federation of Students wrote an open letter to Xi Jinping:

President Xi Jinping,

According to the International Monetary Fund, China will soon become the worlds greatest economy. For many, they will take pride in this extraordinary economic success of China. You proclaimed to pursue The China dream the dream of all people, which shall therefore be realized by the people, and for the people. We presume you would agree that real accomplishment can only be achieved from a bottom-up approach by the people. Now, Hong Kong people have made clear that the same dream for the previous 30 years: the implementation of genuine universal suffrage and the establishment of a system which respects equal rights and guards the well-being of Hong Kong people in the generations to come.

You once said, We shall always listen to the people, respond to their expectations and ensure equal rights of participation and development, so as to maintain social justice. Dont Hong Kong peoples persistence for an equal system echoes with your thought? Hong Kong peoples  proposal of the abolition of Functional Constituencies and Civil Nomination within the Chief Executive electroal framework or the nominating committee aims at guaranting equal participation and rights, with a view to achieve an equal development and protect social fairness and justice.

Sadly, at this very moment, our Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is acting exactly contrary to your vision. 700 thousand Hong Kong people vowed explicitly their support for the practice of civil nomination as the direction of political reform. Nevertheless, Leungs report to NPCSC failed to account faithfully Hong Kong peoples wishes. It is an outrage to witness how he manipulated our view to Hong Kong peoples disagreement with the Legislative Council reform and abolition of the functional constituencies. It is a complete disregard of public opinion and denial to Hong Kong peoples expectation. The framework of the political reform issued by the NPCSC is a result of the governments untrue report. If the Hong Kong government had been honest about public opinion, they would have confessed to their fault, rectify and, most importantly, include Hong Kong peoples genuine wishes in the direction of electoral reform. In mainland China, voters can nominate their local governments. Civil nomination, therefore, has its legal ground. There can be no reasons for the Hong Kong government to fear practicing civil nomination.

It is an agreed fact that the current Chief Executive election system is not capable of bettering Hong Kong any further. While anti-corruption campaigns are under way in mainland China, CY Leung, who has been keeping $50M in secrecy, remains unfettered. There will only be more citizens, disillusioned with our corrupted institutions, marching and protesting, as long as no genuine democracy is practiced in this place. It is our profound hope that none of our future generations shall repeat our path, but enjoy genuine freedom and democracy, and pursue their dreams.

The occupy movement today at Hong Kong is definitely not a colour revolution or its alike, but rather a movement for democracy. The class boycott initiated by students and occupy movements across the city are our response to CYs aversion towards public opinions. We demonstrated peacefully, but were confronted by violence; we howled, but were made silent by pepper spray and full-geared police. Yet the choking gas lingered in Central could not scare the citizens, but only triggered more to stand against this unscrupulous government and affirm justice. A genuine universal suffrage should never be drawn equivalent as subversion. It rather serves to exhibit the high degree of autonomy embodied in Basic Law. National defence and diplomatic matters have always been adminsitered by the Central Government. If the Central Government is confident of her governance, she need not be fearful of a Chief Executive elected by Hong Kong citizens. Genuine universal suffrage will only reaffirm such autonomy and be another exemplar of yours.

Our respect towards the principle of One Country, Two Systems is the precise reason to put forward that Hong Kong shall resolve Hong Kongs problems and citizens opinion must be given heavy weight. This is precisely the reason why HKSAR government should be guilty of misunderstanding us, and shall help to rectify the political reform by urging NPC to withdraw her decision. The current situation catches attention not only from Hong Kong, but also China, Taiwan and even the rest of the world. We have high hope for you to take this matter closely. It is by no means worthy letting a corrupted official jerpardizes One Country Two System and blemish the grand China Dream.

For the sake of a democratic political system, fellow students are willing to give up their studies or even risk their lives. Only at this moment can we realise how disgraceful our city is and how terrifying she has been suppressing us. It is only when a generation is sacrificing all of their time and efforts on street protest can we notice how CY Leung has antagonised this very generation. Some twenty or thirty years later, students fighting for democracy today will then become the pillars of the city. As 2047 approaches, any decisions today will cast a significant influence in our pathway towards democracy. We believe that nobody is eager to see his succeeding generation bet their lives for democracy and a better Hong Kong.

We, as students, urge to settle these issues of Hong Kong:
1) The HKSAR government must bear the sole responsibility, be accountable to Hong Kong citizens and rectify herself
2) To establish a democratic system that affirms equal rights
3) To uphold the principle of One Country, Two Systems:
Hong Kong problems be settled in Hong Kong; Politics to be settled by Politics

Yours sincerely,

Hong Kong Federation of Students
Scholarism
11 October, 2014

(Los Angeles Times) Hong Kong student protest leaders seek talks with Beijing officials. November 5, 2014.

Student organizers of Hong Kongs pro-democracy protests said Wednesday that they will seek a direct dialogue with China's top leadership during an important international summit in Beijing next week. Three to five representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Students are planning to travel to the Chinese capital to seek talks with Prime Minister Li Keqiang or another senior leader during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, said Yvonne Leung, spokeswoman for the group. The exact date of the trip is to be determined.

(Channel News Asia) HK protest leaders request formal meeting with Beijing.  November 7, 2014.

Leading protest group the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) presented an open letter on Friday to the city's former leader Tung Chee-hwa and former Legislative Council President Rita Fan - both members of the National People's Congress Standing Committee - requesting their help to arrange a meeting with Premier Li Keqiang or the two top officials in charge of Hong Kong affairs, Zhang Dejiang and Li Fei.

(South China Morning Post) 'There is no point in talks with Beijing', ex-Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa tells students. November 9, 2014.

Tung, a vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, had read an open letter delivered to him by the Federation of Students on Friday, asking him to arrange the meeting, his spokesman said.

"[Tung] thinks they are just repeating their views and stance in the letter, which won't help to break the impasse," the spokesman said. "Mr Tung points out that the central government understands the different views in Hong Kong. The decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on August 31 will not change."

(The Standard) Students urge NPC deputies to intercede.  November 10, 2014.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students is now hoping that local deputies of the Beijing body that passed the framework for the 2017 election will help them set up a meeting with state leaders. The federation said yesterday it will write to National People's Congress Standing Committee member Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai and the 36 local NPC deputies to intercede. "Because Fan is an NPCSC member, she is able to request the committee to call a meeting to handle this problem," said federation secretary-general Alex Chow Yung-kang. "I believe Fan is capable of handling the problem. She was one of the members to make the decision, which has led to citizens asking, will she do her duty?"

(SCMP) Occupy student leaders' Beijing trip on track - without Rita Fan's help. November 15, 2014.

Student leaders of the Occupy Central movement will take their democracy demands to the capital this afternoon, even though they failed to get help from Hong Kong's sole representative in the top legislature, Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, to set up talks with state leaders.

Last night, Fan, a member of the NPC Standing Committee, accused the protesting students of deliberate violation of the law and disruption to life in the city.

"If I helped you arrange a meeting with central government officials, how could I face the Hongkongers who have been abiding by the law and hoping for a return to normality?" she asked. "I sincerely hope all of you will mend your ways and become pillars of society. Don't waste your time [occupying] streets!"

Fan reiterated she would not accept students' demand for the Standing Committee to retract its August 31 decision that ruled out public nomination of candidates for the poll and required hopefuls to get majority support from a nominating committee.

Why do they want to speak to Li Fei now? Here is what happened on September 1, 2014 when Li Fei came to Hong Kong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZJU9McfZ1M. If that is what a meeting is about, why bother?

Q1. Support of the Occupy movement
10%: Support a lot
20%: Support
28%: Oppose
40%: Oppose a lot
2%: No opinion

Q2. Can the Occupy movement change the decision of the National People's Congress?
19%: Yes
68%: No
10%: Don't know
3%: No opinion

Q3. Impact of the Occupy movement on Hong Kong society
68%: Affected daily lives of citizens
66%: Paralyzed road traffic
53%: Affected social order
47%: Affected Hong Kong economy
46%: Increased social divisions
45%: Rocked the foundations of rule-of-law
37%: Affected international image
17%: Don't know/no opinion
12%: Other impacts

Q4. Has Occupy Central affected your confidence in Hong Kong's future?
20%: Became better
52%: Became worse
22%: Unchanged
6%: No opinion

Q5. Do you agree with the police's use of tear gas on September 28?
18%: Very much agree
38%: Agree
19%: Disagree
18%: Very much disagree
7%: No opinion

Q6. The performance of the government in the first round of talks
12%: Very satisfied
43%: Satisfied
19%: Dissatisfied
13%: Very dissatisfied
13%: No opinion

Q7. Should the Occupy people follow the court decision and withdraw from the occupied areas?
39%: Very much agree
32%: Agree
14%: Disagree
9%: Very much disagree
5%: No opinion

Q8. How will the Occupy movement end?
43%: The police will clear the sites
25%: It will go on for a long period of time
20%: Don't know
8%: The demonstrators will disperse peacefully
4%: Other

Q9. Do you support the police enforcing the law to restore social order and road traffic?
31%: Support a lot
32%: Support
17%: Oppose
12%: Oppose a lot
8%: No opinion

Q1. At this time, students and citizens are using the Occupy movement to fight for universal suffrage. Do you think the Occupy movement should continue or stop?
70%: Stop Occupy
24%: Continue Occupy
6%: Don't know/hard to say

By age group:
18-29: 55% continue Occupy, 42% stop Occupy, 4% don't know/hard to say
30-49: 22% continue Occupy, 72% stop Occupy, 6% don't know/hard to say
50 or over: 13% continue Occupy, 79% stop Occupy, 8% don't know/hard to say

Q2. How to continue/stop Occupy?

By occupation:
Students: 57% continue to Occupy, 39% stop Occupy
Housewives: 10% continue to Occupy, 79% stop Occupy

By education:
University education: 39% continue to Occupy. 57% stop Occupy
Secondary school: 22% continue to Occupy, 72% stop Occupy
Elementary school or lower: 11% continue to Occupy, 79% stop Occupy

Among those who want to continue Occupy

Participated in Occupy
19% continue Occupy but expanding its scale
36% continue Occupy at same scale
15% continue Occupy but reducing its scale (including reducing the number of occupied areas)

Did not participate in Occupy
3% continue Occupy but expanding its scale
8% continue Occupy at same scale
4%: continue Occupy but reducing its scale (including reducing the number of occupied areas)

Among those who want to stop Occupy

Participated in Occupy
23% stop Occupy and use different method to fight
2% stop Occupy because the goal has been reached
1% stop Occupy because it should not have occurred in the first place

Did not participate in Occupy
39% stop Occupy and use a different method to fight
9 stop Occupy because the goal has been reached
31% stop Occupy because it should not have occurred in the first place

Q3. Have you participated in the recent assemblies of the Occupy movement?

18% said that they have participated in the recent assemblies of the Occupy movement, for an average of 3.8 times.
The remaining 82% said that they have never participated.

By age group:
18-29: 44% yes, 55% no
30-49: 17% yes, 83% no
50 or over: 8% yes, 92% no

The link to the HKU POP report itself is here.

[Technical note: The participation rate and/or frequency are over-stated here. The adult population of Hong Kong is about 6 million. 18% of 6 million is 6 x 0.18 = 1.08 million participated in recent assemblies. If they averaged 3.8 times each, the total number of assembly participant-occasions is 3.8 x 1.08 million = 4.1 million. There are 34 days from September 28 to October 31. So the average daily attendance = 4.1 million / 34 = 120,600. Do you have the impression that there were so many people on an average day? This is just the average. So if there was one day with only 10,000 persons, then there needs to be another day with 230,000 persons in order to maintain that average. Nobody has been making such claims of this size. This point was already made in #022. But I am not saying that something is terribly wrong here. If you ask this sort of question, this is the kind of result you will get. The point is that the result should not be taken literally.]

Reactions:

- Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow said that he understands that those who have not participated in the Occupy movement may have different viewpoints. So the people in the Occupy areas will have to reach out to the local communities to explain and clarify the meaning of Occupy.

- Scholarism convener Joshua Wong said that those who have not participated in the Occupy movement and want Occupy to stop should go down to the Occupy areas and exchange ideas with the Occupy people to understand their thinking. He said that it would be irresponsible to stop the movement when no results have been achieved and no other direction is available.

- The Occupy founder Chan Kin-man said that the Occupy people should consider the reactions of the non-participants and seek a balance.

- Civic Party chairperson Audrey Eu said that she understands that the Occupy movement is causing inconvenience to citizens. Therefore, the Occupy should think about how to transform the movement. On one hand, they should reduce the impact on citizens. On the other hand, they need to increase the pressure on the government. For example, they can reduce the size of the Occupy area and turn to occupy Government House instead.

- Hong Kong Polytechnic University Centre for Social Policy Studies, Department of Applied Social Sciences deputy director Chung Kim-wah said that the HKU survey data are basically close to what he had previously found (see #033). Chung thinks that if the Federation of Students wants to reach out to local communities to explain the concepts behind Occupy, then "it is better than doing nothing at all but there won't be any big results." Chung analyzed that the longer the Occupy goes on, the more citizens will be dissatisfied with the inconveniences caused by Occupy. Perhaps the students can gain more support by visiting the local communities, but they cannot erase those daily inconveniences. Chung said that it will be difficult to reconcile those who want continuation and those who want stoppage, because they are extremes.

(Ming Pao editorial in English) November 10, 2014

It is a reality that the Occupy movement has antagonized Hong Kong people. It has lost much of the support it once enjoyed, and there will be widespread popular discontent if it persists. As more and more citizens feel the Occupy movement has adversely affected their lives and business, the Federation of Students will be deceiving itself and others if it thinks it can gain citizens' support by reasoning with them. Its representatives should pluck up enough courage to face citizens. If they resort to sophistry or try to obscure the facts deliberately as some politicians do, the purity of their movement will be tarnished. They should be honest to themselves and be responsible to citizens. They should now leave and restore to Hong Kong people the roads they have occupied.

(CounterPunch) 'Pro-Democracy Protests' in Hong Kong. By Andre Vltchek. November 7, 2014.

Hong Kong is frustrated, its people divided. Demonstrations and counter-demonstrations are now paralyzing this city known for its hedonism, consumerism and extreme form of individualism.

At the North Point in Hong Kong, near Kowloon Ferry, a middle-aged man is waving a banner that reads Support Our Police. On the photo, the tents and umbrellas of the pro-democracy Occupy Central protest movement (also known as the Umbrella Movement) are depicted in sepia, a depressing color.

Are you against the protesters? I ask the man.

I am not for or against them, he replies. But it is known that they have some 1 million supporters here. While all of Hong Kong has over 7 million inhabitants. We think that it is time to clear the roads and allow this city to resume its normal life.

On the 28. September, I continue, Police fired 87 canisters of tear gas at the protest site, and now this fact is being used in the West and here as some proof of police brutality and of Beijings undemocratic rule. Protesters even commemorated this event few days ago, as if that would turn them to martyrs

They are spoiled, a man smiled. They mostly come from very rich families in one of the richest cities on earth. They dont know much about the world. I can tell you that the students in Beijing know actually much more about the world 87 canisters of tear gas are nothing, compared to what happened in Cairo or in Bangkok. And in New York, police was dragging and beating protesters, even female protesters, during the endgame of the Occupy Wall Street drama.

Westerners mingle with local protesters. Many questions and much incomprehension, side by side.

For decades Hong Kong has been a turbo-capitalist, extremely consumerist, and aggressive society. Its people are facing some of the most unrealistic prices on earth, particularly for housing

What is it? It is not orange or green, and definitely not red! It has an umbrella as its symbol. That humble umbrella, as many people in Hong Kong are often saying.

But is it really benign?

We are talking, of course, about the democracy protests in Hong Kong, also known as the Umbrella Movement; the latest addition of the popular uprisings promoted by the West!

At the North Point in Hong Kong, near Kowloon Ferry, a middle-aged man is waving a banner that reads Support Our Police. On the photo, the tents and umbrellas of the pro-democracy Occupy Central protest movement (also known as the Umbrella Movement) are depicted in sepia, a depressing color.

Are you against the protesters? I ask the man.

I am not for or against them, he replies. But it is known that they have some 1 million supporters here. While all of Hong Kong has over 7 million inhabitants. We think that it is time to clear the roads and allow this city to resume its normal life.

On the 28th of September, I continue, Police fired 87 canisters of tear gas at the protest site, and now this fact is being used in the West and here as some proof of police brutality and of Beijings undemocratic rule. Protesters even commemorated this event few days ago, as if that would turn them to martyrs

They are spoiled, a man smiled. They mostly come from very rich families in one of the richest cities on earth. They dont know much about the world. I can tell you that the students in Beijing know actually much more about the world 87 canisters of tear gas are nothing, compared to what happened in Cairo or in Bangkok. And in New York, police was dragging and beating protesters, even female protesters, during the endgame of the Occupy Wall Street drama.

Earlier I spoke to my friend, a top Western academic who is now teaching in Hong Kong. As always, he readily supplied me with his analyses, but this time, he asked me not to use his name. Not because of fear of what Beijing could do, but simply because it could complicate his position in Hong Kong. I asked him whether the opposition movement is actually homegrown, or supported from abroad, and he replied:

To answer the question as to foreign interference in Occupy Central, we would have to answer yes. As a global city par excellence Hong Kong is more than exposed to international currents and ideas and, historically, that has also been the case. Doubtless as well certain of the pan-Democrat camp have shaken hands with international do-gooders, a reference to various US or western-based democracy endowments or foundations active across the globe. Taiwan may have a leg in. A British Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee seeks to wade in. But foreign interference is seen here as Beijings call echoed by C.Y. Leung and with the letter holding back from naming the culprits.

The protesters have an alarmingly skewed view of democracy. Western propaganda has penetrated deeply. Spitefully, they regard Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador as dictatorships.

Protesters may have some legitimate grievances. They want direct elections of the chief executive, and there is, in theory, nothing wrong with such a demand. They want to tackle corruption, and to curb the role of local tycoons. That is fine, too.

The problem is, that the movement is degenerating into a Beijing bashing mission, happily supported by both Western and local (pro-business and pro-Western) mass media.

Several students that I spoke to, at Admiralty and Mong Kok sites, did not even bother to hide their hatred towards the Communist system, and towards the government in Beijing. All of them were denying crimes that are being committed by Western nations, all over the world, or they were simply not aware of them. Democracy to them means clearly one and only thing the system or call it regime, that is being defined, promoted and exported by the West.

China is surely on the right side of the history, I tried, at Admiralty, when I met protesters on the 31st October. Together with Russia and Latin America it is standing against the brutal Western interventions worldwide and against Western propaganda.

I was given looks of bewilderment, outrage and wrath.

I asked students what do they think about Venezuela, Bolivia, or Ecuador?

Dictatorships, they replied, readily and with spite.

I asked them about Bangkok and those pro-democracy movements and demonstrations conducted against the democratically elected government; demonstrations that led to the coup performed by the elites and the army on behalf of the West.

I asked about pro-democracy demonstrations against democratically elected President Morsi in Egypt, and about yet another military and pro-Western coup that brought army back to power. In Egypt, several thousand people died in the process. The West and Israel rejoiced, discreetly.

But the Hong Kong students fighting for democracy knew absolutely nothing about Thailand or derailment of the Arab Spring.

They also could not make any coherent statements about Syria or Iraq.

I asked about Russia and Ukraine. With those topics they were familiar, perfectly. I immediately received quotes as if they were picked directly from the Western mass media: Russia is antagonizing the world It occupied Crimea and is sending troops to Ukraine, after shooting down Malaysian airliner

Back to Hong Kong and China, two girls, protesters, at Admiralty, clarified their point:

We want true democracy; we want rights to nominate and to elect our leaders. Local leader now is a puppet. We hate communism. We dont want dictatorship like in China.

I asked what do they really want? They kept repeating democracy.

What about those hundreds of millions that China raised from misery? What about Chinas determined stand against Western imperialism? What about its anti-corruption drive? What about BRICS? What about its attempt to rejuvenate socialism through free medical care, education, subsidized culture, transportation and mixed/planned economy?

Is there anything good, anything at all, that China, the biggest and the most successful socialist country on earth, is doing?

Brian, a student at Mong Kok, explained:

We want to express our views and elect our own leader. It is now dictatorship in China. They chose the committee to elect our leader. We want to have our own true democracy. Our model is Western democracy.

I asked at both protest sites about brutality of British colonialism. I received no reply. Then I noticed quotes by Winston Churchill, a self-proclaimed racist and a man who never bothered to hide his spite for non-white, non-Western people. But here, Churchill was considered to be one of the champions of democracy; his quotes glued to countless walls.

Then I noticed John Lennon Wall, with the clich-quotes like: You may say Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one.

The Hong Kong protest movement reeks of upper middle class bourgeois consciousness, including its cloying cheap sentimentality and unexamined worshipping of Western heroes, like Churchill.

What exactly were they dreaming about, I was not told. All I saw were only those omnipresent banalities about democracy and freedom.

There were Union Jacks all over the place, too, and I even spotted two English bulldogs; extremely cute creatures, I have to admit, but explaining nothing about the aspirations of the protesters.

While hardly anyone speaks English here, anymore, all cultural, ideological and propaganda symbols at the demonstrations and the occupy sites, were somehow related to the West.

And then, on the 29 September, in the evening, near Admiralty, I spotted a group of Westerners, shouting and getting ready for something big.

I approached one of them; his name was John and he came from Australia:

I have lived in Hong Kong for quite some time. Tonight we organized a run from here to Aberdeen, Pok Fu Lam, and back here, to support the Umbrella Movement. Several foreigners that are participating in this have lived in HK for some time, too.

I wondered whether this could illustrate the lack of freedom and Beijing heavy-handedness?

I tried to imagine what would happen under the same circumstances, in the client states of Washington, London and Paris, in the countries that are promoted by the West as vibrant democracies.

What would happen to me, if I would decide to organize or join a marathon in Nairobi, Kenya, protesting against Kenyan occupation of Somalia or against bullying of the Swahili/Muslim coast? What would they do to me, if, as a foreigner, I would trigger a run in the center of Jakarta, demanding more freedom for Papua!

Thinking that I am losing my marbles and with it, objectivity, I texted a diplomat based in Nairobi. Wouldnt they deport me? I was asking. Wouldnt they see it as interference in the internal affairs of the country?

They would deport you the answer arrived almost instantly. But before that, you would rot for quite some time in a very unsavory detention [spot].

I thought so

***

In the meantime, protests are causing chaos; dramatically increasing commuting time and damaging businesses.

Even the great number of Hong Kong professionals now wants protestors off the streets.

The South China Morning Post, reported on October 29, 2014:

Protesters criticized by Bar for flouting court orders, as doctors sign petition to end sit-ins.

But some people actually see demands as genuine and legitimate. My friend, Mr. Basil Fernando, head of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), wrote to me:

As for Hong Kong protests, they are very genuine local protests over serious local concerns. People of Hong Kong in their recent history acquired many rights, which people in other Asian countries have only in name, but not in real life. Reason is independent and functioning public institutions. The beginning of them can be traced to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which started in 1974. It was a success and as a result, Hong Kong is quite a bribery and corruption free society. Having lived 25 years [in there] I can confirm that.

People have genuine fear of losing these and that is why they want a greater say, to elect the Chief executive. This is a genuine local movement with limited political objectives.

But one week later, when Basil and I met, face-to-face, in Hong Kong, he admitted:

Many students in Hong Kong are uninformed, and some are spoiled. They never had to undergo any hardship in life. This is one of the richest places on earth. Some kids are scared of China. Ok, we can say that some of them are reactionaries But it is understandable; there are those whose families fled Mainland China, in the past The parents and grandparents were feeding their kids with all negative things about the PRC.

Few minutes later I am having lunch at Cafe de Coral, a local chain. A young man walks in, wearing a T-shirt, which proclaims: Real Time NAVY. US Military Base.

In Hong Kong, it means nothing. It is not even a political statement, just a T-shirt.

As long as the city remains rich, anything goes. And it has been rich for many years and decades; under British rule, and as part of China.

The question is, if they dont care about politics, why do protesters block important arteries of the city, and for more than a month demand direct elections and democracy, whatever democracy means to them?

Or could there be something hiding underneath all this, and also, in between the lines.

We have also our own poor people I am told by Brian, one of the protesters at Mong Kok.

The truth is that Hong Kong is not a social bastion like the neighboring Macau, former Portuguese colony. And, tellingly, while visiting Macau just a few days earlier, I was explained by several people that what is happening in Hong Kong, could never happen there, because in Macau, people feel very close to Beijing, have closer ties with PRC, and feel more satisfied with their lives.

Hong Kong, for decades, is a turbo-capitalist, extremely consumerist, and aggressive society. Its people are facing some of the most unrealistic prices on earth, particularly for housing. It is not at all the land of milk and honey; it never was under British colonial rule, or now.

There is also great frustration over losing that uniqueness and the cutting edge. Several Mainland Chinese urban centers are now becoming more attractive, with greater cultural life, bigger parks, more daring architecture, and more extensive public transportation. Quick trip to Shenzhen or Guangzhou, Beijing or Shanghai, and it becomes clear where the future and vibrancy and optimism really are.

It is likely the recent protests are ventilating the general frustration of many Hong Kong residents, not only with Beijing, but also, or mainly, with Hong Kong itself.

Lacking ideology and political awareness, and for decades being bombarded with Western anti-Communist and anti-socialist propaganda, protesters simply blame Beijing for everything, even for what they should be blaming its own extreme capitalist system.

There are some exceptions. At the protest sites, there are several small groups demanding social justice. Not many of them, but there are some Marxists and Trotskyists, even urban anarchists.

My academic colleague remarked:

Their agenda is professed democracy and direct elections of the chief executive, but the social demands highlighted by Occupy Central cannot be ignored, namely extreme income gaps, property prices out of reach for the young, and generally an uncertain future

But overall, frustration here is walking hand in hand with apathy. There is nothing revolutionary about this city or the movements it produces.

I used to drink, heartily, with Mr. Leung Kwok-hung (known as Long Hair), who has a reputation for being the only prominent left-wing politician here. Long Hair is a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. But being left-wing did not prevent him from being admired and constantly interviewed by the right-wing press in the East European countries, as Long Hair did not only criticize the West, he was also persistently trashing the Peoples Republic of China. I never really figured out where exactly does he stand and at some point he and I lost contact.

A progressive professor of a prominent university in Hong Kong once confessed to me, in the wilderness of a noisy drinking establishment, and well after midnight, that her greatest achievement in life was to have had some lesbian sexual experiences, and admitting to herself that she was bisexual. That came just a few hours after I showed at her school my documentary film about Indonesian massacres of 1965, in which 1-3 million people lost their lives.

Lets have dinner tomorrow night, I was told, a few days ago, by another lady academic. But under one condition this time no politics. I cancelled.

***

Perhaps unwillingly, or maybe some of them willfully, protesters are playing to the hands of the West, which is presently busy antagonizing, demonizing and bulldozing its way over all countries, governments and movements that are resisting its quest for global dominance.

For years, Western propaganda has tried to convince the world that China is actually not communist, not even socialist. A highly successful communist nation would be the worst nightmare to the Empire; it would torpedo Western dogma about the ideological victory over non-capitalist and non-imperialist forms of government.

So far, the propaganda has been extremely successful. If people were asked in Berlin, London or Paris, many would make ludicrous statements that China is more capitalist than many openly capitalist countries.

By provoking China, directly and through its client states like Japan, Philippines and South Korea, the West hopes that the big dragon will eventually lose its patience, will snap, and consequently gain a reputation as a highly aggressive creature. That could, in turn, justify another arms race, perhaps even a direct conflict with China.

The more socialist China becomes, the more the West panics. And China is becoming increasingly socialist: by maintaining the central planning system, by holding in state hands its key industries, by commanding the private sector what to produce, or by declaring that if the people would not be given free medical care and free education, the country would lose its right to call itself communist. The more public parks are built, the more high-speed trains and urban subway lines, as well as theaters and cultural centers, the more terrified the West becomes.

Now the revanchist students in Hong Kong admit that China (PRC) actually is a communist nation, but from their lips comes something extremely negative. And they declare openly how much they hate communism.

It all goes really well in the West, because China, together with Russia, Venezuela and Iran, are on the top hit list.

Protests in Hong Kong surely came in at an extremely opportune time, for the Empire.

Although China is acting with tremendous restraint (much greater than the US, France or UK have shown towards their own protesters), it has become a target of yet another smear campaign in the Western mass media outlets.

Even if the Hong Kong protesters had only one goal, which is direct elections of their top executive, this is not the way to accomplish it.

Bringing out dirty laundry, when China, together with other BRICS countries is facing intimidations and direct provocations, is not going to evoke much sympathy in Beijing, or arouse desire to compromise. These are tough and dangerous times, and everyone is edgy.

The mistake of the protesters is that some of them are attacking directly the entire Chinese system, instead of concentrating on local and practical demands. Or maybe, if the goal is to actually destabilize China, then it is a well-planned move, not an error. But it will and should backfire.

In a way, Hong Kongs Umbrella Movement is doing to China what the Euro Maidan did to Russia, or what the right-wing protesters in Caracas did to El Processo.

Willingly or unwillingly, the Hong Kong protest movement joined the network of the color and other revolutions designated to destabilize opponents of Western imperialism: those in Syria and Ukraine, in Cuba and Venezuela, in Thailand, Egypt and all over Africa.

When asked, many Hong Kong protesters say that they are not aware of that. One could state that it would do no harm if they could get at least some political education, before erecting the barricades and unwillingly joining the global battleson the wrong side of history.

***

On the last nigh before leaving Hong Kong, I visited the Mong Kok protest site.

It was tense, but not because police would be bothering to intervene and clean the streets, but because many protesters had been drinking. Stench of alcohol was felt at the frontline, near the barricade that was separating protesters from police.

Any developments? I asked one of the cops.

Nothing, he replied. We are not supposed to do anything.

How do you feel about all this? I asked him, frankly.

I am not supposed to say anything, he replied. Or to do anything.

But there was one squabble after another among the protesters; not a lovely site, a bit like on Maidan in Kiev.

An old man was yelling at the protest leaders, who felt embarrassed, trying to first push the old man away, then to ridicule him, publicly.

What is he saying? I asked.

Nothing! screams one of the leaders, who did not look much as a democrat. He said his name was Benny. Dont worry! You can just leave. We will take care of this ourselves.

Take care of what? I wondered.

The old man said that he is going to call the Peoples Liberation Army on us, someone whispered into my ear. Then he suggested that he is going to fight the organizers, kung fu style.

It said occupied on several tents. That was supposed to be quite funny, or witty, or something Few meters away was a store advertising Rolex watches, next to it a massage parlor.

A Rolex revolution, I thought.

The mood on those protest sites was truly sordid; nothing grand, nothing optimistic, nothing really revolutionary.

For many long decades, Hong Kong has been busy becoming obnoxiously wealthy by serving faithfully British and other Western colonial and neocolonial interests. It readily betrayed, again and again, its Chinese and Asian identity, siding with the political, military and economic imperialism of Europe and the United States.

It showed no mercy towards the nations destroyed all over Asia Pacific. As long as money flowed, Hong Kong was in business. Money, money, money! Its wealth was often built on the suffering of others. The city was servicing anyone who ruled here, and paid, no matter how appalling were his pains for the rest of Asia.

Of course many of its citizens hate socialism, and especially socialist China, as it is fighting against Western imperialism, alongside Russia, Latin America, South Africa and other nations undergoing true social transformations.

Seeing great Chinese cities grow, all over the mainland, citizens of Hong Kong, or at least some of them, realize that one does not have to rob or to side with the brigands, to become wealthy.

Even those who are fully indoctrinated are subconsciously realizing that something went very wrong with their territory.

As the waterway between Hong Kong and Kowloon is shrinking due to unbridled development, as new and new malls where almost nobody can afford to shop are growing; as the real-estate is now out of reach for the great majority of the population, Hong Kong now has only two choices: to rethink its own political and economic system, or to sell itself even further, serve the mammon and then bark at the moon or at Beijing!

This is the front page story in Oriental Daily. The headline is: "Internet youth attempted to take over Government House; police make lightning arrest."

Dissatisfied with the passive sit-in-style Occupy movement, a 25-year-old Internet user published on Facebook an 8-page document titled "Occupy Government House, Overthrow CY Leung" on the tactics for taking over Government House (which is the official "residence" of the Chief Executive even though CY Leung doesn't actually live there) and the Chief Executive's Office . In this document, he called for brave warriors to support the Occupy movement by conducting a series of active attacks. Using the Hong Kong Botanical Garden as the home base, the target would be Government House and the Chief Executive's Office. The document contained a map of the area with the attacking and retreating routes being highlighted. There were also details on the entrances and exist in the target buildings. The document called for diversionary tactics that will force the police to hurry from one location to another.

On November 6, a 38-year-old Internet user with last name Lam went to file a report at the Tuen Mun police station. Lam provided the evidence in the form of the document on Facebook. The police determined that there was reasonable grounds to suspect that someone was using social media to incite others to meet at a certain time at a certain location in order to engage in unlawful assembly, blocking and charging at the entrance of certain buildings.

The case was turned over the matter to the police's Technology Crime Division, which locked on the Facebook user. At 745pm on the day before yesterday, the police arrested a 25-year-old security guard with last name Yau in his home in Mong Kok. The police removed a computer for investigation. The suspect is said to have admitted posting the document on the Internet.

In the document, the call was for everybody to meet up at the Hong Kong Botanical Garden at 3pm yesterday to begin the action. Yesterday, the police were present at the location. According to one Internet user: " I went over to 'see'. There was plenty of police presence there. Anyone who admitted to be there to 'see' had their ID's checked and recorded."

According to the police, 14 persons have been arrested since September 26, on suspicion of the offence of "access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent" and/or "criminal intimidation." The police reminds citizens that the Internet is not a virtual world in which anything goes. Most real world laws are applicable to the Internet too, including calling for people to engage in illegal activities.

(HKG Pao) October 17, 2015.


This man wants to fuck HONG KONG independence. Good luck with that.

26-year-old security guard Yau Man-king appeared in court today for a preliminary hearing. Yau said in court that the police threatened to arrest his entire family if he didn't admit to the crime. The full trial will be held in February next year.

Here is the dilemma. On one hand, if you want to maintain top secrecy, you have to restrict access to the plan to just a few trusted persons and therefore you won't have a massive turnout. On the other hand, if you want a massive turnout, you have to publish the plan in an easily accessible manner and ask people to spread the message, and therefore you can't maintain secrecy.

(Headline Daily) July 27, 2016.

26-year-old security guard Yau Man-king published a guide to "Occupy Government Hour and overthrow CY Leung) at the Golden Forum. He was charged with two counts of dishonest use of computer and two counts of incitement others to commit violence.

Police officer Lee Min-ho said that he searched the defendant's home in Tai Kok Tsui. Lee said that the defendant's elder brother and mother were there at the time. He showed his police ID and search warrant. The defendant's elder brother called the defendant home. The defendant admitted that he used the account ID "The coconut is blameless" to post the document at the Golden Forum. The defense said that Lee had "impatiently told the defendant and his elder brother that both would be arrested and all the computers confiscated if nobody shoulders the blame." Lee denied that he said so.

Yau was accompanied today by Simon Sin, who charged up the grand stage of the June 4th candlelight vigil to chant "Hong Kong independence." Yau and Sin said that this was a case of political suppression that is damaging freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

0:05 When I grow up, I want to work non-stop everyday. I will be content with a monthly salary of not more than HKD 14,000.

0:09 When I grow up, I want to be a policeman who can hit people at will!

0:14 When I grow up, I want to be a triad gang member and I can work with the police.

0:17 When I grow up, I want to live in a room in a partitioned apartment. It will be quite nice!

0:23 When I grow up, I want to be a second-class citizen.

0:29 When I grow up, it will be enough just to be able to watch the CCTV channel.

0:36 When I grow up, I only want snake dinners, vegetarian dinners, autumn festival cakes and sticky rice dumplings!

0:42 When I grow up, I want to work for the government because for us corruption isn't breaking the law.

0:47 When I grow up, I won't have to speak Cantonese. It will be enough to speak putonghua.

0:52 When I grow up, I hope everything will meet the wishes of the central government and there won't be any arguments.

0:58 When I grow up, I want franchise stores all over the streets.

1:02 If you won't stand up anymore, then the future of your children will become even more unthinkable. Occupy now, save the future.

1:11 There is no need to wait for me to grow up. I want genuine universal suffrage!

This drew many scornful remarks from Internet users. Samples:

- When I grow up, I want to be a pan-democrat Legislative Councilor, because I can accept secret political contributions without making any disclosure.

- When I grow up, I want to be a pan-democrat Legislative Councilor, because I can filibuster until the end of time to make sure that nothing is ever achieved.

- When I grow up, I want to a selfish Occupy Central dickhead, because I can do anything I want.

- When I grow up, I want to engage in civil disobedience because I can completely ignore the law.

- If this isn't brainwashing, what is?

- In the advanced democracies such as United States and western Europe, they also have the same problems and some more of income disparity, inequality of wealth, police brutality, organized crime, drug/substance abuse, lack of decent and affordable housing, class warfare, store chains, restricted television choices, corrupt politicians, government/business collusion, politicization of the judiciary branch, military-industrial complex, election rigging, gender/sexual orientation/race/ethnicity/language/religion/nationality discrimination, illegal/undesirable immigration, federalism vs. state rights, family planning choices (or lack thereof), domestic violence, influence of foreign powers in domestic politics, concentration of economic powers to the monopolies/oligopolies, media manipulation of public opinion, illegal mass surveillance by the police state, starting unjustified wars and committing war crimes, environmental pollution, climate change denial, food safety, high medical/healthcare costs, retirement pensions, social welfare, funding education, etc. Genuine universal suffrage is not a panacea.

- Why do they talk as if their actions are going to solve all these problems, and yet they offer no rational explanation of how that could come about?

- Here is what I have learned :
    (1) With genuine universal suffrage, the minimum monthly salary will be at least HKD 14,000 for everybody;
    (2) With genuine universal suffrage, policemen won't be able to arrest anyone anymore;
    (3) With genuine universal suffrage, triad gangs will disappear;
    (4) With genuine universal suffrage, we will each get a big house of our own;
    (5) With genuine universal suffrage, we will all get 500+ free television channels to watch;
    (6) With genuine universal suffrage, there won't be any corruption;
    (7) With genuine universal suffrage, we can just speak Cantonese and we won't ever be forced to have to learn to speak putonghua;
    (8) With genuine universal suffrage, we will be able to ignore the Central Government;
    (9) With genuine universal suffrage, there won't be any franchise chain stores of any kind in the streets
... and so on and so forth ...

(Oriental Daily) 4:50am, November 16, 2014

In the early hours of morning, there was another clash between civilians and police. The police used pepper spray at one point. A demonstrator claimed to have been injured in the head after being clubbed by the police. According to Ah Kay, who is an MTR worker and has stayed in Mong Kok for for many times, at the time, she was staying behind the barricades and did not take part in the rush against the police. But three police officers accused her of tossing a helmet, dragged her out and used batons to club her head. She was dragged along the ground for at least 2 meters, causing multiple injuries on her body.

After being treated at the emergency station, Ah Kay had to call an ambulance for further treatment. She declined to be taken down to the hospital. She showed her injuries to reporters, including scratches on her forehead and arms and a broken frame on her eyeglasses. She also lost her shoes during the confusion, and she had to borrow shoes from a friend to wear.

In the Apple Daily news video report ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj1PWaLN8Dk ), the relevant action starts at around 1:55.

(VO)  "A man was suspected of being hit in the head by the police and pulled down to the ground, and then dragged on the ground for four meters before being subdued."

(Male voice) Two police came up and said that I tossed an object. They dragged me out, and use police batons to bash my head.

There is another long video of the same incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6XMMM5rfGM . The relevant action starts at around 3:16 when the police pushed forward and eventually gang-tackled somebody.

(Sing Tao) 5:55am November 7, 2014

Ah Kay dressed as a female and claimed to be 23 years old and has been staying with Occupy Mong Kok since the first day. Since she is qualified as a medical emergency worker, she has helped to protect other female demonstrators. She claimed that she works as an MTR operations officers and has used her vacation days and leave-of-absence to work for Occupy Mong Kok.

At around 2am, Ah Kay pointed at her wounds that were bandaged by volunteers and showed reporters the scratch marks on her arms. She recalled how she was dragged out of the demonstration zone by the police, pushed to the ground, kicked and hit on the head with police batons. Her eyeglasses were smashed. She insisted that she did not throw a safety helmet. She complained about police violence.

At around 7am, Ah Kay complained that her head injuries were hurting. She felt cold and was vomiting. An ambulance was summoned. Emergency workers treated her and then covered her up in an aluminum blanket and took her to the hospital for further treatment. According to the Hospital Authority, they treated four persons from the Occupy areas last night. All of them are male, none female.

The public is interested about whether Ah Kay is male or female when she is on the job for the MTR. This newspaper queried the MTR. The MTR spokesperson said that, under normal circumstances, they will not confirm whether or not someone is an employee of theirs. Thus, the MTR declined to answer our question.

(Passion Times) The demonstrator Ah Kay narrates how he was assaulted by the police, his version completely different from that of Police Public Relations Bureau Senior Superintendent Kong Man-keung. November 7, 2014.

Ah Kay told our newspaper something different from Kong's statement. Ah Kay said that he was injured by police batons. He was also kicked wildly by policemen. Ah Kay said that he went to get a medical examination, and all he told the police was "I have nothing to say."

0:43 (Ah Kay) I was by the road block in the rear to keep guard. I had to look after the other girls. I had received the directive that there would be some chaos. For our safety, I told them to come in and we locked the place up. Then, for no apparent reason, a group of policemen rushed over. Two policemen dragged me outside. They said that I had tossed a helmet. But there was no helmet near me. Nothing whatsoever. Many people witnessed it, some took videos to show that I did not fight back. They pulled me over the table, then they piled on me on the ground. They held my head down. They hit me once on the head with a baton. They held me down on the ground. They held my legs down. They kicked me here ten to twenty times. They dragged me into the road. They dragged me over to the metal barricade. Then another group of policemen took me over further over to that location. That was it.

(Oriental Daily) November 8, 2014

The "Occupy Mong Kok girl" was bashed in the head turned out to be a cross-dressing liar. After the series of clashes in Mong Kok, "she" claimed to be Ms. Chan, wanted to be called Ah Kay and claimed that she worked as an MTR operations officer. As a result, "she" became an Internet celebrity. "She" also accused uniformed police officers of dragging her on the ground two meters out of the tent, punching her, kicking her and bashing her head with police batons.

It turned out that Ah Kay is a cross-dressing man named "Brother Ka-chun" who has a prior record of fraud. He is an unemployed young man. He told the police that he was actually injured by unknown individuals with hard objects, not by police officers. His mother disclosed that her son told her that he had gone to Macau, so she was unaware that he was in Occupy Mong Kok. She only found out after some relatives/friends told her that her son was injured in Mong Kok.

This "Occupy Mong Kok liar" has a family name of Lian, he is 23 years old and his identity card marks his gender as male. Early morning on the day before yesterday, he told the media that his name was Ah Kay, his family name was Chan, he was of mixed Chinese-Taiwanese-Japanese mixed blood, he worked as an MTR operations officer, he was an IVE student, he was using his vacation time to work on Occupy Mong Kok and he was in charge for the road block group. He said about the head-bashing: "I was dragged out of the tent by the police on the ground for about two meters. During that time, policemen bashed me with batons, kicked and punched me for more than ten times. They picked me up and threw me down on the ground again. I had difficulty breathing." Although he dressed in a feminine manner, reporters were suspicious about his voice and gender identity. However, he insisted that he was a girl.

At around 6am that morning, Ah Kay felt ill and was sent to Kwong Wah Hospital. As the police got ready to take down his statement, he claimed that he was injured by unknown persons with hard objects and he refused to make a statement to the police. He left the hospital on his own. However, his identity has been revealed after his media exposure. He is presently unemployed. In 2009, he was suspected of defrauding people by pretending to be a movie star scout. His mother claimed that her son told her previously that he was going to Macau with some friends and then lost contact. Yesterday, a relative/friend was watching television and told her son was injured in Mong Kok. She said that he son dropped out of school at the Form 2 level. She was giving him HKD 60 in spending money per day. When asked why her son likes to cross-dress, the mother huffed and said, "He is crazy all the time."

Yesterday, our reporter located Ah Kay again. He explained that he was a hermaphrodite. He was said that he declined to make a statement to the police due to concerns about privacy.

According to Police Public Relations Bureau Senior Superintendent Kong Man-keung, a demonstrator claimed to have been in the head by the police and kicked more than ten times. When the police at the scene tried to learn what happened, this demonstrator said that he was assaulted by unknown plainclothes persons with unidentified hard objects, and not as he claimed on camera of being assaulted by the police. This man was sent to the hospital, after which he indicated that he would not provide any information and he did not file any complaints. The man left before undergoing a medical examination. The case would be followed by the Mong Kok Crime Investigation square as a case of "an assault that caused actual injuries."

(Wen Wei Po) November 8, 2014

... According to an Internet user at the "Salute the Hong Kong police" page, this demonstrator at first "deceived the reporters by claiming to be female, and also lied about not being 18 years old yet." He even claimed to be an MTR worker. But MTR does not hire anyone under 18 years old or with tattoos on their arms, so the lie was exposed already.

When the demonstrator registered at the hospital, he not only refused to show his identity card but he publicly stated "I did not bring my identity card" while holding the said card in his hand. He was rude to the hospital workers. He claimed that he was 23 years old and he claimed to be unemployed. After registering, he refused to undergo medical examination or make a statement to the police. He changed his story and said that he was knocked down by unidentified persons during the chaos. He was declined to let the hospital workers remove the bandage on his head so that they could inspect his wounds.

According to what this Internet user said about what eyewitnesses at the emergency room saw and hear, this demonstrator had his lies exposed and he changed his story to: "I took money from Occupy Central to smear the police" and "I received $3,000 in wages from Civic Passion." The demonstrator also said that all the relevant information involves "personal privacy and therefore the police and hospital staff must not disclose this to the outside." But those in the emergency room "could hear it too."

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) December 31, 2014.

At around 3pm on December 31, a person dressed as a female had an argument with another individual over a box lunch outside the Legislative Council building entrance for legislators. The person got very excited and used his head to ram and kicked the metal door. The security guards summoned the police who came and arrested him for criminal destruction of property. The police were skeptical about the identity of the person, who claimed to be a trans-sexual. The person was wearing a bra at the time but changed back into male clothing and was taken down to the police station.

According to information, the 23-year-old man named Lian had a prior fraud record in 2009 for posing as a movie scout. He was previously injured in the Occupy Mong Kok area and lied about what happened. After the clearance of Mong Kok, Lian moved over to the Tim Mei Road tent city.

Addendum:

Oriental Daily (February 15, 2015) On this afternoon, Internet users came to join the "Defend Sha Tin, oppose parallel traders" Action. Some of the demonstrators got very excited and yelled at anyone hauling luggage because they must be parallel traders, a cosmetics shop near the Yata Department Store in Sha Tin had lowered its gates, so some of the customers were trapped inside. Meanwhile a Ms. Chan hauling a luggage was identified by the demonstrators as a parallel trader and they surrounded her and cursed her out. In the struggle, she was also accused of pushing the Mong Kok cross-dressing guy Ah Kay down on the ground. Afterwards, Ms. Chan told our reporter that she is a Hongkonger who went to Yata to buy her family's Lunar New Year items. She said that the demonstrators were out of line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvs2ZHZVdm8 Video posted by SocREC reporter Ava Chan, who happens to be Ah Kay now working as a reporter using a pseudonym. This title of this report says that a reporter was pushed by two female mainlanders.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) May 22, 2015

24-year-old unemployed man Chan Mei-kay appeared in Eastern Court today to answer a charge of criminal destruction of property. The defendant showed up in court wearing a short pink skirt. The hearing was postponed to July 3rd.

Video: Bastille Post (July 3, 2015)

Addendum: (TMHK) Interview with Chan Mei-kay on a Mong Kok police station attack incident, in which he gives a confused account of whether he is a Yellow Ribbon or a Blue Ribbon.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) August 28, 2015.

Yesterday the defendant Chan Mei-kay pleaded guilty to one count of criminal property damage at the Eastern Court. The defense claimed that the 24-year-old defendant works for an Internet media outlet. At the time of the incident, the defendant was gathering news and not challenging the authorities. The defense also claimed that the defendant realized that he had mental and behavioral problems when he was 7 years old, and has been taking medication and visiting doctors since. In June this year, he was hospitalized. The defendant said that he wanted to do good journalistic. This incident took place in a moment of rashness. He pleaded for leniency. The defendant has two prior records for different crimes. The defendant was not cross-dressing on this day.

The prosecutor said that the repair for the steel door cost $35,000 and wanted damage awards. The magistrate said that the prosecutor failed to produce a receipt and instructed him to seek civil damages instead. Sentencing will take place on September 11, 2015.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) September 11, 2015.

The defendant Chan Mei-kay had previously pleaded guilty to one count of criminal damage of property. The defense said that the defendant was found to have mental and behavioral problems since age 7 and has been under medication since. The defendant committed this act in a moment of rashness, and hopes for a lenient sentence. The magistrate sentenced him to 15 months of probation.

As Chan left the courthouse, he was assaulted by four individuals, including regular demonstrator "Captain America" Yung Wai-yip. These people held two bottles of wine and yellow umbrellas. One of them was a woman who said that Chan's hair is filthy and therefore pulled her wig off and tossed it on the ground. The four then cheered. Chan had to flee back into the courthouse. Chan said that he has gender identification problems and he begged the media not to call him 'The Cross-dressing Guy." He wanted everybody to let him be. He emphasized that all reporters should be neutral, without choosing to be either Yellow Ribbon or Blue Ribbon. He said that he reserved the right to hold his attackers accountable.

P.S. Chan told the Oriental Daily that he does not want to be called "The Cross-dressing Guy." Oriental Daily's published report has the title "Cross-dressing male reporter sentenced to probation for damaging Legco property."

Addendum: (Oriental Daily with video) July 14, 2016.

At around 10am, the cross-dressing male website reporter Chan Mei-kay threatened to jump off the Legislative Council building after he was denied entry to attend the Chief Executive's Q&A session. He faced off against the police for a while before returning to a safe location on his own.

Addendum: (evchk.wikia.com) http://evchk.wikia.com/wiki/%E7%B7%B4%E5%AE%B6%E4%BF%8A

A compilation of incidents involving the individual named Lian Ka-chun who has many more aliases.

- In 2008, an Internet user named Tang Ka-man claimed to run an Internet radio station and wanted singers to submit songs to play. In 2009, the person running that radio station was sentenced to one year of probation on two counts of fraud. The individual threatened to commit suicide when exposed. He changed his user name to "The person who is going to be committing suicide soon." Internet users said that he must be trying to use potato chips to slit his wrist. The address posted by Tang Ka-man matches the address of the individual in this case.

- In 2009, the individual was wearing a Kowloon-Canton Railway era uniform on the MTR West Rail Line. The uniform was company property. When Kowloon-Canton Railway merged into the MTR, all employees were supposed to turn in their uniforms. This uniform belonged to the father of the individual. The father did not turn in his uniform when he left KCR. On the particular day, the individual wore his father's uniform and was stopped. He had to take off his uniform and left wearing an undershirt.

- In May 2009, a person pretending to be 17-ear-old singer Renee Lee went out to have cyber-sex with others. A Golden Forum user pretended to be interested and identified this individual to be the perpetrator because they have the same address. The real Renee Lee condemned the individual as a pervert.

- In June 2011, he helped out at a bus wrecking yard, and ended up stealing 17 license plates and $1,700 in cash. The owner let the individual in because he had a MTR employee pass. The owner made the indvidual the stolen property and did not press charges. The individual then told the Internet website evchk.wikia to remove the information on that case because he has already filed a police report. However, he was unable to provide a police file number. He forwarded an audio tape, but the policeman on the call was telling him to file a civil lawsuit because the police do not handle libel cases.

- In early 2015, the individual joined the SocREC group as the reporter named "Chan Wang Ava." He claimed to be a Japanese-Taiwanese MTR senior manager who lived at Tim Mei Road. He was appointed the Legislative Council reporter for SocREC. However, he kept violating Legco regulations by staying overnight and hogging work space. He kept losing emotional control, ramming his head against the wall, using foul language against the police and yelling that he was going to commit suicide. Some SocREC reporters demanded that he produce proof of identity, but he refused. Some SocREC  reporters demanded that he resign, but the person in charge refused on the ground that personal conduct was not relevant to job performance. As a result, more than half of the SocREC reporters resigned.

The YouTube video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3GRAFctZIc (original TVB link is at http://mytv.tvb.com/news/ontherecord/191095 ).The first part of this interview is no longer of interest, since it is about the so-called "Plaza Referendum" which was dead before arrival. The second part of the interview is more interesting, especially if someday a historian wants to write about how the Occupy movement folks rationalize their actions post facto. The transcript should be augmented by viewing as you should pay attention to the mesmerizing motion of Chow's hands. It seems that whenever he is challenged, he speeds up his speech with gibberish and makes rapid motions with his hands to distract attention.

Here is a transcript:

17:09 (KN) If at first, it was about love and peace, then has the nature of the Occupation movement changed now? At the beginning of Occupy Central, what they were saying about the peaceful occupation of Central versus the Occupation now ... has the nature changed?

17:22 (AC) At this time, I don't think that there has been a change in the nature. The nature is still that everybody is fighting for democracy while firmly adhering to the principle of non-violence. This is a very important characteristic of social movements. Secondly, when you go down to the occupied areas, the special characteristic is the change in form. When you said about love and peace in Occupy Central, it may be about people just sitting there, like the Chater Garden action on July 2nd when people waited to be carted off by the police. But now people are more active. They will go to different districts, these people move around. This is definitely different. But has the nature changed? I don't think the nature has changed.

17:52 (KN) Have the methods of the movement changed? Originally, the method of civil disobedience is to sit there for one or two days until the police cart you off and you leave. When the police try to cart your off now, you won't leave.

18:05 (AC) Within the Occupy movement, people have different ideas about the methods. Being carted off is a moral calling. The moral calling is already there, because it has been there many times previously during the movement. The other thing is to interfere with the whole social order, so that people will focus on government policies. This has forced the government to think every day about how to solve the Occupy problems. Their problem is that they are unable to abandon all their frameworks and give you your political reform proposal. We want a more democratic framework, not false democracy and not false universal suffrage.

18:37 (KN) There are many ways to frustrate the government. What is the relationship between the roads and democracy?

18:42 (AC) Actually, it is the government which is blocking the road to democracy. We are blocking a different set of roads to put pressure on them.

18:47 (KN) The government is blocking the road to democracy, and then you block the people's roads -- is this how I can understand this?

18:53 (AC) The people's roads include the roads that belong to the people in the Occupy area. (pause)

18:57 (KN) That road belongs to everybody.

18:58 (AC) That road is owned by the people in the Occupy area. But the question is: Why do we have to carry out certain short-term interference actions for the sake of long-term interests? Without a democratic political system, that damage is far greater than any temporary blockage of the roads. It would be a lot greater.

19:14 (KN) This is a fundamental question. For the sake of civil nomination and for the sake of overthrowing the framework set by the National People's Congress, you have decided to occupy Harcourt Road. Can a citizen say that they oppose civil nomination and occupy another street?

19:28 (AC) When you oppose civil nomination or when you oppose something, you have to look for the reason behind it. Is this intended to get a fairer and more just society? If it is a fight for democracy, I don't think that anyone in the world would question it. Everybody is fighting for democracy, for a fairer and more just society.

19:42 (KN) Not having civil nomination does not mean that society is unfair and unjust.

19:46 (AC) Some people come out not necessarily for the sake of civil nomination. Another reason may be doing away with the functional constituencies. Or maybe they don't want the August 31 framework, they want a better framework for genuine democracy and genuine universal suffrage. That is the reason why they came out.

19:55 (KN) The problem is that you are saying that the roads belong to the Occupy people. I want to fight for civil nomination, I want to fight for democracy. Therefore I occupy the road. But that road also belongs to other people, and they don't accept your concepts.

20:11 (AC) Necessarily some people will agree and other people will disagree. But let us look at the development of the whole society. We have been waiting for democracy for thirty years. Do we have to wait any longer? For the sake of democracy, should we pay a price so that the government must deal directly with the crises in governance?  Pure democracy ... pure occupation does not interfere with people's livelihood. But for the sake of people's livelihood, to make the direction of the government's governance and policies to become better, that is why we need a democratic system to help the government. But the government does not appreciate this. They think that small-circle elections can sustain their governance. This is bad for people who participate in the Occupy actions as well as for those who are not participating.

20:45 (KN) The problem is not about how you people want to resist the government. It is about the relationship between you and other people. If roads can be occupied, then how about occupying the airport?

20:52 (AC) Occupying the airport ... in civil disobedience ... in the Occupy movement ...  you have tactics. You think certain areas can create pressure on the government.

21:06 (KN) Some people want to occupy the airport now. They feel that occupying the airport will pressure the government. The airport is the traffic hub for Hong Kong. Doesn't that apply pressure on the government?

21:13 (AC) This ... we think that we can discuss this direction. But we don't think that we have reached the point of occupying the airport. We are occupying the Admiralty area, and we are basically applying pressure on the political centre. Some friends are in the Causeway Bay and Mong Kok areas. Apart from increasing the political costs for the government, this also forces them to examine these problems closely. When I chat with the friends in these areas, it is also a popularization of the education on democracy. The residents in those areas will go down to chat with the occupiers in that area every day. There is a lot of interaction.

21:45 (KN) While you are increasing the costs of governance for the government, you are also increasing the costs of living for some citizens. During the past month, many problems have come up for discussion. Why three locations? Why not shrink this to one location? Why not first cut off violence-prone Mong Kok? Why don't you ever think about this sort of thing?

22:00 (AC) First of all, the problem of violence in Mong Kok. The violence did not come from the participating Occupy people. The violence came from the police.

22:08 (KN) Obviously, different people can have different opinions about this problem. The camera does not show the police applying force on demonstrators sitting on the ground.

22:15 (AC) The demonstrators ...

22:16 (KN) What happened last Friday at midnight ... you can see it on live broadcast, right? You people saw that. The demonstrators pushed the metal barriers first.

22:23 (AC) The demonstrators pushed the metal barriers, but they did not hit the police on the head. The police hit the demonstrators on the head. These facts are very clear. In the different districts, they are people who came out to fight for universal suffrage. We won't easily cut each other off, because we have the same ideas and goals. We can have different methods, but if we all stick to the principle of non-violence ... so far, we have all been working under the framework of this principle. Therefore I don't think that it is necessary to split up over this issue.

22:47 (KN) Some people say that if the Occupy movement continues, it will wreck the rule of law in Hong Kong. Do you agree with this?

22:50 (AC) When people talk about civil disobedience, they mean that when the entire civil disobedience movement is completed, they will go and surrender themselves in order to fulfill the rule of law. So you are being responsible to the entire legal system. This is not destroying the rule of law. This is highlighting the rule of law and fulfilling the entire legal system. In a democratic country, everybody accepts civil disobedience.

23:09 (KN) Is there any limit to civil disobedience now? Roads can be blocked, court injunctions can be violated ... what laws are there left that cannot be violated?

23:17 (AC) During the action, does everybody know the legal costs? First of all, they are willing to accept the legal costs.

23:23 (KN) I have a question: As long as you are willing to accept the legal costs, as long as I say that I am aware of the legal costs, I can continue my action.

23:31 (AC) I can think of three things. When he came out, is the goal of his action fair and just? Is it justified? The second thing is whether he is aware of the legal costs behind. The third thing is that if he is aware of the legal price, then is he willing to pay the legal price in order to fulfill the rule of law. When all three things are present, everybody will feel that this is fulfilling the rule of law and not damaging the rule of law.

23:55 (KN) You are criticizing the police for enforcing the law in a selective manner. But are you obeying the law in a selective manner?

23:59 (AC) This is not obeying the law in a selective manner. This is a set of three things. You are doing this for democracy and justice. You are not doing this for the purpose of destroying the rule of law. Democracy and justice are fulfilling the rule of law. The rule of law system, the entire legal system. When you have a democratic system, the government will keep its promises within the framework of the rule of law. They will be accountable to the people, they will be accountable under the rule of law. CY Leung is corrupt now, but nobody can hold him accountable.

24:20 (KN) But you are making the police enforce the law in a selective manner. Isn't this something that is destroying the rule of law?

24:23 (AC) We have not asked the police to enforce the law in a selective manner.

24:28 (KN) How not? When an anti-Occupy person comes in and you feel that he is using force against you, then you think that you should tell the police, "Arrest him!" But when you occupy the road, you say, "Police, you are not permitted to enter. You are not allowed to clear the site." Isn't this making the police enforce the law in a selective manner?

24:39 (AC) Actually, the police can clear the site. They can make arrests. Nobody is objecting. Nobody is opposing them ...

24:49 (KN) Nobody has objected to the police clearing the sites? You demonstrators have not objected to the police clearing the sites? Typically, the police remove the road barriers and the demonstrators move them right back.

24:57 (AC) In the occupied areas, people are defending the occupied areas. This is a reasonable thing. If the police want to make arrests, they obviously can. But with what methods? Will they use force or violence, or will they use other methods to detain a demonstrator?

25:11 (KN) The police told you to leave on your own.

25:13 (AC) Yes, the police told us to leave on our own. But our concept is that we want to occupy, we want to carry out civil disobedience.  Obviously we won't leave on our own.

25:20 (KN) Therefore, the police cannot clear the sites. But if you are attacked or shoved by other persons, the police must handle those matters. Is that what you mean? That is, the police have to continue to protect your so-called civil disobedience?

25:34 (AC) Injury to life or body is one bottom line. Everybody has to follow that. When the anti-Occupy people remove metal barricades from the occupied areas, then it depends on who can move them. But when it comes to beating someone up, then the police must enforce the law.

25:49 (KN) Thank you, that was On The Record.

Internet comments:

- Fast forward to September 1, 2017. (SCMP) Alex Chow lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal against his seven-month sentence in jail.

That is to say, he found out what the legal price was and thought that it was more than what he was willing to pay. Previously, he had settled for a three-week jail sentence suspended for one year.

So Alex Chow has now updated the methodology of civil disobedience as requiring the legal price to be sufficiently small. And if the courts refuse to go along, then it proves that the judges are colluding with the government to oppress FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES.

Reference materials:
- Violence-prone Mong Kok?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sQ5m_IPHsY;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PLMWbl1SZA

Related materials:

Much has been said about police interference with freedom of press. Anything happens with the press, and the Hong Kong Journalists Association is instantly demanding a thorough investigation. That's fine. Here is a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhO4F_YUFdA of the opposite case. TVB reporter Kenneth Ng King-chun is setting up in Admiralty to do a news broadcast. He gets harassed ... not by the police, but by the freedom-loving protestors.

The video begins with a loud male voice: "Fuck your mother! Where are you from? I am asking you where you are from! CCTVB!" At 0:16, a "person in charge" comes over to discuss with the reporter in low voice. At 0:28, the loud male voice continues in the background: "Whose reporting is betraying his conscience? It's you. CCTVB!" At 0:38, the cameraman asked the "person in charge": "Oh, it turns out that we cannot even report the facts?" At 0:40, the male voice in the back yelled: "Media ethics! Don't be media. You damage the reputation of all the media. Go back and work in mainland China! Go work in Singapore!"

It is a wonder why Kenneth Ng had to patiently explain what he is doing so long. If the other person were a policeman, the Hong Kong Journalists Association would be having a hissy fit. Since the other person was a pro-democracy protestor fighting for freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/rule of law/universal suffrage/universal values, they will say nothing. This is how freedom of press works in Hong Kong.

(CounterPunch) Occupy Hong Kong Hits A Bump in the Road. By Peter Lee. Octobver 27, 2014.

FAQ 5 for the aborted Occupy Central poll:

How can you prevent blue ribbon supporters from voting?

Each potential voter will need to sign a declaration saying they support the Umbrella Movement.  We welcome blue ribbon people to support the Umbrella Movement.

Not as silly as it sounds, IMO.  Actually, to quote Admiral Akhbar, Its A Trap!

Specifically, if blues wanted to freep the poll en masse in an attempt to vote down the proposals, it would be at the cost of swelling the ranks of putative Umbrella Movement supporters.

Other than democracy, another pair of words that had a hard time navigating the epistemological shoals are proposed and offered in referring to representations made by the HKSAR government side during the televised dialogue on October 22, as in:

Lam also offered to send a supplementary report to Beijing addressing the views of protesters (McClatchy)

Or

Hong Kong protesters plan to hold a straw poll on government proposals they rejected earlier in the week (Reuters)

What Carrie Lam actually said was:

我们愿意考虑向中央提交一个报告,将在8月底之后的按全国人大常委决定,在本 港发生的事和表达诉求制成报告,交给国务院港澳办,各位在这段时间内表达的意见和关注,透过特区政府的报告交给中央,给他们参考。这是我们这次会面的回 应。

We are willing to consider delivering a report to the center [on the concerns and demands of students raised since the NPC Standing Committee announced its posture on popular nomination on August 31]this is our response at this meeting.

And

港府同意直接向港府反映学生运动带出的关注和诉求,我们正在积极考虑如何在五部曲宪制程序以外,向港澳办提交一份报告

The Hong Kong government agrees to reflect to the Hong Kong [sic] government the concerns and demands brought by the student movement.  We are actively considering how to deliver a report to the Hong & Macau Affairs Office outside of the five-step constitution-revision process.

So the letter or whatever to the NPC is not a proposal or offer to the students for them to accept or negotiate. Its a unilateral concession after the HKSAR gets done with its considering.

NPR, among other outlets, got it right:

Lam said the Hong Kong government is considering submitting a report to Beijing outlining the demands and concerns of the protesters. She said the Chinese leadership could use it as a reference.

The other government gambit was to propose a multi-party platform, in other words an expansion of the dialogue beyond the two current student and government counterparties:

希望和大家进一步探讨成立讨论政改的多方平台。让社会各界,包括学生和年轻人,参加讨论

It is hoped that everybody will further explore the establishment of a multi-party platform to discuss governmental reform, and enable the various elements of society, including students and youth, to participate in the discussion.

Since the students are already in the dialogue, this was an invitation to other stakeholders, not just pro-democracy forces but also pro-Beijing forces, to join the talking shop and engage in what the Chinese picturesquely call a spittle fight that would sap the momentum and glamour of the demonstrations and, presumably, make the Hong Kong populace sick to death of the whole constitutional debate.

So this kind of framing, courtesy of the SCMP, is just plain wrong:

Student, Occupy leaders announce vote on governments reform proposals

Democratic exercise will ask whether students federation should accept the governments offers

Protesters in Umbrella Plaza, Admiralty, will be polled on whether student leaders should accept the governments offers made at talks on Tuesday on ending nearly a month of sit-ins.

This makes it sound like that the students led by Alex Chow had been recognized by the HKSAR as a legitimate interlocutor and negotiating partner and the referendum would approve or reject the governments proposals or offers made to them.

Negatory on that trajectory, as happy as the pro-dem forces were to spin or be spun in that direction.

Actually, the referendum was intended to validate the leadership in its critique of the government initiatives, demonstrate that the government had not succeeded in seducing the students with the sugar-coated bullets it had dispensed during the televised dialogue, and the Occupiers were solidly lined up against the government and behind their leaders.

The government always says that the students dont represent the people in the plaza and Hong Kong citizens, so we are here to make all our voices heard and we will tell the government clearly what we think, [said] Alex Chow .

Telling the government clearly what they thought turned out to be a goal beyond the grasp of the pro-democracy movement, somewhat ironic since Chow had just excoriated the government response as vague and completely lacking concrete proposals.

According to Al Jazeera:

In the poll, demonstrators will be asked whether the governments offer to submit a report to the central governments Hong Kong and Macau affairs office on the protests would have any practical purpose.

Judging by the LA Times on Saturday, discussions seemed to meander in a way that would please connoisseurs of genuine democracy, but perhaps had some of the organizers tearing their hair:

The exact wording of the poll has gone through multiple iterations. As of Saturday, organizers said it would focus on two main questions but will not ask people whether or when they believe the sit-ins should end.

Right after the televised dialogue, the first report I saw was that Benny Tai was talking about a relatively solid, straightforward referendum in which the students either rejected the government approach and continued civil disobedience (with the governments concession already in the pocket, so to speak) or endorsed the proposed mechanisms, declared victory, and withdrew.

(I confess I havent been able to track the original report I remember, stating that Tai envisioned a withdrawal/no withdrawal structure, though the position is stated in this AP headline/lede from October 23, Hong Kong Protesters To Vote Whether Or Not To Stay In Streets: Pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong plan to hold a spot referendum Sunday on whether to stay in the streets or accept government offers for more talks and clear their protest camps.)

An up/down vote on the HKSARs initiative and whether or not the occupation should be continued would not have been a bad tactical move, in my opinion.

If there was a vote to reject and stay, demonstrator opposition to the governments blandishments would be resoundingly confirmed by the vote and the HKSAR would have to come up with something better.

As to voting for the government and against its own leadership and going home, maybe Benny Tai didnt envision that contingency.

But if it the vote went the other way, well thats democracy.  And at the very least, in dealings between the government and the movement, the democratic camels got his nose in the tent, soon to be followed, I expect, to be followed by the camels head, hump, butt, tail, Mrs. Camel, and all the adorable baby camels, and negotiations could very well turn into a non-stop vote-a-thon.

Reading between the lines, however, I think the pro-democracy group got hung up on the possibility that the pro-Beijing crowd would mobilize crowds of people to corrupt the vote in some fiasco and send the demonstrators home profoundly pissed off at the opposition, the HKSAR, and their own leadership, and unlikely to come out again.

By the end of the week, Benny Tai clearly repudiated any stay or go implications for the referendum:

Some people have criticized the vote and said that its being used to decide on whether to leave the protest sites, Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai said. I repeat that this is not a vote related to leaving. Our goal is to allow protesters to express their views.

Mr. Tai said he hoped the vote would pressure the government to negotiate with protest leaders, but some protesters criticized the need for such a poll.

So withdrawal was Off the Menu! And replaced with a healthy serving of mush.

The  most recent motions I saw announced motions on the @OCLPHK twitter feed were:

1. In the report to be submitted by the HKSAR Government to the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council, it must include a suggestion that the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress reviews its August 31 decision.  Choices: Agree, Disagree, Abstain

2. The multi-party platform for handling political reform controversies must handle the methods of the Legislative Council election in 2016 and the Chief Elective election in 2017.  Choices: Agree Disagree Abstain

Helpfully, the Voter Requirement:

Voters must confirm they understand the contents of the two motions and support the Umbrella Movement.

But no poll tax! No explicit literacy requirement!  By this standard, the Occupy Hong Kong has achieved 1950s Mississippi levels of direct democracy.  Indeed, its come very far in a short time.  Go Jim Crow!

OK, enough snark.  But please note the presumably inadvertent parallel to the much derided must love the Motherland and Hong Kong qualification for serving as Chief Executive.

A classic case of desperately trying to please everybody but in the end pleasing nobody.  Not hard to see why the referendum collapsed under its own weight.

This is a rather awkward juncture for Occupy Hong Kong.

Continuing to obstruct public infrastructure in contemptuous rejection of an inadequate concession doesnt have the same galvanizing jolt as flooding the streets to prevent the murder of Hong Kong democracy.

Add to that the fact that civil disobedience is now continuing in a sort of anarcho-shambolic way, absent a formal general affirmation of the position taken by the student leadership in response to the HKSARs initiative, let alone an explicit strategy.  This state of affairs, I would assume, is not particularly impressive to people who do not already share the anarcho-shambolic civil disobedience mindset.

Benny Tai doesnt look good, because it looks like he and his allies in the student leadership cant deliver unified, responsive leadership of the pro-dem student movement, thereby allowing the HKSAR and PRC to disparage his effectiveness and legitimacy as an interlocutor with the government.

And, of course, it leaves the movement with the question of What Next?  The student leaders came out of the televised dialogue rather well in terms of arguments, optics, and the sense that the government had no choice but to engage with them.

I speculate that Benny Tai intended to give the escalation crank another turn by rejecting the governments response through the referendum, staying in the streets, and thereby putting the onus on the HKSAR to come up with something better.   The referendum would also give the movement something to build on: other elements could endorse its vote, come out to support the students in the confrontation, in other words, bring other potent forces, perhaps the pro-democracy union movement under Lee Cheuk-yan, into play.

Instead, we get a Whole Lotta Meh.

The question of how to proceed will, I suspect, be answered through hours of agitated chatter between student leaders, student followers, and an increasingly frazzled adult leadership, ahem, excuse me, conveners with some outside help

from the polls.

The Umbrella Movement may qualify as the most heavily polled political upheaval in historyon both sides.

And thats probably why its called the Umbrella Movement today: because Umbrella Revolution didnt poll well enough among the more skittish Hong Kongers.

It is not unlikely that polling, in addition to the conventional waddya think internal polling needed to determine the movements strength and guide its tactics, also includes the push-polling adored by American politicians, and I would expect, promoted to Hong Kong in the interest of best practices by the NED.  You know, Do you want to protect your freedom, dignity, and prosperity by directly nominating your leaders, or would you prefer to have a PLA tank run over your dogbefore your eyesrepeatedly.

I think I saw a taste of that in the dialogue, when the students invoked a poll with the finding that 72% of respondents declared it was unacceptable that only members of the pro-Beijing faction [a.k.a. people who would run your tank over with a dog] could become candidates to become Chief Executive.

The government seems to play the same game: According to several polls, over 50% of respondents would be happy to have the gain of universal suffrage safely buttoned in their pocket'.

The Hong Kong Transition Project is a multinational initiative hosted by Hong Kong Baptist University which receives support from the U.S. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (an NED affiliate).  It proudly announces it has been polling on constitutional issues since 1991.

A nice, recent example is this HKTP poll, conducted at the beginning of 2014.  It devotes 8 pages of its 34 pages to the single issue of Carrie Lam, specifically what demographic slices consider Carrie Lam a trustworthy steward of the constitutional reform consultative process.

For instance, only 2% of housewives think Lam will be very unfair.

Then you get a breakdown of who supports plans to Occupy Central.

Didja know, for instance, that other than the ultra rich, the group that had the highest percentage of strongly opposed was the ultra poor (33%)?

Another interesting tidbit: 90% of those polled said their position on Occupy, pro or anti, would be unaffected by a declaration of support by the pro-dem political faction.  So I guess thats why we dont see Alan Leong out on the barricades that much.

And theres a section on anxieties about damage to Hong Kongs economy from an Occupy movement.  Good news!  85% of Hong Kongers who ID pluralistic and international are not worried at all!

Plenty to chew on concerning the political postures and strategies that are playing out today.

On the other hand, questions about the constitutional issues underlying Occupy: Zero. Nada. Zilch.

This poll is, at its heart, operational intelligence for the Occupy movement.  Suck on it, NED/NDI defenders!

Polling seems to be everywhere, internal as well as public.

One of the revelations of the oppo dump of minutes from the meetings of the Alliance for True Democracy is the commissioning of internal monthly opinion polls from Hong Kong Universitys Popular Opinion Programme, or HKU POP at, well, HK$7000/pop.

HKU-POP ran Occupys famous unofficial July 1 referendum on universal suffrage.  It also does a lot of interesting public polling.

In what may be bad news for the pro-dems, HKU POP indicates that popularity ratings for Lee Cheuk-yanthe union leader, Labour Party honcho, Legco member, recipient of considerable largesse from Jimmy Lai and NDI, and who may have been Occupys chosen champion for the next stage of demonstrationshas sagged in recent months; and Im assuming the October poll was taken before the pro-Beijing media began hammering him with unflattering tittle-tattle from a massive hack of his unions e-mails.

The stridently pro-Beijing Regina Ip has taken a hit as well; but the Legco President and discretely pro-Beijing Jasper Tsang has apparently seen his popularity rise steadily in fact, hes the only one of the Top 5 councilors to show any improvement over the last few monthsperhaps an indication that Hong Kong public opinion prefers his more emollient style.

Im sure theres a lot of internal polling and parsing to determine whether the various, well, since we cant call them leaders, public figures associated with the pro-democracy movement, guys like Alex Chow, Joshua Wong, and, yes, Benny Tai are holding onto their favorability ratings, growing the pie, or *gulp* finding out that non-stop exposure is nudging them into the dreaded familiarity breeds contempt territory.

And polling will be decisive if and when Benny Tai deploys what I personally believe is his nuclear option: a demand that a formal citywide vote be conducted to determine the Hong Kong electorates preferences on popular nomination, thereby giving the HKSAR zero wiggle room in spinning the state of local opinion to the NPC.

That day will certainly be further off, thanks to this weeks referendum debacle.

I dont think Occupy Hong Kong, or its many allies, are bereft of hope, determination, popularity, or recourse.  But right now it seems to have a momentum and unity deficit (wonder what the polls say!).

What the OHK brain trust does in the next few days will determine if the referendum glitch is just a bump in the road, or a trip into the ditch for the democracy movement.

(South China Morning Post) Most Hongkongers want Occupy to end now, says DAB poll.

Two-thirds of Hongkongers want the Occupy protests to "end immediately", an opinion poll conducted by the city's largest pro-establishment party has found. Staff from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong personally interviewed 5,531 residents aged 12 or above last month. They also found that 77 per cent of Hongkongers agreed that police should clear the occupation sites when the time is right.

However, an activists' leader questioned the validity of the poll, which was conducted by DAB district office staff. Daisy Chan Sin-ying, convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, said: "According to our volunteers, some residents or business owners in the protest sites are actually sympathetic towards the Occupy movement." She dismissed the call for protesters to leave, as Beijing had failed to retract its restrictive framework for the 2017 chief executive election.

Thus, you get more words on negative criticism of the poll than information from the poll itself. Furthermore, "according to our volunteers" is given equal weight as interviews with 5,513 residents.

But if you read Chinese, you can read a lot more (see, for example, Wen Wei Po)

Q1. Do you agree that the police should clear the sites if necessary?
76.8%: Agree
13.0%: Disagree
10.2%: No opinion

Q2. Has been any quarrels with friends, relatives, colleagues and/or fellow students over "Occupy Central"?
46.3%: Yes
53.7%: No

Q3. When should the Occupy movement stop at the latest?
67.2%: Immediately
10.6%: Within one week
3.8%: Within half a month
3.7%: Within one month
2.0%: Within three months
4.7%: Limitless
6.5%: No opinion
1.5%: Other answer(s)

Q4. Has the Occupy movement created inconvenience in your daily life?
71.3%: Yes
28.7%: No

Q5. Do you agree that the Legislative Council should form a special committee to investigate the Occupy incident?
73.9%: Yes
9.3%: No
16.9%: No opinion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HByqSTCv-5g

0:12 Mommy, you are the dearest person to me. On your birthday last year, I bought an iPhone for you so that you can learn to get on Facebook. I did not expect that I would unfriend you today. I have also left the Whatsapp family group.

0:29 When I was small,  you taught me that I must study well, because if I don't study well, I will never rise up in society. In 1991, my auntie completed university and found a job that paid $10,000 per month. She bought an apartment shortly afterwards. Perhaps this was the definition of success under Lion Rock.

[documentary film segments of the return of Hong Kong from United Kingdom to China]

1:09 In 2014, I graduated from university. I found out that the wages of fresh graduates were still at the same level of my auntie. My boss says that I am performing well, but the company has to reduce staffing, so I have to cover the work of other colleagues as well. A promotion? Don't even think about it. As for buying an apartment? Buying an apartment has nothing to do with people of our generation. Even more sadly, this society is becoming darker and darker.

[video segments of recent news events]

1:43 You scolded me for being too nosy, for not being able to think, for being misled, even for taking money. When I heard you say that, I did not get angry. Instead I want to thank you. It was because you worked so hard to make sure that I can study, and that is why I learned to tell right from wrong, to believe that I am doing the right thing and be responsible for what I do. Because the Lion Rock spirit is different now than before.

2:18 Mommy, even though I have unfriend'ed you, you are still the dearest person to me. At this moment, I can't hope that you can accept my beliefs. I hope that someday you will be proud of what I did.

==============================================================================================

Favorable comments:

- Actually, there is nothing scary about unfriending people. If it has to be your parents, then so be it. I have always known that people in the older generation need to change their attitudes. If they won't change, then this revolution will change their attitudes for them. That is to say, the future will be decided for them. I don't think this is hard to accept, but if you look at the truth of the matter, you will know that it was not wrong to do this. Because you will have saved yourself as well as your parents.

- This is heartbreaking. I am lucky to have a good father who knows right from wrong, and he will constantly remind my mother who is on the wrong side of history.

- Old people think that they are always right whereas we are ignorant.

- I want to cry after watching this. I have not spoken to my mother for two weeks over Occupy Central. Even now she still thinks that she is right. When we go out to eat with relatives, they said that those demonstrators are fools. My uncle asked me if I went out to play Occupy Central? And did I get paid? My dad told me to bring the peanuts to watch the show. When I heard that, I was very angry. It's been better since, since I know that they supported me to study and that was how I learned to tell right from wrong. But nevertheless this has been a barb in my heart.

- The contents of the video are very true. It describes perfectly the desperation felt by the post-80's generation due to government oppression.

- I like your video, because my mother is like that too. I feel the same way. But I don't think you have to unfriend your mother. Your mother doesn't understand only because she received less education. You don't have to oppose each other. You need to educate her to see the light.

- For those people who don't understand this video or how young people fell, please think carefully: the character unfriend'ed her mother only because she doesn't want to upset her mother about what she posts.

- Compared to her, I feel very lucky because my parents support Occupy Central.

Unfavorable comments:

- These are Hong Kong Red Guard monsters produced by the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union and its members.

- Democracy is about tolerating dissenting voices, so why is she unfriending her dearly beloved mother?

- You think you are big deal because you are a university graduate, but there are university graduates all over the place. You can't afford an apartment, and you blame the government and the rest of the world. After universal suffrage comes, will someone give you an apartment? Will you get paid without working? You are being completely unrealistic and you want to reach the sky in one step ...

- That one is your own mother. I have nothing else to say if you want to do this for the sake of democracy. You don't even have a trace of humanity left. You are cold-blooded and conscience-free.

- Your mother is better off giving birth to a piece of BBQ pork than you.

- Back during the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards said that Chairman Mao was dearest to them, much more so than their parents. Now the Occupy Central people are saying that Alex Chow is dearest to them, much more so than their parents.

- You learn in this video that the female character unfriend'ed her mother because it was a choice of right versus wrong. But you learn nothing about the arguments on what makes right right and wrong wrong.

- This Occupy Central commercial isn't much good. If you want to sell a product, you should explain what its fine points are. This commercial tells us plenty of peripheral things (such as unfriending your mother), but nothing about the fine points of the product (such as how universal suffrage will get you a free apartment).

Here is what Hau Ka-kit said to the newspaper Ta Kung Pao.

The young students who are participating in Occupy Central are chanting the slogan of "genuine universal suffrage" and blocking the roads to challenge the law, thus affecting the lives and livelihood of millions of citizens. But Alex Chow and other leaders of the Federation of Students feel no need to apologize. Instead, they come up with the inappropriate argument that because the government has blocked the road to democracy, the Occupy supporters can also block the public's roads. Scholarism convener Joshua Wong said that he was unwilling to withdraw without achieving results, and so he is proposing the "referendum." "If occupation is the only way for the Umbrella Movement, then universal suffrage won't come about even if the occupation lasted until 2047."

The famous education psychologist Hau Ka-kit was interviewed by Ta Kung Pao by telephone. He pointed out that this is an era in which posting onto Facebook is faster than taking a photo, and people use the Internet more than they read books. Science and technology make it easy to become famous quicker, so that people can do spectacular things. "From the fifties, the sixties and even to the seventies, we prepare ourselves by studying well. Once we prepare ourselves well, we can think about doing things for society. Teenagers and twenty-year-olds do not readily become money-making legends. Nowadays, people aren't prepared at all but they want the whole world to pay attention to them. This is a reversal of things."

The slogan for "Occupy Central" is "genuine universal suffrage." Such slogans have even been hung in banners from Lion Rock, Tai Mo Shan, Kowloon Peak and pedestrian overpasses. Hau Ka-kit things that these actions are done only for the sake of hanging out banners, for the sake of Occupying, for the question of so-called freedom and independence. But they ignore the demands themselves and the substance within. "Creativity turns to the form, far more so than the content." They don't care what the political ideas are or what the political reality is. They only know that they did something "and they are getting a lot of 'Likes' (on Facebook)." As for the various symbols of death such as "memorial tablets," "altars," "funeral banquets" and even "death notebooks", Hau thinks that they represent the demonstrators' quests for the spectacular. These people go after the so-called creativity irrespective of the substance of political reform and the key issues around certain controversial aspects. As a result, they will obviously "go too far."

Hau Ka-kit used the example of drawing. In the past, the art of drawing placed the emphasis on basic skills. Nowadays, you get higher points if you know to draw outside of the canvas. So you draw outside the canvas, and I outdo you by drawing even bigger outside the canvas. "Everybody is trying to outdo each other." People no longer care about the contents of the debate or the ways to attain the goals. Instead, people only seek speak sarcastically about others in order to win more "Likes." The onrush of media reports make these people even more excited.

Most "Occupy Central" supporters are young people. Some of them get into arguments with their parents. But Hau Ka-kit noticed that while many parents may argue with their Occupy Central children, they will bring soup to the Occupy areas afterwards as a sign of tender loving care. "The children have become the center of the universe. This issue is very noticeable in mainland China, where most families have only one child." The result is that young people have become self-indulgent in their quest for autonomy. Hau thinks that caring must be distinguished with indulgence. In the case of crossing the street, the children should not be allowed to cross whenever and wherever they feel like. There are road rules just like social norms, and people cannot do as they please. Many "Occupy Central" students actually swept the streets clean, but they won't go home. They feel very grand and the media's praises make them feel good. "But afterwards they go back to playing electronic games and loaf in their studies."

Hau Ka-kit said ruefully that although the Occupy Students talk about autonomy and democracy, they do not actually understand the substance and processes of democracy. "In Chinese tradition, we say that 'stern teachers raise good students.' So if you want to talk about autonomy, you must be very demanding of yourself." As for the influence Occupy Central movement by the university students on middle school and elementary school students, he reminded the education community that there could be a blowback. Whereas the Occupy Central movement appears to be directed against the government right now, it can easily be used against the school where another Occupy action could take place for this or that incident. This will go on without end. As to how the education sector can clean up Occupy Central, he thinks that it is important to emphasize the basic values. They should teach the students to pay attention to those around them, especially with respect to filial piety, and prepare themselves well before talking about the pursuit of ideals.

Action videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F7qGELZ5EM&feature=youtu.be ; http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=445187 

Here is the Cable TV news report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC6FUQbYWDo:
0:00 to 0:31 Video segments taken at the scene
0:32 (interview with masked demonstrator)  A man was taking photos here. He was taking photos of these policemen. He was using the flash light. A policeman -- he was one of those wearing a white uniform -- said, "Do not use the flash again!" But it is dark here and it is impossible not to use the flash. He continued to film. The policeman yelled: "You film again! You film again!" He yelled a couple of times and then they rushed over in a mob. They lifted the man over the barrier. They pulled the man from inside the barrier over. They claimed that we rushed at them. The man was taken over there. The policemen then surrounded him. We couldn't see what was going on.

At the Internet forums, it was pointed out that this type of action was pre-planned. Below is the screen capture of an earlier Facebook post by a "Nakade Hitsujiko", whose icon says "Occupy Central."  The message says: "Repeat, during the nighttime confrontation, especially in the road sections without street lighting, if you have nothing else to do, then keep shining the flashlight while turning the 'red eye' option off and keeping the camera lens lid on, keep filming those two-legged police dogs non-stop. In the new media age, each person is a media outlet and I have the right to take photos. I also have the right to lose control of my photography technique, forget to take the camera lens lid off or use too much flash lighting. The two-legged police dogs are even pepper-spraying their "white-powder newspaper" master's reporter, so they are extremely emotionally unstable. It should be really fast to get them to fire their guns, and then we will win. Even if they don't shoot, we can pressure them until they make a mistake. Then it will be another newspaper headline story."

Here is a photo of the person with the user name of Nakade Hitsujiko on October 18, 2014, holding a sign that says: "12 o'clock -- recover the cross road." Shortly after midnight at the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street, the demonstrators surged forward but the police were well-prepared and countered with a baton charge that led to many injuries and arrests (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxP-C8-bCB8 ).The person has since stated that he apologizes for his rash actions that night.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily, December 1, 2014) The police closed in on a weapons-manufacturing factory in Tai Kok Tsui, confiscating 32 wooden shields and 3 modified pellet guns. The police arrested four men and one woman at the apartment unit. The principal is a 23-year-old man named Chung who likes to cross-dress and advocates progressive Occupy actions. On October 20, he declared on the Internet that it is time to replace the umbrella with the shield. In response to his call, more than 10 donors gave him more than HK$30,000 to start the "Democratic Foxconn factory" at his 400-square-feet Tai Kok Tsui apartment unit. He used the money to purchase electric drills, wooden boards, screws, plastic pipes and other parts from hardware stores. He and his cohorts worked day and night to manufacture the shields. Those shields were brought to Mong Kok and handed out to demonstrators. He said that Internet users can set up their own factories, wherein a five-person team can manufacture a shield every five minutes. Thus, it would be trivial to manufacture a thousand shields. As the police took him away, Chung shouted: "Go Mong Kok, go Admiralty, the revolution shall be victorious, the City State shall win and return."

Addendum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCNMBXWxTas At 3:07, there is a demonstration by Mr. Chung about how to properly wield his home-made shield as defensive/offensive weapon.

Table 1.  The demands of the movement participants

  Genuine universe suffrage Dissatisfaction with government actions Dissatisfaction with police actions Protect the students Hong Kong independence
Very much agree 79.1% 76.2% 51.1% 44.9% 6.3%
Agree 15.8% 18.4% 26.1% 28.2% 5.6%
Half-half 3.9% 4.0% 13.1% 19.1% 13.0 %
Disagree 0.8% 0.9% 6.0% 4.5% 23.3%
Very much disagree 0.4% 0.4% 3.6% 3.4% 51.8%

Table 2. The conditions under which the movement participants would agree to stop

  Civil nomination Reboot political reform process CY Leung resigns Open up Civil Plaza No conditions attached
Very much agree 47.2% 21.8% 10.0% 5.5% 2.0%
Agree 32.3% 26.6% 9.6% 9.3% 4.2%
Half-half 13.2% 31.7% 24.0% 19.9% 14.1%
Disagree 4.3% 12.3% 25.7% 26.1% 22.0%
Very much disagree 3.0% 7.7% 30.8% 39.2% 57.7%

Q1. The Occupy Central movement began on September 28. By this point, which person or organization should be held most responsible for the situation?
38.4%: Chief Executive CY Leung/the Hong Kong government/the Hong Kong government officials
31.0%: Occupy Central/the Occupy Central Three
9.4%: The Hong Kong Federation of Students/Scholarism
5.8%: The Central Government/National People's Congress Standing Committee
5.0%: Citizens who participated in the Occupy movement/demonstrators
3.5%: Nobody is responsible
3.3%: Everybody is responsible
3.5%: Other

Q2. Why do you think the Occupy participants have not yet withdrawn? Name the reason that you think is the most responsible?
69.0%: The participants have not attained their goals (e.g. genuine universal suffrage/civil nomination) and the Hong Kong government has not made any positive/concession/solution
3.2%: The participants have not reached any consensus with the government
1.7%: The participants have too many demands, and cannot reach consensus
0.8%: The participants have not considered the next steps
9.0%: The participants cannot afford to lose face
8.2%: The participants are mindless/immature/manipulated
2.9%: The participants have money/aid/free goods
1.9%: The participants want to disrupt Hong Kong/disrupt social order
1.3%: The participants are supported by foreign forces
0.8%: The participants are unemployed people with lots of time on hand
0.8%: The nature of the movement has changed
0.6%: The government/law enforcement is too weak

Q3. Which person or organization can make the Occupy participants withdraw and stop the Occupation?
35.7%: Chief Executive CY Leung/the Hong Kong government/the Hong Kong government officials
34.7%: No person/organization
13.3%: The Central Government/National People's Congress Standing Committee
5.2%: The Hong Kong Federation of Students/Scholarism
4.6%: Occupy Central/the Occupy Central three
3.0%: Citizens who participated in the Occupy movement/demonstrators
3.4%: Other

Q4. In your personal opinion, do you think the participants should withdraw and end the Occupation?
73.2% Tend to agree
26.8% Tend to disagree

By age group, the agree rates are:
Age 18-29: 41.3%
Age 30-59: 76.0%
Age 60 and over: 98.1%

Q5. For those who tend to agree in Q4, why do you think that they should withdraw? Name the most important reason.
47.6%: The movement has impacted people's livelihood, such as traffic, business, daily life etc
17.5%: The Occupy movement serves no practical purpose, so that further occupation is not meaningful
13.8%: The goal has been achieved in that society has learned about their demands, so they should leave while the going is good
5.6%: Re-group and re-plan/seek another approach
2.1%: Don't want to see bloodshed/use of force
7.4%: Disrupt the social order/cause chaos in Hong Kong
4.2%: Affect rule of law in Hong Kong/lawbreaking
1.9%: The nature of the Occupy movement has changed

(Ming Pao) Editorial, October 6, 2014

Towards the end of the past week the Centre for Social Policy Studies of the Polytechnic University conducted an opinion poll. On November 1 and 2 (when the Occupy movement has continued for over one month), 554 citizens were randomly surveyed by phone. 73.2% of them are inclined to think the occupiers should leave now, though 26.8% disagree. The great disparity is overwhelming evidence that it is a mainstream view that the occupiers should evacuate.

It is for very simple reasons that most people think the Occupy movement should end. Thoroughfares have been blocked on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon. That has to various degrees affected all citizens. The Occupy movement has made it hard for some citizens to do business and even earn their living. It has even damaged the business environment and undermined the rule of law.

Public opinion has changed, but one should not read that as proof that respondents or citizens think it wrong to call for democracy or universal suffrage. Respondents who think the occupiers should leave now do so for one or more of the following four reasons: that the Occupy movement has adversely affected the economy and people's lives (47.6%); that it serves no real purpose or there is no point in continuing it (17.5%); that the occupiers have achieved their aim, society knows what they want and they should quit while the going is good (13.8%); and that the Occupy movement has disturbed social order and plunged Hong Kong into chaos (7.4%).

It is unmistakably clear from the findings of the survey that most citizens think the occupiers should leave now. The main reason is that the Occupy movement has disturbed their lives and made it hard for some of them to earn their living. The reversal of public opinion is by nature such that it is very unlikely to reverse again. This shows it is hard to keep the Occupy movement going. If the occupiers agree that it is hard to achieve at one stroke their aim of bringing about democracy and universal suffrage, they should harvest what they have won at this stage. They should preserve their effective strength and carefully plan their future moves. The organisers of the movement ought to have the general aim in view and pluck up enough courage to call on the occupiers to evacuate and fight for democracy and universal suffrage through other channels.

A PhD candidate of the School of Journalism and Communication of the Chinese University of Hong Kong has done a survey in the several occupied locations to find out why citizens have taken part in the Occupy movement. The findings of this survey are worth notice. Seven hundred and fifty-five people were surveyed - 301 in Admiralty, 289 in Mong Kok and 165 in Causeway Bay. 94.9% said they fought for elections by universal suffrage allowing a real choice; 94.6% said they were unhappy with the way the government had handled the constitutional reform; 77.2% said they were unhappy with what police had done; 73.1% said they wanted to protect students; and 11.9% said they favoured Hong Kong's independence.

The Occupy movement has been called "a colour revolution la Hong Kong". Those who have actually taken part in the occupation are activists. They are always more aggressive. However, only a little more than 10% of them favour Hong Kong's independence, much fewer than those who have joined the movement for other reasons. Furthermore, 75.1% of the respondents reject Hong Kong separatism. It is clear from the findings of the survey that only a very small number of occupiers harbour separatist ideas. We hope people will therefore have a correct perception of the Occupy movement and avoid misjudgment lest mislabeling should endanger Hong Kong-central government relations.

[Wikipedia: A chamber of commerce (or board of trade) is a form of business network, e.g., a local organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses.] Therefore, this survey reflects the interests of businesses (and not necessarily of the general population). Nevertheless, most people work for some business or the other, so their interests are affected by how businesses fare.

Here are the survey results:

With respect to Occupy Central, the opinion of the business community is:
57.8%: Strongly oppose
40.5%: Oppose
1.7%: So-so
0.0%: Support/Strongly oppose
 
Do you think blocking the roads can help resolve the problem about universal suffrage in the Chief Executive election in 2017?
37.9%: Very unfavorable
56.5%: Unfavorable
2.3%: So-so
3.3%: No opinion
 
As for the demands of the Occupy Central people to have civil nomination, Basic Law amendment and the National People's Congress to rescind its decision,
60.5%: Impractical
34.9%: Opposed
4.7%: No opinion
 
The demonstrators have blocked the roads for many times. Is this disrupting rule-or-law and social order in Hong Kong?
62.8%: Serious damaging
32.6%: Somewhat damaging
2.3%: So-so
2.3%: No opinion
 
Is Occupy Central hurting economic livelihood in Hong Kong?
48.8%: Severe impact
48.8%: Some impact
2.3%: No opinion
 
Is Occupy Central causing rifts and polarization in Hong Kong society?
51.2%: Severely impacting unity
44.2%: Impacting unity
4.6%: No opinion
 
With respect to the impact of Occupy Central on business environment and competitiveness,
62.8%: Severely impacted
32.6%: Somewhat impacted
4.7%: No opinion
 
Should businesses seek legal redress against the Occupy Central instigators for their economic losses?
44.2%: Very much needed
41.9%: Needed
9.3%: So-so
4.6% No opinion
 
Is Occupy Central affecting Hong Kong's relationship with the Central Government?
39.9%: Severe impact
51.2%: Some impact
6.4%: So-so
2.6%: No opinion
 
Is Occupy Central affecting Hong Kong's international image?
74.4%: Severe impact
20.9%: Some impact
2.3%: No impact
2.3%: No opinion
 
Who is responsible for the Occupy Central clashes? (multiple choices allowed)
86.1%: the Occupy Central founders
60.5%: the pan-democrats
58.1%: the Hong Kong Federation of Students/Scholarism
7.0%: the young students
 
Do you support the police clearing the sites in accordance with the law?
72.1%: Very much support
20.9%: Support
2.3%: Not necessary
4.6%: No opinion

Q1. Business at retailers and restaurants in the occupied areas has fallen off sharply. What does this show?
28%: Small businesses are affected first and foremost
25%: The livelihood of the frontline workers are being affected
23%: A wave of business closures and layoffs is feared
20%: Not a lot of impact
4%: No opinion

Q2. Hotel bookings have fallen off, causing hundreds of millions in losses. Some travelers are canceling their trips to Hong Kong. What are you worried about?
37%: An economic stalwart is failing, economic and social prospects are damaged
20%: Workers will be victimized, having to take unpaid time off
20%: The hospitality and tourism industries are entering an ice age
16%: No concern
7%: No opinion

Q3. Taxis, minibuses and direct buses are losing income, shops in the occupied areas are ordering less goods and therefore the transportation and logistics companies have less business. What does this show?
31%: Transportation and logistic are suffering serious blows
25%: Lower-income people are affected
21%: Professional drivers are suffering unspeakably
21%: Not a lot of impact
2%: No opinion

Q4. The small- and middle-sized enterprises business index has reached a two-year low, so the business environment is worsening. What does this show?
43%: Hong Kong is losing competitiveness
24%: Small- and middle-sized enterprises are the victims
18%: Not a lot of problems
12%: Business sentiments are affected by Occupy Central
3%: No opinion

Q5. The political instability has caused consumer demand to change, thus affecting wage raises next year. What does this show?
29%: Hong Kong's prospects are grim
24%: Workers are the victims
24%: Not a lot impact
19%: The aftereffects of Occupy Central

Q6. In terms of finance, the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect has been shelved indefinitely and the Financial Services Bureau points out that hidden risks in Hong Kong's financial markets will rise if Occupy Central continues. What is the worry?
32%: The Hong Kong financial market will be displaced by Shanghai and Shenzhen
24%: The market becomes more volatile as negative news come in
20%: Furthermore punishment will be forthcoming
19%: Not a lot of problems
5%: No opinion

Here is a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7vM-hmu3go.

Internet comments:

- Ah yes, these are the "primary school chickens" who race around the schoolyard purposelessly. All action, but nothing accomplished.

- How does out-of-tune singing equate spreading the message of the demand for democracy? Can anyone even catch the lyrics? The singing is just dreadful!

- There is a reason why these are "flash" activities. If they stayed around long enough in some districts (such as Yuen Long or Lam Tin), they would have the crap beaten out of them.

- This is going to raise the rage level of shop owners who are unable to pay their rents due to the impact of Occupy Central on their businesses. The roof is caving down on them, and these students show up singing a rousing song of inspiration to celebrate their misfortunes? This is brain-dead on arrival.

- They do this because they can, and because they don't know what else useful to do. Instead of doing what they feel like doing, they should be thinking about what they need to do in order to succeed in their quest and then actually give it a shot.

- The revolution is now taken to be thousands of people cramming into the business center, singing karaoke and waving mobile phone flashlights. Everybody gets to go home home feeling very good about themselves.

The Alliance for Peace and Democracy led by Robert Chow Yung was running a signature campaign to support the local police and to ask protestors to end their occupation of city roads. Here is a photo of Robert Chow Yung at one of the several hundred tables:

The banner says: "Oppose violence, oppose Occupy Central, Keep the peace, Keep universal suffrage - Sign for Peace and Democracy" signature campaign.

There is apparently a counter-measure:

(Ming Pao)

The Alliance for Peace and Democracy has gathered more than 1.5 million signatures. Meanwhile someone has founded an "Action to support Robert Chow Yung" to gather signatures. The following table is at 176 Johnston Street, Wanchai District. The banner says: "Support Chow Yung ("Support our ginger" in English) - Pay back the people, restore the city's appearance, permanently reside in England".  The design imitates that of the Alliance, including using the logo. Previously, Robert Chow had said on Cable TV that he would immigrate to England if Occupy Central succeeds.

Video link: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=760314907336899&fref=nf

(Oriental Daily)

At about 5pm, there appeared a street booth for the "Support Chow Yung" movement in the occupied Causeway Bay area. There was a table for people to sign up. Our reporter went up to speak to the organizers who declined to be interviewed. According to the Facebook page of the Silent Majority for Hong Kong group, there are fake street booths imitating the design of the Alliance banners. They urged citizens to be careful about not letting people steal their identity card information. The Alliance has filed a police report. When our reporter went back to the Causeway Bay location, the street booth was gone.

Video footage showing the apparent beating of a defenceless protester outside a government building in Hong Kong has led human rights activists, politicians and movement leaders to condemn the polices most brutal crackdown for a week.

... In an incident which is likely to prove a flashpoint for clashes in weeks to come, local TV cameras caught a large group of plainclothes officers dragging one protester around the back of a government office block where, presumably believing they were out of sight, the policemen appeared to punch, kick, and beat the man with a baton.

The original TVB report is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvsrEF3gp-U. Here is the transcription of the Chinese-language captions:

0:02 The police removed some tents.
0:07 "Do not interfere, do not interfere."
0:12 A demonstrator has his hands tied up with plastic cuffs and escorted away by six police officers.
0:18 The police lifted him up.
0:23 They pulled him into a dark corner of Tamar Park.
0:28 They put him on the ground.
0:29 They punched him with their fists and kicked him with their feet (
拳打腳踢).
0:40 During that time, two police officers went away.
0:48 The remaining police officers continued to kick the demonstrator.
1:02 The police officers eventually took the demonstrator away.
1:04 The entire process lasted almost four minutes.
1:14 The police used pepper spray multiple times when they dispersed the demonstrators.
1:19 Our cameraman was sprayed too.

After this TVB report was aired, the senior management reviewed the report and edited the words "punched him with their fists and kicked him with their feet" out of the caption in the online version of the report. This caused a number of TVB reporters to sign a joint petition to the management to protest this act of censorship. The petition including its signees was made public. Here is a report on this development: (The Standard, October 16, 2014)

Thirty-nine TVB reporters and anchors, including three chief reporters and news editors, yesterday petitioned senior management to express regret that references to police officers allegedly kicking and punching a protester had been deleted from earlier broadcasts of the incident. The protester was later identified as Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu.

The petition was signed by 27 local reporters, including one from TVB Pearl, Rani Samtani, and 12 anchors, including Venus Chow Ka-yee and Carol Ko Fong-ting.

The petition said the voice-over description before the 7am broadcast was impartial and objective. It said: "A protester was handcuffed with plastic ties, lifted up by six police officers and taken to a dark corner in Tamar Park. Then they dropped him on the floor and started punching and kicking him. Within that period, two officers left and the others kept kicking the protester. Finally police officers took him away and the whole process lasted for four minutes."

But in the 7am broadcast, the part "then they dropped him on the floor and started punching and kicking him. Within that period, two officers left and the rest kept kicking the protester" was deleted. In the noon broadcast, a sentence was added: "Within the period of time police officers were suspected of using force on him."

The petition said the phrase "punching and kicking him" had been discussed between colleagues who felt it was not inaccurate. It added: "The deleted voice-over did not include the reporter's personal stance or emotions and was objective reporting based on facts."

TVB released a statement at around 9.30pm. It said it respects and supports professional editorial independence. It said that since the video indicated the alleged use of excessive force by police officers, and might consequently be related to legal disputes, the news department's director decided to use more objective words to prevent affecting a trial or perverting the course of justice in the future. The statement said the amendment was only done with the voice-over while the video clips remained unchanged.

An internal TVB meeting was convened, during which someone made an audio recording and posted it on the Internet. The apparent goal was to embarrass the management. This audio clarifies as to what the reasoning behind the arguments on both sides were.

The audio is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7kemkP5WkE. The first speaker is TVB news director Keith Yuen Chi-wai.  During the initial part of this meeting, Yuen reminded the attendees about the TVB code of ethics which applies to all of the several hundred news workers including news directors, editors, anchors, reporters, cameramen, chauffeurs, etc. Then he continued:

6:47 In covering the Occupy movement, hundreds of people inside and outside are involved. More than 200 people are working on the same thing. If there is no common set of standards, then there will be conflicts. In the present case, we are not in sync over the standards. How did the standards fall out of sync? The report that we wrote early morning is not in sync with the standards. When we make any accusation against anyone, we must use "believe", "suspect" or "doubt". This is what we always do. Those are accusations. Suppose you walk down the street and you see someone wearing white clothes. You see that it is white, unless you are color-blind. You do not have to say that you suspect that the clothing is white, or you wondered if the clothing is white, or you believe that the clothing is white. That is not necessary.

8:00 But some accusations are based upon looking at films. You did not witness it alongside. You could not pose any questions (at the time). It was also impossible to follow up with questions. When we write the report, when we have to describe what happened, when we have to describe ... our rules for writing the report have always been these. When the police arrested someone, we can only say that they arrested a suspect. We cannot say that they arrested a criminal. Or we say that the police took a man down to the police station to assist in the investigation. That is objective reporting. If you want to say that he is a criminal, you can only say "suspected criminal." That is the difference. You can say something different but if that is what you want to say, then there are standards to follow. Like when when you report on a traffic accident. You can say that the two vehicles collided. You cannot say that the taxi slammed into the truck from behind. We once reported that a taxi slammed into a truck inside the Lion Rock Tunnel. But the court found that the taxi driver was innocent whereas it was the truck driver who was at fault. So we were challenged and sued. The taxi driver cited the TVB report that day in court. He said, "TVB said so. They said that the taxi slammed into the truck."

9:35 We have tremendous influence. We are the witness for history. Our news today is tomorrow's history. We must be very careful. We must be careful not so much to protect ourselves, but to protect those who are impacted by our reporting. We do our thing and we can leave without a care. But it could be very tragic for those who are impacted by us. Let me give you an example. You were probably not even born when it took place. After the 1989 Tiananmen incident, there was a person named Xiu Feng who was interviewed by a foreign news agency in Shenyang. He said carelessly even though he was not in Beijing: "Wow! They opened fire! They stabbed people!" It was very easy to locate him at the time. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The foreigner who interviewed him was able to go home. But it was tragic for Xiu Feng. How can we protect him? Very easy. You cover his eyes. You put a mosaic over him. It becomes harder to locate him. This is how we protect those who may be hurt as a result of our reporting. I have said a lot, but all of it is in our standards.

10:48 Let me go back and talk about that news report yesterday. The original report. There were many versions. At a quarter past six in the morning, I saw that version.  Including what our host ad-libbed. Including what the voice over said. Namely, the policemen ... "hands tied" ... "taken to a dark corner" ... "punched with their fists and kicked with their feet." I do not know if these were the exact words. At least one version went like that. I made a clip of that news report on iNews. I made a clip from my app. The original report said this: "By 3am, the police dispersed the demonstrators. The police took away a number of demonstrators. One of the demonstrators was pulled by the police into a dark corner. They punched him with their fists and kicked him with their feet."

12:05 Normally you reporters treat these serious accusations ... and why is this accusation so serious? According to (Legislative Councilor) James To, any police officer using unauthorized brutality may be facing life imprisonment. Life imprisonment for six police officers. Is that serious or not? This accusation is serious. On what basis can we say that "the police officers pulled him into a dark corner ... punched with fists and kicked with feet".  Are you a worm residing inside the hearts of those police officers? "Purposefully pulled him into a dark corner ... punched with fists and kicked with feet"? On what basis? The reporter wrote this report based upon the video which was taken by the camera at the scene and which was then shown on the display screen in the editing room. He wrote down his judgment. Did he go up and ask them? Did he go up and watch the assault? Did he ask them whether they purposefully pulled him over there to beat him up? You can write it this way if you managed to ask the beating victim, if you asked the person who was pulled in there. You ask him. Maybe he denies, he says no. You can write it that way. But if you haven't been able to do these things, shouldn't we write words like "suspect", "believe", "doubt." Nothing like that was used in the report. I went back to the other versions. Nothing anywhere. Not only was there nothing, but our host ad-libbed very fluently: "Six police officers pulled one of the demonstrators into a dark corner. They punched him with their fists and kicked with their feet." Every ad-lib included this. As the chief editor, as someone who is responsible for every word in the news reports, shouldn't I telephone my colleague here and asked for a revision? I made the call at 6:35am. 6:35am. Morning news. All our clips were still coming from the iNews channel. But when the Jade Channel also aired it, the impact was even bigger.

[...]

The male editor explained his reasoning for writing the report that way.

18:05 I don't know about what happened after 7:00am. As for the entire process, at around 2am or 3am, we had four cars at Lung Wo Road. When the chaos began at Lung Wo Road, four cars including the mobile link went there. Seven to eight files were sent back at the same time. That particular film came around 4am ... sorry, the film with the suspected assault was found by a colleague around 4am or 5am. Such a film was discovered. At that moment, there was a news director, a reporter, and two others helping out. At that time, a colleague said, "Hey, here is such a film." Actually, the original report was more or less done already. But this film was a relatively new development in the events that nights. It had to be added. I was already revising the report. I was responsible for making that addition. I wrote the whole report. I was also responsible for the outside, including the first time that SOT appeared. The updated version, the improved version, the additional banner indicating a different time. I made that addition. So I was wholly responsible for the story.

19:40 After finding that film, we watched it repeatedly many times. Including watching it on computer using different speeds. We continued to watched it in the editing room. The raw film ran four to five minutes. We watched it several times. I made the decision. I thought about how to describe the process, including using "assault." I thought about it. I found that "assault" has many associations. You can use many parts of the body to assault someone. I eliminated the word "assault" immediately. So should I use "force"? There are even more associations possible with "force", because a lot of tools can be used to apply force. So I watched it many times. The colleagues even discussed it. It was very obvious that there was kicking with the feet. It was also very obvious that there was punching with the fists. So I made the decision to use the words "punch with the fists and kicked with the feet." "Fists" and "feet" are nouns. "Punch" and "kick" are verbs. Four words  (拳打腳踢) to describe the action on the screen. The entire process.  In considering the entire process, I have no doubts about what is shown on the screen in terms of credibility and authenticity.

22:02 That is ... let me give an example. In the past few days, we filmed the police using pepper spray. We see it in the video, we see it with our own eyes, the colleagues at the scene also saw it. We do not add "The police are suspected of using pepper spray." Of course, I can nitpick and say that the canister may contain some other kind of material. Therefore, we trust our own eyes, we trust our colleagues, we trust what our cameramen record and send back to be real. There is no reason to question whether it is factual. Unless it is something we did not film but we only heard about from our peers, such as something another television station filmed. if we have no hard evidence and we have no video of our own. If the opposite happened with five or six demonstrators dragging away a policeman to beat him up, I would say the same thing. The video tells the truth.

23:03 Was the corner "dark" or not? At that location. Those who have been to Tamar Park, those who are familiar with Tamar Park, know that there are two lamps hanging on the top of the wired fence. Two lamps are seen in the video. This is clearly darker than the surrounding area. There is also the "pulling" and the "plastic cuffs." I did not write down "plastic cuffs" at first. But a colleague clearly pointed out that you can see the demonstrator had a very long plastic strip around his hands in the film segment showing them passing by the camera from Lung Wo Road. This can be seen on the full screen. Therefore ... I am not afraid to say so ... I did not write it at first. The editor then opined that this should be added in, because it will show whether the demonstrator had the ability to resist when he was taken there. It would have preclude the possibility that the demonstrator struck the policemen first. That was why I especially mentioned it.

24:19 "Pulled." Everybody can see six police officers pulling one demonstrator. I don't think that you would say "bring." I don't think that you say "bring him into the dark corner." Right or not? Alright. Also, there is something that I would like to add. During the process, I asked Brother Hao to call PPRB (Police Public Relations Branch) to ask if anyone has been arrested. PPRB did not provide any information before 630am. At around 630am or afterwards, the police gave a briefing on the overall situation at Lung Wo Road. The police came out at 632am. At that time, some reporter asked the police about the video shown by the media ... what we filmed on how some police officers carried a demonstrator to a certain location and assaulted him. At the time, the police spokesperson said that there was no information about this, and that any such activity will be investigated. But the 630 news report was already out. My judgment was that before our news report went out, there had been no official statement to confirm that the person was arrested. Therefore our report said that the person was taken away. If he was taken away ... in a traffic accident, if a driver was not arrested, we would cover up the license plate number and we would not cross the line and say that he was arrested. At that moment, we have only seen the person being taken away. Nobody could confirm whether that person was arrested or not. We can imagine if we want. So at that moment, before the telephone rang at 645am, I am certain that what I saw was real. What my colleague filmed was real. As to what happened after 645am, I was getting ready to leave and I had no part in it.

Here are another veteran journalist's comments (via Hong Kong First blog):

(1) Yuen's basic viewpoints are actually just Journalism 101 stuff, being the most simple and basic journalism ethics. That is to say, when a reporter wants to make an accusation against a person or organization, they must realize that an accusation does not equal the facts. An accusation must be verified first. In this video, Yuen pointed out accurately that the report made the direct and definitive statement that the six police officers pulled the demonstrator into the dark corner and "punched him with fists and kicked him with feet." Yuen pointed out that since there was no TVB reporter verifying the story at the scene, how could the reporter writing the VO (Voice Over) know anything about the causes and motives about why the policemen took the demonstrator into that corner? What happened between them before? Is there some other reason? The original version directly judged that the police brought the demonstrator there in order to beat him up. This is the impression that the report created for the audience. Without any verification, the report took the imputed motives of the policemen as fact. But this was merely the subjective speculation by the reporter and violates the standards of journalism. Yuen was especially demanding because the accusation was very serious and therefore the reporter has the moral obligation to be very careful.

(2) The so-called "punch with the fists and kick with the feet(拳打腳踢)." The male reporter countered by playing with words. He said that there were "fists()", "feet(", "punch()" and "kick()". The problem was that the video only showed the policemen using their hands, but you can't see (closely clenched) fists; if you say that you can see it, then you are lying. There were two to three arm movements. It is hard to say whether these were (closely clenched) punches to the body, or (open-handed) slaps. Objectively, they "used their hands." As for the kicking, there were kicks but it was impossible to say which part of the body was kicked. As for the term "punched with the fists and kicked with the feet  (拳打腳踢)," it is not just a combination of two nouns( and ) plus two verbs( and ). It is a descriptive idiom that implies a sustained series of violent (even deadly) blows administered by hands and feet. From the video, the hand/feet movements lasted less than 30 seconds. The number of hand/feet movements is also limited. It is not enough to be the idiom "punch with the fists and kick with the feet (拳打腳踢)." This was not an objective description; it was only an emotional description. More importantly, the medical examination showed that the demonstrator only had some scratches plus some unexplained red marks. When I first heard TVB's "punch with the fists and kick with the feet," I imagined that the demonstrator must have been seriously injured. The facts showed that I was misled by the reporter.

(3) My biggest objection was that the reporter deliberately said that the entire process lasted as long as four minutes. This is a deliberate exaggeration by the reporter, because the public has now been misled to believe that the demonstrator was beaten for four minutes. The fact is that all of Hong Kong are saying that Ken Tsang was beaten for four minutes. The video may have been four minutes long, but the action lasted less than 30 seconds in this video. Clearly, the reporters injected some inflammatory and inaccurate content into the reporting.

Mr. Yuen is a responsible and ethical news worker. If you don't like to listen to him, it is because you do not have the basic ethics and standards of a news worker.

The video from the original TVB news report was fuzzy. An enhanced (i.e. lighting-adjusted) full version is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX9x9-cDJJQ (shorter version is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5H2-NYWsqk ).

(EJ insight) TVB footage of police beating protester wins journalism award. June 23, 2015.

TVB, Hong Kongs largest television broadcaster, has won another broadcast journalism award for its exclusive news video footage of police officers apparently beating a pro-democracy protester during last years Occupy Movement.

Titled Suspected Police Brutality Against Occupy Central Movements Protester, the video clip was chosen as the Best TV news item at the 55th Monte Carlo TV Festival, according to the broadcaster. In April this year, the same video won an award in the hard news category at the 2015 Edward E. Murrow Awards.

On the latest award, TVB said the video won against other entries, including those from Britains BBC and Canadas CBC, in view of its comprehensive, objective and professional report.

The winning video generated controversy when it was broadcast at the height of the Occupy protests last October after the original voice-over report, which said the protester was kicked and beaten by the police, was cut on the order of news director Keith Yuen Chi-wai.

Fifty-eight assignment editors, anchors and reporters from the television station issued a joint statement expressing their displeasure over the news managements decision to edit the video report on the Oct. 15 incident. Yuens action also led some TVB reporters to quit their jobs, including the reporter who did the voice-over.

TVB assistant news director Wong Suk-ming, who supported Yuens move to edit the voice-over report, received the award in Monaco.

Our newspaper interviewed about 1,000 citizens in October 28-31, 2014. We found that 21.3% of them had participated in the Occupy movement and 78.7% did not.

28.9% said that the Occupy movement was a success, 44.8% said that it was a "failure" and 26.3% said that "it was hard to say."

38.8% said that the Occupy movement "should make a complete withdrawal," 36.1% said that there "should be a withdrawal to areas away from the major thruways" and 16.5% said to "continue the occupation."

(Reuters UK) October 25, 2007.

A female reporter for Hong Kong's public broadcaster, RTHK, Wong Wing-yin, was also kicked on the leg and body by blue ribbon supporters after being pushed to the ground. She was taken to hospital. RTHK and its programme staff union condemned the attack, while a spokesman said the station would take legal action.

Here is the video taken by Wong after the assault began: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLA_6t0XqLM. There is no video of what happened before the assault. Wong gave a press conference afterwards, saying that the attack was unprovoked because she was not doing anything at the time. Furthermore she identified herself as a reporter on the job.

Here is another English-language news report.

(The Standard) October 27, 2017

An RTHK reporter, Wong Wing-yin, was surrounded by several people who asked if she was a journalist. Wong had allegedly asked the group if they had received money to show up. Someone then attempted to snatch her press pass and her backpack and she fell to the ground during the struggle. Wong said someone then kicked her in the leg and body before other journalists.

Where did "Wong had allegedly asked the group if they had received money to show up" come from? Most likely from the Internet! Shortly after the interview, someone posted an alleged screen capture of the TVB broadcast of the press conference. This photo has the following caption: "I merely asked them how much money they took for coming to this gathering." This kind of unorthodox interviewing may rile some people. However, this statement cannot be found on the video posted on TVB's website. Ergo, TVB must have scrubbed this piece of inconvenient truth! However, someone eventually went back to the full press conference videos from TVB and other media outlets, and found no such statement. Furthermore, the Chinese character font in the screen capture is slightly different from the regular one used by TVB. So this was a PhotoShop job! It is a simple ruse, but it fooled many people and wasted a lot of energy.

Another line of attack was based upon a TVB video of an Occupy Central demonstrator a while ago in Mong Kok. That woman was cursing out the police for clearing out the Mong Kok site without justification. This woman is alleged to be the RTHK reporter based upon a superficial resemblance (both are young women and both part their hair in a similar way, in the same manner that the bald policeman was regarded the same guy as the bald gangster because they are both bald). So even more energy is wasted.



Of course, things never stop. Here is another so-called "eye-witness" account of the incident:

(in translation)
The truth from the scene of ...  the RTHK female reporter being attacked!
It was after 7pm. This woman was sitting at the rear across the Cultural Centre.
... She did not wear a press card or any bade indicating that she was a reporter. She sat on the ground and provoked the surrounding citizens. The citizens hollered and told her to leave. She sat on the ground and began to make a telephone call. The event volunteers came in and asked her to leave! But she insisted on sitting there. Only when a woman pulled her up did she agree to leave under the escort of the volunteers.
I looked at her sad face. She took a couple of steps and stopped to let people take photos of her ... Many people were cursing her out, but the volunteers held out their hands to form a protective ring to let her leave!
I was thinking, Why would a girl dare to provoke citizens under these circumstances? So it was actually a trick by a reporter to provoke anti-Occupy Central people ...
What kind of mindset does a non-neutral reporter must have to do this sort of thing?
Does she have the right to criticize other people for not respecting freedom of press?
Can the RTHK news department condemn other people?
Will the Hong Kong continue to report this inaccurate news story?
RTHK ... Will you apologize publicly for manufacturing news to smear other people?

More wasted energy at the Internet forums ...

I am stopping here, not for lack of material because there is plenty more. But there is no point in wasting more energy ...

"I want genuine universal suffrage" occupies Ta Mo Shan (the tallest peak in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at 957 meters high). Civil Aid Service and Fire Department members were dispatched to remove the banner.

"I want genuine universal suffrage " occupies Kowloon Peak (at 602 meters high). Civil Aid Service and Fire Department members were dispatched to remove the banner.

On Halloween night, citizens showed up en masse in fight costumes in the occupied areas.

Chinese president Xi Jinping placard in the occupied Causeway Bay area

On Halloween night, in the occupied Mong Kok area, demonstrators dressed up as zombies hopped down the street while chanting "I want genuine universal suffrage."

Anti-Occupy Central man and woman argue with men wearing V-masks at Hollywood Plaza, Mong Kok district. The two were surrounded by dozens of Occupy Central supporters who sang Happy Birthday to the two. Finally the police came and got the two to walk away.

The anti-Occupy Central organization Voice of Loving Hong Kong's convener Patrick Ko Tat-pun showed up in Mong Kok and was chased and cursed out by a large group of pro-Occupy Central demonstrators. Eventually Ko was taken away in a police car. But several dozen demonstrators were unhappy with the police protection given Ko and clashed with the police. One policeman sustained a back injury and was taken away by ambulance. A male demonstrator was taken away by the police.

At 7:40pm, someone threw two paint spray cans from a building down into the occupied Causeway Bay area. The police arrested two 15-year-old males and then another 15-year-old and a 16-year-old later. The four individuals are suspected of the crime of "throwing objects down from high above."

Today is Cleaning Day in the Occupied area, because of the accumulating debris has been attracting flies, cockroaches, rats and vermin. Also, a man in his 60's felt dizzy while walking near the intersection of Nathan Road and Shantung Road and sought help. However, the ambulances could not reach him because of the barricades in the roads. The ambulance workers had to push a stretcher more than 200 meters by foot to reach the man.

The four-day Hong Kong Wine and Dine Festival was originally scheduled to be held in the Central district. Due to Occupy Central, the event was moved to Kai Tak Terminal. Many wine exhibitors canceled because they thought business would be bad. Surprisingly, on October 31, 55,200 persons attended the event, which was more than the sum total of the entire event last year. At 9pm, the Hong Kong Tourism Board issued an open appeal for people not to head there because of the massive traffic congestion. There is no MTR subway to the site, and the shuttle buses had waiting times of up to two hours.

[The significance of this story is that the number 55,200 is probably at least a magnitude (10 times) larger than the sum total of all persons in the Occupied areas.]

And now to the front page story: Occupied area businesses sign joint petition to ask for rent reductions; businesses tumbled down by 90%.


The Occupied Central movement has gone on for more than one month. Business inside the Occupied areas have entered an "Ice Age", even worse than the SARS period.

In Mong Kok, the New Town Mall and Mong Kok Centre are right next to the occupied area. Normally, they are filled with people, but now the shop owners are losing their shirts. Several hundred businesses at these two malls have signed a joint petition to ask the landlord to reduce rent, or else they do not exclude the possibility of holding a rent strike. Yesterday our reporter went to the two shopping malls in the evening. Normally, Friday evening is the golden rush hour. On this evening, there were about 6 potential customers on the third floor of New Town Mall and twenty people on the whole floor in Mong Kok Centre.  Miss Lau who runs a fashion store on the third floor of New Town said that her business fell by 90%s in October. Miss Wong said that people see the chaos outside the street and won't come into the mall. Sometimes people come upstairs for safety when street fights break out. Three hundred shops at Mong Kok Centre have petitioned the landlord for a rent reduction. "At least 50% off in rent, so that we will each bear half of the losses."  The shop owner named Apple said that October is supposed to be a busy month averaging three to four thousand dollars in revenue a day, but now she only made several hundred dollars a day.  If she is late on rent payment, there will be a 10% penalty.

Meanwhile, in the occupied Causeway Bay area, businesses have started a signature-gathering campaign to go rent-free for the duration of the Occupy Central movement. Some shop owners said that business is down by 90%, and they will have to leave if the landlord refuses their request to go rent-free. At Causeway Bay Place, there was only about a dozen or so shoppers walking about. Ninety percent of the businesses have asked to the landlord to go rent-free in the short term, or else they will either move away or close down. Miss Yip at a cosmetic store said that business revenue was less than HKD 500 per day. Mister Yim who owns three fashion shops in this mall said that the stores averaged HKD 1,000 per day for the first ten days of Occupy Central. This was 10% of normal revenues, and "not enough to pay rent!" Things have been better recently in that he is making 20% of normal revenues. Yim said that while he supports the fight for democracy, he wishes the Occupy Central people could use some other method other than being "road bullies."

The three shopping malls have declined to respond about their renters' petitions.

================================================================

By this time, nobody should fantasize that "fair and balanced" news reporting could still exist in Hong Kong. Oriental Daily News is anti-Occupy. Its reporting will therefore be slanted in that direction.

So why read it at all? First of all, this is one of the most widely read newspapers in Hong Kong. If people disagree with its position, they wouldn't be reading it. Therefore, its position (which is very much calculated to harmonize with its readers) has a certain amount of support. More importantly, reading Oriental Daily News allows you to understand the strategies of anti-Occupy forces.

The selection of news stories on this day shows a two-pronged strategy:

On one hand, there are reports of inane schoolboy pranks (e.g. hanging banners down the mountainsides, parading through a shopping mall with umbrella in hand, costume-partying in the streets) and street chaos (e.g. physical clashes, object throwing, unsanitary conditions).

On the other hand, there are reports of economic misery among small businesses in the Occupied areas.

The net message is that the Occupy people are too busy having a good time and completely numb and indifferent to the economic plight that they are directly inflicting on others.

I do not yet see an effective counter-message coming from the Occupy side. Saying "sacrifice is necessary" is callous. Saying "Sorry" is not enough, because it won't pay the rent.  If they are really good at public relations, they would be raising money to help the small businesses while saying "We are all in this together." 

Hearts and minds are being lost every moment.

Since it is inconvenient to go around with a printed list, there is a smart-phone app called Guide To The Non-Cooperation Movement (《不合作運動指南》). So before you step into a shop, you bring out your smart phone and check whether that shop is on the boycott list.
 
As summarized from Internet comments, here is the guide to life after Occupy Central:

- You do your food shopping at the wet market. You never shop at supermarkets like Park 'n Shop, Taste, Fusion or Wellcome but 759 is pro-Occupy. You cook at home and you bring your own lunch to work.

- If you must eat out, you patronize small, decrepit-looking restaurants with fewer than 20 seats to be safe.

- You don't do overseas travel by air (because the Hong Kong International Airport is on the boycott list).

- You don't buy electronics from chain stores (Fortress, Broadway, etc). Instead you buy everything from second-hard stores in Ap Liu Street (Sham Shui Po district).

- You don't buy Apple Computer products (such as iPhone6) because they are assembled by Foxconn in China. Samsung and LG are out too. So you can only buy HTC (Taiwan) products. For computers, you use Acer (Taiwan) only.

- You don't buy clothes from emporiums/department stores.

- No more jewelry, obviously.

- You don't go into any of the large shopping malls (especially Festival Walk in Kowloon Tong district because its security guards objected to a demonstrator opening a yellow umbrella inside the mall).

- If you have to buy an apartment, you should buy a 30- or 40-year-old walk-up but not in one of the luxury estates.

- If you have to buy pharmaceutical drugs, you go to a pharmacy that doesn't use LED lamps (and not Mannings, Watsons and especially independent stores that cater to mainland Chinese travelers).

- You buy your own bottled water to drink and shower (never use tap water, because it comes from China); Evian (France) is okay but not the Bonaqua, Vitasoy, Watson's or Fiji brands.

- You buy newspapers/magazines at newsstands but never from convenience stores.

- You do not read Headline Daily and Sing Tao newspapers or East Magazine because they are anti-Occupy Central. Since their owner Charles Ho also has the tobacco concessionary, you will quit smoking and you will scream every time that you see someone else smoke.

- You don't watch any TV until Ricky Wong's channel HKTV shows up.

- As for your gas/electricity services, telephone/Internet services and banks, you are betraying democracy no matter which company you use. But you can't live without Facebook. Therefore, you are free to do whatever you want.

- The MTR, the cross-harbor tunnels, the buses and minibuses are necessary evils too. You are forgiven if you have to use them.

- You never buy anything that is Made In China, especially those yellow umbrellas.

- And since many schools and universities receive government subsidies, you should go study overseas instead. Reminder: You can't travel by air, and land travel will only get you to China. So you will have to travel to your destination by sea.

So have a happy Occupy life ...

(Female VO) I was born and raised in Hong Kong. I support the citizens' fight for democracy. I have been down to the Occupy areas to discuss current affairs with the students. But I have reservations about them occupying the streets in order to get universal suffrage. Therefore I am posing three question to the Occupy people. I hope that I can get answers from them.

The first question is: What is the direct relationship between blocking the roads, fighting for universal suffrage and civil referendum. Let me not even talk about how blocking the roads is breaking the law. Blocking the roads is not going to paralyze government operations. Instead it is going to directly affect the citizens who reside in the occupied areas and who have to go to work or use transportation. A democratic society has to consider and balance various interests. The Occupy people are sacrificing the interests of some citizens in order to gain democracy. Is that fair? The Occupy people are using the interests of the citizens as a bargaining chip with the government. What is the difference with robbers holding hostages as their bargaining chip to negotiate with the police?

The second question is: The Occupy people often criticize the police for enforcing the law selectively. The evidence is that the police tolerate and do not arrest suspects who may have taken part in physical assaults.  Whatever the circumstances, it is wrong to use violence to hurt others. But the Occupy people are blocking the roads and therefore they are also lawbreakers. If the police enforce the law, then shouldn't they also arrest the Occupy people in order to be fair? When the Occupy people holler that the police are unfair in enforcing the law and protecting criminals, do they realize that they are not only lawbreakers but also responsible for breaking down the rule of law?

The third question is also the most important question: According to the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme's June 22 civilian vote, there were about 790,000 valid votes. According to information from the Alliance for Peace and Democracy, the "Keep the Peace, Keep Universal Suffrage, Oppose Violence, Oppose Occupy Central" signature-gathering action collected about 1.5 million signatures. Ignoring the vote tallies or their authenticity, it is certain that more than one half of Hong Kong citizens have not taken a position. There are two main reasons for not taking a position. First, political coldness and indifference towards society.  Second, they do not identify with the positions of either Occupy Central and anti-Occupy Central. Under democracy, the minority obeys the majority. Since the majority of the citizens do not identify with the demands or methods of the Occupy movement, then how can the Occupy people raise the flag of civil disobedience to gain democracy?  When the Occupy people criticized the Chief Executive for being elected by a small circle, their Occupy method is to let a minority hijack the majority and to force others to accede to their demands. Does that fit in with the spirit of democracy?

I am a member of the silent majority. But silence does not mean absence of concern for Hong Kong. I hope the Occupy people can answer the above questions.

More interesting is the last table which provides a cross-tabulation of the support/oppose rate for CY Leung by (Had participated in mass gatherings of the Occupy movement/Never participated in mass gatherings of the Occupy movement). Out of 1,002 persons who answered that participation question, 180 said that they have participated in Occupy gatherings and 820 have never participated (Question: 180 + 820 = 1000, not 1002!?).

Remember that the survey universe is adults (persons age 18 or over).  According to Wikipedia (via the CIA World Factbook), the number of Hong Kong adults is 0.7*(424500 + 417900) + (454900 + 639700 + 471500 + 671800 + 587000 + 681700 + 503700 + 512600 + 479500 + 547700) = 6,160,780.

The estimated number of adults who have participated in mass gatherings of the Occupy movement is 6,160,780 x 180 / 1002 = 1,106,727. 

The estimated number of adults who never participated in mass gatherings of the Occupy movement is 6,160,780 - 1,106,727 = 5,054,053.

The most popularly understood principle of democracy is majority rule. Those who participated in mass gatherings of the Occupy movement are not the majority so far.  At least as far as these data from the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme show.

Here are my personal observations.

(1) You would think that this is the most significant event in the history of Hong Kong since the return to China in 1997, and therefore all major survey organizations must be running daily tracking polls to follow the scintillating plot. The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme runs omnibus telephone surveys, so adding an extra question like: "Have you participated in mass gatherings of the Occupy movement?" or "Do you support the Occupy movement?" should be very easy. But fully one month after the Occupy movement officially began, virtually nothing has been reported. Instead we get a comparison of the ratings of Chris Patten, Tung Chee-hwa, Donald Tsang and CY Leung and so on. Who cares!? The above Occupy participation rate information was contained in a sub-table of a report, and I had to back it out with a series of calculations. This should have been the top story of the day.

(2) The Occupy Central participation rate of 18% is likely to be overstated. This is a characteristic of famous mass events (such as Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech), wherein far too many people will claim afterwards that they were there. For example, in Robert Chung's article, if you look at HKU POP's estimate of the 2004 July 1st march, they eventually estimated 195,000 participants. But when they interviewed 3,512 adults later by telephone, 231 said that they participated in the march. The number of participants would therefore be something like 6,000,000 x 231 / 3512 = 394,600. This is more than twice the direct estimate of 195,000. So if the telephone recall estimate here is 18%, then the participation rate could actually be less than half as much.

(3) It was noted that the rating for CY Leung fell from 40.6 on October 6-9 to 38.9 on October 20-23. So he is more unpopular than ever. But why? That is not clear at all. One way of thinking is that CY Leung is being blamed for not bringing about "genuine universal suffrage." But another way of thinking is that CY Leung is being blamed for not clearing the occupied streets and restoring normalcy. The distinction is important because CY Leung is trapped between two sides and his inaction is displeasing both sides. Any action/inaction will please one side and upset the other. The question is: What are the numbers on the two sides? Even if CY Leung resigns as Chief Executive, the successor will be facing exactly the same dilemma. So where are the relevant polling data? Or are they too inconvenient to ask or publish?

(4) To be fair, the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme had previously conducted five waves of polling for the Ming Pao newspaper, the latest in May 2014 (see link). But how about an update? Here are the results on the question: Q4. There have been suggestions to fight for the implementation of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election in 2017 in Hong Kong via the Occupy Central with Love and Peace movement. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this suggestion?

  April 2013 July 2013 October 2013 January 2014 May 2014
Very much agree 9% 15% 12% 10% 9%
Quite agree 16% 17% 13% 15% 15%
Half-half 18% 13% 11% 12% 11%
Quite disagree 21% 21% 22% 25% 21%
Very much disagree 30% 25% 33% 33% 36%
Don't know/hard to say 7% 9% 9% 6% 8%

The Occupy Central movement has gone for one month. Reuters conducted an "informal" study at two major demonstration sites. Our study found that 87% of the respondents said that they plan to continue to demonstrate for one year or more.  93% claimed that even if the police clears the site by force, they will re-group elsewhere and continue to occupy the roads. 59% of the demonstrators said that their main motive for joining these demonstrations is to oppose the increasing control exercised by the Chinese government on Hong Kong. 38% said that an important factor for demanding democracy is "inequality of wealth." 55% of respondents said that they do no want Hong Kong to leave Chinese rule, whereas 45% hope so. Many people said that the movement reflected the desire to maintain Hong Kong's unique characteristics, including the Cantonese dialect, culture, freedom and capitalist lifestyle. 73% of the respondents said if the central government allows for civil nomination for Chief Executive, they will vote for the best candidate irrespective of political party affiliation. Only 20% said that they will choose a pan-democrat.
 
Technical note: This study is "informal" in that it is a street intercept with no probability sampling mechanism. You are getting whoever happens to be at that location at that time. The study universe is unknown, in terms of absolute size or comparative composition. That is to say, you don't know what this represents. It is not "all citizens", it is not "all Occupy participants", it is not "diehard Occupy participants", it is just whoever happened to be there at those times in those locations and willing to be interviewed. Also, there were only 121 respondents, which is inadequate. Most surveys will have 800 or more respondents.

I often hear people describe the general situation of Hong Kong's economy. Its key industries are: Financial services (including banking, insurance stock market, asset management, etc), trading and logistics (including freight transport), tourism (including retail, hospitality, food and beverages, transportation) and professional services (law, accounting, auditing, etc).  One reason why Hong Kong is so strong in financial and professional services is the "rule of law" (as compared to "rule of man" on mainland China). (See, for example, Chip Tso's Apple Daily article on October 28, 2014) 

A recent survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies (Chinese University of Hong Kong) is about Hong Kong's core values.  804 persons aged 18 or above were interviewed October 21-22, 2014 at 45.3% response rate. Respondents were asked to rate 11 core values (1) freedom (2) rule of law (3) democracy (4) just and corruption-free (5) diversity and tolerance (6) family (7) social stability (8) peace and benevolence (9) level playing field (10) market economy and (11) safeguard individual property. The top rated was 'rule of law' with 92.7 "agree"/"strongly agree."  "Democracy" came in at ninth place with 83.2% "agree"/"strongly agree." When asked to choose the most important core value on the list, "rule of law" came in first at 22.9%.  "Democracy" came in at fourth place at 11.1%.

In these Occupy Central days, the "rule of law" was the first to go. Squatting out on a roadway is illegal anywhere in the world, even in Hong Kong. Except the law must not be enforced because "civil disobedience" overrides it.


Here is a TVB screen capture of an Occupy Mong Kok demonstrator announcing: "I feel that the law comes second."

Also lost was the sense of a cohesive, unified society. Occupy Central has created rifts in social relationships, as people "unfriend" others of different persuasion. People are classified as Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons, Green Ribbons, Red Ribbons, etc. and dismissed. Civility has also been lost. Previously, open abuse is heaped only on a small number of people, such as Chief Executive CY Leung, Financial Secretary John Tsang or committee chairpersons at the Legislative Council. Part of their jobs involves being the targets of flying objects such as shoes and bottles. This rarely happens to pan-democrats.

But with Occupy Central, people are becoming ever more uncivil. Many prominent "pro-democracy" figures have been confronted in public by citizens and verbally abused. Rational discourse is impossible. Here is a compilation of YouTube videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2lt77E6Gks
Jimmy Lai, Next Media boss was eating lunch at a restaurant. A customer recognized him and yelled out: "This one is a Chinese traitor."  Other diners burst into applause.  Jimmy Lai stayed calm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXWUqh9M6Qw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2zlS1g8N3Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eemxa5H-vW8
(South China Morning Post) November 12, 2014.

Three men ambushed media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying this afternoon and threw decaying animal organs at the founder of Next Media outside a tent at the main Occupy protest zone in Admiralty.

Witnesses said the three men, who spoke Cantonese with a local accent, swore at Lai and told him to "drop dead" before they threw several bags of animal organs at his head around 4.30pm. "He was covered in the stinking organs afterwards, but did not appeared to be scared," said Ma Kee, an Occupy volunteer who witnessed the attack. "They did not appear to be amateurs and hit him [Lai] right in the face from six feet away."

Brief scuffles soon broke out as dozens of protesters nearby attempted to apprehend the three men, the witness said. The men were said to have had their hands bound with plastic straps before they were handed over to police who later arrived at the scene. Police led all three men away from the scene, but one of them was later sent to hospital after suffering scratches to his head. The men were said to be in their 30s.

Two women were also involved in scouting the scene near the tent where Lai has been staying since the Occupy protests began near the main stage on Harcourt Road, said head of a team of marshals at Admiralty Alex Kwok Siu-kit.

"One of them we recognised was the man who threw eggs at Long Hair [Lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung] earlier," Kwok said, adding that marshals soon followed them around as a precaution. "The two women soon left after taking pictures," he said, "Two men then came and delivered bags of animal organs to the man in black top and cap." The whole attack took less than 30 seconds, and Lai was had organs thrown at him twice, from two directions. Kwok said Lai left the scene immediately afterwards and did not say anything after the attack, except calling him to find his glasses he lost during the attack. Asked why the suspects were bound by plastic straps, Kwok defended the move "At that time, we didn't know whether the men were armed or not".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pl7qxov_3M&feature=youtu.be
Legislative Councilor Emily Lau (Democratic Party) went to a hair saloon, and was confronted by a woman. The woman did most of the talking and Lau kept a stern expression.
0:00 (Lau) They will continue to stand.
0:04 (woman) Lots of people in Hong Kong can't earn a living, so they will have to wait. You people don't mind. You think you can help? Can Hong Kong livelihood be changed that way?  People stand there for several days and nights. Why don't you stand too? Why are you looking so pretty? What are you making yourself pretty for? You want to stand. You are so well-dressed, you come here to get a shampoo and you look so pretty. That is ridiculous. You tell me that those people stood for several days and nights. Why don't you stand for a few days and nights? Why don't you stand for a few nights? You come here to get a shampoo and make yourself up like this. Really. I just don't see how things have gone. This is not proportional. This is not fair. Those people stand, those people sleep in the street. You come here to get a shampoo. It does not matter, but you should not tell me about people standing. You stand there and you obstruct me. I like to obstruct people. Many people have obstructed me from entering and existing many times. I have been obstructed for a long time. Occupy Central affected the businesses of many people.  Many people cannot make a living. They have been obstructed.

https://www.facebook.com/775416222580183/videos/783522395102899/ An actress plays Emily Lau in a spoof.
https://www.facebook.com/chan.johnsiuyan/videos/455214731330938/ An actress plays Emily Lau at the Hong Kong International Airport

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8mSYmbD9Tk&feature=youtu.be
Legislative Councilor Emily Lau (Democratic Party) is confronted inside a women's restroom by a woman who has her arms raised up in the signature Occupy Central stance. The woman did all the talking and Lau kept a stern expression.
0:31 (woman) I want to listen to her talk. You like to hear people express themselves. We are just little citizens. I want to express myself. You must be in a very good mood to get a shampoo.  Why are you not saying anything all of a sudden? You are very brilliant. Why are you not talking?
1:45 A female attendant tells the male cameraman that he should not be inside a ladies' restroom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC7aR-fa4B8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yum0HLKZl24
On December 16, 2015, Legislative Councilor Emily Lau (Democratic Party) tries to address a crowd outside the Legislative Council building to tell them about the Democratic Party's positions and intentions on the Copyrights (Amendment) Bill 2014. She is booed loudly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1jkhqVwQLg
Legislative Councilor Alan Leong (Civic Party) and Hong Kong University Student Union president Yvonne Leung stand outside the Lam Tin MTR station and get harangued by a woman. They have a problem with the two video-makers, who are taking video in a public place.  Leong and Leung say that they feel threatened by their presence. The video-makers ask Leong and Leung to call the police if they feel the need. The campaign atmosphere is totally ruined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjp_u-oYIzg&feature=youtu.be
Legislative Council Albert Ho (chairman of the Democratic Party) joins a Occupy Central sit-in. A woman comes up and starts cursing.
0:00 (woman) You are the leader. This leader. Are you human? You are so bad. Are you human? Huh?
0:27 (woman addressing the press) Hong Kong wants to be prosperous. Right or not? Everybody wants to have a peaceful meal. My sons have to get to work. My grandsons have to go to school.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX4aLYurB3Y&feature=youtu.be
Former Legislative Councilor Tanya Chan (Civic Party) is confronted in the street by a man.  Chan recently shaved her head in support of Occupy Central. She listened attentively.
0:00 (man) Democracy is not the freedom that you are asking for. You are depriving the freedom of we the people of Hong Kong in order to fight for your democracy.
0:08 (applause, "Good!" "Good!")
0:18 (man) This is not democracy. The British. The Labor Party. The Conservative Party. You tell me how they have civil nomination. You explain to me. I listened to you before. I regret it very much. Back then, I donated money. I bought two Wu'er Kaixi t-shirts. He pushed the students forward to die. I regret it very much. I regret it for fifteen years. You are using the Hong Kong students as your shield. Do you want to force the People's Liberation Army to come? When the People's Liberation Army comes, we will be the victims while you benefit. We are your political chips.
0:58 (man) It is very simple for you people. You people want to enter the election. You want to enter the election. You don't have to cause trouble for us seven million people. All you have to say so. We will give it to you. It can be discussed. You want to go past two barriers. We will give it to you.
1:19 (A woman carrying a baby comes up and speaks softly to the man)
1:20 (man) You can express yourself. You can go back to the silent sit-in. If you want to object to what I say, it does not matter. I have the right to express myself. I am expressing myself right now. You should not silence my voice. You go away. You remember me. My last name is Lui. I will not mask my face. I will not wear any "V" mask. I am telling you. Do not mislead those students.  National education. I listened to what Joshua Wong said. I also don't think that Hong Kong people should be brainwashed. But you under-estimated us. We don't need to be brainwashed. Instead the students have been brainwashed. We don't need to be brainwashed. Will you please wake up? Do not cause us any more trouble! Five minutes up already.

https://www.facebook.com/chukyuga/videos/10208498295229580/
In the subway, an unseen man tells Legislative Councilor Leung 'Long Hair' Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats): "Che Guevara fought against the Americans. 'Long Hair' accepted American money. Shame!"

- Well, here is a photo of Leung Kwok-hung scratching his foot in the MTR, to the consternation of the female passenger who had the misfortune of sitting next to him.

The woman should have harangued Leung Kwok-hung for exhibiting his "Hong Kong foot" (the local name for Athlete's Foot").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZzxXvKVaKw
Benny Tai, a member of the Occupy Central trio, used a microphone to address citizens outside an MTR station. A man is doggedly following Tai around as the latter speaks. This video is dated on July 13, 2014, before the Umbrella Movement began.
0:00 (Tai) Everybody can speak. Everybody has freedom. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of speech to express what we are fighting for.
0:10 (Man) Your freedom.
0:18 (Tai) Our freedom. A vote by all the people. Everybody can express their opinions. We can express our opinions.
0:29 (Man) You can have your freedom. But you must not interfere with my freedom. You have your freedom. But right now you are interfering with ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoEtN-_E-as&feature=youtu.be
Hong Kong Federation of Students Secretary-General Alex Chow was waiting at a bus stop when a woman came up to scold him. Chow maintained a calm demeanor and did not talk back.
0:00 (woman) Your mother gave birth to you. You were born pointlessly. You were born out of a mistake. You shut up. None of your business. You go away.  I am saying that your mother gave birth to you out of a mistake. She should have strangled you after she gave birth to you. You have read so many books, but you are creating calamities for Hong Kong. You are creating calamities for Hong Kong. Do you think the Chinese Communists will obey your order? You eat shit! You don't have to express your opinion. I just want to scold X you! (note: She said "X" in place of "fucking.") Then I am satisfied. You think you look fucking awesome after giving a speech on the dais. You don't know what you are doing. Do you know that when you come down here, many people want to fucking beat you up! Do you know? Do you know? What is there to be afraid of? What don't you die in a hurry? Don't bring this girl into this (pointing to a young woman). You have the wrong idea. I don't know what kind of studying you do. Of course you don't have know. Do you know how fucking bad it is to get to work? The buses are not running because you bastards are blocking the roads. Do you know? Do you know? You don't know what you are doing. Which company does your mother work for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miRs9SfK8oE
Yvonne Leung, a Hong Kong Federation of Students leader, is hounded by an unseen man using obscene language. This inexcusable behavior crosses all boundaries of civility.
0:01 Man: "I don't mind."
0:02 Leung: "Okay."
0:03 Man: "Don't push me."
0:04 Leung's male friend: "You control yourself."
0:04 Man: "Don't fucking push me."
0:06 Leung's male friend: "You control yourself. You control yourself."
0:07 Man: "Fuck your mother's stinking cunt! Fucking useless! Fuck! Say something. Now you say fucking nothing."
0:14 Leung's male friend: "Are you filming?"
0:15 Man: "Is this phone yours? This phone is mine."
0:18 Leung's male friend: "I was just asking."
0:19 Man: "What the fuck does this matter to you? Fuck your mother's stinking cunt! Now you are a coward. Hey, you bumped into me! You bumped into me! You touched my phone. You say sorry."
0:34 Leung's male friend: "Sorry."
0:34 Man: "Hey."
0:36 Leung's male friend: "I bumped into you."
0:37 Man: "Acting like a coward now!? Only good at making trouble!"

Addendum: (Ming Pao via Speak Out, Hong Kong)  Do you hear the people sing?  By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 27, 2014

This was the theme song for Occupy Central.  Recently when I received many videos of pan-democrats being ambushed, I began to hum this song.

Emily Lau got scolded in a hair salon and got her access blocked in a ladies' restroom. Lee Cheuk-yan was surrounded by passengers in the MTR.  Martin Lee was interrupted during a live broadcast. Alex Chow got hectored with foul language. Jimmy Lai was booed by other lunch customers. Tanya Chan got cursed out in the street ... I am worried as I doubt that these people: the Occupy Central Three, the pan-democrat Legislative Councilors, Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, Yvonne Leung, Joseph Zen, Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, Anson Chan ... will ever be able to lead a normal life after this matter is over?

The social rupture today is more than "I don't like you" and "you detest me." There are no middle-of-the-roaders anymore. There are two huge torrents, and it is a live-or-die situation.

The heroes of the Umbrella Revolution frequently invoke "the citizens of Hong Kong."  They believe that they are the spokespersons and saviors of 7 million citizens. They are fighting for the future of Hong Kong, so everybody else will have to be patient meanwhile.

I ask these heroes to step down from the clouds. They should get out of the occupied areas, leave their believers behind to go into the real world and get a feel of the public opinion.

Lee Cheuk-yan got into the MTR subway train. Within minutes, he quickly exited after being cursed out. Hey, you were elected to be a Legislative Councilor by the people. Why don't you stay and listen? Why don't you ask them: "Why are you so mad at me?" Are the opinions on the street not public opinion? Are the critical voices against you not voices?

Emily Lau got several tens of thousand of votes to become a Legislative Councilor. But now you cannot even take a leak in a restroom? Shouldn't you reflect on how those votes have turned into the state of siege today?

Heroes, you have over-used the term "public opinion."  If you really trust public opinion, you should not hide inside the occupied zones, you should not hide inside the Legislative Council, you should forget about your fancy slogans. You should talk to people in the streets, you should go into restaurants in order listen to the real voices. There may be a lot of obscene language, but obscenity is also a form of public opinion, an angry public opinion. Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry people. More and more citizens are angry. Don't you know? Or do you just not want to believe?"

Addendum: (Ming Pao) December 16, 2014

Scholarism convener Joshua Wong said on a Commercial Radio programme yesterday that he once got on a taxi to go to Admiralty. The driver probably didn't recognize him at first. But halfway through the trip, the taxi driver stopped the car at an intersection and said: "You get off!" Joshua Wong said: "Alright!" He explained that he did not bother to ask for the reason. "He knew that I was Joshua Wong and he would only have cursed me out!" He also explained that he has encountered other anti-Occupy taxi drivers. They would drive up when they saw him waving for a taxi. But once they saw who he was, they would speed off.

Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow took a taxi yesterday for the interview at Commercial Radio. The taxi driver was listening to the radio coverage of the police clearance of the Occupy Causeway Bay area, and mumbling to himself: "The place has been occupied so long already. Are they going to occupy it forever?" Alex Chow guessed that the taxi driver did not realize that his passenger was none other than Alex Chow himself.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily with video) November 22, 2015.

Recently there is a Facebook video in which Civic Party chief Alan Leong was campaigning on behalf of Bux Sheik Anthony inside a seafood restaurant. When some patrons spotted Leong, they got up and followed him around, saying "Pay your debt," "Chinese traitor," "a rat scurrying across the street," "you caused people to lose business," "you caused people to go out of business." Leong ignored these customers, pretending that he didn't hear them. He kept waving his hand at other diners. A patron cursed out: "What are you waving your hand at? You go and eat shit!" "Please do not contaminate Kai Yip district."

As Leong left the restaurant, he gave thanks to the patrons. One patron yelled: "No thanks. I don't want it." Leong and company left afterwards.

(Addendum) Passion Times @YouTube December 17, 2015.

Democratic Party legislator Helen Wong and Civic Party legislator Claudia Mo were surrounded by protestors out the Legislative Council. Mo fainted.

Also: (RTHK)

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/vb.832553626780002/1047325611969468/?type=2&theater

August 12, 2016. Tanya Chan (Civic Party) being yelled at by a male pedestrian. His gripe was that Tanya Chan told people to participate in Occupy Central and that she would represent them if they get into trouble. But of course she was nowhere to be found afterwards.

Festival Walk is an upscale shopping mall located in the Kowloon Tong district, just underneath Lion Rock.  On this day, a man and a woman entered the mall and opened out umbrellas.

(Transcript)
0:00 (security guard) You go outside. You can film anyway you want. You go outside. Can you please go outside!
0:08 (woman) Why can't I carry an umbrella here?
0:11 (security guard) Is it raining now?
0:12 (woman) Why is it that umbrellas can only be opened when it rains?
0:14 (security guard) If it isn't raining, then why are you opening an umbrella? You can go outside and open the umbrella, right or not?  Why?  I am telling you.  It is not raining now.  If you want to play, you can play outside.  Not inside the mall.  We conduct commerce inside the mall.
0:28 (woman) What is your name, mister?
0:30 (security director) My name is Tsang. I ask you to leave.
0:31 (woman) Why? What is the reason?
0:34 (security director) Because a customer complained to me, saying that one of you opened an umbrella and walked about, almost hitting that customer. Is this a reasonable justification?
0:45 (woman) I want to know where that citizen is.
0:49 (security director) I had to come and chase you people down. How can I ... ? It is useless for you to film. What kind of studying have you done? Will you please go outside, right?
0:56 (woman) I want to know what your sentence about "what kind of studying having you done?" is directed against?
1:07 (security guard) Do not come up with sly excuses. I have not studied much. Go outside, okay?
1:12 (woman) What has this matter got to do with studying?
1:17 (security guard) I haven't studied much. You are holding an opened umbrella. You are wandering around. You are wandering back and forth. I am asking you to go outside. Because they pay rent to this shopping mall. People come here to do shopping. This is not for playing around. I am asking you to leave. I didn't say that you cannot be here. You take the umbrella down and you can be here. But you shouldn't carry an umbrella and wander around. Right or not?  Close it. You can not say that you are not playing around.
1:46 (security director) Will you stop filming, okay? There is no point for you to film.
1:50 (woman) Why?
1:41 (security director) I have my privacy. You are filming me. You are intruding on my privacy.
1:52 (woman) This is in a shopping mall.
1:55 (security director) Are you filming me now? You are intruding on my privacy.
1:56 (woman) You can walk away.
1:57 (security director) Even though I am working, I still have my privacy.
2:00 (woman) Right or not?

Later in the day, a screen capture of a Facebook entry was posted on the Internet:


(in translation)
(The video clip taken earlier at Festival Walk has been turned into a private resource.  That is because I did not think carefully and I posted the faces of the security guards on the Internet. The reason why I uploaded the video was to make that conversation public to show the relationship between shopping malls and consumers. Inside a shopping mall, are we allowed only to consume? This is not just about the umbrella movement.  I am think more about daily life.)
At 6pm on October 28, one month after the first tear gas canister was fired, I and some friends stood silent with umbrellas in hand to remember the courage of the citizens before the tear gas.
We decided to raise our umbrellas at a shopping mall.  We want to use the umbrellas to remind the consumers there about the incident. But 30 seconds after we raised the umbrellas, the security guards rushed over to chase us away.
We reasoned with the security guards. The security guards emphasized that "we cannot demonstrate inside the mall." But we made it clear that we did not chant any slogans or hold any placards. We only want to stand silently with our umbrellas for a while.
The security guards got firm and said several times that would summon the police. We didn't understand why. Therefore, we tried to understand the reason why we cannot raise umbrellas inside the mall. As the video clip showed, the security guards kept talking about our differences in education level. They using "stop playing" and "stop interfering with others" to stop us when in fact there were couriers behind us hauling luggage.
In the end, we decided that we should not clash with the security guards. So we folded the umbrellas and left Festival Walk.

Internet comments:

- Why don't you take the train to Luohu and cross over to the Chinese side of the border while holding an opened yellow umbrella. The Chinese public security officers will answer your "Why?" "Why?" "Why?"

- Can you go to a movie and open up an umbrella when the film starts? There is always a right time and place to do something.

- Why? Go ask your professor. The next time you attend class, you take a front row seat and open an umbrella. If your professor tells you to close it, you can ask him "Why?"  He has read more books than you have, and he will give you the right answer.

- A shopping mall is private property, and the owner can remove anyone from the premises for whatever reasons. You wouldn't want someone to open an umbrella in your bathroom and watch you take a shower?

- And you think that this is so awesome that you posted the video clip on Facebook?

- First they occupied Central, then they occupied Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, now they occupied Festival Walk, next they will occupy Queen Mary Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Soon the Chinese Communists will renounce one-party rule, fire CY Leung and grant Hong Kong and Taiwan independence.

- I think that doing this on private property is really bad. You are only causing trouble to the security guards. If the security guards let you do your thing, tenants and customers may complain to management who will think the security guards are derelict in their dutiesIf the security guards stop you, you get unhappy and you make a video to post on the Internet. They lose either way. Now someone is talking about organizing a crew to go to Festival Walk and create mischief to get those security guards fired. Is that what you want?

- Who is your enemy? Xi Jinping, CY Leung or the Festival Walk security guard? Well, you don't have the money to travel to Beijing so you can't pick on Xi Jinping. CY Leung has too much security around him so you can't pick on him either. Therefore you pick on someone that you can -- the Festival Walk security guards! You are so brilliant!

- Just think -- some day, people like that will be running Hong Kong.

- Why are you asking me why? Why, oh why?

- They are not using pepper spray in the mall. Why do you have your umbrella raised then?

- Is this what comes of university students who happen to have read some books? How come the security guards come off as being infinitely better mannered?

- If a mainlander walks around the mall with an opened umbrella in hand, you would be calling her stupid, uncivilized and/or inconsiderate.

- You are meditating on whether you can only consume in a shopping mall. Well, the same applies to other facilities such as restaurants, jewelry stores, pharmacies, supermarkets, convenience stores, etc. Why don't you also do it in those places?

- How much were you paid to raise an umbrella at Festival Walk? $500? $1,000?

- The female Internet user who took the video shall henceforth be known as "Miss Why (點解姐)" because she kept asking "Why?" to everything.

Later, a Facebook group was founded to call for Internet users to converge on Festival Walk on Friday 7:30pm.

But this Facebook page has disappeared, possibly due to negative feedback. Here are some of the comments that were saved in a screen capture:


(translation)

Bill Kwan: Scholarism, please do not call for people to do this. Everybody thinks this is a naive act. What the security guards said was a problem with the security guards. To take revenge against Festival Walk will hurt the public image of the movement.

Vicky Jim: Actually I don't understand why you insist on doing things that make people hate/despise you. It may be wrong for them to admonish you for opening an umbrella. But you are going to cause trouble because of their mistake. Is the enemy the government or Festival Walk?

Early Morning: Do not forget our original intentions. We are targeting the government, not the shopping mall management! I think if you are really unhappy, you can write a letter of complaint. If you cause trouble at the shopping mall, the media will make a big deal and we will only lose hearts and minds!

Matt Chan: Whenever you are dissatisfied, you go and open an umbrella? I have to ask just what the instigator has been studying? There are plenty of dissatisfied voices around. You are opposing for the sake of opposing, or opposing for the entire social movement? The Blue Ribbons cause trouble for money, but you cause trouble for the sake of causing trouble?

James Lee: Festival Walk is not a government place. The security guards acted because they received a complaint. Are you not going to stop until they lose their jobs ...?

Allan Lau: I oppose! Don't do any more pointless things that impact others.

(Oriental Daily) October 31, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTW-Rzapt-M


This evening, several Occupy Central supporters responded to the Internet call and came to Festival Walk to raise umbrellas. A photo posted on the Internet showed that four umbrellas were raised, as twenty to thirty people surrounded them to take photos.

(Apple Daily) October 31, 2014



[Internet users identified the smiling man in the middle as Tam Tak-chi, a member of the radical political party People Power]

(The Standard)  Hunt for cop-seeking slasher.  October 27, 2014

A 32-year-old man was attacked by a knife-wielding stranger and slashed several times after being asked if he was a police officer.  He was then chased by the assailant into a Tai Kok Tsui public park, but managed to give the pursuer the slip by ducking into a bathroom. The victim, surnamed Leung, was then taken to hospital, where he was being treated for his wounds.

Police described the suspect as 1.8 meters tall, about 35 to 40 year old, with dyed golden hair, and wearing a white shirt.  An identikit has been sent to all police officers. Leung said he was about to get on his motorcycle when a stranger approached and asked: "Are you a policeman?" Before he could answer, the suspect pulled out a 15-centimeter knife and slashed him. Leung used his helmet to block some of the blows but was nevertheless struck in the head, hand and neck.

According to CCTV footage, the attacker, with his right hand injured, ran into a building on Tong Mi Road and took the lift to the 13th floor and then down to the third floor. Police found bloodstains on both floors. Two knives were found in a rubbish bin on Tong Mi Road. A source said the attacker had asked seven people on the street whether they were police officers.

All reporters received the same debriefing from the police.  Here are the reports in four Chinese-language newspapers:

(headlines in translation)

Top left (Oriental Daily): "Are you a policeman?"  Man with two knives slashes male motorcycle rider.
Top right (Ming Pao): "Are you a policeman?"  "Ice"-user/slasher arrested.
Bottom left (Hong Kong Economic Times): Asked "Are you a policeman?"  Man slashed in Tai Kok Tsui street
Bottom right (Apple Daily)  Asked "Are you a Yellow Ribbon?"  Slasher slashed passerby

In the actual Apple Daily report, it first says:

The motorcycle rider named Leung was asked: "Are you a policeman?"  Before Leung could respond, he was slashed by the man with the foot-long knife. 

Several paragraphs later, this report says:

According to information, at least three others passersby had similar experiences.  Someone with a knife asked them: "Are you a policeman?"  "Are you a Yellow Ribbon?"  The three got scared and ran away. 

Therefore, using "Are you a Yellow Ribbon?" in the headline is misleading. The Yellow Ribbon question may have been posed to some other individuals, but not to the slashing victim himself.

- Why are you acting as if you are a media watchdog? In Hong Kong, the media can report a story however they feel like. This is known as FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

Q1.  The Occupy Central demonstrators ignored the High Court order of restraint and continue to block the roads.  Is that a problem?
40%: They will have to accept the consequences of contempt of the court
31%: They are ignoring the rights of others.
18%: They are refusing to obey the law
9%: There isn't much of a problem here
2%: No opinion
 
Q2. The Occupy Central demonstrators ignore the law but the government is unable to clear the demonstration sites.  Is there a crisis for law enforcement in Hong Kong?
36%: Law enforcement is being challenged and demeaned
27%: Hong Kong's core values are being impacted
20%: Law enforcement is being blocked
16%: There isn't much of a problem here
1%: No opinion
 
Q3. What is impact of the blow against law enforcement in Hong Kong?
41%: There is a crisis in public safety
20%: Not a lot of impact
19%: It affects how the government can cope with crises
16%: Citizens are losing confidence in law enforcement
4%: No opinion
 
Q4.  The Occupy Central demonstrators are using the blockage of major traffic hubs as their main bargaining chip with the government.  How does this affect demonstrations later on?
40%: There won't be any peace in Hong Kong afterwards
24%: They will do the same again
17%: The demonstrations will get more heated
17%: Not a lot of impact
2%: No opinion
 
Q5. What is the impact (if any) on Hong Kong if Occupy Central were to continue?
29%: All commercial/industrial sectors will be impacted
26%: The Hong Kong economy will be hurt for a long time
24%: Not a lot of impact
19%: The big-time predators will attack the financial markets
2%: No opinion
 
Q6.  What are you most concerned about the impact of the Occupy Central movement on Hong Kong as a whole?
46%: It will paralyze governance, and hence impact people's livelihood
19%: There will be consequences that will last for a long time
18%: It will impact the long-term social development
14%: Not a lot of problems
3%: No opinion

0:00  In the beginning, Captain America is posing for fans when a young woman with a faked shrill voice goes after him in a very sarcastic manner.
0:10  Female: Thank you for promoting freedom in Hong Kong.  Thanks a lot.  The Chinese government thanks you.
0:18  Female: Take off the helmet.  Do not wear a helmet.

The second clip starts with CY Leung's insinuation about foreign interference in the Umbrella movement, and then shows Captain America manning the barricades.  Then the same young woman confronts Captain America once more.
1:05 Female: How is Raymond Wong doing now?  How are the finances?  No money?  I think you know him.  Get some more Avengers.  Get a few more.  You are just one.  You can't do it alone.
1:34 Female: You use illegal methods to prevent others from legally doing what they would like to do.  That is wrong, Captain America!  You should go back to America to do these things.  The American government will support you.  This is China here.  America and China are different worlds.
1:55 Captain America: (inaudible, but seemingly in Cantonese)
1:58 Female:  What are you saying?  Why don't you say clearly what your want?
2:00 Another male bystander: He is speaking in English.  You don't understand.  You need an interpreter.
2:04 Female: It isn't English.  It's English.  Damn.
2:18 Female: What is best about Hong Kong?  The best thing about Hong Kong is the rule of law.  It is fully developed/perfected.  What you are doing is destroying the rule of law.
2:37 Female: You explain.  You explain to the camera.  I will post it on the Internet.  Speak quickly.  I have just taken a lot of film.  I am out of memory space.  I am going to give you five seconds.  Start.  I am giving you five seconds to prepare.
2:40  Captain America: (inaudible)
3:05  Female: The thing I asked you to explain previously.  You didn't explain it.

The third video is taken at the demonstrators' main tent.
3:26  Female: Do not go to work.  Do not go to school.  Dissolve the Legislative Council.  You are hiding your face.  This is known as wanting to show off your bravery but nevertheless wearing a helmet for reasons of personal safety.
Captain America walks away.

The fourth video is taken afar while Captain America has his helmet off.  Thus, he is identified.

Now that the face of Captain America has been revealed, another video was found with apparently the same man waving a British flag.
4:34 Unseen male voice: Fuck your mother, you dog slave!  You go back to England.  You go back to England and eat shit!  Dog slave!  Fuck you, that's right!  Fuck your mother!  Fuck you!
4:59 A little old lady comes up to struggle with the demonstrator.  He pushes her away, and a mob of people rushes up.  A man says, "He hit the grandma!"

The sixth video was taken on October 24 by television station TVB.
5:50  It showed some people trying to dismantle the barricades that were erected by the demonstrators.  Captain America slammed an old man with his signature shield.  The old man fell to the ground in shock.  Captain America was arrested by the police and escorted away with a full phalanx of 30 police officers through a riotous mob of photojournalists, each wanting to take their potential prize-winning photograph.  It is odd that he was led away with the shield still in hand.  Isn't that supposed to be a deadly assault weapon (just go and watch the Captain America movie trailers on YouTube)?
(newspaper photo)
7:09  (caption)  Apple Daily showed how Captain America was taken away by 30 police officers, but they did not show how he shoved the old man to the ground with his shield.  Thus, Apple Daily continues to conceal all the unpleasant dark aspects of Occupy Central and prettify the violence.  TVB's news channel showed the relevant parts of the video, but TVB did not show the part about how the old man got up and continued to dismantle the barricades.

This story will not end here.  Captain America will post bail and be back to occupy Mong Kok very soon.  We will be seeing how Captain America continues to spread America's message in Mong Kok ...

Addendum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKWJMeOHZrY Interview with digital radio station dbc:

0:01 (Interviewer) I see that your shield is completely chipped.
0:04 (Andy) The shield has undergone some clashes
0:05 (Interviewer) Why did you choose this shield as a tool?|
0:10 (Andy) Eh ... actually ... we ... this shield. Eh. I did not choose the style. Besides ... I thought that it looked good. In addition, the shield ... when I went to the store to make a purchase, they did not have any other shield. This was the only shield.
0:26 (Interviewer) Are you worried that you would be accused of being a foreign power because you are holding the Captain America shield?
0:28 (Andy) Eh ... I am not afraid. I obtained this shield as a defensive tool. It is not meant to deliberately show myself off.
...
0:46 (Andy) I fuck your mother!
0:46 (Policeman) I have issued an warning to you. Okay? I hope that you follow the arrangement by the police. You are charging the police defensive line.
0:51 (Andy) I didn't.
0:52 (Policeman) You did.
0:54 (Andy) Okay.
0:54 (Policeman) We'll bring you to a safe place so that you can leave.
0:55 (Andy) Okay.
0:58 (Policeman) So this is what you are going to do.
...
1:02 (Andy) Then he took me aside. He issued a verbal warning to me. He said that I charged at the police defensive line by the HSBC Bank. Eh ... then he mentioned the unlawful assembly ... eh ... Actually, everybody is in the unlawful assembly. He told me not to show up at scene again. "You leave." That's it. I thought that it went through the left ear and exited through the right ear. The Movement continues ...

Addendum: Cable TV has a special segment that includes Captain America (YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXryhmJcRcA). At 2:14, the interviewer quizzes Captain America on his understanding of issues related to the election process.

0:24 (VO)  After the police took away his Captain America uniform and shield, Andy says that he has only these equipment left.
0:27 (Andy) The helmet must be worn.  It is very important to protect the head. 
0:33 (VO)  He usually works as a lifeguard.  He is currently out on bail, and is waiting for the investigation to end on suspicion of having committed physical assault.  He is continuing to spend full-time on the Occupy movement.
0:38 (Andy's grandmother)  Don't put that thing on.  That ribbon.
0:43 (Andy)  This movement has been open and transparent from start to end.  What is there to be afraid of being filmed?
0:46 (Andy's grandmother)  Of course, I don't want him to go out.  It is outright dangerous.  Then you have to go to prison.  You are being prosecuted.  How are you going to get a job when you get out?  I think he basically does not know what he doing.  Maybe he was persuaded.  Maybe he got to know some friends.  This is a chance to become famous.  You have enough fun.  I feel very helpless.  Obviously I feel extremely bad.
1:57 (Andy)  How are you?  How are you?
2:00 (woman)  You look handsome.
2:02 (Andy) Thank you, thank you.  It is not about being famous.  It is genuinely about giving my effort to this movement. To fight for Hong Kong civil rights.
2:14 (interviewer)  What are the three barriers set up by the National People's Congress?
2:16 (Andy)  The three barriers?  I don't know how to describe the details.  But ... I actually ... how shall I say? ... that is, I don't care what barriers were set up by them.  But I ultimately want to obtain the right to genuinely elect the Chief Executive by one-person-one-vote.  That is, there has to be civil nomination.
(2:35) (VO)  It is still unknown whether they will be able to attain their ideals.  But they have already "pocketed" something during this month. 
(2:40) (Andy)  More friends.  More courage.  Even if there are many policemen surrounding us from behind, I am not facing them alone.  A large group of supporters are facing them.

(SCMP) Police claim Occupy protesters wearing costumes are hiding from the law   October 26, 2014.

Chief Superintendent Steve Hui Chun-tak made the remark at yesterday's daily press conference. "Some were dressed in different costumes, concealing their own identities as if they were going to a carnival. However, the fact remains that this is an unlawful assembly which has affected many people."

His comments came 24 hours after a man dressed as fictional character Captain America was arrested during a disturbance in Mong Kok. Highlighting the physical confrontations that have become routine at the Mong Kok Occupy site, Hui criticised "selfish" participants acting contrary to the principles of civil disobedience by not showing "a willingness to accept the legal consequences of their actions".

However, for Andy Yung Wai-yib - the man behind the Captain America costume, who has been released on bail - dressing up is a way to protect himself and to provide a comic buffer between protesters and troublemakers. It was his way of bringing creativity and peace to the civil-disobedience movement, he said.

Yung, a lifeguard, was arrested on Friday. An anti-Occupy protester who was trying to clear some of the barricades fell down as Yung tried to keep him away, he said. He returned to the protest site on Friday afternoon wearing his normal clothes, because his costume had been confiscated by the police.

"I usually come by in my costume in the afternoon and evening when incidents are known to flare up. It helps in defusing some of the arguments, which could turn violent," said Yung, 30. The chief superintendent, however, said costume wearers created more chaos than peace. Yung said: "I'll be more low-key now, and will just sit with the rest of the Occupiers." He won't be buying a replacement outfit any time soon, he said, but he will continue to support the movement.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) November 19, 2014

At around 4pm, the 30-year-old man who calls himself Captain America and wears helmet/armor was walking down Argyle Street and Portland Street when he was hit with a hard object from behind. He called the police for assistance.

The police arrived at the scene and suspected that the attacker was a bespectacled man pushing an old woman in a wheelchair at the time. According to this man, Captain America went by, kicked the wheelchair and uttered an obscenity. The police did not make any arrests.

Addendum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxcaI_zMmHk 20-minute-long interview.

Addendum (Oriental Daily) January 11, 2015.

The Justice Alliance and the Alliance in Support of Our Police Force set up a street booth in support of legislation that criminalizes insulting the police. Captain America showed up with a British flag. He was cursed out by ten or so persons. They called him a Chinese traitor. The police maintained order. In face of the angry crowd, Captain America ultimately folded his British flag and left under police escort.

Addendum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73dWlMucTzw At an Alliance To Support Our Police rally on January 25 2015, Captain America showed up with a Hong Kong independence Dragon-Lion flag. But he was outnumbered. A man threatened to set the flag on fire with a lighter, so Captain America quickly left the scene.

Addendum (Oriental Daily with video) January 30, 2015. See also Bastille Post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I81SMNqQPQ.

The lifeguard Andy Yung Wai-yipg was charged with two common assaults against anti-Occupy taxi drivers who were trying to clear the road obstructions on October 24 and November 3 2014 respectively. Yesterday, he was allowed to post a $2,000 bind-over order and put on probation for 12 months. In addition, he has to compensate the two victims $500 each. According to the prosecutor, the defendant wore body armor at a sensitive time and caused uneasiness among people. Therefore, the prosecutor asked to confiscate his equipment. After consideration, the judge decided to confiscate only his Captain America shield.

Internet comments:

- Amazing! Only twelve months probation for two common assaults. Meanwhile the guy who picked up $161,500 dollars that fell from an armored car got 5 months' jail time. This society is out of whack.

- He doesn't need to go to jail. He is suffering from bipolar disorder and belongs in the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital.

- The next time you see this guy in the street (for example, at the February 1st Civil Human Rights Front march, he says that he is bringing his Hong Kong independence flag), you can provoke him. If he punches you, he goes directly to jail for violation of his good behavior probation terms.

- What happens to Captain America when his shield is confiscated?

- How come Thor, Iron Man and The Hulk didn't show up at courtside to give him support?

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) March 1, 2015.

Captain America also showed up in full armor, including helmet, goggles, armor plate, knee guards, elbow guards and gloves. He said that he wanted to participate in the march, but he got off at Yuen Long Station instead of the Long Ping Station. But as soon as he stepped out on the platform, he was attacked by three middle-aged men without cause. Eventually he arrived at Long Ping station. He said that the full armor was used to protect himself and that he did not intend to attack other persons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfEXICLs2Z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P0Qvk35IEw

Addendum: (YouTube) Letv: The autistic Paralympics swimmer Andy Yung from Hong Kong.

Addendum: (Apple Daily) 14:39 March 15, 2015

Captain America Andy Yung was walking on the overpass from Sheung Shui Plaza to the MTR station when he was intercepted by police officers and searched. He said: "I knew that they want to deliberately harass me, because more than a dozen uniformed police officers came to search me." He said that he expected to be searched and therefore he won't bring any dangerous materials on him.

Internet comment: When you dress up like a robber, it is a wonder if the police didn't stop and search you.

Addendum: (Oriental Daily) February 9, 2016.

On the night after the Fishball Revolution, 32-year-old Andy Yung was taken by the police back to his home in Cheung Ching Estate to collect evidence, including the clothing that Yung wore at the time as well as five mobile phones.

(in translation)

I listened to what Lau Yung said.  I have two things to say to Lau Yung.  Firstly, any movement ... any movement ... the most important concern will never be what the most radical group of people think.  It is what most people think.  That is to say ... for example, the 1911 Revolution ... you cannot follow the thinking of those people who want to throw bombs to kill the Qing dynasty lords and change your general direction.  No movement succeeds by accommodating the most determined elements.  All movements must gain the sympathy of the majority in order to succeed.  This is essential.  Actually radical elements can't go anywhere because there is no other direction to run towards.  That is what is called moral courage.  I keep talking about moral courage.  They are doing the completely opposite.  The success of social movements in Hong Kong is not based upon the most determined 2,000 persons.  Instead, it depends on three ... five ... at least three million people giving their support.  You cannot afford to let one to two thousand people alienate you from the majority of Hong Kong people.

The other point is that what Lau Yung said yesterday clearly violates what I said about the latest news.  There are two big problems with the logic.  Firstly, about the question of sacrifice.  About causing inconvenience.  Everybody knows that when you put up any resistance, it is bound to cause a certain degree of damage.  This is a necessary evil.  You must reduce this necessary evil down to a minimum.  And whether it is within the bounds of tolerance.  Why is filibustering (at the Legislative Council) alright?  Because it can be ... in the end, during the filibustering, Chan Wai-yip let the measures related to livelihood pass.  Because your direct opponent is the government.  It has the right to make immediate concessions.  This matter does not involve any third party.  The government can put livelihood measures forward.  Your chess opponent is the government.  The policies that the government passes do not take effect immediately in the short run.  Therefore people won't feel much pain.  You are not stabbing someone directly with a knife.  That is what it is like.

Alright, the demonstrations.  Or the Occupy Central that I advocated.  Actually, it is something in which victory or defeat can be decided in three days or so.  In this Occupy Central, the government is either going to disperse you or else it surrenders in three days.  We occupy Central.  We are threatening the financial core of Hong Kong.  The damages.  The stock exchange closes for three days.  Stock prices fall.  Three days later, the matter is resolved.  Stock prices rise back up.  Basically those are rich people.  They take three days off.  Sometimes when a typhoon hits, they take three days off too.  Right or not?  If the outcome can be determined in three days, we think the necessary evil is tolerable.

Fine, but this is not how it is right now.  That is, you have attacked for one week.  The government refuses to compromise or hold any dialogue.  And you landed in Mong Kok, Causeway Bay and Admiralty.  Hey, you are directly doing ... you are directly doing something that is hurting the livelihood of civilians.  Moreover, you are unable to answer one question.  Unable to answer two questions.  One question is: Do you think that you will win if only you can remain firm for one or two more days?  No.  You don't think so at all.  Do you think ... ?  You tell me how long you will be doing this.  Chan Chi-chuen says that he will be doing this indefinitely.  Of course, the damage caused by this thing has gone up from three days to seventeen days.  Then you tell me that you will keep doing this indefinitely.  One month?  Two months? 

You are getting millions of people into this.  Let me suppose that some people deserve this.  Those people living in the Mid-Levels have to spend several hours more in commute time.  They are stuck in traffic several hours a day in Admiralty.  These are rich people, and therefore they deserve it, even though some of these people have kids in elementary school and kindergarten.  Fine.  Causeway Bay and Mong Kok.  You cannot say that these are all "fifty-cent gang people."  You are actually affecting the lives of these people.  For some people ... for some stores ... according to Apple Daily interviews, business has fallen off by 70% to 80%.  If that person's business is already marginal and you keep this going for seventeen days ... one month ... you can't even say for how long ... somebody is going to go bankrupt.  Or perhaps someone works in sales for such a shop.  Seven or eight thousand in wages, seven or eight thousand in commission.  You caused her to lose five to six thousand in commission.  When the end of the month comes around, she won't be able to pay her rent. 

If in a certain movement, you consider the feelings of one to two thousand people but you cannot see the qualitative difference with the hardships created for other people ... and this is significant ... you cannot say that it is not significant by this point.  Never mind about traffic inconveniences.  This is morally bankrupt.  If you want to blame the Hong Kong SAR government ... this is like the story of King Solomon trying to resolve the case of two women claiming to be the mother of one baby.  He asked both women to hold the baby and pull.  The true mother did not pull, because the baby will die if both women pulled hard.  The SAR government is a bastard and it will pull.  You say that the SAR government had better let go and you pull hard.

In Lau Yung's thinking, these things are insignificant.  This has no ... this is being callous.  This is completely indifferent to what people go through.  You only want to achieve your goal and you don't care what you have to do.  This is not taken as a significant consideration.  Every time that you cause damage to someone, you must consider it first.  The July 1st march.  How much damage will it cause?  Is the damage proportionate to what you can attain?  You cannot see victory ahead and you don't know how long you must persist,  yet you want millions of people to suffer.  Furthermore, you unfairly make a small group of people suffer even more severely than others.  This is morally bankrupt.  And the purpose according to Lau Yung is to placate the feelings of those one or two thousand most radical persons.  I find this completely unacceptable.  This kind of movement has no appeal whatsoever.  No attraction whatsoever.  No appeal whatsoever.  It will alienate itself from the people.  Thank you watching my program.

1.  Why Occupy Central will fail for certain?

Occupy Central may be picking up steam now, but nobody knows how it will all end.  The demonstrators claim that they will not stop until total victory is achieved.  It is not certain what this victory is.  We can speculate that it should be mainly about the National People's Congress rescinding their decision and CY Leung resigning.

A demonstration is like a battle.  In a battle, strategies and tactics are required.  Not many people will weep if CY Leung departs, because all these Chief Executives are useless anyway.  The power to rescind the National People's Congress' decision does not lie with the Hong Kong government.  CY Leung can hang himself or set himself on fire, and he still can't make the National People's Congress do that.  The demonstrators are doing their thing in the wrong place.

So the strategy is wrong.  But what about the tactics?

Work/school/business strike and Occupy Central.  These are the basic tactics of the demonstrators.

Central District is where the Hong Kong financial district is.  Some bank have been were closed down.  The credit rating for Hong Kong has not been impacted so far.  But if Occupy Central goes on longer, it is going to be impacted.  Hong Kong already has no manufacturing industry left.  Quite a bit of the container cargo business has gone to Shenzhen, Shanghai and Tianjin.  Hong Kong used to be the window to China.  But China has now opened its gates wide open to the entire world.  Trade can go directly through the front gate, and not hop through a window.  The site of Hong Kong Disneyland was originally planned to be another container ship dockyard, but it made way for the theme park.  When Shanghai Disneyland opens up, Hong Kong Disneyland will be in tears.  The only strong sector left in Hong Kong is finance.  The most significant aspect about finance is trust.  The Hong Kong people have managed to wreck that trust by themselves.  They cannot claim that they were never warned about it.  Central District is also a commercial district.  When stores are shut down for long periods of time, they will have to lay off employees.  The demonstrators will have to fight it out with the unemployed workers.

The most eye-catching people among the demonstrators are the students.  School strike is basically an act of self-mutilation.  They claim the moral high ground by hurting their own selves in order to gain social sympathy and thus affect government policies.  The Hong Kong students may gain the sympathy of some Hong Kong people, but they won't get the sympathy of mainlanders.  The demonstrators think that they don't have to care about what mainlanders think, but this is going to hurt them.  Right now, the Hong Kong government cannot accede to the demands of the demonstrators (note: because it is not within their power to do so), the Central Government will surely ignore those demands and the mainland citizens don't care.  Therefore, the students are engaging in meaningless self-mutilation.  The western world is watching this show unfold, wishing for more chaos; what is funny is that the mainlanders are watching the show too, in fact wishing for more chaos.  What is worrisome is that the Hong Kong people who should be worried about more chaos are still thinking that the outside world must dance to the tune of their music.  When will they wake up?

The business strike thing is the same, being another act of self-mutilation in order to seize the moral high ground.  Hong Kong business people have not gone this way.  But if the Hong Kong government used force, that might be different.  But I am "confident" about the Hong Kong business people to the extent that they won't strike for any longer than a few days.

The main point of a workers' strike is that it is designed to hurt the workers as well as the employer.  This is like chemotherapy which kills both normal and cancerous cells.  The hope is that the cancerous cells will die faster than normal cells which will survive in the end.  The Hong Kong strike has as its target "universal suffrage" and the employer is "the interests of Hong Kong".  Both will be hurt, but the National People's Congress will not be hurt.  Therefore, such a strike is sheer suicide.

In order to win the battle, the strategic objectives must be achievable.  The tactical objectives must be to attack what the enemy must defend and to defend what the enemy must attack.  Right now, the strategic objectives are not achievable.  Tactically speaking, the enemy does not care what you attack or defend.  So what is the point of continuing?  The strategic objectives are wrong-headed, and the tactics are even worse.  Therefore Occupy Central will fail with certainty.

2. Too many mistakes

The Hong Kong demonstrations have gone on for more than 20 days with no sign of stopping.  The demonstrations contains more citizens than students.  Foreign correspondents are excited, and they tirelessly compare the situation to Beijing 1989.  They speculate on when Beijing will deploy force.  Actually, there is plenty of misunderstanding here.  Westerners and many Hong Kong people are completely misreading the situation.

Beijing is the capital city.  If Beijing is paralyzed, the whole nation is paralyzed.  The government will not permit the situation to continue on.  Therefore, they must take action.  But Hong Kong is a semi-detached special administrative region of China.  In 2014, Hong Kong's economy is like afternoon tea to mainland.  It is not the main course.  It is nice to have when you have some spare time, but you won't miss anything if you skip it.  If you are really hungry, it won't satiate you.  The Hong Kong economy contributes zero to the finances of the Central Government.  Therefore, if Hong Kong is paralyzed, the Central Government won't think that it is a major problem.  Conversely, if Beijing intercedes, people will criticize them whatever it is that they do.  If they sit back and do nothing, they will always be right.  So it should be clear what they will do (or not do).  Beijing has already said: "The sun will still rise tomorrow."

There is a BBC analysis that said that Beijing cannot afford to wait because the seeds of democracy and individual rights are being planted among young people.  The longer Beijing waits, the more the seeds will ferment.  Thus, there will be more trouble waiting for Beijing.  Never mind how long the Hong Kong student demonstrators can hold on, but many of our generation in the mainland who walked away from that Square years ago, either directly or indirectly, will not repeat the act if they have another chance.  The Hong Kong students will do the same.

Another BBC analysis said that another reason why Beijing cannot afford to wait is that the 1989 demonstrations went on for seven weeks and spread to other cities.  Therefore, Beijing had to act forcefully.  Right now, the probability of the Hong Kong demonstrations spreading to other mainland cities is zero.  This does not mean that discontent does not exist on the mainland.  It does not mean that mainland people will not demonstrate.  Instead, mainlanders have grouped Hong Kong people into "us" and "them."  The demands of the Hong Kong people (the resignation of CY Leung, or the rules of the Chief Executive election) mean nothing to them.  In fact, mainlanders feel a lot of schadenfreude when Hong Kong becomes paralyzed by the demonstrations.  It should be said that much of this came about because of the attitudes of Hong Kong people toward mainlanders.  The Hong Kong people were the ones who made the grouping of "us" versus "them."  Such being the case, "we" cannot be expected to support "their" demonstrations.

The BBC analysis quoted a Hong Kong demonstrator: "We do not seek to change China.  We only want to implement democracy in Hong Kong."  No matter how this is articulated here, the actually meaning is this: "Who gets to have the say in Hong Kong governance?"  "One country, two systems" was designed by a genius, but it is also a confusing business.  It all depends on the time and place.  When nothing happens, everybody is happy with this confusing thing.  When something happens, different interpretations can create problems.  On the issue of Hong Kong, a big question is whether "One Country" or "Two Systems" comes first?  The issue has exploded into the open this time.  It is not that Beijing does not want to solve the issue.  Article 23 and patriotic education were both initiated by Beijing, but the "two systems" of the Hong Kong people stopped them.  Will this happen again this time?  The Hong Kong demonstrators certainly think so.  But they are mistaken.  They are still thinking: "Chinese people want to save face.  The Hong Kong demonstrations have embarrassed them.  Beijing must react immediately.  Beijing cannot afford to be seen as 'suppressing democracy'.  They can only surrender."  That is a huge mistake!  The main point about Hong Kong now is not "democracy"; it is about "sovereignty".  Sovereignty not only with respect to other countries, but also internally.  The fundamental issue is about governance.  Whether the National People's Congress made the right decision is one thing, but challenging the right of Beijing to make decisions about universal suffrage is touching the bottom line about sovereignty ...

3. After the demonstrations

The Hong Kong demonstrations have moved into a new phase.  There are two matters: Dialogue and clearing the demonstrators.

Shortly after the demonstrations began, there was already call for establishing a dialogue.  The Hong Kong Federation of Students had been very forceful about the basis of dialogue: Chief Executive CY Leung must resign; the Hong Kong government must apologize for using tear gas on September 28; the political reform proposal must be withdrawn.  The HKFS refused to speak with CY Leung, and they want to choose whom they will talk to.  On the government issue, CY Leung had no intention to speak directly with the students anyway, and so he sent out Chief Secretary Carrie Lam and her underlings.  The HKGS made demands on the location and format of the meeting.  They also said that they will continue the demonstrations in order to apply pressure.  The government announced the cancellation of the dialogue because the students were insincere.  After more classes and disturbances, an intermediary interceded to revive the dialogue.  This time, the HKFS did not seem to demand much, but the government began to establish pre-conditions such as holding the dialogue under the framework of the Basic Law for which only Beijing has the right of interpretation.  The HKFS emphasized that there should not be any pre-conditions, but in the end said that they have "no opinion" about the framework.

Will the dialogue amount to anything?  Basically, it seems unlikely.  The students were demanding things that the Hong Kong government cannot grant.  The Hong Kong government cannot make those decisions.  Conversely, the students are not interested in whatever the Hong Kong government can offer them.  So what happens after the dialogue ends with no result?

CY Leung said that holding the dialogue is a separate matter from clearing the demonstration sites.  He did not say that he was ousting all the demonstrators.  The Hong Kong police stated clearly that they were not doing that, but they were clearing debris to open some roads for vehicular traffic.  If the Hong Kong government sits and waits, there may be clashes between pro-Occupy and anti-Occupy people which can easily spin out of control.  Whatever the outcome, it will always be the government's fault.  It will be worse if there are casualties.  Therefore, the government must act.  ...

The Occupy Central Three have basically lost control.  The HKFS have exhausted their appeal.  The remaining demonstrators do not obey their commands.  They are also worried about the ensuing lawsuits.  Even if they get off, or if some kind-hearted person pays their legal bills and fines, their reputations will be in tatters.  The ideal outcome for Occupy Central is that the police injures some people and they can call for a retreat in order to avoid more unnecessary casualties while claiming the moral high ground to condemn the government and the police.  Whether they can do that remains to be seen.  The police cannot be that dumb.  They will probably clear the roadways and drive the demonstrators back onto the sidewalks.

There is no chance that the Hong Kong government will use force to suppress the demonstrators.  Beijing won't allow that.  The Hong Kong police are undermanned, and their loyalty cannot be counted upon.  After all, when the police officers go home, they are still the relatives and friends of demonstrators.  They may not sympathize with the demonstrators, but they may not be too enthusiastic.  Any application of force will create rifts in social relationships.

It is possible that maybe a majority of Hong Kong people sympathize with the demonstrations.  Even those who oppose the demonstrations probably do not feel that the students' demands are unreasonable.  Instead they are concerned about the impact on their livelihoods.  But whether the demands are reasonable no longer matters at this point.  The important issue, "Who is the boss?"  The "one country, two systems" problem has been tabled for too long.  It is not a bad thing for it to come into the open now.  It does not matter what the Hong Kong people think or do, there can be no compromise on the issue of sovereignty.  There could have been a solution by political negotiation, but that possibility is foreclosed now.  Ultimately, the loss belongs to all Hong Kong people.

After these demonstrations are over, the Hong Kong people will harbor more resentment against the mainland.  There will be further outbursts over time.  Beijing should be ready for that.  On the other side, mainlanders will harbor more resentment against Hong Kong people, and provide support for Beijing to harden its Hong Kong policies.  There will be more conflicts between Hong Kong and the mainland, both at the government and civilian levels.  "One country, two systems" was originally designed to set an example for Taiwan.  Now that there is trouble in Hong Kong, Taiwan will find it impossible to accept "One country, two systems."  Beijing is aware of that.  Fortunately, there has been a fundamental shift in military power across the Taiwan strait.  Taiwan independence is out of the question.  This is not an ideal situation, but it is at least controllable and much more reliable and predictable than trying to use soft power to persuade Taiwan to unify.  As for Hong Kong, they will be seeing the carrot and the big stick.  The big stick will not be hidden from sight.  The big stick won't be the PLA garrison in Hong Kong.  It will be economic benefits and one-sided favoritism.  There won't be any more free gifts.  But if Hong Kong tries hard to develop just like the mainland cities, it may still enjoy the same privileges as other mainland Special Administrative Regions.

Hong Kong likes to dream about independence.  "Prior to 1997, Hong Kong was booming; after 1997, Hong Kong slid downhill.  So let us become independent."  These people have no idea that Hong Kong's prosperity came from a set of unique historical circumstances, and its relative downfall is a historical shift in those circumstances.  They can make more noise.  But as long as they only talk about it, you can ignore them; if they actually act on it, you can put them down accordingly.  Article 23 may not be enacted, but there are plenty of other excuses.  Tax avoidance, jaywalking ... you can always find a reason.

Attention should be paid to foreign capital.  Hong Kong is still a major financial center.  But its position is not irreplaceable.  Alibaba did not choose to be listed on the Hong Kong stock market.  Instead, it went to New York.  If Chinese-capital companies leave Hong Kong for New York and elsewhere, it may be better for those companies.  Asia-Pacific capital markets are known as bearing high risk, whereas New York has a better reputation for stability than Hong Kong.  The western world is also anxious to profit in China, and that is why Alibaba was well-received in New York.  Beijing will not play this card casually, because it will be fatal for Hong Kong.  Besides, there is no need yet.  But a card is a card, and it can always be played.

As for foreign capital, the owners and shareholders may sympathize with the students.  But their goal is to make money.  Even if they prop up a government, they are still doing it for the money.  They invest in Hong Kong because of the natural relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland.  If they see hostility growing between Hong Kong and China, they may determine that it is unwise to continue the investment.  It is true that many foreign investments in China are run from headquarters based in Hong Kong.  But you know about the gated compounds in America?  These are up-scale residential communities surrounded by high walls and armed guards.  All persons coming and going have to use card keys.  The people living inside feel good because they are not threatened by the outside world while enjoying all the best things in life.  In truth, they are locking themselves in a jail.  Hong Kong is like a gated compound for foreign capital invested in China.  But some day the "outside world" is no longer so accommodating.  Instead of being compliant, they give angry looks and sometimes even impede access.  Will the residents continue to stay there?  If the hostility between China and Hong Kong impacts the business, foreign capital will leave.  Moral support is just a slogan, and capital does not talk politics.  Some people may donate a bit of spare change to the opposition party, but business is business and they will leave if they have to.

4. How Beijing sees Hong Kong.

If I were Beijing, this is the best opportunity to let Hong Kong understand "Who is the Boss"!  The demands from the Hong Kong demonstrators can only be satisfied by Beijing.  But Beijing does not have to do anything because they can throw it all back to the Hong Kong government:

HK government: "These are all things that only you can deliver.  You must take charge."

BJ: "I told you already.  I won't accept a single thing.  But Hong Kong affairs shall be handled by the Hong Kong government.  You must take charge of this matter."

HK government: "I can't hold them back any longer.  Hong Kong will be ruined before too long!

BJ: "Hong Kong won't be finished.  (Sigh)  Besides, even if Hong Kong is finished, the sun will still rise."

HK government: "If you won't take charge, I will have to clear the demonstration sites by force."

BJ: "No force must be used to clear the demonstration sites!  There cannot be any casualties!"

HK government: "Then what can I do?"

BJ: "Hong Kong affairs shall be handled by the Hong Kong government.  You come up with a way yourself."

My guess is that CY Leung will not use force to clear the demonstration sites unless he has Beijing's permission.  There may be a loyalty problem within the police if force is applied.  CY Leung will be clearing limited areas, such as the access path for workers at Government Headquarters and the main shopping areas.  Then he will sit and wait.  There are a lot fewer demonstrators now.  It is said that more people come out at night.  So let us wait and see how many people are left.  Other citizens will be demanding that these demonstrators withdraw for the sake of their livelihoods.  The demonstrators won't have the patience and energy.

For Beijing, the most important thing is to insure that these demonstrations end up with nothing accomplished!  The issue of universal suffrage will not be settled.  This setback will leave a deep impression.  The Hong Kong people will realize that their position with respect to Beijing is not what they thought it was.  The foreign "black hands" will realize that Hong Kong no longer serves as a political lever on China.

Also, if I were the State Tourism Bureau, I would not be anxious to restart individual visit program from mainland to Hong Kong.

Q: "Why are you stopping the individual visit program from mainland to Hong Kong?
A: "The Occupy Central demonstrations in Hong Kong are a threat to the personal safety of mainlander tourists.  Therefore, we are stopping individual trips temporarily."
 
Q: "Are individual trips permanently stopped?"
A: "No.  Hong Kong is a part of China.  There is no reason not to let mainland tourists to go to Hong Kong."
 
Q: "Now that the demonstrations are over, why aren't you restarting individual trips?"
A: "This matter is on the meeting agenda.  We are considering the issue of restarting individual trips."
 
A: "When will they restart?"
Q: "We don't know yet.  The State Tourism Bureau was not established solely to look over individual trips to Hong Kong.  We have other work to do.  We have to develop individual trips in other countries and regions.  Hong Kong is just one of many."
 
Q: "What happens to the Hong Kong tourism and retail industries?"
A: "We have confidence in the people of Hong Kong.  We have confidence in the Hong Kong economy."

5.  Will the disturbances in Hong Kong continue?

At first, the demonstrators shared the same objective of bringing the emperor down from his horse.  But CY Leung stated that he would not resign and then the anti-Occupy Central voices began to rise.  The demonstrations began to lose its momentum.  Then the Hong Kong government canceled the meeting with the HKFS and the police cleared the scene.  So the demonstrations picked up again.  What happens next?

At this point, Beijing does not even make an appearance.  Apart from some official statements, they act as if nothing is happening.  Maybe most Hong Kong people realized that Beijing will not concede this time.  Since the demands of the demonstrators cannot be satisfied by the Hong Kong government, it is meaningless to continue to demonstrate.  But the demonstrations continue nevertheless, apparently for the long term.  There are several reasons.

(1) Most of the demonstrators were not organized to go into the streets, nor were they there on account of the Occupy Central Three and the HKFS.  They came out spontaneously on their own.  Their reasons may not be just the demand for universal suffrage.  Instead they are emotional, and they will not accept losing this "battle for justice."  These are "our" streets which "they" will be be permitted to take away.  We must take the streets back.  This is a personal grudge match between them and the Hong Kong government that is threatening to become a long-lasting feud.

(2) The students are calling for universal suffrage.  But there are many other factors behind Occupy Central, including inequality of wealth, soaring housing prices, lack of social mobility, etc.  Occupy Central has become the outlet for those Hong Kong people to vent their discontent.  Even if it is known that Beijing will not concede on universal suffrage, these other demands are still out there.  These demands are not directly connected to Beijing, for they are more like the responsibility of the Hong Kong government.  Although things have changed, many Hong Kong people are unable to deal with the relative decline of Hong Kong.  They are anxious and depressed, and they cannot see a way out.  These demonstrations allow them to vent their frustrations.  They won't give up unless they see some sign of hope.  Actually, this is even more remote than getting Beijing to loosen up on universal suffrage.  Not many Hong Kong people realize that, especially those who are in dire straits.

(3) Traditionally the police are "domineering."  "You do whatever I say."  This is the same everywhere.  During these demonstrations, the Hong Kong police were placed under restrictions and suffered a lot of grief.  When the time comes to hit back, it would come as no surprise to see them over-react.  Their actions would be trivial in the United States, which these demonstrators hold in such high esteem.  This can hardly be called police violence.  But the police actions subjectively caused the demonstrations to re-ignite.  The police become "them", who represent "the Forces of Evil."

(4) The demonstrators are mainly students and other young people.  In the eyes of the "adults," young people all over the world are alike: they seem to be "soulless", they have no sense of responsibility, they won't endure hardship, they only want to have fun and lead an easy life.  On the other hand, young people are unhappy with their present states.  They are particularly anxious about the future.  They feel that society do not understand their needs and won't communicate with them.  This is nothing strange.  Even in a prospering society, young people will feel anxious.  It is like going out to row a boat.  The boat is still at the dock.  You raise one foot in the air, you step out and you get anxious about ever reaching the boat.  Under such circumstances, if you can give them a set of goals and discipline, you can get an explosion of energy which even they did not know exists.  Thus they are touched by their own energy.  And then the energy gets out of control, unless the organizers and instigators are observant and capable.  Once these people get started, it becomes a stampede that cannot be stopped...

(5) The dialogue between HKFS and the government was meaningless before it ever began.  The HKFS initially demanded strict conditions without which they would not talk.  Then they got upset at the unilateral decision by the Hong Kong government to cancel the meeting.  Then they had "no opinion" to the conditions posed by the Hong Kong government.  It does not matter whether the HKFS goes ahead or withdraws, because they have been marginalized.  The Hong Kong government has also been marginalized because the decision-maker is Beijing which will not even make an appearance.  Any dialogue will be a waste of time.  It is merely a face-saving measure.

Of course, things will eventually come to a halt.  The western world wants Beijing to send out the military to suppress.  Beijing isn't that stupid.  The PLA headquarters in Hong Kong is very near one demonstration site, but the PLA shut the gates and refused to come out.  The demonstrators did not provoke them either.  Unless some brash person charges the barracks, this may be the quietest place in Hong Kong.  The Hong Kong police lack the numbers to suppress the demonstrations, and the Hong Kong government may not have the will to do so.  Beijing will not permit the Hong Kong government to make a bloody suppression.  So what will happen in the end?  This stalemate looks to continue on for a long time.  This will greatly increase the friction between the demonstrators and the residents.  You have your demands, but I have my livelihood.  You cannot ignore my livelihood because you want your freedom.  Clashes will occur.  The Hong Kong government may clear the demonstration sites in order to avoid civilian-to-civilian clashes.  But the government is unable to clear the sites, and so Occupy Central will continue for a long time.  The result is this: Some people are going to ignore the economic reality of others because of their own political demands.  Democracy was supposed to be about improving people's livelihood.  In this struggle for democracy, democracy has damaged people's livelihood.  Ultimately, the name of democracy is being sullied, and the pan-democrats have become the evil-doers.  The biggest taboo in democracy is to hurt people's livelihood.

Therefore, it is better to let the demonstrations continue.  The good thing is that the pan-democrats are digging a hole in their support base.  If they don't do this, they won't receive any attention to their future calls.  But they have gone too far, and they will be detested afterwards.  As for the relative decline of Hong Kong, these demonstrations will make clear what is happening.  It will help the Hong Kong people see where they are.

The western media often say that these demonstrations constitute the biggest political crisis for Beijing since 1949.  They actually don't know what they are saying, for they know nothing about Chinese politics.  Look at popular opinion on the mainland: quite a few people are encouraging the demonstrators to continue, but these voices come more likely from people who want to watch the self-destruction of Hong Kong than from supporters of the cause.  Just compare the intensity of mainland discussion of Occupy Central compared to the Bo Xilai trial or Xinjing terrorism.  So this is the biggest political crisis for Beijing?  Beijing's Hong Kong-Taiwan policies had reached a dead end, as "One country, two systems" becomes harder to operate.  But now things have actually become clearer.  The world is ridiculous in this way.

The western world has given the name "Umbrella Revolution" to these Hong Kong demonstrations.  It is said that many umbrella-themed works of art have appeared.  But do you know that these umbrellas are "Made In China"?

Depending which clip you watched, you can come away with completely different opinions about what happened.


[The Ming Pao picture shows Bronstein standing on the car hood and the car owner pointing at her to get off and telling her to get off.

[By the way, here is the Foreign Correspondents Club statement about the case of Paula Bronstein when it first happened.]

(SCMP)  October 18, 2014

The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Hong Kong last night defended its decision to release a statement that suggested police were threatening reporters covering the protests. On Friday night, only hours after journalists were caught between police and protesters in violent clashes, the FCC released a statement condemning police for the arrest of an American photojournalist, Paula Bronstein, and alleged threats to other reporters.  The club received about a dozen responses to the statement yesterday, several criticising it. One critic said: "It seems that you are condoning Ms Bronstein's illegal acts and are apparently advocating that journalists should be above the law. However, they are not." Club president Jitendra Joshi stood by the release. "We have every right to be concerned about signs that some police officers have been trying to intimidate journalists covering the protests, and to speak out about it." Joshi said Bronstein jumped onto the bonnet of a car because she felt "physically threatened". He added: "We thought she didn't deserve to be arrested for that, or to be detained all night."

Bronstein was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage after the driver complained to the police.

Yesterday, the 60-year-old freelance photographer for Getty told the Post that she had made a snap decision as she feared for her personal safety. "Somehow I ended up in the space where I was shooting the police and then they were coming towards me and getting pushed into the vehicle. It was borderline chaos. "It was a very fast-moving situation, pushing and shoving, very tense, very volatile and I was absolutely worried about my personal safety. It was a split second decision, I wasn't up there long. The driver got p***** off and the police arrested me." Bronstein took one photo when she was on the bonnet and that image explains the reasons for her actions, she said. "If you look at that, it's pretty obvious. You have one policeman with his arms outstretched trying to hold back what looks like 500 people." Asked if she felt it was acceptable to jump on the car, she said: "Experienced, mature journalists make decisions based on the threat level, on the situation at that moment." She added that her situation "should have been handled in a mature way, without an arrest, with a conversation". "I was wearing sneakers and I'm a very petite woman, I'm not an elephant," the Bangkok-based photographer said.

She was released, after paying bail of HK$300, to report back to police later this month.]

(SCMP) Row continues as driver insists US photographer scratched car bonnet during Occupy protests. December 6, 2014

A war of words continued yesterday between a US photographer and a car owner who accused her of criminal damage, after a court allowed the photographer to be bound over to keep the peace.

Award-winning photojournalist Paula Bronstein said she never saw the 15cm scratch the car allegedly sustained in October at the Occupy Central site in Mong Kok. Bronstein told the Post the driver, financial analyst Tammie Tam, had asked her lawyer if he could spend the compensation on areas other than repairing his car.

But Tam said he had asked if he could hold the money for later use as he had lent his car to a friend.

It was Bronstein, 60, who approached him about settling the matter outside court, he said. Bronstein, a Pulitzer Prize winner who freelances for Getty Images, said: "It wasn't true."

Earlier yesterday, prosecutors in Kwun Tong Court decided not to press charges against Bronstein for allegedly damaging the bonnet of Tam's car. Principal Magistrate Ernest Lin Kam-hung allowed her to be bound over with HK$2,000 for two years, meaning if she did not commit any crime in Hong Kong, she would not have to pay. The ruling came after the parties agreed undisclosed compensation and an apology.

Bronstein said her lawyer had told her Tam asked if he could spend the money on areas other than car repairs. "It was really telling," she said.

Tam said he was "disconcerted" by her comment, adding that he agreed to the bound-over order because she was willing to offer an apology letter.

Here is another video of the arrest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeMI_KzE7PE .

The second part of the video is a split screen.  The left screen is from Cable TV and shows the police clearing the scene in Mong Kok.  The right screen is from TVB and shows an interview with a driver who refuses to move his car in the recently cleared road because he supports Occupy Central. 
 
(Left screen) At 0:38, there is an emotionally distraught man in tears.  He is described as a demonstrator camper who was just forced to leave.  He is wearing a grey t-shirt.
 
(Right screen) At 0:28, (Female VO) "But there are some drivers who are not happy.  They would rather make the detour.  They think the people who are fighting for their demands should be respected."  Then the same man wearing the same grey t-shirt is shown as the driver in the idled car.  He says: "I am not satisfied.  I am not satisfied.  I think that the road should be left for citizens to use.  It does not belong only to car drivers.  Society needs people to express their voices.  Violence should not silence them."
 
Can there only be one person in Hong Kong that all media outlets interview under his different roles (demonstrator, passing driver etc)?  Can this be sheer coincidence? (probability of 1/(7 million) multiplied by 1/(7 million))

Well, the same individual also got interviewed by Bastille Post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdkeMFz3kfM in the Occupy Mong Kok area before the clearance. Either the universe of Occupy people is small, or else reporters are very lucky.

The first wave (see PDF link) was conducted in September 10-17 in which 1,006 Hong Kong Cantonese-speaking residents aged 15 or above were interviewed by telephone.  The results are weighted by gender, age and education to population census data.  The response rate was 43%. 
 
The second wave (see PDF link) was conducted in October 8-15 in which 802 Hong Kong Cantonese-speaking persons age 15 or above were interviewed by telephone.  The results are weighted by gender, age and education to population census data.  The response rate was 37%.
 
Here are some selected results.
 
Table 1. Do you support the Occupy Central movement?
September 10-17
14.2%: Very much support
16.9%: Somewhat support
20.5%: So-so
12.5%: Somewhat do not support
33.8%: Very much do not support
2.2%: No opinion/refused to answer
October 8-15
18.6%: Very much support
19.2%: Somewhat support
23.2%: So-so
8.7%: Somewhat do not support
26.8%: Very much do not support
3.5%: No opinion/refused to answer
 
Table 4. Do you think that the police used tear gas (note: on September 28) in an appropriate way?
October 8-15
13.7%: Very properly
8.4%: Somewhat properly
17.5%: So-so
15.4%: Somewhat improperly
38.3%: Very improperly
6.7%: No opinion/refused to answer
 
Table 6. Do you think that the police dealt with the clashes between the Occupy Central people and anti-Occupy Central people in an appropriate way?
October 8-15
12.2%: Very properly
14.4%: Somewhat properly
23.1%: So-so
19.8%: Somewhat improperly
22.5%: Very much improperly
8.0%: No opinion/refused to answer
 
Table 10.  Do you think that the Legislative Council should pass the proposed legislation for the 2017 Chief Executive election?
September 10-17
29.3%: Pass
53.7%: Veto
17.0%: No opinion/refused to answer
October 8-15
36.1%: Pass
48.5%: Veto
15.4%: No opinion/refused to answer
 
Technical notes: I have ignored certain cross-tabulations and questions that I consider to be impossible for people to answer meaningfully.  You can read the whole thing yourself.

The poll results are not consistent with common beliefs as to what has been going on, namely that events have caused erosion in support for Occupy Central.  Why so?  Some people point out the response rates of 43% and 37% are very poor here.  By comparison, the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme typically gets response rates over 65%.  Either they are not trying hard enough with more calls here, or else people are refusing to cooperate with them.  This is speculative in the absence of detailed technical information.
 
Even more problematic are the weighted distributions of political affinity:
September 10-17
3.7%: Radical democrats
35.8%: Moderate democrats
24.1%: Middle/neutral
4.1%: Pro-establishment
1.9%: Business/industry
3.1%