Occupy Central

[400] Rubbish! (2015/12/10)

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 10, 2015.

A rubbish bin at the demonstration area outside the Legislative Council building was set on fire on Wednesday night, causing a small explosion. The incident occurred after a planned rally against the new copyright bill was cancelled. Two men are wanted by the police. A burnt gas cannister was found near the rubbish bin after the explosion. No one was injured when the incident occurred at around 8:30pm.

Mr Cheung, a witness, told local media that he saw four to five people dressed in black clothing with face masks near the site before the explosion happened. They pushed down a barricade in the demonstration area, and left towards the MTR station shortly before it went off. Firefighters arrived to investigate shortly after.

The police said that “two men came close to the bin, set fire to a substance and threw it in the bin. The bin then caught fire and exploded. The two men then left through Tamar Park.” They said they believed the explosive device was a modified gas canister. Some parts of the incident were captured by LegCo security cameras.

The two men seen fleeing the scene were each 1.7-metre-tall and of slim build. One was wearing a mask and a dark-coloured jacket, black trousers and a black backpack. The other also wore a mask, a light-coloured jacket and dark-coloured trousers, the police added.

(SCMP) December 10, 2015.

A police manhunt was under way on Thursday for two suspects involved in an explosion last night outside the Legislative Council building where a rally - which had been cancelled - was due to take place against the controversial copyright bill. Two men in surgical masks were seen igniting objects and hurling them into a rubbish bin in the demonstration zone outside Legco in Admiralty at about 8.30pm yesterday, police said. A fire ignited inside the bin, followed by an explosion. The pair were seen fleeing towards Tamar Park, police said. “We believed the explosive device was a modified gas canister,” said Chief Inspector Chan Chung-kuen of Hong Kong Island regional crime unit. “Some of what had happened was captured by Legco security cameras.”

No one was reported injured in the case, which was being called an act of arson. There was no damage aside from the charred bin. A container of butane commonly used for mobile stoves was left near the bin, along with a deformed plastic container of medical alcohol and burned paper.

A witness at the site said he heard a noise and saw about five men wearing black clothes fleeing before the explosion. He said: “Then I saw a rubbish bin on fire … there was a ‘bang’ four or five minutes later followed by a strong gas odour. The bin’s cover flew up about 30cm.”

Another witness described a flame in the bin followed by an explosion, causing the rubbish inside it to “fly all around”. He was among about a dozens protesters lingering within the area despite the a rally against a proposed new copyright law earlier being cancelled.

Shortly after the explosion, a nine-second-long video clip showing the bin on fire and the explosion was uploaded on YouTube by social media site TMHK.

Asked whether the video clip could help in the police probe, Chan said he could no speculate about who might have been involved as an investigation was ongoing.

The pair seen fleeing the scene were each 1.7-metre-tall and of slim build. One was said to be wearing a dark-coloured jacket and a backpack, while the other wore a light-coloured jacket and dark-coloured pants.

(SCMP) December 16, 2015.

A group of protesters suspected to be linked to last week’s blast outside the Legislative Council building has been identified by police after poring over security camera footage, the Post has learned.

This came ahead of today’s rally against the controversial copyright bill as a radical pan-democratic lawmaker has vowed to adjourn the bill, a move that Liberal Party’s James Tien Pei-chun said the party would support.

The Federation of Trade Unions, another pro-government party, said it would discuss what to do today, fuelling uncertainty to the political showdown at Legco’s second reading of the bill that has been dubbed “Internet Article 23”.

Force insiders said initial investigations showed they belonged to a local radical group who went online to call on people to take part in a rally against the second reading of the copyright bill originally scheduled last Wednesday.

The meeting, however, was adjourned as too few lawmakers were at the meeting and the rally organised by concern group Keyboard Frontline was cancelled. The blast happened at about 8.30pm. The second reading of the bill is expected to be resumed today and the protest will take place from 4pm onwards.

The group that had been identified called themselves “black bloc” members because they wore black clothing, sunglasses and face masks to conceal their identities, one source with knowledge of the investigation said. A photo depicting an image of “black bloc” was posted by radical group Hong Kong Indigenous last Tuesday ahead of the protest. The group called on supporters to follow suit.

Police refused to comment if the group identified was Hong Kong Indigenous. “They are anti-government protesters. It seemed they wanted to cause a mess in Hong Kong,” said one source. It is understood the gang consisted of more than 10 locals. The source said police had identified some members of the gangs, adding that “arresting them is just a matter of time.”

Videos:

(TMHK Truth Media Hong Kong) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQdjNEVcpaM
(TVB) http://news.tvb.com/local/5669548b6db28ca55a000007/ News report. According to eyewitness Mr. Cheung, "On the way over, I saw four or five men dressed in black like robbers leaving. When I turned around, I saw a rubbish bin on fire. About four to five minutes later, there was a loud bang and the rubbish bin lid jumped up about 30mm into the air." The police said that the surveillance video showed that "Two men got near the rubbish bin, set something on fire and put it into the rubbish bin. Afterwards there was a fire and then an explosion. The two men left in the direction of Tamar Park."
(DMHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEVk7BTTbOQ News report.

Internet comments:

- In 1995, Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 persons.
In 2015, the Hong Kong Black Bloc set off a bomb outside the Legislative Council building and set a rubbish bin on fire.
- Portable gas cooker? Gas canister? Kerosene bottle? Nobody has heard of C4 or TATP? This proves that the Hong Kong Independence Movement desperately needs to have a Technology and Innovation Committee to lead its valiant warriors out of the stone age.
- Is this the single spark that will start a prairie fire?
Will the people of Hong Kong respond by rising up now to overthrow the dictatorship?
Is this how the Chinese Communist regime falls?
The answer to these and other similar questions is NO.
But there is a real possibility that more draconian security laws will be introduced in the name of combating terrorism, thanks to news headlines such as these.

Oriental Daily front page
EXPLOSION OUTSIDE THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
TERRORISM RAISING ITS HEAD
Debating the copyright bill
Demonstration area rubbish bin set on fire with gas canister
- And who would be happiest if Basic Law Article 23 on national security is passed? The Chinese Communists. Therefore, this so-called rubbish bin fire bomb must be a false flag operation.
- The fire was set off at 830pm. At 130pm, the Legislative Council meeting was adjourned due to a lack of quorum. Shortly afterwards, Keyboard Frontline called off its 7pm gathering that was scheduled to be held in the demonstration area of the Legislative Council in anticipation of a vote. Since there shouldn't be anybody (not Legislative Councilors, not demonstrators) around, the purpose cannot be to injure anyone, although the bombers could have injured themselves if they are not adroit with handling bombs.
- TMHK reported that some people did not approve of Keyboard Frontline's unilateral decision to cancel the assembly and they showed up anyway. This photo was taken at around 630pm. So there were probably a dozen or so demonstrators.

- Shortly afterwards, a video was uploaded onto local media TMHK. The accompanying news report says "At around 830pm, more than a dozen demonstrators dressed in black suddenly toppled the metal barricades in the Legco demonstration area and then dispersed quickly. Our reporter did not observe any police officers stopping them or giving chase. Afterwards a rubbish bin in the demonstration area caught fire and then exploded several seconds later. So far nobody has been injured. The other dozen or so demonstrators not wearing black at the scene also fled quickly from the scene. There were only several reporters left in the demonstration area. Our reporter spotted a gas canister, a kerosene bottle and some trash such as paper container for beverages."

Later, TMHK added that their reporter heard that the black-dressed demonstrators toppling the metal barricades, the explosion of the rubbish bin in the demonstration area and the sounding of the fire alarm in the Legislative Council building occurred at the same time.
The above is contrary to Wen Wei Po's report, which says that the police saw on the surveillance videos that the two masked men set off the fire alarm first to draw attention and then went back to the demonstration area to set off the firebomb.
- Whoever took the video was part of the arson but did not take credit.
- I know who did it -- the Symbionese Liberation Army! It encompasses all anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-communist, anti-racist, atheist, feminist, pro-LGBT, anti-American, anti-British, anti-Chinese, anti-colonialism/anti-neo-colonialism movements coexisting in symbiosis.
- Men in black? They're imitating the Black Bloc (Wikipedia):

A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches where individuals wear black clothing, scarves, sunglasses, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding, or other face-concealing and face-protecting items. The clothing is used to conceal marchers' identities and hinder criminal prosecution, by making it difficult to distinguish between participants. It is also used to protect their faces and eyes from items such as pepper-spray which law enforcement often uses to stun. The tactic allows the group to appear as one large unified mass, and promotes solidarity.

United Kingdom: Black Bloc and police clash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bArldeCM9E
Mexico: Black Bloc riots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcZi6ZYjmVM
United States (Pittsburgh): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6qpYliAjXY
Cairo, Egypt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmt9h3XAxFc
- Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook on Black Bloc

- (Wen Wei Po)

On Tuesday afternoon, Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) posted a photo on Facebook. The model in the photo wore a zipup hoodie with goggles, masks and black scarf. He wrote that this was an illustration of the dress code for bicycling in the winter. "Inside the zipper is a piece of normal clothing. Inside the normal clothing is the body armor. The zipup is intended to be thrown away as soon as you finish bicycling so that you can become a normal person again." He added: "It goes without say about the clothes! You must have them! The helmet depends on your need. If you want to ride in front, you should wear it because you may get hit by tree branches. Those in the back need to think about what to do to clear the path for the front row."
Meanwhile certain City-State supporters are telling each other on Facebook about whether to get the "shark suits." "Group buying is possible," "30% off on two pieces, 40% off on three pieces." According to one City-State cadre's video titled "Going to BBQ on Wednesday," people should remember to bring their "tools" and "changes of clothing." Furthermore, once they arrive, they will not acknowledge any other persons so that they can't be arrested together.
- Why should the police bother to arrest anyone? The magistrate is just going to say that since the fire lasted less than one minute and the defendants have no prior records for arson, all defendants should be released immediately on one-year good behavior bonds.
- Legislator Raymond "Mad Dog" Yuk-man predicted this a long time ago. (The Standard) During a Legco meeting yesterday, independent member Raymond Wong Yuk-man said petrol bombs instead of eggs might be thrown at officials in future, to protest against what he described as the government's "fake consultation" on universal suffrage. Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah was hit on the head by an egg thrown by a protester last Saturday, RTHK reports.
- Apple Daily reports that what the Keyboard Frontline spokesperson said: "We believe that it was just a prank." So was Occupy Central, we presume.

- Resistance Live Media expels a rat fink.

Resistance Live Media is a media organization formed by cultural studies professors, PhD/Masters graduate students and alumni. They mainly record and report on various resistance movements in Hong Kong.
Wa Cheung was a member of our media organization. At yesterday's assembly, Mr. Cheung was not assigned to report. So Mr. Cheung attended the assembly in his private capacity.
According to the incident of the exploded rubbish bin at the Legislative Council, we learned that Mr. Cheung voluntarily provided information to the police. This is against our position of standing on the same side as the resisters. Our media organization regrets to state that we have terminated our partnership with Mr. Cheung.
- The witness Mr. Cheung appears in this DMHK news report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEVk7BTTbOQ at 0:40. Remember the face of this rat fink!
- See also NOW TV https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1672744826270765/
- The following is a hypothetical statement from the Admiralty Rubbish Bin Exploders Squadron:

I know. Everybody thinks that the Legco adjournment has bought us more time.
I know. At this time, blowing up the rubbish bin has generated good and bad reviews, but it has no practical consequences.
But I want to tell everybody that you must act tough if you are fighting for something.
But I want to tell the government that we won't fucking put up with more oppression!
We are not going to be tortured.
We are not going to just talk anymore.
Neither are we people who are rash.
We have a plan, we have courage, we have weapons.
And we dare to resist you.

In other words, this was just the stereotypical leftist retardism. Plenty of talk beforehand, a tiny bit of action, plenty of talk afterwards, feeling good about yourself but accomplishing absolutely nothing. You have seen them light candles in Victoria Park for 26 years. And now you will see them blow up rubbish bins until 2047.
- The police are looking for two men. Male #1 is about 1.7 meters tall, thin-built, wearing a dark-colored hoodie, dark pants, white sneakers, carrying a back pack and wearing surgical mask.
Male #2 is 1.7 meters tall, thin-built, wearing dark-colored hoodie, light-colored pants, dark-colored sneakers and wearing surgical mask.
The two men with their backs to the camera are potential eyewitnesses.

- For decades, the people of Hong Kong have marched for their freedom, democracy and human rights to no avail. They Occupied Central for 79 days but the government ignored their demands. Finally, two courageous men have come out to toss the first petrol bomb in order to blaze the trail.
But how did the people respond? As you expect, they said that the government staged this incident. Earlier when someone broke the glass windows of the Legislative Council building (#055 and #57), people said that the vandals must be police agents provocateurs. Next in the case of the Sai Kung bomb factory (#274), people said that the government must have stage-managed the whole project. Now in the case of the great rubbish bin explosion, they said that the police must be using a false flag operation to discredit those who oppose Internet Article 23. When the first blow of the revolution has just been struck, we should be cheering and joining in. Instead it is being ridiculed as impractical and pointless.
This reminds me of the UFO's. There was a time that whenever new UFO videos come out, people vied with each other to point out how fake the latest videos were. For a time, everybody thinks UFO's are conspiracies spun out by government for inscrutable reasons. Today, things are different. We now know that UFO's are quite real.
In like manner, people may cry false flag operation or conspiracy theory at that first petrol bomb. But when the second, the third ... explode, there will come a time when the world will accept that the people of Hong Kong are on an irreversible, irrepressible and irresistible revolutionary course to gain their freedom, democracy, human rights and genuine universal suffrage.
- So they blew up a trash bin. What message did the citizens get? Why, oh why was this done? And why is someone calling them the Glory of Hong Kong?
- They chose to blow up a trash bin because it is even less able to defend itself than grandpas and little girls. For they are not called the valiant warriors for nothing.
- Some day, the guy is going to jail and his cellmate asked: "What are you in jail for?" Answer: "I blew up a trash bin." Is this supposed to be funny or tragic?

[399] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/12/09)

(EJ Insight) December 9, 2015.

Hong Kong police still hold the worst public image among all of the city’s disciplinary forces, according to a recent poll, although another survey commissioned by the police department itself suggests high public satisfaction. The satisfaction rate of Hongkongers towards the police stood at 53 percent, according to a semi-annual poll by the Public Opinion Program (POP) of the University of Hong Kong, up 3 points from a similar poll six months ago, Ming Pao Daily reported on Wednesday.

That’s still the worst, compared with 89 percent for the Fire Services Department, the highest rating among all disciplinary forces, and 73 percent for the Auxiliary Medical Service, which saw its rate fall 9 points from the previous poll.

(HKU POP) 1,039 persons were interviewed by telephone November 23-30, 2015.

Department of HK Fire Services
89% satisfied
2% dissatisfied
Government Flying Service
73% satisfied
1% dissatisfied
Auxiliary Medical Service
73% satisfied
2% dissatisfied
HK Customs and Excise Department
79% satisfied
3% dissatisfied
HK Immigration Department
76% satisfied
4% dissatisfied
HK Correctional Services
58% satisfied
3% dissatisfied
HK Police Force
53% satisfied
24% dissatisfied

Internet comments:

- Since we are talking about "universal values" and "international standards", let us see what is happening in the United States of America.
Background information: According to the Wikipedia, the number of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States were:

367 in 2015 (incomplete)
625 in 2014
337 in 2013
602 in 2012
166 in 2011
287 in 2010

(Gallup) Confidence in US Institutions in 2015:

72% The military
67% Small business
52% The police
42% The church or organized religion
37% The medical system
33% The presidency
32% The US Supreme Court
31% The public schools
28% Banks
24% Organized labor
24% Newspapers
21% Television news
21% Big business
8% Congress

In Yvonne Leung's beloved separation of powers, the legislative, executive and judicial branches have the confidence of 8%, 33% and 32% of the people respectively, compared to 52% for the police.
Hong Kong is no surprise either. Here is the performance of members of the Legislative Council according to HKU-POP. This is 2011 data, as HKU-POP no longer polls on this issue. If there are up-to-date figures, they will be a lot worse after Occupy Central.

16.9% positive
28.0% half-half
48.7% negative

- A significant proportion of the population has little or no contact with the listed government services (e.g. Government Flying Service?). They are most likely to have come across or know about the police and fire services. Therefore a lot of their impressions comes from media coverage.

The HKU-POP covered the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison

49% satisfied
10% dissatisfied

The PLA Garrison is confined to barracks and there is little media coverage about them (except for Open Day on October 1st). Practically no Hongkonger will have come across PLA Garrison members. So what is there to be satisfied/dissatisfied about?

[398] BREAKING NEWS! (2015/12/09)

Huge Ming Pao headline: CY Leung attends St Paul graduation ceremony and does not encounter demonstrators.
Internet comments:

- Wow! I can easily become a Ming Pao headline writer. Here are some current news stories and my headlines:

Donald Trump gives speech and does not say that all Muslims should be incarcerated in concentration camps
Police shoot unarmed black teenager and black communities everywhere do not erupt in riots
Beijing issues red alert smog alert and the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics are not canceled
Mount Etna erupts again and does not bury Pompeii in ashes

- Ming Pao writes this type of headline because they believe or they want us to believe that the Chief Executive CY Leung is so immensely unpopular that he encounters numerous demonstrators everywhere that he goes. Therefore it is news when he shows up somewhere and there are no demonstrators. In truth, there is only a dozen or so professional demonstrators who represent several dozen groups. To make this non-story a story, Ming Pao will typically write: "Demonstrators clashed with police when CY Leung arrived at the XYZ Primary School to attend the graduate ceremony (with close of photo of one demonstrator at arm's length from a policeman). The protesting groups included the St Alban College Alumni Concern Group, the Sacred Heart of Our Lady of the Flowers College Alumni Concern Group, the New Territories Farm Land Fair Use Alliance, the Stanley Market Anti-Parallel Trade Concern Group, the Keyboard Warriors Limited Company, Kowloon Indigenous Power, the Cheung Chau Localism Concern Group, Sau Mau Ping Affairs for Sau Mau Ping People, etc."

[397] The First Interview (2015/12/08)

(SCMP) Hong Kong companies adopt Shenzhen interview tactic. By Tammy Tam. December 7, 2015.

If you are a fresh graduate looking for a job, are you willing to cross the border for an interview first if the company, like many others in Hong Kong, has a business arm on the mainland?
Recently, I was invited to a lunch by a university president together with other media representatives, and he told us an interesting story. Many Hong Kong companies have lately adopted a new hiring rule: fresh graduates need to go to Shenzhen first to see their human resources people.

Some of us concluded that it must be a way for employers to test the willingness of locals to work on the mainland, as surveys over the years have shown a lack of interest among the city's youth to leave Hong Kong for career development. But the president gave us a very interesting answer: it's more than that; it has another specific purpose - to see if any applicant will be banned from crossing the border!

We were all wowed by this example of killing two birds with one stone. But we also realised that such an idea in fact serves two purposes for the employers: it helps to eliminate job seekers who are not interested in working on the mainland and it can help to find out who is "blacklisted" by Beijing so as to avoid possible future problems for the company.

After last year's 79-day Occupy protests, besides major student leaders, certain second- or third-tier activists have also been barred from crossing the border. But what many people are not aware of is the ban has reminded certain employers to set a new hiring condition.

The university president, who preferred not to be named, said he therefore felt obliged to remind students to bear in mind possible consequences in their future development due to their political stand or participation in protests at a time when society, including campuses, are getting more politicised.

The president acknowledged that there were students who considered it more important to stick to what they strongly believed in. Whether that would scare away future employers was not their major concern, he said. "I then tell them to go ahead and chase your dreams if you don't mind the possible consequences, but be well prepared to pay a price."

Fair enough - any gain comes with a price; the willingness to pay this depends on one's values and judgment. We then asked the president if any of his students had ever had this type of cross-border interview experience, or been denied entry. Interestingly, he said so far no such case had been reported.

The introduction of this "Shenzhen interview" model says a lot - in Hong Kong today, companies of many kinds do China-related business in one way or another, and would seem unlikely to welcome applicants who have no interest in the mainland or are too enthusiastic about politics.

But Beijing's ban also reveals the dilemma it faces in dealing with the city's younger generation because it is a double-edged sword: while it can very well isolate the few who are very critical of Beijing, it may also drive their sympathetic peers to the opposition side.

There is a saying that a 20-year-old will do what a 20-year-old likes to do, then do what a 50-year-old does upon turning 50. How Hong Kong's young people will shape their future is a big issue of concern to all. Maybe only time can tell what our young people will be, but a travel ban is unlikely to be the solution.

(EJ Insight) HK firms run political loyalty checks on job seekers. By SC Yeung. December 8, 2015.

Hong Kong youth played a leading role in last year’s Occupy protests to seek genuine universal suffrage in the territory, but their hopes have been dashed by central authorities who insist on limiting the people’s right to choose their leaders. Frustrated, these youngsters may be facing another hurdle in their goal of securing a better future as some employers have devised an ingenious political test before hiring them.

According to a recent column by Tammy Tam, who is set to take over as editor-in-chief of the South China Morning Post next month, several Hong Kong-based enterprises have arranged job interviews in Shenzhen in a bid to test job seekers’ willingness to work in the mainland. The scheme also serves another purpose: to determine whether the applicants can cross the border without encountering any immigration issues.

In effect, Hong Kong youngsters are put to a test not only to gauge their abilities and fitness for the jobs being offered, but also to determine their political leanings from Beijing’s perspective.

This is tantamount to a political loyalty test that some local companies are running on our fresh graduates and young workers. It has become a new requirement that will only further frustrate those who have fought for Hong Kong’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” policy. Young people are being made to pay for standing up for their principles.

It is quite troubling if our companies set political loyalty as one of their key criteria in selecting new staff.

The human resources department, which oversees the recruitment process, turns into a virtual Communist Party committee within the company, rewarding those who are loyal to Beijing and denying employment to those whom Beijing finds “undesirable”.

The scheme tests whether Hong Kong job seekers are not only willing to work across the border but are also allowed to do so by mainland authorities. The requirement is important for Hong Kong companies doing business in China, especially in light of the closer economic relations between the mainland and the territory. But it also rides roughshod over the human rights of applicants because their employment becomes contingent to their political beliefs.

The arrangement for a Shenzhen job interview may look regular and innocuous, but it implies that the company won’t hire candidates who are blacklisted by the Chinese government. Of course, job applicants won’t know their status until they pass the immigration checkpoint at the border. That’s precisely the reason why some Hong Kong companies arrange for the job interviews to be held in Shenzhen.

Authorities have harped on the “one country, two systems” as the overriding principle guiding Beijing’s rule over Hong Kong since 1997. But the part about “two systems” is becoming increasingly nebulous as Beijing continues to assert its authority over the territory.

Hong Kong people — from students to journalists and politicians — must not touch the political red line, otherwise they will suffer the consequences. That’s what this Shenzhen job interview arrangement is telling our young people. And the central authorities’ blacklist is getting longer, especially in the wake of the heightening political tension between Hong Kong and Beijing. Even low-profile activists belonging to some local radical groups and journalists working for independent media firms have found their names on the blacklist

Meanwhile, the Hong Kong government has not voiced any concern over the blacklist, and noted that Beijing has every right to decide who to allow to enter the country. But Article 31 of the Basic Law grants Hong Kong residents freedom of movement within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and freedom of emigration to other countries and regions. They shall have freedom to travel, to enter or leave the territory. Using such a blacklist clearly violates the Basic Law, but, of course, the final interpretation of its provisions lies in Beijing’s hands.

From the company’s perspective, they have the right to determine who to hire and who is best fitted to contribute to the company’s development. The Shenzhen interview may be considered a business decision, but such an arrangement may also challenge the individual freedoms of Hong Kong people.

Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, “Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.” However, in the wake of the job interview scheme, it would seem the Basic Law protects Hong Kong people’s individual rights only as long as Beijing’s interests are not threatened.

As China seeks to tighten its grip on the territory, Hong Kong people are distancing themselves from Beijing all the more. Hong Kong youth feel that Beijing wants to destroy the city’s uniqueness and aims to turn it into another Chinese city. And now the employers’ latest move is putting more pressure on youngsters to abandon their pursuit of political rights in exchange for economic gains. But is that the best way to gain the support of the youth?

Internet comments:

- It just shows what a complete insecure thin-skinned joke the CCP is for banning someone from entering China due to the views they expressed IN HONG KONG which guarantees freedom of speech under the Basic Law. It also makes a mockery of "Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China" when certain Hong Kong people are banned from crossing the immigration controlled border to China.

- I suspect being on the Beijing blacklist marks you out as one or more of: intelligent, well-educated, courageous, diligent, ethical and/or a team player. Basically leadership material.
If you're not on the blacklist, you're likely to be one or more of: timid, self-interested, poorly-educated, venal, stupid, easily-fooled and/or lazy.
Which would be the better worker?

- USA immigration is famous for the ultra long list of people who are blacklisted, and who are not convicted of any crimes in any country. if u seem to be a threat to security or stability of US society, you are not welcomed to USA. try to conduct anti-USA activity in front of HK's US consulate, US won't let you in at their border. china is just doing the same thing. that is life, u can't have it both ways.

-

- Just two words: Puk gaai!
- You'll have to pay a price too. You'll have to hire some mainland pig instead!
- SCMP: RIP. Your downfall is complete.
- Thank you for caring.
- You would be fortunate not to work for such a petty-minded fake-Hong Kong company.
- Shouldn't the Equal Opportunity Commission say something?
- The Equal Opportunity Commission is your mom.
- It works both ways.

- The literary prostitute Tammy Tam does not have to pay a price for sucking up to the Communists. Instead, the people of Hong Kong pay the bill with their freedom and rule-of-law.
- Forget it. This is a newspaper that nobody reads.
- How about the name of the company. If we don't patronize them, we'll see who is paying a higher price.
- If this is true, we (the citizens who disagree with what these companies are doing) should boycott those companies. We have to defend our values in our daily lives. We cannot let this phenomenon spread.
- Tammy Tam is already sucking up to the Communists before she even takes over the top post.
- Will South China Morning Post be taken over like Wen Wei Po?
- Can the inability to gain entry into mainland China be a reason for selecting a candidate? Why not ask them to vote according to the company's instructions?

- Cases in which students were denied entry into mainland China:
#051 Hong Kong Federation of Students leaders wanted to meet with state leaders
#196 Hong Kong students want to sweep ancestors' graves during Qingming festival

- Who makes the hiring decisions at a company? The boss? The board of directors? The manager who will be supervise this new hire? The Human Resources Department? The Workers Council? Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan? The Hong Kong Federation of Students? The Equal Opportunities Commission? The South China Morning Post commentators? Please wake me up when you come to an answer.

- Hong Kong leads the world in the Economic Freedom Index of the Heritage Foundation. All this will be lost if simple things such as hiring decisions are going to be mandated by political forces.

- This is the lesson of freedom. All young wastrels have the freedom to take any job that they want; they even have the freedom not to work while on the job. Meanwhile companies do not have the freedom to hire. This is a brand new lesson to me, just like seeing how the none of the Umbrella Soldiers dared to show their yellow umbrellas during the district council elections.

- Working does not mean just punching in at 9am and punching out at 6pm. You are not just doing time at the office. There are many other issues involved. For example, there are other people in your company, either at the same site or elsewhere. Some of those co-workers may be mainlanders. If your Facebook calls for the extermination of all mainland locusts, should the company hire you?

- When they recruit firefighters, they administer a physical test (such as carrying 75 kilograms of weight up one flight of stairs) in order to make sure that the candidates are physically able. In like manner, when they recruit someone to liaise between Hong Kong and mainland China, shouldn't they make sure that the candidates are able to travel between? Why waste everybody's time?

- It is not enough to ask the person to show his/her Home Visit Permit, because it may have been voided. The only way for sure is to see that the person has successfully made the trip.

- We need to have a Facebook where job applicants will list the names of all the companies who hold Shenzhen interviews. Then we will have a mass consumer boycott of those companies. We'll make them pay.

- If that company won't hire you, you can always work for Apple Daily/Next Magazine/Epoch Times. Their reporters are not allowed in mainland China, so your inability to travel won't be a handicap. In fact, it will be a badge of honor.
- You don't have to be in the mainland in order to cover the news there. There is always the Internet, where you can pick up breaking news from websites such as Aboluwang, Epoch Times, NDTV, Boxun, etc. Or you can do better by making your own shit up.

- Any company that screens candidates with Shenzhen interviews is a lousy company to begin with. Good riddance.
- Yes, and you have a case of sour grapes.

- If you can't work in China, you can go work in the United States. That's even better.
- Yes, but your English sucks.

- Any company that screens candidates with Shenzhen interviews is incurring a higher cost.
- How so?
- They have to send their Human Resources Department people to travel to Shenzhen to hold the interviews. They probably had to rent a room as well.
- Do you think that the HR people mind? They'll go to Shenzhen after work today, have a super-cheap authentic Sichuan hot pot dinner, go to a massage parlor and get the whole package, and wake up in the morning for the interviews. Do you think that they will complain?
- Look, this is just the first interview. They can outsource to a mainland headhunter for a couple of hundred yuan to handle 100 candidates coming in. They'll just hire some young punk for the day to check ID's and collect signatures at the door. That's all. Afterwards, the screened candidates get to meet the big honchos for the second interview in Hong Kong.

- Many of the arguments here are confounding economics and politics. The decision is analyzed in terms of politics when it is really about economics. Let us say that this company wants to hire a coordinator between its Hong Kong headquarters (including sales and operations) and the mainland production facilities (whether owned-and-operated by the company or outsourced suppliers). Before starting the production lines to produce 2 million units, someone has to go from Hong Kong to mainland China to do the final quality control check. That person has to be willing and able to do the job. Therefore, all those who are unwilling and/or unable should be screened out. It is that simple. If you insist that the person must be hired because of his politics, then you'll have to explain how the job can be done. By watching the production activities on a live video feed, perhaps?
- The answer is simple. This person must be hired because of his politics. To get the job done, you hire another person. It is that simple. You are trying to deny the simple reality.

[396] The TSA School Strikes (2015/12/08)

Remember the days of Occupy Central, when the ultimate weapon was going to be a territory-wide school/labor/business strike that will paralyze Hong Kong completely until all the demands are met. The story even made it into TIME magazine.
(TIME) Hong Kong Trade Unions Call for Strikes as Democracy Protests Swell. September 29, 2014.

The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) has called for a strike Tuesday in support of the city’s snowballing democracy protests.

The call came after the city’s largest teachers’ union, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union (HKPTU), declared a strike in response to police’s forceful crackdown on demonstrators on Sunday. “Hong Kong police used ruthless force to expel harmless citizens, inflicting injuries on demonstrators with the use of weapons, acting as enemies of the people,” read a statement released by HKPTU. On Monday, education officials expressed their “deepest regret over the Professional Teachers’ Union initiation of a class and teaching boycott.” The union’s decision to strike comes a week after student protest groups walked out of classes in response to Beijing’s decision last month to implement restrictive elections for the position of Chief Executive, the city’s highest office, in 2017.

Earlier on Monday, HKCTU asked workers to strike en masse, using language rarely seen in this mercantile enclave. “HKCTU calls for all workers in Hong Kong to strike tomorrow, in protest of the ruling of the National People’s Congress, as well as the brutal suppression of peaceful protest by the Hong Kong government,” said the group. “Workers and students must unite to force the totalitarian government to hand state power back to the people.”

And the net result?

(SCMP) From students to company bosses, Hongkongers show support for Occupy Central. September 30, 2015.

At the government headquarters yesterday, Don Chan Hing-lung, chairman of the Swire Beverages (HK) Employees General Union, told cheering protesters that 200 delivery workers at a Coca-Cola plant in Sha Tin had gone on strike to support the civil disobedience movement. "We don't care if we lose money. We are here for the future. If we don't come, there won't be one," Chan said. Another 100 workers, he said, worked the minimum number of hours required by their contract. Chan said the workers would continue their strike today.

Fast forward to now and we have a strike at three Tai Po primary schools. Parents at three schools said that they will withdraw their children from school for three days in a row to demand the Education Bureau cancel the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment. This was going to be a devastating strike because many parents and students had signed up beforehand.

Here is the battlefield report from Day One.

(Oriental Daily) December 8, 2015.

At the Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic School, the vice-principal Wong Kwong-chiu said that four students were absent today due to either illness or personal matters. None of the parents used the strike as the reason.

At the Tai Po Methodist School, there were no absentees at all today.

At the Sun Fong Chung Primary School, the principal Lo Sau-chi said that 8 students were absent today. One of the students was in a competition outside school. The other seven students were ill, with three from Primary 1 and one each from Primary 2, 4, 5 and 6. None were from Primary 3. Principal Lo said that the school does not see any sign of a strike.

Parent Mr. Wong who had joined in the discussion of the parent/student strike said that it may be too early to tell, because the parents/students can still walk out en masse before the end of the day.

Internet comments:

- Wait? Did that whatever anti-TSA Concern Group say that over 40,000 parents have signed up? Where did they all go?

- Mr. Wong is right. When the bell rings to indicate the end of the school day, all the students and teachers will pour out of the classrooms to join the strike.

- Don't be silly. If the kids don't do their TSA drills, their school will be ranked poorly. When the kids apply to the good Secondary Schools, their grades will be downgraded because of the poor ratings of their Primary Schools. That's the only thing that matters.

- Classical Yellow Ribbon strategy: You tell everybody else to charge while you lurk behind to cheer and harvest the halo.

- They pushed two Primary 3 boys in front of the media spotlight. That was horrible. But at least they have the decency not to push more Tai Po Primary 3 children to go on strike.
- Do you think that the Primary 3 children can go on strike by themselves? The children will be doing whatever their parents say. Can any parent stand up to the public pressure after seeing what happened after the Legco testimonies?

[395] Google Transparency Report on Hong Kong Police (2015/12/07))

(Hong Kong Free Press) Google refused police ‘false message’ request to take down brutality video. December 7, 2015.

The Hongkong police requested Google to remove a video posted online which showed apparent police brutality: officers assaulting a person under arrest in a police vehicle. The technology company did not take it down.

Google’s latest semi-annual transparency report said that the Technology Crime Division of the Commercial Crime Bureau requested the removal of the video on YouTube for allegedly spreading a false message. The report covers July to December 2014, but Google did not reveal which video it was or when the video was made and uploaded.

In June 2014 , five activists claimed they were assaulted in a police van after they were arrested at a protest against development in the northeastern New Territories. Jaco Chow Nok-hang, one of the five activists, said that the police may have requested Google to take down a video recreating the scenes in which they were beaten up.
Last December, a protester also claimed she was sworn at and slapped inside a police van after she was arrested at a “Gau Wu” protest.

(SCMP) December 8, 2015.

Hong Kong made five requests to remove a total of 24 items in the second half of last year, including a YouTube video that showed police assaulting a person under arrest, according to the latest Google report.

Google refused to remove the video, despite a request from the technology crime division of the commercial crime bureau, which claimed that it "disseminates a false message that Hong Kong police assaulted a person under arrest in a police vehicle", the report says.

The title or other details of the video were not disclosed in the internet giant's biannual report. Both Google and the police have been contacted for comment and to confirm whether the video is fictional or a recording of real events.

Internet users are speculating that the video in question might be one entitled Real Police Story, which is a one-minute-long drama showing a policeman beating up an anti-northeast New Territories development protester in a police van. The publisher of the video said it was based on the account of a real protester's experiences.

A police spokesman declined to provide more details about the video. He said, however, officers would follow due procedure when it was necessary to require internet operators or websites to provide information to help crime investigation or prevention, or law enforcement. "The police will also be concerned about whether the information involved is incorrect or seriously misleading," said the spokesman. "The police always respect citizens' freedom of expressing opinions, speech and assembly, but the public should also obey Hong Kong's laws and social order when expressing their opinions and demands."

Internet comments:

- The most likely video is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc_AoaQYQ_c. The title is <True: Police Story>. It was published on June 18, 2014. It contains the disclaimer: "This is recreated based upon the narrations of the demonstrators who were assaulted." Two of the narrations are listed: http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1023608 and https://www.facebook.com/hkleft21/photos/a.463175861128.248308.341672231128/10152165770421129/?type=1&theater.
So this is not real documentary footage. It is a recreation of an incident, in which the actor-demonstrator cannot be identified in the poor lighting. As long as the video makes the disclaimer very clear, there shouldn't be any problems with it.
The problem is that the first five seconds of the video is clearly real documentary footage of the Hong Kong Police removing a demonstrator whereas the rest of the video is show-time. This video is being posted onto social media without the disclaimer so that the whole video appears to be a real documentary footage in which the Hong Kong Police removed a demonstrator and assaulted him inside a police van.
- (Apple Daily @ YouTube) This is a news report of the Google story.

1:06 (Voice over) After reviewing the video, Google did not remove it. Google did not identify which video it was. Of course, we will do our best to find it for you.
1:10 (Voice over) Our clues include "between July and December last year," "police car" and "assault."
1:19 (Amy But) And then they used foul language to curse me, to scold me.
1:23 (segment of the video of the unidentifiable demonstrator being assaulted)
1:30 (Voice over) These were the two better known incidents during that period. Let me put on a helmet first. I am just suspicious. I am just guessing. I am not saying that it is true.

Here is the Amy But incident as posted here previously (#210). [Oh, there is more there about Amy But before and after this incident.]

(Apple Daily with video) December 27, 2014

On December 27, the 19-year-old woman Amy But Wai-fan came to meet the press in the company of legislative councilor Lee Cheuk-yan, who heads the Labour Party and the Confederation of Trade Unions. According to her, when she entered the police van, she fell and was then pushed against the window, leaving bruises on her arm. While in the police van, two plainclothes police women slapped her in the face, ear and hands and cursed her out. This lasted between 5 to 8 minutes. They threatened to file additional charges against her if she dares to file a complaint against the police.

Amy said that she was "very scared" and kept screaming "Don't hit me." She demanded a medical examination and asked for the badge numbers of those who hit her. Instead, she was threatened with being charged with assaulting police officers and interfering with police duty. She did not dare to complain. She left after her family members brought her ID down to the police station. Yesterday, she went to get a medical examination at the hospital. The doctor said that she had a bruise mark on her left arm and a swollen left ear.

Amy had been previously arrested during the Causeway Bay clearance. She said that she joined the Shopping Revolutionaries on Xmas Eve. Chaos broke out around midnight when someone claimed to be "keeping guard over a bottle of milk on the road". At the time, she was standing on the sidewalk. Amy said that the police beating and threats were white terror. She called for more victims to come out.

(SCMP) Protester, 19, claims police officers beat her after arrest on Christmas Eve December 28, 2014.

A 19-year-old pro-democracy activist has alleged plain-clothes officers slapped her in the head until she bled as she was driven to the Mong Kok police station just after midnight on Christmas Eve.

Amy But Wai-fan told her story to the media yesterday, saying she had decided not to report the case to the Complaints Against Police Office (Capo) - the force's internal investigation unit - as she had "no confidence" in it. Her ear was still red and there was a bruise on her left arm.

But said she was one of 500 people on a "shopping tour" protest - in which crowds walk slowly to disrupt commercial areas - on Shantung Street. She was taken to a police car by five plain-clothes officers after she failed to show her identity card. She alleges the officers assaulted her in the car on the way to the station. "They slapped me three or four times … until my ear bled," she said. "When I asked for their officer numbers, they threatened to charge me with police assault and obstructing police work if I made a complaint."

(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufyykTsEiQM December 24, 2014.

The police runs an ID check on the individuals in the unlawful assembly and this woman (later identified as Amy But Wai-fan) has no ID. Due to her intransigence, the police put her under arrest. The police woman informs her that she is being arrested. The woman refuses to move unless the police woman releases the hold on the arm. The police woman says that handcuffs will be used, but the woman kept talking about releasing the hold on the arm. The woman eventually enters one police van but was taken to a second van. The van does not leave immediately. Now see the follow-up news stories below.

Comment: The existence of the SocREC YouTube video is not known to many people. Look at the video again and remember that the police van did not leave immediately and hundreds of people were still milling around when the woman was allegedly assaulted by 5 police officers in the police van for five to eight minutes. Also, you may wonder why it was an "unlawful assembly." As Amy But said, she and others were keeping guard over "a bottle of milk" on the road. Like dropping coins, this is a ploy to block vehicular traffic to achieve a mobile Occupy effect. The police will issue a warning (color-coded banner display/megaphone announcements) first, then run an ID check if the individual refuse to move on.

So Google might have reviewed the simulated video, saw the disclaimer and thought it was okay. Google does not know (or care about) how YouTube videos are embedded without disclaimers in social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.

[394] Seizing the Flag on Internet Article 23 (12/05/2016)

(Hong Kong Free Press) Gov’t says new copyright law will not restrict speech amid concerns of parody ban. December 3, 2015.

The controversial Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014, which will receive a second reading at the legislature next week, will not restrict freedom of speech, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung has said.

The amendment bill has been dubbed “Internet Article 23” – Article 23 being Hong Kong’s ill-fated national security law. The bill is intended to extend the protection of copyright owners to the internet. Netizens, internet freedom advocacy groups and lawmakers have expressed concerns, however, that it could limit the creation and distribution of derivative works, as it did not include an open-ended exemption for “user generated content”, a “contract override” nor a “fair use” term.

Under the new bill to be discussed, netizens could be prosecuted for the offence of obtaining “access to a computer with intent to commit an offence or with a dishonest intent”. They may face legal action from copyright owners if they use copyrighted material for remixes.
The bill has included a “fair dealing” term following consultations in 2013. It states that using copyrighted works for purposes such as parody, satire, pastiche, caricature, criticism, review, quotation, education, research and news reporting will not be an infringement of copyright. However, netizens do not feel assured, as the exemptions may not cover derivative works such as performers who cover songs, artists who self-publish comic remixes, internet users who live-stream game playing and song lyrics rewriting. Such activities may be considered criminal offences.

Lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man is to start a filibuster to stall the bill by proposing over 900 amendments. Lawmaker Ray Chan Chi-chuen also said he will join the filibuster, and has proposed an amendment to the bill to include “fair use” term.

(Oriental Daily with video) December 5, 2015.

A number of groups gathered at Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok) to declare that they have formed an alliance to apply pressure on the Legislative Council to veto the so-called Internet Article 23.
Former Student Frontline member Cheng "Four-eyed Brother" Kam-mun spoke to point out that only independent legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man is filibustering the bill. League of Social Democrats legislator Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung was upset and went up to grab the microphone to declare that Wong is not the only one because "When was I ever absent from any filibustering?"
But Leung's action angered the assembly. They cursed out Leung for seizing the microphone. They also wanted Leung to guarantee that he will filibuster Internet Article 23. Leung retorted: "Who are you to talk to me?" This angered those present even more so. They asked Leung if he wanted to "rank people by status" and "Am I not qualified to speak to you?" The scene was chaotic.
After jostling around for an hour, 10 policemen came to escort Leung away. The quarrel did not end. Even after Leung promised that he will filibuster in the Legislative Council, citizens did not buy it. A number of citizens trailed Leung to curse him out with foul language. Someone said that Leung has been disappointing. A citizen fell down on the ground. The quarrels continued over at Soy Street.
In the end, Leung got into a taxi and left. The citizens failed to stop the taxi from departing. After Leung left, the citizens turned around to surround the League of Social Democrats' Ma Won-ki. Passersby detoured around the scene of the quarrel. After 30 minutes, Ma left on his own.

Eric "The Painter" Poon, Cheng "Four-eyed Brother" Kam-mun, Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung

(Wen Wei Po) December 5, 2015.

Yesterday at 5pm, a number of groups including the League of Social Democrats, Youngspiration, Scholarism, Civic Passion, Hong Kong Indigenous, the Shopping Revolutionaries which are allegedly controlled by People Power, etc showed up to demonstrate against Internet Article 23. Before the meeting even started, Leung Kwok-hung seized the microphone and played "Big Brother" by issuing orders. The other demonstrators boo'ed him and told him that there is no Grand Stage and nobody is going to be allowed to play Grand Stage Master. So Leung put down the microphone reluctantly.
Next, Cheng "Four-eyed Brother" Kam-mun came on and named People Power and League of Social Democrats to join to filibuster in the legislative council. "Right now only Raymond Wong has offered 904 amendments to the bill to delay passage. The self-proclaimed radicals People Power and League of Social Democrats have not joined in." At this time, Leung Kwok-hung went up to seize the microphone to say, "Let me tell you. Raymond Wong is frequently absent during filibustering ... Are you kidding!?"
These provocative words from Leung immediately incensed the demonstrators. They surrounded Leung and demanded him to state his position, using a lot of foul language. At first, Leung shouted back at the demonstrators. He said: "You ask me whether I will filibuster? Who are you to ask me whether I will filibuster? ... What are your qualifications? No need to say more. Don't touch me!" But the demonstrators got more and more excited, and Leung had to concede and promise that he will filibuster. But he added that asking him whether he will filibuster or not is like asking him whether he eats or not. The demonstrators refused to take that for an answer. They surrounded him, they yelled at him and they did not allow him to leave.
After being surrounded for more than one hour, Leung finally called the police (whom he has frequently called "Black/Evil/Bad Police") for help. More than a dozen police officers formed a human chain to escort Leung out.
Several other League of Social Democrats members also got into argument with the demonstrators. After Leung left them, LSD member Ma Won-ki was surrounded by almost 100 demonstrators. A demonstrator claimed that he was injured by Leung's lackey Ma. The police took Ma away. It was rumored at first that Ma was arrested on suspicion of physical assault. Later, it turned out that Ma left under police protection.
On the Internet, there was plenty of scorn heaped on Leung Kwok-hung and the League of Social Democrats.

Videos:

(NOW TV) http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=160467 News report on the assembly in Mong Kok. More than 10 civil groups (including Keyboard Frontline, Civic Passion, and many post-Umbrella groups) met to hold a press conference to state their opposition to Internet Article 23. Leung Kwok-hung argued with some groups, and left under police escort.
(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAG7h2mZ5r4 Cheng "Four-eyed Brother" Kam-mun addressed the assembly. Cheng said that it is not sufficient for the legislators to vote against the bill, because there are more pro-establishment legislators than pan-democratic legislators. At the present, only Raymond Wong has offered more than 900 amendments. He hopes that the so-called radical legislators must also join the filibustering. When Cheng asked Leung to join the filibustering, the latter seized the microphone and said: "Let me tell you. Raymond Wong is often absent during filibustering. Are you kidding?"
(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AA_cGpsNFE Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) addressed the assembly. He presented a straightforward case: Civic Passion opposes all evil laws, including Internet Article 23 which is intended to destroy the peole of Hong Kong. Cheng said that the pan-democratic legislators must vote against the bill. More importantly, every possible means must be employed to stop the hearing on this evil bill. If the government passes the bill by force, the pan-democratic legislators must escalate their action.
(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e9B6GFxHhk After the press conference, Leung Kwok-hung is surrounded by citizens who demand to know whether he will filibuster. Leung said that Raymond Wong has submitted more than 900 amendments and he will give a hand.
(Passion Times audio) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0HYFE-Nock A citizen who confronted Leung said that Leung told him: "Do you eat meals?" "Are you a voter?" and "Eat shit!"
(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gBhEMRACOg Leung Kwok-hung was surrounded by citizens for more than 30 minutes. Leung was escorted away from the pedestrian mall by a chain of more than 10 police officers.
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq0qI4oV8aMr3E9augzNRmiXUzw5wxxOT Keyboard Front: Internet Article 23 complete coverage.
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICol1QC55B8 Part 1
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FV1QYER3_I Part 2
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIrouspibG8 Part 3
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PZFh84aumI Part 4
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSKB2G_1wI Part 5
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5fompsj_mM Part 6
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsKKfN5LyKU Part 7
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SBlnM7mHpc Part 8
(YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMGNGO4N_vU Preparations for the press conference Part 1. Leung Kwok-hung, Han Lian-shan and Eric Poon arrived early.
(YouTube Part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClN7h_mUbEY Preparations for the press conference. Leung Kwok-hung, Han Lian-shan, Umbrella Parents' Dorothy arrived early, plus the man in gray clothes who escorted Leung away later.
(Facebook) https://www.facebook.com/100003868649005/videos/622979554507660/ Leung Kwok-hung argues with demonstrators.
(Facebook) https://www.facebook.com/mediaofhongkongstudents/videos/777416209070871/ Leung Kwok-hung argues with demonstrators.
(Facebook) https://www.facebook.com/hongkongpignews/videos/919242338130176/ Leung Kwok-hung prevented from leaving.

Internet comments:

- Who is going to win this one? According to Oriental Daily, the bill will pass.

According to information, the American Chamber of Commerce and certain local audio-visual entertainment companies have applied pressure on Legislative Councilors to pass the bill as quickly as possible. US consul general Clifford Hart has met with the most adamant opponents of the bill -- Chan Chi-chuen (People Power) and Claudia Mo (Civic Party) -- and told them Hong Kong is decades behind the western world when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights.
Claudia Mo said that she is squeezed between intellectual property right holders and Internet users, and she needs to find a balance between protecting intellectual property rights and creative freedom. She is personally leaning towards a veto, but "that would be ignoring intellectual property rights." Thus, the Civic Party is still wavering.
Chan Chi-chuen said that he would vote against the bill, but he does not intend to join the filibustering.
Neo Democrats' Gary Fan Kwok-wai said that he would vote against the bill if all of the pan-democrats' proposed amendments are voted down.
Labour Party's Cyd Ho said that they opposed the criminalization of certain intellectual property right violations, but they think that the "safe harbor" exemptions in the bill are a good thing. Therefore, the Labour Party may abstain.
Democratic Party's Sin Chung-kai recommends that his party support the bill in order to advance technological innovation in Hong Kong.

- The intentions of the major pan-democratic political parties

Democratic Party -- won't filibuster; no clear position on voting
Neo Democrats -- speak actively; firmly opposed
League of Social Democrats -- filibuster; firmly opposed
Civic Party -- no clear position on filibustering; firmly opposed
Labour Party -- no clear position on filibustering; no clear position on voting
People Power -- filibuster; firmly opposed
- The Hong Kong audio-visual entertainment companies are also coming out on the side of the Copyright Bill. Why? In 1993, movie box office receipts in Hong Kong totaled up to $1.13 billion. In 2013, movie box office receipts in Hong Kong totaled up to $354 million. Box office receipts shrank because people could easily download pirated copies off the Internet.
In 1989, music records sales in Hong Kong hit the peak at $2.5 billion. In 2013, music record sales in Hong Kong was just $400 million. This is according to the International Federation of Phonographic Industry (IFPI).
Hong Kong will never have an vibrant audio-visual entertainment industry if it is unwilling and/or unable to protect intellectual property rights.
- Why ask Leung Kwok-hung if he will filibuster? As he said, this is as automatic for him as "eating." People should be asking the Democratic Party, the Civic Party, the Labour Party and the other so-called pan-democratic legislative councilors. It is possible that they will all go to watch Japanese autumn leaves (koyo) on voting day.

- Asking "Does Leung Kwok-hung filibuster?" is the same as asking "Is the Pope Catholic?"
- So why is this being asked now? Sectarianism. It is Civic Passion versus League of Social Democrats. It was just harassment. Whatever the answer coming from Leung, it won't satisfy the Spanish Inquisition. It will only beget more harassment.

- Score was Raymond Wong 903 and Leung Kwok-hung 0. (NOW TV) But Legislative Council chairman Jasper Tsang has ruled that most of Wong's amendments are either unrelated to the issue, frivolous, incomprehensible and/or different in meaning between the Chinese and English versions. This leaves only 42 amendments up for debate. So the revised score is Wong 42, Leung 0. Meanwhile DAB legislator Chan Kam-lam's 12 amendments had 10 related to contract overrides and fair use accepted. So Chan has a much higher batting average than Wong, but a lot fewer at-bats.
- Erica Yuen Me-ming (People Power chairman):

Out of the 900+ amendments, 823 were about writing styles (for example, changing the quotation marks to slanting/bold style; the word 'is' to 'belongs to') without any impact on the contents.

- (Cable TV) Raymond Wong said that Tsang's rulings were politically motivated. Of course. Does the sun rise from the east?
- 42 out of 903 is a pretty good batting percentage. Earlier this year, the League of Social Democrats submitted 3,349 amendments to the budget proposal and only 63 were approved for debate. That's a lot worse.

- (Oriental Daily) December 6, 2015.

The next day, Leung Kwok-hung said that those people who surrounded him wore surgical masks but they were surely Yellow Ribbons. Leung said that people can express their opinions, but they "shouldn't be insulting other people's mothers." Leung said that normally if he is insulted this way, he would have gotten into a fight "even if that means going to jail." When asked if he is afraid to go to Mong Kok again, Leung said that he has offended so many people already but that doesn't mean that he can't walk in the streets.

LOL. Leung Kwok-hung listens to an hour of "Fuck your mother" and he is ready to start fisticuffs. During Occupy Central, the police officers put up with 14 hours of insults every day. Is that normal? And by the way, if someone pours urine on Leung, would he drag the perpetrator over to a dark corner and beat him up?
Relevant links: "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung versus C9; Leung Kwok-hung by the Roadside
P.S. And did anyone ask for Leung Kwok-hung's opinion on Couple vs Policeman?
- When you need the police, they're "Police Uncles." When you don't need the police, they are "Evil/Black/Bad Police." From the photo, it looks Leung Kwok-hung needed the police today.

- They may say that there is no Grand Stage. But all the small parties are out there to seize the flag (leadership). Civic Passion, League of Social Democrats and People Power are indistinguishable from but also incompatible with each other. They take every opportunity to take down the others. Thus, Civic Passion came out today to attack the League of Social Democrats.
- (Bastille Post) When "Four-eyed Brother" said that "even if all the pan-democrats voted against the bill, it will still pass," he has fingered the internal contradictions within the pan-democrats. A number of US-friendly pan-democrats are leaning towards passing an appropriately amended bill. For example, Democratic Party's Sin Chung-kai supports an amended bill which includes a number of exemptions. He said that the bill has been discussed for almost ten years. Foreign governments are concerned about intellectual property right violations in Hong Kong. If the bill is vetoed, the Office of he United States Trade Representative may place Hong Kong into the Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights watch list. That will negatively affect Hong Kong's reputation and economic interests.
- (Ta Kung Pao) The so-called Internet Article 23 press conference was called by a number of organizations with more than 50 persons present. The celebrities included Keyboard Frontline's Glacier Kwong, League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung, Youngspiration convener Baggio Leung, Scholarism convener Prince Wong, Cheng "Four-eyed Brother Kam-mun, Civic Passion's Cheng Chung-tai, etc.
Are there really so many different organizations? Not really, because they are interlinked and overlapped. Basically it is a situation of League of Social Democrats versus Civic Passion. For example, Keyboard Frontline and Civic Passion may seem to be different organizations. But Glacier Wong under the nickname of Ah Bi is a Passion Times program host, and often appears with Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat and Cheng Chung-tai. At the July 29th Hong Kong University council meeting, Hong Kong University student Glacier Wong charged into the meeting room and did a live broadcast for Passion Times. Today's press conference organized by Keyboard Frontline used audio-visual equipment and tent with the Civic Passion logo. Afterwards, Glacier Wong gave special thanks to Civic Passion for their assistance.

Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) whispering with Baggio Leung (Youngspiration). Will Youngspiration be absorbed into the youth political branch of Civic Passion?
- (Apple Daily) Neo Democrats' Gary Fan Kwok-wai said: "I am surprised that people deliberately raised doubts about whether Long Hair would filibuster. I watched the video afterwards. Leung clearly stated that he will filibuster. But the citizens refused to listen and continued to surround him. I find it very regrettable, because the event was meant to unify civic society to oppose Internet Article 23. But now the attention is shifted towards internal contradictions among the people. The gun is pointed inwards and not against the authorities. I think it is shameful if this is a deliberate plot to lay siege to Long Hair."
- Cheng ("Hot Dog Worm") Chung-tai's Facebook

Long Hair being surrounded by the crowd is a minor incident. But reading the news reports and commentaries made in his defense, I can only see how the League of Social Democrats can lie without any compunction.
Actually, if you check the list of people invited by Keyboard Frontier, you will know why people were angry.
It is alright for you to come uninvited; it is alright if you want media exposure; it is alright if you want to share the aura of Keyboard Frontline ...
The problem is when you haven't filed a single amendment and then you tell people: "As for me, I have filibustered previously. You are saying that I didn't filibuster? Do you eat?"
You want to talk about past history. But people are asking you whether you will filibuster Internet Article 23. And why haven't you submitted a single amendment? Long Hair, people surrounded you because your answer was unsatisfactory.
- Derivative art poster (note: the kind that may get banned under "Internet Article 23")

Civic Passion
They don't fight the pro-establishment camp
They don't fight the Communist Party
They only fight similar political parties
Local trash!
- It's always the same old set of people being recycled.

(Oriental Daily) The angry man in the light green cap yelling at Leung Kwok-hung has been identified as Joe Yeung. At the scene, Yeung identified himself as the incoming president of the Shue Yan University Student Union president. Last October, the demonstrators surrounded Government Headquarters and the Chief Executive's Office and stopped the supplies going to the police officers inside. Legislator Leung Kwok-hung came over to talk to the demonstrators to allow the police bring in supplies. Joe Yeung was one of the demonstrators. Later there was a photo of Joe Yeung shaking hands with the police as the demonstrators withdrew. From that photo, Internet users found out that Joe Yeung is an auxiliary police officer. They suspected him of being a police mole. Yeung said that he resigned from the auxiliary police force afterwards.

- What is the significance of Joe Yeung wearing a green hat? Everybody knows that the Green Hat is a No-No in China.
- Joe Yeung's name sounds just like 遭殃(=run into a disaster) in Cantonese.

- (Oriental Daily) December 6, 2015. Leung Kwok-hung said that he was angry at Cheng "Four-eyed Brother" Kam-kun for raising doubts about whether Leung would join the filibustering. Leung said that Cheng was arrested during Occupy Central and Leung visited Cheng in jail. At the time, Cheng did not have a lawyer, so Leung put up a guarantee on his behalf. Thus, Leung is implying that Cheng is an ingrate.
- Actually, everybody knows that there are enough votes at the Legislative Council to pass the bill, no matter how large the demonstrations are. Even if there are clashes outside, or the Legislative Council building is occupied, or some legislators start fights on the floor, the bill will still pass. So what is to be done? Well, after the bill is passed, we can conduct a massive campaign to violate exactly what is banned in the bill. The law is possible only because the majority quietly obeys it. If there are mass violations, the law becomes unenforceable.
- The reasons why Internet Article 23 must be opposed:

You who like to listen to modified lyrics or photos won't be able to do so
because it is a crime as soon as the law is amended
You who like to watch Korean/Japanese/western drama won't be able to do so
because it is a crime as soon as you share
You who have watched thisav won't be able to do so
because it will be among the first group of websites to be banned
Internet Article 23 -- it is supposed to protect intellectual property rights
but it is actually a tool for political oppression
Of course you still want to watch Korean, Japanese and western dramas, and you want to access thisav. But think about this -- you made an adult video in which you got your brains fucked out and then everybody comes to thisav and watch it for free. Will you be pissed off?
- Next steps? Keyboard Frontline has organized an assembly on Wednesday from 10am to midnight with what they say will be 1,000 demonstrators. The police are paying close attention because a physical attack of the Legislative Council building occurred last year when someone posted a rumor about an Internet Article 23 vote. See #055 and #057.

[393] Posters on Democracy Walls (12/05/2015)

(Wen Wei Po) December 4, 2015.

It is no fresh news that a small number of Hongkongers hate mainlanders and don't want to be Chinese. But it is rare that such views are articulated on university campuses. This story began when a Hong Kong Polytechnic University public display system began to show the message "Hong Kong is not China." It is not known who arranged it.

The same message was then posted on the Democracy Wall at PolyU. Angry mainland students ripped the NOT off. A mainland student posted a rebuttal:

"Hong Kong is not China." This is a peculiar phrase
but I think that it is correct.
A city cannot be compared to a country.
Therefore, it should be "HK belongs to China."
You should be learning some more.
ID: 13102903d
Jay
Another mainland student wrote:

"+10086" is mainland Internet idiom for "strongly support."
This matter came to the attention of Passion Times which promotes radical localism. They posted the Hong Kong students' counterattack of "You can disagree but you cannot tear off the paper" to show that mainland students don't appreciate democracy. They also insulted the mainland students for using simplified Chinese characters which are "deformed characters."

Passion Times
At the Democracy Wall of Poly U, the "NOT" in the "HK IS NOT CHINA" banner was ripped off. In addition, mainland students used deformed characters to propound the idea that "a city cannot be compared to a country."
But Passion Times drew the attention of a mainland student named Liu Zihao, who posted:

Let me help you by printing a NOT so that you don't whine about the lack of respect for freedom of speech.
But I hope that certain other fellow students can restore the posts made by my friends, in order to show us the magnificence of freedom in Hong Kong
Liu Zihao, ID 12133486d

(Defaced poster)
Young wastrel: HK is no China.
China: Oh.
Young wastrel: HK wants to be independent
China: Oh.
Young wastrel: We want to Occupy Central!
China: Oh.
Young wastrel: HK's economic recession was caused by mainland!
China: Oh?
Liu Zihao, ID 121334860
Liu Zihao also responded to the characterization of simplified Chinese characters as deformed. He used the classical brush to write a text to explain that he had learned to write in various traditional character styles, and he said his calligraphy in traditional Chinese is better than Hongkongers.

According to Liu Zihao, Hong Kong university students find it easier to access information (for reasons that we all know) than mainland students. But precisely because it is so easy, they tend to believe what they want to believe without verification. As a result, they will negate everything about the mainland. By contrast, mainland students may encounter some barriers in accessing information. Because of it, they tend to want to know the whole truth. They will not resist information, they will examine and verify everything because they know that there is plenty of misinformation out there. Thus, mainland students may encounter barriers in accessing information but they don't have internal barriers to resist certain information. Hong Kong students can freely access information but they have internal barriers to resist certain information.
In this debate, the mainland students showed superiority in logic, legalism and traditional culture. For those Hong Kong students who continue to be absorbed by the meaningless message posting and the public criticism/struggle against mainland students, we want to tell them that someday you are going to enter society and you will have to compete against us. At that time, you will regret that you had wasted your valuable time on so many meaningless things so as to lack any competitiveness.

Internet comments:

- In the Ming Dynasty, Mr. Liu's name is written as 刘. Centuries later in the Manchurian Dynasty, it is written as 劉. In Hong Kong today, the traditional Chinese character is written as 劉. In mainland China, the simplified Chinese character is written as 刘. So which is more in line with Chinese tradition? You tell me.

- During the Song Dynasty, they used many of the so-called simplified characters today. When the Manchurians took over, they complexified many of the characters for political reasons (namely, to make the characters harder to learn to read and write, and thus restrict education to only the few who can afford the time and money). That is the origin of the traditional Chinese character system today.

- The fact is that all living languages evolve over time. Hongkongers have some ideal notion of a static traditional Chinese language for which they are the true holders. That is delusional. There never was and never is, and there never will be.

- There are plenty of dead languages around: Old Church Slavonic, Classical Armenian, Avestan, Coptic, Biblical Hebrew, New Testament Greek, Ge'ez, Ardhamagadhi, Pali, Sanskrit and Latin. Hongkongers can join their ranks. In case you still harbor doubts, here is Why you should learn a dead language (sample quote: Stop watching Game of Thrones. Beowulf is better and features less rape.)

- Even English evolves over time:

Olde English

An. M.LXVI. On þyssum geare man halgode þet mynster æt Westmynstre on Cyldamæsse dæg 7 se cyng Eadward forðferde on Twelfts mæsse æfen 7 hine mann bebyrgede on Twelftan mæssedæg innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmyntre 7 Harold eorl feng to Englalandes cynerice swa swa se cyng hit him geuðe 7 eac men hine þærto gecuron 7 wæs gebletsod to cynge on Twelftan mæssedæg 7 þa ylcan geare þe he cyng wæs he for ut mid sciphere togeanes Willelme ... 7 þa hwile com Willelm eorl upp æt Hestingan on Sce Michaeles mæssedæg 7 Harold com norðan 7 him wið gefeaht ear þan þe his here com eall 7 þær he feoll 7 his twægen gebroðra Gyrð 7 Leofwine and Willelm þis land geeode 7 com to Westmynstre 7 Ealdred arceb hine to cynge gehalgode 7 menn guldon him gyld 7 gislas sealdon 7 syððan heora land bohtan.

Middle English

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(so priketh hem nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of engelond to caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.
Bifil that in that seson on a day,
In southwerk at the tabard as I lay
Redy to wenden on my pilgrymage
To caunterbury with ful devout corage,
At nyght was come into that hostelrye
Wel nyne and twenty in a compaignye,
Of sondry folk, by aventure yfalle
In felaweshipe, and pilgrimes were they alle,
That toward caunterbury wolden ryde.
The chambres and the stables weren wyde,
And wel we weren esed atte beste.
And shortly, whan the sonne was to reste,
So hadde I spoken with hem everichon
That I was of hir felaweshipe anon,
And made forward erly for to ryse,
To take oure wey ther as I yow devyse.
But nathelees, whil I have tyme and space,
Er that I ferther in this tale pace,
Me thynketh it acordaunt to resoun
To telle yow al the condicioun
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they weren, and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne;
And at a knyght than wol I first bigynne.

Modern English

1066 In this year the monastery at Westminster was hallowed on Childermas day (28 December). And king Eadward died on Twelfth-mass eve (5 January) and he was buried on Twelfth-mass day, in the newly hallowed church at Westminster. And earl Harold succeeded to the Kingdom of England, as the king had granted it to him and men had also chosen him thereto and he was blessed as king on Twelfth-mass day. And in the same year that he was king he went out with a naval force against William ... And the while count William landed at Hastings, on St. Michael's mass-day and Harold came from the north and fought against him before his army had all come and there he fell and his two brothers Gyrth and Leofwine and William subdued this land, and came to Westminster and archbishop Ealdred hallowed him king and men paid him tribute and gave him hostages and afterwards bought their land.

English Now
lol lmao omg rip :p

- Chinese language instruction in Hong Kong is a total disaster, because it is completely severed from traditional culture. Hongkongers can't read ancient Chinese text, and their calligraphy lessons take place only briefly in primary school.

- For evidence, please look at the handwritten banners outside university dormitories for "I want genuine universal suffrage" or "Do not forget June 4th." The handwriting looks like it comes from kindergarten children.
- I agree that Hongkongers are disastrous in their grasp of the language. You can start with this discussion forum, where commentators make uncountable number of mistakes. What an eyesore!
- When a Hongkonger reads a book from Taiwan, he can understand it fully. When a Taiwanese reads a book from Hong Kong, he is completely lost!

- The Chinese Communists did not invent the simplified Chinese characters. Most of those characters were already in use in the 1930's as a matter of efficiency as well as promotion by the KMT government. The Chinese Communists merely formalized the existing practice of a sizeable proportion of the population.
- How hard is it to write in simplified or traditional Chinese characters? Nowadays nobody writes in long hand anymore. Everybody types. If you can type in one or the other form, then one press of a keyboard button will convert your entire book from one form to the other form. Everything takes place in less than a second.
- Here is an ancient Chinese text. Let's show it to the Hong Kong university students and see how many words they can identify.

- If you read some of the "modern" books published in Hong Kong, you will find nobody can understand the contents except for Hongkongers. The language is in total chaos, like the uniquely lazy slurring in the speech of Hongkongers. Sometimes even I as a homegrown Hongkonger have no idea as to what they are saying.

- Oh wait, isn't that the criticism aimed at the simplified Chinese character system -- that it is completely divorced from what the mainstream Chinese around the world are using?

- At my company, I get to meet many mainland colleagues coming down to visit.
When they get here, the first thing that they ask about is: "Where is the closest bookstore?"
I am embarrassed to have to say that we don't have many bookstores around here except for chain stores such as Eslite, PageOne, Commercial Press, Joint United, etc.
I asked them what kind of books they want. Typically they want books that are not available on the mainland.
I ask: "What if they get confiscated when you go back?"
They said: "So what? I only lose the books. I'm not going to die because of it. Haha. I'll be coming back and trying again next time."
What I want to say is that mainlanders are perfectly aware of what is happening in the world and they are not as ignorant and naive as many Hongkongers assume. Conversely, many Hongkongers are completely ignorant of what is happening on the other side of the border.
- The worst news is that Liu Zihao is an elite student from the mainland, so that his command of the English language will be even better than most Hongkongers.
- For example, how many Hongkongers know what "+10086" is? If you've lived on the mainland, you have to know what it is.
- "I am just a student. I am exercising my freedom of speech in a place where there is freedom of speech. I don't represent anyone. I am just expressing my own views." I can really buy that! Nowadays, it seems that any Joe who comes along will claim that he represents the people of Hong Kong when he speaks. I know that I'll switch off immediately, but still it is just fucking annoying. So it is good to see someone who doesn't pretend to present 7 million Hongkongers or 1.4 billion mainlanders.
- To the Hong Kong localists, the use of traditional Chinese characters is the totem pole of Hong Kong superiority over mainland China.
To most people in Taiwan, Hongkongers are merely mainlanders who can read the traditional Chinese characters but still speak atrocious Mandarin.
To Americans and Europeans, the mainlanders, Hongkongers and Taiwanese are just fucking Chinks.
- Here is how to write incoherent Hong Kong style in traditional Chinese characters which the Taiwanese won't understand.

屌！起條大陸學生底，網上公審佢，公到佢上報，出街比人指指點點，係人地地方讀書仲寸寸貢，要佢留唔到係香港留唔低，要佢出名，要攪到佢留唔到係香港讀書
(translation) Fuck! Let's ferret out the background information on this mainlander student. We'll hold a public trial on the Internet. We'll go public until he is reported in the newspapers. When he goes out in the street, people will point at him. He is studying at someone else's place and he is so arrogant. We'll make sure that he can't stay in Hong Kong. We'll make him famous, we'll make sure he can't stay to study in Hong Kong.

However, the Taiwanese should be able to appreciate the contents of that statement.

[392] Hong Kong By The Numbers (12/05/2015) (Hong Kong Research Association) 1,073 registered voters were interviewed by telephone November 11-26, 2015.

Q1. Are you satisfied with the overall arrangements in the District Council elections?
53%: Satisfied
31%: So-so
10%: Dissatisfied
6%: No opinion
Q2. Do you think that the atmosphere around these District Council elections was enthusiastic?
40%: Enthusiastic
46%: So-so
10%: Unenthusiastic
3%: No opinion
Q3. Did you vote in the District Council elections?
79%: Yes
21%: No
Q4. What is the main reason why you went to vote? (Base: Those who voted)
33%: To express opposition to a particular candidate/political party/group
27%: To express support for a particular candidate/political party/group
3%: By habit
34%: Fulfill civic duty
2%: Other
2%: No opinion
Q5. What is the main why you did not vote? (Base: Those who did not vote)
7%: Not sure about the choices of candidates/political parties
7%: Don't like politics
6%: Disapprove the political affiliations of the candidates
10%: Not time to vote
12%: No preferred candidate
12%: Voting isn't going to change anything
0%: District Council elections are unimportant
42%: Other
4%: No opinion
Q6. When did you make your final decision?
23%: On voting day
22%: Within the last week
11%: Within the last two weeks
39%: Before the last two weeks
7%: No opinion
Q7. Who did you vote for this time?
29%: A pan-democratic candidate
26%: A pro-establishment candidate
25%: An independent candidate
20%: Don't know/no opinon
Q8. What is your political stance?
33%: Pro-establishment
33%: Pro-democracy
24%: Neither
11%: No opinion

[391] "Black Gold" Chung Speaks Out (2015/12/4)

(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme) Chung’s Blunt Words: Campus Mutation. By Robert Chung.

In just three months, there occurred inside and outside the campus of Hong Kong University a referendum run by the Students’ Union, a staff plus student voting, and two Extraordinary General Meetings held by the HKU Convocation. The campus has suddenly turned “democratic”.

In my humble view, student movements in Hong Kong which started in the 70s have already declined in the 80s. What happened in 1989 was an accident, driven entirely by external events occurring in Beijing. By the 90s, students’ voice had almost vanished. The Polling Incident which happened in 2000 simply looked like a family event in HKU. Since the 70s, I have worked and lived in the campus. What I see is constant campus urbanization and lifestyle secularization. Few talk about ideals these days.

From a developmental perspective, university students’ turning from elites to become ordinary beings might well be inevitable. In advanced democratic societies, the burden of social change might well rest on the shoulders of political parties or groups. However, when Hong Kong is yet to become affluent, and the motherland yet to overcome its problems, there is no reason why people in universities which breed intellectuals should enjoy a happy life before everybody does.

All along I have been saying, those with a doctorate degree may not be real intellectuals, while many of those without are often knowledgeable people with great visions and moral standards much much higher than many holders of “short cut doctorates” and “honourary degrees”. They are the true intellectuals.

The Umbrella Movement last year has awakened many university teachers and students. Whether they supported, opposed, or stayed neutral to the movement, they have thought it through, and lived it through. Unfortunately, after the movement, those in power have not taken heed of these intellectuals’ contemplation, but rather engaged themselves in helping some stealthy plans of retaliation.

The beauty of university lies in its openness and accommodation. The value of academic freedom and university autonomy lies in its respect for different opinions and non-restriction of ideas. Provided that the ideas are put rationally and gracefully, anything can be said and debated. Unfortunately, this ethics of complete openness is now gradually eroded by the practices of classified documents, confidentiality agreements, private dialogues, and so on. This is mutation, top down.

The system has toppled. Those in power have used every bit of power they have. This corrodes the good tradition of universities. Teachers now march in silence, students challenge authority. Between eggs and the hard wall, kind people would of course sympathize the weak. However, I still consider it important for intellectuals to maintain a polite and civilized mentality, even when facing bullies and hypocrites, in order to convince people with reasons and self demonstration.

If we can change the rotting system, that would be wonderful. If not, we should at least attempt to develop some better alternatives, like civil referendums. Provided that our campus mutation is not yet terminal, we may not need to sacrifice ourselves with a bang.

Internet comments:

- Does Robert Chung have any credibility?

(The Standard) October 29, 2015.

Occupy Central co-organizer and University of Hong Kong associate law professor Benny Tai acted as middleman for an anonymous donation of HK$800,000 to the university's Public Opinion Program, leaked documents claim.

The documents, released to the media yesterday with the title "Secrets involving the Occupy Central organizers," show the university itself also received two other donations in May last year from the same donor for HK$200,000 and HK$300,000.

The HK$800,000 donation was handed over in what is believed to be part of an Occupy Central commission for POP to conduct a "civil referendum" from June 20 to 29 this year on the issue of constitutional reform, which saw nearly 800,000 people take part.

The documents revealed a total of HK$1.45 million was donated to the university's departments. POP, headed by Robert Chung Ting-yiu, received HK$800,000 on or about May 20 last year. Its purpose was set out as "civil referendum project," and the donor was "anonymous." A month earlier, Tai had e-mailed Chung telling him POP would receive HK$800,000 to carry out the referendum. The HK$300,000 check was handled by dean of law Johannes Chan Man-mun. A third donation of HK$200,000 was given to the faculty of arts on May 14.

The donations raised red flags at the university's Development and Alumni Affairs Office, with recording secretary Hydi Wong e-mailing Chung that same month to say it was "improper for the university to receive any donation from an unknown source" and wanting his help to find out the name of the donor." Chung then contacted Tai, who agreed to having his name revealed.

Chung replied to Wong saying: "As far as I know, Professor Tai himself received this donation from an intermediate person who had clearly spelled out to him the purpose of the donation. I myself know nothing about that person and I do not need to know. This has been our practice since February 2012 when we kicked off our Civil Referendum Donation Scheme." Tai, too, wrote to Wong: "I am sorry I do not know the identity of the donor as the money is given to me from an indirect source."

A university official condemned the leak of confidential e-mails and said the institution has established principles and procedures to verify the source of donations.

Occupy Central released a statement last night, which said it was one of its co-organizers, Chu Yiu-ming, who received the donation last year. "In 2013, a member of the public gave a donation to the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming in support of his efforts in promoting democracy in Hong Kong. Subsequently, Reverend Chu decided the donation should be spent as follows: HK$800,000 should go to HKU's polling program, specifically the civil referendum of June 22, 2014, HK$300,000 to HKU's faculty of law for the holding of academic seminars, and HK$200,000 to the faculty of arts for personnel expenses involved in the Deliberation Days, the Civil Referendum and related research. "All three donations were made under the name of "Anonymous,"' the statement read.

To think that Robert Chung has the gall to write: "Unfortunately, this ethics of complete openness is now gradually eroded by the practices of classified documents, confidentiality agreements, private dialogues, and so on." As long as the matter was discussed and concluded successfully among Robert Chung, Benny Tai, Chu Yiu-ming, Johannes Chan and Hydi Wong, the rest of the world can go fuck themselves! This is Robert Chung's new ethics of complete openness.

- Robert Chung is nicknamed "Black Gold Chung 黑金鐘" on the Internet.

- Robert Chung is the director of the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme. You expect him to make some expert technical comments on the referenda that he quotes, but he has nothing to say. So let me help you with the specifics:

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

October 29, 2015: Hong Kong University Students Union (#360): 5,363 voted out of 16,137 for a 33.2% participation rate.

November 14, 2015: Hong Kong University Staff Association/Hong Kong University Students' Union (#373): 482 out of 10,965 staff members voted for a 4.4% participation rate, and 754 out of 10,746 postgraduate students voted for a 7.0% participation rate.

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

Question: Do these participation rates indicate a high level of support for whatever the issues are? You need very thick skin to say YES. You need slightly less thick skin to pretend that you didn't notice.

- LOL when I read Chung writing: "I still consider it important for intellectuals to maintain a polite and civilized mentality, even when facing bullies and hypocrites, in order to convince people with reasons and self demonstration." And also: "The value of academic freedom and university autonomy lies in its respect for different opinions and non-restriction of ideas. Provided that the ideas are put rationally and gracefully, anything can be said and debated."

Here is the video of the bully/hypocrite Arthur Li Kwok-cheung failing to maintain a polite and civilized mentality.

Here is the video of the bully/hypocrite Ayesha Macpherson failing to respect some rationally and gracefully put ideas.

Here is the slow motion video of the bully/hypocrite Lo Chung-mau failing to convince people by means of reasons and self-demonstration.

Robert Chung may have been traveling abroad at the time because all of Hong Kong saw these videos of the bullies/hypocrites Arthur Li, Lo Chung-mau and Ayesha Macpherson trying to destroy Hong Kong University. These counter-revolutionaries must pay for their crimes against the People!

[390] Judicial Review As Political Tool (2015/12/3)

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 3, 2015.

The system of judicial review is being abused in Hong Kong, former Bar Association chair and retired Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton said at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club on Wednesday. “Judicial review is not available for challenges to government policy,” Litton said: “That is a fundamental rule in the separation of powers. The court is concerned with law, not policy… [it] is the place for the vindication of legal rights [and] redress for wrongs done. It is not a debating hall or a classroom.”

Discussing the judicial review cases on the selection of Hong Kong’s chief executive, Litton said that acts of reporting, consulting and putting forward proposals “could not by any stretch of imagination be categorised as unlawful, abuse of power or anything else that could remotely have brought these acts within the purview of judicial review.” However, the judge responsible for the review did not dismiss the application and went forward with proceedings, which Litton implied had been a waste of court resources.

Speaking on the judicial review of the government’s reform report, brought against the chief executive and the government of the HKSAR, Litton said that “the notion that the entire government of the HKSAR should be subject to review is totally absurd and is symptomatic of how far the system has been abused in recent times.” On similar grounds, Litton also criticised the case lodged by Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok concerning the second round of public consultation on political reform, and the bringing in of the Chief Executive in that case. Citing the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge and its environmental impact assessment, Litton stated that judicial reviews could be highly costly for Hong Kong. As a result of the judicial review, he said, the project was delayed by two years and the cost incurred rose to US$1 billion.

Yvonne Leung responded to Litton’s remarks by saying that she had never planned to “put judicial review onto her CV”, and that she did not take pride in suing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, Apple Daily reported. “If the court could not respond to the public and make a ruling as to unconstitutional policies through judicial review,” Leung said, “then there would be no procedure for redress if the chief executive made policy errors.”

Senior Counsel Alan Leong Kah-kit responded saying that judicial review is an important component of the separation of powers. If there were no judicial review, he said, administrative bodies would not have to be worried about being challenged and could act as they wish – and when that happens, the cost borne by the society might be even higher than that of dealing with judicial review. Leong said that he was surprised by Litton’s comments because although the number of judicial review cases has been on the rise since Hong Kong’s handover, the court has the right to throw out cases which do not satisfy the arguability test. There have been many unsuccessful cases of judicial review, Leong added, and this shows that the court has fulfilled its role as gatekeeper.
The Chief Executive himself has long been an outspoken critic of the judicial review process. In November, Leung said that plans to build apartment units had been hindered because of judicial review, which he has also routinely blamed for delays in infrastructure construction projects.

(SCMP) December 3, 2015.

A distinguished former top judge has launched a stinging attack on Hong Kong’s legal system, lashing out at how judicial reviews were being “misused” and some judgments “so obscure” that no one could understand them. In a doom-laden critique of a system “drowning in irrelevance”, former Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton said Hong Kong must put in place a “robust” and “rigorous” legal system relevant to ordinary people.

Litton – who retired in July – said a hidebound judicial system was losing its grasp on reality and courts should not be a “debating chamber” to challenge government policy. Speaking at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club on Wednesday, he said: “The legal system, in many instances, is wrapped in obscurity, cloaked in mumbo-jumbo, suffocating under citations, and drowning in irrelevance. The harsh question must be asked: is the Hong Kong judiciary sleepwalking towards 2047, wandering in a dream world of its own, a world of authorities, legal texts, customs, black letter law as if those were the entire substance and reality that exists? Is it detached from a world of people whose only language is Chinese?”

Litton, who retired in July, added that the Civil Justice Reform introduced in 2009 to improve efficiency in the legal system and reduce unnecessary litigations was ineffective. “Nothing much has changed from those reforms,” said Litton. “I’m pessimistic. Bad habits die hard.”

Citing a failed legal challenge to the government over its political reform package earlier this year by University of Hong Kong student union leader Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok, Litton hit out at what he called the “misuse” of judicial reviews. “Judicial review is not available for challenges to government policy. That’s a fundamental rule in the separation of powers. The court is concerned with law, not policy, for obvious reasons. The courtroom is the place for the vindication of legal rights, redress for wrongs done.

“It’s not a debating hall or a classroom. It’s only when the public authority has acted unlawfully or gone outside its lawful powers or abuses its powers given by a statute that a court can intervene,” he said.

Litton cited the delay and cost overruns of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge caused by a court case brought on by a Tung Chung resident in 2010 against the director of environmental protection. “As an example of how the process of judicial review can be costly to the community, take Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge case. The judge of first instance has got it all wrong, he had made a mistake. By then, it was far too late to address the consequences of the mistake.” Litton said the judgments in the bridge case, which were over 100 paragraphs long, were “so obscure that no one could understand them”.

A third misused judicial review Litton cited was one sought by Television Broadcasts Limited aiming to prohibit the Communication Authority and the Chief Executive in Council from granting three free-to-air broadcasting licences. High Court Justice Mr Thomas Au Hing-cheung handed down a 13-page ruling in May 2013 to explain why he refused the judicial review.

Hong Kong-born Litton was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1970 and joined the judiciary in 1992. He served as a permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal from 1997 to 2000 before becoming a non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal.

(SCMP) Time for pan-democrats to set an example on rule of law in Hong Kong. By Alex Lo. September 4, 2015.

Pan-democrats love to bang on about the rule of law. But few local politicians are keener to abuse legal processes to delay, obstruct and discredit the government.

Among the tactics is the abusive use of judicial reviews by activists, filibustering by radical lawmakers and deliberate reporting to the ICAC just so that they can claim someone they have targeted is being probed for corruption. And if that someone turns out to be completely innocent like Franklin Lam Fan-keung, the former Executive Council member, well, who cares?

There is perhaps no greater champion of the rule of law than former Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton. In a public speech this week, he singled out the pernicious use of judicial reviews for political purposes. In particular, Litton cited a failed legal challenge to the government over its democratic reform package this year by University of Hong Kong student union leader Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok. He described that as a "misuse" of judicial reviews.

"Judicial review is not available for challenges to government policy," he said. "That's a fundamental rule in the separation of powers. The court is concerned with law, not policy. The courtroom is the place for the vindication of legal rights, redress for wrongs done. It's not a debating hall or a classroom."

There are no wiser words. But will those student leaders listen? I doubt it. The same young people who idealise the separation of powers seem to be rather ignorant of its real meaning.

Litton also cited a court case brought by a Tung Chung resident against the director of environmental protection in 2010 in a bid to delay the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge. It was widely reported that the resident was an elderly recipient of social welfare who was used as a front by the Civic Party, a group full of barristers, to launch the judicial review against the bridge project.

Politicians should at least have the guts to do their own dirty work instead of exploiting ignorant elderly people.

The bridge project would have probably suffered serious delays even without the judicial review. But it certainly didn't help. If you want people to respect the rule of law, you should set an example first.

(SCMP) February 6, 2016.

Judges bypassed a “firewall” in recent judicial review application approvals, leading to a tendency to abuse, former Bar Association chair and retired Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton told the journal Hong Kong Lawyer. The firewall refers to the step by which the judge must be convinced that the applicant’s case is reasonably arguable, said Litton.

Litton believes that cases such as Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok’s should not have been considered for judicial review but “the procedure adopted by the judge by-passed the ‘firewall.'”

Yvonne Leung filed for a judicial review regarding the second public consultation process regarding Hong Kong’s political reform. Cases like this “gave oxygen to frivolous and vexatious applications that should have been screened out,” Litton said. Yet Leung’s case was rejected by the High Court in June last year, according to court records.

According to Ming Pao, former lawmaker Margaret Ng said this rejection shows that the firewall still stands and is very high. Litton said that he had no problem with the idea that “there is nothing wrong with the threshold for judicial review.” He is dissatisfied with the handling of recent cases.

Videos:

(The Foreign Correspondents' Club) Henry Litton: Hong Kong's independent judicial system - what does the future hold?

(FCC HK @ YouTube) Henry Litton: Hong Kong's independent judicial system - what does the future hold?

Internet comments:

- When you think 'judicial review', these are the people that usually come to mind:

Joshua Wong filed a judicial writ because he wants to become a Legislative Councilor and earn $93,000 per month. Yvonne Leung filed a judicial writ because she wants to put down on her resumé that she once sued the Chief Executive. But the King of Judicial Reviews is Cheung Chau resident Kwok Cheuk-kin.

(The Sun) November 21, 2013.

Over the past seven years, 70-something-year-old Kwok Cheuk-kin has sued the government at least nine times. He has never won a single case, but in two cases he reached an out-of-court settlement with the government.

In 2006, the Department of Transportation approved a price rise for three routes of the New World First Ferry Services. He applied for a judicial review on the grounds that the Central-Cheung Chau route has always been profitable and so a price rise is not justified. The government settled the suit by promising to calculate prices separately by route in the future. Of course, any economist will tell you that the net effect is that certain lightly traveled routes will see huge price rises, which will discourage unessential usage and eventually cause the routes to be shut down.

In another case, Kwok sued the government over rural election methods in Cheung Chau. The government settled by agreeing to bring the matter to the Legislative Council, which did absolutely nothing to change things.

When Kwok Cheuk-kin graduated from secondary in Hong Kong, he went over to study law in Taiwan. "I never wanted to become a lawyer. But my grades were bad, so I applied for a major that was easy to get into." When he returned to Hong Kong, he became a low-level government clerk. In 1071, he joined the Defend the Diaoyutai Islets demonstrations, got busted in the head by the police and sentenced to 3 months in jail for participating in an unlawful gathering. With a prison record, he never got promoted in his government career.

(Oriental Daily) July 23, 2015.

Recently, lead-in-water is a hot topic. So the King of Judicial Reviews Kwok Cheuk-kin has sued the Transport and Housing Bureau chief Cheung Bing-leung and Water Supplies Department chief Lam Tin-sing to demand the government supervise the installation of all water pipes in accordance with the law. Kwok did not have a lawyer. He listed his demands but offered no reasons to back his application for the judicial writ.

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 29, 2015.

Cheung Chau resident Kwok Cheuk-kin has filed for judicial review with the High Court, seeking to abolish the small house policy rights of indigenous residents of the New Territories.

Kwok, who has been dubbed “the king of judicial review”, is challenging the Home Affairs Bureau and the Lands Department in his action, Stand News reported. However, the writ did not reveal further details about the application.

Under the Small House Policy, male indigenous villagers who are descendants of a male line from a recognised village in the New Territories may apply to build a small house, once in their lifetimes, on their own land at zero premium, or on public land through a private treaty grant.

In December, 11 indigenous villagers from Sha Tin were found guilty of illegally transferring their land rights to developers. A couple of days later, the High Court rejected a claim brought by five Sheung Shui indigenous villagers against a law firm representing a developer in a land dispute, ruling that the villagers were just as guilty as the developer.

Previously, Kwok has lodged judicial review challenges against the replacement arrangements for vacancies in the Legislative Council and the August 31 decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on electoral reform, as well as seeking a ruling that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau had failed to hold Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying accountable for not disclosing a conflict of interest in Australian company UGL.

In a separate action, a student also applied on Tuesday for judicial review to challenge the revised financial arrangements for the city airport’s three-runway system. The student is protesting the decision to amend the charging structure for the airport passenger fee from the original across-the-board level of HK$180 to differing fees based on the service class and length of flight. The amendment was announced on September 29, meaning the three-month time limit for applying for judicial review expires on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, former Bar Association chair and retired Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton said that the system of judicial review is being abused in Hong Kong. “Judicial review is not available for challenges to government policy,” Litton had said. “That is a fundamental rule in the separation of powers.” However, other prominent legal figures in Hong Kong disagreed with his view that the system is being abused.

(Ta Kung Pao) (Ta Kung Pao) December 7, 2016.

Over more than one decade, Kwok Cheuk-kin has applied for at least 26 judicial reviews using legal aid. He lost almost 90% of those cases, wasting public money in the process.

We interviewed Kwok at the office of the Miami Resort Owners Association. This is an illegal structure next to the 4-th floor home of Kwok. Kwok's building also had an illegal structure intruding into the fire passageway between two buildings. Based upon aerial photographs, the illegal structure has been in existence since December 2009.

According to government records, the Buildings Department sent a letter on December 23, 2010 to the owner as well as the Miami Resort Owners Association to dismantle the illegal structure within 30 days. Six years later, the illegal structure is still there.

Kwok told our reporter that his judicial reviews did not involve any personal interests. He said that he paid for the lead-in-water judicial review himself. "I lived in one Miami Resort unit, and I own two other units that I rent out. To pay for the $500,000 legal fee, I had to sell one of them." Our reporter wondered if $500,000 is too low for an apartment. Kwok said that Miami Resort units are very cheap. He said that he owns all of Building 4F. He lives on the ground floor. The first and second floors are vacant because he can't afford to renovate. Our reporter checked the records and discovered that none of the owners of the three floors of Building 4F are Kwok Cheuk-kin. Specifically, the ground floor was purchased by Ms. Leung Chui-wah in 1997 for $480,000 and held ever since.

Our reporter also found out that in February 2003, the court pronounced Kwok Cheuk-kin bankrupt upon application by a creditor. The order stayed until February 2007. Our reporter questioned Kwok about his ownership of Miami Resort apartment units. At first, Kwok was evasive. Eventually he said that he went into business after retirement, lost money and declared bankruptcy. Our reporter said that the ground floor of Building 4F is owned by Ms. Leung Chui-wah. Kwok admitted that he is renting that unit. He also admitted that he does not own anyting in Miaim Resort. As for the illegal office space, he said that it was part of the garden and therefore not illegal. When our reporter pointed out that the Buildings Department had issued an order to dismantle, Kwok said that he does not know details because he is only a renter. However, the order was issued to both the owner as well as the Miami Resort Owners Association. As association chairman, Kwok really does not have an excuse.

(Ta Kung Pao) December 15, 2016.

Our newspaper has obtained a copy of the Certificate of Marriage dated July 14, 1971 between Kwok Cheuk-bin and his 'landlord' Leung Tsui-wah. When Kwok applied to the Legal Aid Department, he claimed 'zero assets.' According to the requirements, the assets of the spouse should be counted as well. Leung Tsui-wah's real-estate properties are worth about $10 million.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 5, 2017.

Trying to hold the government to account in court almost always guarantees a David and Goliath scenario: the government has unlimited resources to fight legal battles, while civilians seeking to rectify injustices face systemic obstacles at every step of the judicial process.

But in Hong Kong, one man is unfazed by the challenge. Cheung Chau resident Kwok Cheuk-kin – widely known as the “king of judicial review” – has taken the government to court more than 20 times over the past decade, though he has only won once.

The talkative 78-year-old may look like an unassuming elderly retiree, but he is a familiar figure to those on the judicial scene. When Kwok posed for pictures in front of the High Court during our interview, several security guards gave him a nod and a smile.

Kwok holds a law degree from a Taiwanese university. He said he worked at Hong Kong’s justice department for a few years before he was jailed for participating in a Baodiao – or “defend the Diaoyu Islands” – campaign in the 1970s.

Then in 1989, Kwok was detained by the Chinese authorities for a year after joining the Tiananmen protests. “I escaped by smuggling sleeping pills and putting them in the drinks of the guards,” he said, “then I ran away, but I didn’t go south because of the tight security measures.” Instead, he smuggled himself to Russia and then took a plane to Germany before flying back to Hong Kong.

Despite working as a clerk at law firms for many years, Kwok only filed his first judicial review after his retirement in 2006. It was over the increase of First Ferry fares. He said he was inspired by lawmaker and social justice activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, who often appears in court as an applicant or defendant, sometimes without lawyers.

Kwok lost his first judicial review challenge five years later. But the defeat did not stop him pursuing more judicial reviews against the authorities over various issues, such as the controversial Small House Policy and the HKTV free-to-air licence saga.

Though Kwok is hailed as a hero by some in the pro-democracy camp, the court has criticised some of his applications for being an “abuse of process” or initiated “without a clear understanding” of the issues.

In recent months, Kwok made headlines by filing a number of judicial review challenges against Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and pro-Beijing lawmakers over the legislature’s oath row. When asked to comment on the controversy, the elderly man took out his well-worn copy of the Basic Law while reciting the provisions in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution that he argued Leung and other politicians have violated.

“I’m not physically capable enough to participate in protests and challenge the police cordons, so I can only rely on judicial reviews,” Kwok told HKFP.

Asked if he believes judicial review is an effective means of seeking justice, Kwok said: “It is justice when you win.”

But Kwok, who has been fighting in the courtroom for the last 10 years, thinks that his chances of winning are not determined solely by the strength of his legal arguments, but there are other decisive factors: judges and the legal aid system.

Judicial review is a formal mechanism for keeping public bodies in check. It mainly reviews administrative decisions they make, and looks at whether a law or administrative decision is compatible with the Basic Law.

Critics – including incumbent leader Leung Chun-ying and retired Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton – argue that judicial reviews have been abused. Others accuse the Legal Aid Department of giving out funding too easily.

During a rare opportunity to speak publicly, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li defended the judicial review system last year, saying that the resulting decisions serve as a guide to good governance, even if they may occasionally cause inconvenience.

The High Court has consistently accepted less than half of applications between 2011 and 2015. The number of judicial review applications granted leave accounts for a tiny portion of the judiciary’s caseload. For example, the Court of First Instance had around 20,000 first instance civil litigation cases in 2015, whereas only 48 leave applications for judicial review were granted that year.

A frequently cited reason for not granting leave is the lack of legal merit, but legal scholar Karen Kong argues that the courts have generally been reluctant to deal with issues intertwined with politics, due to the conservative attitude of some judges.

This is a view shared by Kwok, though he expressed the criticism more bluntly. “Judges constantly move the goalposts,” he said.

“Some judges make decisions based on what they think the government prefers. In many judicial review cases, the applicants should have won but the court found many reasons to justify ruling in favour of the government.”

Kwok gave the example of his judicial review over the government’s controversial decision in 2012 to bar lawmakers from running in a by-election within six months after they resigned from the legislature. He criticised the government for violating the constitutional right to stand for election.

“Judge Thomas Au of the Court of First Instance, as well as the Court of Appeal, said it is a political issue pertaining to the legislature and the court should not interfere,” he said. “But then, how come the two courts decided to interfere in the [oath-taking saga] of Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang this time around? Many people did not see this coming.”

Generally, the courts respect the decisions of the legislature based on the principle of separation of powers. The court has also emphasised in previous judgments that it should exercise its jurisdiction over the legislature’s affairs in a “restrictive” manner.

But last November, Judge Au of the Court of First Instance and three Court of Appeal judges rejected the legal argument made by counsel for Yau and Leung that the court should stay out of the political dispute. They ousted the duo from the legislature for staging a controversial protest during a swearing-in session.

The court’s decisions to intervene in the oath dispute drew criticism from the public and the legal sector. Barrister and ex-lawmaker Audrey Eu has suggested that the impact on the city’s rule of law would have been less damaging had the court remitted the decision to the legislature’s president for his reconsideration.

While some legal scholars believe conservatism may explain why most judges tend to adopt a pro-establishment position, Kwok has a different theory for it.

“Judges in the lower courts could get promoted to the Court of Final Appeal. Who doesn’t want to climb the ranks and become rich?” he said. “But it’s different at the Court of Final Appeal, because the judges there are already at the top. So they may have other motivations: to gain a reputation for being fair, so that they may get the opportunities to sit on international hearings.”

While Kwok’s opinion remains speculative, he is not alone in thinking that the courts are biased: there has been an increase in online comments sharing Kwok’s sentiment in recent years. With Hong Kong’s justice system being dragged into political debates, legal scholar Eric Cheung Tat-ming has warned that public perception of judicial independence and fairness is an important indicator of the rule of law.

A factor that discourages people from pursuing judicial reviews is the high litigation cost. While Hong Kong has a legal aid system in place, critics argue that it is not enough to ensure equal access to justice.

In 2013, former Bar Association chair Kumar Ramanathan criticised the “institutional inertia” of the Hong Kong government to widen the scope of cases where legal aid is made available. “Where there is no legal protection, there is in effect no law. In so far as Hong Kong citizens are precluded from access to the Courts, the rules of the law which they would like to invoke are for them as good as non-existent,” he warned.

The success rate for legal aid applications for judicial review cases remained at about 25 per cent between 2011 and 2015. Applicants who press on without legal aid can be ordered to pay the government’s legal costs if they lose.

This was what happened to Kwok during the 2015 lead water scandal. While Kwok received legal aid for most of his past judicial review cases, he was not given legal aid when the court went ahead to review the government’s handling of the water crisis. He lost and – without legal aid – was ordered to pay the government over HK$500,000 in costs. He said the government had not yet pursued him for the amount.

A limitation of the legal aid system, Kwok claimed, is that lawyers assigned by the Legal Aid Department do not put much effort in the cases and “so if you win you are already very lucky.”

He also said that in his experience, the legal aid system played a decisive role in his access to court.

The Legal Aid Department may seek advice from independent lawyers on the merit of an application. Kwok found this process arbitrary, partly because he believed the choice of lawyer effectively decided whether he would be given legal aid.

“If they don’t want to give you legal aid, they can find a pro-establishment lawyer… It is always possible to justify not giving out legal aid,” he said. “But if they want you to go ahead, they can find a pan-democrat [lawyer] such as Audrey Eu, who will write something good about your case.”

The Legal Aid Department told HKFP that Kwok’s allegation was “totally unfounded.” It said that it will consider evidence and relevant legal principles in deciding whether an application is meritorious. In the absence of precedent, it will select lawyers for giving independent legal opinion according to a list of criteria, including their level of experience and area of expertise.

“Political inclination and ideology are not among those criteria to be considered,” the department said. It added that if an applicant is denied legal aid, they can appeal against the decision to the Registrar of the High Court.

Kwok’s activism has brought him unwanted attention too. For the first time, Kwok was featured on the front page of the Beijing-backed paper Ta Kung Pao last December. The paper’s investigative team claimed that Kwok had “interwoven relationships” with the Democratic Party on the basis that he “constantly texted legal questions” to a lawyer employed by Albert Ho, lawyer and ex-chair of the Democratic Party.

In another article, it accused Kwok of responsibility for illegal structures at his residence in Cheung Chau, though it only mentioned at the end of the story that Kwok was just a tenant of the property.

Kwok also made enemies among Cheung Chau leaders after he won a judicial review case in 2015 over unlicensed funeral parlours on the island. He said the rural leaders still verbally harass him to this day out of resentment that he shut down their business.

But he said he was not troubled by the harassment. “I just laugh at it,” he said. “As for my neighbours, I am on good terms with them because I help them with drafting letters to the government. I have my own strengths.”

Even though Kwok has received help from pro-democracy lawyers, he said he prefers taking action alone over having allies.

“I don’t want to be affiliated with any group, because our ideologies may conflict. If I file a judicial review challenge over an issue that affects the interests of a political party I’m associated with, that’d be tricky,” he said.

Unmarried and single, Kwok said he has no family burden and can therefore risk going bankrupt should he lose a lawsuit. Asked if he has other hobbies besides his courtroom activism, the elderly man’s first reaction was: “No, I don’t.”

He then continued: “I take care of my pets – I have one dog and three cats. Sometimes I go fishing. I also grow vegetables for my own use. That’s all I do.”

- (Oriental Daily) May 10, 2017

Previously Kwok Cheuk-kin filed a judicial review over Chief Executive CY Leung's omission of the word "Hong Kong" in his oath of office. Kwok wanted the court to nullify the oath and thus vacate the office of Chief Executive for the entire term.

The judge pointed out that CY Leung took his oath of office in 2012, but Kwok Cheuk-kin applied for a judicial review in November 2016, which is 4 years 4 months later. Since the five-year term of CY Leung is due to expire, this whole case becomes an academic exercise.

Kwok Cheuk-kin argued that he had no basis to file until the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpreted Article 104 of the Basic Law last year. The judge disagreed. He said that the High Court had already determined what an oath must be like in the 2004 case of legislator Leung Kwok-hung's oath of office. Therefore Kwok did not have to wait until the interpretation to demand CY Leung to re-take his oath. This was a misinterpretation of the law and not a reason to cause the delay.

The judge ruled that the lack of a good reason for the delay was sufficient to reject Kwok's application. Furthermore, CY Leung only omitted "Hong Kong" in the last sentence of his oath, possibly due to carelessness. Leung was not refusing or neglecting to take the oath. Allowing the judicial review to proceed may create uncertainty over everything that Chief Executive CY Leung has done in the past or will do in the future. Therefore, the judicial review was rejected.

As for legal fees, the judge believed that it was reasonable for CY Leung to hire a Senior Counsel to handle the case and therefore Kwok Cheuk-kin will have to pay Leung's legal fees.

- (Apple Daily) May 10, 2017. CY Leung hired Senior Counsel Benjamin Eu, whose legal fee is estimated to be around $3 million. Kwok Cheuk-kin said that he is ready to declare bankruptcy. He said, "It does not matter. I own nothing! At least I did this for the public, not just for myself."

- If he declares bankruptcy, then the tab gets picked up by the government using taxpayers' money. It does matter, because Kwok Cheuk-kin is sticking the public with the bill!

And it does not mean that this will stop. Your bankruptcy status means that you are automatically entitled to legal aid the next time.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) May 12, 2017.

A Cheung Chau resident may go bankrupt after the High Court declined to hear his judicial review challenge over the validity of the oath taken by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

Retired civil servant Kwok Cheuk-kin, 78, told HKFP that he expects to be asked for around HK$3 million in legal costs. “I am not worried about bankruptcy because I am alone and have no burden,” he said. “It won’t stop me challenging the government in court in the future.”

Wednesday’s decision came after Kwok took Leung to court last year following the government’s unprecedented move to challenge the oaths of two localist lawmakers and Beijing’s intervention in the legislature’s oath row.

After Leung and the Department of Justice sought to unseat the lawmakers, footage resurfaced of Leung omitting the phrase “Hong Kong” during his oath-taking for the position of chief executive in 2012.

Kwok then asked the court to declare that Leung’s oath was inaccurate and that he should retake the pledge of allegiance. He told HKFP earlier that he and his lawyers did not ask for Leung to be disqualified because they believed it would be unlikely that the court would oust the chief executive.

On Wednesday, Judge Thomas Au Hing-cheung rejected Kwok’s request on the basis that his application suffered from undue delay – four years and four months since Leung was sworn in.

During the leave hearing, Kwok agreed with the government’s case that the omission by the chief executive was unintentional, as opposed to a deliberate act of declining to take the oath. He suggested that Leung retake the oath as a solution.

On this basis, the judge held that the outcome would not differ whether or not he allowed the judicial review case to proceed. He added that the case would have little impact as Leung is set to leave office in June. The judge ordered Kwok to pay the respondent’s legal costs, including the fees of two barristers acting for the government.

“The Hong Kong government acts like the Singaporean one in trying to prevent people from pursuing judicial reviews by imposing heavy financial consequences on them,” he said. “But I won’t be deterred.”

“Since young people don’t come forward to challenge the government in the courtroom, I will do it,” he added. “I must seek to restore justice without abusing the court process.”

Kwok said he would appeal against the decision, with which he was “strongly dissatisfied,” on the basis that Judge Au avoided adjudicating on whether Leung should rectify his mistake even if it was unintentional. He said he had no plan to seek public donations to help cover the costs.

Kwok told HKFP earlier that he had only won once out of at least 20 judicial review cases he had filed against the government in the past decade. He was able to avoid going bankrupt by applying for legal aid for most of the applications. But he did not ask for legal aid when seeking to challenge Leung’s oath at short notice.

Kwok earned the nickname of “king of judicial review” for his judicial activism, but critics have argued that Kwok abused the judicial review system and wasted public money.

- (TVB) June 8, 2017.

The Legal Aid Department notified Kwok Cheuk-kin that he has been abusing the legal aid system over the past three years. Specifically, the Legal Aid Department said that Kwok had applied for legal aid a total of 21 times between July 2015 and April 2017, with 17 refusals. The Legal Aid Department holds that Kwok has been abusing the system. Therefore they are invoking the Legal Aid Ordinance and will deny him legal aid over the next three years irrespective of his lack of financial means or the merits of the case.

- CAP 91 Legal Aid Ordinance Section 11 Revocation and discharge of certificates:

The Director may, in such circumstances and manner as may be prescribed, revoke or discharge any legal aid certificate.

The Director is given a lot of leeway to exercise discretion because there are too many situations to enumerate a priori.

- How do you think Kwok Cheuk-kin will react? With the assistance of former legislator councilor and barrister Albert Ho (Democratic Party), Kwok is filing a judicial review against the Legal Aid Department director for accusing Kwok of abusing the legal aid system and denying him legal aid. Of course, Kwok will be applying for legal aid for this judicial review too.

- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

In 2016, The Stand News interviewed Kwok Cheuk-kin. You can read this as evidence of Kwok's mental state: "During the June 4th 1989 incident, Kwok had a frightening experience. He said that he went to Beijing to support the students. Several days later, he was taken to Shanghai and held under house arrest for one year. His family followed his instruction and offered sugared bird's nest laced with sleeping medication to the public security officers who were guarding him. When they fell asleep, Kwok escaped. He went to Heilongjiang and got a local ID. He crossed the border to Vladistock, flew to Moscow and then Berlin. He flew back to Hong Kong from Berlin."

These "experiences" might have conned a young reporter, but not veteran reporters like us who have covered the June 4th incident. If a Hong Kong resident were held under house arrest in Shanghai for one year, it would have been front page news in Hong Kong. The Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China spent so much money to support the democracy movement. Could they forsake such a freedom-loving pro-democracy Hongkonger, so that his family has to take such personal risks to allow him to drug the police and escape to Russia? Is this story credible or risible?

Kwok Cheuk-kin also claimed to have worked in a legal department of the Hong Kong government. He said: "In the 1973 Diaoyutai movement, I was clubbed in the head by the police and spent three months in jail."

Everybody who has lived through the colonial era knows that the Hong Kong British administration does full background checks on even clerks, much less for the legal department.

I have a friend who was a university student union president. After he graduated, he wanted to join the ICAC. He did not even get an application form. Another friend had a mentally ill brother, and thus got rejected repeatedly by the Disciplinary Services. So it is incredible that a person who went to jail for Diaoyutai protests would be hired by the legal department in the 1970's.

A few days ago, a couple committed suicide in a Cheung Chau vacation villa. As the chairman of the Owners Association of Bella Vista Villa, Kwok Cheuk-kin spoke out. Hey, the chairman of a Owners Association must be an owner himself. So why can a owner be applying for legal aid repeatedly? Anyone who lies too often gets caught often.

I don't blame Kwok Cheuk-kin for lying and abusing legal aid to play his games. I only blame the Legal Department did not realize for eleven years that this guy is cuckoo. Isn't that the worst possible case of dereliction of duty by public servants?

- Eggs and High Walls Even a jailbird who didn't like his prison food filed a petition for judicial review with the High Court.

- Here is the most often cited case (Ta Kung Pao):

As early as in the end of 2009, the Hong Kong SAR government had already put on the agenda the building of Route No. 10 linking Tuen Mun to Chek Lap Kok, together with the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project. Out of the blue, however, there came out an Old Lady Chu, a public housing resident in Tung Chung, who applied for a judicial review against the project on reason that dusts generated during construction were harmful to health. With the lawsuit dragging on month after month, construction cost for the project sharply increased by $8.8 billion, and commencement of construction was delayed for more than one year. As a result, construction of the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok link could start only one year later. Completion of its construction, originally scheduled in 2017, now has to be postponed until 2018.

In the aftermath, that Old Lady Chu, made a clean breast of it to the media. She's illiterate, basically knowing nothing about the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Neither did she want to cause a waste of over $8 billion public funds. But a member of the "barrister party" came to her and offered to file a lawsuit on her behalf against the government. She only needed to act as a figurehead plaintiff for the lawsuit, and then all legal actions would be taken care of by people from the "barrister party".

It is only because of such a lawsuit that the Chek Lap Kok airport had to become an "isolated island" following the bridge collision accident last Friday. That accident affected some people's livelihood and became an international laughing stock. The chief culprit causing all these problems is none other than the Civic Party, that "barrister party" which keeps paying lip service to public justice and people's will.

(Cable News @YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVxRYHNV1VM Interview with Old Lady Chu.

- (Apple Daily) Senior counsel and Civic Party legislator Alan Leong said that the government gets to have its way in the absence of judicial reviews. In the long run, therefore, the social costs would be much higher.

Well, that's unprovable, unverifiable and untestable, just like saying "If you don't elect Alan Leong as the next Chief Executive, the social costs would be much higher."

- Social costs would be much higher? You better hire an economist to do an estimate. On one hand, you have 10 large projects and all 10 are delayed due to judicial reviews. On the other hand, you have 10 large projects and the government screws up 2 of them while the other 8 are completed on schedule without apparent problems. Which is more costly?

- Of course, lawyers want many more judicial reviews because it represents a permanent income stream to them (billable at $100,000 per hour in court). Most of the petitioners are indigent and therefore the bill is paid for by the Legal Aid Department which is funded by the taxpayers. Super-rich tycoons can pay their own bills. Only the middle-class can't afford to.

- The real reason why lawyers want judicial reviews:-

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the lawyer's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the lawyer's world

- Yvonne Leung said that she was very impressed by the idea of separation of the three powers (executive, legislative and judicial). Well, that means that if you don't like the Chief Executive, you use the other two powers (legislative and judicial) to obstruct all executive actions. In the legislative council, it means vetoing and filibustering all proposed legislative presented by the executive branch. In the judiciary, it means filing judicial reviews on executive actions.

- Of course, this is a game that two can play. Someday it may be that a moderate pan-democrat will be elected as Chief Executive. Guess what? The pro-establishment camp can do exactly the same and watch him/her whine about obstructionism.

- In order to take de facto control of a place, you have to control media, legislature, judiciary and education. That's what all the fights are about.

- Nobody is talking about eliminating judicial reviews. Judicial reviews can be used, but they should not be abused. Henry Litton is saying that frivolous applications for judicial reviews ought to be dismissed summarily, in a single paragraph instead of 88 paragraphs. For example, when Kwok Cheuk-kin sues the government over lead-in-water supervision, he listed his demands but offered no reasons to back his application. That should be dismissed summarily. As another example, Kwok Cheuk-kin said that he heard about the HKTV case. Although he has never watched any of the programs, he said that it felt wrong to him and therefore he filed a judicial review. If every citizen in Hong Kong files a judicial writ with legal aid for everything that feels wrong to them, the entire system would be clogged down and Hong Kong would be bankrupt. However, the lawyers would become super-rich, and that is good for the economy as the money trickles down from them.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. April 27, 2017.

According to information, it is costs very little to play the judicial review game. The initiation fee is $1,045. Once you file, you will be on television news and newspaper front pages repeatedly for 24 hours. This is a lot cheaper than buying an ad on TVB.

All you have to do is fill out a form and make a sworn statement at the High Court on the first floor of the building. Then you proceed to the second floor and pay $1,045 at the accounting department. This fee includes one court session. The media will be notified immediately. So this is an excellent and cheap method of promotion.

You won't need a lawyer until the second court session. So you get your photos taken by the media first, and then you will go to apply for legal aid. If approved, you can continue your quest since this is using public funds. If not approved, you should back off and stop your quest. At this time, the judicial review is a cheap method for self-promotion while hurting other people.

Of course, a successful judicial review requires the cooperation of the Legal Aid Department. It is easy as pie. Although it is said that legal aid depends on the economic condition of the applicant as well as the nature of the case, it seems that all political cases over the past decade have been approved. The Legal Aid Department simply turns a blind eye and approves almost 100% of the cases.

From the court to Legal Aid Department, the money comes from the public funds. Apart from the applicant, the beneficiary of judicial review is the lawyer overseeing the case. The Legal Aid Department has a roster of lawyers for the applicant to choose from. The Civic Party and Democratic party lawyers are popular choices. So we don't have to spell out who is getting all the legal aid money for judicial reviews.

In the case of the King of Judicial Reviews, he has filed more than 30 applications using legal aid money. How can the Legal Aid Department continue to approve money for such an individual? It occurs to me that we little citizens should maybe apply for legal aid for a judicial review against the Legal Aid Department's largesse?

- (Silentmajority.hk) May 2, 2017.

A citizen only has to pay $1,045 to initiate a judicial review. The second stop is at the Legal Aid Department. According to information from the Legal Aid Department, each qualified applicant has to pay one-fourth of the legal fees to a maximum of $72,595. This means that if approved, each application will cost the Hong Kong taxpayers $290,380.

According to information, Kwok Cheuk-kin has filed 35 judicial reviews. If Legal Aid approved each case in full, then the taxpayers has paid a total of 35 x $290,380 = $10,163,300 for these judicial reviews.

Many of Kwok's judicial reviews are repeated filings of the same case. For example, Kwok filed 7 judicial reviews last year over the Legislative Council oaths of office, including the failure of Legco president Andrew Leung to hire lawyers for the DQ4 legislators; the failure Chief Executive of CY Leung to respond to questions from the DQ legislators; the cases of pro-establishment legislators as well as Chief Executive CY Leung for omission of words.

As a Cheung Chau resident, Kwok has often used the courts to review certain minor local issues, such as the higher prices for the Cheung Chau ferry service on holidays and the establishment of a funeral parlor in Cheung Chau.

- (Oriental Daily) September 29, 2017.

Today a court rejected Kwok-Cheuk-kin's application for a judicial review over the police assembly in February 2017. Kwok had said that the assembly did not apply for police permission. The judge ruled that the assembly took place on private premises and that Kwok did not have sufficient personal interest in the case to be affected. The judge ordered Kwok Cheuk-kin to pay for the legal fees for the police commissioner.

- (Oriental Daily) October 14, 2017.

When Kwok Cheuk-kin filed his judicial review over the oaths of office for Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hung, he told everybody that he might become bankrupt but he "take responsibility for whatever he does." After his application for legal aid was rejected, he immediately ran a fund-raising campaign to pay for his legal bills.

Now Kwok Cheuk-kin has just announced that he intends to move to the United Kingdom next year because there is nothing left about undemocratic Hong Kong to stay for. But Internet users immediately demanded to know what is going to happen to the money that he has raised so far. Today Kwok declared that he will not publish any information in case the government will take away his Old Age Living Allowance.

In Hong Kong, senior citizens aged 70 or over receive $1,290 without any asset/income limits. Therefore this is not what 73-year-old Kwok Cheuk-kin is referring to. Instead, he is most likely referring to the Old Age Living Allowance of $2,565 per person for which there is an upper asset limit of $329,000. So did he raise more than that figure?

[389] Child's Play (2015/12/1)

(SCMP) November 29, 2015.

The Territory-wide System Assessment exam was introduced in 2004 to assess Primary Three, Primary Six and Form Three pupils' basic knowledge in Chinese, English and mathematics. But the exams have been heavily criticised for leading to drilling and excessive homework.

The Education Affairs Committee of the Legislative Council held a marathon session to listen to public opinions on the TSA. The main attraction were three children:

(Epoch Times @ YouTube) Two Primary Three boys who oppose the TSA
(Epoch Times @ YouTube) One Primary Four girl who supports the TSA. She came with her father who is a pro-establishment DAB party member.
(Ming Pao) Two Primary Three Boys who oppose the TSA

These videos are worth looking at, not so much about the substance of the speeches but the way in which the children were clearly given scripts to read aloud.

(Ming Pao @ YouTube) The girl told the media that her father basically wrote the script but she made some minor changes.

Internet comments:

- Of all people, League of Social Democrats legislator Leung ("Long Hair") Kwok-hung came out to denounce a man for mis-educating his daughter.

Leung never gave a rat's ass about throwing objects and using foul language in the Legislative Council. How is that for setting a bad example to mis-educate children?
- Danny Chan, the father of the Primary 4 girl, said that he wishes an education issue should be discussed as education and not politics. That was wishful thinking, as he is getting threatening/insulting phone calls now. Chan describes this as the tragedy of Hong Kong. Chan said that he did not tell the DAB that he was going to the Legislative Council, and the DAB had no inkling as to what he might say. He said that he asked his daughter about TSA, and she told him that the TSA gives her less pressure than the regular exams.

- (Wen Wei Po) An independent anti-TSA district councilor Chan Kwok-keung posted the mobile telephone number of DAB member Danny Chan on Facebook. The information was relayed by other Internet users along with comments: "Let me call Grandma Chan to see if she agrees to let her granddaughter be brainwashed," "Please remember this number. We know what to do" and "I just called. It was really him."
- (Apple Daily) Danny Chan's daughter attends the Yaumati Catholic Primary School. Today, the school issued a statement:

(1) the father and daughter are expressing their personal opinions at the public hearing, which do not necessarily represent the school;
(2) the school respects the freedom of speech for parents and students;
(3) the school takes the best interests of its students to heart, and wishes that the student(s) will not be unnecessarily disturbed as a result of this incident.

The school also disclosed that they conducted a poll of parents and received 340 responses in which 52% wanted the elimination of TSA while less than 20% want to maintain the status quo.

- Two members of Passion Times also testified. So why were their political affiliations not an issue?
- Yellow Ribbon Media (such as RTHK) used "DAB girl ..." in their news headlines. Of course, they made it a point not to probe the backgrounds of the two Primary 3 boys.

Spoof script:

"How come no journalists reported on who our fathers are? We were also reading scripts."
Spoof script:

"My father is Hung XX. He hates the TSA, but he makes me drill on it every day. After I read the script at the Legislative Council today, he wants me to go home immediately so that he can take photos of me doing my homework to distribute to the reporters. So I don't even get to play on Sunday. This is really sad!"

- Two kinds of fate after being placed in the public spotlight. By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

The fates of the three children who testified at the Legislative Council are unfair. The Primary 4 girl was cursed out because her father's DAB membership is already an original sin and her support of the TSA made it an additional sin. It doesn't matter whether the girl was 9 years old or 29 years old, the Internet users will rush out in numbers. The school has quickly disavowed her, saying that her opinion does not necessarily represent the majority. The girl was the biggest victim of the Legislative Council hearings.
Meanwhile the boy complained that he had too much homework and therefore felt saddened. Therefore he wants the TSA to be eliminated. Because he is anti-government, the media showered tender loving attention on him.
Same place, same action, different fates.
As for the grown-ups who put the children in front of the spotlight, one of them is regarded as shameless and the other was given a moral halo. Same action, different fates. So where do we stand now? If we both kill someone tomorrow, will you be hailed as a hero who got rid of a menace while I become unpardonable?
The reporters rushed over to the Yaumati Catholic Primary School to ferret out evidence that the little girl was lying. But nobody went to the school that the boy attended to ask: Just how are you drilling your students such that they have no time for play? Nobody asked the boy's parents: Apart from studying, how many special interest classes does the boy attend? The boy could not be that tired just by studying.
By coincidence, I know a parent whose child is a classmate of the boy. He said: "Government schools do not drill. The Primary 3 students at the Hennessey Road Government Primary School only have a single TSA exercise book. Is that called too much?"
My friend is not a monster parent who loves to see homework for children. When he heard that the boy claimed at the Legislative Council hearing that he studies until late night, the question arose: "Is this the boy that I know?"
Nowadays, the media only like sound bites. They are disinterested in the truth. They only need a couple of accusations to create a good headline. They never imagine that if they dug a little bit further down, it could be a completely different story.
- (Wen Wei Po) December 2, 2015.

At the Legislative Council hearing, two Primary 3 boys claimed that TSA is very hard on them. One of them said that the studying caused him to skip his beloved sport of basketball. Yesterday, the Tseung Kwan O Government Primary School and the Hennessy Road Government Primary School attended by the two boys issued statements that they do not arrange extra teaching or mechanical rote drilling for TSA. Furthermore, the two schools have never received any complaints about the TSA from parents.

Statement from the Tseung Kwan O Government Primary School

Statement from the Hennessy Road Government Primary School
- If not the TSA, then what were the parents forcing the boys to drill on late into the night? Or was it all just staged propaganda?
- In the United States of America, it would be a crime to make false testimony to the US Congress/Senate.
- Forgotten in the political imbroglio is just what the children said.
The girl said that the TSA puts less pressure on her than the regular exams because the TSA marks don't count for individual students. So she thinks that it is just fun.
One of the boys said that practicing for the TSA leaves him with no time to play. So he doesn't like it.
Both are reasonable answers. If you select a large number of Primary 3 students at random, you are likely to come across these opinions. But because of politics, one side becomes absolutely right and the other side becomes absolutely wrong. You get to pick which side you want to be on.
- Here are some questions about the TSA?

Without the TSA, will the children have less homework to do and therefore more free time? No. Their time will be taken up with drilling for other types of exams.
Does the TSA impose additional coursework on students? No. The TSA is used internally by the Education Department to assess the schools and the individual marks are not given out. The Education Department would prefer the schools to do absolutely nothing more in order to get a fair reading, but some schools try to get better scores by drilling their students and so other schools are forced to follow suit. This is the tragedy.
Does the TSA force the children to go seek after-school tutoring? No. If you are concerned that your child can't follow and therefore seek outside help, then something is wrong with your school. Why is the school unable to teach your child properly?
Does the TSA force the children to seek good marks to the exclusion of all else? No. The TSA marks are kept for the Education Department and not disclosed to the outside world.
Does the TSA force the children to learn what they wouldn't otherwise be taught? No. The TSA materials are the normal reading, writing, dictation and mathematics. If testing on these subjects implies undue pressure on the students, then they will have to eliminate all forms of testing.
Who is feeling the pressure of TSA? The students aren't, because their marks don't count. The school trustees are concerned because it reflects on the reputation of and enrolment at the school, and therefore they apply pressure on the school principal. The school principal is concerned because his/her job depends on it. The teachers are concerned because the principal will make it their job to improve the marks.
What would happen if the TSA is eliminated? That means parents can only depend on the performance of the children within the school as indicators. A top student in a school gets accepted in a Band 1 school and suddenly finds himself unable to follow at all. Why? Because the primary school is poor overall, and being tops in that school isn't very good in the territory-wide sense. In the absence of something like a TSA, there is no way to tell. If not the TSA in this form, then there has to be some other kind of territory-wide assessment exercise to check on the schools.

- (SCMP) A simple answer to the angst over Hong Kong's TSA tests: ban schools from drilling students. By Alex Lo. December 1, 2015.

We politicise everything in Hong Kong. So it's predictable that political parties are jumping on the bandwagon against the Territory-wide System Assessment, the much-hated standard test that has kept our children awake at night studying.

For a long time, it was angry parents versus education bureaucrats. Now, it's the pan-democrats against the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. The latest news has the Primary Four daughter of the DAB's deputy spokesman Danny Chan Chung-cheung speaking in the legislature in support of the test. She said the tests made her happy, which was hard to believe. Her claims were an anomaly as nearly all 130 people who appeared at the Legco hearing last week criticised the assessment and wanted it scrapped. After much dithering, Chan admitted he wrote the script for her daughter to read in public.

As is usually the case, once you have politicians wringing their hands, the real issues disappear from view amid the sound bites and bickering.

Introduced in 2004, the tests aim to assess Primary Three and Six, and Form Three pupils in Chinese, English and maths. The Education Bureau uses the results to benchmark schools, not students. Their results don't affect primary students when they apply to secondary schools. Yet parents and schools persist in drilling young pupils for the tests.

I would argue it's the fault of schools and parents who force children to drill for the tests when the bureau has advised them not to. You have similar tests for the International Baccalaureate, the programme now used by most international schools in Hong Kong.

These have not been controversial because most international schools discourage students from preparing for the tests, advising instead that they should get plenty of sleep and not to worry too much.

The problem with government and aided schools is that many feel under pressure for being benchmarked, and so force their students to perform well - not for themselves, but for their schools.

There is nothing wrong with benchmarking, though. The solution is simple: disallow schools from drilling pupils for TSA tests and penalise those that do.

- What can parents do to eliminate the TSA? At one school, the parents threaten to withdraw their children from school for three days next week. This is just like "Mom, I am going to hold my breath until you buy that toy for me!" Meanwhile some other parents said that they will tell their children to fill out their TSA homework randomly in order to distort the results. Because their scores will be rubbish, the teachers will have to stop giving out TSA homework. It is not clear if the teachers will give these students zero for conduct. But would that mean success? Well, if the students fill out their actual TSA also randomly, their school will be ranked the worst in Hong Kong. You can consider the consequences yourself.

- During Occupy Central, none of the Occupy Central Trio, the Gang of Four or the pan-democratic legislators have their own children sleeping in the streets. It was always somebody else's children. But these anti-TSA parents are breaking the code by making their own children create bad impressions of themselves for the teachers and students. So this is a move in the right direction. Any revolution must start with yourself first.

- Has any discussant actually tried to do the TSA? How can they say that the students must be drilled repeatedly? Here is a sample question:

Your fellow student Mary finished second place in a Toy Design Competition. Please compose a congratulations card to her and encourage her to design many more interesting toys.

Is that so hard to do? How often do you have to drill the students on such assignments?

Here are the 2014 TSA question papers.

Here is a sample mathematics question:

You paid 10 dollars for 4 oranges. Each orange costs __ dollars and __ cents.

If the TSA finds that 90% of the Primary 3 students in your child's school can't solve this question, then the Department of Education needs to send inspectors over immediately to see what is going on with the teaching. If the principal and teachers insist that these children are stupid, the school needs to be purged (regardless of what the Professional Teachers Union has to say).

- Even before I entered Primary School, my mother was sending me downstairs to buy things at the store. She would give me a $5 bill and tell me to buy eggs. I walk all the way down eight floors to the store. I look at the price -- eggs were 30 cents each. I give the store manager my $5 and tell him that I want to buy eggs. He gives me 16 eggs and 20 cents in change. I had to calculate whether I got the right number and the right change. Now apparently, Primary 3 students are incapable of doing this. I don't know what to say.

- Not surprising, though. A friend of mine told me about her friend's daughter who just departed to study in England. When the daughter got there, she called mom immediately about how to make the bed -- she had never made her bed ever before! So the friend's friend had to walk the daughter step by step (with mobile phone photos) on how to make the bed. Such being the case, why would the daughter know anything about the price of an orange?

[388] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/11/29)

(Hong Kong University Convocation) The number of members entitled to vote present in person or by proxy ("registered voters") as per the register of voters is 4454.

Motion #2A: This Convocation deplores the decision of the University Council dated 29 September 2015 ("the Decision") which rejected the recommendation of the Search Committee for the appointment of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Staffing and Resources) without providing valid justifications to the Convocation and the public.
4308 (97%) voted for
Motion #2B: The University Council should make public, within 14 days of this Motion being passed, the grounds and particulars as well as the matters relied on that justify its view that the Decision is in the best long term interests of the University.
4345 (98%) voted for
Motion #3: This Convocation is of the view that disclosure of the discussion by Council members leading to the decision of the University Council dated 29 September 2015 is in the public interest and in accordance with the spirit of the Whistle-blowing Policy of the University of Hong Kong.
4271 (96%) voted for
Motion #4: This Convocation has no confidence in Dr. Leong Che Hung the Chairman, and those members of the University Council who voted against the recommendation of the Search Committee on 29 September 2015.
4282 (96%) voted for
Motion #5: This Convocation is of the view that Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to be the Chairman of the Council of the University of Hong Kong as he does not have the trust, confidence and respect of the academic and non-academic staff, students and alumni of the University of Hong Kong.
4356 (98%) voted for

(SCMP) November 29, 2015:

"Anyone but Arthur Li Kwok-cheung" was the refrain of many University of Hong Kong alumni as thousands returned to campus yesterday to vote overwhelmingly against the Beijing loyalist's possible chairmanship of the institution's top governing body.

It was the second extraordinary general meeting held by the HKU Convocation - a statutory body comprising 162,000 graduates and staff - in three months to vote on motions surrounding the delayed and now-denied appointment of liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun as a pro-vice-chancellor.

In September, around 84 per cent of some 9,000 alumni voted to urge the university council to appoint Chan to the senior post in 30 days and to offer legitimate explanation if it did not. But the motions failed to persuade the council, which officially voted Chan down a month later. He had been the search committee's sole candidate for the job.

Yesterday about 4,400 people voted on five non-binding motions, which included calls to criticise the council's decision on the appointment and to oppose council member Li, an executive councillor reportedly being considered to succeed Dr Leung Che-hung as council chairman.

High-profile alumni, including Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming, former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, and Commercial Radio chief adviser Stephen Chan Chi-wan, all argued Li was not suitable to take the helm.

"Some council members had found Johannes Chan controversial," Anson Chan said yesterday. "But when it comes to contentiousness, I believe no one could be more controversial than Li." Nicknamed "King Arthur" for his hardline approach, Li drew attention again last week after a leaked audio clip suggested he had proposed taking legal action against students who stormed a council meeting in July. Chan, the city's former No2 official, said it would be irresponsible for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, the school chancellor, to appoint Li as it could provoke further campus unrest and not mend the serious damage that she said had been done to the council's image.

Some 2,500 people joined a long queue yesterday to vote in person. At the special meeting, only one of the 20 graduates who spoke said Chan, lacking a PhD, should have been rejected.

Ip Kin-yuen, education sector lawmaker and convenor of the HKU Alumni Concern Group, said it was hard for the meeting's turnout yesterday to exceed September's, but he believed alumni could still make a difference. "The government would have already announced the new chairmanship of the council had the alumni and staff not previously expressed their strong views," he said.

(RTHK) November 29, 2015.

RTHK headline: More than 97% of Hong Kong University graduates oppose Arthur Li Kwok-cheung as university council chairman.

The Hong Kong University alumni held an Extraordinary General Meeting to pass the motion that "university council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to become the council chairman."
4,454 persons voted on the motion, of which 4356 (that is, more than 97%) believed that Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to become the council chairman. There were 25 votes opposed and another 10 abstentions.
At this meeting, the motions of "no confidence in the university council chairman Edward Leong and the council members who voted against the recommendation of the selection committee," "the details of the September 29th meeting should be disclosed for the sake of public interest" and "expression of extreme regret of the university council voting against the appointment of the pro-vice chancellor and not providing any reasonable justification" were all passed with very high votes.

Internet comments:

- According to the University of Hong Kong Convocation, the total number of members is 165,450.
4,356 voted for the motion that "university council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to become the council chairman." That would be 4356 / 165450 = 2.6%.
Since these 2.6% have spoken out, the rest of us must obey what they say PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION.
- Why couldn't EJ Insight simply state that only 2.6% voted? Instead they could only bring themselves so far as to report that "the turnout was lower compared to that in the previous meeting, Ming Pao Daily reported." All the information (total number of members and the number of votes by motion) is available on the Hong Kong University Convocation website. It couldn't have taken more than 3 minutes to obtain everything.
- So 4,356 voted for that motion against Arthur Li. I am sure that if we ran an online poll at any large discussion forum (e.g. Hong Kong Discussion Forum), we can get 10 times as many people voting for Arthur Li within 12 hours. But what is the point? These votes (the 4,356 and any other voting) are all non-binding.
- The whole issue about the headline writers' misleading use of numbers has been beaten to death already. See for example #314 (Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting in September) and #360 (Hong Kong University, staff and student referendum in October). But that won't stop RTHK from doing the same thing over and over again.
- By the way, RTHK also decided the skip the minor detail that the vote was non-binding. Of course.
- At some point, the Hong Kong University Convocation is going to start rebelling against these non-binding referenda. It is easy to trigger a referendum, because all it takes under existing rules is 20 signatures from alumni. But each event incurs time and costs (rental, labor, etc) and the bill will go out to the alumni, who will have questions about the costs and benefits. They've asked the questions, they've gotten the answers already and so why is it necessary to ask the same questions every month?
- Arthur Li Kwok-cheung was humorous about the situation. When asked whether he would be the new chairman of the HKU Council, Li replied: "You should be asking Ip Kin-yuen that."
- After running a relentless campaign against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, what if the Chief Executive appoints somebody functionally equivalent to but less notorious than Li? Ip Kin-yuen and crew won't have any time to mount yet another campaign against whoever, because the public won't have the patience and energy to listen to more of this.
- Ip Kin-yuen's point of argument needs to be less focused on Arthur Li and more on any appointee needing to have "the trust, confidence and respect of the academic and non-academic staff, students and alumni of the University of Hong Kong." And who is to determine the person has those qualities? Ip Kin-yuen, of course. In so doing, he will have to overcome the mistrust of the general population that any public university accepting vast amounts of tax subsidies should be beyond public scrutiny and accountability.
- Ip Kin-yuen complained today that he is overworked and fatigued. Actually, I am fatigued too. Will Ip Kin-yuen please stop!?
- Given the fall in participation rate between the first and second extraordinary general meetings, HKU Convocation motions are no longer useful. A third round will have even fewer participants and probably a blowback from the majority. The only thing left in Ip Kin-yuen's arsenal is the class/labor strike when the council chairman is announced. But he can't be sure of the participation rate either, given that it didn't work during Occupy Central.
- For the next HKU Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting, it should be easy to get 20 signatures to request this motion: This Convocation is of the view that Ip Kin-yuen is not fit to issue demands on the HKU Council as he does not have the trust, confidence and respect of the academic and non-academic staff, students and alumni of the University of Hong Kong.
- The RTHK reporter may have no compunction about writing that headline, but even Ip Kin-yuen is too embarrassed because all he can say is: "Regardless of the sizes of the numbers, the important thing is the spirit of it."
- More accurately, there was no fighting spirit left.
- Former Chief Secretary Anson Chan also showed up to vote. She said that Arthur Li has been unfriendly towards Hong Kong University in his words and actions lately. She referred to Arthur Li's role as trustee and chancellor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Of course, she has no idea what she was talking about. Arthur Li served as the vice-chancellor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has never served as a trustee. Furthermore, the chancellor at all eight universities is always the Chief Executive by law. Why should you pay any attention to advice from someone who can't even get the most basic facts straight?
- (SCMP) Ip Kin-yuen, education sector lawmaker and convenor of the HKU Alumni Concern Group, said it was hard for the meeting's turnout yesterday to exceed September's, but he believed alumni could still make a difference. "The government would have already announced the new chairmanship of the council had the alumni and staff not previously expressed their strong views," he said.
The reason why the new chairman has not yet been announced is because the students, alumni and staff act as if it is morally justified to physically assault council members (cf. the July meeting) and air secretly made audio recordings of meetings. Why is Arthur Li or anybody else interested in the job? It doesn't pay anything and it is dangerous to your health.
- If you hold a referendum among a group of drug addicts about whether drug use should be criminalized, you can probably guess what the result will be. Most of them will object. If this group designates themselves as the Mental Health Concern Group and they have a 93% objection rate amongst themselves, they can claim that that most citizens oppose the criminalization of drug use. Recently, there are a number of "concern groups" who hold referenda with one-sided results. With "public opinion" now backing them up, their leaders come out and issue demands in the name of the people of Hong Kong.
Of course, they are quite civilized. All they want is a dialogue with you. But their idea of a dialogue is that they surround you, they shout their demands in your face and you had better oblige them. And they won't let you leave until you oblige them. Of course, they won't punch you; they'll only kick you in the shin where the cameras can't see.
What do they want to discuss? Regardless of the specifics, it always comes down to "self-determination." This means that they get to determine everything while you count for nothing. Within five years' time, self-determination will become the most important core value of Hong Kong. It goes without say that self-determination will be the norm on school campuses and in local communities. Eventually the true purpose will become apparent -- self-determination for Hong Kong in 2047 when One Country Two Systems expires. When 2047 approaches, the Hong Kong Self-Determination Concern Group will hold referenda to show that the people of Hong Kong want self-determination; they will demand a dialogue with the Central Government; if they can't get their way, they will hold more referenda among themselves to show that the people of Hong Kong support self-determination.
So from now on to 2047, you will keep hearing about self-determination, referenda, etc ad nauseum. Get your earplugs out!

- (Oriental Daily) Chief Executive CY Leung had a counter-question:

Was it fair to vote no confidence in ex-chairman Edward Leong Che-hung?

As chairman, Leong has to be neutral and therefore he did not vote. There is no way to tell whether he would have voted for or against, so the no confidence can't be about how he voted or how he might have voted. The no confidence must be about the failure of the council to deliver the desired result of appointing Johannes Chan as pro vice-chancellor. But what do you want Leong to do? Procedurally, he brings the matter up for discussion and then the council members vote. If Leong overrides a 12-8 council vote by some form of executive fiat, that's when you should have no confidence in his chairmanship.
- The Hong Kong University Convocation voted to demand the Council produce the grounds and the particulars of the decision not to appoint Johannes Chan. After all this time, they still have no idea how the Council operates. And these are graduates from the top university in Hong Kong.
Let us go over that again.
The appointment of Johannes Chan is put on the meeting agenda with the details of the application, the referees' reports, the curriculum vitae, the recommendation of the selection committee, etc being provided to Council members beforehand. Council members can speak out, if they so wish, but they don't have to open their mouths if they don't want to. When the discussion is done, a secret ballot is taken. The final vote was 12-8. You don't even know who voted which way.
The point of the secret vote is that council members can vote according to their "conscience" without succumbing to any alleged pressure from Xi Jinping, the China Liaison Office, the American Consulate, the American Chamber of Commerce, the British Consulate, the Hong Kong University Students' Union, the Hong Kong University Academic Staff Association, the Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group, People Power/Civic Passion/League of Social Democrats or the bogeyman. Each of the 20 voting council members have their own individual reasons for voting his/her way. Given this decision-making mechanism, there is no way of coming up with a simple statement such as "We the Council feel that Chan is academically unqualified" or whatever you think.
The "grounds and particulars" would require each of the 20 voting members to state their vote and provide a written statement to enumerate the reasons for voting that way. Then you can tabulate and maybe find something like:

2 NO's because Chan does not have a PhD and his publications are not cited often enough
1 NO because Chan has a poor impact factor with his publications, even worse than assistant professors
1 NO because Chan tried to apply political pressure to get this job
1 NO because Chan lacks the academic credentials and tried to apply political pressure to get this job
1 NO because Chan has been acting in a divisive manner which is not in the long-term interest of the university. He also failed to meet expectations in the handling of the secret donation to Robert Chung.
1 NO because Chan tried to apply political pressure to get this job and has been acting in a divisive manner which is not in the long-term interest of the university
1 NO because Chan disclosed and discussed his candidacy in the media against all norms, which means that he cannot be put in charge of academic staffing because he has zero understanding of personnel hiring practices.
1 NO because Chan is telling the media that he does not want the job but has to fight for it because it is for the sake of freedom and democracy. If he doesn't want the job, he shouldn't get the job. There is no reason to force him to take a job that he doesn't want.
1 NO because Chan is equating his appointment with academic freedom at HKU, which is totally ridiculous because no HKU professor is going to be banned from researching any topic if Chan is not appointed.
3 BLANKS because "I don't have to tell you anything about how or why I voted. The system depends on this in order to function properly."
1 YES because Chan's academic credentials are the best in the field of human rights in China.
1 YES because Chan's appointment is the only way to stop further struggles given that the students and the HKU Alumni Concern Group will never stop until Chan is appointed. We don't want to see another episode of council members being surrounded by a hostile mob, because someone might really get hurt the next time.
1 YES because Chan has already shown that he is a good Dean at the Faculty of Law.
1 YES because the post has been vacant for five years and it should be filled as soon as possible with the only available and qualified candidate.
1 YES because I have known Chan for 20 years, he is a good man and I know that he will do a wonderful job.
1 YES because academic freedom at HKU must be defended and the recommendation of the selection committee has always been and will be automatically honored by the HKU Council.
1 YES because that is what the students, teachers and staff members demand according to the various referenda.

[And it could even happen that 10 of them said they voted YES and 10 voted NO!]
So now that you have the "grounds and particulars" from the council members, what will you do? You have "no confidence" in the 12 who voted NO because you reject each and every of their reasons as specious; and you have "confidence" in the 8 who voted YES because you accept each and every of their reasons as serving public justice?
- To the extent that 97.3% of the Hong Kong University alumni did not vote, it means that there are at least some people who know not to join a circus. Good for them!
- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 5, 2015.

... Recently I see that many newspapers use the headline to report this story: "97% of Hong Kong University alumni agree that Arthur Li is unfit to become council chairman."
That seems to be quite stunning. The Hong Kong University Convocation has 160,000 members. 97% of them is 150,000+. But just over 4,000 voted that day. So where did the 150,000+ figure come from?
The reason is simple. The title needs to be changed to "97% of participating Hong Kong University alumni agree that Arthur Li is unfit to become council chairman." Why did they not print "participating"? Do they intentionally want to create the impression that Arthur Li is overwhelmingly by the HKU alumni? Did they intentionally want to mislead readers that the 4,000 votes represent 97% of the HKU alumni?
At a time when the media sector in Hong Kong are willing to cover up the facts and ignore principles, when the Journalists Association becomes a tool to attack the enemies and protect the allies, we don't have a healthy media environment anymore. If the media are supposed to supervise/monitor the authorities, they should being by supervising/monitoring themselves first. If you cannot do that, how can you pretend that you are defending justice?

- (Oriental Daily) December 22, 2015.

Recently the word is that the Hong Kong Government will announce the appointment of a new chairman of the Hong Kong University Council around Christmas, and that person will be the same Arthur Li Kwok-cheung. Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group convener and Education sector Legislative Council Ip Kin-yuen had said in October that they will file for a judicial review and use student/teacher strikes to stop the appointment.
Today Ip Kin-yuen admitted that he did not expect that the government would postpone the appointment of the council chairman. If Arthur Li is appointed, he plans to hold assemblies and marches, but he does not plan to file a judicial review and he does not mention anything more about strikes. Does this mean that Ip lost? No, he said, because he has successfully made the government postpone the appointment.

[387] Nobody Listens to Democracy Grandma Anymore (2015/11/29)

(Oriental Daily) November 29, 2015.

Former Chief Secretary Anson Chan (nicknamed "Grandma of Democracy") showed up for 30 minutes to campaign for the umbrella soldier candidate in her district and spent the rest of the day on hair-dressing and dim sum dining. Yesterday, she came to take part at a discussion forum organized by the Hong Kong University Students' Union. There was only one person in the audience. So she got upset and left. Nowadays Anson Chan is an "old battery" without any energy or attraction. But at the same time she still wants to act like a big star as opposed to the struggling bit players who will play even if there is only one person in the audience.
The Hong Kong University Students' Union organized this forum on "Imagining the Future Hong Kong" with Hong Kong University Faculty of Social Sciences dean John Burns to discuss the topic of "Hong Kong civil service and the problems of governance in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." Anson Chan arrived 15 minutes early for this 10am meeting. She said that she would welcome questions from the students. But the time 10am arrived, the total number of reporters, Student Union members and speakers tallied to fewer than 10 persons. Anson Chan asked the meeting to be delayed 15 minutes to wait for the late arrivals. Nobody came. So Anson Chan picked up her handbag and left angrily while telling the Student Union people to "be better organized the next time." Thus the sole audience member was left with rows of empty chairs. The organizer was embarrassed and apologized to Anson Chan as she stormed out with a taut face.

(Bastille Post) November 29, 2015.

Anson Chan served as the Chief Secretary. Even if she does not know the academic research behind the subject, the other speaker John Burns had edited the book "The Hong Kong Civil Service: Personnel Policies and Practices" 31 years ago. That book is the required text for all political science students who are studying administrative science.
How come the students didn't show up? First of all, the topic was too boring for most. Secondly, the 10am start time for a Saturday morning is a non-starter. After attending classes for most of the week, the students get to relax on Friday night. They won't be able to get out of bed by Saturday noon. Who is going to show up to listen to a grandma and a grandpa to talk about the civil service in Hong Kong? The lone student who showed up is a rare specimen. Anson Chan should stay and spend some time with him.
Everybody thinks that Anson Chan is a celebrity and therefore the students will flock over to listen to her. Actually, most of the students don't know who Anson Maria Elizabeth Chan Fang On-sang is. When she retired from the civil service in 2001, these students were around 5 years old. What did she expect?

Internet comments:

- When Anson Chan told the Hong Kong University Students' Union to be "better organized the next time," she meant that they had better hire extras to fill up the auditorium.
- That's not going to be cheap. People were paid $1,000 to sleep overnight in Tamar Park tents during Occupy Central.
- The Gang of Four for Democracy in Hong Kong:

Anson Chan, born on January 17 1940
Jimmy Lai, born on December 8 1948
Joseph Zen, born on January 13 1932
Martin Lee, born on June 8, 1938

All Grandpas/Grandmas long past the expiry dates on the packages.
- Where were HKU students Yvonne Leung, Alex Chow, Billy Fung, etc? Do they also hate freedom and democracy?
- Actually, Anson Chan isn't so old. Her behavior in this case is exactly what a Kong girl would do.

... 'Kong girls' are usually self-centered and selfish. They always put themselves in an over-high position and think that they are the most important people in the world. It is necessary for their boyfriends to do everything for them such as carrying bags, paying for meals etc. They may complain about their partners if they do not ‘serve’ them. Caring about the feelings of one another may be a difficult task for Kong girls.

- More past Kong girl behavior: (Wen Wei Po) October 27, 2011.

Anson Chan was invited to a discussion forum at the CCC Kei San Secondary School in Fan Ling district yesterday. According to the principal Yung Kong-shing, who described himself as an education worker who doesn't lie, here are the unreasonable demands of Anson Chan:

- She said that she was going to attend a dinner that night and needed to go home and change first. Therefore, the forum must end at 345pm.

- The school is required to send a private car to pick her up and take her back. Since the school does not have an official vehicle, the vice-principal had to drive his personal car to do so.

- Because Anson Chan was concerned that the audience may raise questions about the "large donation" from Jimmy Lai, she turned the meeting into a closed door meeting instead of an open one. The media which was notified to attend were kept in a first-floor classroom where they cannot hear or see what was taking place at the meeting.

- Because Anson Chan said she wanted to speak individually with students, the speech was going to be short in order to allow more time for the Q&A portion. In the end, Chan took only three questions from the students.

- Anson Chan has issued an "order" that the video of the discussion forum must not be uploaded onto the Internet.

- As Anson Chan left, a reporter asked: "As a former senior government official, do you need to explain the secret political donation scandal?" She said: "No need to explain" and "You can only ask me about the speech and I am not going to comment on anything else." Then she left angrily in a private vehicle.

- (Merriam-Webster) Prima Donna: a person who thinks she or he is better than everyone else and who does not work well as part of a team or group.

- While the HKU students party and sleep, here is what is happening in Tsinghua University (Beijing). This photo was taken by Taiwan KMT legislator Tsai Cheung-yuan at 2am in the packed Tsinghua University Library when the temperature is minus 5 degrees centigrade outside.

By contrast, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union want the students to go out on strike.

- What are Hong Kong university students up to instead?

Notice from the New Asia College Student Association (Chinese University of Hong Kong):
To all fellow students at New Asia College:
Winter is coming and our association projects that the need for condoms will rise.
Because current inventories are insufficient, future supplies may be tight.
Please pardon.
November 30, 2015.

[386] Entertaining In China (2015/11/29)

(Apple Daily) November 27, 2015.

Entertainer Huang An denounced entertainer Crowd Lu Guangzhong for opposing the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement last year. Huang pointed out that Lu is in favor of Taiwan independence. As a result, Lu was no longer on the program of the Southern Strawberry Music Festival in Dongguan city, Guangdong province, China.
Lu issued a statement that he has never taken part in any political issue, but this did not stem the consequences. Huang An issued a victory statement: "Lu Guangzhong's December 12th Beijing concert has been canceled!" He posted a copy of the cancellation notice. Huang said that he will focus on Lu's December 19th Xian concert next.
Lu said: "I am helpless. I was opposed to the black-box operation but not the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. I don't want the misunderstanding to continue to cause antagonisms."
Lu's company said: "We received news from Beijing that someone has declared that they will cause trouble. We don't know what that means. In order not to cause grief to the organizers, we have bilaterally agreed to postpone the concert. We apologize to the more than one thousand fans who have purposed tickets already." Later, the company announced that the Xian concert will be delayed for the same reason.

Huang An's weibo.

The power of the people is once again on display! After I denounced Crowd Lu Guangzhong as anti-service trade agreement and a covert Taiwan independence fellow traveler, the power of anti-Taiwan independence forces in China coalesced and effectively curtailed the voices of Taiwan independence! Lu Guangzhong's November 28th performance at the Southern Strawberry Music Festival has been canceled! Previously he had participated in the Chengdu Strawberry Music Festival and this one too. We will not be silent anymore. If you love the motherland, say it out loud!

(Passion Times) November 24, 2015.

Former Love Hong Kong convener Anna Chan followed the example of Taiwan singer Huang An and denounced Hong Kong singer Ellen Loo for supporting Occupy Central last year but is now still being scheduled to perform at the Southern Strawberry Music Festival in Dongguan on November 28th. Chan posted an October 5th 2014 photo of Loo performing at the Rainbow Bay Festival in Kaohsiung city, Taiwan while wearing a yellow ribbon in order to ask the people of Taiwan to support Hong Kong.
Many mainland Internet users responded to Anna Chan's denunciation. One Internet user wrote: "If you want to cause chaos in Hong Kong and oppose China, you should not be coming to mainland China!" Another Internet user wrote: "What kind of job is the Ministry of Culture doing? Hong Kong independence and Taiwan independence advocates are coming here to perform. Why don't you do something about it? We cannot tolerate such entertainers!" Another added: "How did you people approve this Occupy Central singer? All separatists must be ousted from a unified China. We will boycott!"

(The Stand) November 25, 2015.

Actor Anthony Wong responded to Apple Daily about Anna Chan's denunciation of Ellen Loo: "Anna Chan is just a minor bit player, but now she wants to tell the director how to do the show. She is saying that the male actor Andy Lau has the wrong expression. She is like that." Wong characterized Chan as a "fish tank cleaner": "She eats off the waste products of the fish. What does she have? She does not hold any public position. Who is she? I know her only as a rat. These people just wag their fingers at everything and exploit the situation to gain attention."
Wong also said: "To respond to her is to elevate her position. I don't have to pay attention to these political hacks." Wong accused Chan of causing chaos in Hong Kong: "She is also Occupy Central. She is the black hand behind Occupy Central. If it weren't for people like her, Occupy Central would not have been so serious. It is people like her who push others along that caused the situation to deteriorate in Occupy Central. These are the primal causes. She should not be allowed to travel to Macau. She is the one with the problems. She caused chaos in Hong Kong, she raised havoc in Hong Kong. She disrupted state policies. Hong Kong needs prosperity and stability, but she keeps coming out to disrupt Hong Kong. She does not want Hong Kong to be stable and harmonious. She does not support the policies of Chairman Xi."
The Chan-Loo incident has been compared to the Huang-Lu incident in Taiwan. Previously Huang An had posted photos of Lu appearing at the Taiwan Parliament in March 2014 to oppose the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. Huang said: "Dear little friend Guangzhong, why do you have to force yourself to go to a place which you oppose, object, despise and deride? A place which oppresses the Taiwan nation?"

(HKG Pao) November 25, 2015.

All Anna Chan did was to ask on social media: "Hong Kong singer Ellen Loo supported Occupy Central last year. Why was she invited to participate in the 2015 Southern Strawberry Music Festival (November 28th)?" What is the problem of Chan asking why someone is "supporting Occupy Central while earning RMB yuan"? Is such a question not permissible? Is Anthony Wong so dictatorial?

Today Anna Chan responded: "I exposed Hong Kong singer Ellen Loo for supporting Occupy Central and therefore she shouldn't be going to mainland China and earning RMB. I wonder if this is hitting Anthony Wong's soft spot? He kept insulting me to the Poisonous Media, he said that I am a bit player, I hold no public position, I am a fish tank cleaner ... he even flipped right to wrong, black to white and accused me of being the black hand behind Occupy Central. He said that I was the one who caused chaos in Hong Kong!"

Video @ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UQw9_oS0go

(Ellen Loo's Facebook)

Ellen Loo
I just received notice. I regret that I will not be able to come and participate in the Southern Strawberry Music Festival tomorrow. There will also be glimmering shards in even the darkest emotional holes or gray spots of life. They represent the combination of hope, freedom and dream. My work "The sky is very dark" has the verse: "I believe that tomorrow will be better." Today my faith has not been shaken. I hope that everybody can listen to their hearts and come out of their worlds.

(The Stand) November 27, 2015.

Eman Lam started singing with Ellen Loo in the band at 17 for ten years, but they are now solo singers. Following the withdrawal of Ellen Loo from the Southern Strawberry Music Festival, Eman Lam also announced on Weibo/Instagram that she won't be able to participate in the Southern Strawberry Music Festival. She did not indicate whether this was her own decision to withdraw or the organizers' decision to remove her from the program. During Occupy Central, Eman Lam did not make a clear statement of her position.
On Facebook, singer Denise Ho wrote: "Music represents freedom, it represents imagination. A place without freedom and intolerant of imagination can hardly have room for music. It depends on whether you choose fear or you listen to yourself."
Wong Yiu-ming also expressed support for his protegé Ellen Loo: "When Ellen shaved her head, she was ready to risk everything. Nothing here can strike a blow against her. At least Ellen still have you, us, and the positive energy and love of the world. To borrow your beloved Neil Young's verse: Keep on rocking in the free world."

(Anna Chan's Weibo)

Kay Tse with yellow ribbon down at Occupy Central
Anna Chan: "Firmly boycott all pro-Occupy singer/entertainers who are going to the mainland in order to earn RMB! Although Occupy Central is not necessarily pro-Hong Kong independence, they are colluding with western anti-China forces to cause chaos in Hong Kong, even attempting to spread the chaos into China as in the cases of the Arab Spring, the Jasmine Revolution, etc. The anti-national education campaign in Hong Kong is another plot by western agents in Hong Kong."

(Kay Tse's Facebook) November 29, 2015.

Official Kay Tse International Fan Club: Because Kay Tse sustained an injury to her vocal chords on November 21 and has not yet recovered, we have conferred with the Chinese University Students Music Festival officials and agreed that Kay Tse should rest and recuperate. Therefore, she will not be able to make an appearance at the Guangzhou stop. We ask her fans to forgive us.

(Ming Pao) December 23, 2015.

Yesterday Anna Chan wrote on weibo that she heard that lyricist Lin Xi was due to give a talk at the Guangxi University Great Hall on December 27. She wrote: "You wrote that writing Welcome to Beijing is the biggest blemish in your career. I beseech you not to inject these deformed ideas into mainland students. I believe that our motherland will be better and better."
Afterwards mainland Internet users left messages at the Guangxi University weibo: "Do you know that this Hongkonger opposes mainland and supports Occupy Central in his ideas and actions. He specifically wrote the song Who hasn't spoken up? in support of Occupy Central. Does your university leader intend to let your students learn to Occupy Central like the Hong Kong students?"
Late last night, the Guangxi University Youth League announced on its weibo that the organizers have cancelled Lin Xi's event.

(HKG Pao) By Robert Chow. December 30, 2015.

Recently the yellow ribbon entertainers, Internet users and media outlets have been attacking Love Hong Kong convener Anna Chan. For example, Anthony Wong accused of Chan of acting as if she was the Communist Party Central. Another Apple Daily commentator said that Chan was more than the Communist Party Central, because she is the reincarnation of (Madame Mao) Jiang Qing. Other Internet users decry Chan for denouncing entertainers such as Hin Cheung and Ellen Loo for their support of Occupy Central.
What do the regular folks think?
Firstly, we have to ask: Is Anna Chan bringing up facts? For example, is it true that Hin Cheung opposed national education and sang a pro-Occupy song? Did Ellen Loo support Occupy Central? These entertainers have not denied the allegations. If they didn't, Anna Chan would have received legal letters a long time ago already.
Secondly, we have to ask whether these entertainers took on the Occupy Central halo last year? Did they wear yellow ribbons and announce themselves as such?
Thirdly, after the total failure of Occupy Central, did these people want others not to mention their past and pretend as if none of this ever happened?
Fourthly, who is Anna Chan? How much power does she have? Does she have a direct line to the Communist Party Politburo?
How many people follow Anna Chan's weibo? The number is 125,487. Meanwhile Anthony Wong has 4,690,256 followers on Tencent Weibo, Hin Cheung has 3,790,351 followers on Sina Weibo, and even Ellen Loo has 132,589 followers. Other people such as Lin Xi have more than a million fans. So how is Anna Chan going to pose a threat to their livelihoods?
The yellow ribbons is mistaken on one point: they don't own the world. When they Occupy Central, insult mainlanders and push for Hong Kong independence, they are not offending just Anna Chan. They are offending the people of mainland China. Hong Kong has 7 million people, but the mainland has 1.4 billion people. What Anna Chan is saying reflects what the mainland Internet users are thinking.
When the yellow ribbons take action or shoot their mouths off, they don't bother the governments so much as hurt the feelings of ordinary citizens. These are the consumers. Who on the mainland is going to offend 1.4 billion consumers in order to support these yellow ribbon Hong Kong entertainers?
Some people say that even without the 1.4 billion mainland market, there is always the 7 million Hong Kong market. Unfortunately, not all 7 million Hongkongers like the yellow ribbon entertainers. The base support may be just a hundred thousand or so, and they have low spending power. Of course, if 100,000 each spend $500 a month to support these yellow ribbon entertainers, the Hung Hom Coliseum can be sold out ten days each month and the movies will sell $50 million of tickets each. The mathematics is correct. But these yellow entertainers clearly know in their hearts that their supporters do not put their money where their mouths are.
There are two exits: On one hand, you can apologize for what you did. If you don't want to apologize, you can explain that it was all a misunderstanding and then make a pro forma apology ("I am sorry that some people were offended" which is not the same as "I am sorry for offending you"). Whether the mainland citizens will buy this or not cannot be guaranteed. On the other hand, the yellow ribbon entertainers have always insisted that they are courageous, strong-willed and principled. So they should keep going. It won't be the end of the world to lose a 1.4 billion market. In this world, there are always consequences when you do something that you shouldn't be doing.
So Anna Chan is not the problem that you have to solve! It is your past that is causing problems for you today.

Internet comments:

- Ellen Loo? Eman Lam? Who are these people anyway? What have they ever sung? I have never heard of them before.
- Why are they singing in putonghua? Aren't they Hongkongers with their own Hong Kong language that is culturally and linguistically different from and irreconcilable with the mainland locusts?
- Anyway, are they going to come out of the closet as Yellow Zombie Umbrella Soldiers? Or are they going to keep being evasive and still hope that they get a get-out-of-jail-free card some day?
- Look, if this wasn't true, they would have tried to deny it. Instead, they just took the hit without a fight. Therefore, they must be guilty as charged.
- It is understandable that mainland music festivals would cancel Ellen Loo. In Hong Kong, everything is about politics (unlike in the mainland). Who can guarantee that Ellen Loo wouldn't get on stage with a yellow umbrella? When that happens, Apple Daily and the western media will use this incident to talk about human rights in China blah blah blah. Even if Ellen Loo signed an agreement beforehand not to touch politics, we know that agreements are worthless after Billy Fung's conscience-free betrayal of the HKU confidentiality agreement. Whenever freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, universal suffrage, universal values blah blah blah are involved, rule-of-law is worthless.
- It is said that China is being mean and narrow-minded to reject Ellen Loo. Let me ask:
Do you think the United States will admit a pro-ISIS Syrian singer?
Do you think Germany will admit a pro-Nazi Russian skinhead singer?
Do you think Japan will admit a pro-Dokdo Korean singer?
Do you think South Korea will admit a pro-Takeshima Japanese singer?
Do you think China will admit a pro-Senkaku Islands Japanese singer?
Do you think Japan will admit a pro-Diaoyutai Islets Chinese singer?
- Fun reading: List of people declared persona non grata.
- Did Eman Lam back out as a matter of moral principle? Or does she already know that the game was up:

Lam2's Facebook post: We need a large number of umbrellas at the scene. There are enough materials already.
- Without the mainland market, there is still the Hong Kong market with a population of 7 million. A singer can make a decent living here.
- Eh, do you realize that the young people of Hong Kong don't pay for their music? They only download illegally from the Internet. It is their inalienable human right. So how are you earn a living off them?
- We are Hong Kong. It is a shame for any Hongkonger to cross the border into mainland China and sell their bodies and souls for a fistful of yuan notes.
- But why is it not a shame when a Hongkonger travels to Europe or America to earn money? Isn't he selling his body and soul for a fistful of dollars/euros? The yuan is convertible with dollar/euro, so what is the difference?
- Why is singing a concert in mainland China ignoble but picking lettuce in California noble?
- It is not clear how the cancellations came about. It does not appear to be an order from the Ministry of Culture. It is more like a mass consumer boycott/protest being threatened against the festivals. This is an exercise of the freedom of expression. And of course we support freedom, don't we?
- Well, the moral of the lesson is that you need to imitate actor Chow Yun-fat. Since he is a billionaire, he doesn't have to pay any attention to whether his opinions will affect his movie options.
- But if you are living from hand to mouth, you can't bite the hand that feeds you.
- Case study of the Dixie Chicks:

On March 10, 2003, during a London concert, nine days before the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines told the audience: "We don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas". The positive reaction to this statement from the British audience contrasted with the negative reaction including boycotts that ensued in the US, where the band was denounced by talk-show conservatives, while their albums were discarded in public protest.

- The Revolution has not succeeded completely yet, so our Comrades must keep on working hard. Here is the list of other entertainers who supported Occupy Central but who have not been banned in mainland China yet.

(Tiexue.net) http://m.tiexue.net/touch/thread_8670313_1.html

Sample: Gregory Wong.

As the Cantonese saying 又要威又要戴頭盔 goes, the guy wants to grab the limelight and yet also wants to play safe (for example, a daredevil motorcyclist who wants to look bold and daring, but nevertheless wears a helmet as a precaution against getting hurt).

Gregory Wong tells Anna Chan: "Find friends on Weibo. May you stay on that pure land forever." What does that mean? Does he want to say that Weibo is unpolluted by Yellow Ribbon rubbish? If so why does Wong go to pollute Weibo himself? The phrase may seem like a Zen ko'an, but the truly point is that he couldn't face it. Regardless of the true meaning of this phrase, Wong's Yellow Ribbon fans are already banging the drums to celebrate Gregory Wong's moral victory over Anna Chan.

- Can the Yellow Ribbons reverse the situation by denouncing anti-Occupy Central entertainers to the authorities in the United States and Europe for supporting the Hong Kong Police to fire tear gas on unarmed civilians for the furtherance of Communism, and thus get them banned from performing there? For example, remove all Jackie Chan DVD's from the stores or stop G.E.M. Tang's world tour. There are several problems here:

- Use of tear gas by the police is commonplace in the United States and Europe.
- United States/Europe are not Communist China where singers can get banned for exercising freedom of speech.
- China is even more capitalist than United States/Europe.

- (HKG Pao) January 6, 2017.

The popular Hunan Satellite TV hit show "I Am Singer" will enter its fifth season under the new name "Singer". They have already announced that Hong Kong singer Sandy Lam will appear on January 25.
The news was reported on the Apple Daily Facebook with the tag #Sandy...You... and the "cold sweat" emoji. Fans wrote: "I am very disappointed as a fan ... you are free to fucking bark ... I am free to give up on you ..." "Maybe she needs money, and therefore she is kneeling down in front of the RMB"; "How can she be poor? She is greedy and she has no backbone." "Sandy Lam is greedy for money. At this point, she has a car, she has a house, she has a son. What more does she want!? If she gets more money, can she bring it with her into her coffin? Meanwhile, singers like Justin Lo and Phil Chang have to struggle to make money. With your fame and appeal, you can make as much as money as you like with concerts. Do you have to fucking do this?" "Frankly, Denise Ho is more admirable for refusing to bend."
In the Yellow Ribbon world, if a small group of Yellow Ribbons don't like something, everybody else must hate it. In Hong Kong, something is a deadly sin if the Yellow Ribbons disapprove of it.

- Apple Daily January 31, 2016. About the more than 10 mainland concerts that were postponed, Kay Tse said: "I'm very unhappy myself. I've even cried over it. There are many places such as Harbin which I have never visited. I know that many fans are disappointed. I am very sorry that I couldn't keep my promise to the fans." Was there a political factor involved? "There were many reasons. I didn't really get into them. I hope that there will be a Part 2 so that I can go there."

- Apple Daily (November 27, 2015) previously tried to help Kay Tse by saying:

As a Hong Kong citizen, she cared about society, she worked for charities. On matters of great right versus great wrong, she will give her voice. She has sung <The Egg and the High Wall> and <Ka-ming> to provide spiritual support to countless number of persons. She has supplied materials in a low-keyed fashion to contribute her share.
She is Kay Tse.
As for Kay Tse, a single photo was enough to draw a link to the Arab Spring, the Jasmine Revolution, "wanting to spread chaos into the mainland", etc.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? Apple Daily wants to make sure that Kay Tse is dead and buried. She has greater value as a revolutionary martyr than a silent resister.

- Well, if Kay Tse does not want any "misunderstanding" on the matter, all she has to do is come out and say: "I do not support Occupy Central." That's all. Is that so hard?

- Golden Forum user Sister King told Kay Tse bluntly to show some character and refuse to travel north to rake in the RMB.

- What is so terrible about saying that someone took part in Occupy Central? Isn't Occupy Central a good thing? Kay Tse should be proud about it, and she should be saying what a noble cause it is.

- Kay Tse should be paying Anna Chan for generating the publicity.

- Anna Chan said that many people hate her because she is hurting the livelihoods of pro-Occupy entertainers. But she asked: "Have you thought of how the livelihoods of many more people were affected during Occupy when the roads, the economy and the tourism industry were paralyzed? They even got down on their knees to beg the Occupiers. Do you know how much hurt Occupy Central caused to patriotic Hongkongers?"

- Is Anna Chan being mean here? Is it wrong to make denunciations? Well, consider the earlier case of entertainer Oscar Leung. He gave an interview to Oriental Sunday (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALwGfWjKF_8 )

1:00 (Leung) I think that people should show a bit more of gratitude and appreciation. And then the world will become better. A lot of people ... I believe that they are young people ... they leave messages to attack me on Instagram and Facebook. I have 100% right to sue them, and I am 100% sure that I will prevail. They are surely confident. But I don't feel the need to do so. If I did that, I would be spreading this highly negative thing even further. Actually, we can be more peaceful.

1:45 (Leung) Also you think that mainlanders are bad. Why do you think that they are bad? Do you think that they are bad because they come down to Hong Kong and buy drugs from the dispensaries? Maybe people born in the 1990's don't know what we who were born in the 1970's and 1980's like to go to Japan to buy drugs from the dispensaries. So do they Japanese call you locusts?

2:12 (Leung) So you say that some of them urinate in the street. I have seen plenty of foreigners urinate in the street. I am not saying that I think that this is right. But your vision needs to be deeper and broader. They are not the only ones who are doing this. A lot of other people in the world are doing that. Because you think that some mainlanders are behaving badly and so you feel that you are not Chinese, then I think this is sad and tragic.

2:40 (Leung) There are some bad people in Hong Kong too. Would you consider yourself not a Hongkonger? You were born in Hong Kong and you are a Hongkongers. That is an undisputable fact. You have to remember one thing. When the mainland began to open up, many of their people have never seen what the rest of the world is like. They now see what the world is like. But there are some things that they are not yet prepared for. But that doesn't mean that they will never be able to do it well.

...

So the pro-democracy crowd wanted to run Oscar Leung out of town. Since Leung is a spokesperson for Mastercard, they started a campaign to cut up their Mastercard credit cards in boycott. What's the difference then? This is a game that both sides can play. It all comes down to: Who's got more to lose?

- Next up: singer Hins Cheung

Anna Chan's weibo
Hing Cheung, you opposed national education, you sang Occupy Central songs and you inflamed conflicts between Hong Kong and mainland! You use the fact that you are a Guangzhou-raised singer in order to create trouble in Hong Kong. That much is undeniable! But on the TVB program <Three Entertainment Brothers>, you have the nerve to call all those who criticize you on Weibo as being hired guns who took money? By refusing to acknowledge what you did and also smearing patriots, you are truly disappointing!

(Wen Wei Po) December 15, 2015.

Anna Chan offered three pieces of evidence against Hins Cheung.

1. Hins Cheung said that Hong Kong is the last piece of clean earth for Chinese democracy. In 2012, Hins Cheung wrote on Facebook: "I grew up on the mainland. My family background is pro-establishment. But I am glad that I came to Hong Kong to work, live and settle down. It let me know the value of freedom and democracy ... Hong Kong, you are the last piece of clean earth for Chinese democracy. Please be strong, protect yourself and don't let the next generation be patriotic without understanding why. Please do not let Gloucester Road, Princess Road, Prince Edward Road become People's Road, Liberation Road, Harmony Road. Please let your freedom be forever so. Let the mainland tourists come here and learn the value of freedom. Today, the color black represents light!"

2. Last year, there was a mainland child urinating in a Hong Kong street. The poisonous media used this to fan hatred between Hong Kong and mainland. Government official Gregory So came out to ask the people of Hong Kong to be tolerant. Hins Cheung wrote on Facebook: "If I weren't a public figure, I would really like to visit your official home. But I may urinate and defecate anytime anywhere I want. You must remember to be tolerant. Thank you!"

3. On December 6, 2015, Hins Cheung was interviewed on TVB:

Q: Have you done anything on the Internet that caused a great stir, such that you won't do it again?
A: Someone distorted my comments on Hong Kong current affairs. As soon as it crossed over the Lo Wu border, it becomes something different. They will say that you are supporting separatism, etc. Right now there are still people criticizing me in the mainland. I ignore them.

Q: You mean that you will say less in the future or you ignore them.
A: Because I learned afterwards that those people were paid to do so.

Q: Oh, oh, oh. Fifty-cent gang. Navy.

Anna Chan's weibo
Hunan Satellite TV's <I Am A Singer 4> has made changes to its roster of singers at the last moment. According to information, singer Hins Chueng will not participate in the launch program due to personal reasons.
What idol? Idols emerge because the country lets you, and the country can also take it back! Without the country, you are less than a fart!

Internet comments:

- From Hins Cheung's company: Cheung was approached by <I Am A Singer 4> but there was no final deal. So it couldn't be said that he was ousted. As for the "personal reasons", they are personal and therefore cannot be disclosed.
LOL!
- This is actually plausible because Hins Cheung once said that he declined to get on <I Am A Singer 2> because he couldn't hit the high notes as expected by the judges and the audience. He also said that the format was perfect for singers like G.E.M. Tang but not for himself.

- On CCTV's airing of the reality show "Exceptional Challenge," the actor Wong He's had his face blocked by mosaic patterns all the way.
Anna Chan praised CCTV for their methodical approach:
If we knew about it, we wouldn't hire you;
If we hired you, we wouldn't film you;
If we filmed you, we wouldn't use your part;
If we used your part, we wouldn't air it;
If we aired it, we would use mosaic to block your face!

Previously Wong He had forwarded a post on Facebook that 'proved' the late Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was gay. Wong was denounced by the Taiwan actor Huang An, who said: "Wong He said that he earned HKD 13,000 per month while he was at TVB. After the contract expired, he went on to the mainland to make enough money in one year to buy an apartment and had the chance to be a director. You make money in mainland China to buy an apartment and you are having a gorgeous time, and then you turn around to insult mainlanders. This is the sort of thing that we will denounce."

P.S. On Wong He's Facebook, there were also posts that criticize mainland tourists and praise the Dalai Lama as being likeable and respectable. His detractors say that this is evidence of pro-Hong Kong independence and anti-China sentiments. His defenders say that this is freedom of speech.

(Wen Wei Po) On the afternoon of January 11, 2016, Wong He posted on weibo: "I neither agree with nor support any person or ideas that advocate Hong Kong independence, and I have the deepest respect for the excellent accomplishments of the late state leaders." Wong He has deleted all his previous weibo posts and shut down the comment function on his weibo.

Relevant link: Headline Pop News

- Statement from the producers of "Not other kind of love":

The film <No other kind of love> hired Taiwan actor Leon Dai. Previously there hadn't been any in-depth investigation into his political background. As a result, this has aroused the ire and condemnation of large numbers of Internet users. Thus we requested Mr. Leon Dai to make a clear statement of his political position. After Mr. Dai made his initial statement, the director and the investors wanted Mr. Leon Dai to make a fuller explication and to make an unequivocal statement on matters of grave right/wrong in order to dispel all doubts. No matter whether it is the director or the rest of the team, we are all proud of our motherland and we don't want anyone to doubt or misunderstand. After many attempts at communication, Mr. Leon Dai has been ambivalent/ambiguous all the way through last night. As a result, the director and the investors have collectively decided to replace the actor Leon Dai in this movie.

We are all Chinese. We firmly the unification of China because the interests of the nation overrides everything else. The people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait came from the same roots. Art has no borders, but artists have feelings and attitudes. Every culture ultimately comes from its earth and serves its people! On matters of the nation and its people, there cannot be any lies or ambiguities.

We apologize to the masses of Internet users for using the wrong personnel previously and we sincerely say sorry for causing any hurt.

The producers of <No other kind of love>
July 15, 2016.

- (SCMP) March 4, 2017.

Outspoken actor Anthony Wong Chau-sang claims he is becoming more reclusive and careful with his words.

After several decades as one of the most recognisable Hong Kong actors in the film industry, the 55-year-old is these days focusing on his stage career through his role as co-artistic director of Dionysus Contemporary Theatre company.

Born to an English father, who abandoned him when he was young, and a Cantonese mother, he is one of the most prominent graduates of the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts (HKAPA) and has starred in more than 100 films and television shows. He won the Hong Kong film award for best actor in 1994 for his portrayal of a sadistic serial killer and pork bun maker in the horror film The Eight Immortals Restaurant: The Untold Story (1993).

He spoke to City Weekend about being typecast, learning to cook Chinese food and Hong Kong’s lack of democracy.

When you look back on your career, which professional project are you most proud of? And which would you most like to forget?

I’m never proud of anything. It is only a job. You only do your best every time. I like Ip Man: The Final Fight (2013). I spent one year to study the characters and kung fu in the style of wing chun [a form of martial art].

But I don’t think it is what I’m most recognised for. The box office was no good. I got nothing. Every time I’ve liked something, I’ve gained nothing. For example, The Eight Immortals Restaurant: The Untold Story (1993), I hate that movie. And it gave me a lot [Wong won best actor for the role at the Hong Kong Film Awards in 1994]. I don’t like the script, I don’t like the character. It is selling violence, blood and sex.

Back then, you signed the contract first, then when they wanted to make the film, sometimes you would get the script and sometimes not. It was based on a true story, it was very simple. They changed it a lot in the set; even the rape scene, they made it again. The boss thought it was not violent enough.

You have said you struggled to get work you wanted despite winning best actor for Untold Story – why do you think this was?

[The film] was crap. People liked it; but just because a movie is popular, it doesn’t mean it is good. Drugs are popular. In Hong Kong movies, I was typecast, so I don’t have many choices. I had to do it for a living. That was why I liked Ip Man. I thought it had more cultural relevance.

I had a lot of projects after Untold Story, but they were the same characters, like killers.

I was cast in The Mission (1999) and I did like that; it was commercial but cool. The picture of that one always come to my dreams in these few years. I would get flashbacks, because I’m going to change my life and my career. I think it signifies a new start; that’s why the picture keeps coming back to me.

You are moving more into theatre; why do you want to do that?

Yes, what can I do? I have been shut out [of film]. Before that, I started my company. Four or five years ago, I worked with someone who graduated from HKAPA after me. The whole thing sucked. We called someone to help. I spoke to my classmates. We said why don’t we start a new company together? Because being on the stage, in the theatre, that’s my dream. We started and we had one production each year. After one year, I was shut out [of film]. I had more time to work on it.

At the very beginning, the goal is to translate the script because I think the script is good, and they have already had some success. So it is easy to put on the market. Now we are thinking about having our own script.

In my life, I always follow the path. If something happens, I have to do it. I don’t think too much. But if you enjoy it, you have to do it, and if you don’t, you have to do it also. Why not make yourself happier to just do it?

I like stage and I love to act on stage. It is challenging and intelligent. After your performance you have got something. You study the script; the language, character and everything. Every time it is a learning process. It is not like films, especially Hong Kong films the scripts are normally terrible.

I like that feeling of having a live audience. And having a process where we are all working together.

What do you think of the current state of the Hong Kong film industry?

At the moment, it is finished. When you say Hong Kong film industry, that means Hong Kong investment and Hong Kong people make it, Hong Kong actors, just like in the early 1990s. But now they have gone to the China market, so they have to censor the script, control the story, so more of the artists are from China.

Does that make you sad?

C’est la vie; that’s normal. We are always out to go forward. The past is dead, so you have to move forward, that’s just the society. After 1997, the government changed and the political environment changed, everything changed, the film market changed.

Before we had Thailand, we had Asia, the whole Asia market, and now we have less and less. At the end, it is gone, so now we only have the China market. There is no money to be made in Hong Kong films, you will only get HK$3 million or HK$4 million, it’s a very small budget.

Before we had a lot of styles; kung fu, drama, comedy, we could say anything that we liked, mocking people. There was no limit. But now that’s gone. In Hong Kong in our society, we are sensitive, I don’t know what happened.

And what do you think about films like 10 Years, which was banned in mainland China?

I haven’t watched it yet but I bought it. If it had been released before 1997, then it might have been a sign of optimism, but it’s only a film. It was only put on for two or three weeks and nobody will talk about it again. It is not worth to put so much effort just to look at it. It is only a movie, no matter if it is good or not good. It’s too much effort to ban it even; but nowadays we are too sensitive.

Hong Kong is preparing for its next chief executive to be selected; what do you think of the candidates competing for the position and how would you characterise the state of Hong Kong democracy?

Democracy? We don’t have a say. Well before, people used to say “Anybody but CY Leung”, and now they are actually saying “Anybody by CY Leung”. Are you satisfied? They gave you anybody but him. I think it may be better than before, no matter who goes on.

But I can see the influence from mainland China increasingly. It makes me feel like I should shut up, do my job, grab some money and then go. Every generation has a job to do. If I was in my 20s or 30s, maybe I would do something more. But now I’m too heavy to run, to fight, even to think. I did my best.

Do you imagine you will retire in Hong Kong?

I have to take care of my mum here for the moment. Her health is not very good. But the good thing is that my children are not in Hong Kong; they are in Canada and the USA. They don’t like Hong Kong either. The education system is better over there.

I went to primary school here and did a couple of years in secondary school, then went to APA, but I couldn’t speak English fluently until I went to the UK for one year and studied acting and I started to talk. I found out that my classmates from everywhere were worse than me.

I didn’t enjoy school in Hong Kong; a lot of teachers are stupid. They were conservative. They wouldn’t like the little boy to do this and do that, they want him to sit still. Children are always running around and screaming, it is normal.

You also said you suffered professionally after voicing support for the Umbrella movement – do you regret this?

I don’t regret it; I did my best. It was not a revolution. I just never agreed with using violence to get what you want; I don’t think the police used the right method, they just made it worse. I was not in Hong Kong at the time, I was working in mainland China. But for some reason I could use Facebook, so some people transferred my writing to Weibo. After that, I was shut out for three years.

So now I will go back to my shell. I will enjoy my life. If not necessary, I won’t talk; I won’t say anything. I’m trying to change my language and my lifestyle. I have to go to Lan Kwai Fong and meet some new friends, change my hair. I never thought I was so important.

You’ve said that in the past you’ve faced some discrimination in Hong Kong for being Eurasian. How would you characterise that?

I used to, yes, but not any more, because I’m not really doing movies. In Hong Kong movies, someone with very clear features and who is strong would be cast as the bad guy. But if you are short, fat and baby-faced, 40-something, then you will be a good guy.

Do you consider racism to be an ongoing problem in Hong Kong society?

Race is always a problem in Hong Kong. 100 years ago, Indians and Pakistanis came here, and people called them cha – “police” – they never get into the majority in society. They are always silent. After that, the Filipinos and Indonesians came. They are not slaves but they are treated like lower than us. Even Chinese and Chinese are fighting with each other.

In a movie, you never have anyone from a minority can be cast as a leading role, after all these years. They are part of our society; they build up Hong Kong. I’m potentially working on a small-budget film which has a Filipino woman as my romantic partner, and I hope we use a real Filipino actress.

[385] Abolishing the TSA? (2015/11/28)

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 26, 2015.

The Legislative Council has voted down a motion to abolish a controversial exam system which has been criticised for putting too much pressure on primary and secondary school students. People Power lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip tabled the non-binding motion on Thursday to scrap the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) exams after parents and teachers spoke out publicly against them.

The exams, taken by Primary Three, Primary Six and Secondary Three students in Hong Kong local schools, are aimed at gauging students’ “strengths and weaknesses” in learning, authorities said. Although results of the tests do not affect students’ applications for secondary schools or universities, many feel the pressure to perform well. Grades-oriented school authorities also give extra work to students to help them score better in TSA exams.

Last month, a parents and teachers concern group issued an open letter to Secretary for Education Eddie Ng Hak-kim urging him to abolish the TSA exams. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people have signed up via Facebook for a rally to be held in December. Ng was criticised by both pan-democrat and pro-government lawmakers at LegCo for his poor handling of the controversy on Thursday. However, the motion to abolish TSAs was not passed as pro-government legislators voted “no” or abstained.

(Leung Mei-fun's Facebook November 27, 2015.

Yesterday the Legislative Council debated the motion to abolish the TSA. I voted for the original motion from Chan Wai-yip and the amendment offered by legislators Lam Tai-fei, Starry Lee and myself. I abstained on the motions by Albert Ho, Chan Ka-lok and Yip Kin-yuen. All three amendments proposed to abolish the TSA for Primary 3. Legislator Albert Ho's amendment proposed to abolish the TSA for Primary 6 as well. I believe that it is premature to abolish all TSA as yet, and therefore I abstained. Legislator Chan Ka-lok's amendment wanted to condemn the absence of the Secretary of Education at an Education Affairs Committee meeting. I do not believe that this was so serious as to warrant a censure, so I voted abstained. Legislator Yip Kin-yuen proposed to "immediately stop TSA" but I believe that "abolish as soon as possible" is more reasonable, so I also abstained.
Afterwards, Next Magazine declared that my vote for the original motion and my subsequent abstentions for the amendments mean that I have "reversed course." Some Internet users made up a photo of my voting record in order to mislead the public that I abstained on the original motion. Anyone who knows anything about Legco procedure would know that amendments are voted upon before the original motion. So there cannot be a case of voting for an original motion first and then abstaining on the amendments. Conversely, abstaining on the amendments first cannot mean the automatic abstention in the original motion as well.

Voting record: Forgery (left) and truth (right)
I am the mother of two children and an education worker. I am completely aware that the public and parents are very concerned about the results of the Legco vote on "abolishing Primary 3 TSA as soon as possible." But commentary should be based upon the facts. I deeply regret that certain persons are deliberately distorting the truth and spreading misinformation.

Internet comments:

- An illustrative example:

Original non-binding motion by a legislator: "The Legislative Council urges the Department of Education to abolish the Primary 3 TSA."
Amendment #1: Add the sentence "CY Leung is a dickhead." This amendment was voted down 36-4 with 20 abstentions. The 4 knew that it would be voted down, but they wanted politics as entertainment. The 20 agreed that CY Leung is a dickhead but didn't think that this should appear in a Legco motion.
Amendment #2: "Add the sentence "The Legislative Council urges Turkey and Russia not to escalate military action against each other." This amendment was approved by 60-0. The motion now becomes "The Legislative Council urges the Department of Education to abolish the Primary 3 TSA. The Legislative Council urges Turkey and Russia not to escalate military action against each other."
The amended motion is voted and approved by 42-0 with 18 abstentions. Voting against any amendment does not imply voting against the original motion (or its eventually amended version).

- (Wen Wei Po) November 28, 2015.
"Fuck your mother, Leung Mei-fun! You're the one who wanted to abolish the TSA and now you're the one who don't fucking want to abolish the TSA! So what the fuck do you want!?"
"The voters must be visually impaired to vote for you instead of that pretty young woman!"
"Leung Mei-fun, when you are going to give up district council seat for a more deserving youngster!"
- Somebody couldn't face up to losing the district council election, so now we have a bunch of dirty tricks.
- It is a measure of the character of "that pretty young woman" Yau Mai-ching to have nothing to say about what is going on here.

(NOW TV) November 28, 2015.

The Department of Education held a parents' meeting at the Kowloon Tong Education Service Centre on the TSA. A group of parents were not admitted into the meeting room. Several dozen parents held placards to demonstrate outside. They were not admitted even after the meeting was over. These parents pointed out that the meeting was open to those invited by the Parents Teachers Association in the 18 districts of Hong Kong, but there were still empty seats available. However, the workers refused to let them enter to express their opinions. They questioned whether the Department of Education is selecting the voices that they want to hear.

(SCMP) November 29, 2015.

The education authorities yesterday promised to collect opinions from more parents on a controversial city-wide exam, after concerned parents expressed anger about being shut out of a closed-door meeting to discuss the issue. This came ahead of a Legislative Council public hearing on the Territory-wide System Assessment today, which education minister Eddie Ng Hak-kim had said he would not attend because of a previously arranged out-of-town trip for personal reasons.

Over 130 parents who oppose the exam and want it scrapped for Primary Three children are expected to voice their concerns at the hearing. Critics suspect that the bureau arranged the closed-door meeting - to which only a few parents were invited - to collect biased opinions to counter those of opponents.

Undersecretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung said yesterday that staff members collected contacts from parents who were barred from the meeting on Friday evening and that the bureau would contact them and listen to their opinions later.

The exam was introduced in 2004 to assess Primary Three, Primary Six and Form Three pupils' basic knowledge in Chinese, English and mathematics. But the exams have been heavily criticised for leading to drilling and excessive homework.

"We regret that [Ng] refused to attend [the] hearing," said Fung Wai-wah, president of the Professional Teachers' Union. He said the bureau appeared to be trying to "hastily collect" opinions in favour of the exam before the hearing.

Ivy Ho Shuk-yi, one of the 13 parents who were barred from the meeting at the Education Bureau's Kowloon Tong Education Resource Centre, said she and other parents were told that they could not enter the meeting venue because they were not registered. She said the meeting room, with only around 20 parents inside, was half empty. "We are worried that the bureau was trying to collect only the opinions it likes and the meeting was just for show," said Ho.

Yeung said the parents who attended the meeting were invited by parent-teacher associations so staff members did not allow participation by uninvited people. He said the bureau would arrange more meetings to collect opinions and would follow up with the parents who left their contact details. "Consultation can happen many times and on many levels. I don't think we should focus on a specific meeting and say it's a fake consultation," said Yeung. "This is not a very fair comment to those parents who attended the meeting."

Concerned parents will stage a rally outside the Legco building today. They will host family-friendly games and activities during the event.

Internet comments:

- With due respect, this is not a random group of parents who heard about a meeting and showed up independently. Did they really come here to express their views on the TSA? Or they did show up to put on a political show for the media? They knew very well beforehand that pre-registration is required, so why didn't they do so? Instead, they notified the media to be present and put on a show of sad, disappointed parents being deprived of their freedom of expression. For the sake of the television cameras, they even came prepared with those yellow placards. Who is going to believe that these are "ordinary parents"?

- Someone found the photos of these parents at the earlier press conference organized by the Professional Teachers Union with president Fung Wai-wah and Education sector legislator Yip Kin-yuen in attendance. Same old faces, same placard. So this media was yet another political ploy by a political party.

- (NOW TV) Four parents and education workers who are concerned about the TSA have demanded the Education Department to cancel the upcoming Primary 3 TSA before Christmas. Wouldn't you know, it is the same old faces.

- You hire one or two persons to form some kind of Concern Group. You hold a press conference, and the press will simply copy off the press release. In so doing, you have managed to create the illusion of a mass movement: "The Hong Kong parents demanded ..." or "the Hong Kong teachers demanded ..."

[384] Washing His/Her Laundry in Public (2015/11/26)

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 3, 2015.

A District Council election candidate has suggested in his latest platform that “local sexy lady” dancing should be introduced in Mong Kok, to replace the “Chinese singing aunties” around the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian zone, which he said “people with normal taste” find annoying. Nakade Hitsujiko is an IT specialist and localist activist, formerly known as Chung Ming-lun. He changed his legal name to run in the election in the Cherry constituency in Tai Kok Tsui.

He wrote in an article posted on VJmedia that since no candidate had proposed any practical plan to completely solve the issue, he was willing to “take up the mission of the century” to save pedestrians from “bad-taste songs” on weekends. Mr Nakade said he did not suggest amending the terms and conditions of the usage of the pedestrian zone, as most of the performers and commercial promotions were self-restrained, and they did not abuse the right to use the street, unlike the singing aunties who “shamelessly seduced local uncles with bad taste from China… made Hong Kong people suffer, and created unforgettable psychological trauma for foreign tourists which harmed Hong Kong’s image of tourism.”

Instead, he was inspired by a video that went viral recently. The video, which showed a group of dancing local sexy ladies, attracted a much larger audience than Chinese singing aunties, he said. “If District Council funds originally used to build useless landmarks in the district can be used to hire local sexy ladies to perform, then they can make the Chinese singing aunties feel desolate,” he said, “The aunties are only there because of money, it can be eradicated by taking away their source of income.”

Nakade said that the Yau Tsim Mong District Council can even make a music video to promote his idea, like the recent hit from the local girl music group FFx. If his suggestion was approved by the council, it would bring fame to the council, and be supported by the general public, he added. “Catering to the vulgar taste of Chinese tourists for a long time, which scared off European and American high-quality tourists, is the root cause of the downfall of tourism in the Yau Tsim Mong district,” he said. “Only by rejecting Chinese tourists, reviving Hong Kong’s image with local attractions… can we attract global high-quality tourists who appreciate local specialties and local beauties.”

Nakade added that his suggestion will be welcomed by both pan-democrats who often campaign at the street, and the members of the pro-Beijing camp who have a lot of business ties with the hotel industry. He said he will be campaigning with “a sexy swimsuit beauty” right next to the “singing aunties” at Sai Yeung Choi Street South in Mong Kok on November 8 evening.

The ultimate campaign weapon: T and A.

SocREC videos: Part 1, Part 2.

(Apple Daily) November 23, 2015.

On election day, the campaign team for Nakade Hitsujiko was spotted wearing maid costumes and ancient Chinese dresses. However, they said that they have no idea where Nakade Hitsujiko himself was. Early that morning, Nakade Hitsujiko had posted on Facebook about being disappointed with the response to his call for a large turnout. He said that he did his best in this election. For months, he did the work of several people and slept for only a few hours a day. During November, he has managed to catch only a few episodes of the his favorite Japanese manga One Punch Superman and exactly one episode of Digital Dinosaur.
A member of his campaign team nicknamed Mong Kok 13 explained that Nakade Hitsujiko was merely being emotional. Mong Kok 13 said that this district council election is an occasion to build up the image of Nakade Hitsujiko and not for any policy platform. Mong Kok 13 said that Nakade Hitsujiko is going to win even if he campaigns in a sleep.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 25, 2015.

Lurking somewhere at the bottom of the copious election coverage was a little phrase which caught my attention, and should perhaps have caught more from other people. Nakade Hitsujiko, a candidate in Tai Kok Tsui, wished to have on his election material, which is printed and distributed free by the Registration and Electoral Office, the slogan: “build Hong Kong city state”. The slogan was removed by the REO. Mr Hitsujiko, who changed his name from Chung Ming-lun before the election, was what we press scribes tactfully refer to as a “colourful” candidate, occupying a point somewhere on the spectrum between Martin Bell and Screaming Lord Sutch. That is no reason for depriving him of the rights enjoyed by other candidates, and the question which arises is: by what right does the REO censor candidates’ election material?
The REO’s view, reportedly, was that the slogan “violated the Basic Law”, and in particular that part of it which states that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the People’s Paradise. I have several problems with this. The first is that the Basic Law, along with the bits about inalienable membership of the motherland, also states that citizens of the SAR have freedom of speech. What that means in most jurisdictions is that people are free to argue peacefully for changes to the constitutional arrangements, however fundamental they may seem to be. Citizens of Texas are free to agitate for secession from the Union, citizens of the UK are free to call for the abolition of the monarchy, and so on. The Basic Law does not state that no citizen may utter any phrase or publish any slogan which is inconsistent with the Basic Law itself. What is not forbidden should be allowed, in our system.
Another way of looking at it is to visit briefly that platitude which states that freedom of speech is not total. It may be restricted in pursuit of other important purposes. These are enumerated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and concern things like the protection of reputation, the right to a fair trial, public order and national security. Clearly the only one which can arise in this context is the last, and I do not see how anyone could argue with a straight face that China’s safety is threatened if the phrase “Hong Kong city state” finds its way onto a District Council election leaflet. After all, Hong Kong’s status is not a matter which is going to come up in District Board meetings anyway. Mentioning it serves the useful purpose of giving electors a clearer idea of the thoughts and character of the person soliciting their votes. I realise that quite a lot of candidates do not wish the electorate to know too much about them, supposing that their cuddles with Communism might be an electoral liability. But it is no part of the REO’s job to make this compulsory.
It should also be borne in mind that the slogan “build Hong Kong city state” does not necessarily imply secession from China. It is common in federal systems to have states which are still part of the country. California and Bavaria are examples. A city state does not have to be like Singapore, with its own flag, anthem, army and UN seat. There are other models. Something like the old “Imperial Cities” in the Holy Roman Empire might suit, for example: the possession of a charter securing rights to self-government in some areas and a direct allegiance to the emperor rather than his regional representatives. Someone who hankers after a Hong Kong city state might yearn for independence. Or he might yearn for that high degree of autonomy in everything except defence and foreign policy which at one time we were told we were going to get.

In fact, at some risk of violating the Basic Law, at least in some people’s view, we might go further and say that all the large successful countries in the world have federal systems of one kind or another and it would be greatly to China’s benefit if its political culture was encouraged in that direction. All the countries to which one might wish to emigrate are either small or federal or (Switzerland) both. Looking at the 5,000 years of China’s history we must suspect that, under the smooth surface of official history, the years of disorder and multiple centres of power were times of dynamism and innovation, and those in which power was precariously held in the centre saw stagnation and stasis, culminating eventually in a successful foreign invasion. The repression required to suppress dissent inevitably also suppresses innovation and creativity.

Still, these larger considerations have very little to do with the question before us, which is whether the REO, finding a reference to “Hong Kong city State” in an election leaflet, has a right to remove it. Clearly it does not. We may concede some right to object to matter which is obscene, blasphemous or defamatory. But an election is an exercise in free choice and that choice should be as unfettered as possible. Also there is no legal right for the REO to interfere in this way. The despair-inducing thing about all this is that the REO’s record in defence of electoral honesty in other matters – like voter registration – is abysmal. And what is the point of putting a retired judge in charge of these things if they are just going to make up the rules as they go along.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 26, 2015.

A defeated localist candidate in the district council election was arrested on Wednesday over alleged money laundering amounting to HK$2.17 million. Nakade Hitsujiko, an IT specialist who changed his name from Chung Ming-lun before the election, was arrested at his home at Kwong Lam Court in Shatin by officers from the Tai Po district investigation team, at around 6:12am Wednesday.

|
Nakade Hitsujiko in a police car
The police told Stand News that they received a call from an employee of a mainland company on January 16, claiming that it had received a suspected bogus email asking the firm to transfer money to two bank accounts in Hong Kong. The company transferred HK$2.17 million, and reported it to the police.

Nakade was arrested after a police investigation showed that he owned one of the accounts. He was held overnight and a computer was seized. On November 4, the police arrested another man in Sheung Shui for alleged money laundering – a 47-year-old man surnamed Lam. Police said he had opened one of the two accounts. He was released on bail and has to report back to police in early December.

Nakade lost in the Cherry constituency in Yau Tsim Mong district on Sunday, he secured 172 votes. Independent candidate Chung Chak-fai won by 1,611 votes, and the other candidate Lam Ho-yeung of the Democratic Party got 858 votes.

He is a follower of Wan Chin, an assistant professor at the Department of Chinese of Lingnan University. Chin authored the book “Hong Kong as a City-State.” During the election, Nakade included phrases in his platform such as “Nation Building for Hong Kong City-State”, “Neighbouring economic heavyweight” and “Promote Hong Kong’s sovereignty to foreigners”. The Registration and Electoral Office (REO) rejected his election mailings, saying the phrases were against the Basic Law – he was required to remove them. Nakade submitted a censored version to the REO, but he said the mailings were never delivered.

In November last year, during the pro-democracy Occupy protests, Nakade was arrested at a residential unit in Tai Kok Tsui for possessing weapons, where three modified air guns, dozens of wooden shields and production materials were seized. In 2012, Nakade was also arrested for allegedly hacking a government website for ten seconds. He was then released.

(Ta Kung Pao) November 27, 2015.

According to information, Nakade Hitsujiko was not very cooperative with the police. He was allowed to post bail while the police sought the opinion of the Department of Justice on prosecution. According to information, Nakade Hitsujiko was the person who set up the bank account to which some of the money ($1.55 million out of the total of $2.17 million) was transferred. So far, $1 million of that money had been withdrawn. Eventually, the police need to determine the identity of the person who sent that email to see if it was Nakade Hitsujiko or someone else.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 8, 2016.

Hong Kong independence advocate Nakade Hitsujiko – whose surname is slang for ejaculating “inside” in Japanese – has emerged as an unlikely internet celebrity after two failed bids for public office in the past year.

He was defeated in the 2015 District Council elections, and was barred from standing in the upcoming Legislative Council elections as the returning officer believed that he “does not uphold and does not intend to uphold the Basic Law.”

Originally named Chung Ming-lun, the 24-year-old IT specialist legally changed his name to Nakade last year. He initially became known among Hong Kong’s online community for his activism concerning the Tiananmen Square Massacre. For a time, he was also a member of pro-democracy political party People Power. Later, he became associated with Lingnan University professor Chin Wan, who is considered as a pioneer of the localism movement.

To most people, however, Nakade is the “joke candidate” of the localism movement. His unconventional appearance, outlandish proposals and constant stream of bondage and pornography-related public Facebook posts have earned him a considerable following in Hong Kong. Here are the top five most memorable moments of his nascent political career.

5. His speech at the August 2016 independence rally

A veteran of two electoral campaigns, Nakade is no stranger to the microphone and an audience. However, as one of six pro-independence candidates who were disqualified from the upcoming Legislative Council elections, he was given the unprecedented opportunity to speak in front of thousands at a rally held by the Hong Kong National Party in Tamar Park last Friday evening.

Although not a fluent orator, he rallied supporters in a speech full of witty criticisms, comedic moments and gaffes. Dressed in plain white royal garments, he reiterated his campaign promise to lead 500 Hong Kong foot-soldiers to the Great Hall of the People in Beijing and drink Tsingtao beer with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He also unveiled his diplomatic strategy: “to defend Hong Kong,” he said, “we need to hook up with foreign forces,” as he unveiled a pirate’s hook from his pocket.

“A lot of people ask me if I am insane. ‘No,’ I tell them, ‘I’m only doing the most normal thing in insane times.’”

4. His November 2015 arrest for alleged money laundering

Nakade is also no stranger to the interior of police vans. He was arrested in 2012 after allegedly performing a cyberattack against a government website, and again during the Umbrella Movement when police allegedly discovered wooden shields and modified air guns in a Tai Kok Tsui apartment. However, his arrest on charges of alleged money laundering in 2015 came as a surprise to many.

A mere three days after the November District Council elections, Nakade was taken away by police. Responding to queries from Stand News, the police said that a mainland Chinese company had received a suspicious email asking the firm to transfer money to two bank accounts. The firm transferred HK$2.17 million before reporting the matter to the authorities, and a police investigation showed that Nakade owned one of the accounts. The police also seized a computer from his apartment.

Internet users expressed scepticism over the timing of Nakade’s arrest. The Chinese company had reported the matter to the police in January, and another man had already been arrested in connection with the case. Nakade was released on bail after one night, and there have seemingly been no reports of further developments since.

3. His ‘local sexy ladies’ at the 2015 District Council elections

What better way to evict the groups of “Chinese singing aunties” on Mong Kok’s Sai Yeung Choi Street, than by mobilising Hong Kong’s “local sexy ladies”? This plan was part of Nakade’s campaign platform as he ran for election in the Cherry constituency of the Yau Tsim Mong District Council last year.

Sai Yeung Choi Street South is a pedestrian zone open to street performances on weekends. Controversially, performers include the “singing aunties:” groups of middle-aged females dancing to Communist songs, more commonly seen in mainland Chinese cities. Nakade accused them of “shamelessly seducing local uncles with bad taste,” and “creating unforgettable psychological trauma for foreign tourists.”

In the lead-up to the November District Council elections, Nakade provided voters with a glimpse of how he planned to counter the “singing aunties”. Several bikini-clad ladies flanked him as he campaigned around Mong Kok, handing out election flyers and attracting crowds. But in the end, Nakade received only 172 votes.

2. His royal titles

Nakade dresses in ancient royal garments because he is “Princess Chiu Ming, a member of the Hong Kong city-state royal family”. This title was conferred upon him by professor Chin Wan – who is known among internet users as the “high priest” of Hong Kong – in December 2013.

Nakade’s platform is different from that of other pro-independence activists, in that he advocates for Hong Kong becoming a monarchy. According to his election manifesto, the palace would be built on Tai Mo Shan, Hong Kong’s highest peak.

As “Princess Chiu Ming,” he has adopted a pseudo-religious tone of speech, calling on supporters of Hong Kong’s reunification with China to repent. “The sea is endless, but if you turn around, you will find land. Put down your butcher’s knives, and become Buddha.”

“I am a member of the Hong Kong city-state royal family. The honour of my subjects will be my own personal honour!” he declared last Friday at Tamar Park.

1. His response to the returning officer’s query

In an unprecedented development, candidates for the 2016 Legislative Council elections were asked to sign a declaration stating that they would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). Some candidates received further queries from their returning officer on whether they would “continue to support Hong Kong independence,” including Nakade. He responded as follows:

“I have never specified in my various proclamations that ‘Hong Kong’ refers to the ‘Hong Kong SAR’… ‘Hong Kong independence’ refers to the [independence of] the geographical area located between the latitude coordinates 22° 08’ and 35’, and the longitude coordinates 113° 49’ and 114° 13’. This area has no clear boundaries, but is commonly known as ‘Hong Kong’.”

“[Beijing] can cite Chang-E’s flight to the moon as proof that the moon has historically been an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China. It can shoot the ‘Hong Kong SAR’ onto the moon… thereby creating a political vacuum in the geographical area commonly known as ‘Hong Kong’… then, a state can be established.”

He was disqualified.

Videos:

(Nextplus) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztiQHD_6NDE Interview with bikini girl.
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czxMmL8JKYo Campaign bikini girl on Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL_uEnlyPHE Opposing opt-out organ donation policy
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSU9UqfGpks Demanding the People's Liberation Army to dispatch its forces into the South Sea.
(Hot News) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f3tdqBvF_k Campaign workers dressed as maid wearing 3 inch heels on election day.
(Steve Leung) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86uV1L7e_UY S&M show on Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall

Internet comments:

- The whole case of Nakade Hitsujiko contains many details that arouse suspicions.
On October 18, 2014, Nakade Hitsujiko held up 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 ).

(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."

However, Chung (who later changed his name to Nakade Hitsujiko) was released without being charged.
And now Nakade Hitsujiko is arrested the week after the district council elections for money laundering activities that occurred in January this year. And the co-conspirator Lam was arrested on November 4, more than two weeks ago. That means the police waited until after the district council elections before arresting him.
All these signs lead to an inevitable conclusion: Nakade Hitsujiko is working with/for the Hong Kong Police.

- Interesting that none of his cohorts (such as Wan Chin) dare to voice support for Nakade Hitsujiko in this matter. No talk about political suppression. No call to surround the police station and demand his immediate release.
- Wan Chin is saying that the only thing he ever told Nakade Hitsujiko is that "politics is entertainment" and then Nakade Hitsujiko did everything else on his own.
- Matthew 27:24: When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves." And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"

- On Internet radio, the talk is basically centered about what we know about Nakade Hitsujiko before. In reality, we know nothing about the current case. There is no information, and there are no answers to any of the questions. Another way to put this, we despised him before and therefore we gloat about his arrest now.
Although crazy acts should be appreciated, when those crazy acts interfere with people who are trying to be more constructive, then this is destructive. My general advice in such cases is not to follow the preceding car too closely, or else you may get caught in an accident.
- CAP 455 Organized and Serious Crime Ordinance

Section 25 Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence

(1) Subject to section 25A, a person commits an offence if, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that any property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of an indictable offence, he deals with that property.

(2) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1), it is a defence to prove that-

(a) he intended to disclose to an authorized officer such knowledge, suspicion or matter as is mentioned in section 25A(1) in relation to the act in contravention of subsection (1) concerned; and

(b) there is reasonable excuse for his failure to make disclosure in accordance with section 25A(2).

(3) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-

(a) on conviction upon indictment to a fine of $5000000 and to imprisonment for 14 years; or

(b) on summary conviction to a fine of $500000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

In his defense, Nakade Hitsujiko would have to plead stupidity as the reason for his failure to make disclosure.
- Spoof poster

Nakade Hitsujiko of the Hong Kong Nationalist Party
is actively considering participating in the Hong Kong Legislative Council by-election
Policy platform item:
Demand China pay $840 billion RMB to Hong Kong each year
to be distributed among the population of 7 million in Hong Kong
so that each one will receive $10,000 RMB per month as living subsidy
in return for the people of Hong Kong acknowledging the sovereignty and governance of their neighboring country
The people of Hong Kong are nobles, they don't have to work
Sun and beach every day, wine and prostitutes every night.
- District Council candidates have to disclose their campaign expenditures.

The total campaign expenditure for Nakade Hitsujiko was $41,344.75. The bikini girl was paid $2,000 to work from 5pm to 9pm at an hourly rate of $500. However, he did not list any donations.

[383] Even More Leaks (2015/11/26)

Previously, there were Leaks, Leaks and More Leaks. Now there is more.
(PTT-Gossiping) Hong Kong University council meeting, September 29, 2015.

Audio file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MeFixiJhdyUGpoRlZoRnNtUFU/view
Transcript: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3MeFixiJhdyMEQzRGtEbjllbkE/view?usp=sh
KK Wong: Thank you chairman. I think Professor Kwok has a point but I think academic freedom… I think here is the Council meeting on this particular issue is not the main point of concern because we are talking about is the recruitment of human resources matter. Whether or not we are appointing a person does not relate to academic freedom. I think we all respect academic freedom very well. And as our President said in the opening and remarks, right now we are really in a dilemma…: approve it, disapprove it or delay it. Every single option will have a down side. I think we have to make a choice.
After reading the papers which is the first time I have ever heard of this paper, then I officially looked at the name of the candidate although I have heard about the name in the press for a long time. I do feel that we have to be very cautious in this appointment because, as some of our colleagues mentioned earlier, we have to really unite--I am talking about HKU only, not Hong Kong. We have to unite, trying to develop a strategy under the instruction of President to really foster and assure academic freedom, academic excellence and also smooth human relation. I think we have been divided too much. We need somebody to really hold us together, our chairman, our President and all our senior management team. So, on balance, without referring to particular issues, I really think that there’re controversies surrounding the candidate. So maybe it needs more cautious step to appoint a person in this post as soon as possible, but I will not support the nomination at this point.
Martin Liao: … I have made some enquiries amongst the senior academics both in this University and other universities…it is more or less the same thing. I did look into the publications for the past five years myself, and also nothing as detailed and as comprehensive as Edward’s research. Perhaps just to supplement on what Edward said, I have looked into the past five years, and I was looking for citations of academic work that from the candidate, and there was none, except there was googled four times, googled… research… I mean it was google searched… it was google searched four times, and there was no citation. Thank you.
CM Lo: My position in the Council is somewhat similar to KY. We are both academic staff elected by staff members. I fully understand that we are here at our full capacity. I am not representing the staff but I do have the perspective from the staff members. So in terms of the academic qualifications, I can make some comments and in terms of how I see him as the potential candidate for PVC staffing, remember this is related to academic staffing and resources. So that’s why I feel that I can give my opinion and thoughts about the appointment.
Firstly it is on academic achievement. Secondly, as a staff, whether I see him as a suitable person to take care of staffing and resources because there have very important implications for us, for the staff. I am a new member of the
council and I was elected in May, so I have been in the Council this is the forth one. When I decided to accept the nomination, I really don’t have this item on my agenda, I am a bit regret now as if you look at the attack against Johannes Chan, I would say that my suffer in the last couple of months is a result in the participation in this Council, is perhaps even more than one. He has the right to complain about. I don’t know what I should do. I was fulfilling my duty as a University staff elected representative to take part in this council meeting and every time I remind myself this is my duty to do this for the best interest of the University.
But when I fell, all these people, I am not saying only the students, I know there are people outside the University, there is no doubt that the student lead the crowd in and I have this meeting. I have been teased in so many articles, so many pictures to say that I am an actor, that I took a dive, alright. I really feel very bad, I didn’t complain eventually and even when I was in the hospital and I talked to the media with my occupation in charge that I will kindly accept, I won't hold the students accountable. That’s my true belief because I feel very sad if those people in the room and outside were our students, I really feel ashamed. We have not done our duty well.
I always remind myself that what I read in the newspaper cannot be taken as the truth and I always say and tell other people that I don’t know the candidate, until I saw it on the table in this meeting. I was asked, before this meeting, in the last honorary fellowship conference. All these media come to me asking, would you accept this JC be received as the next PVC and I said come on, how can you ask me to make a conclusion before I actually conducted a study as an academic, we should not make conclusion before we looked at the facts. The facts are here and the facts are also from all the discussions we had. I really appreciated all the members and I truly believe everyone here is an independent trustee of the University, hoping for the best interest of the University. I appreciate all the thoughts and I now saying what I think base on all these facts, what is my opinion.
Now, first of all I have to declare my conflict of interest, I know JC. He was in the same hostel with me in St. John’s College so we live next to another floor. We know each other and in some of the previous University activities he has expressed support for me and for my department. So I really appreciate his support for me and in fact when I heard about his nomination in the media, that he is the candidate... and in the personal point of view that he is a good guy as many of the members have said. He is a good man. He has been working for the University for so long. This is the first impression for me that I should support him.
After looking at this and especially after the incident in July, I have some reservation. It is about his qualification. Professor Chan has a very detailed analysis on the publication. You can look at it, for the last 15 years, he has produced less than 5 items output including factor and article, less than 5 a year and in some years for example, in 2008, he has produced only 1 item, 2011, 1 item only. I know the number, quantity, is not the absolute measure, you have to see the quality as well.
If I have an assistant professor with this kind of output, I will be very concerned about, I would really say, hey, how can you reach the bar of the notion with in the university, very strict criteria 4 + 4 for practical, 3 + 3 for non-practical, for promotion either up or out from an assistant professor to an associate professor. And if my assistant professor give me a CV which is 1 output per year, I would say, you are in trouble. In 6 years or in 8 years time, how many publications did you have in your CV, you can’t reach that bar. I agree with KY that the University, the USBC, he is not a case to promotion and I doubt whether the same applies to the Law faculty. I believe it should, you still have to same sort of criteria.
Professor Chan is actually the best person here as an academic. So I would like to start a question whether he has the academic qualifications to take up this position especially he will be looking at staffing, looking at promotion and if you are not a Phd yourself how can you supervise people. The same as if you are not academically of certain standing. How can you say, hey, you are not well presented. The candidate would really say, look at your CV, your CV is not as good as mine. How can you turn down an application, if you don’t have the kind of quality?
So this is my feeling when I saw this CV and reminded me of quality and whether he is qualified as a PVC. Perhaps the VC may not be aware of this but certainly I think after this point was mentioned, I hope as the search committee chairman, you would consider whether, you know, you said just now you were not aware of this and you take it for granted since he has been promoted to a professor and since he is appointed as a dean, he must qualify. I don’t feel that should be some trivial correlation
PM: ……there were 4 academic members on the search committee. I was qualified to make academic judgments. I have a lot of experience of making these judgments. There were 3 other academic members of the committee. So there were 4 ppl, 3 of them are not here to represent their views, so my job as a chairman is to represent their views. Academic credentials were considered, and were considered suitable. Council members may disagree. But I am not going to go back from the judgement made by the search committee.
As to a comment to the number of papers he published, I think it’s utterly irrelevant. There’s no job description that says you could have published certain number of papers or you’re not qualified for this role. The… number of papers published that not enough quality and you can’t transfer from medicine into law because the publication requirement is different. So frankly the number of paper he published in the last 15 years (…)
CM Lo: Well that’s the qualification part… my feeling about reading his CV...the second part is related to whether he's suitable for this position, because he's going to take care of academic staffing. And my expectation for such person has to be very impartial. I wouldn't have problem with political approval, alright? You can apply to your…political meeting or whatever. I do have many staffs who take part in occupy central. They are so yellow, and I've expressed my position and my opinion that I did not support occupy central. I don't have a problem in the hospital. Because they work in hospital, political opinion does not affect their clinical service, and never change their duty just because they support occupy central. That should not affect your work in the university and the hospital.
But on that event, on that night that we have been in the storm of council meeting and subsequently my injury. And after the event, I really didn't see him showing any sympathy for the council members, and particular… I...myself…. I am a staff elected by the all the other staff to take part, and I sustained and injured. From all the opinion that he has expressed, actually he's still putting the blame on the council, he has never, I'm not saying I need his sympathy. But as a staff, I really feel if you are PVC (staffing) and if a staff member had an injury during an event like this, should you just keep on saying it's the council's fault. That means it's my fault as well? So in a way he's telling the public, he's speaking out in public, including his Letter to Hong Kong, that the fault remains in the council...in a way…for the suffering I encountered. That is my concern, and as I said before, I came to this meeting when I know he’s a potential candidate. I am very supportive initially, but with this and now looking his CV and what happened and his way of handling it... I really need to think twice before considering him as a suitable person for this position, and I wonder, I know the recommendation by the search committee was actually made a while ago, was actually written in July... With that kind of incidents and the way that this candidate has expressed his opinion in public, would the search committee still consider that kind of person is suitable to handle academic staffing and resource? Because as a staff, I am seriously concerned, even though I know I am here not representing the staff.
CH: The recommendation of search committee was made in July (...) sorry in May. So anything after that was not included.
CM Lo: … If that is the case. Can I ask the chairman of the search committee, would you take into account of what happened afterwards, that this candidate has done this (VC: done what?), openly breached the confidentiality calling himself a candidate, and then was complaining that the council has not doing the right thing? and despite the fact that there are council members including the staff member who suffer injury during that event, he has expressed no concern whatsoever, to the safety of the council and staff members.
And in contrast, he put the blame on the council members and including me as a staff member. I am really terrified that someone with this kind of... I don't want to extrapolate but I felt the threat is someone ... i would say he's putting his political intonation into the university. Because at a ... political opinion he may think that I am here to represent CY. I can tell you I am not a Leung fan. I came in with support of the staff members. I've never talked to CY. CY has never talked to me about this. But it seems that everybody there including Johannes Chan has labelled. Whatever I suffer, I deserve it.
PM: So my comment on that is I think you’ve taken things very personally, and I think we should keep things to factual discussion, and the purpose of the candidate. There’s no requirement in the job description for the candidate to express sympathy otherwise on anybody who is injured. I think you are putting post-event facts into this particular context, so the … I can’t speak for the Search Committee, Search Committee hasn’t met since 27 May, I can only speak as a Council Member, the events that happened since the Search Committee’s paper was written on 27 May, there have been many things written and said, a lot of opinions, I prefer to stick to the facts. And the facts that the Committee has to consider were the qualification and suitability for the post. I’ve already said at the start of the meeting that it’s my view that whilst none of the outcomes are attractive, to my mind, there will be less damage done for the University by the acceptance of the nomination ...

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 26, 2015.

Another recording of speeches made by Council members of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) has been leaked on a popular Taiwanese internet forum. The transcript and recording of an HKU Council meeting was uploaded the PTT forum at around 6pm on Thursday. The speeches were apparently made during an August 25 meeting, the one after the July 28 meeting in which students charged into the meeting room. The students were protesting the Council’s indecision over whether to appoint liberal law scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun as HKU’s pro-vice-chancellor.

Steven J. Cannon: … We’ve got photographic evidence that backs a lot of this up, we’ve reviewed the videos… uh… there are a whole series of disturbing scenes… uh… we have been looking at what legal options might be available to us. Uh…
Arthur Li Can I just ask is it possible from your system that we can identify the students involved?
Steven J. Cannon: Certainly we can identify individuals… we can identify the presence of individuals. It’s what those individuals were doing. We believe that the number of potential offenses, disorder in public places, unlawful assembly, assault, false imprisonment, and nuisance committed in public places were all areas that if we chose collectively or individuals chose to pursue … that would be……
Arthur Li: So you have evidence…
Steven J. Cannon: … we could gather evidence around that and we would look to do that. But at the moment we are not… we haven’t sought to do that. We are looking, really to get… sound, the …experiences… but we do have written evidence from our people. We have video and photographic evidence. We have video evidence.
Chairman: Leonie?
Leonie Ki: OK. I’d like to bring… uh chairman, I’d like to bring the situation to inform the council meeting of this on July the 28th, because I heard and it was possibly reported in the newspaper on the 27 or the 26 of July, that the student union chairman of HKU has announced that, if our re…, their request was not mentioned, they would barge into the senate room.
So that’s why I tried talk to Dr. Chau, Dr. Albert Chau, and I said we should not let the students come into the senate room because it is really a sacred place for Hong Kong U, and besides, I also sent you this email that the safety and dignity of the council members should be guaranteed as well as the image of the university.
But then Albert told me not to worry, because our students are very obedient, very good. And I keep reminding him of the incidents on 818 and 812, is, uh, the reverse, you know, because we also have other students from other universities.
Having said that, uh, it is, uh, because I… my request is, because they already warned us of barging into the senate, I wonder why we still let them come into the 10th floor, because, they already give us a warning, we should not allow them to come onto the 10th floor. And I think that we, instead of coming here, we should be still having our meeting over there, instead of trying to be scared, because what we should do is warned the students or whatever downstairs.
And I also heard later on, that from the pan-democrats, they said that 13 people, the alumni, the Legco, they too have an agreement to… stay downstairs, whereas… students go upstairs. So then, it’s so chaotic because it is really like what Steve has reported, is organized and is also orchestrated. And I think we should be protected because we already heard of this alert, and we should take warning, you know.
Chairman: Steve, I would answer several questions after you tell us why students barged …up to the 10th floor?
Steven J. Cannon: We were following essentially the… 818 guidance and protocols that have been established… and there have been several protocols, I agree that there had been a threat to enter the council. (Leonie Ki: it’s a threat announced…) There had been several protests on, several council meetings running up to, to where we have quite a significant number of people on the 10th floor.
I think that we had a strong sense that the students would enter the council chamber. I think what we expected we also had a strong sense that would happen at the end, towards the end of the meeting after the vote on a particular…uh, uh, item was taken. But the view was that they would enter in a reasonable manner and that the chairman would adjourn the meeting and general meeting (Chairman: if they don’t leave) if they don’t leave, we would appeal to them to leave, and the chairman would adjourn the meeting and then there would be an element of calm. What we didn’t expect was the level of verbal abuse and physical abuse that took place and that’s what we hadn’ t anticipated.
And that suggests to us that we need to revisit the original agreement if you like, which wasn’t an agreement, the original protocol with our students about allowing zone demonstration areas, about close access to the council members which came out of the 818 incident.
Chairman: I don't mean to intervene… this moment, first of all, we are now facing three problems, first of all is improving our so called security safety for… visit the council meetings. Going back to a more decent meeting place, as I mentioned at the start, this is… a makeshift issue, this university … a decent meeting place, for council, senate, and Court … EVP… service unit… in this week, to seek out of a possible way to have a more decent meeting.
One of the things that I am suggesting, is that, still … council, uh, senate chamber, but we want to make sure that there’s another door that members can leave should the only existing door be barricaded and somebody toss a firebomb or something on it……. I’m very, very strong that ... defend … we need a proper meeting place and not just a makeshift thing.
Point number two is that the whole movement was based on the protocol decided on… obviously… said that needs to be changed as a result of this one incident. The reason that is safety and security in… to come. I want to bring up two points. One is that there are evidence and we have actually received complaints that students eventually involved in barging into the senate chamber… students while down in the car park, etc. or others… people from outside… central or other… from both side… there was a lot of controversies. Now we’ve identified students that…and take actions… would be an issue perhaps the Vice Chancellor… accept…
Arthur Li: That would be against one student…
Chairman: Because by protocol…
Arthur Li: There still one student…
Chairman: This is , this is just the starting point … somebody complained one student…
Arthur Li: I mean, I mean, I mean…I don’t know the name of the student…
Chairman: I would, I would advise…
Arthur Li: May I, may I, may I suggest this, chairman, let this be passed to the meeting…, to identify the students involved to face disciplinary actions, has to report back to the council(?)… for more actions… (Chairman: … accepting reporting… to see if we agree with the actions or not…because I ’m … giving a very clear message… I… If we do not do it properly, any council member can take civil actions against the students, against this council, OK?
Because you are not protecting the council members…
Chairman: That is what I am…
Arthur Li: I can take civil actions against University of Hong Kong. I can take criminal actions against the students but I can also……
Chairman: I am not disagreeing… What I’m saying is that… There is already a receipt of one complaint of…
Arthur Li: Yeah I don’t want to…
Chairman:…one beginning…
Arthur Li: Yeah but it’s not fair to single out one student……
Chairman: Next thing…would be… all over the facebook… identify others
Arthur Li: Have we accepted.. the…report?
Chairman: Yes
Arthur Li:…and then ask… to deal with the consequences thereof…
Chairman: Oh that’s basically what it is.
Steven J. Cannon: The issue is yet between student discipline and general public offence, if you like. The student discipline under the ordinance of statute that students dedicated… a complaint has to be raised within twenty-eight days of an incident, and it has to be specific… and we have had one complaint and that goes to the Vice-Chancellor, and then....

Internet comments:

- After that September 29 council meeting, HKU Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-an held a press conference in which he divulged that "Lo Chung-mau was bitter that Johannes Chan did not show sympathy to him when he got injured in the Council meeting in July. Lo also said that Chan's academic accomplishments are worse than assistant professors." That's all Fung had to say. Now that we have an audio recording, you can decide whether this is a fair summary of what Lo Chung-mau said;

But on that event, on that night that we have been in the storm of council meeting and subsequently my injury. And after the event, I really didn't see him showing any sympathy for the council members, and particular… I...myself…. I am a staff elected by the all the other staff to take part, and I sustained and injured. From all the opinion that he has expressed, actually he's still putting the blame on the council, he has never, I'm not saying I need his sympathy. But as a staff, I really feel if you are PVC (staffing) and if a staff member had an injury during an event like this, should you just keep on saying it's the council's fault. That means it's my fault as well? So in a way he's telling the public, he's speaking out in public, including his Letter to Hong Kong, that the fault remains in the council...in a way…for the suffering I encountered.

Here is Fung's summary of what Martin Liao said:

Martin Liao said that Google showed that Johannes Chan's academic articles have been searched for only four times in the last five years.

- This piece of news is so yesterday. At this point, nobody cares anymore. Whoever is leaking this now is trying to affect what happens at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the HKU Convocation on November 29. It won't. There was little or no media coverage when the Leonie Ki comments were posted in Taiwan.
- However, there is still plenty of curiosity about just what Johannes Chan's supporters have to say on his behalf. So far there is not a single leak. Isn't that strange? Did anyone give high praises to Chan's non-existent distinguished record of publications. Did anyone suggest that Chan must be appointed or else HKU will face the wrath of the students and staff? Did anyone suggest that anyone who votes against appointment will be branded as a CY Leung fan? Did anyone suggest that it is the council has always rubber-stamped approval on all recommendations by the selection committee and therefore it must do the same here?
- Start identifying the students who took part in the violent clash

- (Speakout HK) The latest audio recording to appear turned out to have come from the August 25th meeting of the HKU council. The significance of this recording is that whoever made and released the recording clearly had a plan to do so, irrespective of what was actually said. The audio recordings were intended to be used as tools for to advance some political agenda. Each release is designed to precede certain events. For example, the first two recordings showed up before the district council elections. The third and fourth recording showed up before the Hong Kong University Convocation's Extraordinary General Meeting to vote on certain motions. What has this got to do with the public interest or any notion of justice?

[382] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 13 (Eradication of Tree Root) (2015/11/24)

(Oriental Daily) November 23, 2015.

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

(SCMP) November 24, 2015.

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

Chung, from the Beijing-loyalist Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, was defeated on Sunday by Chui Chi-kin - a relatively unknown candidate and so-called "umbrella soldier". Chui chose to run only on the last day of the nomination period, with the news shocking several DAB lawmakers, including party chairwoman Starry Lee Wai-king.

Chung was first elected as a district councillor in 1991. He became vice-chairman in 2003, and took the helm at the council for about a year before stepping down when he was finally elected to the Legislative Council in 2012 - securing 33,901 votes in his Hong Kong Island constituency after failing in all four previous polls from 1998 to 2008. He was often ridiculed for his mistakes in English, such as misspelling "legislative". In May last year, his English skills came under the spotlight again as he questioned then-MTR chief executive Jay Walder about delayed high-speed rail link to Guangzhou.

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

Despite a flood of criticism, Chung, who earned a master's degree in Britain, was unrepentant. "Who can claim themselves speaking perfect English?" he said. Before Sunday's election, Chung was again ridiculed after his election pamphlets misspelled his name "Chirs"; he blamed the printing firm. Chung attributed his shock loss to first-time voters. " It was because of the political climate."

(Oriental Daily) November 23, 2015.

After Chris Chung's defeat, a Facebook was created under the name: "Committee of all the people of Hong Kong enthusiastically celebrating Treegun losing the election." People said that Chung has been uprooted by the root. In discussing his defeat, Chung mentioned that the Internet smears and jokes against him were another factor.
Internet users also challenged Chung's academic credentials. Chung said that his two England masters degree came from accredited institutions so that there is no question of buying diplomas. However, the candidates cannot use their Facebook during the campaign period, so he couldn't take part in any Facebook debate.

(SCMP) November 24, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily with video) November 23, 2014.

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

Celebrants harass a female worker in Chung's office.
In the evening, about 150 Internet users responded to the call on the special Facebook to gather outside Chris Chung's office to celebrate. They played music on the broadcast system that they brought along, they set off cherry bombs, they waved the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong independence, they set up an altar with Chung's photo and and burned joss sticks.
Before the main event, four to five likely celebrants showed up outside Chung's office to take photos. A man who claimed to be resident approached them and asked them whether they have taken enough photos. There was a quarrel. A female worker from Chung's office came out to film the incident with her mobile phone. The four to five men turned their attention to the female worker and cursed her out. After five minutes or so, the men left.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 24, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

Videos:

(Oriental Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30imebiMl5A
(Passion Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIO62mci0Bo
(TMHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rihHye2NJZ0
(Committee of all the people of Hong Kong enthusiastically celebrating Treegun losing the election) https://www.facebook.com/treegunloseyeahyeahyeah/videos/882727478481817/
(INT News Channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QsFdgeh714 At Christopher Chung's office
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ1dIvD5Ack At Elizabeth Quat's office.

Internet comments:

- Two can play in this game.

Celebration party for the total annihilation of People Power/League of Social Democrats/Civic Passion
December 5
3pm-5pm
Su Yat Sen Memorial Park, Western Hong Kong

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

Meanwhile, Kwong Po-yin who was the sole Youngspiration candidate to win said that she will maintain a street booth and an Internet presence in order to actively reach out to residents. Of course, she will maintain a district councilor's office. By the way, she is a doctor at a public hospital. It will be interesting to see how she finds time to do everything.

- (SCMP) Another member, Yau Wai-ching, who lost her race to lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun by just 300 votes, said she did not highlight her participation in the 79-day Occupy protests during the election campaign as she did not want to be labelled an ‘Umbrella soldier’. “I did not join the race simply because of the Umbrella movement ... but because of unresolved deep-rooted conflicts in Hong Kong,” she said. “Voters care more about your manifesto.”

[381] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 12 (Post-Election Analyses) (2015/11/23)

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 23, 2015.

The pan-democrats have won 112 seats, eight of which went to “umbrella soldiers”, while the pro-establishment camp has taken 298 in the District Council elections on Sunday. Candidates who were independent of political groups and parties won 13 seats.
The pan-democrats performed the best in the Sha Tin district, where the traditional pro-democracy parties won 17 seats, the “umbrella soldiers” took two, and the pro-Beijing parties swept up the rest. This means that the pan-democrats have won 50% of the seats in the district, Apple Daily reported. However, because there is one ex officio seat reserved for the rural committee in Sha Tin, the pan-democrats are still one seat short of having a majority on the Council. “Umbrella soldiers” refers to young candidates representing parties who emerged from the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests.

There was a close call in Sham Shui Po, where the pan-democrats won 11 seats and the pro-Beijing parties won 12. In the Lai Kok constituency, Frederick Fung Kin-kee of the Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL) lost by 99 votes to Chan Wing-yan of the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions. Eric Wong Chung-ki, who was formerly an ADPL member and ran independently this election, only took 215 votes.
Many regarded Wong to have taken the votes from Fung, as he divided the support of the pan-democrat voters by running against Fung. As Wong was leaving the polling station, voters shouted at him saying “You’re a bad person, you’ve ruined everything,” Stand News reported. Fung had previously been a District Councillor for 12 years.

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

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 23, 2015.

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

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

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

Kai Ching Estate: In Kai Tak North constituency in Kowloon City, independent candidate Leung Yuen-ting beat ADPL’s Li Ting-fung by 2,610 to 932.

Wing Cheong Estate: In Fu Cheong constituency in Sham Shui Po, Leung Man-kwong of Kowloon West New Dynamic beat ADPL’s Li Kwing by 2,973 to 2,130.

Choi Fook Estate: In Jordan Valley constituency in Kwun Tong, DAB Party’s Ngan Man-yu beat Democratic Party’s Wong Wai-tag by 2,638 to 1,400.

Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate: In the Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate constituency in Kwun Tong, DAB Party’s Cheung Yiu-pan beat Democratic Party’s Wong Ching-fung by 2,441 to 1,979.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) November 25, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Wikipedia)

Summary of the 22 November 2015 District Councils of Hong Kong election results
Political Affiliation Popular vote % % +/− Standing Elected +/−

Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong 309,262 21.39 –2.50 171 119 ±0

Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions 88,292 6.11 +3.01 48 27 –2

New People's Party 75,793 5.24 +0.94 42 25 –2

Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong 27,452 1.90 - 16 10 –4

Liberal Party 25,157 1.74 –0.24 20 9 –1

Kowloon West New Dynamic 11,647 0.81 - 5 3 –1

Federation of Public Housing Estates 3,457 0.24 - 1 1 +1

Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions 3,168 0.22 +0.06 2 1 ±0

New Territories Association of Societies 2,356 0.16 –0.03 2 2 ±0

New Century Forum 1,717 0.12 - 1 0 –1

Pro-Beijing Independents 239,609 16.68 - 177 100

Total for pro-Beijing camp 783,176 54.18 –1.24 482 295 –5

Democratic Party 196,068 13.56 –3.86 95 43 +1

Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood 55,275 3.82 –0.03 26 18 +2

Civic Party 52,346 3.62 –0.41 25 10 +3

Neo Democrats 42,148 2.92 +0.77 16 15 +8

Labour Party 23,029 1.59 - 12 3 +2

Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre 16,105 1.11 –0.11 6 5 ±0

League of Social Democrats 6,526 0.45 –1.40 5 0 ±0

Power for Democracy 3,938 0.27 –0.05 1 1 ±0

Sha Tin Community Network 3,718 0.26 - 2 1 +1

Individuals 52,612 3.64 - 38 9

Total for Democratic Coalition for DC Election 451,765 31.25 –0.04 226 104 +20

Youngspiration 12,520 0.87 - 9 1 +1

People Power 11,503 0.80 –1.19 9 0 ±0

Democratic Alliance 5,313 0.37 - 4 1 ±0

Tuen Mun Community 5,196 0.36 - 4 0 ±0

Civic Passion 3,006 0.21 - 6 0 ±0

East Kowloon Community 3,922 0.27 - 3 1 +1

Third Side 2,011 0.14 - 3 0 ±0

Tsz Wan Shan Constructive Power 3,633 0.25 - 2 0 ±0

The Frontier 2,974 0.21 - 1 1 ±0

North of the Rings 1,710 0.12 - 1 0 ±0

Land Justice League 1,482 0.10 –0.16 1 0 ±0

Tsuen Wan Dynamic for the People 1,500 0.10 - 1 0 ±0

Independent democrats and others 73,500 5.08 - 64 15 -

Total for pro-democracy camp 578,802 40.04 +0.70 333 124 +23

Independent and others 78,814 5.45 +0.21 117 9 ±0

Total vaild votes 1,445,526 100.0 - 935 431 +19

Invaild votes 21,730

Total (turnout 47.01%) 1,467,229

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

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

(Hong Kong Economic Journal) November 25, 2015.

Both the total number of voters and the voter turnout rate set new records. One reason is that the disciplinary forces (police, fire department, correctional services, customs, etc) have mobilized after Occupy Central.

In Upper Tai Wo Hau district, Kwai Ching, the Democratic Party candidate received 2329 votes in 2011 and 2217 votes in 2015. Meanwhile, the pro-establishment candidate received 632 votes in 2011 and 1589 votes in 2015 for a 151% increase. In particular, the Kwai Yung Estate contains two buildings that are police family quarters. In 2011, there were only around 200 registered voters. In 2015, the number surged to about 800 registered voters. Mostly likely, those 800 will vote against the Democratic Party.

In Southern Horizon West district, Hong Kong South, the Democratic Party candidate received 1906 votes in 2011 and the People Power candidate got 2245 votes. Meanwhile, the New People Party candidate got 1895 votes in 2011 but 2945 votes in 2015 for a 55% increase.

In Choi Wan East district, Wong Tai Sin, the Democratic Party got 2025 votes in 2011 and 1551 votes in 2015. Meanwhile, the DAB candidate got 1533 votes in 2011 and 2201 votes in 2015 for a 44% increase.

In Chui Cheung district, Kwun Tong, the independent candidate got 1823 votes in 2011 and 2918 votes in 2015. Meanwhile, the two pro-establishment candidates got 658 and 941 votes in 2011, and the FTU candidate got 2654 votes in 2015 for a 66% increase.

In Lok Wah South district, Kwun Tong, the independent candidate got 2423 votes in 2011 and 2245 votes in 2015. Meanwhile, the DAB/FTU candidate got 802 votes in 2011 and the FTU candidate got 1687 votes in 2015.

(Hong Kong Free Press) How the Occupy protests shaped the District Council elections. By Suzanne Pepper. November 28, 2015.

Yes, the District Council election was a referendum on last year’s pro-democracy Occupy protests, because pro-Beijing partisans did everything they possibly could to make it so. The November 22 Election Day special issue of Ta Kung Pao led off with a banner headline: “Use Your Vote: Send the Trouble-Makers Packing.”

Loyalists were finally acknowledging what they’ve been doing unannounced all along. The lowly District Councils are not just about providing social services for neighborhoods in need. The councils have been transformed into the base of Hong Kong’s political power grid and they are now weighted heavily in Beijing’s favor.

Turnout was a record high for the typically low-interest district elections. Of Hong Kong’s 3.69 million registered voters, only 3.12 million could participate because many constituencies were uncontested – 68 of them, virtually all occupied by pro-Beijing/pro-establishment contenders. Among those 3.12 million, only 1.46 million actually voted. But at 47%, the turnout was the highest ever for a District Councils election.

What must have been the motivation? Perhaps a poll will tell us, but then again perhaps not. In years past Hong Kongers’ favorite answer to the question about why they voted was a bland: “Because it’s my civic duty.” Better to pencil in some preliminary conclusions. The results look like the after-effects of Occupy… not just anti- but pro- as well and the tension between them, hyped by the loyalist media campaign.

Last year, anti-Occupy forces had threatened to register a million new voters and bury what pro-Beijing loyalists love to write off as “the opposition.” The threat didn’t quite materialize, although not for want of trying. Nor were pan-democrats buried. Instead, they held their own and offshoots sprang up from the Occupy movement in a way that its opponents didn’t foresee. But then neither did anyone else.

During the election campaign, the pro-democracy camp as a whole ran scared. Instead of standing tall over what they did last year, everyone was on the defensive, intimidated by the anti-Occupy blitz. Even newcomer candidates from the Occupy generation who defied conventional wisdom and refused to join pan-democrats’ candidate coordination effort were no exception. If people ask us about Occupy we’ll explain, they would say, otherwise we won’t make an issue of it.

In the end, they didn’t need to. The battle was joined because loyalists made it the central focus of their election campaign. Sympathizers came out to defend, just like they did on that first day last year when the public rushed out onto the streets to protect protesting students against the police tear gas barrage.

The upside for pan-democrats is that thanks to Occupy and its opponents, voters are finally focusing on political realities. Hong Kong’s District Councils are part of the larger political struggle against the advance of mainland political ways. If anyone wants to stand guard against that advance, they need to begin on the first rung of the ladder, instead of writing off these councils as democracy activists have always been inclined to do.

Success of anti-Occupy stratagems

The downside of Sunday’s election for pan-dems was the relentless professional campaign waged by their opponents. The only thing they miscalculated was the upsurge of voters willing to stand with Occupy.

Pro-democracy parties actually won 30 more seats than in 2011 and pro-establishment parties won one seat less. The main pro-Beijing party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) ran fewer candidates and won fewer seats. But the difference was made up by other like-minded parties. The total seat count is still weighted overwhelmingly in their favor against pan-dems: 298 seats to 120. Only 13 seats were won by independents who couldn’t be identified as being on one side or the other.

In terms of individual votes, those for the pro-establishment parties were up by considerably more than those for pan-dems. The totals for the two sides were: 783,427 pro-establishment; 539,500 pan-dem.

As for the councils themselves, pro-establishment parties have retained their majorities on all but one. With the abolition of appointed seats, pan-dems had their hearts set on regaining the majority they used to hold on the suburban New Territories Kwai Tsing District Council. In 2011 they won a bare majority, but the government-appointed councilors reversed the balance.

Determined not to cede ground, the DAB targeted Kwai Tsing, the campaign there was a chaotic mix of insinuation and innuendo, and the result: 19 pro-establishment seats to only 10 for pan-dems. Had they not proclaimed their goal beforehand, they might not have alerted the DAB campaign to the district’s easy pickings.

In contrast, no one thought much about the Shatin District Council, also in the New Territories, since it has long been the turf of DAB ally Civil Force. To everyone’s surprise, and despite the new Civil Force alliance with Regina Ip’s New People’s Party, pan-dems made major gains. So Shatin has become the new Kwai Tsing with pan-dems securing exactly half the seats on the Shatin council: 19 to 19.

But woe to those who find themselves in the crosshairs of the pro-Beijing campaign machine because it’s probably no longer possible for any democrat to survive that kind of targeted attention. And Beijing’s attention is now focused squarely on seeing to it that its forces win five more seats in the next Legislative Council election. That would give them the two-thirds super-majority they need to pass Beijing’s electoral reform design over the objections of pan-dems who vetoed the design last June.

Super-seat fiasco

Where better to look for those five seats than the five so-called “super-seats” now reserved for District Councilors on the Legislative Council? As a result, pan-dems greatest loss last Sunday was their failure to hold or gain big-name representation on the lower-level councils. Territory-wide name brands are needed because of those conjoined seats. Although only District Councilors can nominate and be nominated for the five Legco seats, they are ultimately elected by all voters from a single territory-wide constituency. A sixth District Council representative in the Legislative Council is elected only by the District Councilors themselves.

The five super-seat addition is the compromise design that then Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan agreed to in 2010 when he was negotiating a reform proposal on behalf of the entire democratic camp. How could he know one of those seats would lead to his downfall five years later?

Democrats won three of the five seats in the 2012 Legco election. Albert Ho had long represented the Lok Tsui constituency on the New Territories’ Tuen Mun District Council and he won one of the super-seats. Hard to remember now that in 2010-11, when he was being pilloried by fellow democrats for agreeing to the compromise, he could do no wrong in loyalist eyes. This year, after he had supported Occupy, he became the target of almost daily diatribes and mocking cartoons in the pro-Beijing press. That they meant to bring him down was clear when a well-connected lawyer was tapped to run against him.

Still, Albert Ho might have survived but fighting in the spotlight as he was, other pan-dems rushed to exploit the attention. The loudest were the “anti-mainland, Hong Kong-first” Civic Passion activists eager for another chance to settle scores old and new. They never explained why they thought it was more important to bring down Albert Ho than worry about Beijing winning five more Legco seats, but they did succeed in what they set out to do.

Results: loyalist lawyer Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, 2,013 votes; Albert Ho, Democratic Party, 1,736 votes; Cheng Chung-tai, Civic Passion 391 votes; Cheung Wing-wai, independent democrat, 25 votes; Shum Kam-tim, pro-establishment, 94 votes; Yuen Wai-chung, democrat, 99 votes.

But at least Albert Ho’s opponents were for real. Civic Passion is always looking for opportunities to attack what they regard as back-sliding dithering democrats. Frederick Fung Kin-kee’s loss was skillfully contrived. Tapped to run against him was a young Federation of Trade Unions candidate with the entire DAB/FTU campaign machine behind her. Yet Fung, too, might have survived – had someone or something not induced a disgraced ex-member of his own Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL) party to come out of political retirement and contest the constituency seat as well.

Eric Wong Chung-ki did what he was presumably lured to do and threw the election to the FTU. Results: Joephy Chan Wing-yan, FTU/DAB, 2,531 votes; Frederick Fung, ADPL, 2,432 votes; Eric Wong, 215 votes.

Days before the election, name lists of all the pro-democracy candidates who had been arrested last year during the Occupy street blockades appeared in pro-Beijing papers along with photographs to prove they were there. Albert Ho and Frederick Fung were named. So was Civic Party legislator Kenneth Chan Ka-lok, who joined the race in hopes of providing another big-name super-seat candidate. He lost as well.

As a further result, pan-democrats’ safest super-seat prospects have been taken out. Only four remain including incumbent James To Kun-sun who for some reason was spared the full treatment. Perhaps because he has the least prospect of running or winning again.

Of the four, the strongest possibility is Gary Fan Kwok-wai of the Neo-Democrats. This is a Democratic Party spin-off whose members quit after Albert Ho’s 2010 compromise. Neo-Dems are new-style ballot-box radicals, unequivocally pro-Occupy, and a bright spot for pan-dems in Sunday’s election. They won 15 of the 16 New Territories seats they contested.

In contrast, the pro-establishment list of prospective candidates for the super-seats has grown both longer and stronger. From next to nothing in 2012, they can now boast a total of 10 incumbent Legco members who have won District Council seats and can be considered viable super-seat candidates.

Pro-Occupy Success Stories

The big surprise was victory for so many young and not-so-young newcomer candidates, although the results wouldn’t have been so unexpected had everyone not been so distracted by the anti-Occupy drumbeats sounding from the other side. The pundits had written them off and the older parties were exasperated, expecting they would split the pro-democracy vote because so many of them had refused to join pan-dems’ candidate coordination coalition.

In the end, Albert Ho was one of the few to suffer from the intervention of what was dubbed the “umbrella soldiers.” Yellow umbrellas were last year’s Occupy symbol, although most of these first-time candidates thought it the better part of political wisdom not to feature it on their campaign hand-outs.

Because so many of them didn’t identify themselves as such, fact-checkers are having a hard time trying to identify how many candidates there were to begin with and how many won. Originally about 115 candidates refused to join pan-dems’ candidate coordination mechanism but those outliers included democrats of all kinds and some of the old radical types like People Power and Civic Passion.

Best calculations are that the newcomer candidates were close to 50 in all, and that they accounted for about 70,000 votes. That would be 15% of the total 480,000 won by all pan-dem candidates, if that figure is correct. China Daily has pan-dems receiving a total of 539,500 votes.

But as of now, eight to nine candidates who will admit to being umbrella soldiers have been identified and they scored two stunning upsets. Probably their cautious political instincts served them well. Had the DAB/FTU campaign machine realized that two of its Legislative Councilors were in danger of being unseated by such unknowns, they could not have slipped so easily under the political radar. The two legislators are Christopher Chung Shu-kun on Hong Kong Island and Elizabeth Quat Pui-fan across town in Shatin.

Christopher Chung is the sort of loyalist that even other loyalists would just as soon not feel obliged to vote for. This time their Election Day get-out-the-vote routines that saved him in the past missed their cue. They didn’t see the 48-year-old Occupy supporter Chui Chi-kin moving up from behind. This is his first foray into politics and unlike many others, he is happy to cite Occupy as the reason for his new-found political energy.

Elizabeth Quat was defeated by 28-year-old disabled candidate Yip Wing. His mentor is the lawmaker activist Fernando Cheung of the Labour Party who stood with Occupiers during some of their toughest confrontations with police last year.

Everyone is again downplaying the impact of these umbrella soldier victories and especially of their possible influence on next year’s all-important Legco poll. But the new political atmosphere has also heralded, perhaps, a striking decline in something old: the older generation of “traditional” radicals. These are: the original League of Social Democrats led by a now greying “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung; its People Power spin-off originally led by Raymond “Mad Dog” Wong Yuk-man; and its spin-off Civic Passion that has just written an end to Albert Ho’s political career. These three most rambunctious parties, all Occupy advocates, fielded a total of 20 candidates, none successful.

After the last district election in 2011, when Raymond Wong’s parachute jumping strategy went down to total defeat, supporters took comfort by arguing that it wasn’t a total defeat at all because they had succeeded in growing their “voter base” to build on in future elections. Civic Passion didn’t exist then, but the number of ballots cast for LSD and PP in 2011 was: 21,833 and 23,465, respectively. Last Sunday their respective shares were: 6,526 and 14,477. The template for Hong Kong radicalism is being passed to a new generation.

Since the newcomer candidates have been so reluctant to explain who and what they are, maybe it’s better to consider what the public thought it was voting for. My constituency offers a glimpse of the political trends that marked this election.

The FTU incumbent is new to the district, first elected in 2011. He was by far the most diligent starting from voter registration last summer right through Election Day and the day after when he stood on the same street corner to thank voters for electing him. His hand-outs were plentiful and slickly produced.

A second candidate also ran an energetic campaign, well-enough financed, and with some good ideas about service to the district. He was explicit in denouncing political parties and presenting himself as a true independent.

The third candidate apparently had the least money to spend on her campaign and was the least familiar with the provision of district-level services. But she provided a clear if discrete signal of political sympathies in line with those of the Occupy generation. She proclaimed herself to be non-party and non-faction, but for Hong Kong self-determination and autonomy. Approximate results: FTU, 3,500 votes; Independent, 600; Hong Kong self-determination, 2,000.

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Mainland village mayors have lists of relatives to call? This makes no sense statistically. (Facts and Details) China has about 1 million villages each with an average of 916 people. One of them is the mayor. So the probability of having a mayor as a relative in China is not that high. About 5,000 people voted in Lai Kok district. How many of those have a mainland village mayor as a relative?
- Besides, this is a political matter, so the person in charge would be the village party secretary and not the mayor. Fung is completely out of touch with mainland matters.

- (Headline Daily) November 26, 2015. Post-election speeches. By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

2012 Tsai Ying-wen after losing the presidential election to Ma Ying-jeou: "We accept that we lost the election. We accept the decision of the people of Taiwan for this election. We know that many of our supporters are heartbroken. But we still have to congratulate President Ma. In the next four years, we hope that he will listen to the voices of the people, to focus on governing, to treat each and every citizen fairly, to not let the people down ... four years ago, we had been without hope. The mountaintop that we want to reach seemed to be unreachable. But we grit our teeth and united. In the past four years, we moved ahead step by step. This time, we almost reached the mountaintop. We fell just one mile short ... Faced with the outcome today, the DPP will hold a self-examination and consider this to be a warning. I will assume full responsibility for the defeat ... you can cry, but you must not be discouraged; you can be sad, but you must not give up ... some day, we will be back. We will not give up."

2015 Frederick Fung after losing the re-count: "I accept the decision by the voters. They use somebody who used materialistic means to build a network. I know that materialistic means are more attractive in a community with low income ..." If I wasn't the live broadcast, I cannot believe that a 30-year-old veteran politician could say something like this to insult the voters. Frankly, these words not insult those who didn't vote for him; it also smeared the entire community. So over the past 30 years, this was how he regarded low-income residents.

2015 James To after winning his election: "I am different from the pro-establishment candidate. He has a list of one thousand plus voters and he makes one thousand plus phone calls. So when he doles out snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings, he can call them directly or use Whatsapp to tell them to vote for him. I am different. I cannot reach out to my supporters. I don't have their telephone numbers. I have to depend on my volunteers to call those that they know ..." As district councilor, he does not have a single telephone number of a resident. Instead, he blamed his competitor for knowing so many residents. And he jealously insulted the voters for giving out their telephone numbers in exchange for favors. Nobody has poorer EQ than this.

- "The Pro-Establishment Camp Has Fewer District Councilors!" Well, this was a foregone conclusion if you are paying any amount of degree of attention. In 2011, 412 of the seats were directly elected and another 19 seats were appointed. All 19 appointees were pro-establishment. In 2015, the 19 appointed seats were eliminated so that all 431 of the seats were directly elected. You don't expect all 19 elected seats to be pro-establishment, do you? So, other things being equal, there should be fewer pro-establishment district councilors and more pan-democratic ones.

- The triumph of the Umbrella Soldiers? Thus spoke the Yellow Ribbon Media (such as Apple Daily/Next Magazine, Ming Pao, RTHK). Not so quickly. After the election, the tally was that 25 organizations fielded 55 candidates with 8 winning. Well, is this a glorious victory? Is this the conclusive evidence that the people of Hong Kong endorse Occupy Central, Shopping Revolution and Hong Kong independence?

On election day, of the more than 3 million registered voters, how many are aware that these candidates are Umbrella Soldiers? How many of these candidates boasted their credentials of occupying for 79 days and the huge gains that they have achieved as result? With due respect, that number is almost zero! These candidates' main appeal is that they are young and inexperienced. They were deceiving the voters by concealing their true identities.

The Umbrella Soldiers come from different organizations with different goals and methods. They are not a cohesive force. So it is not as if they are a political party with 8 district councilors.

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

[380] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 11 (Exit Polls) (2015/11/22)

(Hong Kong Free Press)

Should I answer exit polls?

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong Research Association, as of 10:45pm, November 22, 2015.

Code Constituency Name Exit Poll Estimate% Ac tual # Actual % Political affiliation

B09 Broadwood SIU See-kong 17.5% 141 5.8% *Independent

B09 Broadwood MAK Kwok-fung Michael 39.6% 939 38.6% League of Social Democrats

B09 Broadwood TSE Wai-chun Paul 42.9% 1,350 55.6% Independent

C10 Siu Sai Wan WONG Kwok-hing 57.2% 1,981 49.6% The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU)

C10 Siu Sai Wan CHU Yat-on 15.3% 783 19.6%

C10 Siu Sai Wan TAM Tak-chi 27.5% 1,229 30.8% People Power

C34 Yue Wan CHUNG Shu-kun Christopher 47.8% 1,863 47.9% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

C34 Yue Wan CHUI Chi-kin 52.2% 2,026 52.1% Independent

D06 South Horizons East LAM Kai-fai 52.7% 2,180 46.7% Independent Candidate

D06 South Horizons East CHAN Ka-lok 36.7% 1,845 39.5% Civic Party

D06 South Horizons East AU Yuen-fat Joseph 10.7% 643 13.8%

D07 South Horizons West CHAN Judy Kapui 68.0% 2,945 56.7% New People’s Party

D07 South Horizons West YUEN Mi-ming Erica 32.0% 2,245 43.3% People Power

E08 Olympic KO Hiu-wing 47.7% 1,414 48.0% Independent Candidate

E08 Olympic TO Kun-sun James 52.3% 1,531 52.0% The Democratic Party

F10 Lai Kok CHAN Wing-yan 51.4% 2,531 48.9% DAB/FTU

F10 Lai Kok FUNG Kin-kee Frederick 46.4% 2,432 47.0% ADPL

F10 Lai Kok WONG Chung-ki Eric 2.2% 215 4.2%

G15 To Kwa Wan North LEE Wai-king Starry 82.9% 1,544 80.2% DAB

G15 To Kwa Wan North SHUM Tai-fung 8.9% 204 10.6%

G15 To Kwa Wan North LAM Yi-lai 8.2% 177 9.2%

G18 Whampoa East LEUNG Mei-fun 53.0% 2,345 47.1% Kowloon West New Dynamic/BPA Services Company Limited

G18 Whampoa East YAU Wai-ching 39.0% 2,041 41.0% Youngspiration

G18 Whampoa East LAW Shek-ming 8.1% 596 12.0%

H20 King Fu WONG Chun-kin 40.2% 2,377 37.8% FTU

H20 King Fu WU Chi-wai 59.8% 3,907 62.2% The Democratic Party

K02 Yeung Uk Road CHAN Han-pan 69.7% 2,075 62.7% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

K02 Yeung Uk Road LAM Sek-tim 30.3% 1,233 37.3% Tsuen Wan Community Network

K06 Discovery Park CHIU Yan-loy 28.6% 2,020 35.5% Labour Party

K06 Discovery Park TIEN Michael Puk-sun 71.4% 3,674 64.5% New People's Party

L19 Lok Tsui HO Chun-yan 35.5% 1,736 39.8% The Democratic Party

L19 Lok Tsui HO Kwan-yiu 50.6% 2,013 46.2% Independent

L19 Lok Tsui YUEN Wai-chung 2.0% 99 2.3% MESSAGE

L19 Lok Tsui CHEUNG Wing-wai 2.3% 25 0.6%

L19 Lok Tsui CHENG Chung-tai 7.3% 391 9.0% Civic Passion

L19 Lok Tsui SHUM Kam-tim 2.3% 94 2.2%

M28 Tin Yiu LEUNG Chin-hang 42.8% 1,552 47.5%

M28 Tin Yiu LEUNG Che-cheung 57.2% 1,713 52.5% *Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong/NTAS

N08 Fanling South HO Shu-kwong Raymond 64.7% 1,824 64.8% *Independent Candidate

N08 Fanling South WONG Sing-chi 35.3% 992 35.2% Third Side

N08 Wan Hang SUN Wai-kei 48.2% 2,313 41.8%

Q19 Wan Hang FAN Gary Kwok-wai 49.3% 3,104 56.1% Neo Democrats

Q19 Wan Hang LAI Tze-wah 2.5% 117 2.1% Independent

R24 Chung On YIP Wing 42.0% 2,506 51.3% Labour Party

R24 Chung On QUAT Elizabeth 58.0% 2,376 48.7% DAB

S12 Kwai Fong CHAN Man-luen-ying 34.4% 1,624 33.0% HKFLU

S12 Kwai Fong LEUNG Yiu-chung 65.6% 3,301 67.0% Neighbourhood & Worker’s Service Centre

S15 Cho Yiu PAU Ming-hong 65.2% 2,986 62.3% DAB

S15 Cho Yiu LO Wai-lan 10.4% 580 12.1% *BPA

S15 Cho Yiu CHAN Tak-cheung 24.5% 1,230 25.6% League of Social Democrats

T02 Yat Tung Estate North TANG Ka-piu 72.1% 3,061 77.3% F.T.U

T02 Yat Tung Estate North LEUNG Hon-wai 28.0% 900 22.7%

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

Second round of exit polls released at 12:10am November 23, 2015, also before the actual numbers were known. These are the races with some better-known "Umbrella Soldiers" included.

Code Constituency Name Exit Poll Estimate% Ac tual # Actual % Political affiliation

A04 Peak CHAN Ho-lim Joseph 85.5% 1837 85.3% Liberal Party

A04 Peak CHAN Shu-moon 14.5% 317 14.7% Independent Candidate

A07 Kwun Lung YEUNG Hoi-wing 62.0% 2491 61.4% DAB

A07 Kwun Lung LEUNG Chung-hang Sixtus 38.0% 1569 38.6% Youngspiration

B02 Oi Kwan TANG King-yung Anna 72.5% 1367 59.9% DAB

B02 Oi Kwan WONG Sui-lung 27.5% 915 40.1%

B07 Tai Hang WONG Ching-chi Gigi 47.9% 1148 45.1% New People’s Party

B07 Tai Hang YEUNG Suet-ying Clarisse 52.1% 1398 54.9% Independent Candidate

B10 Happy Valley NG Kam-chun 68.9% 1377 60.5% Independent

B10 Happy Valley CHIEN Ka-wo Kelvin 31.1% 900 39.5%

B11 Stubbs Road AU Lai-chong 27.9% 642 35.8%

B11 Stubbs Road WONG Wang-tai 72.1% 1150 64.2%

B12 Southorn LEE Pik-yee 85.1% 1463 77.0% Independent

B12 Southorn YEUNG Yau-fung 14.9% 437 23.0%

C02 Tai Koo Shing East TSE Tsz-kei 56.0% 2587 49.2% New People’s Party

C02 Tai Koo Shing East WONG Chun-sing Patrick 44.0% 2674 50.8% Independent

C05 Shaukeiwan LAM Sum-lim 50.1% 1444 48.5% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

C05 Shaukeiwan POON Wing-yin 6.1% 107 3.6%

C05 Shaukeiwan LEUNG Wing-sze 43.9% 1429 48.0%

E12 Tai Nan CHONG Wing-charn Francis 52.8% 1424 47.6% Kowloon West New Dynamic/BPA

E12 Tai Nan CHIU Yuk-kwong 18.0% 606 20.3% Youngspiration

E12 Tai Nan FUNG Joshua Man-tao 29.2% 962 32.2% The Democratic Party

J14 Sau Mau Ping South CHAN Yiu-hung Jimmy 76.0% 2418 70.6% Independent

J14 Sau Mau Ping South KAI Ming-wah 6.5% 340 9.9% *The Democratic Party

J14 Sau Mau Ping South CHENG Kwok-chun 17.5% 668 19.5% Kowloon East Community

K02 Yeung Uk Road CHAN Han-pan 69.7% 2075 62.7% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

K02 Yeung Uk Road LAM Sek-tim 30.3% 1233 37.3% Tsuen Wan Community Network

K11 Tsuen Wan West LAM Lam Nixie 62.2% 2463 51.8% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

K11 Tsuen Wan West POON Chiu-lam 23.0% 1500 31.5% Tsuen Wan Dynamic for the People

K11 Tsuen Wan West CHU Shun-ming 14.8% 793 16.7%

L10 Hing Tsak TSUI Fan 64.8% 2673 64.1% The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions

L10 Hing Tsak CHAN Sze-nga 35.2% 1498 35.9%

L28 Fu Tai CHAN Manwell 63.2% 2823 73.0% The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions

L28 Fu Tai HO Wai-cheung 36.8% 1044 27.0% Tuen Mun Community Concern Group

M18 Chung Wah WONG Wai-ling 72.1% 1775 64.8% Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

M18 Chung Wah CHAN Ka-kui 27.9% 965 35.2%

M31 Fairview Park YAU Tai-tai 43.1% 1596 44.8%

M31 Fairview Park LEUNG Wai-kwan 30.5% 144 4.0%

M31 Fairview Park TO Ka-lun 26.5% 1826 51.2%

N03 Cheung Wah CHAN Yuk-ming 30.9% 1814 34.4% The Democratic Party

N03 Cheung Wah YUEN Hoi-wai Feder 6.3% 178 3.4% Non-affiliated Candidate

N03 Cheung Wah YIP Yiu-shing Chris 30.3% 1569 29.8% Independent

N03 Cheung Wah WONG Ka-ho 32.6% 1710 32.4% North of The Rings

P01 Tai Po Hui LI Kwok-ying 66.1% 1096 55.9% DAB

P01 Tai Po Hui CHOY Wing-mui Molly 33.9% 865 44.1%

P11 Wan Tau Tong YU Chi-wing 66.0% 2711 56.1% *Independent Candidates

P11 Wan Tau Tong CHENG Wai 34.0% 2123 43.9%

P16 Old Market & Serenity LAU Yung-wai 52.1% 2170 56.1% Independent Candidate

P16 Old Market & Serenity CHEUNG Kwok-wai 47.9% 1699 43.9% DAB

Q22 Fu Nam CHAN Pok-chi 60.8% 2207 49.9% DAB

Q22 Fu Nam CHAN Yiu-ming 39.2% 2213 50.1% Independent Democrat

Q25 Kwong Ming CHONG Yuen-tung 76.1% 3373 64.8% DAB

Q25 Kwong Ming SHI Hau-kit Simon 13.0% 777 14.9%

Q25 Kwong Ming CHOI Ming-hei 11.0% 1055 20.3% *Independent Democrat

R15 Wan Shing HO Hau-cheung 62.5% 1989 51.3% New People’s Party/ Civil Force

R15 Wan Shing WONG Leung-hi 17.7% 962 24.8% Independent Democrats

R15 Wan Shing CHEUNG Tak-wing 19.8% 927 23.9%

R20 Chung Tin TANG Wing-cheong 42.5% 1268 35.6% Civil Force/New People’s Party

R20 Chung Tin LO Yuet-chau 16.2% 662 18.6%

R20 Chung Tin WONG Hok-lai 41.3% 1631 45.8% Shatin Community Network

S28 Ching Fat LEE Hon-sam 8.1% 282 5.2% Ching Fat Living Concern

S28 Ching Fat LAM Chui-ling Nancy 54.7% 2648 48.6% Independent

S28 Ching Fat LAU Chi-kit 34.3% 2283 41.9% The Democratic Party

S28 Ching Fat WONG Kin-long 2.9% 233 4.3%

T05 Tung Chung South CHOW Ho-ding Holden 56.9% 2161 53.0% DAB

T05 Tung Chung South WONG Chun-yeung 43.1% 1917 47.0%

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

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

[379] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 10 (Voter Turnout Rates) (2015/11/22)

1985: 37.5%
1988: 30.3%
1991: 32.5%
1994: 33.1%
1999: 35.82%
2003: 44.06%
2007: 38.83%
2011: 41.49%
2015: 47.01%

Time of Day 2007 2011 2015

0830am 1.08% 1.19% 1.28%

0930am 3.30% 3.59% 3.85%

1030am 6.26% 6.73% 6.79%

1130am 9.50% 10.10% 10.90%

1230pm 12.34% 13.20% 14.49%

0130pm 14.83% 15.85% 17.68%

0230pm 17.48% 18.73% 21.00%

0330pm 20.05% 21.48% 24.21%

0430pm 22.68% 24.33% 27.40%

0530pm 25.30% 27.08% 30.62%

0630pm 28.07% 30.20% 33.99%

0730pm 30.63% 32.88% 37.15%

0830pm 33.19% 35.57% 40.28%

0930pm 35.97% 38.54% 43.65%

1030pm 38.83% 41.49% 47.01%

[378] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 9 (Final Dash) (2015/11/20)

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

The District Council elections have reached the final stage. The preceding months of campaigning were mainly about hanging out banners, posting posters, distributing leaflets, manning street booths, social media, home visits, etc. But at the final moment, there are only two tricks left in the election campaign -- the emergency appeal and the smear.
In recent days, candidates from both sides are making emergency appeals. The emergency appeal is intended to mobilize your supporters so that they feel an urgency to vote. With it, the supporters may get complacent and has less urgency to vote.
The emergency is not going to expand your support base. It is done to consolidate your support base, which was built up long before. Therefore the emergency appeal can only be invoked in the final two or three days before the balloting. Furthermore, it has to be done throughout the entire district. Past experience says that the emergency appeal can motivate the supporters to vote. However, after having the emergency appeal over each and every election, the effect today may be lessened.
As for the smear, it is the last trick. The smear will not be used early on, because that will give your opponent an opportunity to explain. After the smear information is released, a number of innuendoes are spread out by whispering and disseminated as quickly. The smear is especially effective for the undecided voters. There are many controversies in elections that are reported by certain media, but the smears are even more prevalent on Internet discussion forums and Facebook. There is so much information that it is hard to tell who is right or wrong. But the smear may also have the effect of driving some disgusted voters away from voting at all.
These District Council elections will serve as indicators. Firstly, the election results will affect the plans of the political parties for next year's Legislative Council elections. Some elected District Councilors will qualify to run for the five District Council (2) seats in the Legislative Council. Secondly, the election results will be a referendum on the Umbrella Movement. If the pan-democrats win big, it will be a vindication of the Umbrella Movement.

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

I have never had so much expectations for an election day. Perhaps the anger has been pented up for too long. In recent years, there has been a new kind of evil force, based on viciousness. If they don't like what someone says, they will use the Internet to ferret out all kinds of information to smear and attack. Ordinary law-abiding citizens are intimidated. Besides who has time to tussle with these evil forces? Thus, citizens clam up and withdraw, leaving the evil forces to roam freely. We all have to make a living, don't we?
After a few years, we can now observe the consequences. Not only are the streets littered with garbage, but there are viruses everywhere. The children get infected with the virus and become demonized. The city streets are full of zombies and the exorcists have no answers.
But on this Sunday, there is a chance to counterattack. As in a martial arts film, this Sunday is a day when the sun, the moon and the heavens all converge at a singular moment. Ordinary people such as ourselves don't need knives, guns or bombs. We can use a single piece of ballot paper to exorcise the demons.
Does someone still say "I don't know to choose?" Let me tell you how simple it is. If you still have doubts, you can ask the candidates directly:

1. Do you support Occupy Central?
2. Do you agree or disagree with using "Black/Evil Police" to refer to the Hong Kong Police?
3. What is your view of young people booing the Chinese national anthem and university students using foul language?
4. What is your view of hoisting the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence?
5. Do you support filibustering in the Legislative Council?

A newspaper posed similar questions to the candidates, and all 193 pan-democrats refused to answer. Their non-answer is already the answer.
Recently many candidates are using foldable banners and posters to smear their opponents. This is similar to how they attack anti-Occupy Central folks. In a fair election, it is easy to see whether such kinds of ugly tactics are constructive or destructive. That goes without say.
In the past, the people of Hong Kong lose because they are not sufficiently courageous and united. In two days' time, the chance is here for us to defend our families. We will chase those who want the ship Hong Kong to sink off our ship. We must be careful and bold in casting our vote. Please remember that if we miss this chance, we will have to wait for the next full moon (the 2016 Legislative Council).

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

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

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

1. The First Post-Occupy Political Temperature Taking

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

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

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

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

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

More than 40 candidates either declared they hailed from new groups as a result of Occupy or were politically awakened by the 79-day sit-ins. They included doctors, accountants, IT professionals, financiers, the owner of an adventure-sports business, two chefs and a university student.
They vowed during their campaigns to spread the same “bottom-up” community planning spirit that inspired them during last year’s protests, also known as the Umbrella Movement.

Sunday’s results could show whether the pan-democrats or the pro-establishment camp was right about the effect of the Occupy movement on the city’s political landscape.

2. The first all-elected seats election

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

Number of seats: 431

Number of candidates received: 935

Number of uncontested constituencies: 68

867 candidates are contesting 363 constituencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. It’s about your money

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s your money, so you should care. And yes, vote wisely.

Internet comments:

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

1. Yes. I support the defense of Hong Kong's core values. Therefore I support Occupy Central.
2. Yes. I oppose the police using excessive force (such as using tear gas against unarmed civilians and beating Ken Tsang in a dark corner of Tamar Park).
3. Yes. The young people are exercising their freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Basic Law.
4. Yes. Same as (3).
5. Yes. Filibustering is in accordance with the existing procedures/rules/regulations of the Legislative Council.

So how hard is it?

- If it is so easy, then why didn't the 193 pan-democrats answer? While all these answers are genuine and sincere, the majority of the voters do not approve. If they publicly take these positions, they will be voted out.
- They will give these answers -- after the district council elections are over. They will re-iterate those answers until the 2016 Legislative Council elections approach. Then they will develop amnesia again. Or they will say that these are complicated issues that cannot be dealt with by short answers. After those elections, they will re-iterate those answers.
- You could counter with 5 questions for the pro-establishment candidates:

1. Do you support the August 31 2014 resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on constitutional reform?
2. Do you support the police use of tear gas against unarmed civilians on September 28, 2014?
3. Do you oppose the appointment of Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro vice chancellor of staffing and academic resources at Hong Kong University?
4. Do you oppose the elimination of the existing ordinances that automatically appoints the Chief Executive as the chancellor of ten institutions of higher learning in Hong Kong?
5. Do you think of yourself as more Hongkonger or more Chinese?

Will Blue Ribbons answer?

- Well, that's easy:
1. Yes. I support the August 31 2014 resolution because the people of Hong Kong will get one-person-one-vote and that is infinitely better than leaving the decision in the hands of the 1,200-person election committee.
2. Yes. Tear gas is used around the rest of the world to stop chaos without using deadly force.
3. Yes. I believe that such matters should be decided by the Hong Kong University council whose members made a well-considered decision. I support true autonomy and self-determination.
4. Yes. All ordinances are created by men and can be amended by men. But if not the Chief Executive, then who? We cannot eliminate the ordinances because some people don't like the current Chief Executive and leave a vacuum for the chancellor. I would like to listen to the proposed alternative first. I have heard nothing so far.
5. I am a Chinese person living in Hong Kong.

- Here is another list for pro-China candidates:

1. Do you support the Chinese Communist Party?
2. Do you support the slaughter of 1,000 students on Tiananmen Square on July 4, 1989.
3. Do you oppose foreign forces? If so, does any family member of yours have foreign passports?

That's easily answered as well:

1. Yes. I support the Chinese Communist Party because of the progress that they have made since 1980. I cannot imagine the Hong Kong Democratic Party or Civic Party achieve such rapid progress.
2. With due respect, the number 1,000 is fantasy. To quote Leon Lai, "I do not answer hypothetical questions."
3. Yes. I oppose foreign forces interfering with Hong Kong because I believe in self-determination/autonomy/sovereignty. If any of my family members has a foreign passport, he/she is exercising his/her freedom to choose so as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Wan Chin's strategy

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

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

Let me explain one more time about why it is necessary to eradicate the pan-democrats from Hong Kong politics. It is very simple: the pan-democrats are the mercenaries for foreign powers. They pretend to defend Hong Kong and they get paid by the people of Hong Kong. In practice, they receive bonuses and retirement benefits from the United States. If you have worked before, you know that if outsiders pays you bonuses and retirement over and above your company pay, you will be loyal to those outsiders. When you use such mercenaries to help you to fight against the Communists and the Americans, you will be defeated for sure, because they will be disloyal and they will betray Hong Kong.

If you have to fight, you must use local Hong Kong soldiers. As soon as you send out the local Hong Kong soldiers, the Chinese Communists and the Americans will flee, because they know that you are serious about fighting. The local Hong Kong soldiers may not win the war, but they are ready and willing to die on the battlefield. Hong Kong must not be baptised by war, because it is an international area for peace. Thus, the outside forces will concede and negotiate a peace with you. The entire process will see no bloodshed. I, Wan China, loves peace and reason. If the local Hong Kong soldiers take over Hong Kong politics, the people of Hong Kong will win for sure. You can see in our Reclaim movements (against the smugglers) that all we did was to send out several dozen people, raise some flags and kick some luggage cases, and the Chinese Communists immediately canceled the multiple visit permits to give us a victory. This is a template for you to examine.

Internet comments:

- Since very few of the 431 districts have localist candidates, Wan Chin is in fact saying to vote for the DAB/FTU this Sunday, in order to inflict maximum damage on the pan-democrats.
- This does not clarify the big question marks around Wan Chin -- Is he serious? is he a prankster? is he mentally ill? or is he a Communist agent?

[377] Hong Kong By The Numbers (11/20/2015)

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

2003 2007 2011 2015

Proportion of voters who planned to vote in DC election 74% 76% 66% 71%

Have decided which candidate to vote for 37% 47% 37% 30%

Knew which political camps are running for election at local district 75% 76% 80% 73%

Main factor: platform and political alignment 35% 36% 47% 41%

Main factor: past performance 47% 50% 40% 33%

Main factor: personal background and performance during election 3% 3% 4% 6%

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 19, 2015.

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

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

According to HKUPOP Research Manager Frank Lee,”This means that the turnout rate in the coming election may be higher, but the effect of loyal voters may weaken.”
Around 73 percent of the registered voters surveyed said they know which political camps are running for office at the local level.

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

“People continue to value the candidate’s political background, which may be related to the recent political environment,” Lee said.

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

(SCMP) November 19, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EJinsight) November 20, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

- Here are the historical turnout rates versus HKUPOP poll responses.

2003 2007 2011 2015

Proportion of voters who planned to vote in DC election 74% 76% 66% 71%

Actual Voter Turnout 44% 39% 41% -

Total number of voters 2,384,181 2,958,953 2,989,180 3,693,492

In the last 3 elections,
the highest poll number ended up with the lowest actual turnout
the middle poll number ended up with the highest actual turnout
the lowest poll number ended up with the middle actual turnout.
I don't see any patterns here.
You cannot take the HKUPOP number and apply a simple discount factor based on 2011 to it, as in estimating 2015 turnout to be 41 x 71 / 66 = 44%.
If you did that to 2003, you will get 41 x 74 / 66 = 46%, which is okay.
If you did that to 2007, you will get 41 x 76 / 66 = 47%, which is very wrong.
- If you want to extrapolate from 2003/2007/2011 to 2015, you are making the assumption that "other things being equal." The other things are not equal here. The change factors include: Occupy Central; umbrella soldiers; many more first-time voters (both young and old).
- Related link: An Analysis of a Hong Kong District Council Election Exit Poll (2013/11/09)
- (Apple Daily, November 20, 2015) Lingnan University Public Governance Programme research director Li Pang-kwong estimates that the pan-democrats have a chance to win a majority in the district council elections because people are angry after Occupy Central. He believes that voter turnout will be higher than 2011.

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

[376] Boo! (2015/11/18)

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 18, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) November 18, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) November 18, 2015.

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 18, 2015.

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

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

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

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

(HKG Pao) November 18, 2015.

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

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

(Oriental Daily) November 18, 2015.

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

(SCMP) November 19, 2015.

Fans chanting "We are Hong Kong" at Mong Kok Stadium on Tuesday night were not merely giving vocal support to the boys in red as the city's soccer players battled to a valiant 0-0 draw in their World Cup qualifier against China. They were also reflecting the growing sense of Hong Kong identity that has developed in recent years.

For fans watching in the stadium or at live screenings across this city, this was no ordinary soccer match. Many saw it as an occasion to defend Hongkongers' pride in the face of a more assertive and increasingly influential mainland.

The match, billed as Hong Kong's biggest in decades, was a classic example of the nexus between sport, politics and identity.

As chants of "Hong Kong superb" rang out, some fans brandished banners with slogans such as "Hong Kong is not China", making headlines overseas. Some held up signs saying "boo" during the national anthem - after Fifa fined the local soccer association for audible booing of the anthem at previous games.

"The Chinese side has no-one to blame but the Beijing government's disrespect of our city," said one of those holding a "boo" sign, Louis Cheng Wai-lun. "The football match … pretty much epitomised the political struggle between the two places."

Anti-mainland tension has been on the rise in recent years, for various reasons. The rising number of visitors from the mainland and the uncouth behaviour of some of them is one factor. Politics, too, plays a part - last year's 79-day Occupy sit-ins were spurred by a restrictive framework set by Beijing for the election of the city's chief executive by "one person, one vote" in 2017.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a Chinese University political scientist and avid soccer fan, said the level of tension on Tuesday was unprecedented in a cross-border fixture.

"It's noteworthy that the slogan 'We are Hong Kong' was chanted in English, signifying the subtle link to the colonial era," Choy said. "It amounts to a rebuttal of the call by some mainland officials for decolonisation in Hong Kong."

He was referring to a call in September by a former head of Beijing's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Chen Zuoer , to wipe out colonial holdovers.

Professor Ray Yep Kin-man, of City University's department of public policy, agreed fans used the game to express negativity to integration with the mainland.

The game was also a challenge for local officials, anxious to keep the public onside without playing political football and risking a red card from Beijing.

For Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, this meant a blog post after the match praising the "wonderful" and "exciting" game but stopped short of expressing support for the local team.

His blog post won a mere few hundred Facebook likes, while Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, a keen fan of the Hong Kong team, drew more than 34,000 likes for a picture of himself watching the game on a tablet computer during a visit to Romania.

Leung sidestepped questions from reporters yesterday, saying it was "nothing special" to see Hong Kong sportsmen playing the national team.

"As a Hongkonger and as a Chinese, I support our fellow Hong Kong teammates as well as the sport development of our country," he added on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting in Manila.

Choy said Leung's ambiguous attitude would only reinforce the perception he was not prepared to stand up for Hong Kong when conflict arose with the mainland.

Tuesday's anti-mainland passions were a stark contrast to the golden moment of China's soccer history in 2002, when the team made the World Cup for the first and, thus far, only time.

More than 26,000 crammed Hong Kong Stadium to watch on a big screen as China were thrashed 4-0 by Brazil in their match held in co-host South Korea, all but putting them out of the tournament in the first round. Some fans, who had queued outside the stadium for hours, said "We are Chinese and this is the moment to show your true colours".

Amid the thundering shouts of "We are Hong Kong", such sentiment sounded like a thing of the remote past.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 19, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EJinsight) November 20, 2015.

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

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

But in the context of today’s Hong Kong, such an implementation of “apartheid” has become so apposite that even Beijing’s envoys and the government of the special administrative region expressed no objections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The greatest ironies were to follow.

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

The writer of the song’s lyrics, Tian Han (田漢), was thrown behind bars during the Cultural Revolution on charges of being a “counterrevolutionary”. Tian’s original lyrics were also edited to suit the party’s political needs.

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) November 21, 2015.

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

Barack Obama may be president of the union of 50 states, with an official residence in the neutral ground of the District of Columbia, but he has never been shy of his Chicago roots when it comes to baseball. He is a Chicago White Sox fan. And when arch rivals the Chicago Cubs had a chance to make it to the World Series, he didn’t hesitate to support them. “Congrats @Cubs – even @whitesox fans are rooting for you!” he tweeted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Tsang Chun-wah, his finance secretary and apparent rival, posted a picture of himself watching the match, but couldn’t bring himself to say anything more than “exciting match!” Well, there was that effusive exclamation mark.

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

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

But that is exactly why they should have done better. The match was a chance for leaders to showcase how people here can strike a healthy balance between their Hong Kong and Chinese identities – that you don’t have to be jingoistic or xenophobic to be passionate about Hong Kong. Instead, the signal they gave was that Hong Kong loyalties have to be suppressed ostensibly for the larger good of China.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) November 24, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Agence France Presse) November 25, 2016

“The HKFA is disappointed, but not surprised, to learn from Fifa that disciplinary proceedings are being opened in respect of booing at the recent Hong Kong versus China football match,” said chief executive officer Mark Sutcliffe. “The HKFA will be submitting a response to Fifa stating that the booing was carried out by a small section of the crowd and pointing out the mitigating actions taken by the HKFA prior to the match to ... avoid this situation,” Sutcliffe said.

(SCMP) January 14, 2016.

The Hong Kong Football Association has been fined again by Fifa for booing the China national anthem.

The fine of 10,000 Swiss francs (HK$77,150) was handed out for booing apparently heard in Shenzhen in September, at the World Cup qualifier against China that finished 0-0. A small travelling band of perhaps 2,000 fans attended that game and were heavily policed. Booing was not noticeable from the press tribune at Bao’an Stadium, but must have been mentioned in the official disciplinary report.

Two previous punishments for booing the anthem were also mentioned, among a lengthy list of global disciplinary measures published by Fifa: a warning for an incident before the qualifier against Bhutan at Mong Kok Stadium and a 5,000 francs fine plus warning for “improper conduct among supporters + booing of national anthem by supporters + objects (small box - paper tetra pack ) being thrown” during the home qualifier against Qatar.

The most recent qualifier, the 0-0 home draw against China in November, was not mentioned in the Fifa report, though booing from some fans could be heard at the start of the anthem before that match before being drowned out by others. Other fans attempted to avoid punishment by holding up signs that read ‘Boo’.

Fifa confirmed after that game that disciplinary proceedings had been opened against Hong Kong. It is unclear whether the incident went unpunished or will be covered in future disciplinary proceedings, but since punishments were handed out to other FAs for incidents that occurred in matches on the same date, it seems the HKFA escaped another fine or worse.

The FAs of Argentina, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay were each fined 20,000 francs for homophobic chanting by their fans under new anti-discrimination guidelines, with Chile receiving multiple fines totalling 70,000 francs for four separate cases. The biggest single punishment was dished out to Malaysia, who received a 40,000 francs fine and a match forfeit after a qualifier against Saudi Arabia in September was abandoned due to “strong use of pyrotechnic devices”.

The Hong Kong FA has repeatedly pleaded with fans to respect the national anthem, but admit there is little they can do.

(EJ Insight) November 15, 2017.

Local football fans again booed the national anthem before the start of an Asian Cup qualifying match between the home team and Lebanon on Tuesday night, Apple Daily reports.

Hundreds of spectators turned their backs on the pitch, hurled insults and raised their middle finger as The March of the Volunteers was being played at the Hong Kong Stadium.

Despite the booing, former justice secretary Elsie Leung Oi-see said she does not see the need for the local version of the anthem law to have retroactive effect.

Earlier, Leung had warned that the Legislative Council could consider making it retroactive in the wake of such display of disrespect to the national anthem.

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee earlier this month inserted a new law banning the disrespect of the national anthem into Annex III of the Basic Law, paving the way for the Legislative Council to pass a localized version of the statute.

Most of the Hong Kong fans, wearing red jerseys, were seated on the east side of the stadium.

As they booed the anthem, many covered their faces with their hands or banners. Some even jeered at news photographers and warned them against taking their pictures.

One of the fans who booed, surnamed Cheung, said the anthem is not worth respecting. He said he is not worried if undercover policemen would take pictures of him. “What’s done is done,” he said.

Security measures at the stadium were apparently heightened. Six checkpoints were installed at the entrances to prevent fans from bringing in banned items, including bottles. Plainclothes police officers were seen patrolling the stadium, with some using cameras to monitor the situation.

A secondary six student surnamed Wong said he came to support the Hong Kong team. He said there was no need to pass legislation to force people to respect the flag and the anthem. “If you respect people, people will respect you,” he said.

Brian Leung Hung-tak, chairman of the Hong Kong Football Association, said the situation at the station was not as bad as before because the booing was not too loud. Pui Kwan-kay, vice chairman of the association, also said the noise from the spectators was not as loud as during the game against Malaysia in October.

In the latest match, Hong Kong lost to Lebanon, 1:0.

(Mark Sutcliffe's Blog) November 16, 2017.

A word on the booing

Quite frankly it’s getting a bit tedious. The fans who boo have made their point now and I’m pretty sure that if there hadn’t been such interest shown by the politicians and in particular the media, it would have stopped a long time ago. I can’t read most of the papers here but the ones I can read have stopped reporting on the football and are solely interested in the crowd behavior before the match which of course just encourages more booing. It’s a self-fulfilling prophesy, which I am sure the media knows and relishes. Last night one media outlet even had the temerity to broadcast the anthem live on TV from inside the stadium despite the fact that they had no accreditation to do so. They were not the approved broadcaster and should not have been showing a ‘live’ feed. It’s disgusting really that a so-called professional organisation believes it is OK to infringe the regulations so blatantly.

Another sad trend is what I will call the ‘orchestrated anti-booing rent a crowd’, people who are apparently paid to come and oppose those who are booing. I don’t know who these people are or who is paying them but they are clearly not there to watch the football. They have no understanding of the game and even less interest. Last night I watched as they sat through the entire Lebanon anthem. Personally I find it more offensive to disrespect someone else’s anthem than your own. Someone should teach both groups some manners. This situation is a sad indictment on Hong Kong. Our beloved game is being hijacked (to the obvious delight of the media) as a political tool by both sides in a polarized, fractured society. It’s very sad that the action on the pitch is now seen by many as secondary to what is happening off it. Please if you’re not bothered about the football, just stay away.

The HKFA will wait to see what action is taken against us by the AFC, for it is us that will be penalized once again.

- Why is there an "orchestrated anti-booing rent a crowd"? If there was no booing, nobody would have to rent a crowd. It is because the HKFA is unable and/or unwilling to stop the booing that someone had to take matters into their own hands. If the HKFA can stop the booing themselves, the rent-a-crowd will disappear. The ball is passed back to you, Mark Sutcliffe.

- The booing crowd does not care about Hong Kong football either. They want the HKFA to be penalized. Fines don't mean anything to them personally. They want the Hong Kong team be forced to play behind closed doors, or forfeit matches, or even outright banned. That is because everybody will blame China instead of them. Such being the case, the HKFA is up shit creek without a paddle.

- Here is what Mark Sutcliffe's blog post led to:

The Demand to Dissolve the Hong Kong Football Association Facebook:

The Sinophobic positions of the Hong Kong Football Association:

1. Hong Kong was returned to China twenty years ago. Article 149 of the Hong Kong Basic Law states that Hong Kong shall use the name "Hong Kong, China" in international sports. However, the Hong Kong Football Association has been ignoring this legal requirement and using just "Hong Kong" in their various promotional materials without any reference to the nation.

2. During the qualifying rounds, the Chinese Football Association issued a serious of posters entitled "Do not underestimate the opponents" (see #268) to showcase their various opponents. The Hong Kong Football Association internationally misinterpreted the meaning by switching "Do not underestimate the opponents" to "Look down on the opponents."

3. Yapp Hung-fai, goalie of the Hong Kong Association's representative team, is a pro-independence activist. Not only does he deny that he is Chinese, but he also said to China: "Even if we can't defeat you, we will stop you from advancing!" His hatred of China has caused him to lose the sporting spirit. By doing so, Yapp is an idol among pro-independence elements.

4. After numerous instances of the national anthem being booed since 2015, the Hong Kong Football Association has done nothing. For all practical purposes, the HKFA is provided a safe haven for such behavior. When Hong Kong citizens got upset and came to hold up the national flag and sing the national anthem, the Hong Kong Football Association Chief Executive Mark Sutcliffe accused these people of being paid and "worse than booing the national anthem." In this way, sports became the medium for anti-China propaganda.

5. In 2017, the Evergrande (Guangzhou) fans brought out a "Death to British dogs, destroy Hong Kong independence (poison)" banner in response to the provocation of the pro-independence elements who booed the national anthem. The Hong Kong Football Association said that the Evergrande fans were engaged in "racial discrimination." This shows that the Hong Kong Football Association takes the position that if you oppose to separatism, you are a racist.

We call upon all patriotic Hongkongers to recognize the true face of the Hong Kong Football Association and reject this shameless organization from polluting Hong Kong sports.

- The booing of the national anthem at international football matches in Hong Kong is a disrespectful act that is causing social rifts. What is the organizer Hong Kong Football Association doing about it? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Why? Because they shrugged their shoulders and said that there is nothing that they can do. This is total rubbish. The truth of the matter is that there is plenty that they can do.

First of all, the Hong Kong Football Association needs to ask themselves: Why does booing the national anthem only occur in football? How come its does not happen in other sports (such as rugby, basketball, table tennis, swimming, etc)?

(Facebook video) Here is the Hong Kong (China) rugby team standing at attention and singing the Chinese national anthem at the 2015 Rugby Asia Cup.

Here are some specifics that the Hong Kong Football Association can (but won't) do:

(1) Booing the national anthem is injecting politics into the sport, and will result in progressively severe sanctions from the Asian Football Confederation (fines, behind-closed-doors matches, forfeiture of points, etc). Rather than sitting passively for AFC sanctions, why not actively do so yourself to show that you are completely serious about putting a stop to the disrespectful behavior? Start by announcing that any booing in the upcoming match will result in the next international match being placed behind closed doors. You only have to do it once and the behavior is guaranteed to stop thereafter. If anyone tries to boo again, he will be lynched by the true football fans around him.

(2) Look at the (Facebook video) of the Hong Kong rugby team. Respect for the national anthem begins with the Hong Kong players themselves. Make them the lyrics and make them sing proud and aloud. If a player refuses to sing the national anthem, then he should not be representing Hong Kong (China). PERIOD.

Videos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

- Can you in any way shape or form justify this?
https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/977694755637794/
They are just chanting "Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" and "Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother!"

- Chip Tso Channel

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

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

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

https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/977694755637794/
"Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!" and "Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother!"

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

This statement is true: Hong Kong is just one little black dot whereas China is the huge light-yellow-colored chunk in the middle of the map. In the same way, New York City is not the United States, Osaka is not Japan, Marseilles is not France, Perth is not Australia, etc. Everybody know this to be true. What then is the purpose of saying so?

- Which English-language genius came up with this phrase? No wonder Vietnam has surged ahead of Hong Kong in terms of command of the English language.

- Let me remind you just in case you don't know or have forgotten: "You are not your mother."

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

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

- But since Hong Kong is the center of the universe, the rest of the world must and will eventually speak the Hong Kong way.

- Or else Hong Kong will buy an aircraft carrier and force the rest of the world to speak Hong Kong-style Cantonese!

- They should stick to "BOO". But it is not universal. The Cantonese word is "噓" (sound of "hur"). "BOO" is almost not specific, because it could be directed against unsportsmanlike conduct, or skin color, or whatever people don't like at that moment.

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

- I am totally disinterested in which soccer teams (if any) are supported by which senior government officials. That's their personal business and none of mine. There is no need for them to pledge either allegiance or treason. I just don't care.

- Why should there be two teams coming from the same country? This proves that Hong Kong is an independent sovereign entity.

- The United Kingdom fields four separate teams: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This proves that these are independent sovereign entities. And Denmark fields Denmark and the Faroe Islands. This proves that the Faroe Islands are an independent sovereign entity. You can keep on going yourself with this homework assignment ...

- I did my homework. There are also the political powder kegs of Puerto Rico and Palestine, which are FIFA members. People have been jailed or killed for saying that they are independent nations.

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

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

- Does saying "I support the Hong Kong team" mean that the speaker will look after the interests of Hong Kong? It's not what he says, it's what he does.

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

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

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

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

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

- A Hong Kong citizen must support the Hong Kong team? Why?

- It is a sad day when a Hongkonger is compelled to support the Hong Kong team, for Fascism will have won.

- Hongkongers support Manchester United much more so than the local South China club. Does that make them unpatriotic?

- What kind of Hong Kong team is this anyway? Seven members (Festus Baise, Bai He, Jean-Jacques Kilama, Sandro, Jack Sealy, Paulinho and Jaimes McKee) out of the 11 starters are outsider mercenaries who took jobs away from homegrown Hong Kong talents. At least on the Chinese team, every player was born in China.

- The situation is that Hong Kong has one away game left at Qatar on March 24, 2015. Meanwhile China has two home games with Maldives on March 24, 2016 and Qatar on March 29, 2016. So far China and Hong Kong have been defeating the minnow (Bhutan and Maldives), they lose to Qatar and they tie each other. If at the end of the qualifying round, Hong Kong and China are tied on points, the tie breaker will be on goals scored. China has 21 goals and Hong Kong 13. To advance as second-place finisher, Hong Kong must get some points from Qatar. Meanwhile China should beat Maldives easily and they must get the same or more points from Qatar.

- As Group C leader, undefeated Qatar has already qualified. How do you fix the game with them? You can't offer them money because they are flushed with oil cash.

- Postscript: China goes to the next round while Hong Kong gets to stay home and masturbate.

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

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

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

- When you have a photograph, you've got the truth.

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

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

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

- As a soccer fan, a Hongkonger and a Chinese, I have to say that I am not a fan of either the Hong Kong team or the Chinese team. They both suck (海軍鬥水兵). I am a Bayern Munich fan because I like to watch Neuer, Ribery, Lahm, Robben, Mueller and Lewandowski. They are physically fit, they are skillful, they are intelligent, they have brilliant tactics, they score beautiful goals. Thank you.

- One of these days, the Hong Kong team may be playing England. Then who will the Hong Kong independence advocates support? If they wave the Union Jack, they will be supporting England over Hong Kong.

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

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

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

(NOW TV) http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=158547 Chinese University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor Joseph Sung defends his students as being well-mannered and enterprising

(Oriental Daily) December 3, 2015.

In a case of delayed reaction, Chinese University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu has finally made a public statement.

Recently an incident has made me very disappointed. On the night of November 17 at the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualifying match at Mong Kok Stadum, I saw some fans boo'ed the Chinese national anthem. The next day, I read a news report that a student-organized match-watching event on campus also saw some students being disrespectful towards the national anthem. I was really heartbroken. When some mainland students stood up to sing the national anthem, some other students boo'ed them. Those students can have any number of reasons to let out their emotions in a negative fashion. But I think that it is inappropriate and unacceptable for them to insult any country, especially their own.

History tells us that the spirit of unity is of utmost importance to a country. The national anthem is the symbol of national dignity and unity. Before <The March of the Volunteers> became our national anthem, it was sung during the War of Resistance Against Japan to lift up the people's morale. It carries great historical significance. I sincerely hope that the students should seriously reconsider and not let this happen again.

Finally Sung quoted Ch'ien Mu's last words to the students: "你是中國人，不要忘記了中國！ You are Chinese. Do not forget China!"

(EJ Insight) December 4, 2015.

Joseph Sung, the vice chancellor of Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), has never been shy about wading into politically charged issues and offering his comments on topics he deems important.

In keeping with his reputation, the university chief has now jumped into the debate over the recent controversy surrounding Hong Kong football fans and their booing of the Chinese national anthem.

In a blog post titled “Dignity and Respect”, Sung wrote that it saddened his heart to see that Hong Kong people had booed the national anthem during the World Cup qualifier soccer match with China last month.

He also wrote that he was “deeply disturbed” to learn that some CUHK students had acted disrespectfully to the anthem as they watched the Nov. 17 match on television at the campus.

In the group-watching event, some mainland students stood up as the national anthem was being played, but another set of students at the gathering were said to have booed loudly.

“It is absolutely improper and unacceptable to insult the National Anthem of our own as well as those of others,” Sung wrote in the post that was uploaded Thursday.

Towards the end of the article, Sung invoked Ch’ien Mu (commonly referred to as Master Ch’ien), the renowned philosopher and educator who had been a co-founder of Hong Kong’s New Asia College, to remind students that they are all Chinese.

New Asia College is one of the founding member institutions of CUHK.

In Ch’ien’s final lecture delivered at his Sushulou residence in Taiwan, he is said to have told his students: “You are Chinese. Don’t forget China!”

Ch’ien, an anti-Communism historian and Confucian, relocated to Taiwan in 1967 after arriving in Hong Kong in 1949 following the establishment of the People’s Republic in the mainland.

CUHK is closely associated with traditional Chinese culture, given the links with New Asia College and its background.

By invoking remarks made by Ch’ien many years ago, Sung was apparently trying to instill awareness among locals about the history and culture they share with China.

But what he didn’t mention was the fact that the Communists, after assuming power following a civil war, took a hostile approach to traditional Chinese culture, especially the Confucianism that Ch’ien admired.

Ch’ien and some other well-known scholars escaped the Communist Party rule and came to Hong Kong, where they established New Asia College in Mongkok.

In October 1967, the scholar moved to Taiwan after accepting an invitation from the island’s then President Chiang Kai-shek, and lived there until he passed away in 1990 at the age of 95.

It’s fair to say that Ch’ien never recognized the legitimacy of the Communist Party regime in Mainland China.

Otherwise, he wouldn’t have left the country for Hong Kong, and later Taiwan, which he regarded as the places that could truly preserve traditional Chinese culture. Given this piece of history, Sung was off the mark in using Ch’ien’s name to urge Hongkongers to be more respectful toward the motherland.

While Sung argued that the “March of the Volunteers” is a song of solidarity against invaders, its meaning has completely changed after it was adopted as the national anthem. That is because the regime of the Communist Party was founded on the fight against fellow Chinese in a civil war, and not invaders.

What Ch’ien referred to be “Chinese” can be taken as the Chinese people living under the Republic of China government, not those under the rule of People’s Republic.

From the perspective of many traditional Chinese intellectuals, the People’s Republic regime marked a downfall of traditional Chinese culture.

The national anthem, meanwhile, brings uncomfortable memories to some people who fled to Hong Kong after the Communist takeover of China.

Moving to the present context, there is also anger in Hong Kong as Beijing appears to be going back on its commitment to the “one country, two systems” and forcing the former British colony to embrace the Communist rule.

Amid this situation, it shouldn’t be surprising that some people chose to boo the national anthem as a way to express their anger and depth of feelings about the political situation.

While Sung is right in calling for respect for the national anthem, he should have taken care not to appear one-sided and lining up behind Beijing.

The university chief, who has won high praise in the past for various actions and the role he played in helping the city fight the SARS crisis in 2003, is expected to be impartial on sensitive issues related to China and Hong Kong.

But now it appears that he is focusing more on being politically correct as he serves a second term as CUHK vice chancellor after winning a contract extension last year.

Given his outburst over the issue of the national anthem, questions will be raised whether Sung has put his own interests above that of students’ freedom of expression.

Such actions could erode the good reputation he earned over the years and make people see him as a member of the pro-Beijing camp.

That is something that Sung himself would surely not want.

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

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

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

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

Twenty years have passed. The Chinese Premier League is no longer its former shadow. In the next five years, the broadcast rights for the Chinese Premier League will be 8 billion yuan, which is more than the total of the Chinese broadcast rights of the English Premier League, the Spanish Liga and the NBA added together. Meanwhile, Hong Kong soccer is ailing with matches attended by only several dozen spectators. The best hope for Hong Kong players is to be signed by the Chinese Premier League, or even organizing a Hong Kong team for the Chinese Premier League. Even if they only manage to join the Chinese Division A, their income and skills will improve immensely. If the Hong Kong players are enjoying their fans chanting "We are Hong Kong," then this is seriously delusional. Their future hope is with China.

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

- Internet celebrity Szeto Gap-tai (January 6, 2014): If it weren't for the news story on match-fixing, I won't even remember that there is still professional football in Hong Kong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am Chinese, not foreign nationality. Yapp Hung-fai
[This photo was taken when Yapp was hoping to be signed by the Guizhou Renhuo team. The Chinese Football Association ruled that Hongkoners are to be considered foreign imports. Thus, Yapp held up this sign to protest the deprivation of a Chinese citizen from making a few bucks. Later, Yapp was to say before a match against China that his top priority was to make sure that China does not advance.]

Yapp Hung-fai is a spokesperson for an online game popular in Hong Kong/Taiwan

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

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

- (NOW TV) December 15, 2015. The Chinese Football Association has announced that any Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan players signed before January 1, 2016 are considered Chinese players whereas any of those signed after that date will be considered foreign imports. That means Kilama and Lee Chi-ho will be considered Chinese players with Tianjin Songjiang and Meizhou Wuhua because they have already signed. After January 1, 2016, Hong Kong players will have to compete against the Brazilians, Colombians, Nigerians, etc.

(SCMP) December 16, 2015.

Hong Kong players have reacted with dismay after the Chinese Football Association declared that from now on they would count as 'foreign' players in China's leagues. On Monday, the Chinese Football Association announced players from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau would no longer be registered as “home players”, starting from January 1. They would instead take up one of the three foreign-player slots clubs are allowed in the China League - and that makes it far less likely for Hong Kong players to earn lucrative transfers across the border.

"They've killed the opportunity," said South China's Brazilian-born forward Manoel dos Santos Filho. “The decision is very hard and I don’t know why they changed the rules,” said the player, known as Itaparica and who obtained his Hong Kong passport in November. “Many players are chasing the money that can be made playing in China, which offers big opportunities and the chance to secure your financial future. Before these new rules, you could just play there with a Hong Kong passport, but now it’s all over. The decision has actually killed many players’ opportunity to play in China.”

However, the CFA did include a grace period, saying if the players and their clubs could reach an agreement before January 1 and register with the CFA, they could retain 'home' player status in the new season.

Affluent clubs across the border offer much larger salaries than are available in Hong Kong. Many naturalised Hong Kong players in particular have taken advantage; they were attractive to clubs as it allowed them to sign a talented Brazilian or African who didn't take up a foreign player slot. Jean Kilama, formerly of Eastern, is said to be earning a monthly salary over HK$240,000 with Tianjin Quanjian next season.

But Itaparica, who started his first practise session with the Hong Kong team yesterday in preparation for the annual Interport Cup against Guangdong later this month, said life had to continue despite the new rules. The 35-year-old forward was selected in the relatively young team after failing to get into the World Cup qualifying squad for Hong Kong in their two matches against Maldives and China in November.

“I think I can still play soccer at the highest level or I would have quit,” said Itaparica, who scored the only goal as he led Hong Kong against his club South China in the training game. “The coming two Interport Cup matches will be very important as it will prove I can help Hong Kong. Many people say I am too old and do not score goals like before, but they forget I spent most of the last two seasons in midfield and not in my usual position as a second striker. I will prove to the coach I can still contribute to the team and play for Hong Kong in the last World Cup qualifying match against Qatar in March.”

- Post on City University's Democracy Wall:

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

- At around 7pm on November 19, a female mainland student was spotted ripping down the HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA post on the Democracy Wall inside City University. She attempted to replace it with replacing NOT CHINA with JUST A PART OF CHINA. As seen in the video, she had already posted JUST A. A male Hong Kong student argued with her. She also covered her face and cried. She asked the reporter not to film her and tried to cover the camera eye. Our reporter told her to stop. The Hong Kong student said that he observed the whole process. When she spotted him filming, she tried to seize the camera in order to delete the film. He told her that she better restore the poster or else he would post the video onto the Internet. The Hong Kong student said that his hand was injured in the struggle. As he tried to show our reporter his wounds, the mainland student cried: "I really didn't intend to hurt you. Do you feel that I intentionally injured you?"
https://www.facebook.com/cityucrescendo2015/videos/390412157816349/
https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/427772280753488/

- Two can play:
https://www.facebook.com/I.AM.proudtobe.CHINESE/posts/898455453565245 Three putonghua speaking men posted "HONG KONG BELONGS TO CHINA" on the Democracy Wall at City University. The person who made the post followed the rules and wrote down his student ID number. So let us see if this post will be allowed to stay the allotted amount of time as every other post. Or will someone sneak up and rip it out while no one is watching?

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

- Sorry, they were chanting "Sehitler olmez, vatan bolunmez" which means "Martyrs never die, the nation won't be divided." This is a common slogan thrown in remembrance of Turkish soldiers who fell victim to terrorism. In Turkey, there is rarely a minute of silence that isn't interrupted by this chant. Whether its a minute of silence for a Turkish catastrophe, or something else that happened globally, this always happens. The booing wasn't for the victims in Paris, but more to do with the hypocrisy of the Western world. International teams did not hold a minute's silence after the Ankara terror attack in October. More than 100 people died in the Turkish capital after two bombs were set off outside the Ankara Central railway station on 11 October.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMGPsvWz2j8

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

- The match was won with the goal by Brazilian Elkeson. Evergrande is coached by former Brazil national coach Luis Scolari.

- By the way, the team bonus for the win was $20 million RMB compared to $1 million had Hong Kong defeated China.

- (SCMP) March 25, 2016. Hong Kong’s World Cup qualification hopes ended on Thursday night as group leaders Qatar exposed a gulf in class, beating their visitors 2-0. With China scoring an expected 4-0 win over Maldives in Wuhan in an earlier match, Hong Kong had to settle for a third place in group C after a 10-month campaign in the regional qualification tournament. Only the top two teams of the group advance to the next round that features Asia’s best 12 teams. Both Hong Kong and China have now collected 14 points but the mainlanders prevailed with a superior goal difference. They will host Qatar in Xian next week looking for a win that could can see them become one of the four best second-placed teams across the eight qualification groups.

Coach Kim Pan-gon, who had seven naturalised players in the starting line-up, including two newcomers Andy Russell and Roberto Affonson Jnr, had no complaint about this result nor the entire tournament. “We had a good start to the qualification tournament with naturalised players joining the team from time to time,” said the coach. “Today the players did their best to try to qualify for the next stage but we failed. We have to accept the result but more importantly we need to analyse all our performances as we prepare for the future.”

Captain Yapp Hung-fai accepted Qatar were clearly the better side. “We have learned there is a big gap against strong teams and this is important as we are looking for improvement,” said the goalkeeper. “Overall, we cannot be too disappointed although it is not a good result.”

- (FIFA) Team Hong Kong roster plus places of birth:

Yapp HF: born in Hong Kong
Lee Chi Ho: born in Hong Kong
Festus Baise: born in Nigeria
Andy Nägelein: born in Hong Kong, father is German
Huang Yang: born in Shanghai, China
Jack Sealy: born in London, England
Affonso Junior: born in São Paulo, Brazil
Paulinho: born in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil
Sandro: born in Brazil
Jaimes Mckee: born in Birmingham, England
Andy Russell: born in Southampton, England
Alex Akande: born in Lagos, Nigeria
Godfred Karikari: born in Kumasi, Ghana

This means that only two players fit the Localists' definition of Hongkonger. We want Hong Kong Priority!

- (SCMP) March 30, 2016. China breathed new life into their World Cup soccer dream when they stunned Qatar 2-0 on Tuesday night to move to the brink of the next round of qualifying. Second-half goals from Huang Bowen and Wu Lei shocked Qatar, who had won all seven of their previous group C games, on a dramatic night in Xian. China’s win, together with the Philippines’ surprise 3-2 victory over North Korea in Manila, put Team Dragon in the box seat to clinch a spot in the third qualifying round.

- Because the Chinese are an inferior race, they could not have advanced to the next round without chicanery involved. Here is what they did:

They needed Hong Kong to lose to Qatar first. That was easy, because the Hong Kong players are salivating at the big fat contracts that await them in the Chinese Premier League. A Hong Kong player who scores the goal that ousts China will not be getting any offers.

Next China has to beat Qatar. Oil prices are plummeting worldwide. Petroleum and liquefied natural gas are the cornerstones of Qatra. So they couldn't afford to offend their biggest customer. Besides the match doesn't mean anything to Qatar which had qualified a while ago.

Next Jordan has to lose to Australia. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and Jordan needs China's help in stopping any spillover from wars in Iraq and Syria. It is easy to lose 5-1 against a strong team like Australia.

Next North Korea has to lose to the Philippines. China is the big brother who props up the North Korean economy, so how is the little brother going to object? It was not easy for North Korea to find a way to lose to lowly Philippines but they did it through hard work. It does not really matter to North Korea because they were leading their group and they will advance to the next round as one of the top four second-place teams.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) The national anthem dilemma: Contextualising the political dissent of football fans in Hong Kong. By Tobias Zuser. November 21, 2017.

Over the last few months, international media have taken an unusual interest in both friendly and qualifying games of Hong Kong’s football team, though, the attention was limited to just those few minutes prior to kick-off. Once the “March of the Volunteers”, China’s national anthem, sounded through the stadium, roughly one third of the spectators would join into a cacophony of booing and jeering, recorded by the surrounding crowd of accredited journalists.

What started as a cynical voicing of dissent in the aftermath of the Umbrella Movement – for the first time collectively practiced during the World Cup qualifying games in June of 2015, has since then become a fixed ritual at every single home game, with no indication of losing its momentum any time soon. Neither warnings by FIFA or the AFC, nor the subsequent monetary fines could put an end to this practice, eventually triggering a political reaction from Beijing.

On November 4th, 2017, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee amended the annex of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by formulating a clause that requires the solemn observation of both national flag and anthem. Before this new legislation can be enforced, the local parliament still needs to pass a separate bill, a process that is expected to take at least several months. Meanwhile, the booing of the anthem continues, with growing anticipation for a legal showdown once the law is in place.

Distorting a national anthem is widely regarded as an offensive breach in sporting etiquette, but the case of Hong Kong suggests another dimension of a cultural-legal complexity. Despite not being an actual nation-state, Hong Kong obtained both FIFA and IOC membership during its colonial period, facilitating the occasional paradox of a nation that would have to play against itself. When China and Hong Kong faced each other during the World Cup qualifiers in 2015, only one anthem had to be played before kick-off, while the opposing fan groups were both dressed in red and could hardly be distinguished on the TV screen.

Arguably, the anthem’s role for self-identification has also remained rather limited, with the vast majority of Hong Kong citizens refraining from singing the lyrics altogether, no matter what the occasion. When the Mandarin “March of the Volunteers” replaced the English “God Save the Queen” in 1997, it certainly offered a powerful symbol for the transfer of sovereignty, but it also gained little relevance in a predominantly Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong.

Nonetheless, the act of booing your own anthem remains a rare case within the current sporting landscape, and renders the disciplinary paternalism of governing bodies a bit more controversial than usual. Interestingly, this ritual can only be observed at football games, although there are be plenty of other occasions every year at which the Chinese national anthem appears. The traditionally sold-out exhibition games of the Chinese national women’s volleyball team that attract a bigger crowd than the average football match, are usually observed by an audience that offers passionate support throughout the day, and will only enter into a state of silence for the duration of the anthem.

Of course, the football stadium is often categorised as a “third space” in which it is easier (and often even more effective) to perform political dissent, but these conclusions often happen without acknowledging the role of fan culture. In the case of Hong Kong, local football has largely disappeared from mainstream media discourses, which also remained ignorant towards the revival of local fandom in recent years.

The professionalisation of domestic football clubs has attracted a new generation of supporters to the local game, who increasingly seek inspiration from other fan groups abroad, including Japan, Malaysia, and China. The last few years have also seen the introduction of new chants both in the league and at international games, and there has been an increasing effort to adopt more Cantonese songs instead of generic English banter.

This indigenisation process also increasingly involved the subcultural formation of “trolling”, which has been thriving on popular online platforms such as HK Golden or LIHKG, and eventually made its way into football stadiums by materialising online memes as stuffed toys and replicating cursing slangs next to the pitch. Nonetheless, although most of these organised groups do have clear political tendencies, they generally refrain from public calls for dissent or protest.

This means that the booing of the anthem should not be seen as a political movement encroaching the domain of sport, as it is often portrayed in media. Instead, it has been embedded in practices of an emerging fan culture in which dissenting voices make up a significant proportion. With the absence of coordinated action, it is difficult to predict its persistence, and meanwhile, there has been growing concern among fans how the booing might adversely affect the development of local football, as shown by the growing tension between football fans and journalists during match days.

Many might still think that Hong Kong football has been trapped in its own insignificance, but forcing a change in the city’s constitution could as well be understood as a sign of its lingering importance. The shared passion for the “beautiful game”, both in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland, might for the time-being be more unifying than the national anthem itself.

[375] Paper Airplanes (2015/11/17)

(Oriental Daily) November 17, 2015.

Today Lingnan University held graduation ceremony. About 10 new graduates demonstrated outside the venue by raising placards and chanting slogans. Before the ceremony, Lingnan University Alumni Concern Group spokesperson Lee Mei-ting said that they intend to protest during the ceremony. Then about 30 new graduates threw paper airplanes inside the venue and place white roses on the stage in front of vice-chancellor Leonard Cheng to symbolize their desire for freedom. They also want the right to elect the board of trustees, and to have no threats against teachers and students for expressing their opinions. The white roses were intended to mourn Lingnan University. After the ceremony, about a dozen new graduates tossed airplanes outside the venue.
According to Lee Mei-ting, 200 paper airplanes were prepared. They chose to protest at the graduation ceremony because this is their last chance to express their opinions as students. She said that their method of protest was solemn and ironical, and did not disturb the atmosphere of the ceremony. She said that she was dissatisfied with Leonard Cheng sending a letter to Wan Chin to tell him to be "careful about what he said." She said that Cheng was intimidated a teacher, and interfering with freedom of expression and academic research. Lee said that the university was suppressing freedom of press by not permitting filming during the ceremony.
Today, various newspapers in Hong Kong carried an advertisement in which several hundred persons signed to protest against the newly appointed trustees. They said that political interference is taking place. The Lingnan University Alumni Concern Group demanded that the government withdraw the appointments and eliminate the law which makes the Chief Executive chancellor with the power to appoint trustees. They also demanded that the Lingnan University Ordinance be amended so as to have more students and staff on the board of trustees for self-rule.

(SCMP) January 12, 2016.

In November of last year, Lingnan University’s class of 2015 celebrated their graduation amid funereal white flowers. Angry placards were raised in the audience. Paper aeroplanes littered the stage, all bearing the slogan ‘I want real qualifications’. The students were protesting, and their anger pierced through the otherwise congratulatory spirit of the occasion. The target of the protest was the University Council, and the appointment of pro-Beijing figures to it by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

For the past two years, protests have been a common feature at many university graduation ceremonies across Hong Kong. Protesting at graduation is seen as an opportunity to embarrass CY Leung, who — following the colonial tradition of installing political heads of state as university figureheads — is Chancellor of all public universities in the city. Li Mei-ting, convener of the Lingnan Alumni Concern Group, was among those protesting. “The paper planes are for CY Leung,” Li said. “He is the Chancellor, his name is printed on our certificates, yet he does not turn up at any of our commencements.” In response, the council are set to discuss the setting up of a task force to review council membership at its meeting on Tuesday, January 12th.
The University Council is the highest executive body of the school; it assigns departmental budgets and determines the direction of the school’s development. The Chief Executive has great influence on the council: he can directly appoint 18 (of the 33) seats, and members do not have to be from the University or even in education. Colonial Governors acting as Chancellors rarely exercised such power, understanding the role to be a chiefly honorary one. Since the 1997 Handover, however, Chief Executives have been directly appointing more and more council members. To date, only eight council members are from the University itself, making up less than one-fourth of the council.

CY Leung’s council member choices have not done anything to appease students’ concerns. One of the new members, Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, caused outrage last May when he suggested to RTHK City Forum that the government should stop funding the Lingnan University Student Union. Ho wanted the Student Union dismissed for organising a campus concert at which a cover of ‘Fuck Tha Police’ (a well-known hip-hop song advocating resistance to police brutality) was performed. A month after his council appointment in October, tensions flared again when Ho walked out of a council consultation hosted by the Student Union. He accused the students of insulting his wife.

“I don’t know if [Ho’s appointment] has any implications,” said Prof. Annie Chan Hau-nung, one of the three new council members elected by the school. She acknowledged that CY Leung must have known about the situation between Ho and the students: “It is obvious that the Chief Executive is challenging the orientation of the Student Union. But at the same time, Ho has a certain status … I think the Chief Executive has other considerations as well.”

Institutions of higher education across Hong Kong share the same problem of council under-representation. The Chief Executive can directly appoint 15 to 18 council members at the Hong Kong Baptist University, the Open University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Institute of Education and the Hong Kong Academic of Performing Arts. Up to 83% of their school council seats are appointed this way. In many other universities around the world, external members generally make up less than 20% of their council seats.

“We need sufficient school members to take part in the school’s governance,” Chan said. “They can explain the situation of the school to external parties in the council whom are not working in the education industry. There are not enough school members in the council right now, causing an imbalanced view within.”

If university staff are under-represented on the council, students are all the more so: the council reserves a single seat for the Student Union President. Discontent around the issue forced the council to form a Review Panel in 2013, aimed at strengthening student participation on the council and on university matters in general. The Review Panel website has not been updated since November 2014. “We have held some meetings,” the Secretary to the Review Panel, Monica Tsang Tai Mo-oi, said on the phone. “We had some recommendations and we are still in discussion.” Their last meeting was in April 2015.

Li found this lack of action hard to accept. “I lived on campus for two years and am studying a master’s degree here, but I have never heard any news from the Review Panel,” she said. “I think it is just a PR move.”

Alumni have almost no role on the council. The Lingnan Education Organization (LEO) can nominate seven members onto the council, drawing from a pool of Lingnan primary and secondary schools, community colleges, and the University itself. But because this requires first joining the Lingnan University Alumni Association and then becoming a member of LEO, opportunities to be elected this way are slim.

Making things worse, the Lingnan University Council has also been plagued by charges of diploma falsification. Lifelong College, a private school founded by council member Alex Li Ye-lick, is being investigated by the Police Force’s Commercial Crime Bureau on allegations that it is a diploma mill. Lingnan University’s Associate Vice-President Herdip Singh resigned last November after being accused of plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation; his degree was received at Lifelong College.

In response to enquiries from the press, Lingnan University has stated that council activities, including the appointment of members by the Chief Executive, cannot be changed or overruled by the University.

“Regardless of the truth of the allegations, us students and alumni have no power to interfere,” said Li Mei-ting. “Our absence on the school board is a more serious problem than the allegations themselves.”

On the eve of the first Lingnan University Council meeting with all its new members, Prof. Chan is pessimistic about how much her membership will allow her to accomplish. “There is very little I can do; we are just the minority in the council”, she said. “But at least I can try to make some noise.”

Chan has started a petition pushing for greater student and alumni participation in council operations, which has garnered over 100 signatures from Lingnan academic staff. She is also a member of the Scholar’s Alliance of Academic Freedom, an organisation formed amid the furore over Prof. Johannes Chan’s blocked bid for pro-vice-chancellorship at the University of Hong Kong. “This is an uphill battle,” Chan said. “We have to strive and defend what we believe is important.”

As for Li, she wants students to join hands with teachers and alumni to fight for greater representation on the University Council. In an attempt to catalyse discussion on the issue, she and other alumni have plans to publish a book on the identity of Lingnan students and culture. In the long run, however, her advice is to hunker down: “This will be a long war”, she says.

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 11, 2016.

In November of last year, Lingnan University’s class of 2015 celebrated their graduation amid funereal white flowers. Angry placards were raised in the audience. Paper aeroplanes littered the stage, all bearing the slogan ‘I want real qualifications’. The students were protesting, and their anger pierced through the otherwise congratulatory spirit of the occasion.

The target of the protest was the University Council, and the appointment of pro-Beijing figures to it by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

For the past two years, protests have been a common feature at many university graduation ceremonies across Hong Kong. Protesting at graduation is seen as an opportunity to embarrass CY Leung, who — following the colonial tradition of installing political heads of state as university figureheads — is Chancellor of all public universities in the city. Li Mei-ting, convener of the Lingnan Alumni Concern Group, was among those protesting. “The paper planes are for CY Leung,” Li said. “He is the Chancellor, his name is printed on our certificates, yet he does not turn up at any of our commencements.”
In response, the council are set to discuss the setting up of a task force to review council membership at its meeting on Tuesday, January 12th.

The University Council is the highest executive body of the school; it assigns departmental budgets and determines the direction of the school’s development. The Chief Executive has great influence on the council: he can directly appoint 18 (of the 33) seats, and members do not have to be from the University or even in education. Colonial Governors acting as Chancellors rarely exercised such power, understanding the role to be a chiefly honorary one. Since the 1997 Handover, however, Chief Executives have been directly appointing more and more council members. To date, only eight council members are from the University itself, making up less than one-fourth of the council.

CY Leung’s council member choices have not done anything to appease students’ concerns. One of the new members, Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, caused outrage last May when he suggested to RTHK City Forum that the government should stop funding the Lingnan University Student Union. Ho wanted the Student Union dismissed for organising a campus concert at which a cover of ‘Fuck Tha Police’ (a well-known hip-hop song advocating resistance to police brutality) was performed. A month after his council appointment in October, tensions flared again when Ho walked out of a council consultation hosted by the Student Union. He accused the students of insulting his wife.

“I don’t know if [Ho’s appointment] has any implications,” said Prof. Annie Chan Hau-nung, one of the three new council members elected by the school. She acknowledged that CY Leung must have known about the situation between Ho and the students: “It is obvious that the Chief Executive is challenging the orientation of the Student Union. But at the same time, Ho has a certain status … I think the Chief Executive has other considerations as well.”

Institutions of higher education across Hong Kong share the same problem of council under-representation. The Chief Executive can directly appoint 15 to 18 council members at the Hong Kong Baptist University, the Open University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Institute of Education and the Hong Kong Academic of Performing Arts. Up to 83% of their school council seats are appointed this way. In many other universities around the world, external members generally make up less than 20% of their council seats.

“We need sufficient school members to take part in the school’s governance,” Chan said. “They can explain the situation of the school to external parties in the council whom are not working in the education industry. There are not enough school members in the council right now, causing an imbalanced view within.”

If university staff are under-represented on the council, students are all the more so: the council reserves a single seat for the Student Union President. Discontent around the issue forced the council to form a Review Panel in 2013, aimed at strengthening student participation on the council and on university matters in general. The Review Panel website has not been updated since November 2014. “We have held some meetings,” the Secretary to the Review Panel, Monica Tsang Tai Mo-oi, said on the phone. “We had some recommendations and we are still in discussion.” Their last meeting was in April 2015.

Li found this lack of action hard to accept. “I lived on campus for two years and am studying a master’s degree here, but I have never heard any news from the Review Panel,” she said. “I think it is just a PR move.”

Alumni have almost no role on the council. The Lingnan Education Organization (LEO) can nominate seven members onto the council, drawing from a pool of Lingnan primary and secondary schools, community colleges, and the University itself. But because this requires first joining the Lingnan University Alumni Association and then becoming a member of LEO, opportunities to be elected this way are slim.

Making things worse, the Lingnan University Council has also been plagued by charges of diploma falsification. Lifelong College, a private school founded by council member Alex Li Ye-lick, is being investigated by the Police Force’s Commercial Crime Bureau on allegations that it is a diploma mill. Lingnan University’s Associate Vice-President Herdip Singh resigned last November after being accused of plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation; his degree was received at Lifelong College.

In response to enquiries from the press, Lingnan University has stated that council activities, including the appointment of members by the Chief Executive, cannot be changed or overruled by the University.

“Regardless of the truth of the allegations, us students and alumni have no power to interfere,” said Li Mei-ting. “Our absence on the school board is a more serious problem than the allegations themselves.”

On the eve of the first Lingnan University Council meeting with all its new members, Prof. Chan is pessimistic about how much her membership will allow her to accomplish. “There is very little I can do; we are just the minority in the council”, she said. “But at least I can try to make some noise.”

Chan has started a petition pushing for greater student and alumni participation in council operations, which has garnered over 100 signatures from Lingnan academic staff. She is also a member of the Scholar’s Alliance of Academic Freedom, an organisation formed amid the furore over Prof. Johannes Chan’s blocked bid for pro-vice-chancellorship at the University of Hong Kong. “This is an uphill battle,” Chan said. “We have to strive and defend what we believe is important.”

As for Li, she wants students to join hands with teachers and alumni to fight for greater representation on the University Council. In an attempt to catalyse discussion on the issue, she and other alumni have plans to publish a book on the identity of Lingnan students and culture. In the long run, however, her advice is to hunker down: “This will be a long war”, she says.

Video:

(Speakout HK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzX3Zpw_Ng
(Speakout HK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7YhFPU7KAk
(Radio Free Asia) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edqJu3d-AMM
(TVB) http://news.tvb.com/local/564b056d6db28ccc62000004/ (0:47) A parent: "I don't oppose them. I understand that they want to express their opinions. But I think that they should respect the ceremony." Another parents: "I feel that this meeting belong to the graduating students. Ultimately they took up some time."

Internet comments:

- I hope that they bothered to pick up the paper airplanes after they launched them into the air.
- Even if they picked up all the paper airplanes afterwards, did they make sure that the paper was recycled?
- When these new graduates get a job with a company, they are going to demonstrate against their supervisors and demand one-person-one-vote with civil nomination to elect senior managers.
- Lee Mei-ting has just told me that if a corporate manager issues a letter of warning for using obscene language at work, then he is violating my freedom of expression.
- There is normally only one student representative appointed for one year to the board of trustees. During the course of that year, the student representative can barely learn the ropes. Just ask: How much does a second-year student know about running a university? About appraising the qualifications of job candidates? By the time a student representative learns enough, it is time for him/her to move on (e.g. overseas exchange, graduation, etc). A board of trustees with a majority of student representatives is not sustainable.
- There are normally several academic and non-academic staff members on the board of trustees. A board of trustees with a majority of staff member is not likely to work because it will tilt towards protecting existing interests (e.g. give huge pay raises, oppose downsizing in spite of dwindling enrolment, etc).
- The proper target is not the Chief Executive or the board of trustees. On a day-to-day basis, it is the president/vice-chancellor who is in charge. So why are the students not demanding to elect their president/vice-chancellor? The answer is very simple -- the staff and students are unqualified to screen the academic and administrative records of the potential candidates. If they make a decision it will something along the lines of "Leonard Cheng had supported CY Leung in the past and this makes him unfit to become Lingnan University president." As for Leonard Cheng's work on "applied game theory, market structure, currency crisis, international trade and investment, technological innovation and imitation, and China’s inward and outward foreign direct investment", how do you expect a first-year student or a department administrative assistant to make an informed evaluation and vote accordingly?
- If Lingnan University manages to elect its president by universal suffrage, then it may be unique in the world. What is for certain is that they will not get any high-quality applicants for the job. What administrator/scholar would put themselves through this kind of meat grinder? However highly you think of your own administrative skills and academic accomplishments, it means nothing because the voters only want to know what you think of CY Leung.
- This Lingnan University Alumni Concern Group seems to be loaded with money because they can afford to buy newspaper ads.
- It always comes down to $MONEY$. If Lingnan University faculty and students truly want to be independent, they can reject the government subsidies offered through the University Grants Commission and become privatized. The students only have to quadruple their tuition fees while the faculty can help by accepting a 50% pay cut. You can't take the government's money and want no oversight in the name of academic freedom.
- Did the reporter ask Lee Mei-ting whether her breasts have been fondled by mainland men and whether she washed her vagina before providing service?
- When a teacher talks that way to Lee Mei-ting, do you think the vice-chancellor should give a warning to that teacher?
- Flying paper airplanes? Well, in Cantonese, the term "打飛機" (shooting at airplanes) means masturbation. This is exactly what this whole exercise is -- you feel good about yourself, but you won't change anything in the world.
- '嘈完一輪又得個吉.' After all the hubbub, nada.
- What kind of journalism is this? Did anyone interview the non-protestors? About how they felt about the demonstration at their graduation ceremony?

- The photo shows about 10 demonstrators. How many new graduates in total were there? 100? 500? But this important moment of the lives of these others was overshadowed by morons throwing paper airplanes around.
- Normally, the diploma has the signature of the chancellor (=Chief Executive). Did the protestors rip their diplomas up?
- So when you have a graduation ceremony to celebrate, someone places white flowers (=symbols of death) on the stage. Someday when Lee Mei-ting gets married, you should show up with a funeral wreath to pay her back.
- (Speakout HK) Lingnan University trustee Wong Kwun-yu said that it is inappropriate to demonstrate during the graduation ceremony. He said that the students have worked hard for four years to earn their degrees and this is the day that they and their families were looking forward to. It would be unfair to them if a small number of students want to demonstrate during the ceremony. He said that the students should respect other people. If someone insists on using this occasion to express political opinions, the students will end up losing.
- (Ming Pao) By tradition, the university chancellor (=Chief Executive) should attend the graduate ceremonies of at least two universities per year. This year, CY Leung will attend not any. In 2012, at the Academy of Performing Arts, the students crossed their arms and made thumbs down gestures to greet Leung; in 2013, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam took Leung's place at the Academy of Performing Arts, and the students crossed their arms and sang <Did you ask who hasn't spoken yet?>. Education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen said that the chancellor has the duty to attend important ceremonies such as graduation. He thinks that Leung hasn't fulfilled his duties.

- As if the students aren't disruptive enough now, Ip Kin-yuen wants even more trouble. Right now, the students can surely demonstrate anytime anywhere that they want, but they chose to disrupt the graduate ceremony because they know they will get media exposure. If the Chief Executive comes, the students will create an even greater stir and outside radical groups will crash the gate and put on their own show.
- This is continuation of the Yellow Ribbon Occupy Central. They want civil nomination of the Chief Executive, and they decide to put the citizens through hell to get media exposure. In like manner, the 10 Lingnan students want attention so they put the entire graduating class and their families through hell to get media exposure.

[374] Driver vs. Hong Kong Police (2015/11/17)

(Oriental Daily) November 15, 2015.

At the intersection of Ma Tau Wai Road and Bailey Street in Hung Hom, a black sedan car was intercepted by the police early in the morning. The driver came out and cursed out the police. The police suspected that the car was illegally modified. The unhappy driver launched a stream of obscene invectives.
While the police were writing a summons, the driver continued to yell: "Are you done with the ticketing?" "Take the video and note how long they took to record the information in an ID" and "He is still not fucking writing the ticket. Take a video and post it onto the Internet."
The video was posted onto YouTube, and drew plenty of negative comments about the driver.

- That driver was guilty as hell, and that's why he didn't want the police to check his car. He thought that screaming aloud means that he is innocent.
- He raved and ranted for so long, but in the end he got what he wished for -- the police towed away the car.
- This guy thinks that he is such a big shot. His choice of words went too far already. The police mishandled the case. When a man is screaming and yelling in the middle of the night, they should have invited him back down to the police station for a chat instead of letting him disturb the neighborhood.
- This is so pathetic. Hong Kong should really consider criminalizing the act of insulting a police officer.
- This bloke posted the video on the Internet, thinking that he looked really cool.

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

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

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

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

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAkOL4Mskg A copy of the 9-minute video taken by the companion of the driver.
https://www.facebook.com/308634672647539/videos/517885928389078/ Shorter 1-minute version.
0:01 Leung: Don't fucking touch me! I am prepared. You go ahead and tow. You tow, dickhead! Fuck your mother! It's just a piece of cake. You drop dead! Fuck your mother! ... What's the big deal? It's only several tens of thousand dollars. You remember to stay here and wait. What are you writing? You have fucking written it yet. Is it so fucking had to write words? You write. Write. I am not finished.
0:56 Policeman: Can you wait?
0:57 Leung: No. I am in a hurry.
0:58 Policeman: I am going to fill it out.
0:59 Leung: You go ahead and fill it out. Why are you still fucking standing around? Fill it out! Don't you know how to fucking write!? Fucking hurry up! Moron! Fucking hurry up! What the fuck are you talking about? Dickhead!

Internet comments:

- In the case of Couple vs. Hong Kong Police, the couple thought that everybody would be on their side and found the opposite to their surprise.
- The Golden Forum lads really have to thank morons like Mr. Leung for providing them with regular entertainment.
- The evolution of this story shows the power of the Internet. From a YouTube video, it went to the Hong Kong Discussion Forum where users kept pushing it until the mainstream Oriental Daily picked it up.
- There will never be criminalization of the act of insulting the police. To quote the Civic Party: When citizens are doing what they consider to be right and just, it is alright to insult the police for stopping them. But, of course, the citizens must not be allowed to insult judges and lawyers.
- More developments: The heavy police presence caused business to dwindle along the whole street, as customers can no longer park illegally like they used to. The businesses have called on Democratic Party district councilor Poon Chi-man to make a demand to the Police Public Relations Bureau and the Transportation Department not to chase away the illegally parked cars anymore. There is now a call for Internet users to go down to Wing Kwong Street every day and make calls to the police to complain about illegally parked cars. The police have to respond to the complaints.
- More developments: Mr. Leung is a member of an illegal car racing group called Copaze. You can see the sign of Copaze placed in front of the car window in the video. Every night these Copaze guys gather in front of Lok Go and create noise and pollution to the consternation of local residents. After racing, they come back to Lok Go and drink beer in front of the store. When neighbors get the police to come, these guys insult them. Sometimes their cars even block the police cars from going through the street.

[373] RTHK = Yellow Ribbon Media? (2015/11/17)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was this deliberate? Or was this a mere coincidence?

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

(RTHK) November 15, 2015.

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

(Speakout HK @ YouTube) November 16, 2015.

When you read the headline, it would seem as if almost everybody is against Arthur Li. But if you read the details, it turns out that 148 academic staff members and 334 non-academic staff members voted. That makes 482 in total. That number is 4.4% out of all the 10,965 academic and non-academic staff at the university.
Interestingly, Cheung Sing-wai, chairman of the Hong Kong University Academic Staff Association, had previously said that a vote by 152 association members was highly representative but this time he has an excuse for the low turnout. Cheung said: "Previously we were able to spam all teachers and staff members but we are no longer allowed to do so. I have gone out to knock on doors to tell people to vote, but I found out that many many people were not aware of the matter."
Well, at one time, you said 152 was highly representative. Now you say that 482 is low response. You sure know how to move the goalposts around.

Internet comments:

- For the year 2014-2015, there were 8,767 taught postgraduate students and 2,749 research postgraduate students for a total of 10,756 postgraduate students. 754 voters out of 10,756 is 7.0%.

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

[372] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 8 (Hidden Umbrellas) (2015/11/16)

(Wen Wei Po) November 16, 2015.

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

- Do you support Occupy Central?
- Do you agree with people calling the Hong Kong Police as the "Dark (Evil) Police"?
- Will you support a second Occupy Central?
- Do you support the "Drive the Locusts out" action against the mainlanders?
- Do you support the "Reclaim" action against mainland parallel traders?
- Do you agree with establishing nationhood for Hong Kong?
- Do you support filibustering (in the Legislative Council)?
- Do you have any other opinions?

Among the 587 subjects, all 193 opposition candidates were evasive, some not even answering at all. The Democratic Party fielded 95 candidates, but they refused to answer these simple questions because "the candidates from the party are worried that their responses may not be adequately and/or accurately presented and thus the fairness of the elections will be affected to a certain degree."
Civic Party which was one of the parties which started Occupy Central responded that the party was studying how to respond. By the deadline, there was no reaction from them. The ADPL, League of Social Democrats, People Power, Neo Democrats and other major opposition parties did not respond. Some of the post-Umbrella organizations and "faux independence" candidates did not respond either.
But the historical archive shows that many members of the Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats and People Power including candidates in the elections participated in the unlawful Occupy Central, with some of them even having been arrested.

(SCMP) November 19, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pan-democrats and Apple Daily/Next Magazine were critical of the police, medical/health workers and other government departments/organizations and their families (such as identifying specific police officers and harassing them and their families

Those who were due to receive housing subsidies, senior citizen subsidies, welfare payment increases, etc found those payments delayed due to filibustering by pan-democrats

Those who work in the tourism, hospitality and retail business which were affected by the Reclaim/Shopping Revolution hostilities against mainlanders

Those who live and work around Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Yau Tsim Mong saw their access blocked by encampments

- (HKG Pao) November 20, 2015.

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

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

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

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

Sincere and good people?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[371] Regarding The Pain Of Others (2015/11/15) A listing of the more controversial (and not necessarily representative) responses.

Remember the Horse Carriage (Lau Ma-che)? He is back with a video about the Paris terrorist attacks.
(Apple Daily) November 15, 2015.

(1:10) I watched the news today. I see that there were terrorist attacks in France. Concert hall, football stadium, they were all fucking attacked by Islamist terrorists. A big massacre. Some dies, some were injured. A lot of fucking people.
But the main point of what I want to say is not to condemn or criticize those thugs. There is something wrong. If you hate the government there so much, then you should send someone to assassinate French president Hollande. If you hate Obama so much, you should send someone to assassinate Obama. You should not be hurting innocent citizens. This type of behavior is extremely shameful. That is to say, you should be targeting the persons in charge. You can throw bombs at the officials there, the French government officials, the Foreign Minister. How can you go after the citizens instead?
But what I want to say is that Hollande, Obama and the presidents and prime ministers of the large nations ... have they reflected on their own problems? Why don't the Islamist terrorists, Al Qaeda, ISIS, bin Laden ... they don't come after China. They don't launch attacks against Singapore. They keep going after the large nations such as France, the United States of America, etc.
That's because you bastards have done so many evil things, you bully the smaller nations. You went to steal Middle-East petroleum. If they won't join your gang, you blow away their president. You use various methods, such as economic ones, to sanction the small nations which can't defend even defend themselves. You force them to submit. If Russia did not have a strong man such as Putin with his diplomatic prowess, even Russia would have to yield. Fortunately, this world still has Russia and China to put a brake on you.
The Americans ... whether during the First World War or the Second World War, they always show up near the end to pick up the spoils. Bastards! That is why I fucking hate Americans. The French are no better.
Therefore ... what do I want to say? Today you are running into these kinds of situations. Well, you had it coming. Do you realize? Why do people go to the extreme with these terrorist acts, including suicide attacks? 9/11. Have you thought about it? You forced certain people to form a group to counterattack you. Obama, Hollande, wake up! Bastards! Your actions laid the seeds of disaster for your citizens and residents. There will be more coming.
I also want to say ... I can't remember ... I have developed a mental block ... eh ...
Yes, I want to solemnly appeal to Al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria and Afghanistan to send some terrorists over to Hong Kong. I feel that Hong Kong needs to have a big massacre. That is to say, I hope that you terrorists can do something.
I feel that most Hong Kong people are lower life-forms ... lower than being low ... brainless dickheads ... just a punch of little lambs who have never experienced any hardship or disaster, who look towards the heavens every day and who live inside greenhouses. They did not go through the Cultural Revolution. They have not gone through 3 years 8 months (of Japanese occupation). They have not gone through any great war. They don't have military service. They are so fucking lucky. But they have time for Occupy Central, fucking Hong Kong independence ... these dickheads! Fucking Billy Chiu, Joshua Wong Chi-fung (sigh) fucking bastards!
Most (70% to 80%) of Hongkongers should be sent to concentration camps. All the Hong Kong independence advocates and the Yellow Ribbon dogs should be sent to concentration camps, just like what Hitler did during the Second War. Move them all into concentration camps. I give you terrorists unreserved greetings to come here and kill every one that you see!
You really have to. These people don't deserve to live in this world. They are wasting resources, food and oxygen on Earth. Therefore the people of Hong Kong must undergo a massacre ... I say so. As for Al Qaeda, the terrorists, Syria, ... will you listen to me Lau Ma-che ... oh, you don't understand Cantonese? Damn it! ...
Sometimes you should not be superficial. Hong Kong people say "Oh, so tragic! France! So many people died!" I fuck your mother's stinking cunt! Dickface! You don't even know what is sorrow of the heart. You don't feel sorrow ...

Chip Tso Channel
France's mistake was in its leftist retard policies. They supported Edward Snowden and opposed the CIA surveillance of French leftists, and now they are looking at the bad consequences.
Where do the many guns come from? What do so few of the 5 million Muslim immigrants cooperate with the government, help in monitoring the Internet and make denunciations? The French people pay so much tax, but their personal safety is not guaranteed.
You have to fix your own country first before dealing with the outside world. The fools and idiots who advocated "love and tolerance" ... ha ha ... I hope that you can face this disaster with even more tolerance and become more cannon fodder.

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

Today, switching the icon, adding the French national flag on the Profile Pic, writing RIP and other similar acts are bound to be criticized by certain people as "cheap expression", hypocrisy or (in their words) a "fucking waste of time."
I want to ask them, What kind of expression is not cheap? Go over there and kill a few ISIS members? Join the army and fight the ISIS in the frontlines?
Is pounding a few lines on Facebook and criticizing others for switching icons not cheap? Is that valuable?
Writing the same old Facebook criticisms again and again not cheap?
Traveling to Beijing and yelling "The Communist Party will collapse" is not cheap.
Traveling to North Korea and yelling "Down with dictatorship" and "Liberate North Korea" is not cheap.
Traveling to Syria or another Middle-east place to proclaim that ISIS is inhumane is not cheap.
These non-cheap expressions are a lot more valuable than criticizing on Facebook other people's cheap expressions. Why don't you go ahead and do it? Why do you only criticize on Facebook others for being cheap? This is just fucking useless criticism!
In a society with freedom of expression, I have my expression and you have your criticisms. We are all very "cheap." But why am I cheap for switching my icon whereas you are not cheap for making your criticisms?
P.S. Each person may have their different understand about this incident. Switching the icon may only be telling the whole world and those around us that we cannot bow to Evil. We must support. But this does not mean that we are helping France. France will not collapse because a few hundred people died. They don't need our help. They are not a poor nation. If I have to actually contribute money, I am not going to tell anyone. That is why there is nothing to worth discussing here.
"Why are you only concerned about the attacks in France? Why aren't you concerned about the attacks in Lebanon? That is because you are hypocritical and unjust."
Each time something happens in the United States of Europe, such comments surface.
That is, if you cannot fairly care about everything in every corner of the world, then you cannot care. If you care, you are hypocritical and unjust.
In other words, if you are not a saint, then you cannot fairly care. That would be even more immoral and evil than not caring.
Why did you cry over the hostage case in the Philippines? How many people die each year in hostage incidents? But you didn't care and you didn't cry. Therefore you are hypocritical.
Why did you cry over the Lamma Island ferry case? You didn't come out to commemorate the sinking of the South Korean ferry MV Sewol? Therefore you are hypocritical.
Why do you cry when you attend a funeral? So many people die each day. Why don't you cry for others? Aren't all lives equal? Therefore you are hypocritical.
When Leslie Cheung passed away, you were very sad. But were you sad when other entertainers passed away? Why do you openly rue the suicide of Leslie Cheung but not all others who commit suicide each year? Therefore you are hypocritical.
You are concerned about the terrorist attack in Lebanon today, but you were not concerned about every single terrorist attack through the course of human history? Therefore you are hypocritical.
You donate money to the Red Cross Society, but you don't donate to World Vision, Salvation Army, Doctors Without Borders, etc? Therefore you are hypocritical.
You were an Orbis Moonwalker but you were not an Oxfam trailwalker? You did not participate in every single charity event. Therefore you are hypocritical.
Such stupid comments.
You were concerned about the terrorist attack in Lebanon, so why aren't you concerned about the terrorist attacks in France? You say that you very fair, and you are concerned about both. On the day of the terrorist attacks in Paris, many people commemorated. You came out to condemn these people as being hypocritical and unjust. You say that you are equally concerned? Can you say that you were concerned to the same degree?
Being concerned about the Lebanon and not carrying terrorist attacks anywhere else in the world is not hypocritical? You think that you can get a rise? You think that you can be lofty?
I will continue to mourn France, because I refuse to let the "leftist retard hegemony" interfere with my freedom.

[370] Lingnan University vs. Wan Chin (2015/11/13)

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

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

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

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

In the letter, dated March 16, Cheng wrote that he had received several complaints from alumni and the public regarding Chin’s words, online media Local Press reported.
“Lingnan University has always defended academic and speech freedom and respected staff members’ right to express their opinions,” Cheng wrote, “but some of your words and actions are inconsistent with your role as an academic. They have crossed the line of freedom of speech and […] have severely hurt the reputation of Lingnan. I urge you to pay attention, mind your words and actions, and return to teaching and academic studies—or suffer consequences.”

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

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

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

(Journalism.about.com) Fairness

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

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

(SCMP) November 13, 2015.

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) Warning letter to Lingnan University's Dr Horace Chin Wan-kan was well-deserved. By Alex Lo. November 15, 2015.

If you hold a university job and pose as a scholar, you can automatically claim academic freedom against any and all criticism. So Dr Horace Chin Wan-kan, spiritual father of independence-seeking localism and an assistant professor at Lingnan University, is hinting at political persecution after releasing a warning letter he received from the school's president, Professor Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon.

Cheng warned him in a letter dated back in March that he should watch his words and actions, otherwise he would have to bear the consequences. Sounds like a threat, doesn't it? Chin is the author of several books on localism and Hong Kong being a city state, one of which is considered a bible of the nativist movement. He reportedly said Cheng's warning was targeting his city-state theory and pro-Hong Kong independence stance. He said he was also worried he might lose his job next year when his contract expires. The letter did not specify what questionable behaviour Chin was guilty of. But back in March, people who followed campus politics would know what Cheng was referring to.

A university official yesterday confirmed that Cheng's letter was sent as a response to a message Chin posted in mid-March. Chin wrote that mainlanders in Hong Kong are like Nazis, but Hong Kong people must still be polite, otherwise they would be charged by police. He wrote that Hong Kong women should let mainland men fondle their breasts and wash their private parts to provide better service. He also wrote Hong Kong men should keep quiet when being shouted at by mainland women, or risk being arrested.

Chin's "satirical" message caused many complaints from university staff, students and alumni. But of course, all that was back in March. Memories are short and now without the context, Chin is alleging persecution. His followers and pro-democracy diehards are rallying to his cause.

That was not the first time. In November last year, Chin posted a message making fun of Chinese University student activist Shek Pui-yin's breasts by referring to her "cup size". I don't know about you, but I think the warning letter was well-deserved, if not actually too lenient.

Calls to Chin's university office were not returned yesterday.

(SCMP) Hong Kong’s ‘godfather of localism’ Horace Chin set to lose job at Lingnan University. February 24, 2016.

A Lingnan University academic well known for his localist stance is set to lose his job due to possible non-renewal of his employment contract, which will expire in August.

Dr Horace Chin Wan-kan, 54, an assistant professor in the university’s Chinese department, said this was likely as the department had told him the renewal would not be recommended. In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Chin said he had been removing books from his office and was ready to leave the university.

A decision by university president Professor Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon is expected. Chin will be notified about the university’s decision next month.

The academic said on Tuesday that the department’s decision was made under political pressure.

Chin, who has a doctorate in ethnology from the University of Göttingen in Germany, was previously an adviser to former Secretary of Home Affairs Patrick Ho Chi-ping.

After leaving that job in 2007, Chin published a book suggesting that Hong Kong should become a city state. The book, which has been credited with inspiring the autonomy movement, is widely seen as having laid the foundations of today’s localist movement. Chin, also known as Chin Wan, is considered by many to be the godfather of localism.

In March last year, Cheng warned Chin to be careful in his words and actions, or bear the consequences. The warning came in a letter written after Cheng received complaints from alumni and members of the public about Chin’s speeches.

In the letter, Cheng said: “The university safeguards the freedom of academics and of speech, and respects the right to express opinions enjoyed by the staff, but some of your words and behaviour over the past few years contradicted your status as a scholar, and went beyond the bottom line of the limit of speech freedom.”

Without specifying which remarks he was referring to, Cheng also said Chin’s words and conduct had violated the professors’ code of ethics and badly affected the university’s reputation.

Chin, who had also been criticised for his role in the Occupy protests in Mong Kok in 2014, believed Cheng’s remarks were directed at his city state argument and pro-independence stance. His guess was based on letters and materials relating to complaints received by Cheng’s office.

He said he expected his position would be left vacant for a period as it was hard to find a writing instructor for the department,

Chin was last seen publicly on February 20, at a rally for Edward Leung Tin-kei, the candidate for radical localist group Hong Kong Indigenous in the upcoming Legislative Council New Territories East by-election.

A Lingnan University spokesman said on Tuesday that he would not comment on an employment issue concerning an individual staff member due to privacy concerns.

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above Facebook paragraph is what exists today. It is innocuous enough, and that is because it was scrubbed clean before Wan Chin went public about the letter. It used to be this (see Dadazim) (and also reported on March 14 2015 by Wen Wei Po):

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

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

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

- (The Stand) On Consultation Day at Lingnan University, a number of students went after vice-chancellor Leonard Cheng for harming academic freedom when he sent a letter in March to assistant professor Wan Chin. Cheng replied that he failed to see any relationship between academic scholarship and what Wan Chin wrote, which he said went beyond the boundaries of free speech and negatively affected the reputation of Lingnan University.

[369] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 7 (Dirty Tricks) (2015/11/11)

(Bastille Post) November 13, 2015.

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

For example, Tam ordered: "Will the management please file a complaint against Chok with the Election Affairs Commission?" When the complaint was rejected by the commission, Tam reacted with a criticism of the management: "This is because we are relying on a management company that does not carry out the orders. This company is very disappointing." The response of the Election Affairs Committee included a statement on the collection of private data and advised the complainant to read it carefully. This means that the use of close-circuit television screen captures is dubious. In the Whatsapp messages, a management worker wrote: "It is not standard usage to take screen captures of close-circuit television recordings" and "doing so may be a violation of privacy laws."
According to another Galaxia Incorporated Owners board member, Tam often handles board matters directly with the management on her own without consulting other board members. Therefore, he was unaware that she had instructed the management to file a complaint with the Election Affairs Commission based upon private information.

(EJinsight) Novmeber 13, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Headline Daily with video) November 13, 2015.

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

Headline Daily: Solemn Declaration

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

November 13, 2015.

- (Wen Wei Po) November 15, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Headline Daily) November 16, 2015.

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

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

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

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

(Headline Daily) November 19, 2015.

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

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

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

(Headline Daily) November 20, 2015.

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

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

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

TVB video: https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/978971568843446/

(Apple Daily) November 20, 2015.

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

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

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

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

(LinePost @ YouTube) November 20, 2015.

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/484841565054457/
https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/428213417376041/
Mandy Tam being followed by photojournalists on election day.

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL) is a legislative councilor who was elected as a district councilor. He is very busy with his legislative council work as well as other political activities (such as Occupy Central), he has neglected his District Council duties.
The Sham Shui Po District Council holds a large meeting once every two months. Over the past 24 such meetings, Fung was absent twice for a 90% attendance rate. However, he arrived late on 14 occasions and departed early on 15 occasions. He sat through the full meeting only twice.
In January 2012, the meeting started at 930am and Fung was gone by 1010am. On January 2013, Fung was gone by 1220pm when the meeting went on to 730pm. In May 2014, Fung showed up at 4pm which is 6.5 hours late. In June 2014, Fung showed up at 235pm, which is 5 hours late.
Out of six committees, Fung signed up only with the Environmental and Hygiene committee and the Housing committee. He came later and/or left early 95% of the time. In the December 2014 Housing committee meeting, he arrived on time at 930am but left at 950am after only 20 minutes, because that was the day of the clearance of Occupy Admiralty and Fung needed to be at the scene to "monitor law enforcement by the police." In the March 2012 Housing committee meeting, Fung showed up at 945am (late by 15 minutes) and left at 1010am after 25 minutes. In the April 2014 Environmental Hygiene committee, Fung showed up on time at 930am but left at 1016am after 46 minutes.

(Wen Wei Po) November 14, 2015.

Last evening Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL) issued an emergency appeal. He said that his opponent Eric Wong Chung-ki had served Lai Kok as district councilor for ten years and then gave up the job 13 years. "He gave up Lai Kok 13 years. He thinks that he can win the seat again with seven weeks' work? But given his past history with ADPL, every vote that he gets is a vote taken away from me. He only wants to take away my votes so that I lose."
Fung said that he is not in a habit of making emergency appeals. But he has to explain the situation which is more severe than any time in the past. The person who is taking away his votes is very familiar with Lai Kok and ADPL. Some voters may not even know that he left ADPL.

(SCMP) November 20, 2015.

Whether pan-democrats can keep three out of the five so-called "super seats" in the Legislative Council election next year will hinge on the results of this Sunday's district council elections, in which the camp is finding itself in an uphill battle.

A district council seat is an entry ticket to the race for the super seats, as a candidate must first become a district councillor before he or she can run to represent one of the super seats, which are elected through a poll of the 3.2 million voters not eligible to vote in any of the trade-based functional constituencies. With a larger electorate spread over a broader cross-section of the population, the seats have been labelled "super" because their holders can command a bigger mandate than other lawmakers.

With the pro-Beijing camp seeking to demolish the pan-democrats' all-important hold on one-third of the seats in Legco, which enabled them to vote down the government's electoral reform package in June, it is critical for the pan-democrats to hold on to the three super seats.

Frederick Fung Kin-kee, an incumbent super-seat legislator, said he faces a huge challenge in his bid to stay in his district council seat in Sham Shui Po's Lai Kok constituency, which he has occupied since 2003.

The veteran from the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood is being challenged by an unexpected rival - Wong Chung-ki - a former colleague in the party who has returned after quitting politics a decade ago to become a businessman.

Wong's entry into the fray will likely split the vote in the constituency and hand Fung an even tougher task in his battle for the seat with Chan Wing-yan, who is backed by both the Federation of Trade Unions and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

"If Wong can grab 300 votes from me, I could lose," Fung said, suspecting Wong's motive was to divert his votes to help the pro-establishment candidate win.

Residents have awarded Chan, 25, the nickname "the flea catcher" after she arranged for pest removal services for residents in run-down public flats.

Internet comments:

- Frederick Fung does not have a thing to worry about because the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme found that they are the most popular political party in all of Hong Kong (see #363).
- If the ADPL is so popular, then why do they have only one (out of 70) Legislative Councilor. And legislator Frederick Fung won the position as a district councilor (District Council - Second sector). So if Fung loses the district councilor post, he will have to go back to running in the geographical constituency.
- Why does Fung keep talking as if Wong is stealing his votes? How did he become the original owner of those votes? Don't the voters have the right to decide for themselves?
- Emergency appeal? Where was Frederick Fung all year last year? He only shows up during election time.
- Frederick Fung is just having to pay a long overdue bill.

(Ming Pao) November 14, 2015.

Yesterday 33-year-old ADPL candidate Li Kwing in the Fu Cheong district, Sham Shui Po was knocking on doors at the Fu Cheong estate. When he passed by the ground lobby, a man suddenly yelled "You are ADPL! You are pan-democrat! You are a Chinese traitor!" The man rushed up and punched Li. Volunteers eventually subdued the man and took him to the front entrance to wait for the police. Suddenly the man broke away and punched Li Kwing in the face.
The police came and arrested the 55-year-old man named Chiu for physical assault. Li Kwing had bleeding lips and loose front teeth. He was taken to Caritas Hospital by ambulance.

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

Yesterday on radio, Cheung Chung-tai (Civic Passion) reminded people that Albert Ho (Democratic Party) was viewing sexy girlie photos during a Legislative Council session. Ho said that he has already apologized to the public and promised never to do so again. Ho said that a person needs to be evaluated in totality. "I have left this behind. I will do what I need to do. However, some people keep yelling and screaming ... I don't think it means much." Cheng responded that the incident not only reflects on Ho's personal conduct but also that "Ho never respected the trust and support of the voters in the district." Therefore, the residents need to mete out "the people's punishment."
Ho said that his periodic district council work report shows that he has accomplished many things. Yuen Wai-chung (Lok Tsui Garden Owners Association chairman) said that Ho has disappeared from the district since he ran for Legislative Councilor/Chief Executive, and he won't show up even if invited by the owners associations.
Ho said that it would be too narrow-minded just to focus on district work. He said that he has also brought up Tuen Mun issues at the Legislative Council including the Tuen Mun Hospital, the western highway, the West Rail expansion, etc. "How can these not be related to Lok Tsui?" Cheng said that while Ho boasted his vision, he was also helping newly arrived immigrants to file the judicial review to remove social welfare restrictions. Ho said that we cannot allow newly arrived children and seniors to go hungry. "Is this humane? You have studied so many books, and you still wind up like this!" Ho also made fun of the fact that Cheng had studied in Beijing before. "Which Communists are you opposing?"

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

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

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

(HKG Pao) November 12, 2015.

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

(Oriental Daily) November 12, 2015.

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 14, 2015.

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

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 9, 2015.

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

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

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

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 9, 2015.

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

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

On Monday morning, Chung’s office, which is a few blocks away from Lam’s, was also attacked with red paint. A spokesperson from Chung’s office said she doesn’t know what was behind it.

(Wen Wei Po) November 10, 2015.

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

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

(HKG Pao) November 10, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 11, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) November 12, 2015.

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 11, 2015.

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 13, 2015.

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

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

(The Stand) November 13, 2015.

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 20, 2015.

Mainland Chinese students of the Lingnan University have been found to have been campaigning for District Council election candidate Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, an act that may have broken immigration regulations. While handing out pamphlets for Ho on Thursday morning in the Lok Tsui constituency in Tuen Mun, the three students were approached by a reporter from Passion Times.

Passion Times is a media branch of political group Civic Passion, which supports candidate Cheng Chung-tai of the group, who is running in the constituency contesting Ho.

One of the students told the reporter in Mandarin that they were mainland students from Lingnan University studying business administration. When asked why they were campaigning for Ho, the student replied it was because he was a governing council member of the school. Junius Ho was appointed to the council of the Lingnan University in October. The student added that they had been in Hong Kong for three months.

According to immigration regulations, however, a non-local Hong Kong university student shall not undertake any employment, whether paid or unpaid, unless approved by the director of immigration. However, a non-local university student whose study period is not less than one academic year may take up an internship related to their study or curriculum, which must be arranged or endorsed by the institutions they are studying in.

Cheng Chung-tai told Passion Times that he has filed a complaint with the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) alleging that Ho has broken the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. Cheng said Ho was abusing his power and using his status as a council member to recruit students to campaign for him.

In response, Ho said he and his team did not arrange the students to become volunteers. “I did not know the three Lingnan University students were coming to the promotion stand before it happened. As I understand, they knew from their friend that the actor Jordan Chan was here today [Thursday] to campaign for me, so they especially came to visit the celebrity and support me.” Ho denied using his council member status to recruit students to campaign for him, and he deeply regretted Cheng’s “reckless and untrue” speech. He added that he would file a complaint to the EAC and he reserved the right to take legal action.

Last week, a mainland Chinese volunteer for Junius Ho was taken away for investigation by the Immigration Department for allegedly breaking immigration regulations. The volunteer was later released as the department confirmed he did not break any laws. Ho told Stand News that all his volunteers were arranged by his friends or friendly organisations and that he never participated in the recruitment process. He said that the related volunteer was introduced to him by the Federation of Hong Kong Guangxi Community Organisations, and he said he cannot refuse others’ help. He added that volunteers do not take any monetary rewards.

(RTHK) November 14, 2015.

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

- (Wikipedia) Voter suppression

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) November 16, 2015.

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 17, 2015.

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

The Association has held classes for Home Market members and asked them to volunteer for pro-establishment candidates’ campaigns, according to Chow. The store chain also put up campaign posters for these candidates and held promotional activities at the front of stores, Chow added. “A non-profit organisation being involved in such high-profile political activities? I don’t think it is reasonable.” Chow, a member of the pan-democrat Neighbourhood and Worker’s Service Centre, is running for re-election in Sunday’s polls. He is competing against Mo Sang-tung of the DAB, independent candidate Leung Kwong-cheong and Chan Yuk-ling.

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

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

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

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

According to an official press release, Home Market is included in the government’s “Appreciate Hong Kong” campaign.

(Ta Kung Pao) November 19, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

(Apple Daily) November 20, 2015.

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

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

Internet comments:

- If Yum Kwok-tung is upset with being cursed out in obscene language, then how does he fell about the Lingnan University students? (see #368).
- But this leaflet is merely stating the fact that ADPL supported Occupy Central. So why is this a smear?

(Wen Wei Po) November 21, 2015.

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 21, 2015.

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 21, 2015.

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

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

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

Young man who claimed to be a reporter

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

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

Media of Hong Kong Students statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) November 22, 2015.

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

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

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

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

Video:

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(YouTube) November 21, 2015.

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

(Apple Daily) November 22, 2015.

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

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

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

(EJinsight) November 23, 2015.

Hong Kong election authorities received more than 2,400 complaints relating to Sunday’s district polls. These included hundreds of elderly people being brought to polling stations and coached which candidate to vote, according to Ming Pao Daily. Altogether, the Registration and Electoral Office collected 2,429 complaints.

Chan Wai-kin of the Progressive Teachers’ Alliance said he saw seniors being bussed to polling stations in vans, some wearing the No. 1 badge, suggesting they had pre-selected a particular candidate. Kwok Fu-yung of the pro-establishment Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) was candidate No. 1 in the Tai Pak Tin constituency in Kwai Tsing district. She won with 2,880 votes, beating incumbent Sammy Tsui of the Democratic Party who had the 1,997 votes.

Electoral Affairs Commission chairman Barnabas Fung said if the free rides came with conditions, these would be in breach of the election ordinance. The maximum penalty is a jail term of seven years and a fine of HK$500,000 (US$64,513).

Chan said the escort services were highly organized. Some of the mainly Putonghua-speaking members prevented people from taking pictures of the activity. He said more than 30 seniors were driven to polling stations during the five hours he observed the operation. Chan said he overheard them being told they would be brought to a Chinese restaurant for a meal afterwards. DAB’s Kwok said she had no idea of any such activity.

Meanwhile, nowTV reported that some elderly voters in Siu Sai Wan constituency were escorting fellow seniors in and out of polling stations and slipping notes with “No. 2″ on them. Chu Yat-on, candidate No. 2 in the district, denied any knowledge of the alleged incident. In Tuen Mun, a Cable TV news crew said they saw staff of Kwong Fuk Elderly Care Center taking seniors to vote, uttering “No. 3, No.3” as they walked into the polling station in groups. Non-partisan candidate Kwu Hon-keung said he never arranged for residents of elderly homes to vote for him.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 23, 2015.

Local media outlets have highlighted multiple instances elderly voters being shuttled to polling stations during this year’s District Council Elections, raising concerns over potential vote rigging. On Sunday morning, not long after voting began, a tour bus full of senior citizens stopped outside a polling station in Lek Yuen, Sha Tin, according to InMedia. Later in Tuen Mun, elderly voters were seen being led to vote by care centre staff, i-Cable News reported. The staff reportedly reminded them of which candidate to vote for.

In Hung Hom, a van with both Hong Kong and mainland Chinese number plates was spotted shuttling senior voters to a polling station multiple times. When questioned by an Apple Daily reporter, the driver said the old people were “all his parents.” Similar incidents have been reported in past elections with mostly candidates from the pro-government side being accused of organising elderly voters.

The Electoral Affairs Commission received over 2,400 complaints on Sunday, mostly concerning campaign advertisements. Chairman of the EAC, Barnabus Fung said a vote rigging offence cannot be established unless elders were proven to have been forced or bribed to vote for a candidate.

(SCMP) November 23, 2015.

Coaches and cars were out to ferry elderly voters to polling stations yesterday as speculation mounted that several candidates in the pro-Beijing camp had arranged free rides for elderly residents of homes for the aged and from rural villages. They were also allegedly told whom to back in the district council elections.

A South China Morning Post check found at least eight elderly residents of Kam Ma Home of Aged in Hung Hom taken in the same van in two rounds to the voting station in Hung Hom Municipal Services Building around 3 pm yesterday.

Incidents of voter-ferrying were also witnessed in Mei Foo North constituency and Pat Heung South in Yuen Long. In the latter district, cars arriving at the polling station at regular intervals to drop off voters, many of them elderly, was observed from 2.30 pm to 7 pm.

At the Hung Hom polling station, the senior citizens were escorted by two women who claimed to be “volunteers”. One man, who was stationed near the home, was seen holding what appeared to be a list of voters staying there and another was seen giving each elderly person their identity card before they entered the polling station. One of the men was later seen in the nearby office of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. The party’s candidate in Hung Hom constituency is Daniel Lam Tak-shing, who is running against incumbent pan-democratic councillor Pius Yum Kwok-tung and independent Wong Chi-keung.

An old lady, when asked whom she had voted for, said: “I have forgotten. I don’t know anyone.” Another resident said: “They will teach us whom to vote for when we get upstairs.” When approached, the escorts denied they were acting on the orders of any candidate and said they were merely volunteers helping elderly people cast their votes.

A caretaker in Kam Ma Home of Aged admitted that some of their residents were taken to the polling station by volunteers. When asked why a third party had got hold of the residents’ identity cards, she only said they would not allow the residents to keep them and refused to take further questions.

In September, the Post reported that a caretaker at the home revealed that Lam had been giving out free gifts to the senior residents almost every month and had encouraged them to register as voters. He had also allegedly suggested arranging coaches to send disabled people to the station on polling day. Lam yesterday refused to respond to the allegations even after being pursued for several blocks.

Electoral Affairs Commission chairman Mr Justice Barnabas Fung Wah yesterday said offering any benefits – including transport services – to induce people to vote, not to vote or whom to vote for a particular candidate was illegal.

Dr Wong Hung, a social work scholar in Chinese University, said elderly people's voting right should be respected even they were disabled but the ballots they cast must reflect their own will. "If they actually do not know who to vote or apparently being manipulated, then it is definitely undesirable," he said. "Would these senior residents receive worse service in the care centre if they do not vote?" Wong also pressed on the elderly home to explain why it would pass the identity cards of the residents - which should be kept by the elderly people themselves - to a third party.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 27, 2015

A week ago, the constituency of Shau Kei Wan, a neighbourhood in the East of Hong Kong Island with some 13,000 residents, represented a potential problem for the pro-establishment Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB).

The DAB’s incumbent district councillor Lo Tip-chun had held the seat since 1994. She had run unopposed until 2007, when she defeated an independent candidate by a margin of 523 votes. Four years later, the gap had narrowed to 153. This year, she nominated her protégé Lam Sum-lim, who was challenged by local secondary school teacher Jenny Leung. It was poised to be a tight election.

Enter a third candidate: Vannie Poon. Poon’s election flyers called for “real universal suffrage” and bore the yellow ribbon, a symbol of the Umbrella Movement. Yet that is essentially all we know about Poon. She has never given an interview. The Facebook account printed on her flyers is private. The flyers contain the phrase “Shau Kei Wan Democratic Concern”, strangely similar in Chinese to Leung’s “Shau Kei Wan Livelihood Concern Group”.

Last Sunday Poon received a paltry 107 votes. But had Poon not run in Shau Kei Wan, these votes might – or might not – have gone to Jenny Leung, who ultimately lost to the DAB’s Lam Sum-lim by a mere 15 votes.

The New Youth Group

Poon is one of several people alleged to be associated with the mysterious New Youth Group (NYG). In October, spokesperson Li Chak-sum claimed that the group would field eight candidates in the District Council elections. This claim cannot be verified, however, because no candidates have officially declared themselves to be affiliated with the NYG with the Electoral Affairs Commission. Li has also refused to disclose their names.

The suspected NYG candidates ran in constituencies contested by at least one pan-democrat and one pro-establishment candidate, often where results in 2011 were close. They shared similarly-designed flyers donned with yellow ribbons. Several provided the same contact number.

Among them, Daniel Lau received 94 votes in Southern District’s Wah Kwai constituency, where the Democratic Party’s Yeung Siu-pik lost to the DAB’s Ada Mak-Tse by only 47. Like Vannie Poon, Lau received a greater number of votes than the margin by which the local pan-democrat lost. Stand News therefore concluded that the NYG had succeeded in tilting the election in favour of the pro-establishment candidates in at least two constituencies.

As such, they have been accused by netizens of being “fake umbrella soldiers”: operatives from the pro-establishment camp who aim to dilute the pan-democrat vote by running on a similar electoral platform.

There is certainly some suggestion that this is the case. In October, Next Magazine succeeded in speaking to Li Chak-sum’s grandmother, who claimed that he was politically apathetic, but “received around HK$10,000 per month for handing out pamphlets”. The Democratic and Civic parties then lodged a complaint against him with the Independent Commission Against Corruption, though it appears no action has yet been taken.

Just this week, former League of Social Democrats member Remzi Wu disclosed to Stand News that he had been requested by “someone in the pro-establishment camp” to run in Tai Hang, Wanchai. Also contesting in Tai Hang was Clarisse Yeung from Good Day Wanchai, a post-Umbrella Movement group. Wu refused this request.

Not Very Creative After All?

Among the various allegations of (legal or illegal) electoral fraud in Hong Kong, the practice of “vote-snatching” using fake candidates certainly stands out, having received unprecedented media attention. It is not part of traditional repertoire, such as recruiting elderly voters from retirement homes, or providing material benefits. But it would be wrong to believe that we are witnessing anything new or particularly innovative.

In 2011, Russell Pearce, the Arizona State senator for the district of Mesa West, was presented with 18,000 “recall” signatures from disgruntled citizens, forcing new elections to be held for his district. It was expected that Pearce, known for his anti-immigration policies, would lose much of the Mexican-American vote to his challenger. Out of nowhere, a retired semiconductor worker of Mexican origin named Olivia Cortes entered her candidacy, appealing to Spanish-speaking voters with the slogan “Si Se Puede!” (Yes We Can). Although she eventually withdrew, citizens filed a lawsuit against Cortes – alongside several members of Pearce’s entourage – for attempting to deceive voters.

A New York Times feature on electoral fraud from 2004 documented deception techniques that seem even more bizarre. That year, a former dockworker named Jose Serrano was asked to run against incumbent Congressman José E. Serrano, allegedly to confuse his voters for the benefit of a third candidate. The previous year, John C. Liu ran against Jay C. Liu for a seat in the New York City Council.

Implications for the Electoral System

This practice poses a problem for the democratic system. In an election with many constituencies, it is unrealistic to expect the media to spend so much time and effort on exposing the background and intentions of every newcomer candidate. So how do you design an election, so as to prevent Party A from sending out a fake third “Independent Candidate” C, with the exact same electoral programme as Party B, in order to dilute Party B’s votes?

Perhaps the masterminds behind the “fake umbrella soldiers” – if the accusations are true – were incentivised by low nomination barriers. According to the Electoral Affairs Commission, candidates need only receive nominations from 10 registered voters and pay a deposit of HK$3,000 to run for the District Council. However, raising the nomination barriers would risk excluding genuine candidates without financial backing. The non-affiliated Chui Chi-kin might have thought twice before deciding to run against – and eventually defeating – legislator Christopher Chung Shu-kun on nomination deadline day.

To limit the number of candidates, we could also introduce a second round of voting. The two candidates with the highest number of votes in the first round would progress to a run-off election, and electors would be asked to choose one or the other. However, it is a massive strain on societal resources to implement this system in hundreds of constituencies.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the design of the election, but in better enforcement by the authorities against “fake candidates”. But like any fraud case in court, this could take months or years to prove. If the authorities were to vigorously investigate every allegation, Party B might be encouraged to make frivolous complaints against Party A and Candidate C, in order to disrupt both their campaigns. Running in an already-crowded constituency in order to dilute votes is not necessarily fraud; some localist candidates have adopted this strategy to oust moderate pan-democrats.

Of course, not all attempts at voter dilution are effective. Theoretically, the unknown Candidate C would only be able to “snatch” a significant number of votes from Party B if the latter’s electorate were divided on certain issues and/or dissatisfied with the status quo. But this is exactly the case in Hong Kong after the Umbrella Movement, where some believe that the traditional pan-democrats are no longer appropriate spokespeople for the city’s democratic movement.

It appears, therefore, that there might not be any immediate solution. Interviewed by RTHK the morning after the elections, Sung Lap-kung, a political analyst at City University, forecasted that “vote-snatching” would become a regular strategy in the future.

(Next Weekly) December 3, 2015.

A resident in Tin Shui Wai said that he received a notice from the post office to pick up a registered letter. When he got there, he was told that the letter did not have enough postage so he'll have to go to Yuen Long to pay the difference. This occurred on Saturday and the post office was closed for the rest of the day. So on Monday, he skipped work and went to Yuen Long. He opened the letter and saw that it was a reminder to vote for a certain candidate in the district elections. This caused him to get very angry. "If I support you, I would certainly vote for you. You didn't have to send me a registered letter without sufficient postage."

However, given that certain basic information were incorrect (such as listing the DAB candidate as an FTU candidate), it is not clear if the candidate sent the mail, or if this was a piece of sabotage by an opponent.

(Next Weekly) December 3, 2015.

The Next Weekly reporter went around to various quarters for the Disciplinary Forces and found a common feature -- there were copies of Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po, Headline Daily and Sky Post being distributed for free in order to "brainwash" the various Disciplinary Forces members and their families to vote accordingly.

Internet comment:

- What kind of simple, naive Yellow Umbrella reporters do we have nowadays? Giving away a few free newspapers is going to brainwash people into voting a certain way? Well, those newspapers are given out for free elsewhere in Hong Kong too. So why weren't the rest of the population brainwashed as well? The crux of the question is this: Why did the free newspapers work particularly well in the Disciplinary Forces quarters? Hint: Nobody likes to be called "Black/Evil Police."

(Apple Daily) December 11, 2015.

Lam Tin candidate Yau Mei-po was the shipping/warehouse manager for Kwong Tat Enterprises Limited earning more than $40,000 per month. Her boss is Bernie Ting, the chairman of the Hong Kong Q-Mark Scheme. In the election, Yau obtained just over 1,200 votes and lost to the FTU candidate who got more than 3,200 votes.

In November, Ting learned that Yau was running for election and told her: "I want to terminate our employment relationship. What do you think?" Ting also gave her a resignation letter, but Yau refused to sign it. Ting said that if Yau would be dismissed if she refused to sign and he wanted her to decide immediately. Yau signed the letter of resignation because she needed a letter of reference to find another job.

Yau has been working there for more than ten years. She asked Ting whether she will receive the $130,000+ for long-term employment service. At the time, Ting said, "Yes, yes, yes." In addition, Ting did not tell her why he wanted to terminate her employment. Only after Yau did Ting say that she was late on many occasions. Yau said: "He never gave me any warning letters. I work overtime without pay, and how does that count?" She also said that she has never made any mistakes in logistics management.

Today Yau contacted the human resources manager and was told that there would be long-term employment service payment because "you resign on your own." Yau said the long-term employment service payment comes out of the mandatory provident fund offset and costs the employer nothing. She questioned whether Ting was persecuting her for political reasons. She said that during the Occupy Central period, Ting told her to take down the banner on her backpack. She had also rebutted her supervisors about their political positions.

Internet comments:

- Yau Mei-po has probably been taking a lot of time away from her job. According to the records, she was one of the outsiders who barged into the Hong Kong University Council meeting of July 29th and jumped on the table to harangue the council members for not appointing Johannes Chan as pro vice-chancellor. She was part of the human chain of protestors in stopping workers from going to work in the IFC2 lobby in order to show their opposition to housing developments in North East New Territories. How does she find any time to work?

- Consider the position of the boss. Here is an employee who is frequently late and you know why because you read about her protest activities in the newspapers. Now you know that she is running for another job. Are you going to sit around and wait for her? Or how you going to look for other options?

- She is fifty-something years old already, and her notoriety is spread widely. How is she ever going to find another job that pays $40,000+?

- When you want to run for District Councilor, it is common for you to go into the community and spend several years as a community director for some political party or the other. Did Yau Mei-po think that she can just parachute into her district and win because of freedom/democracy/human rights/universal suffrage? Now that she has lost her job, she can take a serious stab for the 2019 District Council election by going into the community!

- As a fifty-something year who has many years of work experience, she still thinks that a company must issue a warning letter before dismissal. Look, if your tardiness has affected company operations or caused economic losses, you can be dismissed at will. The warning letter is issued when your supervisor believes that you are not completely hopeless.

- The Apple Daily reporter is taking dictation from Yau Mei-po who is trying to leverage the media to squeeze a few dollars more. Anyone who worked for more than 5 years will get some long-term service severance pay, irregardless of whether they were dismissed or resigned on their own.
- No, you don't understand. Yau Mei-po may have told them the truth, but the Apple Daily reporter made this part up because their readers are stupid enough to believe it.
- This Apple Daily report violates all rules of journalism on being fair and balanced. They got one side of the story and made no effort to check with the other side. But of course they can afford to pay the trifling sums involved in media libel lawsuits.

- While people should be able to have their own political opinions without fear of oppression at work or elsewhere, she is the one who says that she lectured her supervisors about their political positions. This becomes disruptive at work.

- She says that she frequently worked overtime without pay. Hahahaha LOL. That happens to all highly paid professionals. If she wants to get paid by the hour, she can try to wash dishes. P.S. Dishwashing is hard work.

- She is arguing that being frequently late can be compensated by unpaid overtime work. That figures. She spent the day in protests and electioneering, and then she goes back to the office at night to catch up on the day's work. As long as the work gets done, who's complaining?
- What kind of logistics manager is unreachable during the day? Pity the clients!

- Political persecution is wrong! I support civil disobedience. We are undaunted and fearless!
- Enough with shouting fucking slogans! What specifically will you do to support Yau Mei-po? Burn the Kwong Tat warehouse to the ground?

- Of course, Yau Mei-po can mobilize all her allies and block access to the Kwong Tat office/warehouse until there is civil nomination/universal suffrage for the company CEO.

- Losing her logistics manager job means that Yau Mei-po can devote herself full-time to run for Legislative Councilor in the Kowloon East district. The pay is $90,770 per month!

- The hypocrisy is that when the Blue Ribbon baker got fired because of his involvement in anti-Occupy Central activities, the Yellow Ribbons clapped their hands. Now a Yellow Ribbon logistics managers got fired because of her involvement in pro-Occupy Central activities, the Yellow Ribbons are raging.

- I only wonder why 1,200 persons voted for her? What is wrong with them?

(Sing Tao) Labour Party's Yip Wing was a surprising winner in the Chung On district, Ma On Shan. Shortly after Christmas, the 70 shops in the Chung On Market received notice from LNK REIT that rents will be raised 68% as of January. They are required to respond by January 3, or else they would have to move out before the end of the month. Many of the business owners who had been there since inception said that they cannot afford to pay. Yip Wing said that he has told the owners not to sign because he will lead to meet with LINK REIT representatives.

Internet comments:

- This could never happen if only the voters re-elected Elizabeth Quat (DAB). The voters are getting what they deserved.

(Bastille Post) June 17, 2016.

On October 24, a citizen spotted a female passenger without a fastened seatbelt sticking herself out of the sunroof of a car. The citizen filed a complaint with the police. The police tracked down the car license to Legislative Councilor Sin Chung-kai (Democratic Party). In January 2016, the police asked Sin to provide the details of the driver that day. In February, Sin went down to the police station, gave information for himself and his wife saying that they could be the driver but he was not willing to provide a statement to the police.

As a result, the police issued a ticket to Sin for "not providing information upon request." Today Sin pleaded guilty in the Eastern District Court and was fined $1,800. Sin said afterwards that the incident happened during the 2015 District Council elections and the female passenger was Democratic Party candidate Cheung Kai-yin.

[368] Lingnan University Pillow Talk (2015/11/11)

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 11, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whether the Chief Executive should have the power to directly appoint Council members;

whether the Chief Executive’s automatic appointment as the Chancellor of the university should be scrapped;

whether the proportion of teachers and students on the Council should be increased.

The referendum will end on Wednesday.

(SCMP) November 11, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) November 10, 2015.

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

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

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

(Apple Daily) November 10, 2015.

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

Related links:

Lingan University clash
Fuck the Police

Videos:

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

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

Internet comments:

- Junius Ho's statement (via Facebook)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Wikipedia) University of California Regents

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

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

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

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

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

(University of Texas System)

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

(Wikipedia) State University of New York

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

(Wikipedia) Floridia Board of Governors

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

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

(Wikipedia) University of Illinois System

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

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

Why are the systems so similar? Why do the faculties and students have so little power? Because (1) the university system is supported by public funds; (2) the students are transient and therefore not knowledgeable in long-range planning; (3) the faculties have vested interests (e.g. they like huge pay raises for themselves). But in Hong Kong nowadays, the faculties and students want to take charge. There needs to be better arguments than "freedom" and "democracy."

- (HKG Pao)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- You only know how to make personal attacks with foul language. This essay kept referring to pro-China persons and political backgrounds, etc. There is no actual evidence of any sort being offered. This is using conspiracy theories to make a political judgment.

- You wrote such a long essay with all sorts of reasons and excuses to gloss over your ugly deed, precisely because you know that your deed was ugly.

The essay also declared: "If Mr. Ho truly has no political background and baggage, then as a member of the New Territories Concern Group and Defend Central, he has openly criticized Occupy Central many times as an illegal activity ... if this isn't political background, then what is political background?" In response:

- When a citizen makes an open criticism that the illegal Occupy Central is illegal, it means that this citizen has a political background? Are university students so arrogant and presumptuous that they cannot allow citizens to call an illegal activity for what it is? 90% of the people of Hong Kong believe that Occupy Central is illegal and should be stopped. Are they all pro-China/pro-establishment/anti-democracy according to the Lingnan University Student Union?

- Criticizing Occupy Central implies political background? Occupy Central affected the livelihoods of many citizens and it is indeed against the law (e.g. incitement and participation in unlawful assembly, etc). Any normal citizen would be criticizing Occupy Central. During that period, you will hear many criticisms if you walk into a tea restaurant that is showing television news. On the contrary here, I think that you have a thick and heavy political background when you attack the university trustees.

- Criticizing Occupy Central = political background. Fine. But does using foul language to intimidate people = triad gang background?

- You want political background? You got political background. According to (Ming Pao), the first student to use foul language against Junius Ho second-year social sciences student Chow Wai-lok. Mr. Chow is a member of the radical political party Civic Passion. Chow said that he had planned beforehand to use foul language. In saying "overbearing", he added "fucking overbearing" to make a point of emphasis.

- So it is the supporter of one political party making a foul-mouthed attack on a supporter of an opposing camp. No big deal. It happens every day. Except it is the reputation of Lingnan University that is being tarnished. It is currently being known just as "Foul-mouthed University."

- According to Chow Wai-lok, he only uses obscene language with close friends and he would never do so in front of elders and teachers. However, he was dissatisfied with Junius Ho's conceited attitude and evasive answers. Therefore he used foul language to humiliate Ho. That's great. Hereafter anyone who fails to provide an answer to your satisfaction needs to be cursed out. No wonder "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung gets cursed out everywhere that he goes (#341).
- (1) Chow Wai-lok only uses obscene language with close friends; (2) Chow Wai-lok used foul language to humiliate Ho. Therefore Chow insults his close friends with obscene language. So don't be close friends with him if you don't want to be insulted.
- I watched the video. I thought that Chow Wai-lok was overbearing and I objected to this use of foul language. Therefore I say to him: "I fuck your mother's stinking cunt!" in order to humiliate him. This message has been approved by Chow Wai-lok.
- Chow Wai-lok has just started a new meme along the line of "I am normally well-mannered and I don't use foul language, but this time [FILL IN THE BLANKS YOURSELF]".
- And if Junius Ho brushed off Chow's foul-mouthed verbal tirade, Chow will surely escalate to "stop tyranny by the use of physical force."
- Chow Wai-lok was wrong to use foul language against Junius Ho. Fortunately the student union president Philip Lau corrected Chow by telling Ho that he should go home and use foul language with his wife.

[367] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/11/11) (Hong Kong Research Association) 1149 registered Hong Kong voters were interviewed by telephone between October 30 and November 6 2015.

Q1. How concerned about the District Council elections?
38%: Very concerned
27%: Somewhat concerned
24%: So-so
5%: Not too concerned
3%: Not concerned at all
2%: No opinion
Q2. Do you think that the election atmosphere is excited now?
10%: Very excited
25%: Somewhat excited
47%: So-so
10%: Somewhat unexcited
5%: Completely unexcited
2%: No opinion
Q3. What is the main factor when you choose a candidate to vote for?
1%: Fame
14%: Policy platform
40%: Political party affiliation/political position
3%: Personal image
35%: Past job performance
4%: Other
4%: No opinion
Q4. Do you want your District Councilor to focus on Hong Kong-wide issues or local district issues?
30%: Hong Kong-wide issues
57%: Local district issues
13%: No opinion
Q5. How satisfied are you with your local district councilor?
10%: Very satisfied
25%: Somewhat satisfied
38%: So-so
10%: Not too satisfied
9%: Completely dissatisfied
6%: Don't know my district councilor/hard to say
2%: No opinion
Q6. When will you make your voting decision?
27%: On the day of the vote
26%: Within one week before the vote
14%: Within two weeks before the vote
24%: More than two weeks before the vote
10%: No opinion
Q7. Will you vote in the November district elections?
62%: Definitely yes
22%: Most likely yes
4%: Most likely not
7%: Definitely not
1%: No opinion
Q8. Will you vote for a pro-Occupy Movement candidate?
28%: Yes
50%: No
11%: Hard to say
10%: No opinion
Q9. If the district elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?
31%: The incumbent district councilor
22%: The opponent of the incumbent district councilor
41%: Undecided
2%: The incumbent district councilor is not running or is unopposed
4%: No opinion
Q10. If the district elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?
13%: Candidates with pan-democratic party backgrounds
23%: Candidates with pro-establishment backgrounds
24%: Independent candidates
38%: Undecided
2%: No opinion
Q11. Pan-democratic political party support (among the 13% who said that they would vote for candidates with pan-democratic political party backgrounds.
14%: People Power
3%: Labour Party
29%: Civic Party
39%: Democratic Party
1%: ADPL
3%: League of Social Democrats
1%: Neighborhood and Workers Service
2%: Neo Democrats
8%: Other pan-democratic political groups
Q12. Pro-establishment political party support (among the 23% who said that they would vote for candidates with pro-establishment political party backgrounds)
17%: Federation of Trade Unions
51%: Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong
6%: Liberal Party
5%: Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong
14%: New People's Party
6%: Other pro-establishment political groups
1%: No opinion
Q13. What is the principal source of election information?
16%: Internet
22%: Printed newspapers/magazines
5%: Family/friends
2%: Radio
4%: Television
26%: Campaign promotional materials
16%: Other
9%: No opinion

(SCMP) How Hong Kong’s electoral system only discourages political moderates. By Gary Cheung. November 16, 2015.

The findings of the survey commissioned by the Path of Democracy, in which 41.9 per cent of the 1,010 respondents interviewed between October 12 and 17 identified themselves as moderates, came as a “surprise” to the group’s convenor, Ronny Tong Ka-wah.

The poll, conducted by the University of Hong Kong’s public opinion programme, found that 28.4 per cent supported the pan-democrats and 11.4 per cent said they backed the pro-establishment camp.

Tong, who resigned as a lawmaker and quit the Civic Party in June to advocate a moderate path to democracy, said the findings showed that the level of support for the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps may no longer follow conventional wisdom. Over the past two decades, it has been the case that pan-democrats won nearly 60 per cent of the popular vote and the government-friendly camp took about 40 per cent in Legislative Council elections.

Noting that the poll found more than 53 per cent of interviewees felt it was necessary to communicate with Beijing, Tong believes there may now be a larger proportion of moderates in Hong Kong. But Tong and his group didn’t perhaps need to fork out thousands of dollars on a survey to discover that a substantial majority of Hongkongers see themselves as moderates; it’s actually not that surprising.

According to a poll commissioned by the Post last September, some 56 per cent of 1,004 respondents considered their political stance as “the middle ground or have no preference”. Some 33 per cent identified themselves as “democrats” while another 7.4 per cent said they were “pro-Beijing”. The poll was also conducted by HKU’s public opinion programme.

Another Post-commissioned survey, conducted by Chinese University’s Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies in January, found that 49.5 per cent of the 907 respondents said they were in the “middle ground”. It sounds natural that most Hongkongers consider themselves moderates; it is a socially desirable answer when they are approached by pollsters.

The controversial remarks by Chan Kin-por, chairman of the Legco Finance Committee, that it takes fewer than 30,000 votes to win a seat in a geographical constituency, raises the point that the proportional representation (PR) system does not encourage moderates who take into account mainstream public opinion.

Chan, who was returned unopposed in 2012 as the insurance sector legislator, said the existing electoral system was abnormal. He concluded that radical lawmakers who mounted filibusters were unlikely to be punished by voters under the present system.

Under the system, adopted since 1998, parties or non-affiliated groups rank candidates on lists. Their chance of winning a seat is based on a “quota” – obtained by dividing the number of valid votes cast in the constituency by the number of available seats.

If a party gets enough votes to meet the quota, it automatically wins a seat. Whoever gets the remaining seats is determined by ranking the so-called remainder votes. Under the current system, having a small but fervent support base is enough to win a seat even if you go against the majority view.

The system, which nurtures minority and even radical voices, explains why Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s repeated appeals to voters to punish at the ballot box radical lawmakers who filibuster government bills has proved to be wishful thinking.

Besides, it has spurred a fragmented legislature, which makes it more difficult for government officials to canvass lawmakers’ support. In 2013, Executive Council convenor Lam Woon-kwong called for a review of the PR system. He argued that even if the most capable person was chosen as chief executive in 2017, he or she could hardly solve the deadlock in governance if the system remained intact.

But with both the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps in a comfort zone under the system, few across the political spectrum will seek to change the status quo in the foreseeable future.

[366] Playing Politics in Hong Kong (2015/11/9)

(EJ insight) Academic freedom: what is it and is it under threat? By Michael Chugani. November 9, 2015.

Is academic freedom under threat in Hong Kong’s universities?

To answer that question, it is necessary to first define what academic freedom means.

This is how Encyclopedia Britannica defines it: “Academic freedom is the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law, institutional regulations, or public pressure.

“Its basic elements include the freedom of teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectual concern; to present their findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally appropriate.

“For students, the basic elements include the freedom to study subjects that concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and express their opinions.”

Simply put, there are two key points in Encyclopedia Britannica’s detailed explanation of academic freedom.

In the case of professors, they should be allowed to teach and research in the way they want.

In the case of students, they should be allowed to study whatever subjects they want.

Many students, professors and politicians have claimed in recent weeks that the University of Hong Kong council’s rejection of Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro vice chancellor has put academic freedom in Hong Kong under threat.

How true are these claims?

The answer lies in impartially studying the Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition of academic freedom.

Are teachers and students still free to pursue knowledge and research without unreasonable interference even though the HKU council has rejected Chan as pro vice chancellor?

Are students still free to study whatever subjects they want and form their own opinions?

Are professors still free to teach the way they want and to publish research papers in the way they want?

If the answer is yes to all three questions, then academic freedom is alive and well even though Chan did not get the job as pro vice chancellor.

If the answer is no, then those who believe academic freedom is now under threat must give clear examples of students not being able to choose what they want to study and professors not being able to teach in the way they want.

Academic freedom is one of our core values.

It is crucial to Hong Kong’s way of life.

For that reason, it is irresponsible, especially for politicians and professors, to make loose claims about academic freedom being under threat without providing credible proof.

It is dangerous, puzzling and silly to suggest that academic freedom is dependent on Chan Man-mun being made pro vice chancellor of HKU.

Academic freedom is not dependent on one person alone, regardless of how qualified that person is.

Now that the HKU council has rejected Chan as pro vice chancellor, is there any evidence that academic freedom has been damaged?

Are students no longer allowed freedom of thought and choice of subjects?

Have professors who took part in a silent protest in support of Chan been fired?

Has the HKU ordered professors to abstain from expressing political opinion or joining protests?

Has the HKU council censured, punished or thrown out Billy Fung Jing-en, the student union representative in the council, for revealing details of a confidential meeting regarding Chan?

The answer is, of course, no.

Nothing has changed even though Chan has not been given the job of pro vice chancellor.

In fact, the controversy over Chan has increased academic freedom.

Students are speaking out more.

Professors are speaking out more.

Alumni members are speaking out more.

And the general public now has a better understanding of how university policies are made.

All this new-found awareness and interest in our universities can better guard academic freedom than the appointment of Chan.

Those who warn that academic freedom is under threat justify their warning by claiming that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who, by tradition, is the chancellor of all of Hong Kong’s universities, has politically interfered with university matters by blocking the appointment of Chan.

They say Leung interfered through the six members that the chief executive traditionally appoints to the HKU council.

They also claim the central government has instructed pro-Beijing members of the council to block Chan’s appointment.

There is a widespread but erroneous belief that Leung appointed six members to the council.

The fact is he appointed only two – Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung.

The remaining four were appointed by his predecessor, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen.

Did Leung instruct Li and Ki to vote against Chan’s appointment?

Does he have any influence over the four council members appointed by Tsang?

Would the four have followed his order to oppose Chan?

No one knows for sure, but those who make the claim that he interfered have the responsibility to provide proof.

Of the 20 members who voted, the 12 who opposed Chan are seen as pro-establishment, and the eight who supported him are seen as pro-democracy.

It is highly presumptuous and one-sided to claim that the 12 pro-establishment members who opposed Chan did so for purely political reasons on the orders of Beijing but the eight who supported him did so not for political reasons but purely because they believed he was the best person for the job.

The truth is that both sides are playing politics.

The whole issue has become a political tug-of-war.

Anyone who doesn’t admit this is a hypocrite.

How can anyone deny that politics are involved when the clear fact is that all those who support Chan are from the democracy camp and all those who oppose him are from the pro-establishment camp?

Hongkongers need to face the truth that politics is involved instead of so readily believing that academic freedom is at risk.

Politics entered the tug-of-war over whether Chan should be appointed pro vice chancellor when it became known that he had a part in handling HK$1.45 million (US$190,000) given to Occupy Central co-organizer Benny Tai Yiu-ting by an anonymous donor to partly finance the Umbrella movement.

The democracy camp fully supported the Umbrella movement to fight for so-called genuine democracy, but the Hong Kong and central governments and the pro-establishment camp fiercely opposed it.

Opinion polls showed that just under half of Hong Kong supported Occupy Central and just over half did not.

The left-wing media began a campaign against Chan, claiming he was unsuitable as pro vice chancellor because he had supported Occupy Central and had mishandled the anonymous donation to Tai.

The democracy camp, led by Apple Daily, struck back by accusing Leung and the central government of interfering in academic freedom and the council’s vote on HKU’s selection committee’s recommendation that Chan be appointed pro vice chancellor.

Which side brought politics into the matter first?

Is it democracy camp members at HKU, such as Tai, Chan and the students who supported Occupy Central, or the left-wing media that said Chan was not suitable as pro vice chancellor because of his support of Occupy Central and his mishandling of an anonymous donation to partly finance the movement?

Each side is blaming the other for politicizing the matter.

It is up to each one of us to decide for ourselves who is to blame.

We also have to decide for ourselves whether the 12 council members who voted against Chan did so under orders from Beijing or whether they genuinely believed he was not suitable for the job because of his involvement in Occupy Central.

We have to decide for ourselves if the eight who supported Chan did so because they genuinely believed he was suitable for the job or if they did so because he belongs to the democracy camp.

Leung’s recent appointment of five new members to the Lingnan University council has sparked a new political controversy, because two of the five had openly opposed Occupy Central.

The democracy camp and Lingnan University students have criticized the appointments with the argument that the two are not suitable as council members and will threaten academic freedom because of their opposition to Occupy Central.

It is up to each one of us to decide if only supporters of Occupy Central should have the right to become council members of universities and only Occupy Central supporters are capable of upholding academic freedom.

We should ask ourselves whether academic freedom is also under threat if university councils consist only of Occupy Central supporters.

Isn’t academic freedom similarly threatened if opponents of Occupy Central are vilified and not given the freedom to think, teach and study the way they want?

The tug-of-war over Chan is not really about academic freedom.

It is in fact a proxy war between the democracy camp and Beijing.

It is a continuation of the Occupy uprising.

(Oriental Daily) November 9, 2015.

Orientail Daily front page cover
US Democratic Party leader visits Hong Kong, politicians come in greeting chorus
Pan-democrats bring in foreign forces
to interfere with University of Hong Kong affairs

US Congress Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and six other Congressmen came to visit Hong Kong. Yesterday the group met with Chief Executive CY Leung. Later they met with the pro-establishment camp led by Liberal Party honorary chairman James Tien. They also met with the pan-democratic political parties including Civic Party's Alan Leong, Democratic Party's Emily Lau, Labour Party's Cyd Ho, the accountancy sector legislator Kenneth Leung, and former legislators Martin Lee and Anson Chan.

When contacted by our newspaper, Emily Lau and Alan Leong confirmed that they met with Pelosi. They admitted frankly that they brought up the string of events at the University of Hong Kong. In particular, Lau told Pelosi that the university is an index for Hong Kong. So it there are problems at the university, it means that there are problems in Hong Kong. Leong said that he said during the meeting that Hong Kong is looking at many attempts to destroy its system and values, and that the university is Hong Kong's bridgehead for academic self-determination and freedom.

Alan Leong quoted one congressional delegate as saying that academic freedom and self-determination are the foundation of Hong Kong and that many American universities believe that it to provide support as civic societies through institutional relationships. Leong also said that Pelosi agreed with the statement by this congressional delegate.

Martin Lee and Anson Chan's spokespersons confirmed that the two met with Nancy Pelosi and brought up the situation in Hong Kong. Martin Lee said that he told Pelosi that there is no democracy in Hong Kong. He also mentioned the appointment of the pro vice chancellor at the University of Hong Kong and the university council.

University of Hong Kong council member and Legislative Councilor Chung Shu-kan said that "the pan-democrats are making their report to their westerner masters." He said that while the pan-democrats say that they don't want other people to interfere with academic freedom, they also bring the matter up with the American politicians. This is double standards in operation. Chung Shu-kan also criticized the "civic society support" mentioned by the unnamed congressman. He asked: "Which American university uses civic society as the basis of its decisions? Which university elects its chancellor by community voting?"

Legislator Wong Kwok-kin said that "whining to the foreigners" has become a habit for the pan-democrats. He said that the University of Hong Kong matter is an internal personnel matter that has nothing to do with academic freedom. He wondered if the pan-democrats are politicizing the matter for the sake of the upcoming elections. He felt embarrassed for the pan-democrats who are whining to the foreigners. He said that if the United States truly respect academic freedom, then they should leave the matter in the hands of the University of Hong Kong and not interfere. Otherwise, matters are going to get worse and even the foundation of the University of Hong Kong may be wrecked.

Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group convener and education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen had said many times that he supports academic self-determination and freedom. When informed that the pan-democrats have brought up the University of Hong Kong events with Nancy Pelosi, Ip Kin-yuen said that the Hong Kong and other governments should not be meddling with the affairs of the University of Hong Kong. He insisted that there was nothing wrong with the pan-democrats meeting with Pelosi because "this is just a discussion for both sides to understand what is going on."

As for the congressman saying that American universities can offer support to the University of Hong Kong as civic societies, Ip Kin-yuen said that he is unsure about the meaning of civic society here. Since academic scholarship has no boundaries, many institutions can express opinions on matters of common concern and scholars can issue joint statements.

Hong Kong University Students Union president Billy Fung Jing-en did not respond to our inquiries.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Pan-dems slammed by Oriental Daily for ‘inviting’ foreign interference after meeting US delegation. November 9, 2015.

Local media newspaper Oriental Daily has slammed pan-democrats for “actively inviting foreign forces to intervene in affairs,” after four lawmakers brought up the recent controversy surrounding the University of Hong Kong (HKU) during a meeting with a delegation of US Democratic Party House of Representatives members on Sunday.

The delegation, led by the US Democratic Leader of the House Nancy Pelosi, met with a conglomeration of local lawmakers and politicians during the Hong Kong leg of their China trip. These included Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, Liberal Party Honorary Chair James Tien, former Chief Secretary Anson Chan, Democratic Party founder Martin Lee, Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong, and co-founder of the pro-democracy Occupy protests Professor Benny Tai.

The group also spoke to Labour Party lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, Democratic Party Chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing, Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit, and The Professional Commons founder Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong for around an hour at the Island Shangri-la hotel. During the meeting, Leong raised many of the issues Hong Kong is currently facing, such as the failure of the Central Government to implement universal suffrage as promised under the Basic Law. He also said that the pan-democrats had been working hard to defend Hong Kong’s existing values and systems, but nothing much had changed and he hoped Pelosi would make China aware of the situation.

Cyd Ho said that the US should not give up on the opportunity to speak for Hong Kong in the face of business deals with China. Emily Lau said that Leung Chun-ying was dividing the city, and that the Central Government was increasingly interfering in Hong Kong affairs. She also said she hoped the US would remind China to live up to its promise under the Basic Law, which guarantees that Hong Kong people would be governing themselves and enjoying a high degree of autonomy.

The pan-democrats discussed the HKU academic freedom controversy with Pelosi, which they said was very serious, because “if HKU fell, Hong Kong would be finished.” A Democratic member commented that higher education institutions in the US were aware of the issue and they were raising awareness about it.

The discussion on HKU was criticised by Oriental Daily, who said that the pan-democrats were actively inviting foreign intervention by the US. The article cited HKU Court member and Legislative Councillor Chung ‘Tree Gun’ Shu-kun as saying that the pan-democratic lawmakers were “reporting to their masters” and that they were “employing double standards for telling people not to interfere in academic freedom, but now raising the issue with foreign representatives.” Legislative Councillor Wong Kwok-kin was also quoted as saying that the pan-democrats had made a habit of asking for help from foreign countries, and that the HKU affair had nothing to do with academic freedom.

Pelosi will be taking the delegation to China, where they are expected to meet Chinese officials, leaders and students, to discuss issues such as national security, human rights, and climate change. They will also be visiting Tibet. In the past, Pelosi has been openly critical of China’s human right abuse record.

(Kinliu) When you become yellow ... By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 31, 2015.

I really like Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung's descriptor of "Party Secretary." According to the leaked audio recording, Professor Li said that certain political parties have systematically and aggressively promoted Johannes Chan, including using methods such as threats, interference, forming concern groups, judicial review etc to support Chan. So could they be acting like mainland Chinese universities to insert Chan as their party secretary in the university?

When the principals heard that, they said that this was absurd. The instigator Ip Kin-yuen said that this was incredibly ridiculous.

A drunkard never thinks that he is drunk. When you are ensnared by an evil cult, you can never understand what other people are saying.

It has been one year since Occupy Central. The Yellow Ribbons began by sit-in's and demonstrations; then they clashed and smashed; then they insulted the police; then they destroyed police vehicles and surrounded police stations; then they held up yellow umbrellas during graduation ceremonies; then they made secret recordings during meetings; ... each case is crazier than the previous one, sometimes even going beyond legal and moral bottom lines. Strangely enough, those who still have Yellow Ribbons on their Facebook continue to issue LIKEs.

This is not called supporting. This is called blind faith.

Over the past year, I observed that many friends lose themselves as soon as they pin on the Yellow Ribbon. You can note the following: All those who wear Yellow Ribbons will agree with the following positions:

1. Primary school teachers using foul language

2. Singing foul-mouthed songs on university campus to insult the police

3. Breaking the glass doors at the Legislative Council building

4. Ousting the Individual Visit Permit visitors and the parallel traders.

5. Supporting homosexuality

6. Opposing the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao bridge, the third runway at the airport, the Liantang Boundary Control Point, developing North East New Territories.

7. Ostracizing new immigrants from mainland China, while supporting those from elsewhere who seek political asylum under false pretenses

8. Liking Denise Ho and disliking Wong Jing

9. Opening umbrellas during ceremonies, cursing out university vice chancellors/council members/trustees

10. Leaking secrets and making surreptitious recordings

You can be sure that if Yellow Ribbons were to commit murder, arson, rape or looting, they will be offering more LIKE's. That is because they only know to listen to the magical pipes of the politicians and march blindly into the dead end.

I never see Yellow Ribbons who support Occupy Central but oppose homosexuality; or who support the third runway but oppose the development of North East New Territoties; or who support Johannes Chan as pro vice chancellor but deplore what Billy Fung Jing-en did. People's opinions cannot be so uniform on everything, right? I think that the Yellow Ribbon soldiers think the same way as when they buy the $10 bag of oranges in the market -- you have to buy the whole bag, with some good and some bad.

The Yellow Ribbons used to object to the "Hall of the Unified Voice" of the Chinese Communists. But they have become their own "Hall of the Unified Voice" now. Anything Yellow is going to be right. It does not matter if you steal, rob, loot or rape, you will be pronounced innocent if you raise your Yellow Umbrella and chant your Yellow Ribbon slogans (such as "I want genuine universal suffrage").

The symptoms are like the Stockholm Syndrome. When the hostages spend too much time with the captors, they develop empathy with captors and never return home.

The Yellow Ribbons oppose the Chinese Communists. Eventually they have become the Chinese Communists. They now have their own Yellow Guards, class struggles, party secretaries, etc. When you hate blindly too much, you sometimes become the person that you hate most.

[365] The Innovation and Technology Bureau the Fourth Time Around (2015/11/7)

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 5, 2015.

Lawmaker Ray Chan Chi-chuen has said he will resume filibustering to delay the passing of the Innovation and Technology Bureau funding proposal in the new term of Legislative Council, should the government fail to improve it.

“We cannot stop it, it’s only a matter of time,” the People Power lawmaker told Ming Pao. He said that other pan-democrat lawmakers would not join the filibuster in the Finance Committee owing to concerns over the upcoming district council elections. Only three of them have put forward amendments. Chan said he will only submit some 100 amendments, therefore limiting the duration of the filibuster. In the last term of LegCo, lawmakers ‘Long Hair’ Leung Kwok-hung and Albert Chan Wai-yip also waged filibuster against the IT Bureau proposal.

(The Standard) October 12, 2015.

The new chairman of the Legislative Council's Finance Committee, Chan Kin-por, said he will do what he can to facilitate dialogue between the different political parties and the government to ensure meetings can run smoothly.
The insurance sector lawmaker admitted during a radio programme that the pan-democratic camp might be unhappy with him winning the chairmanship last week, but stressed he will try his best to conduct meetings in a fair and just manner.
Chan added that he will learn from the experience of his pro-establishment predecessors, including Ng Leung-sing and the Liberal Party's Tommy Cheung, in handling meetings and disputes. Ng came under heavy criticism last year for his handling of the government’s preliminary funding request for the development of the Northeast New Territories. He survived a motion of no confidence after pan-democratic lawmakers accused him of violating the committee's rules of procedure by not allowing them to file new motions to filibuster the debate.

(RTHK) October 27, 2015.

The Legislative Council's Finance Committee has received more than 1,100 motions from legislators over the government's request for funding to form an Innovation and Technology Bureau. Most of the motions are from legislators who intend to filibuster and prolong the discussion over the controversial funding. Independent lawmaker Wong Yuk-man alone has filed 700 motions.

The committee's chairman, Chan Kin-por, said that at first glance, some of the motions appeared to be repetitive and may not be allowed. But if all of them are allowed to be tabled, it would take some 28 hours for the committee to vote on the motions, meaning that a vote on the funding request may not come until around Christmas.

Chan said on Tuesday that he was still targeting Friday for the vote, but would not be forcing the issue. He stressed that he wanted to establish mutual trust with legislators. Lawmakers will be limited to making two-minute speeches when the committee reconvenes to discuss the funding request on Friday.

(SCMP) October 30, 2015.

The chairman of the Legislative Council's Finance Committee has slashed the number of motions pan-democrat lawmakers can file in their latest bid to delay a vote on funding for a new innovation and technology bureau. Five pan-democrats had earlier filed 1,133 motions targeting the government's proposal, but Chan Kin-por ruled yesterday that they could only table up to 133, or 12 per cent, at the four-hour meeting scheduled today. Yet with pan-democrats vowing to challenge Chan's decision by seeking to adjourn the debate, the chairman conceded that his plan to hold the vote today could be thwarted. "It will take more than three hours just to discuss 133 motions … and time will be spent on debating my decision," Chan said. "So I don't know when the meeting will end [with a vote]."

...

Independent Wong Yuk-man had filed 700 motions targeting the proposal, while League of Social Democrats chairman "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung put forward 248, and People Power duo Albert Chan Wai-yip and Raymond Chan Chi-chuen submitted 176. The Labour Party's Dr Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung filed eight motions, and Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit put forward one.

In his letter to the lawmakers, Chan Kin-por said the pan-democrats' motions could be categorised into different themes, and they had "submitted multiple motions on the same themes". "This, apart from occupying meeting time, could not achieve anything relevant to the duties of the committee … and I must ensure that the meeting will be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner," he wrote. He dismissed the suggestion that he set the cap arbitrarily, saying that with the help of the Legco secretariat, he had read all the motions and grouped them under themes. "It gave me watery eyes and headaches … I could have made [the pan-democrats] happy by allowing all motions and let the meeting drag on until Christmas, but that's not what a responsible chairman should do," Chan told reporters on the sidelines of a Legco meeting.

Albert Chan told the Post that Chan had "abused his power." “I submitted 100 motions and he only accepted six, and those reasons he gave could hardly stand,” Albert Chan said. “It was impossible to group my motions … We will ask him to explain his decisions in the meeting tomorrow [today].”

(Ming Pao) October 30, 2015.

Independent legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man was not satisfied with chairman Chan Kin-por's rulings. So Wong approached Chan Kin-por's table, picked up the name plate of the committee secretary and legal adviser, slammed it on the table and threw it on the ground. There were plastic shards everywhere, and Wong's hand began to bleed, and he had to be bandaged by medical workers. Chan Kin-por said that Wong's conduct was disorderly and directed him to leave the chamber. Wong did not leave at first. Chan Kin-por then announced that the meeting was adjourned, which means that it was pointless for Wong to hang around. As Wong departed, he said: "I shed the first drop of blood inside the Legislative Council."

(China Daily) October 31, 2015.

Funding for the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau has once again been delayed due to filibustering and disruptive behavior by a few radical lawmakers. The Legislative Council (LegCo) Finance Committee on Friday were left unable to vote on the proposal for the third consecutive week, as filibustering and other antics held up the meeting. Most lawmakers hope they can vote for funding at the next meeting on Nov 6.

On Friday, apart from four radical lawmakers, the opposition camp largely remained silent and did not filibuster. This was out of concern that such behavior could cost them dearly at upcoming district council elections on Nov 22. However, radical lawmakers disrupted much of the two sessions, which went on for two hours each. They did this by frequently asking trivial questions related to motions and procedures in order to have the meeting adjourned.

Finance Committee Chairman Chan Kin-por responded by reducing more than 1,130 repetitive and trivial motions proposed at the meeting to just 44. This angered radical legislators Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Albert Chan Wai-yip, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and Leung Kwok-hung, also known as “Long Hair”. They loudly berated Chan Kin-por and even left their seats to confront him at the podium. Wong threw and broke the name plates of the chairman, the committee secretary and a legal adviser. He also resorted to bad language on several occasions. Chan Kin-por said Wong’s unruly behavior was “indecent” and asked him to leave the room.

Before the meeting, Chairman Chan told reporters he had been forced to reduce the number of motions which could be moved. The chairman said he based this decision on the advice of the committee secretary and the legal adviser, as well as past practices. He asserted that he had not made any of these rulings autocratically — as alleged by the radicals. The legal adviser added that based on various court verdicts, including the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal, the Finance Committee chairman has the same power as the LegCo president. His powers include regulating committee meetings, setting limits and terminating debates.

(The Sun) November 6, 2015.

The named plates of all the legislators, government officials or secretariat workers were removed today so that Raymond Wong could not hurt himself again.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 6, 2015.

Funding for the Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB) has finally been approved by the Legislative Council Finance Committee. In a Legislative Council session on Friday twenty-six lawmakers voted in favour of the HK$37 million application for staffing funds, while eight voted against it.

The operational funds of HK$30 million for the ITB were approved with 29 votes in favour and nine opposed.

Lawmakers against the establishment of the ITB have been trying to delay the passing of the funding by filibustering, but their attempts were in vain as Finance Committee Chair Chan Kin-por terminated more than 100 amendments from Leung-Kwok-hung, Albert Chan Wai-yip and Ray Chan Chi-cheung, despite criticisms from the pan-democrat lawmakers.

A motion to set up the ITB was passed in October 2014, but the budget plan was not approved in time. The process was restarted and it was approved to be established in June 2015, but the funding was not approved until Friday.

(South China Morning Post) November 7, 2015.

The long-promised Innovation and Technology Bureau is set to come into being in a fortnight after lawmakers gave the green light tonight to the funding request for the chief executive’s brainchild after more than three years of filibustering.

“The industry has waited for a bureau for over a decade,” said Information Technology lawmaker Charles Mok, adding that the new secretary would need to tackle government policies unfavourable to IT development, including overseas-based merchandising policies. Mok also said he lobbied radical pan-democrats, whose insistence on opposing the bureau lasted into the final moment.

“All of you are bastards. This is an illegal vote,” lawmaker Wong Yuk-man shouted as he stood on a colleague’s desk after the vote. “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung lamented the ineffectiveness of legislative confrontation compared to people’s confrontation.

Videos:

(INT News Channel) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session beginning at 18:38
(INT News Channel) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session beginning at 19:12
(INT News Channel) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session beginning at 20:03
3:16 Raymond Wong Yuk-man charges at the chairman
3:39 Raymond Wong yells: "This is an illegal vote. This is an illegal vote."
3:44 Raymond Wong yells: "Why are so many people surrounding me for?"
4:01 Raymond Wong yells: "This is an illegal vote. Did you deal with my stuff? I gave you 63 items. Did you deal with it? You pok gai! Did you deal with it? Are you bullying us? Yes or no? ..."
4:47 Raymond Wong tells the security guard: "You move away a bit. Do not touch me."
5:01 Leung Kwok-hung says: "Did you look at this?" Leung throws a pile of document at the committee chairman Chan Kin-por.
5:39 Vote tally was 29 YES and 9 NO. So I confirm that the motion was passed. I thank everybody.
5:40 Raymond Wong jumps on the table and tells everybody that they are pok gai. A female citizen in the audience gallery above starts yelling too.

(Speakout HK) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session
0:02 Chan Wai-yip: Whether it is from citizens or legislators, anything handed over to the secretariat must be accepted. There is no reason that when something is handed in, you would toss it back out. This is utmost absurd. When I get a letter from Inland Revenue, can I toss it back to Inland Revenue? When the Police issues a summons to me, can I toss it back to the Police?
0:20 Chan Kin-por: I think that our procedure ...
0:20 Chan Wai-yip: You can issue rulings. You can't return it.
0:28 Chan Kin-por: Can you find the chapter and verse which says that I can not give it back to you? Can you find it for me? I am not going to debate this with you here. Anyway, I have decided not to accept it. As to how I can return it to you so that you can be happier, we can think about it slowly.

(Speakout HK) November 6 2015 Legco Financial Committee session
0:01 Democratic Party legislator James To: Actually, the number of amendments has been established. If you say that one motion has 100,000 and another has 50,000 and therefore you need to combine the two, I can understand that. But how many motions are there? The number is so small. Even if you use all of them, how many are there?
0:20 Chan Kin-por: If I accept all of them, it will be 1,100 of them.
0:21 James To: 1,100 of them. How long will it take if each one of them takes one minute.
0:27 Chan Kin-por: One-and-a-half minutes ... it won't be very long ... it will only take until Christmas. That's not very long, but I find it unacceptable. Okay, okay, James To, I hear your opinion. I don't want to tussle with you anymore.

(DBC.hk) October 30, 2015.
3:00 Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Leung Kwok-hung and Chan Chi-chuen approached the chairman Chan Kin-por.
3:19 Raymond Wong Yuk-man picks up a name plate and smashes it as plastic shards fly into the air. Wong cuts his finger in the process.

(ontv) October 30, 2015.
1:08 Reporters waiting outside the Legco chamber for Raymond Wong Yuk-man to come out after being ejected.
1:26 Raymond Wong: These people are useless if they don't die (walks away).

Internet comments:

- After being tormented by filibustering techniques for so long, it was a revelation to see Chan Kin-por brushing them off so easily. He ruled with an iron fist and added a touch of sarcasm. Let's hope that the other committee chairpersons learn from this experience.

- Actually the best part of the Legco Financial Committee meetings was when Leung Kwok-hung fell down from his chair to the laughter of his peers.

- This was not a full-scale filibustering campaign. Only the legislators from the radical political parties (People Power, League of Social Democrats and Civic Passion) took part. The other pan-democrats knew that filibustering is highly unpopular and therefore they had to avoid it when the District Council elections are so near. The radicals don't care because they have practically no realistic chance of winning any district council seat. Indeed, all their candidates would go on to lose.

- To get popular support, they would need a compelling reason not to pass the motion to establish and fund the Innovation and Technology Bureau. None were offered. The news coverage focused more on Raymond Wong's bleeding hand than any substantive issues.
- They filibuster not because they oppose any Innovation and Technology Bureau. Instead, they filibuster this measure because they are more interested in pushing other measures (such as a universal pension plan). And they don't have a comprehensive plan for that either, because they can't even answer the basic question of funding.
- So this is the same Occupy Central tactic. They want their "genuine universal suffrage" so they end up blocking the roads and prevent people/cars from moving around.

- The Information Rechnology sector legislator Charles Mok is suffering from split personality. On one hand, he supports the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau because his constituency clearly wants it. On the other hand, he supports the filibustering by the radicals because they are all in the pan-democratic camp. How does Charles reconcile the two Moks?
- Charles Mok wants an optimal solution in which the filibustering should go on for many many months but in the end the motion still gets passed anyway. This is just reckless disregard of the social and economic costs of filibustering, which the citizens are very much aware of.

- This is inverting Karl Marx's Eighteen Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1851). Marx had written: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." In this case, the first time that you watch Raymond Wong's act, it was a farce. By the n-th time that you see it, it is a tragedy (because the taxpayers' money goes to pay for his $93,000 monthly salary).

[364] South Asians in Hong Kong (2015/11/07)

(The Guardian) Hong Kong's dirty secret: thousands of asylum seekers left waiting in squalor. March 6, 2014.

Shortly after leaving prison, Mohammed went to the grocery store where he was last arrested, and stole another item. Then he waited quietly for the police to come. "It's no good outside. It's better in prison," he said, days after his latest release. "You have food; you can work; you have a room." Mohammed, who fled to Hong Kong from Sri Lanka 10 years ago after his father and brothers were killed, has concluded that it treats its prisoners better than those seeking protection.

When Edward Snowden surfaced here last summer, his case brought international scrutiny of Hong Kong's handling of asylum issues. The NSA whistleblower quickly moved on, but thousands of others are left in limbo in squalid conditions, even living in old animal sheds.

"Up until the Snowden case, it was apparent that the whole world turned a blind eye to the plight of asylum seekers in Hong Kong," said Robert Tibbo, the American's lawyer here and a director of Vision First, a NGO supporting refugees. "What's disappointing is that Hong Kong's government and society, despite its immense wealth and resources, is refusing recognised asylum seekers to settle in Hong Kong. This is not a proper or mature policy for such a wealthy and influential global stakeholder."

Hong Kong has one of the world's most draconian immigration systems. It only issues rulings on torture claims, and even those are rarely favourable. Just 11 people from 13,000 torture cases in over 21 years have been accepted, says Vision First, with successful applicants resettled in a third country. Recent legal decisions mean the government has had to extend protection to those who have suffered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. But Vision First's founder, Cosmo Beatson, describes "a culture of rejection". Australia, which draws asylum seekers from relatively similar locations, accepted 74% of Pakistani applicants in 2011-12 – while Hong Kong has not accepted one of several thousand Pakistani torture claims over two decades. Some applicants say they have been waiting six years or more without even being interviewed, and are confused by the repeated changes to procedures. It is illegal for asylum seekers to work, with those caught jailed for up to three years.

Beatson says extended uncertainty and squalid living conditions have led to relationship breakdowns and mental illness. "I lost 10 years of my youth in Hong Kong," said Mohammed, who has dark circles beneath his eyes and a restless, nervy manner despite his smile. "I came as a youth and now I'm old. I'm not married. In another 10 years? I'll be 42. Better that I will die."

The government is increasing allowances and, crucially, promising to provide rent deposits for the first time. But even then the total package of support will be about 25% below the official poverty line. Rent is HK$1,200 (£92) a month. In Nai Wai, in the New Territories, that buys a compartment in a former pigshed – most residents are Muslim – with a breezeblock base, corrugated metal walls and a metal roof covering only part of the building. There is exposed wiring under an open section.

A feverish toddler idles at the doorway, by a stray mattress with "love" spray-painted across it. The concrete floor slopes downwards from the path, guaranteeing floods in wet weather. For privacy and to keep the rain out, boards found on rubbish dumps have been nailed across windows without glass. The air is fetid. Twenty people live here, cooking in the "kitchen" – a sink and burners in what used to be the pen for piglets, next to the toilet. At a building nearby, a sock is tied over the single tap in the kitchen-bathroom to filter out the worst of the dirt. There is no way to keep out rats and snakes, because a tree grows through the building. And while the rent allowance will soon rise to HK$1,500, asylum seekers say landlords are already increasing their rents accordingly.

International Social Services Hong Kong, the NGO which oversees welfare for asylum seekers, is supposed to inspect accommodation. A spokeswoman did not respond to specific queries about the Nai Wai homes but said in general ISS-HK conducted spot checks and home visits "to assess the hygiene, home environment and safety condition" and would advise people to move if accommodation was below standard. She added that in some cases claimants decided to stay put despite such advice.

Hong Kong's levels of welfare are generally low – there are life-long residents in tiny "cage homes" – but asylum seekers say discrimination and hostility compounds the problem of low incomes in an expensive city. "Everyone ignores you. When you show them the paper [showing you are an asylum seeker], they don't take you seriously," said one.

A spokesperson for Hong Kong's security bureau said the region's circumstances were unique: "Being densely populated, relatively prosperous and a regional transportation hub with long coastlines render a strong need to maintain a firm and effective immigration control policy to safeguard the interest of Hong Kong people against possible influx of economic migrants." Beatson says accepting existing claims en masse and refusing any future applications would be kinder than continuing with the current system. "It would be better than the mirage of protection – people are thirsty and they think there's water here," he said.

Hong Kong's anxieties about asylum may in part reflect the huge numbers of "boat people" who arrived from Vietnam in the late 1970s, although they were overwhelmingly resettled or repatriated. Tibbo argues the numbers then were far larger – 200,000 according to the UNHCR – and Hong Kong was much poorer. Now the government runs large financial surpluses.

"When a human comes here they have hope. A few years later, when they realise that hope is fake, maybe he gets frustrated and starts developing anger and hatred," said Cici, who fled persecution in Cameroon after converting from Islam to Christianity. "They play with us like the ball in a football match." The well-travelled former entrepreneur, who has two degrees and speaks multiple languages, says the current system is wasteful as well as degrading. Allowing asylum seekers to work while they wait could help Hong Kong grow, he said. "What's shocking and really disturbing is how the government can put a lot of money to pay [officials] and lawyers and for [slum] housing – just to stop people. This is pure wickedness."

(Oriental Daily) November 7, 2015. Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZShFVJdha8 .

On Sundays and other holidays, a large number of foreign domestic helpers congregate in Central and Admiralty. More than one hundred South Asian hawkers and peddlers show up to sell clothing, handbags, battery chargers, etc. Over the course of several Sundays, our reporter has been observing these South Asian hawkers working in Battery Path, Chater Road, the Murray Road pedestrian overpass and Worldwide House. The hawkers are well-organized. They show up shortly after 7am, using vans to carry many nylon bags of merchandise to the various locations. The hawkers place their merchandise on large cloths so that they can pick up and leave immediately.

The hawkers also post scouts around the perimeter to watch for Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors. Our reporter observed one case in which more than a dozen inspectors came in for a surprise raid but the hawkers were able to disperse quickly. The inspectors were only able to confiscate one small bag of merchandise left behind by a hawker.

According to one source, "There used to be only ten or twenty South Asian hawkers. Now there are one to two hundred of them. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has only about a dozen or so inspectors." Therefore the odds are not in favor of the law enforcement agents.

The source said that many FEH inspectors have been injured during the course of law enforcement. Many of the South Asian hawkers are refugees seeking political asylum in Hong Kong. They will resist when facing arrest. "There was one time when they rushed over to assault the inspectors in order to retrieve their merchandise. By the time the police came, they had already fled."

(EJinsight) November 13, 2015.

Police arrested a former soldier from Colombia and two of his suspected accomplices in Yau Ma Tei for a series of burglaries in the Northern district this year. Over HK$1 million worth of stolen goods, including luxury handbags, watches and a camera drone, were found in the suspects’ apartments, Apple Daily reported on Friday. The trio were said to be responsible for at least 22 burglary cases in the district from June to November this year.

Investigation showed that the suspected mastermind, a 28-year-old former soldier from Colombia, had been arrested and imprisoned in Singapore for three years, also for burglaries. After his release sometime in the middle of this year, he came to Hong Kong and sought refugee status. He had been granted recognizance. While waiting for determination of his status, he teamed up with a 48-year-old Colombian and a 28-year-old Indonesian maid to undertake a series of burglaries. The maid played the role of a lookout.

Yip Kim-pang, senior inspector of the New Territories North regional crime unit, said the suspects chose village houses in Tai Po and Yuen Long as targets. Several victims posted CCTV video clips of the burglaries on Facebook after calling the police.

(SCMP) Why are Indians being targeted in Hong Kong’s crackdown on illegal immigration? By Yonden Lhatoo. February 4, 2016.

How ironic that Hong Kong’s chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, was in India this week with a big business delegation to woo investors just as his administration was building a case for imposing visa restrictions on the country.

Indians and nationals of other countries from which asylum seekers have been flocking to Hong Kong will have to secure an entry permit online before coming here.

The impending prospect of no more visa-free access across the board has alarmed the city’s Indian business community, and many are already complaining it smacks of racism and discrimination.

When asked about it directly in Mumbai, Leung replied: “We want to make Hong Kong as barrier-free as possible, but we are also mindful of, if you like, the side effects of providing visa-free entry when we have issues of overstaying.”

According to the government, Hong Kong is now saddled with a backlog of nearly 11,000 refugee applications that need to be screened. Some 80 per cent of them are from South or Southeast Asian countries, with Vietnam leading the pack at 21 per cent, and India and Pakistan following closely at 19 per cent and 18 per cent respectively.

From March 2014 to the end of 2015, an average of 134 Indian nationals lodged asylum claims every month – a 13-fold increase over the monthly average of 10 in 2013.

It’s obvious that many asylum seekers from India landing on our shores are “economic refugees” seeking to earn money, rather than real victims of torture or persecution back home.

Adding to a recent spate of reports about groups of visitors from the subcontinent claiming asylum after arriving in the city, the authorities on Wednesday gave details of what appears to be a particularly brazen case.

Immigration officers arrested two Indian Hong Kong residents running a local sports club after seven members of a hockey team they had invited from India overstayed their visas and then applied for asylum. The seven did not even play hockey here.

Looking at all of that, a crackdown on visas seems justified, but I can’t help feeling there’s a rather unhealthy focus on lawbreakers from the subcontinent in particular these days. One Chinese newspaper this week reported seven crimes involving South Asians over a three-day period. If you go looking for xenophobically charged angles, you’ll manage to find them.

The authorities intercepted 36 illegal immigrants from India in 2010 – last year it was about 32 a month. At the same time, they intercepted 190 a month from Vietnam, which is the source of the biggest (non-Chinese) illegal immigrant demographic.

Perhaps when Vietnamese commit crimes, they’re not as noticeable as Indians because they can blend in better with the crowd. Or most of them are quietly employed as illegal labour.

Let’s not forget that illegal immigrants are exploited by unscrupulous brokers who profit from their desperation.

These days there are organised rackets providing one-stop shops for illegal immigration to Hong Kong, complete with legal services to take full advantage of procedural loopholes that allow people to remain here for years while their applications are being vetted. And there are employers in Hong Kong who are quite happy to recruit workers from the black market labour force they provide.

There’s plenty that the government can do to tackle the problem at source, starting with clearing up that backlog.

I’m just not sure about collective punishment, though. Visa restrictions will put off genuine visitors and disturb commerce.

Internet comments:

- The influx of asylum-seekers is Hong Kong is allegedly due to the existence of full-service groups. The groups will organize everything for the asylum seekers, from fake travel documents to airplane tickets to lawyers already present at the airport when they land in Hong Kong. After that, the petition process will go on for years with judicial reviews all the way. This is just a racket for a certain group of Hong Kong lawyers.
- The question at heart is the position of the numerous South Asians in Hong Kong, and this touches upon Hong Kong Localism.
Here is the easy way out:
(Timeout.hk) July 1, 2015.

Marcus Lau, editor-in-chief of The Undergrad, the Hong Kong University Students’ Union’s news source ... said: “[Localism] is not a far-right, fascist approach stating that only pure, ethnic Hongkongers can be counted. Anyone who embraces the values of Hong Kong and identifies themselves as being from Hong Kong can be counted as a Hongkonger.”

But read on ...
(MediumRaW.org) The impact of the Localist Movement on Hong Kong. February 12, 2014.

If the Hong Kong people should attempt to exude its right to self-determination by way of the political theory of localism, we would need to ... consider the question: Who constitutes Hong Kong people and are we a “people”?

Unfortunately, there is no settled definition of “people” under international law, but we can consider two possible alternatives: (1) Hong Kong people are those who are so designated as Hong Kong permanent residents under Article 24 of the Basic Law or (2) Hong Kong people are those who share a common language and culture, which would readily display the difficulty in answering this question.
(1) Hong Kong people are those who are so designated as Hong Kong permanent residents under Article 24 of the Basic Law

This definition seems extremely tempting since it purports to have legal backing. Unfortunately, pursuant to Hong Kong courts’ interpretation of this Article, this definition would expand to PRC citizens who have little connection with Hong Kong. By including these individuals in the definition of Hong Kong people, we would undermine the meaning and the spirit of localism as a justification for sourcing sovereignty in Hong Kong people in order to make a political stand against the PRC government.

(2) Hong Kong people are those who share a common language and culture

This definition seems also rather simple and effective, since it would provide adherents to localism a theoretical stance against the PRC government (i.e. since Hong Kong people and mainland Chinese do not share a common language and differ in “culture,” we are not the same people). However, here, we are also faced with several hurdles. First, “Chinese culture” is very much entrenched in our society, it may be difficult to articulate how the culture of Hong Kong people and those of the mainland differ. Second, perhaps the more difficult hurdle, is that this definition paints a very homogenous picture of Hong Kong and rejects the multicultural and diverse aspect of our city. Hong Kong is a multicultural and diverse society with Cantonese and English as its languages. If we were to define Hong Kong people based on a common language (for example, Cantonese) and culture (for example “Chinese culture”), we would disenfranchise other participants who have significantly contributed to our society.

From the above, we can already see that because localism hinges on the definition of “Hong Kong people,” which remains undefined, localism lacks strong theoretical support, which may result in it having a negative effect to Hong Kong’s political development. The fact that “Hong Kong people” is ill-defined is, I would submit, localism’s Achilles’ heel as a successful political theory.

To this date, many societies still struggle to consider what its people is composed of and what characteristics its people should bear. For example, United State continues to struggle with this issue. Recently, American society was divided over Coca-Cola’s advertisement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443Vy3I0gJs), which displayed Americans of different ethnicities and backgrounds with the “patriotic” song “America the Beautiful” sung in various languages in the background. Some Americans responded to this advertisement negatively, suggesting that the song should be sung in English and that American society was not multicultural or diverse. Thus, these questions, identical to those that need to be resolved by our own society, are being debated by the American people to this date.

The American solution to this question, or at least for those who consider the United States to be a multicultural and diverse society, is interesting: the American people is comprised of those who subscribe and adhere to the values embodied in the United States constitution, which includes the American Bill of Rights. This basis is effective from a theoretical standpoint but it also practically entrenches the United States constitution in its people. This solution transforms the criteria needed to join American society from one which is ethnically or culturally based to one which allows anyone who is willing to subscribe to its values to participate.

This solution could readily be applied to Hong Kong. Could Hong Kong people be defined as those which subscribe to the values of the Hong Kong people defined in the Basic Law, which would allow anyone to join our society as long as they so subscribe? I would consider that to be a very good start.

If you argue that Hong Kong is meant to be for Hong Kong people with their own culture and values, then you need to define both "Hong Kong people" and "Hong Kong culture and values."

Hong Kong people should be defined as "those which subscribe to the values of the Hong Kong people defined in the Basic Law"? Let's start with Article 1 of the Basic Law: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." That's a no-go already.

And what about defining Hong Kong culture? Wan Chin said that the new Hong Kong City-State will be based upon a Renaissance of orthodox Chinese culture in opposition to the contemporary mainland Chinese culture which has deviated from orthodoxy. According to his approach, South Asians have no place in Hong Kong culture, because the ancient Chinese don't even know anything about South Asia and its peoples. If you modernize it, it becomes a copy of the Chinese Communist ethnic policy, which is anathema.

Hong Kong localism is said to be an unfinished political theory because "Hong Kong people" and "Hong Kong values" are undefined as yet. It wasn't so hard in the cases of the people of Catalunya, Québec or Scotland. So there must be something intrinsically hard about the case of Hong Kong. Any test definition should include a stress test: What happens to South Asians in Hong Kong?

- "The American people is comprised of those who subscribe and adhere to the values embodied in the United States constitution, which includes the American Bill of Rights"?

How ignorant can you get?

(U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serivces)

To become a citizen at birth, you must

Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR

had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

Apply for "derived" or "acquired" citizenship through parents

Apply for naturalization after a foreign citizen or national fulfills the requirements in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In addition, members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces and their dependents may be eligible for special naturalization provisions.

If you were born in the United States, you are automatically a citizen and you are not forced to take any oaths or pledges. You can even dedicate your life towards overthrowing the Constitution/Bill of Rights. The government can send you to prison for treason but it can't strip you of your citizenship. If you are an immigrant, you will have to take a citizenship oath (see, for example, YouTube) during naturalization.

If you want an oath of loyalty implemented for citizenship in the new Hong Kong City-State, you will encounter two sets of problems.

Firstly, some of those who were not born in Hong Kong will refuse to pledge allegiance to the Basic Law (e.g because they object to the existing Article 1 or oppose your new Article 1 that replaces the People's Republic of China with the Republic of Hong Kong). What will you do? Ship them all back to their country of origin? Is the receiving state willing to accept them? If not, you will have to hold them indefinitely or send them to a third country willing to accept them.

Secondly, some of those who were born in Hong Kong will refuse to pledge allegiance to the Basic Law for whatever reason. What will you do? You don't even have anywhere to deport them because Hong Kong is their homeland. You may have to beg mainland China to accept them. Or you can just put them in a boat and push it off shore to drift.

In Hong Kong right now, there is no such oath of allegiance to the Basic Law. People can even burn copies of the Basic Law in front of television cameras.

- I once attended a research conference in Hong Kong in which four persons delivered papers in English on the Hong Kong Internet. During the Q&A period, one Hong Kong audience member complimented a presenter for having good local knowledge in spite of being a South Asian. The South Asian presenter pounded his fist on the table and roared back in Cantonese: "What do you mean!? I was born in Hong Kong, I have lived here all my life, I attended school here from kindergarten to university and I read, write and speak Cantonese flawlessly like any local. Why do you treat me as if I am a chihuahua which miraculously managed to learn human language?"

- The second clearest and loudest slogan after "I want genuine universal suffrage" that came out of Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution is "Nobody represents me." This meant that neither the Occupy Central Trio nor the students organizations nor the pan-democratic politicians were able to exercise any command/control over the movement. That's great for theoretical democracy but it also guarantees that nothing could be accomplished in practice for lack of any set of goals that everybody could agree upon. Any proposal floated to the masses will be objected to by somebody or the other, and thus rejected because it would be undemocratic otherwise.

In like manner, somebody is not going to want the Basic Law as it stands. See these Basic Law bonfires:

(Apple Daily @YouTube, June 5, 2015; (Apple Daily @ YouTube, June 6, 2015) Representatives from four university student unions ripped up copies of the Basic Law and set fire to it. The Victoria Park audience applauded.

(NOW TV @YouTube) July 1, 2013. Civic Passion rally.

(Shuo Online @YouTube) July 1, 2013. Legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man in front of the China Liaison Office.

(DDTV @YouTube) July 1, 2012. People Power in front of the China Liaison Office.

You may think that all you need to do is to tinker with the Basic Law a little bit and it will all work out quickly. You are wrong. You can get started today. You will be very busy getting nowhere for several more decades until it all becomes moot in the year 2047 when One Country Two Systems officially ends.

- The valiant warriors of the Hong Kong Localists admire the South Asians greatly. Here are some valiant actions by South Asians.

(Apple Daily @ YouTube June 28, 2015, also longer version at YouTube) This is a top favorite. Two South Asian males went by Tai Nan Street in Sham Shui Po district and were attacked by almost 20 other South Asians wielding knifes and sticks. The police tried to intervene but the South Asians were completely oblivious of their presence and kept on with the attack.

(Apple Daily @YouTube September 24 2015) At the Jordan MTR station, nine armed South Asian men attacked three South Asian men with knives. The attackers fled after 30 seconds of action.

(Bastille Post @YouTube March 3, 2015) Eight South Asians encountered four other South Asian males in Chi Kiang Street, To Kwa Wan district. After some verbal invectives, knifes were produced by one side. The other side used wooden poles, iron bars and even flower pots to counterattack. Meanwhile an intoxicated/drugged young lady wandered onto the scene by chance and the police had to subdue her as well.

(Oriental Daily, December 20, 2015) A 32-year-old South Asian was previously assaulted by seven South Asian men in Chi Kiang Street, To Kwa Wan district and robbed of a $300 mobile phone and $10,000 in cash. Today at 1:45am, the man encountered the same seven South Asians in an underground tunnel near the Happy Valley cemetery. The man called the police immediately. When the police arrived, they found the man injured on the ground whereas the seven attackers had already fled.

(Headline Pop News @YouTube July 10 2015) A South Asian male pours water on a Chinese man sitting outside a 7-11 convenience store. Another South Asian male assures the Chinese man that the water fell down from upstairs.

(YouTube March 2015) 58-year-old peddler manager dies in Central after struggle with unlicensed South Asian peddler.

(YouTube March 3 2015) South Asian man who was banging on a glass partition punched a police officer nine times in Chung King Mansions, Tsim Sha Tsui district.

(YouTube) May 4, 2013 10:53pm melee at the Lung Wai Game Center, Mong Kok

(YouTube) South Asian male swings a right-handed punch at a Hong Kong male in the MTR subway

(YouTube) South Asian gang boxing

(Oriental Daily) December 20, 2015. Three masked South Asian men entered the 7-11 convenience store in Yuen Long at 3am, threw orange powder at the attendant and declared a robbery. The attendant could not open the cash register quickly enough, so the three assaulted him for three minutes. The men took $3,300 from cash register and fled through the back door. The attendant called the police. The police came to look at the surveillance video. It was noted that the three men came earlier to make purchases and scout the location. So the police spread out through the area, and arrested the three men in the park.

(The incident was also reported at EJ Insight)

(Oriental Daily with video) January 31, 2016. A South Asian man snatched a Samsung mobile phone from a 23-year-old woman across Yuen Long Plaza at 00:45, and fled down Castle Peak Road.

(Oriental Daily) January 31, 2016.

At 7:00 am yesterday, a North Point garage owner was going to work carrying the $100,000 payroll when he was assaulted by four masked South Asians who took his money.
At around noon, a 49-year-old man named Wong and his wife went by 182 Sai Yeung Choi Street South when six South Asian men came near them. Two of them touched Wong's pants. The six then left. Shortly afterwards, Wong realized that the $19,000 cash in his pant pocket was missing. His wife called the police. The police believed that the six were a gang with four of them acting as decoys while the other two cleaned Wong's pocket. The police were unable to find the suspects.
At 2:00pm yesterday, three South Asian males and one South Asian woman ambushed a man outside a money-changer and took away 10,000 RMB.

(Oriental Daily) January 6, 2016. A South Asian male was walking near Lai Lo House, Lai Kok Estate, Sham Shui Po district when about 10 men rushed and attacked him knifes and rods. The victim was injured multiple times and ran 200 meters along Lai Chi Kok Road through Lai On Estate to reach the Sham Shui Po Police Station for help. He left a long trail of blood behind him. The Police called an ambulance to take the man to the hospital. The Police are investigation the case.

(Oriental Daily) January 10, 2016. At around 6pm, a bearded 50-something-year-old South Asian male holding a can of beer walked into a convenience store on Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po district. He pulled out a 6"-long knife and threatened the male service worker to open the cash register. The man took about $4,500 in cash and fled. The police were called and they are investigating.

(Oriental Daily) January 11, 2016. At around 11pm last night, three masked South Asian men holding iron rods charged into a car-washing shop on Hok Yuen Tung Road, Hung Hom district. There were three workers present at the the time. The three picked out a 50-something-year-old male worker and attacked him without saying anything. Then the three men fled. The police were called. The victim said that he does not have any enemies and he has no idea why he was attacked. The police are investigating.

(Oriental Daily) January 11, 2016. Based upon a tip for a gang fight, the police arrested 24 Hong Kong males aged 13 to 25 in Tin Wah Estate, Tin Shui Wai district around 11pm on January 9 for unlawful gathering. The police also stopped a white van and arrested 7 South Asians aged 12 to 32 and confiscated four hockey sticks, two baseball bats and four brass knuckles. These individuals are suspected of unlawful gathering and possession of weapons.

(Oriental Daily) January 12, 2016. Last night at 8pm, a 49-year-old went by 229 Queens Road East (Wan Chai) and encountered a compatriot aged between 30 and 40. The other man got excited and attacked the first man with a 12-inch knife. The police are investigating the case.

(Headline Daily with video) February 3, 2016. On Wednesday night, a Hong Kong woman met a friend in Tsim Sha Tsui during which she received $58,000. The transaction was observed by a South Asian male. As the Hong Kong woman left, the South Asian male snatched her envelop of money and fled. The woman gave chase while calling for help. Some men standing outside a bar heard her and stopped the man. The South Asian man kept saying "Sorry, sorry." The South Asian man is a 23-year-old from Pakistan on an asylum claim.

(Oriental Daily) February 6, 2016. Yesterday around noon, a Pakistani man who was suspected of casing to steal from parked cars was intercepted by the police. He took out a pair of scissors and attempted to stab the police and flee. He was subdued by the police. Afterwards he cursed out the police and then he wrote down in tears and begged the police to let him ago. He was arrested for resisting arrest and carrying an attack weapon. According to information, the 40-year-old Pakistani man came to Hong Kong to seek political asylum from torture. He allegedly slept under a bridge in Yau Ma Ti district. In 2014, he became a member of a South Asian criminal syndicate and took party in various crimes such as criminal intimidation, passing counterfeit currency, burglary, drug possession, making false testimony etc.

(Oriental Daily) February 6, 2016. Early this morning at the Southeast Building, 475 Hennessey Road, Causeway Bay, two Indian asylum seekers fell to blows over money. One intoxicated man attacked the other man with a fruit knife. The other man was slashed in the face, and also bitten on his left arm. He retaliated and caused the first man to bleed in the face. Afterwards, the slashed man fled to the building lobby where the security guard called the police.

(Oriental Daily) February 7, 2016. At around midnight, a group of South Asian men were sitting on the fence of Tai Kok Tsui Road and Ivy Street when a dispute broke out. A 19-year-old Indian asylum-seeking man was attacked by two compatriots wielding a ten-inch knife. He used his hand to block the blows and sustained injuries on his left hand. Other compatriots called the police.

(Oriental Daily) February 7, 2016. At 186 Yu Chau Street, Sham Shui Po district, there had been a dispute between the newly opened foot-bathing service shop and three South Asians who moved the furniture in for them. At 3am this morning, someone poured liquid into the store and set off a fire. Three women were sleeping inside the shop at the time. They fled through the back door and called the police.

The South Asians show our indigenous Hong Kong revolutionaries just what can be achieved by acts of bravery and valor. Even the Hong Kong Police are scared of the South Asians. That is the kind of respect that our indigenous Hong Kong revolutionaries want to get too.

- (Oriental Daily) List of all crimes committed by South Asian/African asylum seekers during 2016 so far:

- The valiant warriors of the Hong Kong localist movement would prefer to stick to harassing mainland Chinese women and children:

It is not safe to confront South Asians (see, for example, (WarmWaterFrog @YouTube October 22, 2014) A South Asian male dismantled Occupy Mong Kok barriers and stabbed a demonstrator.)

- When the mainland Chinese parallel traders pick up their merchandise in Sheung Shui to bring back across the Lo Wu border crossing, the Hong Kong localists said that this must stop in order to bring peace and tranquility back to Sheung Shui.
When the South Asian domestic helpers take over the streets in Central and Causeway Bay on Sundays and holidays, the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about peace and tranquility in local communities anymore.

When the mainland Chinese women sang and danced on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, the Hong Kong localists said that they are causing noise pollution and therefore this must stop.
When the South Asians sang and danced on Sai Yeung Choi Street South (see YouTube), the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about noise pollution anymore.

When the mainland Chinese singers accepted donations from passersby on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, the Hong Kong localists insist that the local ordinances (against begging) must not be broken.
When the unlicensed South Asian hawkers sell their merchandise in the streets of Central and Causeway Bay on Sundays and holidays, the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about local ordinances (against unlicensed peddling) anymore.

When the mainland Chinese migrants arrive and receive public welfare payments, the Hong Kong localists said that their money must not be wasted this way.
When the South Asian asylum seekers arrive and receive public welfare payments, the Hong Kong localists suddenly don't care about how their money is being spent anymore.

When the mainland Chinese show up and commit crimes, the Hong Kong localists said that criminals must be prevented from coming to Hong Kong.
When the South Asians show up and commit crimes, the Hong Kong localists suddenly aren't concerned about crime anymore.

When the mainland Chinese display their traditions and cultures, the Hong Kong localists said that only authentic pure Hong Kong culture is allowed.
When the South Asians display their traditions and cultures, the Hong Kong localists suddenly aren't concern about the purity and authenticity of Hong Kong culture anymore.

So it was never about peace, tranquility, noise pollution, law enforcement, public welfare, crime, culture, tradition or values. It was just a case of raw racial/ethnic discrimination against the mainland Chinese.

The point here is not to say that the Hong Kong localists should be practicing discrimination against the South Asians in addition to the mainland Chinese. The point here is say that if you want to practice racial/ethnic discrimination against the mainland Chinese, just do so directly without couching the whole campaign under the any number of other reasons (peace, tranquility, blah blah blah). You will only be caught with serial contradictions in your positions.

[363] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/11/04)

(Hong Kong Free Press) Pro-democracy parties top list of ‘most prominent’ political groups, says HKU survey. November 4, 2015.

The Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood, The Civic Party and the Democratic Party are the most popular amongst the ten most prominent political groups in Hong Kong, according to a HKU Public Opinion Program (HKUPOP) survey released on Tuesday. However, none of the ten parties on the list have an approval rating of higher than 50 points out of 100.

The survey, which was conducted via telephone in October, first asked interviewees to name ten political groups they were most familiar with. The second stage involved asking respondents to rate the political groups using a 0-100 scale.

Results show that pro-democracy parties dominate the first three spots out of the ten on the list, with the ratings of Civic Party (CP) and Democratic Party (DP) going up five positions each to rank 2nd and 3rd. The Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL) tops the list.

Overall, the support ratings of most political groups have gone down, with the approval ratings of The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), New People’s Party (NPP), The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) seeing a most significant drop.

The support ratings of the NPP, which is chaired by Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, dropped to a record low since the founding of the party in 2011, but it has also replaced the Labour Party on the list by entering the ranks of the top ten for the first time. The other nine political groups retained their positions since the last survey, which was conducted during April and May this year.

(HKU POP) November 3, 2015.

POP conducted a double-stage survey on the rankings of the top 10 political groups in October 2015 by means of random telephone surveys conducted by real interviewers. The top political groups listed in our latest survey were all those who obtained highest unprompted mentions in our first stage naming survey conducted from October 12 to 17. In that survey, respondents could name, unaided, up to 10 political groups whom they knew best. Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), Democratic Party (DP), Liberal Party (LP), Civic Party (CP) and Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) were mentioned most frequently. The 12 most frequently mentioned political groups then entered into the second stage rating survey. During that second stage survey conducted from October 19 to 23, respondents were asked to rate each political group in turn using a 0-100 scale. 0 indicates absolutely no support, 100 indicates absolute support, and 50 means half-half. After calculation, the bottom 2 political groups in terms of recognition rate were dropped, leaving behind the top 10.

(Hong Kong Research Association)

1,115 citizens age 18 or over were interviewed by telephone on October 19-26 2015. The respondents were asked to rank political parties which hold legislative council seats according to 1=very much not support; 2=not support; 3=half/half; 4=support; 5=very much support.

The two surveys have different scales (0-100 versus 1-to-5). But we can apply a linear transformation to the HKRA data to make it comparable to the HKUPOP data. Here is the formula: If a political party has an average HKRA rating of X, then its HKUPOP-equivalent rating is (X-1) x 25.
For example, if the average HKRA rating is 5 (maximum score), then its HKUPOP rating is (5-1) x 25 = 100.
For example, if the average HKRA rating is 3 (median score), then its HKUPOP rating is (3-1) x 25 = 50.
For example, if the average HKRA rating is 1 (minimum score), then its HKUPOP rating is (1-1) x 25 = 0.
The results are as follows:

Political Party
HKU-POP Rating HKRA Rating

Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood 46.7 36.8

Federation of Trade Unions 46.2 36.8

Liberal Party 45.2 37.3

Labour Party 45.2 28.8

Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong 44.2 38.3

Democratic Party 43.7 30.5

Civic Party 42.2 30.0

New People Party 38.5 40.8

League of Social Democrats 37.0 27.5

People Power 35.6 28.3

The correlation coefficient between the two columns of numbers is 0.71.

Here are some notes about the survey results:

The average rating is higher when the 0-100 scale is used than when the 1-5 scale is used.

Both surveys agree that the two radical parties (League of Social Democrats and People Power) have the lowest popular support.

The HKRA survey puts the four major pro-establishment parties (NPP, DAB, FTU and Liberal Party) at the top.

The HKRA survey puts the the three major pro-democracy parties (Civic Party, Democratic Party and Labour Party) near the bottom.

How can the two surveys diverge so much from each other? Where do the biases creep in? There are three possibilities.

(1) The HKRA is correct whereas the HKUPOP is biased in favor of the pro-democracy camp. If you don't like the pro-democracy camp and you get a call from HKUPOP, you slam the phone down. Thus, the HKUPOP is only polling its pro-democracy supporters.

(2) The HKUPOP is correct whereas the HKRA is biased in favor of the pro-establishment camp.If you don't like the pro-establishment camp and you get a call from HKRA, you slam the phone down. Thus, the HKRA is only polling pro-establishment supporters.

(3) The HKUPOP is biased in favor of the pro-democracy camp and the HKRA is biased in favor of the pro-establishment camp. If you don't like the pro-democracy camp and you get a call from HKUPOP, you slam the phone down. If you don't like the pro-establishment camp and you get a call from HKRA, you slam the phone down. Thus, the partisan polling organizations are only polling their own supporters. Of course, their poll results will be quite different then.

How to distinguish among the possibilities? Technically, this can be done by getting the two polling organizations to field a question such as: How would you describe your political leanings? (1) Lean towards the pan-democrats; (2) lean towards the pro-establishment camp; or (3) lean towards the middle. And then compare the results from the two polls. For example, HKUPOP has conducted such a poll for Path of Democracy:

Table 3:
28.4% lean towards the pan-democrats
11.4% lean towards the pro-establishment camp
41.9% lean towards the middle
15.6% no political leaning/political neutral/not belong to any camp
2.7% Don't know/hard to say

HKRA does not provide such information.

Another way of looking at this is through the response rates. If both polls have 95% response rate, they must have very high overlap in their respective coverages. But if one or more poll has poor response rate, then they could be polling a biased portion of the population.

HKRA uses automated telephone methodology, so they can't even come up with a response rate. HKUPOP claims a 66.8% response rate for this poll. Case closed? Not so quickly. HKUPOP's Path of Democracy discloses the details behind the HKUPOP response rate methodology. Here is one problem:

Unable to ascertain if telephone number is qualified
1159 busy signals
10601 no pick-up
1376 telephone message recording
54 password block
343 language barrier
502 interviewee broke off contact during selection stage
5 other telephone line problems

Telephone numbers which were determined to qualify but interview could not be completed
2 family members declined to be interviewed
6 respondents declined to be interviewed
9509 unable to complete interview within survey period
27 failed to complete entire interview
6 other problems
Total 9550

Total number of completed interviews
1010

Response rate = (completed interviews) / (completed interviews + incomplete interviews + qualified but refused to be interviewed) = (1010) / (1010 + 502 + 27 + 2 + 6)

The 9509 cases of ("unable to complete interview within survey period") are not involved in the response rate formula. When someone is called, says that he/she is busy, agrees to a callback appointment but never picks up, it is a more polite refusal than slamming down the phone immediately but it is still a refusal. According to international standards (for example, American Association of Public Opinion Research, p35),

RR5 = 1010 / (1010 + 2 + 6 + 9509 + 27 + 6) = 9.5%.

That is not good at all. And this is before we get into the issue about allocating a portion of the 10601 "no pick-up" as refusals too, as many people will look at the caller ID first and won't pick up any unfamiliar numbers.

In addition, these surveys are actually hard for ordinary people to answer. Unless you are a political junkie, you don't know what these political parties have been up to individually. For example, if you ask the question: "I am going to read you a list of 12 political parties. Can you please tell me who is the current chairman/chief/head of each organization?" Only a very small percentage of the respondents will get everything right. So what is the point of asking people about political parties that they are not familiar with?

[362] The King Must Die (2015/11/03)

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 2, 2015.

Last week Commercial Radio broadcast a tape of Arthur Li urging the Council of the University of Hong Kong not to appoint Johannes Chan. The government’s media defenders swung swiftly into action. “No smoking gun or incriminating remarks,” said the SCMP’s Alex Lo… “We know all this already,” he concluded. In the Standard, Mary Ma said the content of the leaks had “already been reported”, and “the bomb is more of a dud.”

Just a minute. The content of the leaks had certainly been reported already. It was reported by Billy Fung, the student representative on the Council, now much-abused for breaching the council’s confidentiality. But we did not “know all this already” because we were also told of Arthur Li’s response, which was that “Billy Fung is a liar.” So those of us who supposed that Professor Li might approach normal standards of integrity and truthfulness in public life were left with two conflicting stories. It seems we are now to conclude that, at least as far as Mr Lo and Ms Ma are concerned, Professor Li’s rebuttal of the initial leak was of no significance at all. They did not believe it. Professor Li now says that when he said Mr Fung was a liar he meant that he had breached the confidentiality rule.

But that is not what his hearers would have understood by the remark. The normal and natural meaning of the words was that Mr Fung’s version of events was erroneous. I realise that Professor Li is a serial foot-in-mouth artist who is, as Ms Ma tactfully put it, “not the type to embarrass easily”. But it seems even his warmest supporters do not place much faith in what he says. This seems rather a disadvantage in a university councillor, let alone a council chairman.

But of course the university has no voice in the selection of its council chairman, which is a matter for the government. I share the pessimism of those who see no real prospect of local universities either shaking off their government appointees or divesting themselves of the automatic Chief Executive-Chancellor. But this seems to be taking the wrong approach anyway. The government has a legitimate role in appointing people to university councils, and indeed to many other bodies. The question is not whether there is a justifiable right to appoint, but whether that right is being misused.

The answer to the second question is yes. Leung Chun-ying was the first Chief Executive to recruit a politically appointed assistant for the specific purpose of polluting the government nomination machinery with politics. The government appoints hundreds of people to all kinds of courts, councils and advisory bodies. These appointments should be made on merit with a view to keeping up the quality of the deliberations of the bodies concerned.

Instead they are being used as a political reward system, and a sort of social security for superannuated members of the pro-Beijing party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. This is a drastic change for the worse which was never publicly acknowledged, defended or explained. I expect it was the Liaison Office’s idea. It is no wonder that our government has a tin ear for public sentiment. It spends too much time listening to its friends tell it how wonderful it is. This is a chorus in which the local media are increasingly willing to join. This is a recipe for long-term problems. If you can’t get any attention from the government without starting a riot, then riots there will be.

(EJinsight) Why Arthur Li should not be appointed HKU council chairman. By Ip Kin-yuen. October 30, 2015.

Edward Leong is due to step down as chairman of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) council on Nov. 6, along with five members whose terms expire. These departures could lead to a major overhaul of the council.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is reportedly set to appoint Executive Councilor Arthur Li, an incumbent council member, to succeed Leong. If the reports are true, we could have another howling controversy on our hands. The HKU Alumni Concern Group called a press conference on Oct. 25, in which it gave three key reasons Arthur Li is not a suitable candidate.

Reason 1: High-handedness

Dubbed the “education czar” when he headed the Education and Manpower Bureau from 2002 to 2007, Arthur Li was notorious for his ruthless suppression of the autonomy of our tertiary institutions. He once tried to force the Chinese University into merging with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. On another occasion, he threatened to get Fanny Law, then permanent secretary for education and manpower, to cut student quotas for the Hong Kong Institute of Education unless it agreed to merge with the Chinese University. He also demanded that the institute reprimand lecturers who opposed the plan or pay the price.

Reason 2: Grudge against HKU

Arthur Li is widely known in the education sector for his grudge against HKU. In a July interview, HKU pro vice chancellor Cheng Kai-ming told Ming Pao Daily that Li had asked donors not to make any contribution to the university during his term as education and manpower chief.

Reason 3: Conflict of interest

As we all know, Arthur Li and incumbent pro chancellor David Li come from the same prominent family and both serve in the family business. It takes very little to figure out why people would find this arrangement inappropriate.

Unless Leung Chun-ying intends to declare war on higher education and deepen social divisions, he should not appoint such a controversial figure as Arthur Li to be the next HKU council chairman for the sake of the long-term interest of the university.

(EJinsight) November 4, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong (HKU) could see protests erupt on campus if Arthur Li is named the new head of the university’s governing body, a student leader has warned. HKU Student Union president Billy Fung said Tuesday that students will definitely take action if Li takes the chairman’s post at HKU Council after its current chief Edward Leong steps down Friday.

Fung did not reveal specific plans, but said that “sky is the limit” for potential protest action, Apple Daily reported. Any moves deemed feasible by students will not be ruled out, said Fung, who is himself a member of the university’s governing body.

The comments came amid rumors that Li is the first choice of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to take over as the HKU Council’s new chief.

Rosanna Wong Yick-ming, another Council member who has also been seen as a possible successor to Leong, is unfit for the post as well, said Fung. Wong is in the same league as Li when it comes to extreme views, the student leader said.

(EJinsight) November 6, 2015.

It’s official. Arthur Li and Monique Ho are dating. That’s according to Ho’s boss, Digital Broadcasting Corp. chief Loh Chan. And just in case there was a problem with conflict of interest, Loh made the revelation in the spirit of corporate disclosure.

Li has been a major source of news in recent days thanks to a leaked recording of his remarks about Johannes Chan, and Ho works for a media company. Most news about a blooming romance is something to cheer about, so we hear that Li is happy about it and we understand.

But some netizens are not so forgiving. They were quick to point out the gaping age difference between the 70-year-old former education minister who could be the next chairman of the University of Hong Kong council and the charming lady executive in her forties. “Father-daughter” is a trending topic on social media.

Some students turned the tables on Li who once famously described them as “not particularly academically gifted” but love to look like “heroes” to their girlfriends. “If they [students] can stand out, wave banners and shout slogans, they could look like heroes, couldn’t they? I think there’s a certain attraction in that,” Li said.

Loh got the scoop after Ho told him about the relationship 18 months ago. Six months earlier, Li had lost his wife, Diana Chester, to cancer. Now that it’s all in the open, the romance is causing some awkward moments for the couple. They have been seen being chased by the paparazzi in and out of Cyberport where both work.

Not that it’s any of our business but it’s worth mentioning that older men dating younger women isn’t news the way a man biting a dog is.

Successful academics are known to relearn the ABC of romance deep into their seventies or eighties. And younger women are attracted to older men because they see something in them they don’t often find in many younger men — stability and maturity.

So all is fair on that count but we couldn’t resist giving concrete examples, so here you are.

Dr. Franklin Yang, a Nobel Prize co-winner in physics, was 82 when he married his wife, then 28. Yang, pushing 94, describes his wife as a gift from heaven, his “last gift from God”.

Then there’s Lawrence Lau, Arthur Li’s successor as vice chancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Lau is married to Ayesha Abbas, a partner in an accounting firm. Lau is 70, Abbas is 50.

Those who have never experienced this kind of relationship or can’t imagine themselves being in one will take some doing to understand people like Arthur Li and Monique Ho. But does it even matter?

Internet comments:

- With respect to the Ip Kin-yuen/HKU Alumni Concern Group reasons against Arthur Li,

Reason 1: High-handedness -- This is only going to gain points with the public because they want someone who is more decisive. Meanwhile, the Lingnan university vice-chancellor and board chairman are losing points because they were kowtowing to a small number of exceedingly rude students.

Reason 2: Grudge against HKU -- Li asked donors not to make any contribution to HKU? How many donors did Li ask? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? This is silly, because Li doesn't have the wherewithal to reach out to all potential donors and make an appeal. The bigger question is: How many potential donors have withheld their donations because of the actions of Ip Kin-yuen and the HKU Alumni Concern Group (such as laying siege to HKU council members after the July meeting)?

Reason 3: Conflict of interest -- this sort of thing happens all the time and is simply handled by Li saying: "As the matter pertains to my brother David Li, I recuse myself from all discussions and voting due to a perceived conflict of interest." How much of the council's business concerns David Li? Not much.

- (Bastille Post) So who is in the running for HKU council chairman?

Rosa Yeung Tse-tse is well-esteemed. In 1947, Yeung entered the HKU Medical School as a 16-year-old. After graduation, she continued to work at HKU and Queen Mary Hospital until her formal retirement in 1999. She is now 84 years old. If Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is opposed because he is 70 years too old, Yeung is even older. In that case, it is better to keep 76-year-old Edward Leung Che-hung in the job.

Lo Chung-mau does not appear to want this post, because he prefers to be developing innovative surgery procedures. He might be interested in become vice-chancellor, though.

Rosanna Wong Yick-ming is indistinguishable from Edward Leung Che-hung. But HKU Students Union president Billy Fung has already declared Wong to be an extremist just like Arthur Li and the students will take unspecified actions if Wong is appointed.

In conclusion, there is no one left except for Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

- (SCMP) By demanding it all, University of Hong Kong activists may end up with nothing. By Alex Lo. November 7, 2015.

I am losing track of the demands student activists and pan-democratic politicians have made in the sorry saga of Johannes Chan Man-mun and his failed appointment to a top post at the University of Hong Kong.

The latest has some HKU students, teachers, staff and alumni planning to carry out a campus-wide vote on whether its governing council should reveal the reasons for rejecting the former law dean for the job. They are also demanding guarantees from the chief executive that he will not appoint council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung - a former education secretary and head of Chinese University - to be council chairman.

Meanwhile, the HKU student publication Undergrad has applied to be an interested party to the gag order obtained by the council following the audio leaks of its members' discussions about Chan.

On a broader front, university activists and practically the entire pan-democratic camp are demanding changes to existing laws that automatically make the chief executive the head or chancellor of the seven tertiary institutions. The role of the chancellor is largely ceremonial. But he does have the power to appoint council chairmen and some council members. The activists have even argued that this limited power amounts to a threat to academic freedom and autonomy. As you can see, it's a long list of demands. I am sympathetic to some of them, but highly sceptical about others.

On Chan's rejection, we know pretty much everything from the unauthorised leaks. So what more can we learn?

At times, the students and their supporters act like they simply want to undermine the council and its key decisions and functions. As for the chief executive being the head of universities, it involves complicated legal and constitutional issues as well as long-standing practices.

Our young freedom fighters are being overly ambitious and reaching beyond their grip. They will end up polarising the entire HKU campus and other universities.

This is a lesson they should have learned from the Occupy debacle but clearly have not: by demanding everything, the activists will end up getting little or nothing.

- (Speakout HK) November 5, 2015. Education legislator Ip Kin-yuen says that Arthur Li hates Hong Kong University. Of course, he doesn't have to produce any evidence. If he says so, then it must be so. In 2006, Education and Manpower Bureau chief Arthur Li wanted to merge the Institute of Education with the Chinese University of Hong Kong. At the time, the Education and Manpower Bureau permanent secretary Fanny Law wanted to fire four trouble-making lecturers, one of whom was the same Ip Kin-yuen. Later the High Court found that the government officials had not interfered with academic freedom. In any case, Ip Kin-yuen quit teaching, joined the Professional Teachers Union and became a politician. I have more reason to believe that Ip Kin-yuen hates Arthur Li than the latter hating Hong Kong University.

[361] Hong Kong University's Media Injunction (2015/11/03)

(SCMP) October 31, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong has obtained what one legal expert called an "all-encompassing" court order to ban media reports detailing information leaked from its governing council. It secured the injunction yesterday, hours after Commercial Radio aired the second of two audio clips in three days that apparently revealed a pair of council members criticising liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun behind closed doors over his bid for a managerial post.

The radio station, which was named in the order alongside "persons unknown", said it had removed the clips from its website but pledged to "uphold freedom of speech and of the press and the public's right to know, and to protect any source". Critics feared the injunction "threatened" media freedom in the light of public interest and concerns about possible government interference in the operations of the city's top university.

In a statement last night, HKU said the order covered Commercial Radio and "persons unknown" who had "appropriated, obtained or … intend to offer" confidential information about the council's meetings. These parties must not use, publish, communicate or disclose to any other person materials including any audio clips, agenda, papers and minutes of the council. They were also barred from publishing any information that might identify any HKU members, including council members, staff and students.

The matter would return to court on November 6.

Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a lawyer and HKU lecturer, described the order as "all-encompassing". "It is aimed at forbidding any more disclosure of leaked files and confidential information that will identify a particular council member," he said. "But if there is litigation, the court should take into account the public interest in HKU issues."

To Yiu-ming, a journalism professor at Baptist University, called HKU's application for the injunction "stupid and unwise". "This will threaten freedom of the press," To said. "Recently, the press has effectively monitored the HKU council, which is a public trustee to run the university."

HKU turned to the courts as revelations surrounding Chan's failed job application for pro-vice-chancellorship continued to grip the institution.

The two recordings involved HKU council member Leonie Ki Man-fung and former education chief Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, both aired on Commercial Radio, were of the same September 29 meeting. The recordings were made during a council meeting at which a search committee's recommendation to appoint Chan was voted down. Critics see political motives for that decision.

Ki was among four people appointed by Leung to the council on Friday, including Sino Group executive director Daryl Ng Win-kong, actuary Patrick Poon Sun-cheong and accountant Edward Chow Kwong-fai - deputy to the Zhejiang chapter of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

(SCMP) November 1, 2015.

Controversy surrounding the University of Hong Kong's court order banning media revelations of its council meetings grew yesterday, as the Sunday Morning Post learned HKU had also issued a summons to a radio station seeking a declaration that its airing of audio clips was "in breach of confidence". As well, the university once demanded that Commercial Radio tell it who had leaked the two clips, according to legal correspondence sent last week.

Following on the heels of the correspondence were HKU's dual actions of securing the injunction and issuing the summons, both made on Friday to clamp down on recordings of a confidential council meeting in September that voted down liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun's candidacy for a key management position.

The legal challenges were piled on Commercial Radio after it broadcast the pair of clips, in which council members Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung appeared to be speaking.

Behind closed doors in court, HKU submitted, among other evidence to back its injunction application, a post on the Facebook page of HKU students' union president Billy Fung Jing-en that revealed discussions among his fellow council members, according to legal documents seen by the Post. A full hearing will be held this Friday to further debate the interim injunction.

The university did not mention the summons - in which it also demanded the station pay its legal fees - in its media release two days ago, when it published part of the injunction order. HKU council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung conceded he did not seek the views of other members before applying for the injunction, citing a need to "safeguard the university's dignity".

Concerns over press freedom were raised as media outlets other than Commercial Radio were quick to retract part of their coverage of the clips in response to the court order.

The Journalists Association hoped the court would take into account freedom of speech, while an alumni group led by lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen was considering making itself a party in the upcoming hearing so it could argue against the injunction.

HKU's statement also did not mention this part of the injunction order: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order shall prevent the defendants from publishing, communicating or disclosing such of the information … as was already in or that thereafter comes into the public domain of Hong Kong."

The order covered Commercial Radio and “persons unknown” who had “appropriated, obtained or … intend to offer” confidential information about the council’s meetings. These parties must not use, publish materials including audio clips, agenda, papers and minutes of the council. They were also barred from publishing information that might identify any HKU members, including council members, staff and students. Commercial Radio would not comment on inquiries because of ongoing judicial proceedings. An HKU spokeswoman said a reply was not immediately available.

Professor Chan Yuen-ying, director of HKU’s journalism and media studies centre, called on both the council and Johannes Chan to agree to release all council files, including documents, minutes and other materials related to his nomination and appointment. “Chan should waive privacy rights while the council should waive confidentiality stipulations, considering that the personnel matter has become a huge matter of public interest,” the director said.

(EJinsight) November 2, 2015.

A court order banning media from disseminating the content of leaked recordings of a meeting of the University of Hong Kong council Sept. 29 makes an important exception, a legal scholar says. The exception is for material that has already been broadcast or published and so forms part of the public domain, Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a principal law lecturer at HKU said on a radio program Monday morning. These include the two recordings broadcast by Commercial Radio last week, Ming Pao Daily reported. HKU did not mention the exception in the press release it issued on Friday announcing it had obtained the temporary injunction.

Commercial Radio had broadcast audio recordings of council members Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung’s speeches during the meeting, at which the council rejected the unanimous recommendation of the university search committee for the appointment of former law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as a pro vice chancellor. Other media outlets, including EJ Insight, subsequently published excerpts of the transcripts.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association and seven other media associations are staging a protest against the court order at HKU Monday. An online petition has been launched to gather support from journalists and teachers and students at local journalism schools.

Serenade Woo Lai-wan, Asia-Pacific project manager for the International Federation of Journalists, said she was shocked when she first learned about the gag order. She said the media is only fulfilling its legitimate duties in disclosing matters pertaining to the public interest. “The court order clearly threatens the core values of Hong Kong as regards press freedom,” Woo said. She called on all journalists to keep tabs on the incident and defend their rights.

The Hong Kong News Executives’ Association issued a statement expressing concern that the injunction could harm the free flow of news. The association called for the court, which is scheduled to hold a hearing Friday on whether to make the injunction permanent, to balance the right to information of the public with the HKU council’s confidentiality principle.

HKU said in a statement Sunday night that it respects the freedom of speech and of the press. It said the measures it took were meant to protect those rights.

(SCMP) November 2, 2015.

Seven groups of journalists and teachers today urged the University of Hong Kong to withdraw a court order which bars the media from disclosing discussion of the university’s council meetings. Shouting slogans, representatives from the group gave a petition letter to an officer of the university today. The groups included the Hong Kong Journalism Association, the Hong Kong Press Photographers Association, the RTHK Programme Staff Union, the Next Media Trade Union, Ming Pao Staff Association, the Independent Commentators Association and Journalism Educators for Press Freedom. They said the injunction obtained by HKU dealt a severe blow to press freedom, and deprived the public of the right to know about an important decision by the HKU council.

The injunction bars media organisations from releasing audio recordings, papers and discussions of the HKU council. It came after Commercial Radio last week aired two audio clips featuring two council members discussing the appointment of law scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun’s bid for a senior managerial position.

Hong Kong Journalists Association vice-chairwoman Shirley Yam said the injunction sought by HKU smothered the media from reporting issues of interest to the public. “It set a very bad example. If other organisations follow suit in the future, the public will not be able to know important information,” she said. Yam said the association was seeking legal advice to decide whether to make a plea when the matter returns to the High Court on Friday.

(SCMP) November 2, 2015.

Scholars at the University of Hong Kong expressed shock over its legal action to summon Commercial Radio to court and over the incomplete disclosure of the injunction order, as revealed by the South China Morning Post.

HKU was acting out of "utmost stupidity" when its lawyers sent Commercial Radio a letter requesting the identity of the source of the audio leak prior to seeking the injunction, said Professor Chan Yuen-ying, director of HKU's journalism and media studies centre. "It's common sense that news media will not disclose their sources," Chan said.

In the letter, HKU asked the radio station not to play the confidential recordings in which council members Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung were heard opposing the appointment of liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun to a key management position.

HKU's action - in which it also demanded that Commercial Radio disclose who made the leak before the hearing on the interim injunction last Friday - sparked concerns of a threat to freedom of the press, after the Post revealed that the university omitted at least two references to its action from its press release: the fact that it was to send a court summons to Commercial Radio, and a key part of the injunction order stipulating public-domain exception.

The latter was an important clause because it would define the obligations of other media, said Eric Cheung Tat-ming, principal law lecturer at HKU. "The public-domain clause means that other media are not bound by the injunction in that they can continue to broadcast the two recordings already in the public domain."

An HKU spokeswoman said last night it had not yet delivered the summons, clarifying that it was seeking "costs" instead of legal fees. On the allegation that the media release was an incomplete version of the injunction, the spokeswoman said it was a summary of the order "based on legal advice".

The Journalists Association also sent a letter to HKU yesterday asking it to provide grounds for making the application for the injunction; its written submissions made to the court; and supporting documents lodged. It says it is seeking legal advice on joining the petition against the application, as the injunction could "set a daunting precedent on the protection of press freedom, which is enshrined in the Basic Law".

Meanwhile, Dr Lawrence Lau Juen-yee, husband of HKU council member Ayesha Macpherson, criticised the leaking of confidential discussions, saying it was an "utterly despicable" act. In an article published in the Post today, the former Chinese University vice-chancellor says it was "certainly unethical" to record or broadcast secret conversations.

(SCMP) November 3, 2015.

The vice chancellor of the University of Hong Kong has distanced himself from a decision by the chairman of its governing council last week to seek a court order banning media revelations of its meetings. "The council chairman took legal advice before applying for the injunction; all inquiries should be directed to him," Professor Peter Mathieson said yesterday in an emailed response to the South China Morning Post, referring to Dr Leong Che-hung.

Leong had described the legal action as "necessary to safeguard the university's dignity". He also said he had not sought the views of fellow council members prior to the injunction application, which the High Court approved on Friday. He turned to the courts after Commercial Radio aired two audio clips purportedly of confidential council discussions.

In his reply to the Post, Mathieson also appeared to dismiss calls for a full disclosure of what was actually said in a September 29 council meeting that voted down Chan's candidacy for pro-vice-chancellorship.

"I support the principle of confidentiality and deplore all the breaches thereof that have happened in the time I have been in office," Mathieson said. He also commented on a mock referendum among students, held last week, that overwhelmingly rejected the man in the frame to succeed Leong - Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, council member and former education minister. Li, known as "the tsar" for his high-handed style, is believed to be the choice of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, HKU's chancellor. Leong is due to step down as council chairman this Friday. "The appointment of the next chairman of council is a matter for the chancellor," Mathieson said. "We await the announcement."

(EJinsight) November 3, 2015.

Freedom of the press is the embodiment of the right of the people to express their views and receive information freely.

Upholding the freedom of the press is far more crucial than helping the bunch of hypocrites on the University of Hong Kong council to save face.

It is also far more important than enabling our High Court judges, who are so ignorant about modern human rights, to save their face.

Anybody entrusted with public power should be subject to criticism when they do not act in the public interest, including our judges, especially when their decisions infringe the basic human rights and freedom to which every citizen of this city is entitled.

As the “fourth branch of government”, the media is under a moral obligation to strongly criticize our judges for their wrong decisions and awaken them to the implications of their mistakes for society.

How strong can such criticism be?

In 1987, the British newspaper Daily Mirror was outraged by the injunction granted by three judges of the Court of Appeal prohibiting any media coverage of Peter Wright, a former MI5 counterintelligence agent, and the contents of his book Spycatcher, which revealed some serious institutional flaws inside the agency.

In protest, the newspaper published the photos of the three judges upside down on its front page, along with a headline that read: “You fools!”

The fact that the media in Hong Kong is still treating our judges so nicely and respectfully even when they make mistakes in their decisions will only encourage them to do so.

In fact I feel compelled to point out that some of the decisions made by our High Court judges in the past that undermined our freedom of assembly and right to protest illustrate that they not only lack common sense but are also completely ignorant about social realities and the importance of upholding human rights.

As regards the recent injunction granted by the High Court against the dissemination of audio recordings of the remarks made by HKU council members during a meeting discussing whether to appoint Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro vice chancellor, it is a totally wrong decision, because it directly violates our citizens’ right to know.

Perhaps our local papers should also publish the picture of the judge who granted that injunction upside down, along with a headline that reads: “You fool!”

In my opinion, the Hong Kong Journalists Association should have staged a protest outside the High Court rather than HKU.

They should also seek legal advice and be prepared to go to any lengths to defend the public’s right to know, including violating the law if need be.

Besides, the injunction itself is completely meaningless, because it doesn’t apply to the audio clips that are already circulating in the public domain, such as on the internet, as some in the legal sector have pointed out, let alone the countless transcripts of the tapes that have already been read by hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens.

However, as the old joke about the bikini goes, what it conceals is more interesting than what has been revealed.

What about the remarks made by other HKU council members during that same meeting?

Is the media in possession of any more tapes that have yet to be made public?

If the answer is yes, then is it willing to ignore the injunction mistakenly granted by some High Court judge and air the tapes in order to fulfill its role as social watchdog and defend the public’s right to know?

The question here is, which in the following should be given priority when it comes to information that involves a huge public interest: upholding the public’s right to know, defending the dignity of the press, or saving the face of some prominent people on the HKU council?

I think the question is a no-brainer.

The fact that judges in Hong Kong have independent and superior social status doesn’t mean they are allowed to make decisions that are totally out of touch with social realities.

They should also stay alert at all times to any politically motivated attempt to use civil procedure as a tool to undermine our freedom, as in the case of the HKU council.

After all, most judges in Hong Kong are just a bunch of backward legal animals who have failed to keep up with the times.

They are still stuck on the same level as British judges in the 1970s and ’80s and only understand the law literally rather than having a real sense of what it really stands for.

Our media, too, has done a poor job in providing effective oversight of our judges.

I really hope that before the appeal against the injunction is heard by the court this Friday, more tapes will come to light.

It might sound a bit disrespectful to the judge who granted the injunction, but what our judges need is not respect but education and a bitter lesson.

(SCMP) November 5, 2015.

Commercial Radio has agreed to be bound by an agreement with the University of Hong Kong not to publish any more information about the HKU council. This means the radio station agrees not to air previously leaked audio clips of council meetings, and also not to air any more information about future council business. This undertaking does not, however, affect other media – named as “persons unknown” in the original injunction order. The impact on press freedom will remain to be argued in tomorrow’s hearing – if anyone will join the litigation as an interested party.

High Court judge Godfrey Lam Wan-ho expressed concern at the scope of the ban on future publication. “My concern is that you are now seeking a perpetual injunction on all meetings, future, past, and present,” Lam told HKU counsel Clifford Smith SC in a hearing this morning. “I can see it’s a little unusual.” Lam cited the British case Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd, noting that the House of Lords declined to grant a part of the injunction that would ban publication of memoirs of any officers of the security service.

But since the radio station is not contesting the conditions, the court will leave it to any possible interested parties to argue against this point, Lam said. So far three people have indicated to HKU they might contest, but no formal application has been made yet, according to solicitor for HKU Brian Gilchrist.

After the hearing, counsel for Commercial Radio Mike Lui insisted his client was “not backing down”. “We are still upholding press freedom. The client has already served public interest by airing the clips so that the public are not misled over the issue,” Lui said. Commercial Radio's withdrawal could mean the injunction on it - and also on other media organisations - could "last forever", lawyers said, if no other party joined the litigation and if the court did not change its order.

Two sources with knowledge of the matter earlier told the South China Morning Post that the radio station, which earlier vowed to protect press freedom, told HKU in writing yesterday that it would not attend the court hearing set for tomorrow. "The management think they should not spend time and resources contesting the order," one of the sources said. "Having aired two leaked audio clips of the council meetings, the station considers it has served the purpose of informing the public."

The Journalists Association would decide today whether to join the lawsuit as an interested party, chairwoman Sham Yee-lan said. "The scope of the court order is too broad," Sham said. "The court has the duty to clarify what it means and how it will strike a balance between protecting the HKU council's confidentiality and public interest in HKU matters."

Last Friday, HKU obtained an interim injunction to ban the radio station and "persons unknown" from publishing information about its business, including papers and audio recordings of its meetings. The radio station aired two audio clips from a council discussion during a closed-door meeting in September. After that meeting, council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung said the council had voted down the appointment of pro-democracy scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun to a senior managerial post, but he declined to explain why.

Barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC said he was "disappointed" at the radio station's decision. If no party was joining the case, the injunction would "last forever" and "it will be very bad for press freedom", he said. The media would still be able to report council records already in the public domain, but they could be accused of contempt of court if they reported confidential information provided by council members on an off-the-record basis, Tong added.

HKU principal law lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming said the court should treat the Journalists Association the same as the radio station if it decided to join the case, because other media would face similar consequences if the order continued to be in effect. “No one would know how political considerations – like licence renewal – came into play [in the radio station’s decision],” Cheung said.

(SCMP) Get it straight - Hong Kong's self-styled democrats are always right. By Michael Chugani. November 4, 2015.

For those unfamiliar with Hong Kong's political playbook, Public Eye will provide an idiot's guide.

The first thing to remember is you're not allowed to hold a different view from our self-proclaimed defenders of democracy. Whatever they say or do is morally right by default. If you dare challenge them in any way, you'll be mocked as a pro-Beijing stooge or, worse still, derided as a "Leung fun", which means a fan of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. If you refuse to cheer their missile-hurling, name-calling and frivolous filibustering, you're on the wrong side of democracy. Don't, for heaven's sake, say you genuinely support democracy but feel the 79-day occupation that paralysed key districts was the wrong way to achieve it. Only those who backed Occupy are true democrats. All others are Beijing bootlickers.

You must applaud the person who leaked audio clips of a confidential University of Hong Kong council meeting as a heroic whistle-blower. A whistle-blower is a person who exposes illegal or immoral activities. But the leaked audios exposed no wrongdoing. Having an opinion is fine, but only if you agree at all times with the self-proclaimed defenders of democracy. They wanted Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, an Occupy supporter, as HKU pro-vice-chancellor. All those who opposed his appointment are shoeshiners who must be exposed. Even though the leaked material contained no smoking gun, it must still be regarded as a Watergate moment. Anyone who exercises his right to seek a court injunction against the leaks, as HKU Council chairman Leong Che-hung did, is muzzling the media and deserves to be smeared.

Never mind that a judge independently granted the temporary gag order ahead of a full hearing on Friday. In Hong Kong's political playbook, using our independent judiciary to legally challenge the so-called democrats is political persecution. But when the so-called democrats use our independent judiciary to challenge "Leung funs", it becomes a cherished right that must be protected.

You are not fit to be a university council member if you had disagreed with Occupy or the storming of an HKU council meeting by Chan supporters. The headlines will scream "CY appoints pro-Beijing figures to council" as if academic freedom is doomed. Academic freedom is safe only in the hands of those who storm council meetings, hold members hostage, leak meeting details and backed Occupy and Chan as pro-vice-chancellor.

Public Eye's own playbook is succinct: we will never let anyone define our democratic credentials. Anyone who tries can go stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Michael Chugani: Public eye or blind eye? By TIm Hamlett. November 13, 2015.

Deary me, Michael Chugani’s efforts to defend anything currently under attack from the forces of subversion have left him seriously confused. In Wednesday’s Pravda he did not seem to know whether he was coming or going, but manfully trying to do both at the same time.

First out of the box we had “Where’s the smoking gun from the HKU Council leaks?”. This was devoted to the view that the leaks from the Council’s debate on Johannes Chan reveal nothing improper, and therefore the “whistleblower”, which we may take it refers to Billy Fung though he is not named, is a coward and a phoney. This is a rewritten version of Mr Chugani’s piece in the Standard a few days before, where it masqueraded as advice on the correct use of English but made much of the same points, with the modest exception that in that article Mr Fung was a “traitor” and a “snitch”. Friends of Mr Fung may be tempted to retort at this point that Mr Chugani would have a more accurate view of the world if his head was not stuffed so far up the part of the government’s anatomy that rhymes with farce. But let us not get personal.

Mr Chugani’s is a coherent position, even if you do not agree with it. If there was no foul, there should be no whistle. Personally I think Mr Chugani is applying the wrong standard. The Council is justified in over-ruling the search committee if some item of knowledge known to the Council but overlooked by the committee places the matter in a new light. But none of the speeches offered anything new. In its hours of work on the subject the search committee certainly considered such matters as the candidate’s research record and qualifications. For amateur part-time Council members to over-rule the experts on the basis of nothing more than their own prejudices or a bit of superficial Googling was arrogant and indefensible. This would still be the case if they were not in any way influenced by politics, though you have to be rather optimistic to believe that.

Anyway having established the councillors’ innocence to his satisfaction Mr Chugani moves on to “Radio station airs one-sided view of council meeting”. Here we meet Commercial Radio and consider its broadcasting of tapes of two members’ speeches on the Johannes Chan matter. Mr Chugani wonders why there were no broadcast speeches from people on the other side of the argument. Well, we may hazard a guess that variations on “I think we should accept the proposal of the properly appointed search committee” would not have made very interesting radio. But Mr Chugani thinks this made the broadcast “selective airing of leaks that smear one side”. But, wait a minute. If there was no impropriety justifying the blowing of the whistle then why should the broadcasting of the speeches, whether selected or not, constitute a “smear”? To smear, as Mr Chugani will no doubt be telling young Standard readers next week, is “to sully, vilify, or soil a reputation, good name, etc.”

But if there is nothing wrong in the speech, then the speaker’s reputation presumably remains unsoiled. “What did the trio say that was illegal or immoral?” asks Mr Chugani, with the clear intention that we should answer “nothing”. But in that case there can be no harm in radio listeners hearing the speeches. Broadcasting them may be a breach of confidence but it cannot be a “smear” if there is no dirt, as Mr Chugani staunchly maintains. I am irresistibly reminded of the Roman god who had two faces pointing in opposite directions. His name was Anus … I beg your pardon, Janus.

Mr Chugani’s third offering was a call for housing to be built in country parks. Can’t say I agreed with that either but it was at least logical.

(SCMP) November 6, 2015.

The High Court extended a gag order sought by the University of Hong Kong yesterday to continue banning publication of information about its governing council's discussion - though the time frame it covered was curtailed. Some supporters of media freedom deemed the revised interim injunction "acceptable", but the Journalists Association, which joined the hearing as an interested party, urged HKU to drop its legal action altogether.

The order, in effect until the next hearing on November 24, now applies to "persons unknown" who possess information about the five HKU council meetings held since June. It does not protect future council business as the original order would.

Ip Kin-yuen, the education-sector lawmaker who also joined the hearing as an interested party, voiced relief outside court. "The scope of the ban is now much narrower," Ip said. "It is good for press freedom and freedom of speech, and the development of HKU."

The current order was revised from one issued last Friday that had banned Commercial Broadcasting and "persons unknown" from publishing details about the council's business.

Council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung obtained that order in HKU's name after the station aired two recordings of a September closed-door discussion about democracy supporter Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun's candidacy for a key managerial post that ended with him being voted down. Critics said the council's move was politically motivated.

In the two leaked clips, council members Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung were heard criticising Chan's academic qualifications and personal integrity.

The revised order declares those two recordings and their transcripts are already in the public domain and can be published. The ban is now confined to information that has not yet been leaked from the five council meetings between June 30 - the day Chan's appointment was first discussed - and yesterday, as narrowed down by Mr Justice Godfrey Lam Wan-ho and the interested parties. No audio recordings, agenda or papers of those meetings must be published.

Besides Ip and the association, the Chinese-language Apple Daily, HKU law student Mark Lee Hei-shun and Marcus Lau Yee-ching, chief editor of HKU student publication Undergrad, joined the litigation yesterday. All five parties, sharing similar arguments, opposed HKU's request to adjourn the case. They said the order should instead be discharged because the plaintiff "has no authority" to sue. Leong had said it was his own initiative to seek legal help and fellow council members were not consulted, they noted. "We looked up the HKU Ordinance - only the council collectively could instruct counsel and solicitors to act for the university," Martin Lee Chu-ming SC, for Apple Daily, said. They also said HKU had failed to disclose key information to the court, including the principles of accountability and openness enshrined in the code of conduct for council members.

Student union president Billy Fung Jing-en showed up as an observer. After the hearing, Ip said Leong, whose term expired last night, had "left behind a mess for HKU".

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 6, 2015.

The High Court has decided that the injunction applied for by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) prohibiting the publication of leaked recordings of a closed-door governing Council meeting will continue until the next hearing. However, the scope of the injunction has been narrowed to only cover the content of meetings starting from June 30 2015.

On Friday afternoon, the judge ruled that the injunction will only prevent recordings and documents of council meetings in the period of June 30 to November 6 from being published. Those who breach the terms of the injunction will be brought in as second defendants to the case.

With regards to the two recordings featuring speeches made by Council members Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung during the meeting on September 29 already published by Commercial Radio last week, as well as comments made by student leader Billy Fung Jing-en following the meeting that day, they will be included under the public domain exception and their publication will not be bound by the injunction. The idea of “public domain” is also understood to extend beyond Hong Kong.

The court will adjourn on November 24.

Last Friday, HKU obtained an interim injunction, forcing Commercial Radio to remove recordings of speeches by the two Council members during a controversial session on September 29 in which the governing body rejected the appointment of former HKU law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor of the university. The interim injunction has drawn widespread criticism, with seven media unions protesting the decision and starting an online petition. On Thursday, Commercial Radio and HKU reached a consensus in the High Court, with Commercial Radio agreeing not to republish the two leaked recordings of the Council meeting.

(SCMP) November 13, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong's governing council has endorsed its former chairman's action last month to seek a controversial gag order that bans media publication of the council's business. It also names council member Abraham Razack as its temporary spokesman until a chairman is appointed. The lawmaker will set the agenda for the next meeting and handle emergency matters as well.

The leadership vacuum is caused by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who, contrary to expectations, has not yet named a successor to council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung after the expiry of his term on November 6.

It is believed that Leung wants to appoint Arthur Li Kwok-cheung but is treading cautiously because of public opposition to the former education minister known for his high-handed style.

Razack said last night after a council meeting that members had agreed to support Leong's injunction application, made without prior consultation with them. He said: "We support this because Dr Leong has done the right thing according to our rules. He needed to safeguard our principle of confidentiality, making sure all council members can speak what they want to say. This is legally and morally justified." They would discuss what to do about the order after the next court hearing on November 24, the same day when the council would meet again, he added.

HKU treasurer Margaret Leung Ko May-yee, who chaired yesterday's meeting as a member, said if no chairman was forthcoming in the meantime, they would have to elect a chairman meeting by meeting.

Two weeks ago, Leong applied for the interim injunction in the name of HKU after Commercial Radio aired two audio clips of confidential talks in September in which the council voted down pro-democracy scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun's candidacy for pro-vice-chancellorship. Critics see the council's move as politically motivated.

That order was all-encompassing, banning the station and "persons unknown" from reporting details of all council meetings, past and future. It plunged HKU deeper into the mire, rocked as it already was for months by Chan's appointment issue and donation claims against Occupy founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting.

Opponents of the order told the court Leong had acted beyond his powers as chairman. In that hearing, the scope of the ban was narrowed down to cover only the five council meetings held since June, where Chan's candidacy was discussed. But the order did not stop a third clip - featuring member Rosanna Wong Yick-ming criticising Chan - emerging on a Taiwanese website two days later.

The council's student representative, Billy Fung Jing-en, voiced "great disappointment" at the government's delay in naming a new chairman. He said leaving the post vacant would be a "very severe blow" to HKU.

(SCMP) End the charade: University of Hong Kong gag order serves no purpose. By Alex Lo. November 28, 2015.

To make a mistake is only human, said Cicero, but to persist in it is idiotic.

I am sure somewhere on the august campus of the University of Hong Kong, the great Roman orator is still being taught, perhaps even in the original Latin. Those who now run the university council should take a lesson. They are persisting in court to extend an interim injunction that the council sought to prevent details of its meetings being revealed to the public.

But what's the point of applying a gag order when the public pretty much knows everything about the crucial meeting of the governing council where members voted against the appointment of law don and pro-democracy supporter Johannes Chan Man-mun to a top post? Isn't it time for the university to stop?

While the lawyers are still bickering before a High Court judge, another recording - the fourth leak so far- of the key closed-door meeting in September was uploaded to Taiwanese online forum PTT. The existing gag only covers Hong Kong.

The latest had HKU chief Peter Mathieson standing by Chan while council member Professor Lo Chung-mau criticised Chan as an academic lightweight. Well, we know all this already. But some people may still find it entertaining to listen to the actual voices.

It was Dr Leong Che-hung, the hapless former chairman of the council who applied for the initial gag order on his own authority. But his term has expired, and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has yet to appoint a replacement.

Council members can therefore reasonably blame Leong for the public relations fiasco and halt the court proceedings, which have achieved nothing and in fact have been counterproductive in exposing the governance crisis at the city's oldest university.

The argument that calling off the gag order would encourage future council members not to respect their confidentiality pledge doesn't hold water. People feel the need to leak or become a whistleblower because there is a controversy brewing and those dealing with it are perceived not to be addressing it adequately or fairly.

Such leaks are the effect, not the cause, of a crisis. There is no point trying to gag the messenger when the horse has already bolted.

Internet comments:

- This is awfully embarrassing. The Hong Kong University issued some press release about a court injunction and seven major media organizations are up in arms. They called for a mass demonstration and eight persons showed up to present a letter to the Hong Kong University in front of the media (=their colleagues). Then it turns out that they never bothered to check the fine print: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order shall prevent the defendants from publishing, communicating or disclosing such of the information … as was already in or that thereafter comes into the public domain of Hong Kong." Their entire protest about infringement on freedom of press just got blown to smithereens. The most important function of the media is not to take dictation but to conduct independent verification. In this regard, these media have failed miserably.
- Of course, the media empire struck back by accusing Hong Kong University of not telling them about it in the first place.

- Pity that Now TV reporter who tried to secretly take courtroom photos of the seven policemen who allegedly assaulted Kenneth Tsang. The reporter was caught and his photos removed. If only the reporter was not caught, the photos would be plastered all over the Internet for a major media coup for the sake of the people's right to know. Contempt of court? Fuck that!

- (HKG Pao) Here is the inside story about what happened. In the beginning, the anonymous person offered to provide the audio recordings. At Commercial Radio, Stephen Chan Chi-wan is the Chief Executive Officer who also hosts his own show. So when he said to air the audio recordings, nobody dared to object. Even the senior management was unaware. After the first recording was aired, there were some internal objections but the senior management did not issue any directives. So Stephen Chan decided to air the second recording, also without consulting senior management.

Hong Kong University obtained a temporary court injunction, and then senior management saw what was happening. Their view is that Chan's program is not a news program so that this has nothing to do with freedom of press. The senior management settled with HKU and promised not to do anything more along the similar lines. This way, they avoided legal costs and the loss in advertising income.

After this episode, senior management is taking an unfavorable view of Stephen Chan. They felt that Commercial offered shelter to Chan after he was forced out of TVB for bribery. Recently, Commercial Radio stood by Chan through the appeal by the Department of Justice. However, Chan is angry that he has now be found to be guilty in the bribery case and he wants to take revenge against the government through airing the audio recordings. Senior management is angry that Chan would use their radio station to exact personal revenge.

[360] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/11/02)

(The Stand) October 30, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Students' Union held a referendum on two motions. A total of 5,353 students voted at a turnout rate of 33.2%. There were 5,316 valid ballots and 37 invalid ballots. The turnout rate was more than the 10% as required under the student union by-laws, so these two motions now represent the official positions of the student union.
Motion No. 1
The post of Chairman of the Council of the University of Hong Kong must be filled by a candidate who is acceptable to the members of its teaching staff, non-academic staff and students.

There were 5,119 YES votes, 110 NAY votes and 87 abstentions.
Motion No. 2
Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to hold any position under the governance structure of the University of Hong Kong.

There were 4,785 YES votes, 178 NAY votes and 353 abstentions.

(Oriental Daily) November 5, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group and the Hong Kong Teaching Staff Union announced that they will be holding a HKU Campus Voting Plan. The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme will provide technical support and the Hong Kong University Students Union will be a sponsor. The voting will be held Monday-Friday next week. The motions are (1) expressing regret at the university council for vetoing the candidate for pro vice-chancellor; (2) expressing no confidence in university council chairman Leung Che-hung and other members for vetoing the candidate for pro vice-chancellor; (3) declaring that Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is not suitable to become university council chairman.

The Hong Kong University Convocation Standing Committee announced that there will be another special meeting on November 29 to discuss and vote on five motions. In the statement, the committee also said that each such special meeting requires the investment of manpower and financial resources and therefore they want to be cautious. They have reflected these concerns to those alumni who want the special meetings. However, their concerns were ignored. The committee said that if these special meetings are abused, they may erode public trust in Hong Kong University and the HKU Convocation.

(Ming Pao) November 14, 2015.

The Hong Kong Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting on November 29 will offer alumni four motions to vote on. Those who cannot attend in person can authorize others to vote on their behalf. In the previous EGM, there were more than 6,000 proxy statements.

Yesterday Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group convener Ip Kin-yuen issued "an emergency appeal" because they have only 28 proxy statements so far. If too few people vote, the results will not be persuasive.

The difference is that the proxy statement last time requires only a signature and a listing of the authorizer's Hong Kong ID number, but the proxy statement this time must be either submitted in person to the Alumni Affairs Office with verification of ID or by asking another person to do so together with a copy of the authorizer's identity card.

(HKG Pao) November 26, 2015.

To call an extraordinary general meeting of the Hong Kong University Convocation is actually really easy. All it takes is for 20 alumni to sign a petition. At the Extraordinary General Meeting in September, more than 3,000 alumni attended. Another 5,000 or so proxy statements were sent in as well. For the November 29 extraordinary general meeting, the Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group has so far only managed to obtain 1,000 proxy statements. There are many reasons for the lack of response this time around. First of all, the proxy statements must be attached with a copy of the Hong Kong ID. More importantly, all the issues are dead or dormant: (1) Johannes Chan will not be appointed pro vice chancellor and so it is pointless to continue to fight for him; (2) Leong Che-hung is no longer council chairman so it is pointless to show no confidence in him; (3) Arthur Li Kwok-cheung has not been appointed council chairman.

The more interesting question is how many of the 5,000 proxy statements are actually valid. Were the signatures ever verified?

In any case, any vote by the Hong Kong University Convocation is non-binding. So what is the point for the 186,000+ HKU alumni to vote? It is only important for some politicians.

(EJinsight) November 16, 2015.

Students and teachers at the University of Hong Kong overwhelmingly distrust its council and oppose the rumored choice of Arthur Li as its chairman, Apple Daily reported Monday, citing the results of a campus referendum. Li has been widely seen as the most likely successor to Edward Leong Che-hung, who stepped down as council chairman on Oct. 30, but no announcement has yet been made.

In the referendum, organized by the university’s Academic Staff Association and the HKU Alumni Concern Group, 719, or 95 percent, of the 753 teachers, staff and graduate students who cast their votes between Nov. 9 and 13 opposed naming Li as council chief.

The results, announced Sunday, came after 90 percent of nearly 4,800 students expressed similar opposition by voting in the same referendum two weeks ago.

Asked on the ballots whether they deplored the council rejecting former HKU law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun for the role of pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources, 97 percent of the 2,460 voters who cast their votes last week said yes. Meanwhile, 2,222 of them, or 90 percent, also said they distrust Leong and the other council members.

The results will be submitted to the council.

The alumni concern group plans to present a proposal regarding how HKU should reform its governing structure in February. It will then hold a campus referendum on the proposal along with the HKU Students’ Union. The group aims to eliminate any political interference resulting from the council’s powers of appointment, through amending the HKU Ordinance, the report said.

(SCMP) Do the maths: With 90 per cent not voting, University of Hong Kong 'referendum' ignores silent majority. Alex Lo. November 18, 2015.

Students and staff at the University of Hong Kong have every right to agitate for political agendas they believe in. But if they want to convince the tax-paying public - who ultimately pay for much of their schooling and jobs - of their righteousness, they may have to be a bit less disingenuous.

I am referring to a "referendum" they held on campus last week over five days. Whoever once talked about "lies, damned lies and statistics" forgot to mention surveys and voting results. Staff, students and teachers were asked to vote on three questions:

97 per cent of those who voted "deplore the decision of the University Council which rejected the recommendation of the Search Committee for the appointment of [Johannes Chan Man-mun as] the Pro-Vice-Chancellor without providing valid justifications".

90 per cent "have no confidence in Dr Leong Che-hung the Chairman and those 12 members of the University Council who voted against the recommendation of the Search Committee"

95 per cent think "[former education minister] Arthur Li [Kwok-cheung] is not suitable to be the chairman of the HKU Council".

The votes were organised by HKU's Academic Staff Association and a newly formed Alumni Concern Group and HKU's students union. And they are claiming victory. HKU's Public Opinion Programmes, run by closet pan-democrat Robert Chung Ting-yiu, provided technical support.

They certainly got the results they wanted, as 90-plus per cent on each question looks pretty convincing. But the voter turnout was truly dismal. Those who voted included 1,707 undergraduates, 271 post-graduates, 148 teachers and 334 other staff members.

That looks like roughly only 10 per cent in each category of stakeholders actually bothered to vote. Bear in mind organisers spent five days collecting votes across campus and that's all the voters they managed to attract. Here's another 90 per cent the organisers could be looking at: a silent majority who didn't vote for whatever reasons.

It's clear that those who took part in the votes are a self-selecting group predisposed to a specific position on the issues at hand. The 90-plus per cent of voters here form a vocal minority. But their votes are hardly representative.

Internet comments:

- Headline writer: "Almost all Hong Kong University students are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung." More precisely, "90% of Hong Kong University students are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung."
How was that calculated? 4,785 out of 5,316 voted voted YEA on Motion No. 2. 4785 / 5316 = 90% are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung. Therefore their voices must be obeyed.
Here is another interpretation. Total full membership of the Hong Kong Student Student Union is 16,137. 4,785 agreed with Motion No. 2. Therefore 4785 / 16137 = 30% are against Arthur Li Kwok-cheung. Therefore the voices of these 30% must be obeyed.
- Yellow Ribbons move the goal posts at will. When they got 780,000 signatures to support the civil nomination of the Chief Executive, they said that the voices of the people must be listened to, even if most of the other 7 million citizens did not vote for this motion. When Robert Chow came back and collected 1.8 million signatures against them, they turned around immediately and said that 5.2 million people did not sign and therefore their voices must be obeyed.
- Undergraduate students at the University of Hong Kong automatically become members of the Hong Kong University Students' Union. All new students will pay an entrance fee of HK$100 to the Students' Union and an annual subscription of HK$140. If union membership is not compulsory, how many students would actually join? That would be an interesting motion for the next referendum. But the student union leaders have made sure that this question must not be asked because they want to preserve the idea of a unified front with zero dissension.
In the outside world in Hong Kong, 90% of the general population wanted Occupy Central to stop. Why should you think that the percent is zero among HKU students? If you asked that question (stop Occupy Central or not?) in a student referendum, then the result will represent the position of the HKU Student Union. So it is better not to ask.
Generally speaking, those who run for student union representatives are more much progressive/radical than the general student body. As WB Yeats wrote in The Second Coming: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."
- The postgraduate students at the University of Hong Kong belong to the Hong Kong University Postgraduate Student Association. They must not be allowed to hold a similar referendum because they are dominated by mainlanders and therefore they hate FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY/HUMAN RIGHTS/UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE/UNIVERSAL VALUES/JUSTICE or something like that.

(SCMP, November 11, 2013)

Mainland students make up the vast majority of research postgraduate students in the city, numbering 4,586 in 2012-2013, up from 4,298 in 2011-2012, out of a total of fewer than 7,000, University Grants Committee figures show. While it is common for working professionals in Hong Kong to pursue a master's degree, the majority are drawn to one-year, full-time or two-year, part-time, coursework-based programmes that focus on practical disciplines, with few drawn to research degrees leading to a PhD.

That has to do with the practical mindset of the city, academics say. The bleak job prospects at local universities for locally trained PhD holders also discourage graduates from furthering their studies in Hong Kong.

This phenomenon is not unique to Hong Kong. See, for example, the United States:

(Science Magazine) November 2014.

According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), 42% of the 886,000 international students at U.S. universities in 2013 to 2014 hailed from China and India. China makes up nearly three-fourths of that subtotal. In fact, the number of Chinese students equals the total from the next 12 highest ranking countries after India.

If you set up a xenophobic Great Wall to keep all foreign students out, you won't get enough homegrown university students to do the research and tutoring chores. Full professors give the lectures, and the tutors help the students with the homework and grade the exams. Full professors give the general research directions, and the research assistants carry out the experiments, record the data and draft the papers for publication. Without the cheap research/tutoring slaves, the whole system would collapse.

By the way, the graduate students are paying tuition in order to do the grunt work. Of course, they are told that this is part of their education (as opposed to exploitation).

- 70% of the graduate students in Hong Kong universities are from mainland China. Therefore we must pretend that they are lepers to be avoided at all costs.

- The results of this referendum are non-binding in the sense the student union executive committee does not have a vote on who shall become the HKU Council chairman. Under CAP 1053 University of Hong Kong ordinance, Statute XVIII The Council:

The Council shall consist of-
(a) 7 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Chancellor, one of whom shall be appointed the Chairman by the Chancellor;
(b) 6 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Council;
(c) 2 persons, not being students or employees of the University, elected by the court;
(d) the Vice-Chancellor
(e) the Treasurer;
(f) 4 full-time teachers elected in accordance with regulations;
(g) 1full-time employee in the University, not being a teacher, elected in accordance with regulations;
(h) 1 full-time undergraduate student elected in accordance with regulations;
(i) 1 full-time postgraduate student elected in accordance with regulations.

So this whole exercise is just another massive jerk-off.
- Or a case of the mental asylum patients wanting to take charge (see Marat/Sade (1967)).
- The HKU Students Union is calling on the Hong Kong SAR's Chief Executive to respond on the results of the referendum. Apparent, the results are not legally binding on the students but they are binding on the Chief Executive. Previously, CY Leung has pointed to CAP 1053 and said that it is his duty to appoint the council chairman. If and when CY Leung makes that appointment, any judicial review by the students/teachers/staff members will have zero chance of success in the face of CAP 1053. The court will simply direct the complainants to seek legislative changes.
- The referendum results will be the basis of the students, teachers and staff members to call an indefinite strike later on if and when Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is appointed council chairman.
- Yet another class strike? In early October 2014, the students called for a city-wide class strike plus labor strike plus business strike. They said that unless the government accept their demands, they will stay out indefinitely. Everybody ignored them. The students eventually went back to class without fanfare. Another class strike will end up the same way.
Why? Because the class strike is only hurting the students themselves. The Chief Executive, the government and Arthur Li Kwok-cheung won't be hurting.
- If students go out on strike, they will lose class time and fail to complete courses. As a result, they will have to postpone graduation and pay extra tuition.
- If the staff go out on strike, they won't get paid.
- But the students probably don't get this, because they still think that Occupy Central was a great idea.
- Of course, they will hold yet another indefinite hunger strike fueled by chicken soup congee, glucose and Pocari.
- No mention of the ultimate weapon -- all students will drop out, and all teachers and staff members will resign if and when Arthur Li Kwok-cheung is appointed university council chairman.
- The students did not have a motion on genuine universal suffrage of the university council chairman based upon civil nomination by the students and one-person-one-vote for the students. At least they know what they don't know. For example, can the students make an informed evaluation of the academic accomplishments of Arthur Li Kwok-cheung? So is Double Strapling Technique for Ileo-anal Reservoir Anastomosis (1991) a seminal paper? Or what about Distribution of Lipiodol and Its Thereapeutic Value in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (1991)?
- (Oriental Daily, October 31 2015) The series of events first started at Baptist University in May 2015 when the students rushed the vice-chancellor screening committee for "black box operation". They destroyed the lock to the door of the meeting room to prevent the trustees from leaving. It turned out that the student union was informed earlier about the selection choice but there was a new cabinet which was not told.
On that day, the students accused the trustees of holding sinecures (尸位素餐). According to Merriam-Webster, a sinecure is a position that requires little or no work and that usually provides an income. That is a bizarre accusation. Firstly, university council members and trustees don't get paid. They are performing a civic duty for free out of the kindness of heir hearts. Secondly, they are trying to perform work such as making job appointments and approving infrastructures, etc but the students are blocking them.
- (HKG Pao) November 12, 2015.

The Lingnan University Student Union held a referendum on November 9-11.

Motion 1: Eliminate the power of the Chief Executive to directly appoint Lingnan University trustees
1119 votes
1013 AYE
19 NAY
Motion 2: Eliminate the automatic assignment of the Chief Executive as Lingnan University chancellor
1128 votes
1004 AYE
17 NAY
Motion 3: Increase the ratio of students, staff members and teachers in the board of trustees
1148 VOTES
1049 AYE
17 NAY

Lingnan University Student Union president Philip Lau Chun-lam said that the results are overwhelmingly one-sided and shows that the students want the board of trustees to be reformed.

According to Lingnan University, there are 2,511 students in the 4-year baccalaureate program. Therefore you can run the same calculations and decide whether 1119 out of 2511 votes is overwhelmingly one-sided.
The Student Union said beforehand that the results are not binding. If these changes are to take place, Cap 1165 Lingnan University ordinance will have to be amended by the Legislative Council. For that to happen, there needs to be some reasonable arguments in support of increasing staff/teacher/student representation.
- According to 2014/2015 Student Profiles and Staff Profiles,

- 16,187 undergraduate students
- 10,771 postgraduate students
- 10,965 academic/non-academic staff

If 753 postgraduate students and staff members voted, then the response rate is 754 / (10771 + 10965) = 3.5%.
If 2,460 undergraduate students, postgraduate students and staff members voted, the response rate is 2460 / (16187 + 10771 + 10965) = 6.5%.
Can you leap from these response rate to "the majority of the students and staff members blah blah blah"? You can --- if you have very thick skin.

(Ming Pao) October 30 , 2015.

Previously, the Hong Kong Police was supposed to hold a forum on November 4 in Baptist University in conjunction with the Students Affairs Office. However, students posted big-character posters on the Democracy Wall to protest the presence of the police on campus. The Hong Kong Police confirmed that they have cancelled the Baptist University forum.

(Hong Kong Police) October 31, 2015.

The Hong Kong Police held its Recruitment Day at Police Headquarters and received more than 2,200 applications.

(Wen Wei Po) November 11, 2015.

The Hong Kong Police received more than 2,200 applications. The Hong Kong Police has a fiscal-year target of recruiting 190 inspectors and 1,320 police officers. Compared to the summer recruit day in July, this is a 5% increase. 768 applications were for the inspection position, breaking a record for a single recruitment day. Each inspection position has about 30 applicants while each police officer position has about 10 applicants.

(Oriental Daily) January 31, 2016.

Today the Hong Kong Police held its winter recruitment day at the Wanchai Police Headquarters. There were 2300 applicants, which was 34% more than the December 2014 winter recruitment day. There were 30 applicants for each intern inspector position and 10 applicants for each police officer position.

(Oriental Daily) January 31, 2016.

Whereas the average starting salary for a university graduate is HKD 11,000, the starting salary for a police officer is HK$21,410. For a police inspector, the starting salary is HK$37,885 without a university degree and $39,050 with a university degree.

Internet comments:

- Ever since the Umbrella Revolution, everybody knows about the true nature of the Evil Police. Today no young person with a conscience would ever consider joining the Evil Police. That is a fact.
- I see. So the Hong Kong Police has only a bunch of old farts left ...
- Yo brother, if someone steals your wallet, you better not call the Evil/Black Police for assistance.
- If a university student does not want to be a government worker, what are his options? Large corporations won't hire recent university graduates after Occupy Central. So the options are pretty much limited to Apple Daily/Next Magazine reporter, NGO volunteer or Legislative Councilor (like Joshua Wong wants to be). However, there are only 35 directly elected Legislative Councilor positions for 20,000 university graduates. The odds are a lot worse than being hired as a probationary police inspector.
- Your mouth says NO but your body says YES by walking into the Hong Kong Police recruitment centre.
- The numbers in this press release may be confusing. There were 768 applications for the inspector position, for which there are 190 openings. But there are supposed to be 30 applicants per inspector position, not 768 / 190 = 4 applicants. The reason is that the Hong Kong Police recruits year-round. Cumulatively across the recruitment efforts so far this year, they have 30 applicants per inspector position.

[359] The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 7 (2015/10/30)

(Metro, News.china.com) March 23, 2015.

Recently Internet users alleges that a certain Hong Kong Customs Officer named Mike Lam King-nam participated in the anti-parallel trade demonstrations. Internet users uploaded photos of Lam harassing mainland tourists and accused him of breaking the law while being aware of the law. There was also an interview by TVB in which Lam spoke from behind a surgical mask (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojwwg9o0BTE) and then other masked men began to tell the TVB crew to get lost (note: no condemnation by the Journalists Association ensued)! A Customs and Excise Department spokesperson said that they will not comment on individual cases, but they will follow their procedures in the event that their employees violate regulations.

Mike Lam responded on Facebook:

When I go to work, I keep being asked:
"Why are you still coming to work?"
"Is there an arrest warrant for you?"
"Did you take part in assaulting the grandpa?"
"When are you going to change your glasses?"
Ever since the Umbrella Revolution began, I realize one piece of truth
It does not matter how good friends and colleagues you are with,
As long as we have different positions ...
No! I just put it more directly,
As long as they are benefiting,
That is, they are salespersons, they are business people,
Or they are public servants under the old system,
They have government housing
Their children have overseas education subsidies, and they are waiting for the pension!
It is a fucking waste of time to talk to them!
In their eyes, the government is doing fine, society is doing fine,
It's only the young wastrels who are causing trouble.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
This is like you going to the Shaolin Temple and telling them to believe in Jesus Christ.
You would be lucky if you don't get into a fight!

Here are some more later responses from Mike Lam:

October 7: I am nothing to be ashamed of
September 28: Once a Yellow Ribbon, forever a Yellow Ribbon. I will never retreat, I swear that I will never bow my head.

For all the tough talk, this is what happened in the end:

(translation)
Because the department refuses to relent
They are still determined to terminate my employment
Therefore I hope that all the inspectors, senior officers, sergeants and officers, all my brothers and sisters, can write letters on my behalf to the Customs and Excise Department commissioner Roy Tang Yun-kwong and Mr. Wong Hung-sun of the Division's Administrative Department to tell them that my character, conduct, trustworthiness and job performance are all impeccable. I hope that they will change their minds and decide to accept my probationary term, and rescind the decision to terminate my employment.

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 16, 2015.

A probationary Customs and Excise Department officer who posted statements critical of the Department’s internal practices on social media was terminated from employment on Tuesday.

The officer, surnamed Lam, joined an “anti-smuggling” protest in Shatin in February. In March, he was identified by netizens opposed to the protest, some of whom said they would file official complaints against him.

In the same month, Lam posted on Facebook that “at the department I am working in, there is an unwritten rule” that disabled, young and elderly people, mothers carrying babies and pregnant women “will not be bothered.”

He questioned whether the rule could be abused by parallel traders using such identities as cover. According to Apple Daily, Lam had once found a large amount of illicit cigarettes concealed under a baby trolley but his colleagues told him “not to create a fuss.”

Lam was asked to write a report about his participation in the protests and was transferred from his border control post at Shenzhen Bay Port to Man Kam To border control.

Lam also said that later in March, he was questioned by disciplinary forces. The Customs Department asked him about everything he had published on social media, including one post on his participation in last year’s pro-democracy Occupy protests and another in which he urged his friends to take part in the anti-smuggling protests.

In a letter from Customs in October, Lam was informed that he was suspended. The letter noted that his social media post may “reflect a problem in your character and discretion.” It also stated that his “integrity is being questioned.”

Lam’s employment was subsequently terminated on Tuesday, December 15. Since he was still on probation, no reason was given for his termination. Lam is currently considering lodging a judicial review.

(The Stand) December 15, 2015. Mike Lam wrote in Facebook today: "I can put the work down, but I can never put public justice down! Since antiquity, changes come through revolution, and revolution comes through resistance! The people of Hong Kong must defend the last line. Internet speech must not be controlled! This is Hong Kong, not China!"

- Change, revolution, resistance, freedom of speech on the Internet, Hong Kong, China. Just a bunch of words tossed in there with no rhyme or reason.

- Mike Lam said wrote on Facebook previously that he intercepted a baby carriage and found a large amount of contraband cigarettes hidden underneath the seat. But his colleagues told him not to incur greater workload by going after "the old, the sick, the physically handicapped, the small children, the pregnant women, or whole families" because "they get paid one way or the other."

Meanwhile the Hong Kong Customs Workers Union chairman Chan Ming said that this was the first case that a customs officer has been dismissed for speech on the Internet.

Well, this is all one-sided rubbish. The only trusted statement is "On the advice of the Public Service Commission, the service of Probationary Custom Officer LAM King-nam was terminated on 15 December 2015." You have no idea what the Public Service Commission knows or considers. The Customs and Excise Department has only said that they will not comment on individual cases due to the Privacy Law.

- At any Customs service, they must surely have a profiling system. Here is an example of the economics of resource allocation. About 10,000 persons pass through here every hour. There are 20 of us. We can't stop every traveler and search them. Therefore we must be selective. We can do random checks, and our success rate is 0.01%. We can use a profiling system so that our success rate is 0.5%. Who fits the profile of a smuggler? It is not an 80-year-old inching along with a walking cane, and not a pregnant woman dragging two small children along, and not a person with a foot in cast and being pushed along in a wheelchair, and not a family of seven with ages running from 3 years old to 89 years old. Some of these people may be smugglers, but the probability is much lower. You cannot say that just because you found one of them among these people that you will hereafter concentrate on them. This is not science. This is nonsense. Whoever insists on so doing does not understand things. A customs inspector does not have to understand this; all he has to do is to follow the policy which is set by people who understand things.

- It is already a rule violation for a Customs Department employee to openly discuss the profiling system. For example, the Transportation Security Administration (USA) certainly does not explain its Airport Racial Profiling system because the effectiveness depends on its secrecy.

(Ming Pao) December 17, 2015.

Mike Lam does not think that he is a radical and and he says that he has never participated in any demonstration march. On September 28 when Occupy Central started, he and some colleagues went to Admiralty to "fulfill their duties as Hongkongers." Afterwards, they frequently went down to "provide protection" in Mong Kok and they wanted to "mediate whenever people wanted to fight."

After the Occupy Movement was over, Mike Lam unexpectedly got involved in Reclaim Sha Tin. He said that he was passing by New Town Plaza after work to take a bus home. He saw the demonstration and he decided to offer his support. He emphasized that on that day, he was interviewed by the media and he only said that there were problems with the policies without expressing any political inclinations.

Afterwards, the Customs department management asked to meet with him on March 21 and April 9 to ask him about the media interview as well as his Facebook posts. In October 2015, he was suspended. He has now been terminated.

(Oriental Daily) March 15, 2016.

Ex-probationary inspector Mike Lam has filed an appeal to the High Court for a judicial review in order to overturn his dismissal by the Customs and Excise Department. He said that the the Department consulted the Public Service Commission for advice on his case. However, the Department did not disclose the information to Lam. Therefore the process was unfair to Lam, who said that the Department has still not told him why he was dismissed.

Internet comments:

- Doraemon: "There is nothing more pleasing than to see someone fall in the street (pok gai)."

- He wants people to testify that his character, conduct, trustworthiness and job performance are impeccable? Hahahaha LOL.

- To quote Mike Lam himself, "It is a fucking waste of time to talk to them!" Therefore I won't be writing any fucking letters on his behalf.
- I think that I will write to Commissioner Roy Tang and thank him and the Customs Department for making a good decision.

- Dear Mr. Lam, you should have known that this was going to happen. Your only option now is to become a valiant warrior, overthrow the Chinese Communist regime and their stooges and then you will become the Customs Commissioner in the new Hong Kong City-State.

- What a dickhead! If you want to oppose the government, then why do you crave to keep your government job?

- Someone says that this latest post is fake. Mike Lam resigned on his own to show his righteousness.

- LOL! Mike Lam said that he yelled at this female mainland tourist on his way home without prior intent. And then he also gave a media interview.

-

- Mike Lam wounded up helping out in Reclaim Sha Tin because he was passing by on his way home and saw the demonstration. This story is as good as foul-mouthed teacher Alpais Lam (#238) passing by the Falun Gong table in Mong Kok on her to food shopping for her Tseung Kwan O family.

- Mike Lam and some colleagues went to Occupy Central to "fulfill the duties of Hongkongers." How many times did the Police make public announcements about the unlawful gatherings? Is he deaf and blind? P.S. Even he knew well enough to wear a surgical mask in Sha Tin.

- Mike Lam traveled all over the region to fulfill his duties as a Hongkonger, including Occupy Central in Admiralty (Hong Kong Island), Shopping Revolution in Mong Kok (Kowloon) and Reclaim in Sha Tin (New Territories). Each of these activities has a loud and clear political position. Nevertheless Mike Lam still insists that he is politically neutral?

- Is this brick-throwing rioter (February 9th 2016 in Mong Kok) Mike Lam?

[358] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 6 (Political Analyses) (2015/10/27)

Here is the situation before the November 2015 District Council elections (source)

District Area (hectares) Population Median HH Income Total # of councilors # Pro-establishment # Pan-democrats # Independent

Central & Western District 1,252 250,000 $35,000 18 14 4 0

Wan Chai 976 160,000 $34,000 13 11 2 0

Eastern District 1,890 580,000 $27,800 43 37 5 1

Southern District 3,895 280,000 $28,000 20 15 5 0

Yau Tsim Wong 655 300,000 $23,600 20 18 2 0

Sham Shui Po 1,047 380,000 $18,000 24 17 7 0

Kowloon City 997 380,000 $24,600 25 20 5 0

Wong Tai Sin 926 420,000 $20,000 29 20 9 0

Kwun Tong 1,130 640,000 $19,000 39 33 6 0

Tsuen Wan 6,000 300,000 $26,900 21 17 4 0

Tuen Mun 8,445 480,000 $21,000 34 25 9 0

Yuen Long 14,430 570,000 $22,000 42 38 4 0

North District 137 305,000 $22,300 24 23 1 0

Tai Po 14,800 300,000 $26,500 23 19 3 1

Sai Kung 12,680 440,000 $30,800 29 18 9 2

Sha Tin 6,940 630,000 $26,000 43 35 8 0

Kwai Tsing 2,230 520,000 $19,600 35 20 15 0

Islands 17,600 140,000 $25,000 21 19 2 0

TOTAL 503 399 100 4

(The Stand) https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%8E%9F%E4%BE%86%E6%B3%9B%E6%B0%91%E5%8F%AF%E4%BB%A5%E5%A4%A7%E5%8B%9D%E5%8D%80%E8%AD%B0%E6%9C%83/ October 19, 2015. Here are the projected outcomes if the pan-democratic voters turned out at the same rate as they did for the 2012 Legislative Council elections.

District Number of seats Number of actual pan-democrat seats Number of pan-democrats according to 2012 Legco votes Predicted outcome

Central & Western District 15 4 13 Pan-democratic majority

Wan Chai 11 0 10 Pan-democratic majority

Eastern District 37 5 30 Pan-democratic majority

Southern District 17 5 13 Pan-democratic majority

Yau Tsim Wong 17 2 17 Completely pan-democratic

Sham Shui Po 21 7 21 Completely pan-democratic

Kowloon City 22 5 21 Pan-democratic majority

Wong Tai Sin 25 5 21 Pan-democratic majority

Kwun Tong 35 2 26 Pan-democratic majority

Tsuen Wan 17 3 13 Pan-democratic majority

Tuen Mun 29 9 23 Pan-democratic majority

Yuen Long 31 4 15 Pro-establishment majority

North District 17 1 13 Pan-democratic majority

Tai Po 19 4 18 Pan-democratic majority

Sai Kung 24 6 15 Pan-democratic majority

Sha Tin 36 8 36 Completely pan-democratic

Kwai Tsing 29 14 27 Pan-democratic majority

Islands 10 2 6 Pan-democratic majority

TOTAL 408 86 322

1. I want you to vote in the District Council elections.
2. The pro-establishment camp is able to monopolize the district councils not because of their so-called "snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings." Rather it is because the pan-democrats' supporters failed to come out to vote. Let us compare the election results from the 2011 District Council elections with the 2012 Legislative Council elections. For example, in the Central & Western District of Hong Kong Island, the pan-democrats got 18,195 votes while the pro-establishment camp got 23,766 votes in the 2011 District Council elections. One year later in the Legislative Council elections, the pan-democrats got 29,028 votes while the pro-establishment camp got 27,931 votes. So the pan-democrats got 10,833 fewer votes and the pro-establishment camp got 4,165 few votes in District Council elections than Legislative Council elections. Clearly, the problem isn't with the pro-establishment camp getting more votes. Instead, pan-democrats vote in the Legislative Council elections but do not show up to vote in the District Council elections.
3. Right now, the pan-democrats have only 4 seats in the Central & Western District. If every pan-democrat voter who voted in the Legislative Council for the pan-democrats also voted in the District Council the same way, they should have 13 seats instead and thus completely monopolizing the Central & Western District Council. Over all 18 districts, the pan-democrats could have been in the majority in 17 out of 18 districts, with three of them being completely sweeps. So let me repeat once more: This did not happen not because of "snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings" but because the pan-democratic voters did not turn out to vote.
4. You may very well ask: If a candidate claims to be a pan-democrat, then I must vote for him automatically? Shouldn't District Council seats be given to those who perform service in the community? The lead-in-water affair is the best lesson: At the key moment, do you have the courage to say no to the government? It does not matter how much service you have performed during normal times. Sorry, if they are going to sell you out at the key moment, then they are sinners. On the contrary, all pan-democratic candidates will never stand with the government in such moment. One glass of water-with-lead showed what true community work is. When you vote, this is what you are looking for. It does not matter how well he treats you in normal times. It is more important to know what he will do for you when you really need him.
5. Or you may very well ask: There are so many pan-democratic parties and the one that I like is not running in my district while I don't like the pan-democratic party that is running in my district. I agree. If we can, we should all vote for our ideal candidate. But we cannot afford to act impulsively. If you don't cast your vote, the pro-establishment candidate will win. Then we are back to the 'lead-in-water' situation: If you don't want to have lead in your water, you must vote the opponent of the pro-establishment candidate. You need to punish the pro-establishment candidate. Afterwards, you still have many ways of expressing your viewpoints on various pan-democratic parties. For example, you can donate money to your favorite pan-democratic party. But you should not think that you can punish a disliked pan-democratic party by refusing to vote. When you turn on your tap, you will find that you are punishing yourself.
6. Or you may very well ask: Isn't the District Council just a Tai-chi class. Why bother to vote? Let the pro-establishment camp win if they want to. No. Have you heard of the $100 million budget allocation per district? In Tai Po, the District Council allocated the money to the Tiananmen Gate in Lam Tsuen. This is your blood-and-sweat taxpayers' money. Also, the pro-establishment camp uses the District Council to help their Legislative Council election campaigns. In 2003, the pan-democrats held the majority in the Wan Chai District Council and introduced many groundbreaking measures. Many pan-democrats have ideas and experiences on letting the people take charge. They are worth investigating. You would be out of touch if you think that the District Council elections don't concern you.
7. We have been fighting for genuine universal suffrage all along. The District Council elections are the closest things to genuine universal suffrage in Hong Kong. We have fought for it so hard. Now that we have the vote in hand, we should obviously cast our vote.
8. I invite everybody to vote in the District Council elections. Not just yourselves but you should encourage your families, friends, fellow students and colleagues to vote. It is one thing to lose, but it would be a pity if that's because we didn't show up to vote.

Internet comments:

- So we vote for a pan-democrat and then we wait for the next lead-in-water crisis so that he/she can serve our community. In the meantime, we must wait. And wait we must.
- No. I don't care about lead-in-water. In the long run, we are all dead from either lead-in-water or sunspots or comets or pesticides or growth hormones or antibiotics or global warming or alien invasion or lightning bolts from the sky or whatever. In the short run, I want my snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings. So how much can you offer me?
- Everyone with a pair of eyes can see that the pro-establishment camp isn't winning because of their "snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings." The pan-democrats are every bit as good with "snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings" (see #346). So it has to be something else.
- For a case study, you can refer to the Kwun Lung constituency in Central & Western District.
In 1994, Ip Kwok-him (DAB) defeated Nicky Wong (Democratic Party) by 51.9% to 47.7%.
In 1999, Ip Kwok-him (DAB) defeated Rosa Mok (Democratic Party) by 57.6% to 42.4%.
In 2003, Ip Kwok-him (DAB) lost to Cyd Ho (Civic Act-up) by 49.1% to 50.9%.
in 2007, Ip Kwok-him (DAB) defeated Ho Loy and Jacky Leong by 85.0% to 15.0%.
In 2011, Ip Kwok-him (DAB) defeated Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats) by 73.7% to 26.3%.
In 2015, Yeung Hoi-wing (DAB) runs against Sixtus Leung (Youngspiration).
The story is this: Kwun Lung constituency was a DAB stronghold. In 2003, riding behind the massive turnout at the July 1st march, Cyd Ho upset Ip Kwok-him by a margin of just 64 votes. But after becoming District Councilor, Ho was invisible to the constituents because she did not find the job to her liking. The idea of winning an election by defeating a well-known pro-establishment incumbent was infinitely more appealing than the reality of serving the community. Cyd Ho did not run for re-election, and Ip Kwok-him stormed back with a 85% plurality to crush Ho's successors.
So all candidates should know what the job entails and whether they are willing to commit to doing the job. Otherwise, you are wasting everybody's time, including your own.
So who do you think the Kwun Lung's voters will go for? Ip Kwok-him's successor? Or a parachuter?
- Amazing! A lengthy so-called political analysis that is based solely on 2012 Legislative Council and 2011 District Council elections projected to 2015. Not a single word of mention about Occupy Central, Umbrella Movement/Revolution, Umbrella Soldiers, Localism/Nativism, 9wu (Shopping Revolution), Reclaim XXX or Leftist Retardism.
- According to the analysis above, the pro-establishment camp will get only 86 seats. So far, they have already won 66 out of 68 uncontested seats. This means that they will lose by 320 to (86 - 66) = 20 in the upcoming contested elections. Let's wait and see.
- It gets worse. Of the contested districts, 21 are among pro-establishment candidates only. No matter who wins, the councilor will be a pro-establishment person. Therefore the analysis is already broken. This means that the pan-democrats will have to win by 319 to 0. Let's wait and see.
- Amazing! The article above has more than 300,000 reads so far as many Yellow Ribbons liked/shared the optimistic message of a resounding victory ahead.
- (Sing Tao October 28, 2015) The Democratic Party fielded 28% fewer candidates than before because their candidates are often assistants to district directors and the party has a hard time retaining them with the lousy pay. Civic Party is fielding almost 40% fewer candidates because they demand their local executives to maintain field presence and their resources only allow them to support so many people. People Power and the League of Social Democrats are fielding 80% fewer candidates.
Why are the large pan-democratic parties fielding fewer candidates? Because they realize that candidates can win only by doing community work in preparation for years beforehand. Parachuting a celebrity into a district will win some media mentions, but victory is unlikely. Nobody is going to vote for you just because you say that you are a pan-democrat or that you support genuine universal suffrage. They want to know whether you will be there for them if there is a water leak on their ceiling.
- Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-SHoOHAQ3Y October 4, 2015.

1:14 (Reporter) He said that he wouldn't serve as District Councilor even if he got enough votes (to win).

1:18 (Nakade Hitsujiko) Forgive me, I am unbridled and I want to be free. Please pardon me for not assuming that post. I am not interested in spending four years of my life to add railings (in the street) for you, or add handrails. What I can give you is far more than any of these local tasks. I can say that.

How can you vote for somebody like this? He wasn't around before, he shows up during the election period for media interviews and he assures us that he will become invisible if elected. And this is the lone candidate fielded by the Hong Kong City-State Royal Family.

[357] Leaks, Leaks and More Leaks (2015/10/28)

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 27, 2015.

The Council of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) has voted to suspend Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en from future confidential meetings after he leaked details from earlier talks.

In September, Fung breached the Council’s confidentiality rules by publicly revealing the reasoning behind the body’s controversial decision to reject Johannes Chan Man-mun’s candidature for the University’s pro-vice-chancellorship.

Although Fung will retain his seat on the Council, his “refusal to abide by the principle of confidentiality” means that he will be barred from participating in confidential discussions with other Council members, who have said that the confidentiality clause is essential for free discussion.

During the fallout surrounding the Johannes Chan controversy, Fung defended his actions by arguing that the open and transparent operation of the Council is more valuable than the confidentiality clause. He also said that his revelation was not for personal gain but was in-keeping with the right of the students to know the Council’s reasoning.

HKU Academic Staff Association chairman Dr William Cheung Sing-wai earlier said that he was proud of Fung for speaking up for righteousness and that the association could not rule out actions supporting Fung if disciplinary action was taken against him.

(Oriental Daily with video) October 27, 2015.

University council president Leung Che-hung held a press conference to explain what was taking place at the meeting. At 0:52 in the video, Hong Kong University Students' Union president Billy Fung Jing-en charges over to seize the microphone. He went on a monologue with a loaded question. At 1:15, Leung replies that Fung should say that at the meeting itself.

(The Stand) October 28, 2015. https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/%E6%9C%89%E5%BE%97%E8%81%BD-%E6%B8%AF%E5%A4%A7%E6%A0%A1%E5%A7%94%E6%9C%83%E6%9C%83%E8%AD%B0%E9%8C%84%E9%9F%B3%E6%B5%81%E5%87%BA-%E8%AD%89%E5%AF%A6%E6%9D%8E%E5%9C%8B%E7%AB%A0nice-guy%E8%AB%96-%E5%98%B2%E9%99%B3%E6%96%87%E6%95%8F%E6%98%AF-%E9%BB%A8%E5%A7%94%E6%9B%B8%E8%A8%98/

Commercial Radio played certain audio recordings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=NwH_w8jp-lg)of the September 29 meeting of the Council of the Hong Kong University. Here is Arthur Li (Speakout HK October 28, 2015).

Mr. Chairman,

When I came on the scene, I thought his would be a very straightforward matter. The Vice-Chancellor makes a recommendation, and we rubber-stamp it, and that's deemed a fact. However, I do have some worries that I feel I should articulate. The Dean, the Vice-Chancellor, in those days were elected by the Faculty. So all you have to do is to be a nice guy to everyone, and I think Johannes Chan is a very nice guy. And at this point, I'd like to declare my interest: there was one of the referees which is my cousin. And my cousin has already said he's very, very nice guy.

So from that point of view, I have no worry in that he is dean, my main worry on academic side was that he has no higher degree equal to a PhD or an MD or LLD. Now you may say in law is not necessary. Well, if it is not necessary, why is such a degree there in the first place? And when you look at the other referee professors, they all got LLDs. Therefore, either he hasn’t tried or he is too busy or he doesn’t think it is important, but if that’s the case he will be devaluated maybe of the lecturers, professors who have got PhDs, who have gone through the rigours of academic pursuits. Now, can you ... can someone be in charge of promotion of another person who actually has not gone through the same rigours as that other person and give an honest independent objective view? And I would put my question here is that, I do have my doubt about this.

The second thing I’d like to bring up is that, we’ve been said that we’ve been under a lot of pressure form the liaison office, from the Chief Executive, and I’d like to say very categorically I have not been under any pressure. It has been said that the left-wing press, 文匯報(Wen Wei Po)、大公報 (Ta Kung Pao) have been running hundreds of articles against this candidate. And quite honestly, I don’t read 文匯報 or 大公報, and I think most people in Hong Kong do not read 文匯報 or 大公報. Relatively most people take a negative view, the more they say about something, the more we feel anti whatever they say. However, on the other side, it’s that the political parties are very well organized, very well informed, very well…how would I say… very keen to push this candidate by, as Leonie said, by intimidation, by failing our council meeting, by having concern groups and all these threatening JRs and everything. But I just wonder why are these political parties so keen on this candidate. Is it, you know, in the Mainland university, they have 黨委書記 (Party Secretary). Do they want a 黨委書記 at Hong Kong U? Is he a 黨委書記, is he put in here as a 黨委書記? So I don’t know, forgetting about the politics, all these things made me feel very uncomfortable and very uneasy with this candidate.

Thank you.

(The Stand) October 28, 2015.

With respect to the "nice guy" talk, Johannes Chan said that he was department head for three years since 2002 and his ability could be seen by all his colleagues, who voted for someone who has the abilities. Someone who knows only to vote for nice guys may not understand this. In 2005, the university became to hire globally so it was ignorant of council members to refer to a defunct system.

With respect to no having a doctorate, Johannes Chan said that the university should have a sound system for hiring. Experience and fairness in handling are unrelated to having a doctorate or not. Some of the discussions by the university council members showed that doctorate has no obvious relationship to ability and character.

With respect to the Party Secretary talk, Johannes Chan said that this was preposterous. With respect to his appointment, he said he has never discussed the matter with any political party. Therefore there is no basis for Li's assertion. Li's logic is that anyone with a political party background will be a Party Secretary if they become a senior government official.

(SCMP) Pot meets kettle? Dirty tricks and interference at the University of Hong Kong. By Alex Lo. October 29, 2015.

Some people who have accused the chief executive of interfering in the internal affairs of the University of Hong Kong are the ones who would go to extraordinary lengths to discredit people who disagree with them. Among their dirty tricks are making unauthorised and possibly illegal recordings and leaking them to the media.

Protests, biased surveys, name-calling, the storming of official meetings and unlawful detention of persons are not enough.

The latest shenanigan involves someone inside the university council who leaked an audio clip to Commercial Radio. The clip concerned has council member and former education minister Arthur Li Kwok-cheung commenting on Johannes Chan Man-mun, the legal scholar at the centre of an appointment row, during a crucial council meeting.

Unfortunately for Li's opponents, there was no smoking gun or incriminating remarks.

All Li said was that Chan was a "nice guy" but unqualified for the senior managerial position and that the former law dean lacked a PhD. A little later in the clip, he dismissed claims that the council had been under political pressure from the central government's liaison office or Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, and suggested some political parties were "very keen to push" Chan as a candidate.

Well, we know all this already. Almost immediately after that meeting, Billy Fung Jing-en, a council member and president of the HKU student union, breached confidentiality rules and spilled the beans on the discussions. The timing of the leak, though, is more interesting. The fear on the HKU campus is that Li is about to become council chairman.

I agree that Li would be the worst person for the post at this time. I don't question his qualifications and intellect. But putting one of the city's most politically divisive figures in that post will ensure open warfare on campus when the university desperately needs to return to normality so students and scholars may get back to work. Mind you, nothing will stop some students from making more noise.

To make their case, some have demonised and physically abused Li, including the latest leak, while making accusations of government interference without a shred of evidence. Just who is playing dirty tricks and interfering here?

(Bastille Post) October 30, 2015. Secret recording of the remarks of council member Leonie Ki Man-fung.

Chairman, I have been a corporate CEO and employer for over 30 years, and I have interviewed and hired hundreds of people in the past. But never in my life have I encountered a candidate who will overtly and recklessly discuss his or her potential employment at any stage of the recruitment process. This in fact is already in breach of confidentiality.

It is most unfortunate that the candidate recommended by the University Search Committee has never been tabled at this Council for deliberation, in our view we are actually doing it according to procedures.

I am in support of press freedom and also in sympathy with the candidate who defended himself against the criticism of some media, but apparently he has gone too far, to create controversy and use external and internal forces, directly or indirectly to lobby, pre-claim, coerce, intimidate, fabricate and sometimes even threaten Council members to approve his appointment. I myself was a victim on Febrary12 this year, when I was accused by a local newspaper for stalling his appointment at this Council. I then had to issue a public statement to clarify that the Council has not even started to discuss this appointment. This is just one incident among many, and to me, all these tactics in fact are interferences with the University affairs at highest level.

As members of the Council, and also trustee of the University, we are professionals with our independent judgment and ethics, we do our assessment based on the (…… )community at large. Given that position of the pro-vice-chancellor is responsible for academic recruitment and resources, the pro-vice-chancellor should be a role model for all, staff and students included. So I have strong reservation about the recommended candidate’s integrity and I would not accept the recommendation. Thank you.

Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=B-d5tWxyRc4

(SCMP) Why is there no public outrage over the HKU audio leak? By Lawrence J. Lau. November 1, 2015.

I was shocked to learn that the supposedly confidential proceedings of a meeting of the University of Hong Kong council were secretly recorded, presumably by one of its members, and leaked to a local radio station, which broadcast what two of its members, Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung, said at the meeting word for word. It is not known whether what other members said will make the air eventually. The secret recording, without obtaining the prior consent of those being recorded, and its subsequent release, also done in secret, was an utterly despicable, irresponsible, selfish and cowardly act.

In the US, recording conversations in secret is a criminal act in some states. Such laws are intended to protect the rights and privacy of individual citizens. Anyone who purports to support human rights and the rule of law must support such protection.

However, what is even more shocking is that hardly anyone in Hong Kong academia and no one in media circles seems to think there is anything wrong here. While it may not be illegal in Hong Kong to record conversations in secret, or to broadcast such recordings, it is certainly unethical. A distinguished institution of high learning such as HKU, which is supposed to educate our youth, should have a higher standard than simply "no law was broken".

HKU's guidelines and code of practice for council members clearly states that, "While students and staff and the public should have access to information about the proceedings and decisions of the council … it is necessary to keep confidential the council agenda, supporting papers and minutes, especially when they are concerned with individuals or plans yet to be finalised or have a commercial sensitivity. Indeed, discussions at the council meetings and council papers are confidential and all members of the council should uphold this principle of confidentiality, to allow free discussions and exchange of views at council meetings."

But on a more fundamental level, secret recordings destroy mutual trust. It will certainly have a chilling effect on free and open communication and exchange at the university if members begin to suspect that whatever they say may be secretly recorded and broadcast at some point. And if there is no mutual trust even at the university, would there be mutual trust elsewhere? Without mutual trust, which takes years to build and just seconds to destroy, our society cannot function properly. Moreover, our condoning of such egregious behaviour, or our turning of a blind eye, contributes to further erosion of our core values of justice, fair play, and mutual respect despite disagreement. The perpetrators of these despicable acts cannot be compared to Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, who did break the law, but did so openly and accepted the full legal consequences of their actions.

he current episode reminds me of a similar incident in Hong Kong in 2006, also involving Li. At that time, the head of a tertiary educational institution secretly recorded a phone conversation that he had with Li, who was then secretary for education, and then attempted to use it against Li, apparently intending to entrap him. Shocking as such behaviour might seem, especially for the head of an institution of higher learning, what was even more shocking was that no one at the time thought there was anything wrong with what he did. Certainly no one from academia or from the media spoke up against it. And there was neither shame nor remorse.

Some of us who preach the "rule of law" every day do not feel restrained to violate either the letter or the spirit of the law, or ethical standards, whenever it suits their purpose. To them, the "rule of law" is just a slogan to be used and not a principle to be followed. They pay only lip service to fair play, justice and mutual respect. It is really sad that our standards have sunk so low in Hong Kong in recent years, that any means, no matter how dishonest, unethical (or even illegal) can be justifiably used to pursue an end.

It is time to ask: have we no sense of decency left in Hong Kong?

[Lawrence J. Lau is the Ralph and Claire Landau Professor of Economics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Kwoh-Ting Li Professor in Economic Development, Emeritus at Stanford University.]

(The Standard) Whistleblowers? No, they're snitches. November 3, 2015.

One of the world's most famous whistleblowers was a senior FBI official nicknamed Deep Throat. He leaked confidential information to two Washington Post reporters to expose the illegal things President Richard Nixon did in what came to be known as the Watergate scandal. Deep Throat's real name was revealed in 2005. Another famous whistleblower is Edward Snowden, who worked for the US National Security Agency. He leaked secret information about world-wide illegal electronic spying and monitoring of e-mails by the US. Many people say whistleblowers are heroes, but what exactly is a whistleblower? The Oxford Dictionary defines a whistleblower as a person who reveals information about illegal or immoral activity. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as a person who provides information about illegal activity, especially by the government or a company.

Many people have praised Hong Kong University Students' Union president Billy Fung Jing-en as a whistleblower and a hero who dared to leak details of a confidential meeting of the Hong Kong University Council to discuss the appointment of Johannes Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor. But is it accurate to describe him as a whistleblower? It is not accurate if you look at the exact meaning of a whistleblower in the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. As a HKU Council member, he revealed the names of council members who voted against Chan Man-mun as pro-vice-chancellor, and he revealed what they said even though the meeting was confidential.

Voting against Chan Man-mun and saying he is not qualified as pro-vice-chancellor are not illegal or immoral activities. The HKU Council allows members to vote how they want and to express opinions. Fung Jing-en is, therefore, not a real whistleblower according to the dictionary because he only leaked information about the opinions and votes of others that he disagreed with for political reasons. The unidentified person who leaked an audio of what council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung said during the meeting is also not a true whistleblower because Li Kwok-cheung did not say anything illegal when he voted against Chan Man-mun. It is more accurate to call a person who leaks information for political reasons a snitch (informer, traitor).

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 8, 2015.

A recording of a speech made by another Council member of the University of Hong Kong has been leaked on a popular Taiwanese internet forum. It follows the publication of two other leaked tapes from the controversial meeting and a court injunction granted to HKU to restrict their distribution.

The transcript and recording of Rosanna Wong Yik-ming was uploaded to PTT, one of the most popular forums in Taiwan, at around 8pm on Sunday. The speeches were apparently made during the same September 29 meeting as the previously leaked tapes. During the meeting, liberal law scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun’s appointment to the pro-vice-chancellorship of the university was rejected.

Rosanna Wong was once rumoured to be the next HKU Council chairperson, but no appointment has yet been made. The term of former chairperson Edward Leong Che-hung ended on Friday, November 6.

In the recording, Wong spoke against the appointment of Johannes Chan because, she says, he would further divide HKU. Her comments are in-keeping with what HKU Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en previously revealed about the meeting. Wong said that she knew Chan well, but she his appointment was not in the “interest of the University”.

She said that HKU had “been undergoing quite a bumpy journey,” lately with incidents such as the controversial visit to HKU by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in 2011, the pro-democracy Occupy protests last year, the Occupy donation incident concerning law professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting and recent events surrounding Chan. “It really, I think to me, is becoming a distraction of the University and it prevents the University actually to look longer term.”

“If we ever even think of any opportunities that we should grab and let this University shine and glow. I’ve been patiently waiting, you know – the new VC coming to this University, with a hope that we have a smooth strategy of development. No time, no discussions – everything has been pre-occupied and dominated by this side political issue, the issues that are so divided in the community. And I am sick of it.” Wong said.

She said that appointing Chan would further divide HKU: “Because of the potential controversy of this candidate, I don’t say whether… the candidate is wrong or why we can bring this up, but there is a potential controversy, it exists whether you, whatever position you… whether you are on yellow camp or the blue camp, I don’t care, but the potential controversy exists.”

“And because of a strong political position of this candidate… I do not have enough confidence that this candidate would probably help to unite, but on the contrary, he probably would further divide,” she added. “Now this is a senior executive position that’s on academic staffing and resources… I think in a lot of cases during my career to appoint a lot of senior executives, persons can be qualified but may not be suitable.”

“I know this candidate well, he’s a good gentleman, but sometimes for a lot of other reasons, he may not be totally suitable,” she said, “And I have to say, because of the controversy that exists, because of his strong political position, because of the potential risk of further divide the community, I have to say I do not have enough confidence to accept this recommendation.”

“And I want the candidate, at least, the future PVC or the Vice President, must be able to unite and must not politicise the working place that he is working in.”

She concluded saying the Council should search for another candidate.

(EJinsight) November 9, 2015.

A leaked recording from a controversial University of Hong Kong (HKU) council meeting has surfaced in Taiwan, just days after a Hong Kong court barred the broadcast of any material from the closed-door deliberations.

The eight-minute audio clip, which comes with English and Chinese transcripts, were uploaded on PTT, one of the most popular online forums in Taiwan, Apple Daily reports. In it, council member Rosanna Wong, 63, is heard saying that former law dean Johannes Chan, then the only pro vice chancellor-nominee, is “unfit for the role” because of his “strong political stance”.

Last week, Commercial Radio ran extensive broadcasts of similar negative comments by fellow council members Arthur Li and Leonie Ki in what appeared to be a concerted attempt by the council to derail Chan’s nomination by its own search committee.

HKU won a court injunction to stop further broadcasts of the leaked recordings, although Li’s comments later surfaced on a sexually explicit Hong Kong website after Commercial Radio agreed to abide by the court order. The porn site version reportedly is not specifically covered by the injunction and the Taiwanese recording, uploaded by a self-described “Savior for cowards”, is out of the Hong Kong court’s jurisdiction.

Wong, who is seen as a potential successor to council chairman Edward Leong who stepped down on Friday, is heard saying in the Taiwanese recording that the person for the post is “expected to unite HKU” but she has “no faith in Chan”. “That is why I do not want to see anybody coming in and further dividing [HKU].”

Wong is a deputy to China’s powerful political advisory body. She became an executive councilor shortly after resigning as Housing Authority chief amid a scandal over substandard groundwork on a public housing construction site.

HKU president and vice chancellor Peter Mathieson is heard in the recording rebutting Wong’s comments that progress in the university has stalled.

Student union chairman Billy Fung, who is also a council member, said Wong’s comments were made during a Sept. 29 meeting in which the council rejected Chan by a 12-8 vote. Shortly after that meeting, Fung told a media briefing about the reasons for Chan’s rejection, notably his lack of a doctorate degree. The revelation sparked controversy, with council members accusing Fung of lying and violating confidentiality regulations.

Meanwhile, an unnamed source said the next recording might feature Lo Chung-mau, head of the HKU surgery department.

(SCMP) November 9, 2015.

HKU principal law lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming suggested that media in Hong Kong could report on the latest leaked comments because it was uploaded into the public domain and on a Taiwanese website, which was understood to be outside Hong Kong’s jurisdiction.

A legal source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also agreed with Cheung’s argument about the limit of Hong Kong’s jurisdiction. He said HKU would have to apply to Taiwanese courts to ban publication. But he questioned whether the public domain clause applied if the recording was uploaded on Hong Kong soil to the Taiwanese website.

(EJinsight) Why is the media holding back on the latest HKU Council tape? By Wong On Yin. November 10, 2015.

The controversy related to the Hong Kong University (HKU) Council meeting that rejected Professor Johannes Chan’s appointment as the university’s pro-vice chancellor shows no signs of abating.

After Commercial Radio aired leaked audio recordings from the September 29 meeting late last month, revealing the remarks made by council members Arthur Li and Leonie Ki as they opposed Chan’s appointment, another clip has surfaced over the weekend, this time involving Rosanna Wong.

In the clip that was uploaded on a popular Taiwan online forum at around 8 pm on Sunday, Wong could be heard speaking about her own reservations about Chan’s candidacy.

Intriguingly, however, the leaked recording of Wong’s remarks has received little media coverage in Hong Kong so far. As of Monday, only the Apple Daily ran a front page story on that. It really boggles the mind as to why this audio clip, which is already circulating in the public domain and completely free for everyone to use, would be “boycotted” collectively by the local media.

In my opinion, it is hardly coincidence that the major TV networks and newspapers in our city have all turned a blind eye to the latest clip. It appears that some force or “intelligence” is pulling the strings from behind the scene in order to prevent the clip from drawing public attention.

Now, I have to say that I really don’t appreciate this kind of “intelligence”. In fact, I’d rather call it “stupidity”. Based on my observation, there are just too many stupid people around in our media industry, who are only good at sensationalism and swimming with the tide, and are often just too eager to be used as a mouthpiece by government spin doctors.

Even an average individual like me can tell that the leak of the recordings, which has taken place step-by-step in a well-organized manner, must have been masterminded by someone.

However, no matter who is behind the leak of the tapes, whether it is the CIA or the National Security Council on the Mainland, and no matter what their motives are, as long as the recordings are authentic, the media is duty-bound to make them public, because the public’s right to know outweighs everything.

Also, the job of journalists and media chiefs is to verify and release information, rather than censor it.

I believe our media workers shouldn’t be concerned about anything else other than the authenticity of the tapes, nor should they be worried about who will benefit or who will be harmed as a result of making the tapes public.

The only thing that matters when it comes to journalism is to provide the public with every piece of true information, and let them exercise their own judgment. Any attempt to screen or even hold back material that reveals the truth, no matter what the reasons may be, is a violation of the basic code of conduct of the media.

Let’s not forget the reason why the Hong Kong Journalists Association is contesting the court injunction that prohibits the circulation of the information leaked from HKU Council meetings. The reason is to defend the public’s right to know.

Now that the High Court has ruled that the interim injunction doesn’t apply to the clips already in the public domain and any circulation of those audio clips outside Hong Kong, what the public is looking forward to is definitely more secret recordings coming to light so that they can piece together the facts about the discussion during that HKU Council meeting and identify the people who denied Professor Chan his appointment on ridiculous grounds.

Aren’t our media supposed to tap into the existing material and make public whatever secret tapes there are in order to serve the public’s right to know regardless of court orders and the political interference of Leung Chun-ying?

Aren’t they supposed to fulfill their role as the fourth estate and raise the red flag against any social injustice? If our reporters fail to follow all the clues and facts wherever they lead on this critical issue, it will not only constitute a breach of duty on their part, but also a breach of public trust.

So why did the media deliberately turn a blind eye to Rosanna Wong’s leaked tape? As I have pointed out before, our media has been dominated by an “evil democratic force”, a phrase which I coined eight years ago.

This “evil force” refers to a bunch of powerful and influential figures in the media industry who believe they have the right to define the public’s right to know, and who believe they hold the moral high ground and always have the final word on what is right and what is wrong.

These hypocrites are on one hand pointing their fingers at those who are kissing up to Beijing, but on the other are throwing their weight around in the media industry trying to control the flow of information in society in order to serve their own political agenda.

The fact that Commercial Radio came under fire for “kowtowing” and giving up press freedom after it had failed to toe the line of that evil force simply illustrates how powerful this bunch of media oligarchs are.

Thanks to the manipulation of these hypocrites, the leakage of the secret recordings, which was supposed to be a courageous act of whistle-blowing, has now degenerated into something more like a tawdry soap opera.

The media coyness won’t do any good to the public, which deserves to be alerted about Leung Chun-ying’s plot to get his claws into our universities one by one.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) After Billy Fung disclosed the opinions of the various council members after the last meeting, he admitted that he violated the confidentiality agreement and he apologized for it. At RTHK, the host asked Fung whether the disclosure clearly violated the confidentiality agreement. Fung evaded the question and only said that the university council would not let him seek legal advice beforehand. The host then asked if Fung signed a confidentiality agreement when he joined the university council. At first, Fung said that it was only a document of trust. The host persisted until Fung admitted that he did sign a confidentiality agreement.

- Previously, after Billy Fung first spilled the beans about the meeting, Arthur Li called him a big liar. Now the recording showed that Fung pretty much reported what Li said. Does that make Li a big fat liar? No, Li said that he called Fung a big fat liar because Fung signed a confidentiality agreement and then failed to keep his word.

- Previously (see #334), Billy Fung said that Arthur Li said that Johannes Chan does not have a doctorate and is therefore unqualified to be pro vice chancellor and the reason why Johannes Chan got to become the Dean of the Faculty of Law was because he was a 'nice guy.'

This is not necessarily misquoted, but the audio recording gave more reasoning to what Arthur Li said.

Firstly, not having a doctorate is not a handicap to being the Dean of the Faculty of Law or the pro-vice-chancellor of Administration and Finance. However, it may be problematic for the pro-vice-chancellor in charge of academic staffing and resources not to have a doctorate. That is an opinion that cannot be definitively proven right or wrong. We can agree to agree/disagree. However, Arthur Li was appointed to this council because he was the vice-chancellor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and he should know something about this. Much more so than a second-year undergraduate student. He gave his opinion and that's it.

Secondly, the "nice guy" comment refers to the Faculty Dean being elected by the Faculty members and therefore he must be a nice guy to everyone. The pro-vice-chancellor is appointed by the university council and being nice to everyone has nothing to do with it. The university council does not appoint this person because he is a nice guy. They are looking at what this person can do for "academic staffing and resources." Therefore having been the Faculty Dean neither adds nor subtracts from the considerations. Again, this is an opinion that cannot be definitively proven right or wrong. He gave his opinion and that's it.

His opinions aren't all that extraordinary either. They are just commonsense. If you don't like Arthur Li, you get someone else to take his place and you may get similar opinions.

- I listened to the audio recording. I was not shocked. The so-called explosive information turns out to be a dud. Instead the revelation is about the person who made that recording. This person could not come up with the conclusive evidence of Li's evilness. Instead, the person showed off his own perfidy.

- Let me destroy once and for all the myths surrounding Johannes Chan's scholarship as appraised by HKU search committee and other so called "International scholars." This is the rallying point by SCMP reporters, HKU alumni and students.
I will exercise utmost precaution when quoting directly from the blog of one of the most respected academics in HK because I don't wish to start a civil war in our academic community.
The most important criterion in judging Mr. Chan's scholarship is the quality of journals to which he submitted his publications. The quality of a research journal is measured by an impact factor, which scores the average citation index of articles published therein.
Mr. Chan's best two articles were published in International Law Quarterly, which ranks only 630 in impact factor. Another 2 better ones are found in publications that rank outside top 1,000. No wonder HKU Law School under his watch had gone from respectable to so-so.
If instead of working arduously to shoo-in their crony, members of the search committee had taken notice of the homework done by the 2 left wing HK Chinese publications and HKU would have spared itself this embarrassment. Mr. Mathieson's yes vote in support of him in HKU council is unconscionable.
Faculty members and students should be ashamed of themselves. First they defended Chan's scholarship, the nonexistent violation of his academic freedom and still later, the far fetched myth of CY Leung meddling in HKU administrative autonomy.

- The Hong Kong University Council has filed a report with the Hong Kong Police, and the Criminal Investigation Division is handling the matter. Hong Kong University Faculty of Law senior lecturer Cheung Tat-ming is on television saying that he is disappointed in the council's action because he is unable to see any crime having taken place. Hmmmm.

Basic Law Article 30
The freedom and privacy of communication of Hong Kong residents shall be protected by law. No department or individual may, on any grounds, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of communication of residents except that the relevant authorities may inspect communication in accordance with legal procedures to meet the needs of public security or of investigation into criminal offences.

There is going to be a crime if the party which recorded the proceedings is someone other the participants (e.g. a news reporter as in the News International phone hacking scandal). How does Cheung Tat-ming know that this is not the case here? Let the police investigate and find out.

- At the meeting, all participants handed over their mobile phones. The organizers did not make a recording either. Therefore, this recording was either by someone else with a planted device or by a participant who purposefully brought in a recording device. The quality of the recording of Arthur Li's voice in the large conference room is very good, so either the device was very good or else it was placed close to Arthur Li. With good technology, it is possible to tell from the echo on the recording just exactly where the recording device was located.

- HKU council member Leonie Ki: "The HKU council meetings are never recorded. I remembered clearly that the workers took away the mobile phones of the council members. If there was a recording, then someone made it purposefully and secretly and then released it to the media in order to smear and attack Professor Arthur Li in an organized and systematic manner. This is very disgusting behavior and a serious violation of trust. That is really shocking. I believe that this individual is a member of our council. If even the trustee of a tertiary institution of education can carry out such dishonest and immoral actions, civilization is indeed collapsing in Hong Kong!"

- With respect to Billy Fung Jing-en, the HKU Student Union president who is now in hiding, I want to ask: "Billy Fung, did you do it?"
- Billy Fung is in hiding because of the obvious media questions: "Did you do this?" "If you didn't, then do you approve of the act or do you condemn it?"

- Commercial Radio said that they will keep their source secret for reason of confidentiality. Isn't this ironic? A person has committed a serious breach of confidentiality but his/her identity must be kept secret for reason of confidentiality. Excuse me but I have a headache trying to understand this.
- Commercial Radio said that the leaker provided the information because the public has the right to know. However, Commercial Radio said that the public does not have the right to know the identity of the leaker. Excuse me but I have a headache trying to understand this.

- The reason why the audio recording was leaked at this time is to hurt Arthur Li's chances to become the HKU council president. This is double standards in the works. When the appointment of the pro vice chancellor was being debated, many people passionately demanded that the university respect academic scholarship and adhere to professionalism to make the appointment based solely on experience and ability and not veto Johannes Chan for political reasons. A few weeks later, the appointment of the university council president is due and suddenly this same group of people have a completely opposite view -- the sole criterion for not appointing Arthur Li is because he is supposedly a CY Leung loyalist and they don't care at all about his academic achievements, professional experience and management abilities.

- Strange language from Apple Daily: Some persons in politics and the pro-establishment camp cannot exclude the possibility that the recording was made by some council member. "Although the mobile phones were removed beforehand, the possibility cannot be excluded that someone had a second mobile phone or a recording device." Some alumnus think that the most likely suspect is Billy Fung. "But it were Billy Fung, he would have brought it out a long time ago instead of waiting until now." "As for the other council members, they all have certain social standing and would not be caught making secret recordings. That would not fit their status." Some persons in the university council cannot exclude the possibility that a staff member made the recording secretly and that would be a criminal act.
- Yes, there are many possibilities that I cannot exclude at this time.
I cannot exclude the possibility that Yahweh did it.
I cannot exclude the possibility that the CIA did it.
I cannot exclude the possibility that the ISIS did it.
I cannot exclude the possibility that the recording was made via quantum entanglement.
I cannot exclude the possibility that [FILL IN THE BLANKS YOURSELF].
Generally speaking when people start talking about not being able to exclude certain possibilities, it means that they are trying to misdirect attention from what should be obvious.

- (Wen Wei Po, October 29, 2015) Yesterday our newspaper tried to reach Billy Fung by telephone but he did not pick up. So our reporter called up legislator Ip Kin-yuen, who supported Billy Fung's disclosure of the council meeting details. We asked if Ip will condemn the leaker in this case. Ip said: "I need to know who the leaker is and what his purpose is. Then I will decide on how to react." When asked whether his response will differ depending on the identity and purpose of the leaker, Ip said: "Of course, his purpose will obviously make a difference." Under what circumstances will he issue a condemnation? Ip said: "Under many circumstances." We asked him to provide us with one or two examples. He said: "There are many change factors right now. It is hard to say." When asked whether the matter should be thoroughly investigated, Ip said that the University Council must first provide the details of the meeting: "If the details of the meeting are provided, then there is no longer an issue of leaking secrets." So does Ip want an investigation only after the leaker becomes "innocent"? Ip declined to provide a clear answer.

- (Hong Kong Free Press, October 29, 2015)

The Wen Wei Po published a 600-word response to Arthur Li’s criticism of the paper on Thursday. They offered him a free subscription for a year. According to the leaked recording, Li had criticised the pro-Beijing press during the meeting. “It has been said that the left-wing press […] have been running hundreds of articles against this candidate. And quite honestly, I don’t read Wen Wei Po or Ta Kung Pao, and I think most people in Hong Kong do not read Wen Wei Po or Ta Kung Pao. The more they say about something, the more we feel anti whatever they say,” the recording revealed Li as saying.

In response, a spokesperson for the paper said that Li’s comments were “far from the truth” and highly subjective. “It seems as if Professor Li made the comments without having read Wen Wei Po at all… we would like to offer him a year’s free subscription, so that he will have a better understanding of the paper and come to a fairer conclusion,” a spokesperson for the paper said. The paper said that the articles it ran on the HKU pro-vice-chancellor appointment affair were “highly professional,” assembled together after “a vigorous exercise of digging for the truth,” and “substantiated with evidence.” This was done so that the paper would “fulfill its social responsibility as a media outlet” and be “a reliable source of information for the public.”

- (Hong Kong Free Press, October 29, 2015)

On Wednesday afternoon, Chan criticised Li as being shallow. Chan said he doubted Li’s ability as a Council member, given what he said during the meeting. He defended the law faculty’s decision to vote for him as dean in 2002, saying that he had already proven his capabilities during his three years as a department head. It was not simply a matter of being a “nice guy,” he said.

Arthur Li said that the Dean needs to be a nice guy because an important part of the job is to smooth out personnel conflicts with the Faculty. The Dean must not form factions to create rifts within the Faculty. Chan was a nice guy for three years as Department Head, so the professors voted him Faculty Dean. But the pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources requires other skills, like telling the difference between a candidate with a doctorate versus one who doesn't, or evaluating the strength of publications. Does Chan have them?

Chan also commented that a person’s PhD degree or lack thereof did not reflect their experience or whether they were fair. He said that “the quality of the discussion in HKU Council meetings shows that whether or not you have a PhD has nothing to do with your abilities or personal integrity.”

Arthur Li said that if you do have a doctorate, then you as a pro vice-chancellor for academic staffing may be better able to evaluate a person with a doctorate versus one who doesn't. He did not say that a doctorate automatically equals experience and fairness.

Finally, Chan said that he was nonpartisan and that he had not spoken to any political parties about the appointment. He also said that most of the 8,000 or so HKU alumni who voted at the unofficial meeting confirming his recommendation as pro-vice-chancellor did not have any affiliation with political parties.

List of Convocation Members of the signatories:

We, being members of the Convocation entitled to vote and whose names have been entered in the register of the members of the Convocation, write to request that the Standing Committee do convene an extraordinary general meeting within 42 days of the receipt of this request in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of Convocation.

Of the 24 signatories, here are the celebrity politicians:

1. Ip Kin Yuen (Professional Teachers Union legislator)
2. Sin Chung Kai (Democratic Party legislator)
5. Ho Chun Yan (Democratic Party legislator)
7. Eu Yuet Mee Audrey (Civic Party former legislator)
11. Leong Kah Kit Alan (Civic Party legislator)
14. Lee Wing Tat (Democratic Party former legislator)
21. Ng Ngoi Yee Margaret (Civic Party former legislator)

(The Standard) September 2, 2015.

Education lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen proposed the motion on whether to demand the appointment of former law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as the pro-vice chancellor this month.

Together with another motion requesting Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to step down as the chancellor of the university - suggested by former HKU Students' Union president Gloria Chang Wan-ki - the crowd appeared to be largely in support of the two motions.

Speeches by pan-democrat leaders Martin Lee Chu-ming (Democratic Party), Audrey Yu Yuet- mee (Civic Party), Alan Leong Kah-kit (Civic Party) and columnist Tsim Tak-lung, who were in support of Ip and Chang's motions, brought roars of applause.

...

Convocation chairman John Wan Chung-on said the attendees were a subdued crowd until the mood quickened after five out of 54 randomly drawn speakers from the floor gave speeches supporting the motion proposed by Pang, and chanted "go back to China" and "go serve CY."

Do you believe that the political parties were not a presence?

P.S. It is literally true the "most of the 8,000 or so HKU alumni" are not members of political parties. After all, the Democratic Party and Civic Party each have only several hundred members in total, and most of them are not HKU alumni. But doesn't the strong presence of the politicians among the leadership of this so-called spontaneous movement arouse suspicion?

- (EJinsight) How Arthur Li is getting a dose of his own medicine. By SC Yeung. October 29, 2015.

It came after Commercial Radio aired a secret recording of the Sept. 29 meeting in which Li is heard making disparaging remarks about Chan and declaring his interest in the chairmanship, soon to be vacated by Edward Leong.

Li stood by his comments, saying they were “above board” and “they make sense” and that he had no problem with the recording being leaked but he could not verify it.

As with most secret recordings, this one contained controversial nuggets others could pick a bone with.

Consider these:

“If you look at other referee professors, they all have LLDs [Doctor of Laws degrees]. Therefore, either he hasn’t tried or he is too busy or he doesn’t think it’s important.”

“Now can you … can someone be in charge of the promotion of other persons who actually has not gone through same rigors as that other person and give an honest, independent, objective view?”

Or this:

“On the other side, a political party — is very organized and very well-informed — how would I say it? — very keen to push this candidate. As Leonie [Ki man-fung] said, by intimidation, by invading our council meeting, by having concern groups and all threatening JRs and everything. But I just wonder why … why is this political party so keen on this candidate?”

None of this would be so shocking except that similar details had been released by Billy Fung, a student representative to the council, shortly after the meeting which Li and other members immediately denied.

They called Fung a liar and on Tuesday they barred him from a council meeting and let it be known that he cannot attend future deliberations unless he explains himself and the members are satisfied with his answers.

Li is losing the argument over who has been lying.

Many hours after Arthur Li issued his response, SC Yeung still hasn't gotten the message. Arthur Li said that he called Fung a big fat liar because Fung signed a confidentiality agreement and failed to live up to it. Ergo, he is a big fat liar. Okay? In case that is still not clear, here it is again: Fung signed a confidentiality agreement and promised to keep everything secret, but he held a press conference to tell all. So he lied on his confidentiality agreement. Okay? It is really simple.

- The audio recording of Leonie Ki's remarks has been released by Commercial Radio. Nothing remarkable either. Previously, according to Billy Fung, Leonie Ki said that the personal integrity of Johannes Chan is dubious because he jumped the gun to claim that he was the sole candidate recommended by the selection committee. As a senior manager in large corporations, she would not hand the job over to Chan.

- I look forward to more recordings being disclosed, especially about the rebuttals offered by the supporters of Johannes Chan. In particular, what did Billy Fung say in support?
- Of great interest are (1) Edward Chen, who said that Billy Fung didn't know who said what and therefore playing the recording could clear things up; and (2) Martin Liao, who was scorned for not knowing how to use Google Scholar because Billy Fung quoted him as finding 4 searches only whereas others have found more than 400 citations on Google Scholar.
- If they don't disclose the other parts then we know that the fix is up.

- (Apple Daily) Is the disclosure of confidential conversations going to destroy mutual trust in society in the long run? Lee Wai-ling countered: "Sometimes the law are there not to prosecute people but just to warn people not to break the law. If the discussions are based upon sound facts and reasoning, why shouldn't they be openly disclosed?" She also said that the HKU Council should have all published all their meeting minutes all along, instead of making citizens wait for a leak in order to know what happened." She also thought that it was unfair to suppose Billy Fung as the source of the recordings. She said that many people have motives. For example, Leung Che-hung or Edward Chen may have re-discovered their consciences and made secret recordings. Or perhaps vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson thought that another leak on top of the many leaked emails is no big deal.

Well, people still don't get why confidentiality is essential. Right now, HKU has a hard time recruiting a provost whose position is under the vice-chancellor but above the several pro vice chancellors. There were four candidates but all four have withdrawn since the troubles began. Why? Who wants to be put through an open evaluation with all the negative comments by the screening committee and the university council being posted for the public to see? In the end, you may not even get the job offer after the ordeal and you will have to stay in your current job where it is now known that you just applied at HKU and received negative ratings.

With the disclosures so far, Johannes Chan will not be able to procure another position elsewhere. These disclosures hurt him much more than help him.

- (Oriental Daily) October 30, 2015.

Democratic Party legislator Emily Lau thought that there is a problem with disclosure after having promising to abide by the confidentiality agreement. But she said HKU Student Union president Billy Fung's action was acceptable because this was civil disobedience. As for the audio recordings that surfaced recently, she said that she was unaware and needed to study the situation first before commenting.

Civic Party legislator Chan Ka-lok said that the confidentiality agreement is there to enable people to speak freely and therefore it is dangerous to air the secret recordings unless there are clear black-and-white good-versus-evil reasons to expose evil deeds. He thinks that it was acceptable for Billy Fung to disclose the meeting details and accept the responsibility. As for the audio recordings that surfaced recently, the persons responsible need to identify themselves to the public in order to round out their moral responsibility.

Democratic Party legislator Sin Chung-kai said that it was unethical to air the recordings. He agreed that the school should investigate, but calling out the Police Crime Investigation Division is a bit too much. He said that both sides have made mistakes. On one hand, the school is ignoring the demands of the students and alumni. On the other hand, the leaker is ignoring the school regulations. Sin said that it was unethical for Billy Fung to leak the meeting details, but that is Fung's personal choice for which he has paid a price.

Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group convener and Education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen said that it is hard to determine if leaking the recordings is unethical. Generally speaking, one doesn't want to see such leaks. But this time the University Council should be explaining their decision not to appoint Johannes Chan. He said that when Billy Fung disclosed the meeting details, he identified himself and therefore his case is different from the person who leaded the secret recordings. That person's motives are hard to fathom.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) (2015/10/30)

The University of Hong Kong (HKU) has obtained a court order forcing Commercial Radio to remove leaked audio recordings of a recent governing Council meeting from the internet. The order, handed down on Friday, applies to the broadcaster and the unknown person who leaked the tapes. It states that neither party may publish any audio recordings, agendas, supporting papers or minutes related to the Council of the University. The matter is to be heard in court on November 6.

Speaking to HKFP, activist and share market analyst David Webb urged the HKU Council to be more transparent. “The governance question at the heart of this is ‘why doesn’t the Council publish meeting minutes anyway’? The University is a publicly funded statutory body. It should operate transparently except where very sensitive issues are involved. Even one of the members, Edward Chen Kwan Yiu, advocated publication of minutes today,” he said. Webb also questioned whether or not the order was obtained “ex parte” – without hearing the other side’s arguments.

Internet comments:

- Why is it necessary to have confidentiality for meeting discussions?

Here is the background:

(HKG Pao) September 25, 2015.

Recently, the HKU Alumni Concern Group sent out a team of lobbyists to individually persuade the HKU Council members to vote for Johannes Chan as pro vice-chancellor. They reminded the council members that they must support Chan or else they will bear be guilty of a "political crime" with unforeseeable consequences. This amounted to political intimidation, and some council members found it to be most annoying.
... The lobbyists tell the council members that if Johannes Chan gets appointed, they will at most listen to a few days of criticisms from the pro-establishment camp and it will all blow over soon with their reputations intact. But if Johannes Chan does not get appointed, they will have to face the wrath of the administrators, staff members, students and alumni with unforeseeable consequences which not even the university can bear. This type of lobbying is clearly a threat to the council members.
... A council member reached by the lobbyists wondered, Does opposing the appointment of Johannes Chan mean that the central government is exercising political control? But who is really politicizing the whole thing here? As council members, they don't have any political powers behind them. Therefore the lobbyists are insulting them and their independence with this kind of talk. The lobbyists kept wanting the council members to take sides. This is tremendously annoying and not conducive for the council members making a reasoned decision. Another council member said that a soon-to-retire council member was told by the lobbyist to think about the pros and cons and avoid "losing his reputation in his last years of life."

So what happens if you say that all Council meeting minutes will be published henceforth? This is what the meeting minutes would look like:

(President) The next agenda item is the appointment of Johannes Chan as the pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources. All council members have previously been provided with the curriculum vitae of the candidate as well as the recommendation from the selection committee. Does anyone have anything to say?

(silence)

(President) Since nobody has anything to say, we will proceed to vote on this agenda item.

(Secretary) The ballots have been counted and the final vote is 12-to-8 against the appointment of Johannes Chan.

(President) So be it. I now declare that the meeting be adjourned.

This is total transparency, but is it good governance if nobody dares to articulate the reasoning behind their votes?

- Alternately, you can also have the university council disclose the details behind the agenda items because the public has to satisfy its need to know everything.

For example, here are the (fictional) attachments in the matter of the appointment of the pro vice-chancellor for academic staffing and resources.

There are four candidates and here are their respective curricula vitae:

Candidate #1: Dean Joseph St. John, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Matterhorn, Switzerland, age 55, married, spouse unemployed, two children age 12 and 7, current salary equivalent to HK$8,000,000 per annum.

Candidate #2: Provost Gordon Goh, State University of Singapore, age 49, divorced, one child age 13, mentally handicapped and institutionalized, current salary equivalent to HK$4,750,000 per annum.

Candidate #3: Professor John Caryle-Smith, School of Business Administration, City University of Washington DC, age 58, married, one adopted Chinese daughter age 7, current salary equivalent to HK$9,150,000.

Candidate #4: Dean Clarice Lee Tak-sum, Faculty of Law, Hong Kong Institute of Technology, age 51, married, four children age 7, 9, 14 and 15, current salary equivalent to HK$2,540,000.

The selection committee has contacted five external referees, being (1) Professor Conrad Smith-Jacoby; (2) Professor Melanie Messersmith; (3) Professor Jefferson Chung Yat-keung; (4) Professor Zhu Qiong-qiang; (5) Professor Sakura Ito. The referees' reports are enclosed in the attachment.

Sample excerpt of referee report: "I have been a colleague of candidate #2 for 18 years. He is an alcoholic and womanizer. Normally he is okay. But once he imbibes too much alcohol, he gets out of control ..."

Sample excerpt of referee report: "I work in the same field as candidate #1. In my opinion, candidate #1 has a long list of publications but they are mundane and repetitious. I would find his appointment to pro vice chancellor not to enhance the reputation of your excellent university ..."

It would be no surprise that your global job opening advertisements gets zero application, and that nobody would ever want to serve as an outside referee.

- The Journalists Association are now saying that the court injunction is an infringement on freedom of expression and a deprivation of the right of the people to know. This is the consistent position of the Journalists Association which never deplored the Sudden Weekly secret photos of Bosco Wong-Myolie Wu inside their home like the rest of the world, including Sudden Weekly themselves. After all, we the people need to know what Bosco Wong's butt looks like.

- Is the people's right to know so important? If so, then why doesn't Occupy Central trio Reverend Chu Yiu-ming explain who that secret donor is. That issue sits at the heart of Occupy Central on trust and unexplained funding. Don't We the People have the right to know who paid for Occupy Central?

- Johannes Chan is saying that he wants to reserve the right to sue Leonie Ki for defamation.

(University of Hong Kong, Law and Technology Centre, Community Legal Information Centre)

Any person who publishes (*note) defamatory matter regarding another person or an organisation in writing or by word of mouth or by conduct may be liable for defamation. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of defamation. They are: Libel, which is the publication of defamatory matter in writing or in some other permanent form, and Slander, which is the publication of defamatory matter by word of mouth or in some transient (temporary) form.

(*Note: Under the law of defamation, the meaning of word the "publish" is not confined in printing and distribution of books/newspapers/magazines. It generally means "to make known to at least one other person or the public by any means". More explanations can be found in section III – conveying defamatory matter to others.)

The essential elements of defamation are listed below:

a. the matter under dispute has a defamatory meaning;
b. the defamatory matter is conveyed or communicated to a third party;
c. and the defamatory matter refers to a particular person (or company).

Great, but how does Johannes Chan prove that Leonie Ki said what he said she did. "Well, there is this audio recording that was published by Commercial Radio ..." How does the magistrate know that the audio recording is authentic? Commercial Radio's Stephen Chan is summoned to testify: "There is this person whose name I must not tell because we have a confidentiality agreement ... this person provided the recording to me and said that it was recorded at the HKU Council meeting." However, Stephen Chan's testimony is only hearsay. Under existing law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible, because there is no opportunity for the other side to cross-examine the original statement-maker. So can Johannes Chan induce the person who made the recording to appear in court and be cross-examined?

If that person is one of the council members, his/her reputation will be tarnished forever afterwards. If that person is someone other than a participant in the meeting (e.g. a newspaper reporter or a hacker), he/she will be charged with committing a crime.

- (Reuters) November 8, 2015. Pope Francis on Sunday condemned the leak of sensitive Vatican documents as a deplorable crime ... "Stealing those documents is a crime, it is a deplorable act that does not help," he said.

[356] Singing In The Street (2015/10/28)

Previously Hong Kong Localists have taken action against the middle-aged mainland Chinese women singing on the pedestrian mall of Sai Yeung Choi Street South (see #284 and #292). That action is not altogether convincing because it involves ousting a certain group of people but not explaining who should take their place instead.
(Oriental Daily) October 26, 2015.

The middle-aged mainland Chinese female singers at the Mong Kok pedestrian mall have been controversial. Previously the Localists have harassed them, including by physical clashes. However, it would seem that soft power is more effective than hard power. A Facebook user posted the photos of a group of young girls by the name of Edit singing next to the middle-aged mainland Chinese female singers, drawing the audience over to their side. According to this Facebook users, residents formed a volunteer corp to protect the young girls from being harassed by the middle-aged mainland Chinese uncles. Other Internet users commented that the young girls have won a technical knockout over the middle-aged mainland Chinese women.

Internet comments:

- With due respect, these are two pieces of pork chops, just like the middle-aged mainland Chinese women except they are younger.
- With due respect, these are two street beggars, just like the middle-aged mainland Chinese women except they are younger.
- Hey, that first girl couldn't even memorize the lyrics so she had to read it off her mobile phone.
- But you should actually listen to their singing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trd_BpP731Q
https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1662254137319834/
https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1662270703984844/

Well, the most important point to note is that they are singing in putonghua. So if the Localists complain that the middle-aged mainland Chinese women are polluting Hong Kong culture with putonghua songs, then so are these girls. There is no difference between them except that the girls are the daughters of middle-aged mainland Chinese women.
Just as important is the simple fact that the singing was appalling. I would have walked away from the scene quickly.
- You are wrong. Here are the middle-aged mainland Chinese women singing in Cantonese https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfoULFtEsVE! It must be most disconcerting to see Hongkongers sing in putonghua and mainlanders sing in Cantonese, and that having to take the opposite side of what should have been obvious.
- This is completely missing the core issue here. This is not a competition with the grand prize being awarded sole rights to perform on a dais in the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall. This is about public space usage. Should the public space be allocated on the grounds of political correctness as determined by certain people? Or on the grounds of the aesthetic judgments of certain people? Or should public space be available to every and any member of the public?
- The Localists are forced to say that they support democracy and therefore they support equal access to public space. But they will quote "Animal Farm" on how some people are more equal than others and therefore the middle-aged mainland women are out of luck.
- Korean female idol Girls Generation singer sings "The Moon Represents My Heart" in putonghua https://www.facebook.com/ocnrm/videos/890397857718041/ . Time to delete all their mp3's from your ipod because they hate freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/universal values/universal suffrage.

[355] Two Boxing Matches (2015/10/28)

Previously (see #185), Loyalist Militia member Man Shek and Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat were going to settle the future of democracy in Hong Kong by a boxing match. For unclear reasons (with both sides giving completely different explanations), that match-of-the-century never took place. Instead Man Shek and Wong Yeung-tat have had matches with other boxers since.
On July 6, Wong Yeung-tat was knocked out by his opponent in the first round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQPJunxq-kk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A_yGKPZIfQ

On October 24, Man Shek fought to a draw against 14-year-old Hung Cheung-kwun. During the match, Man Shek struck a low blow against Hung.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTh0PubwhSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm_vJ4ixNuk

So, the future of democracy in Hong Kong is still up in the air.

[354] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 5 (Radical Candidates) (2015/10/27) The term "radical candidates" refer to candidates who are affiliated with or supported by the so-called radical parties such as League of Social Democrats, People Power, Civic Passion, Hong Kong City-State, etc.

(Wen Wei Po) October 27, 2015.

Yau Mei-Po, Tam Tak-chi (People Power) and Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion)
Yesterday morning at around 7am, our reporter saw a middle-aged woman holding a placard and smiling at passersby at the pedestrian overpass in Kai Tin Estate (Lam Tin). The passersby did not pay her much attention. She is Yau Mei-po, who is running for District Councilor in Lam Tin. She has declared her occupation as "logistics manager" with no political affiliation. Our reporter went through the records and found out that she was the person who jumped on the table in the Hong Kong University council meeting to scream and yell at the council members. She was also present at the Mong Kok shopping revolution events, the July 1st march and the occupation of the IFC II lobby. Previously, she said in a news interview that she was a "political novice" and she was involved in the organization of the "Hong Kong Chefs Alliance."

Our reporter interviewed a number of passersby. They said that they have never seen Yau Mei-po setting up any street booths prior to the election. They were not aware that she had performed any service in the district. "She came out only after the election began. I don't know what she's done before." A resident said that as soon as the election is over, she is likely to vanish.
Meanwhile People Power's Chin Po-fun is running in the Yau Oi South district in Tuen Mun. The Mong Kok shopping revolutionaries have been controlled from behind the scenes by People Power, and that was because Chin Po-fun organized a group of people who holler every night along Sai Yeung Choi Street South. These shopping revolutionaries have greatly annoyed the local residents and interfered with local business activities. Chin Po-fun is parachuting into Yau Oi South because People Power legislator Chan Wai-yip has an office in Tuen Mun.
Dickson Chau Ka-faat is running in the Yau Yat Tsuen district in Sham Shui Po as a League of Social Democrats candidate. According to information, Chau was in the same class year as former Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow, and has himself served as the permanent secretary of the Hong Kong University Students Union. Last year during the prelude to Occupy Central, Chau was arrested by the police. During the Occupy period, he took part in Mong Kok and Admiralty. Last November 27 after Mong Kok was cleared, he was arrested by the police for possessing "restricted materials for illegal purposes" while transporting them from Mong Kok to Admiralty.
Yesterday, Chau and only two volunteers were handing out leaflets outside the MTR station in Tat Chi Road. Very few passersby took the leaflets. One resident told him: "Who the hell are you?" This resident said that since this candidate has never been seen before serving the community, he must be looking for exposure only through the election.

Dickson Chau Ka-faat

(Wen Wei Po) October 27, 2015.

On the afternoon of the day before yesterday, Cheng Chung-tai (nicknamed Hot Dog Worm) and other Civic Passion (=Hot Dog) members were passing out leaflets by the Tuen Mun Light Rail tracks. On the megaphone, they did not explain how they plan to serve the community residents. Instead, they explained how they intend "to fight for democracy." At this time, a Tuen Mun resident came up and pilloried Cheng Chung-tai for causing trouble in the name of the so-called democracy and having no intention of serving the community. He pointed his finger at Cheng Chung-tai and said that the Hot Dogs should eat shit for causing trouble. This resident had a very loud voice which almost drowned out the megaphone.
Faced with this angry tirade, Cheng Chung-tai switched out of his gentleman posture and provocatively told the man: "Don't touch me! Don't touch me!" The man refused to be incited and said: "I won't touch you. I will only condemn you." So Hot Dog Worm backed off, shook his head and stopped arguing.
Video: https://www.facebook.com/308634672647539/videos/512537952257209/
Meanwhile, Wong Yeung-tat of Civic Passion isn't even a candidate anywhere but he got more publicity than the 6 Civic Passion candidates.

An Internet user posted about Wong Yeung-tat's 37-year-old wife being active on the social networking service Tinder for "friends, dates, relationships and everything in between." Therefore a website has set up a poll to find the most plausible explanation:
(1) Wong Yeung-tat needs more money and therefore he is forcing his wife to earn it with selling her body
(2) The Hot Dog bubble has burst, so they need to Photoshop photos to trick people into joining
(3) Wong Yeung-tat is impotent and his wife can't get no satisfaction
(4) Wong Yeung-tat is infertile, so his locust queen needs to find semen from someone else to establish an heir to the throne.

(Wen Wei Po) October 27, 2015.

Yesterday morning at 8am, our reporter observed that a number of volunteers set up People Power and Tam Tak-chi flags near the Siu Sai Wan bus terminal. However, Tam was not present. About 30 minutes later, Tam showed up with a friend. Tam did not use the megaphone to holler at the passersby as he normally does and he did not hand out leaflets. He left these tasks for the volunteers to carry out.
Tam chatted with his friend, and then he left to bring back a photographer to take some photos of himself in the street. He walked over to a construction site near the Siu Sai Wan Mall and began talking to the camera while pointing at the site, as if he was "serving the people." Afterwards, he went over the result with the photographer. He did not seemed pleased, and so the filming was done again.
After about 45 minutes, Tam left and entered the Siu Sai Wan Mall. Five minutes later, the People Power volunteers packed up and left as well.

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Ok3_EV9Xg Tam Tak-chi and Chin Po-fun putting a show on for the media during the Mong Kok Shopping Revolution in the fight for their unalienable right to step into the middle of the road to block vehicular traffic. The other is a hidden member DAB, Chu Yat-on. When I enter, my idea is bring political issues into the District Council. Because Wong Kwok-hing intends to win the District Council in order to become the Legislative Councilor from the District Council constituency. That is, this is the prelude to the Legislative Council election. Wong Kwok-hing voted in the Legislative Council against investigating those responsible for lead-in-water, he supported the High Speed Railway that is busting the budget, he is shepherding the Third Airport Runway, etc. You can blame Wong Kwok-hing. As for Chu Yat-on, his big brother is Chung Shu-gun ("Tree Gun"). I am talking about their shortcomings in the Legislative Council. Therefore I am going to bring political issues into the Siu Sai Wan community. I will definitely talk about civil nomination (of the Chief Executive) and the elimination of the functional constituencies (in the Legislative Council). Eh, the universal pension plan. I will talk about them. As for the issues unique to Siu Sai Wan, it is simply three things. Firstly, the MTR issue. That is, the traffic issue. The second issue is the building of columbaria. A large financial group wants to build a large columbarium in Siu Sai Wan. This is a livelihood issue that Siu Sai Wan has been concerned about for a long time. That developer has not promised never to build this columbarium. It has only been temporarily suspended. This is the biggest difference between People Power and the pro-establishment camp. The pro-establishment camp will hand over petition letters and post banners to protest, but they won't organize the masses to hold a large-scale protest action. People Power will do that. If the developer insists on building a large-scale columbarium in Chai Wan or Siu Sai Wan, People Power ... that is me representing People Power ... will organize the local voters in Siu Sai Wan to hold a large-scale popular resistance action to show the power of the people. This is the biggest difference between us as a popular resistance and the pro-government camp. The third issue is the market issue. LINK REIT has renovated a market in Chai Wan. So far prices at that market is slightly higher than at the Chai Wan market. I have spoken to residents and they don't think that this is too much. I am watching that market to see if this is happening only when the market was newly opened but they will raise prices after a couple of weeks. These three issues: traffic, market, columbarium. Three important community issues. These are my ideas for the election in Siu Sai Wan. Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94zDB4qr7r8

I am a candidate in the Siu Sai Wan district of Eastern District. Tam Tak-chi, People Power. My district has two pro-establishment candidates. One is Wong Kwok-hing of the Federation of Trade Unions.

Internet comments:

- What do they do at the District Councils?

(Wikipedia)

Functions

The councils are mandated to advise the Government on the following:

matters affecting the well-being of people in the District;

the provision and use of public facilities and services within the District;

the adequacy and priorities of Government programmes for the District;

the use of public funds allocated to the District for local public works and community activities; and

District Councils also undertake the following within the respective districts with its available funds allocated by the Government:

environmental improvements;

the promotion of recreational and cultural activities; and

community activities

Do you see any part about the District Council bringing "democracy" to the people? The Legislative Council has the function of voting on legislation that regulate the elections of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council. For example, the pan-democrats vetoed one-person-one-vote for the Chief Executive on the grounds that there is no civil nomination. The District Councils do not have that kind of function. They will vote on issues such as how to allocate the government's $100 million grant (e.g. build an escalator up the hillside? or build a bicycle/jogging path by the river? or build a musical and colorful water fountain?).
Relevant link: Hong Kong Free Press HKFP Explainer: Hong Kong’s 2015 District Council elections
- The Legislative Council elections are based upon proportional representation. For example, there were six open seats in the Kowloon West district, going to the top six vote-getters. As a result, there were three pro-establishment legislators and three pro-democracy legislators.
The District Council elections are based upon one sole winner in the district. It's Winner Takes All or first-past-the-post. So if the winner is someone who has never shown up before and came in now to "fight for democracy", you may have a hard time finding him/her to help you with your community problems. For example, your front door becomes an illegal garbage dump, but you can't find your district councilor to help because he/she is too busy running the Shopping Revolution in Mong Kok at nights, protesting the appointment of the Hong Kong University pro vice-chancellor, stopping parallel traders in Sheung Shui, etc.
- There are 18 district councils and each has a majority of pro-establishment councilors. So if a radical councilor wants to air an issue (such as having the council made a declaration of support to civil nomination for the Chief Executive or the elimination of the functional constituencies in the Legislative Council, that motion will be voted down with certainty. What can the radical councilor do? Throw an egg at the wall and be ejected? That's a good way to earn the HK$30,000 per month salary while fulfilling your campaign promise.
- What is for certain is that none of these candidates from radical political parties have the courage to hold a yellow umbrella high and chant loudly "I want genuine universal suffrage" as their campaign shtick.
- In discussing mainlanders, there is the category of "Double NO's" -- children neither of whose parents are Hong Kong residents, but they nevertheless enjoy all the Hong Kong benefits because they were born in Hong Kong themselves.
In discussing the District Council elections, there is also the category of "Double NO's" -- candidates who do not live in the district and who have never provided community service before, but who have now air-dropped into the district to earn a political reputation.
- (VJmedia) October 29, 2015.

Deco Lee Wai-fung is th People Power candidate for the Wo Che district in Sha Tin. On October 23, he sent out his first campaign email. However, he made the cc: list visible to all recipients. This came right after a Democratic Party candidate did exactly the same thing and caused a ruckus. What can you do with a candidate with a doctorate degree but who doesn't know how to use "bcc:" (blank carbon copy).
- Civic Passion Cheng Chung-tai's campaign poster with the Goddess Kuan Yin:

- Scenes stolen from the Young and Dangerous (Teddy Boy) films about Hong Kong triad gangsters.

This event took place at Lord Guan's Temple in the Sham Shui Po district. According to history, Lord Guan was born in Yuncheng city, Shanxi province, China. He never visited Hong Kong (which was an uninhabited island) during his lifetime. So it is hard to see how Lord Guan would care to bless a bunch of Hong Kong localist revolutionaries who insist that they are not Chinese.
- Civic Passion's Passion Teens Monthly front cover

AD 2015, Hong Kong awakens
Save Hong Kong and cast a vote of awakening
Civic Passion
This is an image remake from October 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4N22ciH_4k, a people-versus-police struggle which turns out to be about a turf battle against other radical political parties: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2C4ywNF9LI and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Vmf19ydJ8

[353] The Yellow Ribbon Entertainers (2015/10/27)

(HKG Pao) October 26, 2015.

Last October during Occupy Central, the director Wong Jing named the pro-Occupy actor Anthony Wong, actor Chapman To and singer Denise Ho as three persons with whom he had previously collaborated satisfactorily with and whose political positions he respect. However, he disagrees with their positions on Occupy Central and, to avoid further embarrassment, he has deleted the contact information of the three. This led to a verbal war between the two sides.
Recently Anthony Wong posted about the new TVB serial drama <Lord of Shanghai>. He said that "this drama is the best proof that during this time last year, I was in Shanghai filming and away from Hong Kong. Therefore, you should not be accusing me of being in some Occupy or the other. I cannot be present in both places at the same time. If you persist with that accusation, you will have to explain how I can manage to do that." So it seems that Anthony Wong wants to dissociate himself from Occupy Central.
Why is Anthony Wong doing this now? Recently Anthony Wong told <Ming Pao> that he hasn't been in any movies recently. "If this continues, I can't see any improvement. This big change has led me to see the other side of me."
However, Wong Jing immediately responded to Anthony Wong's post: "You were indeed away from Hong Kong at the time. But you posted pro-Occupy messages every day! If you have the guts, why don't you Anthony Wong say: 'I, Anthony Wong, am opposed to Occupy Central and I support the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on universal suffrage!'? I will retract all my criticisms of you and apologize to you!" Anthony Wong did not respond to Wong Jing's counter-attack.
During the <Ming Pao> interview with Anthony Wong, he kept criticizing the deteriorating quality of the TVB production and actors. At the same time, he revealed that he has had no film offers over the past year and therefore has to take to television.
Meanwhile what has happened to the other pro-Occupy entertainers such as Denise Ho, Chapman To, Wong Yiu-ming and Gregory Wong?
During the Occupy period, Denise Ho "separated" amicably from the MediaAsia with which she previously had a 10-year contract. She became an independent singer. She said: "The workload is clearly a lot less. As a singer, there was practically zero jobs, commercial performances and event appearances. If there are offers, they come from Hong Kong. There are no offers from mainland China." In the two or three years before, she had a lot of mainland Chinese offers. Therefore, she has lost about 80% to 90% of her income compared to the pre-Occupy period. Her Sina weibo account has also been deleted.
During the Occupy period, Denise Ho considered entering politics. In June this year, she gave up that idea because "she was not suited for power games." But she insisted that she has no regrets in joining Occupy Central. She said that Hong Kong has 7 million plus persons and that it still a big market.
Meanwhile Chapman To has not appeared in mainland since. During Occupy Central, To was in the forefront. Last March, he also offered Facebook support to the movement to oppose the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement in Taiwan. In May this year, there were two films <Let go for love> and <Aberdeen> with Chapman To shown on mainland China. Chinese fans organized mass boycotts so that the box office receipts were dreadful. The production company of <Let go for love> acknowledged five days after the premiere that "Chapman To was immoral and we made the wrong choice." In the last film that he took part in on the mainland, <That's incredible>, his entire presence was edited out.
Two to three years previously, Chapman To was already a controversial figure in mainland China. He cursed out mainlanders for their poor qualities and he arrogantly declared that he did not care for the mainland market. This caused his films to be shelved indefinitely. Even those films in which he had a cameo appearance were affected.
Meanwhile Wong Yiu-ying who joined Denise Ho in the Hong Kong Shield, a group formed by theatrical and musical professionals during the Umbrella Movement to monitor police brutality and violence in general and Gregory Wong who was much promoted by Ricky Wong's HKTV television station have both found that many theatrical and musical companies won't work with them because they supported Occupy Central.
Anyway, this is what they asked for and they got it. We believe that they are at peace with the outcome, and so is everybody else!

(HKG Pao) November 20, 2015.

Apple Daily has given Anthony Wong 3/4 of a page for an interview. Basically, it is repeating the assertion by Anthony Wong that he is not Yellow Ribbon and he does not support Occupy Central! Wong says that the mainland ban order was mistakenly applied to him. He said: "Whatever I think, whatever I say, whatever I do ... I cannot control how people interpret them."
Could it be that everybody misunderstood him? That he was never a Yellow Ribbon? Is that true? Was he misunderstood or framed?
If you can't figure out if you framed him, we'll give you a hint: in this Apple Daily interview, he said "I don't have any film assignments" three times, "economic pressure" four times, and "he is experiencing an economic crisis because he has to responsible for the livelihoods of more than a dozen people." It is one thing for politicians to make emergency appeals right before election day, but it is something else for an actor to beg for work!
So who is next to tell Apple Daily that they are not Yellow Ribbons? Alan Leong? Lee Cheuk-yan? Benny Tai? Joshua Wong? ...

Internet comments:

- Denise Ho says that Hong Kong is a big enough market in itself. This is true only if you assume that this is a homogenous market in which everybody will support a Yellow Ribbon singer/actor. This is not true for many reasons. Firstly, this is not a homogenous market, especially since the Yellow Ribbons have caused deep fissures. As soon as you declare your politics, some people will adore you while others will hate you. Secondly, the Yellow Ribbon singer/actor must still have a quality product. Singing forgettable songs won't sell no matter what your political position is. For reference, please see what happened to Ricky Wong's HKTV.
- When they supported Occupy Central, they were doing something that hurt people's livelihood. Afterwards they are complaining that their own livelihoods are being hurt. They should be asked to settle the bill first.
- Please note that this is not a question of the Chinese Communist government cracking down on these actors/singers. As Anthony Wong noted himself, he was busy filming TVB's <Lord of Shanghai> in Shanghai during the Occupy Central period. So it wasn't as if the government banned his person or his projects from mainland China. Ditto for the others.
- The problem was that there were popular boycott movements. Regardless whether these boycotts were spontaneously organized initially or not, mass participation was widespread. In the case of <Aberdeen>, the production/distribution company attempted to buy tickets themselves to boost box office receipts, but that was detected by the Internet users and publicized for even greater negative publicity. In the end, no company would hire these people because any products associated with them won't sell. Thus <That's incredible> had Chapman's role edited out altogether.
- (HK01) January 13, 2017. In 2013, a 3D comedy <That's incredible> was made in China with an investment of almost 100 million RMB. The stars were Chapman To, Wang Bao-qiang, Xiao Shen-yang, etc. The filming went smoothly and then came Occupy Central. According to one of the principals: "At the time, Chapman To was completely banned in terms of showing and advertising him in movies. In other words, the entire investment would go down the drain! What to do? The sunk costs were 100 million RMB already.
Ultimately, the movie company hired Asian Entertainment Group and the special effects company Studio 51 for post-production work. Every time that Chapman To appears in the movie, face-shifting computer graphics is used to transplant the mainland actor Xiao Peng onto him. "The image of Chapman was cut off and replaced by Xiao Peng playing the same scene from the same angle to a green background. The result was so good that you cannot detect any edge effects even on a 4K movie. You could not tell that another person was inserted to get slapped in the face." The post-production work cost 20 million RMB, but <That's Incredible> raked in more than 100 million RMB at the box office in late 2015 and recouped a sizeable proportion of the investment.

- Chapman To wrote about something that happened in Tai Po. He said that he saw an ambulance being blocked on the left lane and unable to proceed because the centre lane. At the time, the right lane was free of traffic. He saw that the first car on in the centre lane moved to the right lane, and all others in the center lane followed the lead. The center lane was thus opened for the ambulance to go through. Chapman To commented: "This is Tai Po! This is China! It may not be possible in other countries!"
However, many Internet users don't buy into what Chapman To had to say. They said: "When you occupied Central previously, you caused hundreds of thousands of people not being able to take buses, taxis, minibuses, trams and cars in Hong Kong. Why didn't you make way for them to get to wherever they needed to go? Or do you think that they didn't have to go anywhere?"
As for "it may not be possible in other countries", there are plenty of videos of the same action coming from other nations (e.g. China and Germany). It is a civic duty to make way for ambulances.

- (SCMP) October 1, 2014.

Protest leaders will set up "humanitarian corridors" to allow emergency vehicles to pass through their occupation zones, after a big drop in the number of fire engines and ambulances meeting the 12-minute target response time.

Police say protesters have occupied 3,670 metres of road: 600 metres of Harcourt Road in Admiralty, 1,100 metres of Gloucester Road in Wan Chai, 470 metres of Hennessy Road in Causeway Bay and 1,500 metres of Nathan Road in Mong Kok between Boundary Street and Waterloo Road.

The Fire Services Department said the proportion of ambulances on target in Central had fallen from 90 per cent to between 62 and 70 per cent. No figures were provided for other districts.

"So far, we have received no reports of any death or big fire," Deputy Chief Fire Officer Leung Wai-hung said. "But this is what we are trying to prevent." He said paramedics had to take a patient with a sprained ankle to hospital by MTR because of blocked roads, taking 43 minutes from the time of his call.

The Occupy people had to be shamed into fulfilling their civic duty.

- China today is completely different today as they have all manners of macro-motives and micro-movies. The Hong Kong young wastrels are still stuck twenty years ago and think that China only has patriotic-themed government-made propaganda movies. They really need to open their eyes and learn.
- As Chow Yun-fat said, at worst he'll just earn less money. Of course, Chow has already made a fortune as a billionaire so he doesn't care anymore. Can you?
- Should the mainland Chinese have protected the freedom of expression of these actors/singers? Well, if someone comes and calls you a stupid pig, must you pay money to protect his/her freedom of expression? No. You should exercise your own freedom of expression/assembly by boycotting that person and make sure that everybody else who has been called stupid pigs by that person do so as well.
- Denise Ho complains that the Hung Hom auditorium won't rent to her. Well, when more than one group wants to apply for use on the same date, the decision will be determined by these factors
(1) the nature, importance and attractiveness of the planned events
(2) the advantages of the planned events
(3) the track record of the planned events/performers/applicants
She should reflect on these factors rather than blame everything on political oppression by Chief Executive CY Leung. By the way, does CY Leung even know who Denise Ho is?

[352] The Li Ning Interview (2015/10/25)

(am730) October 23, 2015.

Li Ning is the chairman of two listed companies -- Li Ning (2331) and Extraordinary China (8032). Apart from seeking investment opportunities in China, he has been seeking ways to repay the motherland. In the past several years, he has established Li Ning Sports Parks, first in his hometown of Xining (Guangxi), then in Nanyang (Henan) and then in Yangzhou (Jiangsu). Over the past weekend, he was in Yangzhou for the opening ceremony and he was interviewed by us in the brand new park.

Li Ning was a sportsman nurtured by the state. After he migrated to Hong Kong and made money from his businesses, he did not leave the motherland. Instead he repaid the motherland. So he should be a model businessman in the eyes of mainland official media. Nobody would question his patriotism. But it is up to him to tell us about his feeling about Hong Kong.

"I think that Hong Kong has always been a world that is based upon putting in the effort to realize a dream. An ordinary person can keep elevating himself in this world." Li Ning seems to be talking about the story of a place in which an immigrant has plenty of opportunities, but he seemed to be lack a deep perception. After all, no place can be free of trouble. As a immigrant, he may be detached. But he cannot evade the issue of mainland-Hong Kong conflict because he has Chinese blood flowing in him.

"Conflicts are natural. But other that those who lived in the fishing village back then, who hasn't traveled from mainland to Hong Kong!" But how do you react when you see Hongkongers quarrel with mainlanders? "I think that some people are stupid, and some people are causing trouble." What about the fans booing the Chinese national anthem during the FIFA World Cup qualifying matches? Li Ning who has won 14 world championship titles and enjoyed the glory of listening to the Chinese national anthem innumerable times should have some feeling replied: "I think that they lack a little bit of culture. This should not be the behavior of someone who has received education in a large city. This should not have happened."

Although booing the national anthem may be related to the Chinese national team's racist poster, somewhere back there is the issue of Hong Kong identity. Certain Hongkongers insist on writing down Hong Kong as their identity. Our reporter asked Li Ning how he would respond if asked whether he is Hongkonger or Chinese? Li Ning did not respond directly, but only smiled and laughingly said: "That person who posed the question is being silly."

This is perhaps the difference between Li Ning who is in between Hong Kong and Chinese identities but never bothered by it and those Hongkongers who grew up with a colonial-era education. Li Ning does not think that there is anything that is right or wrong. "It's because you are used to being colonized, so you think that the colonial culture is normal. Therefore you say that you are Hongkonger and not Chinese. That's very normal. It will take time to change that."

"It is a good thing for Hong Kong to have different voices. There is nothing to be afraid of. But please don't take extreme actions. When you use extreme actions to express your demands, you may seem to be attacking someone else, but you are actually hurting yourself. That's unnecessary." What he refers to as "extremism" includes not just the anti-parallel trade clashes, but also "Occupy Central."

After 79 days of Occupy Central, every Hongkonger must feel something. At first Li Ning shaked his head and said that he did not visit the scene. He said: "I am not very sensitive about that." But he couldn't help himself and he added: "I feel all along that certain things should not be done by extreme methods. Extremism causes aftereffects, which damage ordinary citizens but not the big shots." Then he gave a little smile after saying this.

To relieve the problem, Li Ning had another suggestion beyond just making changes slowly. "Hong Kong has certain values that should not be discarded, except for colonial culture. I think that unless the colonial culture is discarded, Hongkongers won't know that they are Hongkongers. When Hongkongers don't even admit that they are Chinese, then they are not Hongkongers."

Our reporter asked: If colonization is a part of Hong Kong history, then how can it be erased? This is the reason why Hong Kong is different from mainland cities. Li Ning rebutted: "It is not unusual for cities to be different. The Shanghainese people and the Guangzhou people can't stand each other. Beijing people don't like Tianjin people. That's normal. There is nothing wrong with these types of conflicts. But it is absurd to say that Hong Kong and China oppose each other. Why is that necessary?" He explained that the purpose of de-colonization is to remind people not to be affected by the emotions induced by colonization. It is normal for cultural differences to exist among regions, including those uncivilized behaviors of certain mainlanders.

He asked the reporter: "Are they very civilized when they go to Japan? Are they civilized when they go to Europe? As a cosmopolitan city, Hong Kong should be more tolerant and accommodate everybody. If you start saying that this person will be allowed to enter but that person won't be allowed, then I don't understand the meaning of a cosmopolitan city."

The cosmopolitan city Hong Kong attracted Li Ning to bring his company for stock market listing in 2004. But he said frankly that this was because he did not have the same opportunity in mainland China which was not as open as today. Now that things are different, would he have gone to mainland to get his company listed? Li Ning said, "That's possible!" He said: "The world is changing. Hong Kong is not as good as Shanghai. Today all their resources are concentrated in Shanghai. How can you compare?" He gave the example that if Disneyland were completed simultaneously in Hong Kong and Shanghai. Where would foreigners go? "Hongkongers surely think that they will come to Hong Kong. Wrong! Because Shanghai represents China. If I were a foreigner, I want to go to China so as to understand the country."

If as he said, Hong Kong is being marginalized as predicted, Li Ning assured us: "The rise of China does not mean the decline of Hong Kong. This is not a logic. Hong Kong can also rise, but we need to find a reason. That reason is not politics. It is culture, economics and values."

But politics is linked to culture, economics and values. How can they be severed? "You are correct. Therefore you cannot be extreme. Extremism has costs. What takes only one or two years to do will take three or five years to accomplish." He said: "Hong Kong is going to do well, but you cannot simply compare it with Shanghai. You cannot simply set it up in opposition to China. You should allow them to use each other's resources to develop Hong Kong. You should know that there is not only China, but also the whole world."

Video:

(YouTube) Li Ning lights cauldron of the Beijing Olympics Games

Internet comments:

- I see some people are criticizing Li Ning because he dared to say: "When Hongkongers don't even admit that they are Chinese, then they are not Hongkongers." Look, Li Ning is a legal immigrant. As a Hong Kong resident now, he has freedom of expression. So let him speak his mind.

- No. The Chinese Communist tyrants approved Li Ning to migrate here. The people of Hong Kong did not approve this action. Someday after Hong Kong builds its own nation, we will strip Li Ning of his residency rights and demand reparations (more precisely, by confiscating his entire personal wealth) for saying "When Hongkongers don't even admit that they are Chinese, then they are not Hongkongers." I'll remember this, he will pay.

- Brother, did you forget to take your medication again?

- Let's see how this person from Hongmei town, Dongguan city, Guangdong province, China answers the question "Where are you from?"

If he goes to Dongguan city, he will say that he is from Hongmei town.

If he goes to Guangzhou (capital of Guangdong province), he will say that he is from Dongguan city.

If he goes to nearby Fujian province, he will say that he is from Dongguan city in Guangdong province.

If he goes to Heilongjiang province (in faraway northeastern China), he will say that he is from the south (or Guangdong province).

If he goes overseas, he will say that he is from China (or that he is Chinese).

If he goes to outer space, he will tell the extraterrestrial beings that he is from Earth.

So the answer to "Where are you from?" actually depends on the identity of the person who is asking. You have to answer at a level that he can grasp.

- It is pointless to tell someone in America that you are from Hongmei. "Where is that? Oh, in China? What don't you just say so?"

Only in Hong Kong (which is a part of the People's Republic of China according to the local constitution known as the Basic Law), some people cannot bring themselves to tell Americans or ETs that they are Chinese, even if the Americans or ETs know that they are just that.

- Localisation is a historical process. That is an undeniable fact which I did not make up. You cannot deny the historical truth. Hong Kong was economically surging in the 1980's and 1990's. But after the handover, poor-quality Chinese immigrants arrived and they enabled the Chinese Communists to hijack our city politically. As a result, Hong Kong is retrogressing. That is why the revolution is coming inevitably.

- Wake up! Are you stupid or what? Everybody knows that hundreds of thousands of so-called poor-quality Chinese crossed over the border illegally into China in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Real Hongkongers did not ostracize them. On the contrary we worked and attended school together. The economic rise in the 1980's and 1990's came through the efforts of these poor-quality Chinese. But we never expected that their descendants would turn out to be poor-quality Hongkongers today. Or perhaps they are just poor-quality Chinese wastrels.

- For the 18 years since Hong Kong was handed back to China, it has been a city that welcomed immigrants. Hong Kong is a free port with low tax rates and a higher degree of freedom in living, expressing and traveling. Unless you impose a dictatorship to lock down Hong Kong, it will continue to be an open city that welcomes qualified immigrants to live here. The so-called localization process is just camouflage for a dictatorship of those who were born here. Culturally speaking, there are many immigrants from places other than mainland China (such as India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, United States, United Kingdom, etc) who don't speak Cantonese and don't follow the local culture. What are you going to do about them? Put them on boats and push them off shore?

- 150 immigrants are coming from mainland China to Hong Kong every day, and that is the Chinese Communists' plot to take over Hong Kong by the numbers. Most of those coming under this scheme is allegedly for the purpose of family re-unification. For example, a Hong Kong male marries a mainland woman and applies for her to come to re-unify in Hong Kong. This can be stopped completely if no Hongkonger is allowed to marry outside of Hong Kong.
- That is debatable. Hongkongers should not be allowed to marry mainlanders all of whom are of poor quality, but they can marry high-quality outsiders from elsewhere (e.g. United States (whites only)/Europe/Japan but not Latin America/Africa/India/Pakistan/Middle East). I am not being racist here. I am just abiding by the scientific principles of eugenics. It is nothing person; it is just plain good science.

- Hong Kong Basic Law Article 24

Article 24 Residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("Hong Kong residents") shall include permanent residents and non-permanent residents.

The permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be:

( 1 ) Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
( 2 ) Chinese citizens who have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
( 3 ) Persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong of those residents listed in categories (1) and (2);
( 4 ) Persons not of Chinese nationality who have entered Hong Kong with valid travel documents, have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
( 5 ) Persons under 21 years of age born in Hong Kong of those residents listed in category (4) before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and
( 6 ) Persons other than those residents listed in categories (1) to (5), who, before the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, had the right of abode in Hong Kong only.

The above-mentioned residents shall have the right of abode in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and shall be qualified to obtain, in accordance with the laws of the Region, permanent identity cards which state their right of abode.

The non-permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be persons who are qualified to obtain Hong Kong identity cards in accordance with the laws of the Region but have no right of abode.

If you insist that you are not Chinese, then you don't fall under articles (1), (2) and (3) even if you were born here. So which are you? (4), (5) or (6)? If you are none of those, you better surrender yourself to the Immigration Department for deportation to your homeland (where is that?).

- The points here is that if you are not a Chinese citizen, then you are just someone with right of abode but not a Hong Kong citizen.

- Many Hongkongers misunderstand what a Hongkonger is. They think that just because they were born here, grew up here and live here, then they are Hongkongers with certain natural advantages. On the contrary, those immigrants from outside be they from mainland China, South Asia or elsewhere do not have those natural advantages.
This attitude is narrow-minded and erroneous.
Hong Kong is a place where people from all over the world come to, including Chinese people from every region of China, South Asians, Japanese, Koreans, British, Australia, Americans, Europeans, etc. Localism and patriotism will never work in Hong Kong.
Any immigrant with ability will have an advantage. But you cannot declare that if Bill Gates moves to Hong Kong, then he is a Hongkonger but if Ma Yun moves to Hong Kong, then he is still a despicable mainland Chinese money-grubber and not a Hongkonger!
The greatest advantage for Hong Kong is that it is a city that scores the highest freedom index! We must not destroy the unique character of Hong Kong where all peoples of the world can come and live.

- On the issue of extremism, Li Ning said: "When you use extreme actions to express your demands, you may seem to be attacking someone else, but you are actually hurting yourself. That's unnecessary." When you don't go extreme, people will ignore you. Therefore you are forced to go extreme to garner attention. Fine, but your extremism may drive the silent majority to become extreme against you and that is not an outcome that you will like.

For example, blocking CY Leung's motorcade did not arouse public interest, so you decided to Occupy Central. Fine, but suddenly you find that 90% of the population is against you. When that happens, you can't attain your goal (e.g. "I want genuine universal suffrage") anymore.

- The extremists have always been few and far in between, but they have the backing of certain media. There once was an extremist localist organization which can summon only a dozen or so supporters to demonstrate. Our radio stations immediately invited them for interviewing and reminded us that we must pay attention to them. Well, that organization is now defunct as their followers splinter into more extremist organizations that are busily fighting each other. Even the radio stations have lost interest because they can't track the schisms and sectarianisms.

[351] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/10/24)

(Ming Pao) October 24, 2015

Graduate students at Hong Kong University completed voting on their replacement representative on the university council. Engineering student Zhu Ke was elected on 274 votes to become the council representative for a term of one year. The other candidate Annabelle Mak Wing Man received 51 votes. There were 18 invalid ballots and 2 abstentions, for a total of 345 votes. Given that HKU has about 11,000 graduate students, the turnout rate is about 3%.
Zhu Ke will attend the council meeting next Tuesday, during which the members will discuss what (if any) sanctions be imposed on council member Billy Fung (HKU Student Union president) for leaking confidential information. Zhu Ke was non-committal, saying that he was not a member of the council when it happened and will need more information for his decision.
HKU law masters student Johnson Yeung Ching-yeung questioned whether electronic voting was against the regulations and therefore he refused to accept the results. Furthermore, the turnout rate of 3% is so low as to be unacceptable. In the last election, there were more than 900 compared to the 300+ this time, indicating that the voters lack confidence in the election. The school responded that electronic voting has been in use since 2005 without any problems.

(SCMP) October 24, 2015.

A mainland postgraduate whose political stance is in question has won a seat on the governing body of the University of Hong Kong amid a months-long political storm and doubts over the transparency of the election.

In the online vote that drew only 3 per cent of HKU postgraduates, Zhu Ke beat rival Anabelle Mak Wing-man by 274 votes to 51 for the vacated seat. Eighteen voters abstained. Zhu, an engineering student, previously joined activities run by the Beijing-loyalist Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

The seat representing postgraduate students was considered significant after HKU council members voted 12-8 last month to reject pro-democracy scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun's candidacy for pro-vice-chancellorship, a move seen by some as politically motivated.

After his victory was sealed yesterday, Zhu said he would have to "observe" before forming a view on forthcoming hot-button issues arising from the council, including the rumoured government appointment of Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung to chair the body. "I don't know much about Li," Zhu told the South China Morning Post. "It may not help just by looking at what a person did in the past. But I will take reference from the students' referendum about him." He was referring to a vote to be held by the students' union next week on two motions, one of which says Li, a former education minister and former Chinese University vice chancellor known for his high-handed style, is unsuitable for any governing positions at HKU.

An Economic Journal report yesterday said Zhu was close to DAB district councillors, including Siu Ka-yi. "I had met Siu only several times before," he said. "I took part in the activities of some groups but I'm not concerned about their political backgrounds." Johnson Yeung Ching-yeung, spokesman for a concern group of law students, said his group would not recognise Zhu as their representative. "It's been a rule-less election with a low turnout. Zhu works with the pro-establishment and shuns questions about politics." He criticised Zhu for declining to attend a pre-election forum held by the group to explain his position, and for failing to organise one himself.

Internet comments:

- The only fair election is the one that delivers the results that I want.
- Heads I win, tails you lose.
- It doesn't matter if the results came via a one-person-one-vote universal suffrage with every graduate student eligible to run and vote. It doesn't count unless I am happy. And I am only happy if the winner comes out openly to declare that he/she will join Billy Fung (undergraduate student representative) to lay siege to the university council until Johannes Chan is appointed pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources.
- I just bought a Mark 6 lotto ticket. If I don't win, I am going to file a judicial review for a redraw. I'll keep doing that until I win the grand prize.
- You object to Zhu Ke because he is from the mainland. You object to Annabelle Mak Wing Man because there is one photo of her with former police commissioner Andy Tsang Wai-hung and another photo of her with police spokesperson Steve Hui Chun-tak. Therefore you want the whole election voided because you are dissatisfied with both candidates. Isn't the solution simple? Why didn't you run yourself, Mr. Yeung? Surely you must be a better candidate than those two. The post-graduate students have eyes as clear as snow and will surely elect you.
- Why doesn't Mr. Yeung want to run himself? He is too busy with his studies. And he doesn't think that the job is significant because it is just one member out of 22 on the council. However, the job is important enough for law students who are concerned about the job to issue demands to void the election. I completely understand how he feels.
- Why was the turnout rate so low? The previous election was for a graduate student representative for the full term. Aloysius Wilfred Raj Arokiaraj was elected with a total turnout of more than 900 votes. That is less than 10% turnout. Why are graduate students not enthusiastic about voting? Because the graduate student representative is only one of 22 council members and has limited influence by himself. This election is for a replacement of Aloysius Wilfred Raj Arokiaraj who has resigned. Replacement elections always have lower turnouts.
- 4,000 persons turned out on October 9 to protest against the university council, or so the organizers claimed (#342). Where did they all go when it came to this election?
- The Ming Pao headline was "3% voter turnout, mainland student becomes new postgraduate student representative on HKU council." The critical keyword is "mainland student." If the winner was a Hong Kong student, this is not a news item even if the voter turnout was 0.3%.
- Mainlanders account for more than 50% of postgraduate students. It would be "undemocratic" if a mainlander didn't win the election for postgraduate student representative. The only way to stop them is to enact a Voting Rights Act which restricts voting rights only to postgraduate students who are Hong Kong residents (note: language restrictions won't work because many mainlanders have worked very hard to learn Cantonese already).
- If a postgraduate student is not satisfied with the two abominable choices, he/she can always cast a blank protest vote. There were 2 abstentions out of 345 votes, so their voices must be obeyed.
- What is the threshold of voter turnout below which an election must be voided? We know two facts. Firstly, if the voter turnout is 3%, then it must be voided. Secondly, if the voter turnout is 4.8% as in the case of the Hong Kong University Convocation vote organized by the HKU Alumni Concern Group, then it must be accepted. Therefore the threshold level is somewhere between 3% and 4.8%.
- At this year's July 1st march, the organizers claimed 48,000 marchers (versus the police estimate of 19,700). 48,000 is 0.7% out of a population of 7 million. This is four times lower than 3%, so we can safely ignore any demands from them on the grounds that they lack representativeness.
- If you think a low turnout voids an election, then the 66 District Councilors who were automatically elected in 2015 because they are the sole candidates in their districts should be immediately disqualified. No elections will be held in their districts and therefore the voter turnout is zero.
- Yeung is a law student, so he should know that the logical next step is to obtain legal aid to file a judicial review.
- If Yeung comes from a rich family, he won't be eligible for legal aid. But he can always find a student who is in serious credit card debt to apply. There are plenty of those students.
- Both candidates were pro-China/pro-establishment. This proves that the Communists are doing everything possible to infiltrate into Hong Kong University which was established by the British.

- Yeah, why won't the postgraduate students come out and vote against them? Unlike you, they don't see any Communists hiding underneath their beds.

- Postgraduate students are a completely different species from the undergraduate students. The postgraduate students have clearly defined goals (such as obtaining a doctorate in engineering) for which there are set requirements (taking courses themselves, teaching/tutoring undergraduate students, conducting research, presenting talks, writing/defending a thesis, etc). They don't have the time/money to play Occupy Central.

- Alex Chow in his sixth year of a four-year program, while Billy Fung is already up to his fifth year. What postgraduate student can afford to do so? Each year lost means paying more tuition/room/board/living expenses while foregoing earnings.

- Most of the postgraduate students at Hong Kong University are from the mainland. Hong Kong people don't have the patience/resources to commit to another four years of study for an advanced degree. The mainlanders do so because they believe that a doctorate would be a lot better than the rather commonplace baccalaureate.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 23, 2015.

Nine out of ten secondary schools received requests from students to boycott classes during last year’s pro-democracy Occupy protest, a survey by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and an association of school principals has shown. The survey, “Stories untold – What happened in schools during the Occupy Movement 2014?” aims to better understand what happened at secondary schools during the protest. It received responses from 131 principals and 1,411 secondary school teachers from a pool of 168 secondary schools.

Yip Hak-kwong, Director of Policy 21, a subsidiary of HKU which co-organised the survey, said that most of the schools chose to tolerate class boycotts. Twenty percent of principals permitted class boycotts, he said, while 70 percent allowed class boycotts with parental consent, reports Ming Pao. Around 90 percent of the surveyed principals said that schools should remain politically neutral when dealing with class boycotts and protests, and 80 percent said it was an opportunity to encourage students to think from a different perspective. Those students who boycotted classes typically assembled inside their school and discussed issues, or studied on their own.

Although just 3.8 percent of the surveyed teachers brought students to observe or join the protest, the survey showed that 63 percent of them felt the protest had a positive impact on students’ acknowledgement of issues of society. Around half of the surveyed teachers said that the protest had no impact on students’ studies and their relationship with students.

The chairman of the Hong Kong Association of the Heads of Secondary Schools, Lee Suet-ying, said that although the studies of some students may have been affected during the protest, joining social movements can bring new knowledge to students. She added that schools have recovered from the impact of the protest. Some had banned students from political activities, but schools had since been in touch with students via social media and resolved the conflicts. Lee also said that teachers have to accept that schools are not immune to politics, and she expects students to be more involved in politics in the future. She said she believed schools can handle it better when the next social movement happens.

Internet comments:

- Did the survey ask whether the students demanded to have universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote with civil nomination) of the school principal?

- When schools hire batshit-crazy teachers like Alpais Lam, the students will surely turn into Yellow Ribbon Zombies.

- How do you expect the schools to respond to a survey like this? Can they say that their students are incapable of independent thinking? Unable to tell right from wrong, black from white? If they say so, what parents will enroll their children in this school?
- Similarly they can't say that the students' thinking was uninformed and immature. The Yellow Guards will make the school principal kneel on glass shards and apologize in abjection.

- All secondary school students want to become Joshua Wong when they grow up. The guy does not have to work, he does not attend school, he has wads of money and he has a fat chick for a girlfriend. What more does a guy want?
- No, Joshua Wong wants to become Legislative Councilor, and he isn't there yet. So his life is not perfect yet.

- Much of what was happening in the schools had to do with social pressure. If all your friends are going down to Occupy Central, you feel pressured to go along too even if you know nothing about the issues. This is evident from all those interviews with participants. You probe them with a few questions about factual matters, such as "What are the three barriers listed in the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31st resolution?" or "How many members of the Hong Kong University Council were appointed by Chief Executive CY Leung?" and they totally fall apart.

- Actually, they won't plead ignorance. They will merely say, "I don't know and I don't care either. I only know that I want genuine universal suffrage (whatever that means)."

(SpeakoutHK @ YouTube) October 23, 2015.

0:01 (Students) Arthur Li! Shameful! Arthur Li! Shameful!

0:07 In order to stop Arthur Li from becoming university council president, the HKU Academic Staff Association conducted a survey.

0:11 (Commercial Radio host) 152 teachers and staff members responded. Let's discuss whether the response rate is high or low?

0:14 (HKU Academic Staff Association president Cheung Sing-wai) This can be said to be high. Ordinarily, our surveys have only 20% response rates. This time it was 35%. It is very representative.

0:27 Hong Kong University website's staff profiles. Total of all staff = 10,965.

0:39 152 respondents is less than 2% of all staff.

0:45 This is representative? Are you kidding?

0:48 (Cheung Sing-wai) 85% are not confident of him being a university council member. 87% are not confident of him being the university council president. This is a clear landslide.

1:06 Media report headline: "85% of HKU academic staff members don't trust Arthur Li. Interviewee: "He is a thug." The report says that HKU has about 1,000 academic staff members, of which 466 are in the HKU Academic Staff Association. Of the association members, 152 responded to the survey.

Internet comments:

- The survey was sent to 466 members of the HKU Academic Staff Association. Therefore the results can only be projected to that universe, which is a self-selected non-random sample from the larger population of all academic staff. And why did 65% of the universe not respond? Can we assume that they are identical to the 35% which responded? In any case, the media report title of "85% of HKU academic staff members don't trust Arthur Li" is misleading.

- Hong Kong University has a regular academic staff of 1,107.
466 are members of the HKU Academic Staff Association but the rest have elected not to join.
152 out of the 466 responded to the survey.
132 (=87%) out of the 152 said that they have no confidence in Arthur Li becoming council president.
This survey has established that 132 out of 1,107 (=12%) of the HKU academic staff members have no confidence in Arthur Li becoming council president. The other 88% are either supportive or have given no comments yet.
Therefore the voice of these 132 (=12%) must be obeyed.
If you disagree with me, I will lay siege and prevent you from leaving until you agree with me.
Johannes Chan may have once labeled this tactic "false imprisonment" but today it has been re-branded as "fighting for justice."

- Nobody wants someone to be watching over what they do, especially when they had lax supervision before and got away with all manners of things. Therefore the HKU establishment must stop Arthur Li at all costs. The vice chancellor, deans, professors, lecturers, researchers, administrators, students and janitors are all playing politics towards this goal. Meanwhile, they neglect their teaching, research and cleaning even as the ranking of Hong Kong University is falling in all the surveys.

- When Arthur Li shows up to assume the presidency of the university council, he will (1) cut the budgets; (2) hire more overseas professors; (3) re-evaluate all current staff and force those with inadequate publication records to go into early retirement. He will also report to the police all those who took in donations without declaration. Arthur Li comes from a very wealthy family so there is nothing that you can do to stop him.

(RTHK) October 25, 2015.

Last week, the Professional Teachers' Union interviewed 670 of its university members by telephone and email. 74% of the interviewees said that they opposed Arthur Li becoming the Hong Kong University Council president.

(Oriental Daily) October 25, 2015.

The Professional Teachers' Union interviewed 670 of its university members on October 20-23. Of these, 74% think that Arthur Li is not a suitable choice for university council president while 13% thinks that he is suitable. 77% were worried that the decision by the university council may have a negative impact on freedom of academic research and institutional autonomy while 17% were not concerned. 76% thought that the university council declined to appoint Johannes Chan as pro vice chancellor for political reasons while 15% disagreed. 78% thinks that the true reason for the failure to appoint must be disclosed while 15% disagreed.

Internet comments:

- Well, there are eight universities in Hong Kong and some (but not all) of the academic staff are Professional Teachers' Union members. 670 PTU members responded, but if you divide this by 8, this works out to be 84 per university. We all know that outsiders must not be allowed to interfere with the internal affairs of a university, because the whole point is about autonomy/self-determination. Therefore, the opinions of the PTU members from the other 7 universities must not count. This leaves 84 respondents from Hong Kong University itself. 74% of 84 is 62. Hong Kong University has 1,170 regular academic teaching staff members. Do you think that 62 out of 1,170 should dictate what the university must do?

- With this rigged non-representative sample, why is it not 100% against Arthur Li? Why did 26% not oppose Arthur Li?

- Why do they bother with running an opinion poll of their own members? I am still waiting for the Umbrella Revolution/Occupy Central strike by all the teachers/students at all eight universities that the Professional Teachers' Union had called for. And also the judicial review that they promised to file if Johannes Chan is not appointed Pro Vice Chancellor at Hong Kong University. So far everything has been vaporware.
- Professional Teachers' Union's legislator Ip Kin-yuen has just promised to investigate the feasibility of holding a teacher/student strike as well as judicial review if the appointment of Arthur Li goes through. More vapor in the air.
- But Ip Kin-yuen does not offer the ultimate weapon: mass resignation by all teachers and mass drop-out by all students. If he issued that call, he may be disappointed by the response.
- You're wrong because the even more ultimate weapon is mass self-immolation by all teachers and students in front of the HKU Library plaza. Oh, what a sight!

- Be careful about Arthur Li Kwok-cheung. On June 26/27 2004, he uttered the famous phrase: "I'll remember this. You will pay." (see Wikipedia)

[350] CY Leung's Lifespan (2015/10/22)

(SCMP) October 22, 2015.

Radical lawmaker Wong Yuk-man might have earned a reputation for throwing objects at officials, but he hit the chief executive with something else entirely yesterday, asking Leung Chun-ying: "When will you die?" And the beleaguered leader - who was grilled by lawmakers from across the spectrum over "unfulfilled" election pledges - was told he could not escape the pointed inquiry at his Legislative Council question-and-answer session. Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing decided that, since the question was political in nature, Leung should reply. Leung sidestepped Wong's point, instead reciting a line of poetry by Mao Zedong : "Having too many grumbles is detrimental to health." He then wished Wong "a long life".

There was less courtesy later in the day when Tsang addressed his decision to reject a request by his Beijing-loyalist ally, unionist Wong Kwok-kin, to rule the question out of order. "Neither the chief executive, I, nor the members of the public need the Honourable Wong Kwok-kin's lectures on what can and cannot be said," Tsang added.

Wong Yuk-man asked about Leung's lifespan when Tsang pressed him to get to the point of a rant in which he accused the chief executive of "badmouthing" and "betraying" Hong Kong on visits to the mainland. Wong asked the president not to interrupt, reminding him "someone" had "fixed" his brother Tsang Tak-sing - who was removed as home affairs minister in July. Tsang silently fixed his eyes on Wong, who asked the question he said constituents had demanded he raise - how long did Leung have left to live? Asked by the other Wong to rule out the question, Tsang said: "It is perfectly possible for the chief executive to respond."

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 22, 2015.

Lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man asked Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying when he would die, during a question-and-answer session at the Legislative Council today, saying his voters have pushed him to ask that question for some time.

Leung then cited a line from a poem written by Mao Zedong. “Beware of heartbreak with grievance overfull,” Leung said, adding, “I wish you a long life.” “Reply to Mr Liu Yazi” is a poem Mao wrote in April 1949 after Liu complained that the CPPCC meeting Mao invited him to was poorly planned. Mao asks Liu not to complain in the poem, saying he should take the greater interests of the country to heart. Leung said the government has been working hard to produce results and the current economy of Hong Kong “is not something that can be fixed by speaking loudly.”

LegCo president Jasper Tsang then asked Wong to leave the chamber, saying he stopped Leung from speaking and was breaking LegCo’s Rules of Procedure. Tsang paused the question-and-answer section for a few minutes to let the security guards escort Wong out.

“Reply to Mr Liu Yazi”

I still remember our drinking tea in Guangzhou
And your asking for verses in Chongqing as the leaves yellowed.
Back in the old capital after thirty-one years,
At the season of falling flowers I read your polished lines.
Beware of heartbreak with grievance overfull,
Range far your eye over long vistas.
Do not say the waters of Kunming Lake are too shallow,
For watching fish they are better than Fuchun River.

Videos:

(Cable TV) http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=468774

(Ming Pao Canada) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxdVBfHIm90

(RTHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEIU9DCdbE0

(TVB) http://news.tvb.com/local/562875e36db28cef27000002/

Internet comments:

- When I grow up, I want to be Legislative Councilor. The job pays $93,000 per month, with an expense allowance equal to that. The work is easy: you show up every day, you shout some slogans and throw an object that misses everything, you get tossed out and you are done for the day. Nice job, if you can get it.
- And you also get television time.

- LegCo president Jasper Tsang explained that he said that this Q&A session is just a political dialogue and therefore he does not need to render judgments as during normal LegCo inquiry sessions. Tsang believed that Leung was perfectly capable of dealing with Raymond Wong's question. Rather than spend time on considering the issue, it was far better to let Leung answer.

But Raymond Wong's question is not a real question. It was an insult. You don't know when you will die. Even when the doctor tells you that you have terminal cancer and you have two weeks left to live, the length of the period is only his educated guess. You do know exactly when you will die if you plan on killing yourself (e.g. jumping off the cliff at midnight). Wong's question is an oblique way of saying that many of his constituents want to see CY Leung dead. Wong's non-question should have been disallowed and deplored.

Jasper Tsang served as a school principal for a number of years. But his words today are not fit for children listening. If the students follow this example, they may go to to the teacher and ask, "When will you die?" If the teacher gets angry, the students will retort: "But Jasper Tsang says it's okay to ask and you as a teacher are perfectly capable of dealing with my question."

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) Raymond Wong also asked: "Why does he always say bad things about Hong Kong whenever he goes to mainland China?" I ask: "Why does Raymond Wong never complain whenever Joshua Wong says bad things about Hong Kong whenever he goes to the United States or Europe (see #348)?"

- SCMP cartoon

- Previously CY Leung has insistently denied that he is a member of the Communist Party. By being able to quote Chairman Mao's poem instantaneously, he has finally provided definitive proof that he is a member of the Communist Party. Who else but a Communist Party member can quote Chairman Mao off the cuff?

[349] Mainland Chinese Tourist Killed in Hong Kong (2015/10/21)

(Oriental Daily) October 21, 2015.

A mainland tourist walked around a jewelry shop and decided not to buy because the prices were too expensive. He was dragged out of the shop by some unidentified men and beaten up. He is now in critical condition.
54-year-old male named Miao from Heilongjiang province and his female colleague 53-year-old named Zhang came to Hong Kong on a 3-days/2-nights package tour. The tour group of more than 20 persons started from Shenzhen and arrived in Hong Kong the day before yesterday. The female mainland tour guide 32-year-old named Deng led the team with a two-way Hong Kong visa.
At around 10am, the group including Miao and Zhang came to a jewelry store in Man Lok Street, Hung Hom district. Miao and Zhang did not buy anything because the prices were too high and the discounts were too small. They went instead to smoke by the shop entrance. Deng reproached them, and began to tussle with Zhang. In the chaos, Deng was slapped in the face. Miao went up to intercede and it became a three-person brawl. Soon a number of Hong Kong and mainland men joined in, as Miao and and Zhang were violently dragged outside the shop. According to witnesses, the men punched and picked Miao, who became unconscious. "Someone continued to kick his stomach even after he was down on the ground." Finally, Miao passed out near a lamppost. One male attacker fled in the direction of Fat Kwong Street. Zhang was crying and screaming for help. When the police arrived, the men had dispersed. Miao, Zhang and Deng were sent to the hospital for treatment.
The police checked the surveillance videos, and saw many individuals fighting from inside to outside the shop. They arrested Miao, Zhang and Tang for fighting in a public place.

(Global Times) October 21, 2015.

A Chinese mainland tourist allegedly beaten unconscious by four men died at a Hong Kong's hospital on Tuesday, with police treating the case as manslaughter and violence in public, the Xinhua News Agency reported.
The fighting allegedly took place outside a jewelry store in Man Lok Street, Hung Hom on Monday, where the victim, a 54-year-old tourist surnamed Miao from Heilongjiang Province, was attacked.

Miao was trying to meditate a dispute between a fellow tourist surnamed Zhang and the tour guide surnamed Deng. The incident was allegedly sparked by Zhang's refusal to buy expensive jewelry, which later turned into a fist fight, news site thepaper.cn reported on Tuesday. Both Zhang and Miao were dragged out of the jewelry shop by four unidentified men, with Miao beaten unconscious and Zhang suffering multiple injuries. The suspects fled before police arrived. Miao, Deng and Zhang were later sent to Queen Elizabeth Hospital, the South China Morning Post reported on Tuesday.

Police arrested four people, including Zhang and Deng, for fighting in a public place and wounding others, Xinhua reported on Tuesday.
Analysts said they believe that the incident was triggered by "forced shopping," thepaper.cn said. However, the dispute may have been caused by their smoking in the jewelry store, according to local newspaper the Sing Tao Daily.

(Oriental Daily with video) October 22, 2015.

Yesterday morning at around 9am, the police came back to the scene of the incident and closed a section of the road to traffic. At around 11pm, the 44-year-old Hong Kong tour group guide named Wu was escorted to the scene. He wore a black hood to cover his face. First he described the incident to the police. Then they entered the jewelry shop. About 10 minutes later, they came back out and a dummy was used to re-enact the incident. The suspect named Wu illustrated using his knee to hit the right leg and lower torso of the dummy. After the dummy fell down on the ground, the suspect showed using the hands to hold him down. The dummy laid there with its right foot touching the bent left foot and the hands crossed in front of the chest.

(The Standard) October 22, 2015.

The mainland tourist who died in a row over forced purchases was kneed several times, it has emerged.

Police, meanwhile, suspect that two tourist guides wanted in connection with the death may have already fled to the mainland.

Heilongjiang tourist Miao Chunqi, 54, died in hospital a day after he tried to stop a scuffle between mainland tour guide Deng Haiyan and female tourist Zhang Lixia, who was accused of not shopping. Miao was allegedly dragged out of the jewelry shop on Man Lok Street, Hung Hom, and assaulted by four people at the entrance to a parking lot on Monday. He died in Queen Elizabeth Hospital the following day.

A suspect, Hong Kong tour guide Wu Yin-nam, 44, was taken to the jewelry store yesterday and demonstrated how he allegedly attacked Miao by striking a dummy several times with his knee in the area of the thigh. The dummy was then placed on a road with its hands and legs crossed, indicating the victim had collapsed before being taken to hospital.

Four people have so far been arrested, including Deng and Zhang for fighting in a public place. The other two are Wu and a mainland guide Liu Yang, 32.

The case was reclassified as manslaughter and fighting in public. Police have charged Liu and Wu with manslaughter. Both men will appear at Kowloon City Magistrates' Courts today.

Deng and Zhang, both arrested for fighting in a public place, were released on bail pending further inquiries and told to report back by the end of the month.

There was speculation Miao may have fainted due to an illness, but his wife said he was "very healthy." Miao worked for a public works engineering company in Harbin and had been a supervisor in Hainan over the past year, she said. Zhang was a colleague in Hainan and they joined the tour in Shenzhen.

Miao's wife, daughter and son-in-law flew to Shenzhen yesterday and they later arrived in Hong Kong accompanied by Travel Industry Council executive director Joseph Tung Yao-chung. The council has arranged a meeting between relatives and police today.

China National Tourism Administration said Tuesday it is "highly concerned" and asked the government to look into the incident as soon as possible.

It is understood that six mainland visitors have complained to the Shenzhen tourism authorities about Wu forcing them to shop during a "shopping- free" tour in September.

(EJinsight) October 22, 2015.

The widow of a mainland tourist who died after being beaten unconscious outside a jewelry shop in To Kwa Wan dismissed speculation that her husband was suffering from some illness prior to the attack. The victim, 53-year-old Miao Chunqi, was beaten after trying to mediate in a quarrel between a female mainland tourist and a tour guide who berated her for not making any purchase at the jewelry shop. Miao’s wife, surnamed Zhang, insisted in an interview with a mainland newspaper that her husband’s health condition was normal before he left for Hong Kong. Zhang and seven other members of Miao’s family arrived in Hong Kong on Wednesday night from Heilongjiang to identify the body.

Travel Industry Council (TIC) executive director Joseph Tung Yiu-chung, who received the group, said the family members were tired and devastated. The TIC is providing assistance to the family during their stay in the city.

Meanwhile, two tour guides suspected of involvement in the incident, including a 44-year-old Hong Kong citizen, were set to appear before the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday to face manslaughter charges, Ming Pao Daily reported. The local suspect was taken back to the jewelry shop for a reconstruction of the incident.

The China National Tourism Administration has released a statement expressing deep concern over the mainland tourist’s death. Meanwhile, mainland newspaper Global Times published an editorial on Wednesday condemning the incident, saying that it will ruin Hong Kong’s image as a tourist destination among mainlanders. The article said mainland tourists are being ripped off every day and the situation has reached a tipping point.

Leung Fong-yuen, chairwoman of the Hong Kong Tourism Industry Employees General Union, said the industry has become aware of so-called “shadow tourists” — around two or three persons in each tour group — who have been hired by travel agencies to persuade tourists to spend. Leung said a mainland ordinance enacted in 2013 against tour operators who charge very low fees but force tourists to spend in designated shops is only being enforced among major travel agencies as authorities do not have the manpower to supervise smaller agencies.

Meanwhile, police arrested two women, aged 32 and 53, who were involved in the jewelry shop incident for fighting in a public place. The two were released on bail and due to report to the police by end of the month.

(SCMP) October 22, 2015.

Two of the four men who allegedly attacked and killed a mainland tourist at a jewellery shop in Hung Hom on Monday may have fled across the border, police sources say. Detectives believe the fugitive pair who helped drag 54-year-old Miao Chunqi out of the store before beating him unconscious could be tour group leaders from the mainland.

Hours after the attack, police arrested two other men - one of them from Hong Kong and the other a tour group leader from the mainland. Miao died in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Yau Ma Tei, on Tuesday. The two arrested men - aged 32 and 44 - were jointly charged with manslaughter yesterday and will appear in Kowloon City Court today. Police also arrested two women, aged 32 and 53, for fighting in a public place. They have been released on bail pending further inquiries.

Yesterday officers took one of the male suspects - hooded, chained and wearing a black T-shirt and trousers - back to the scene in Man Lok Street, where a blow-up dummy was used to film a reconstruction of events. During a bizarre 30-minute episode, the suspect, who was held on a metal chain leash by a plain-clothes officer, was asked to kick the dummy "victim" while it was held by officers at the entrance to a car park.

Miao and a female colleague, Zhang Lixia, 53, were among a group of 19 mainland tourists who arrived from Shenzhen on Sunday. He was allegedly attacked after intervening in a dispute between Zhang and the woman leader of their tour group inside the shop. His death prompted a rare call from the nation's tourism authority for Hong Kong to protect the rights of mainland travellers.

Several mainland media outlets covered the death of the tourist, rekindling anti-Hong Kong sentiment online. Global Times, a state-run Beijing-based conservative daily, said the tragedy had reminded many mainlanders about previous anti-mainland behaviour by extreme forces and would "further damage Hong Kong's image in mainlanders' minds". The newspaper said while details of the tragedy - such as whether the beating was led by a mainland gang - remained unclear, the death reflected a "chaotic Hong Kong tourism market and a serious loophole in the rule of law". It noted that following the pro-democracy Occupy movement and anti-parallel trading campaigns, many mainlanders had opted to travel to other Asian destinations instead of "helping maintain Hong Kong's economic prosperity".

(SCMP) October 22, 2015.

A Shenzhen tour escort accused of killing a mainland Chinese tourist during a dispute at a Hong Kong jewellery shop did not hit the victim, a court heard today. Tour escort Liu Yang, 32, and Hong Kong tour guide Ricky Woo Yin-nam, 44, appeared before Kowloon City Court jointly charged with manslaughter for the killing of Miao Chunqi, 54, on Monday outside D2 Jewellery in Hung Hom. No plea was made.

The prosecution said Liu acknowledged he had dragged the victim out of the shop but “denied hitting anyone”. Woo, meanwhile, told police officers under caution he had grabbed and kicked the deceased, the prosecution said. The prosecution pointed out that CCTV footage showed several assailants punched the victim after dragging him out of the shop. “One or two more persons involved” are still wanted, the prosecution said.

While Liu did not apply for bail, Woo’s bail request was denied, as Principal Magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen pointed to his potential grounds for absconding, the serious nature of the allegation against him, and the fact other suspects were still at large.

(SCMP) October 24, 2015.

A mainland tourist who died 24 hours after he was allegedly beaten up when a jewellery shopping trip turned violent may have been killed by a heart attack, the South China Morning Post has discovered. Following a postmortem examination yesterday, a source with knowledge of the investigation into the death of 54-year-old Miao Chunqi said: "Initial findings suggest a heart attack, but we have to wait for the results of a toxicology examination to come to a conclusion on the cause of death."

Separately, police last night arrested 42-year-old Lam Tuen-hung, boss of the local travel agency that hosted Miao and his tour group from Shenzhen. The agency, Tian Ma International (Hong Kong) Travel, is under investigation after the Hong Kong Travel Industry Council complained to police that it had used forged documents.

The council's executive director, Joseph Tung Yao-chung, said information that Tian Ma submitted about the tour group might have contained a false declaration. According to the document, a mainland-registered agency was responsible for organising the tour group in Shenzhen, Tung said. However, the mainland agency had told Shenzhen's tourism authorities it did not organise the tour, he added. "Because of suspected forged information, we lodged a complaint to the police," Tung said.

Companies Registry documents show the firm was set up on September 14, 2012. Lam is also sole director of Flying Horse International Travel Holdings, which was incorporated on September 8 this year. Both agencies have addresses on the third floor of Hang Fung Industrial Building in Hok Yuen Street, Hung Hom. Neither responded to requests for comment.

Videos:

(Compilation of news reports) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8CaSdmnuBM

Internet comments:

- While it is for certain that a male mainland tourist was critically injured near a jewelry store in Hung Hom, there were many different versions about what happened:

- The man named Miao was smoking inside the shop, refused to stop when asked and got into a fight with the sales assistants.
- The man named Miao refused to buy the overpriced fake jewelry, and this upset the female Hong Kong tourist guide named Deng who lives off the sales commission. Miao and Deng got into a fight, and other Hongkongers came to the help of Deng.
- The woman named Zhang refused to buy the overpriced fake jewelry, and this upset the female tourist guide named Deng who lives off the sales commission. Zhang and Deng got into a fight. Miao tried to stop the fight, but he became the target instead.
- Miao and Zhang refused to buy anything. This upset the "shadow" tourist in the group. This person works for the tour company but assumes the identity of a tourist in order to egg other tourists in the group on to make purchases. Miao fought with this unknown "shadow". There were several other groups led by the same company, and their "shadow" tourists joined to attack Miao.

When a single incident has so many versions, it is best to shut up and wait for a more authoritative account (such as one based upon the surveillance videos).
- (Bastille Post) October 20, 2015.

Tencent placed this new story on the front page. Look at the number of comments
- Chongqing rich man picks up garbage for 8 months, 1524 comments
- Tourist believed to be beaten to death in Hong Kong for refusing to make purchases, 58000 comments
- How remorseless travel agencies create shame for the Pearl of the Orient, 263 comments
- New Canadian premier said to be supported by Cheng Mu-yang, 125 comments

The number of comments for this story is a lot higher than those for other stories.
Tencent also ran an online poll.
Q1. Have you ever been forced to make purchases in Hong Kong?
45%: Yes, and I was scared
27%: No, I went to proper stores
27%: Hard to say
Q2. What do you think about the current conditions for shopping and touristing in Hon gKong?
9%: Okay, better than mainland
72%: Worse, the conditions have worsened
17%: Hard to say
Q3. Do you want to go shopping/touristing in Hong Kong soon?
8%: Yes, because forced purchasing is rare
53%: I don't want to go to Hong Kong to shop/tour any more
37%: I have to consider carefully

- (HKG Pao) Does reading Apple Daily make you a cold-hearted monster?

Sample comments:

- I am waiting for the second case, the third case ... to take place!
- Also it would be nice if those mainland students wouldn't come!
- If they come again, they will have no children and no grandchildren.
- Go to hell, Chinaman! Go to hell, Chinaman! Go to hell, Chinaman! Go to hell, Chinaman!
- Oh! I die like this way ... I was looking for some small benefits, but I lost my life. Was this worth it? But Hong Kong is no longer what it was before the handover. Your life is not protected when you come here on a tour trip. You should think carefully before you come here!
- You should go back to China!
- I shouldn't be elated when someone dies, but I was super-happy when I read "Boycott Hong Kong"!
- A mainland tourist used his own death to warn compatriots not to come and spend money in Hong Kong.
- If you don't want to spend money, you shouldn't come to Hong Kong. You deserve this!
- The guy should have stayed home and shopped through Taopao.
- 300,000 Chinese people were massacred in Nanjing, but the Chinese continue to flock to Japan to shop. So what is the big deal about one death in Hong Kong.

[348] Xi Jinping vs. Joshua Wong Chi-fung (2015/10/21)

(Independent) October 20, 2015.

The teenager who became the public face of the Hong Kong protest movement has called on David Cameron to “publicly challenge” the visiting Chinese President over a crackdown on human rights in the former British colony. Joshua Wong, 19, who faces up to five years in jail for his role spearheading the Umbrella Revolution, named after the parasols used by protestors to defend themselves from police tear gas, said the Prime Minister “could not trust” Chinese assurances on human rights made during this week’s state visit by President Xi Jinping. Protestors in Hong Kong captured the world’s attention last year when they occupied busy intersections for 79 days and tried to storm the government headquarters. They were calling for universal suffrage, a right promised to the city under a deal between China and Britain before the former colony was handed back to Beijing in 1997.

In an interview with the Independent, as he arrived in the UK for a university speaking tour to coincide with the first state visit by a Chinese leader in 10 years, the teenager condemned Britain for failing to pressure Beijing over crackdowns in Hong Kong and on the Chinese mainland. “My message to David Cameron is that China has not kept its promise to the people of Hong Kong to deliver universal suffrage, so how can you trust President Xi to keep his word on the trade deals signed this week? You cannot. The Chinese government will not keep its promises on trade or on human rights,” he said.

President Xi’s government in Beijing has been accused of increasing interference with the rule of law in Hong Kong, alongside crackdown on dissent on the mainland. In July it enacted a new State Security Law which stipulates new “responsibilities” for the people of Hong Kong to protect national security, a move which prompted dismay among democracy campaigners and NGOs.

Mr Wong, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine last year with the headline: “The Face of the Protests”, faces trial next week on charges of “unlawful assembly” and incitement for his role in an attempted storming of the government headquarters in Hong Kong. The teenager said he intended to continue the “struggle for democracy” but said that Britain had not “put enough effort” into moves to monitor democracy and human rights in Hong Kong.

“After the Umbrella protests we knew the British government had failed to keep its promise on democracy and that it viewed trade with China as more important. Despite this we are still determined to continue our fight for universal suffrage and autonomy,” said Mr Wong, who is hoping to stand for election next year. “The UK government must put human rights on a higher status than trade with China.”

Maya Wang, a China researcher at international watchdog Human Rights Watch, said the NGO was “increasingly concerned” that the British government had “capitulated” over the deteriorating human rights situation in Hong King and on-going, more serious concerns in mainland China. She said: “The government of Hong Kong is clearly going after the protest leaders and we call on David Cameron to use President Xi’s state visit as an opportunity to raise this concern. The UK has a moral obligation to pressure Beijing over Hong Kong.”

Mr Wong was due to address the Oxford Union last night as President Xi arrived at Heathrow to embark on a much-heralded four-day state visit, which will see him stay at Buckingham Palace, received all the pomp and ceremony the British Royalty can offer and meet with Chinese investors in the London and Manchester. However human rights campaigner are concerned about allegations over the increasing use of torture on the Chinese mainland, the detention of human rights lawyers in “black sites” and repression of ethnic minorities.

Despite this, the UK is rolling out the red carpet for President Xi. Last night giant red flags of the People’s Republic of China were already lining the Mall alongside the Union flag, while the president and his wife will today receive a Royal welcome on Horse Guards Parade As the Chinese president places his foot upon the first steps of the Royal Pavilion a 41 gun “Royal salute” will ring out from Green Park, added to by 62 guns at the Tower of London. President Xi will then attend a state banquet where he will meet the Queen, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and hold talks with David Cameron.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International and Free Tibet will protest in St James’s Park over human rights violations and the detention of up to 30 prominent human rights lawyers. Demonstrators will hold banners reading “Rights over revenue” and “People before profit”, while a Free Tibet “advan” carrying the Tibetan flag, which is banned in China, will follow him during his stay in London.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 21, 2015.

Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong has been invited to the UK to give speeches at six universities. His visit coincides with President Xi Jinping’s state visit. Speaking to HKFP from London on Tuesday, Wong talked about the human rights protests in London, his speeches at Oxford University as well as why he often seemed to appear in the same place during Xi’s state visits.
HKFP: Last time when President Xi Jinping visited the US, you were in the US to attend events. This time Xi is visiting the UK and you’re giving speeches at British universities, was this a coincidence or did you do it on purpose?

Wong: Woah woah woah, this has nothing to do with me! Firstly, last time I was in the US to celebrate the 75^th anniversary of the founding of the Freedom House. I couldn’t decide when the Freedom House was founded, could I? It was before I was born, right? So I went to the US in the same week as Xi.

As for this week, Oxford Union, i.e. Oxford University’s student union, confirmed the date of visit with me as October 19 or 20 three months ago. The dates of Xi’s UK visit were not announced until a month ago, so I decided to go to the UK before Xi did. If you say I did it on purpose, it really wasn’t me. It was a coincidence. I wouldn’t intentionally try to avoid it, to say wherever Xi goes I cannot go. But both times we clashed [the visits].

HKFP: Some media reports said you are being “used” by foreign anti-China forces to “follow and attack” Xi with protests, how would you respond to that?

Wong: How can I “follow and attack” Xi? I didn’t even think of getting close to him. Actually, this time, the purpose of my British visit is to give speeches at six universities. In four days I have to go to six universities and do interviews with a dozen media outlets… For me I definitely haven’t been used, and I don’t intend to “follow and attack” Xi, he is not someone who I can just follow if I want to.

HKFP: How did your speech go at Oxford University and other places? Did you see any protests against you?

Wong: At Oxford, the debate hall was full, nearly 500 people. Now I am on my way to visit the third university. I haven’t seen any protests against me yet. The response of the audience was very positive, because Hong Kong is an issue in Britain. A past colony – of course many people are interested to hear about it. What’s more, China is a economic and trade partner of Britain. China’s human rights situation, especially Hong Kong’s situation – as Hong Kong is already the place with the most human rights in China – how Hong Kong develops will receive a lot of attention.

HKFP: In a recent interview with AFP, you said that the UK government has been blinded by Xi’s trade deals and has ignored human rights issues. In your opinion, which human rights issue should British Prime Minister David Cameron bring up with Xi?

Wong: I think Cameron has a responsibility. Actually, Britain signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration, but China has long violated its promises in the Declaration by suppressing Hong Kong’s human rights, democracy and freedom.

The British government, as a signatory of the Declaration, no doubt has the responsibility to follow up on how the Declaration is being implemented in Hong Kong, and to ask Xi Jinping why he still won’t give Hong Kong a democratic system.

HKFP: How useful would such a conversation be in helping to change the situation in Hong Kong?

Wong: I should say, we cannot expect the sky will change in Hong Kong as soon as Cameron says something, or that China will change as soon as Xi responds to Cameron. This is impossible. But, at least, Britain needs to fulfill its responsibilities as a signatory of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Also, Britain is a country that loves democracy and freedom, if it doesn’t talk about [democracy and freedom], what does it want to do?

HKFP: Can you describe the protests in London? Were they supported by a lot of people, or did people generally welcome Xi?

Wong: I saw many pro-China people here waving their little flags, they outnumbered the protesters. I think this situation is very ironic because inside China, many people are unhappy with the government. Many fighters of human rights, democracy and freedom have been arrested, and now even human rights lawyers have been arrested. I think today what I saw in London is the opposite of the situation in the mainland.

HKFP: You filed a judicial review earlier to challenge the minimum age a person can run for the Hong Kong legislature. You said you wanted to lower it from 21 to 18 and wanted to run. If you are elected, how would you fight for democracy inside the legislature?

Wong: I think at least what needs to change is the state of our fight [for democracy] inside the legislature, which now has become expendable. But the situation is that my chances of winning the judicial review are not high because the government will appeal [if I win]. Right now, I haven’t even got the court’s permission to proceed with the case, it’s too early to talk about anything.

HKFP: When we spoke to your colleague Agnes Chow, she said Scholarism and other groups were exploring the possibilities of building a civil referendum system for people to vote on issues they care about. Any referendum system organised by the pan-democrat side is likely to be boycotted by pro-government supporters, so how would the referendum results truly reflect the opinion of society?

Wong: I think referendums are a show of attitude for all people, just like last year’s June 22 referendum. Certainly, it had a political mobilisation effect. Its influence is bigger than its purpose in reality. Also, if the result of referendums can be linked to some lawmakers’ votes inside the legislature, it could encourage more people to take part in the referendums. But now is not the right time to build the referendum system yet, because it’s still being debated.

(EJinsight) October 22, 2015.

The world is focusing on President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Britain this week. The British monarchy and government have rolled out the reddest of red carpets for Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, reflecting the significance of the Sino-British relationship — and the 30 billion pounds (US$46.3 billion) in contracts he has brought with him.

Government officials from Prime Minister David Cameron on down are making no secret of their hope that China will play a growing role in supporting the development of Britain’s economy. Yet some of Xi’s hosts did not hesitate to hint at their misgivings about his country’s poor human rights record. These signals indicate that China is still lacking in the soft power needed to emerge as a great country, rather than just an economically strong one. Britain’s truly free press reflects how the public at large is treating Xi’s visit.

Beijing officials, accustomed to a fawning media, would have expected the British press to run a series of glowing stories on the presidential visit, focusing on the building of a Sino-British golden era. But those officials would have been shocked on Tuesday, Xi’s first full day in Britain, when The Independent, one of the country’s “quality papers”, published a front-page story on Hong Kong student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung urging Cameron to “publicly challenge” Xi over a crackdown on human rights in the former British colony.

The newspaper, owned by a Russian tycoon, lived up to its name with its own take on Xi’s state visit, headlining its story “The hero of the Umbrella Revolution is here to rain on China’s parade”. It quoted Wong, the founder of the student group Scholarism, as saying China has not kept its promise to the people of Hong Kong to deliver universal suffrage. He also condemned the British government for failing to keep its own promise on democracy in Hong Kong (by ensuring its development as provided in the Sino-British Declaration of 1984) and said it views trade with China as “more important”.

In a speech welcoming Xi, Queen Elizabeth seemed to understand that the people of Hong Kong are concerned about the increasing intervention of Beijing into their city’s internal affairs. She praised the “visionary concept” of “one country, two systems” that the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping introduced.

Pundits interpret the Queen’s reference to Deng’s policy as an indirect reminder to Beijing that it should maintain the unique status of Hong Kong for the full 50 years during which the policy was intended to apply.

At one of the most important events on the visiting president’s itinerary, a speech to both houses of Parliament, John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, pointedly praised Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, another of Parliament’s recent guests, as a “champion of democracy” before inviting Xi to address the assembly.

Observers interpreted that as a reminder to China of its own Nobel peace laureate, the dissident Liu Xiaobo, who languishes in prison. Several human rights advocacy groups, including Amnesty International, protested in London as Xi arrived. They urged the British government to monitor the treatment by Beijing authorities of dissidents such as Liu and to work toward freedom for the people in mainland China.

For the first two days of Xi’s visit, most British newspapers didn’t treat it as important news.

On Wednesday, three newspapers did put the presidential visit on the front page, but two of them focused in their stories on Prince William’s wife, Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, wearing the Queen Mother’s lotus flower tiara at the state banquet welcoming Xi. The Guardian published a story about steelworkers who lost their jobs when several steel plants shut down this week urging Cameron to “put demands on the table” to stop cheap imports of Chinese steel killing the British industry.

Meanwhile, Londoners saw for themselves how mainland China puts on a welcome for visiting leaders. Tens of thousands of Chinese occupied the best positions along The Mall in London when Xi arrived. They were dressed in red and waving red flags and holding red banners that said “Welcome President Xi” — which were reportedly provided by the Chinese Embassy. One of the main functions of the red crowd appeared to be to block protest groups from being seen by Xi as he passed by. Some Londoners noticed that the welcoming team tossed their red flags in nearby trashcans once he was gone.

China has become one of the world’s most influential countries because of its economic strength, for which it is deservedly respected. But how deep does this respect go? The leaders in Beijing may think they can buy a grand reception in places hungry for Chinese investment, like Britain. But as long as the Communist Party fails to accord the Chinese people the dignity and respect all people want and deserve, China has still a long way to go to be seen as a great nation.

(SCMP) October 21, 2015.

Student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung led protesters from Hong Kong in opposing London's deepening ties with Beijing, as he attended a human rights rally in the British capital yesterday. Wong's attendance at the rally coincided with President Xi Jinping's first state visit to Britain - during which British Prime Minister David Cameron hopes to secure trade deals with Beijing worth billions of dollars.

Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Wong attacked Beijing for breaking its promise on the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that paved the way for the 1997 handover and made provisions for democratic elections in 2017. "Why is the UK seeking further cooperation with the Chinese government when [Beijing] broke its promise on the Joint Declaration?" he asked. "I worry about whether 'one country, two systems' will result in one country, one system. The new generation is demanding the right of self-determination because we are really afraid that [after 2047] Hong Kong will merge with China and we will not have rule of law, separation of power and freedom of speech." The student activist is in the country to speak at British universities including the Oxford Union, the London School of Economics and the School of Oriental and African Studies about democratisation in Hong Kong.

About 300 protestors representing Hong Kong Overseas Alliance, Amnesty International, Tibetan and Uygur groups, and Falun Gong and Tiananmen Square groups gathered peacefully near Buckingham Palace. Among them was blind dissident Chen Guangcheng and Tiananmen activist Shao Jiang. Competing for space and noise, thousands of pro-Beijing supporters lined The Mall, the road leading up to Buckingham Palace, waving Chinese flags and banners to greet Xi. They were joined by dragon dancers, whose loud drums helped to drown out the noise of the protesters.

(SCMP) Xi Jinping's UK visit shows the changing face of Sino-British relations. Alex Lo. October 21, 2015.

The government of David Cameron has been widely accused of kowtowing to Beijing as it rolls out the red carpet for President Xi Jinping's visit to Britain this week.

Here's a typical example, from the Financial Times: "Diplomats accuse Britain of 'kowtowing'". "He is running roughshod over the Foreign Office and security policy," reported The New York Times, while accusing his government of departing from "Western" policy.

I am not sure if these are fair criticisms. The main objections have been over Cameron's refusal to engage China on human rights and cybersecurity. But Xi will still be getting an earful anyway, just not from the prime minister. A private audience has been arranged for Jeremy Corbyn, the newly elected leader of the Labour Party, in which Xi is expected to get more than a mouthful from the veteran British socialist about China's human rights abuses, including the case of Liu Xiaobo.

Meanwhile, hours before Xi's arrival on Monday, Prince William urged Chinese citizens to stop buying illegally traded wildlife products, such as ivory and horn, to save Africa's rhinos and elephants. Indeed, the prince has already extracted a promise from Xi to crack down on the illegal trade.

It's true that between Cameron and Xi, there will be nothing else to discuss but bilateral trade and businesses. There are about 150 deals to be sealed during the trip. Britain is now the second-largest trading partner with China in the European Union. It used to be the fourth. Beijing certainly appreciated Britain being the first Western country to break ranks with Washington to join the China-led Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank. But, of course, other major Western allies have followed London's example, with the exception of Japan.

In fact, it has never been Western policy, whatever "Western" means, to make human rights a key component of a China policy. That has only been the case with Britain and the US. Now, Britain has simply recognised the limits of its power and is dealing with China mainly on business, just like virtually every other Western country except the US. Still it's clever enough to arrange influential Brits outside the government to round on Xi. That should satisfy those bleeding hearts from the West.

(The Guardian) October 22, 2015.

David Cameron sought assurances from the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, about political freedom in the former UK colony of Hong Kong, as the week-long festival of closer Sino-British co-operation neared its end. Cameron and the Chinese president spent the afternoon at the prime minister’s country retreat, Chequers, discussing foreign policy issues including Hong Kong and Syria, part of a visit that the Conservative government believes has put British-Chinese relations on an entirely new and more intimate footing. The president will end his state visit in Manchester on Friday, with a visit to Manchester City football club and a meeting with northern-based businessmen. Cameron was seeking assurances that the Hong Kong government would remain semi-autonomous and entitled to choose its own leadership without prior vetting by the Chinese government.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 23, 2015.

British Prime Minister David Cameron brought up the issue of Hong Kong’s political autonomy with Chinese President Xi Jinping during his state visit, reports the Guardian. During an hour-long talk, Cameron sought assurances from Xi that his government will not prescreen candidates for chief executive elections in the former British colony, the report said. The BBC also said that Cameron had been “expected to raise concerns over Hong Kong directly” with the Chinese president, but no official details of this have been released. The conversation happened at Chequers Court, Cameron’s country retreat, on Thursday. Hong Kong was also not mentioned in a joint UK-China statement issued on Thursday.

The statement said Xi’s visit, the first of a Chinese president to the UK in a decade, “provides a historic opportunity for UK-China relations.” The two sides agreed to strengthen cooperation in economic development, protecting intellectual properties and climate change.

Human rights was however mentioned briefly. “The two sides will enhance mutual respect and understanding, and continue exchanges on human rights and rule of law,” the statement said. When asked about China’s human rights conditions in a press conference on Thursday, Xi said Beijing has “found a path of human rights development suited to China’s conditions.” “With regard to the protection of human rights, looking around the world we note there is always room for improvement,” the Chinese president said.

The British prime minister said they could discuss business and have a conversation about human rights at the same time. “So I totally reject the idea you either have a conversation about human rights and steel, or you have a strong relationship with China. I want both and we are delivering both and it’s when you have that strong relationship, with a strong partnership we have, you are able to discuss all of these issues,” Cameron said.

(SCMP) October 23, 2015.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has sought assurance from President Xi Jinping, who is on a state visit to UK, that Hongkongers would be able to choose their own leader without Beijing’s prior vetting, according to a report. Cameron touched on the political stalemate in Hong Kong for the first time during Xi’s visit amid mounting criticism Britain had ignored China’s human rights record for trade benefits, The Guardian reported.

The remarks also came after Hong Kong’s legislature voted down in June a Beijing-decreed political reform package for the 2017 chief executive election, which allowed Hongkongers to choose their own leader only from two or three candidates approved by a 1,200-strong committee. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has previously said his administration “has finished” the work on reform and would concentrate on addressing economic and livelihood issues in his remaining term.

Spending the afternoon at the prime minister’s country retreat, Chequers, on Thursday, The Guardian reported that Cameron sought assurance from Xi that Hong Kong would remain semi-autonomous and entitled to choose its own leadership without prior vetting by the Chinese government.

Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing said it was "not enough" for Cameron to raise concerns over the city's political freedom to Xi in a closed-door meeting. "He should have raised it at a higher level occasion, such as a press conference or other public events," Lau said. "As a signatory to the [Sino-British] Joint Declaration, Britain has the political and moral responsibility to voice out for Hong Kong ... not raising the matter publicly has given people an impression the city a low priority for Britain." Lau said Beijing's earlier white paper on "one country, two systems" and recent remarks by state officials were all very worrying, and she hoped Cameron was not just paying lip service but would continue to speak up for Hong Kong on other occasions, not just Xi's state visit. Lau also held reservations on Cameron's quoted remarks that the city should remain "semi-autonomous". "It has always been 'a high degree of autonomy' [as in the joint declaration]. I hope Cameron would not mix that up and send a wrong signal to Chinese officials," she added.

In its six-monthly parliamentary report on Hong Kong published in July, the British government backed pan-democrats’ calls for the government to restart electoral reform to achieve universal suffrage, saying it was imperative for the “effective functioning of, and confidence in” the “one country, two systems” guaranteed by Beijing. The British government had urged Hong Kong lawmakers to study the political reform proposals, with Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire saying in March that Beijing’s imperfect plan represented genuine improvement as “something is better than nothing”.

Video:

BBC: Joshua Wong: I expected to pay the price Hong Kong internet users praised Wong for reading a written script in a wooden manner.

Oxford Union: Joshua Wong - Full Address and Q&A

Internet comments:

- On one hand, there are these types of SCMP articles:

Soccer-mad Xi Jinping more blue than red: Was decision to visit Manchester City a deliberate snub to fierce rivals Manchester United?

‘Fish and chips, please’: Xi Jinping wants to eat UK meal down the pub 'as man of the people’

A royal welcome for China's Xi Jinping as he brings US$46 billion in deals to Britain

China's President Xi Jinping to help mainland business delegation boost ties with British firms

Queen’s banquet for Xi Jinping: Balmoral venison and James Bond theme song from 'The Spy Who Loved Me'

Chinese President Xi Jinping tells British parliament countries can become a ‘community of shared interests’

China's first lady all smiles as British scientists give her a computer-designed cape

Chinese dissident and Tibetan activists arrested in Britain ‘to prevent breach of the peace’ during Xi Jinping’s visit

Nuclear deal takes China's relationship with Britain to a 'new level', say leaders

To stem the tide of pro-China messages, Civic Party legislator Alan Leong re-posted an Apple Daily note:

The point is that when foreign minister Philip Hammond met with Xi Jinping, they sat outside the public toilet at the airport. This means that Xi Jinping is being taken lightly by the British government. "30 billion British pounds still can't buy respect! The leader of a Great Nation is made to sit in front of a rest room on a sofa for those waiting to use the restroom. Such diplomatic treatment is rarely seen. The Chinese are not treated as humans -- no country in the world treats you like a human! The 30 billion British pounds only bought you a VIP seat!"

Sign of men's/women's restrooms
Video: (RT) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLm8Vaq82LE

Chip Tso: "President Xi came to London. British foreign minister Philip Hammond built a temporary set outside the Heathrow Airport public restroom to greet President Xi. Does Heathrow Airport not have a VIP room? It was not enough to greet President Xi in front of a public restroom, but he was also made to sit on the women's side. Maybe they are hinting that the Chinese leaders is Asia the Invincible (note: a transvestite martial arts fighter in fiction). When I see this crappy treatment, I am shaking with anger as a Chinese person! Don't I have money to give away? A 30 billion British pound contract! Even if you let me sleep ten nights in the Queen's bed, that would not compensate for it!"

As it were, the location is the VIP room at Heathrow Airport (London). Here is United States Secretary of State John Kerry getting the same toilet treatment too. Kerry did not even get the national flag treatment like Xi Jinping did, and he had to sit on an office chair instead of a sofa.

- I love to see an airport VIP lounge not equipped with a restroom. The VIP will have to wander out into the concourse to fight with the hoi polloi to use a stall.
- If it weren't for Apple Daily, we would have thought that Xi Jinping was received enthusiastically by the Brits. Now that we know that the Brits seated Xi in front of a restroom, we know that the Brits love freedom and democracy, and will therefore support Hong Kong's return to being a British colony.
- Well, Xi Jinping was invited to Buckingham Palace where he was free to piss all over the place.
- If Chinese president Xi Jinping was placed on a toilet room sofa, who loses more face? Xi Jinping or the British government?
- More likely, the British government's budget deficit caused them to rent a room from a motel ...
- A better view of the toilet sofa:

- Remember the masked Hong Kong Locliasts who chant "Hong Kong is British" while carrying Union Jacks? How bitter must it be now to see Queen Elizabeth II toasting Xi Jinping!

- And how about this? Does Joshua Wong have a selfie with David Cameron?

- Ko Chi-sum: More than one hundred years ago, the Zhi Li province governor and the North Sea Minister Li Hongzhang told the Empress Dowager: "Old Buddha, the westerners are coming to build railroads for us." More than one hundred years later, the British prime minister David Cameron told Queen Elizabeth II: "Your Royal Highness, the Chinese are coming here to build nuclear power plants for us."

- Joshua Wong had to fly 10,000 kilometers to the United Kingdom to protest against Xi Jinping. Why makes such a long trip? If he wants to protest against Xi Jinping, he has to travel less than 50 kilometers from his Ap Lei Chau home to the Shenzhen border. Wouldn't that be more direct?

- Human Rights For China?

Questions to Joshua Wong about human rights for China:
Will you fight for the right of all mainland Chinese citizens to travel to Hong Kong (which is a part of China) anytime that they want to? Or do you want to continue to curtail such rights?
Will you fight for the right of all mainland Chinese citizens to buy as much infant formula as they wish in Hong Kong?
Will you fight for the right of China to exercise sovereignty in Hong Kong?

Hong Kong Localism Power: Joshua Wong, why don't you fight for the human rights of the Hong Kong people first? The Hong Kong people are oppressed and enslaved by the Chinese people, but you traveled far to help the Chinese people to get human rights? What do the rights of the Chinese people have to do with Hong Kong? What do I care about whether the people in the enemy nation live or die? Also, the placard has simplified Chinese characters, not traditional Chinese characters! Actually, the political hack Joshua Wong is acting just like the League of Social Democrats who landed on the Diaoyutai Islets before. They are promoting Greater Chinese Nationalism and forcing Chinese identity upon the people of Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong are not Chinese. Hong Kong will never be well unless Greater China falls down!

- Joshua Wong gets a spoof on his placard:

- Joshua Wong says: "My message to David Cameron is that China has not kept its promise to the people of Hong Kong to deliver universal suffrage, so how can you trust President Xi to keep his word on the trade deals signed this week? You cannot. The Chinese government will not keep its promises on trade or on human rights."

Did China kept its promise to the people of Hong Kong to deliver universal suffrage? This year, a constitutional reform package was introduced to have one-person-one-vote for the 2017 Chief Executive. Joshua Wong and the opposition vetoed the proposal and thus ensured that the Chief Executive will continue to be elected by a 1,200-person election committee for at least the next decade. According to the public opinion polls, the government's proposal was supported by more than 50% of the population. At the time, both the United States and the United Kingdom advised the opposition to take the deal instead of standing on the same ground. They didn't listen. It is the opposition which has failed to deliver their promise to get universal suffrage for the people of Hong Kong. Instead of moving forward, they chose to stand still. Why? Because their existential value lies in being the opposition. If a Chief Executive is elected by one-person-one-vote, that person would have much greater legitimacy than them. So they cannot allow that to happen.

- An even more important issue over at Apple Daily, citing the highly esteemed Daily Mirror (UK):

- Losing face? None worse than the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher falling down (=puk gaai) in Beijing, 1982.

(see YouTube for full action)

- When Prince Andrews nodded off during Xi Jinping's speech, who loses face? Xi or the prince who was primed on English manners?

- Next we move to the make-up on Mrs. Xi. She is in the same league as Drew Barrymore and Angelina Jolie.

- "Spending the afternoon at the prime minister’s country retreat, Chequers, on Thursday, The Guardian reported that Cameron sought assurance from Xi that Hong Kong would remain semi-autonomous and entitled to choose its own leadership without prior vetting by the Chinese government." Xi should seek assurance from Cameron that the British people are entitled to choose their Prime Minister directly without prior vetting by the political parties.

- Cameron "sought assurance". That is, he asked a question. There was no reporting on how Xi Jinping answered. A big "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on"?

- (Wikipedia) China has a number of autonomous regions: Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region; Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region; Tibet Autonomous Region; Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous REgion; Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Like Chinese provinces, a Chinese autonomous region has its own local government and but they also have more legislative rights.

By seeking assurance from Xi that Hong Kong would remain semi-autonomous, Cameron is saying that Hong Kong should get half of what these autonomous regions are getting.

- (News.gov.hk) October 24, 2015.

In response to a reporter’s query on British Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement seeking assurances from President Xi Jinping that the election of the Chief Executive has no prior screening from Beijing, Secretary for Constitutional & Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam said that he did not see corresponding comments in any official press releases. However, he noted that a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman had reiterated that the Central Government’s position is in line with the Special Administrative Region’s, to promote constitutional development in accordance with the Basic Law and the decisions made by the National People's Congress Standing Committee.

That David Cameron is very sneaky. His statement was only reported in The Guardian, but it is not otherwise included in the official press releases. This way, Cameron can have it both ways -- he said it and he didn't say it.

- (The Independent) October 22, 2015.

Britain has been accused of doing the bidding of the Chinese regime after UK police raided the family home of a Tiananmen Square survivor – for standing in the road holding up protest banners in Central London. Chinese democracy activist and Tiananmen Square survivor Shao Jiang, 47, was arrested in the street outside London’s Mansion House where a reception was being held for visiting Chinese Premier Xi Jinping. Campaigners say Dr Jiang was “brutally manhandled” by police officers after he attempted to block the motorcade by standing in front of it - in a scene reminiscent of a famous image of a lone protestor standing in front of Chinese tanks used to crush peaceful protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989. He was holding two banners, which read “End autocracy” and “Democracy now”.

After his arrest and overnight detention police searched his home and took away computer equipment. Last night his wife said the arrest had left the couple “traumatised” and revived the “awful” memories of a raid on his home by Chinese police.

Johanna Zhang, who earlier protested with her husband outside Downing Street, said: “When I was told by the police he had been arrested, it was like I was back in China again. All he was doing in the morning was holding protest signs. They were Amnesty International signs calling for the Chinese to end the crackdown.” Ms Zhang, 42, insisted the couple did not wish to be “portrayed as victims” but said they were genuinely shocked the “battleground” for human rights had moved to the UK. “The police here in the UK are now doing the same things as in China,” she added.

...

Other protesters have expressed “shock” at how peaceful demonstrators are being treated by police. After agreeing a position with police for a peaceful demonstration outside Buckingham Palace protesters were surprised to find the position had been moved to a less prominent place where they could be obscured by pro-Chinese supporters. When they tried to move they were “subjected to aggressive bullying by Chinese men carrying huge flags which they used to cover and hide ours.”

(Quartz) October 22, 2015.

Asked to comment on the alleged arrests of British citizens near Xi’s motorcade, Britain’s Metropolitan Police sent Quartz this statement confirming arrests related to Xi’s visit, but gave no further details:

At around 16:30hrs on Wednesday, 21 October officers on the security operation for the visiting Chinese President arrested a man in the bank area to prevent a breach of the peace.

Two women were arrested nearby shortly after, also to prevent a breach of the peace.

All three were further arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit threatening behaviour. They were taken into custody at a central London police station where they remain at this time.

It’s not clear what, if anything, caused police to suspect the protesters of “conspiracy to commit threatening behavior.”

...

Britain passed a Human Rights Act in 1998 to guarantee citizens the “right to freedom of peaceful assembly” with few restrictions that include “national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime.”

Look at the YouTube of the incident: Shao Jiang stood in the middle of the road to prevent the motorcade from moving. Police officer converged quickly to remove him.

What are the conspiracy theories? Plenty. For example, is this man stopping the motorcade in order for a hidden sniper to take a shot at Xi Jinping? If Xi is killed this way, the United Kingdom will never ever be able to hold its head up in the world. It will also ensure that human rights will be even more repressed in both China and the United Kingdom.

- The Guardian reports: "Cameron was seeking assurances that the Hong Kong government would remain semi-autonomous and entitled to choose its own leadership without prior vetting by the Chinese government." This has people confused because the term "semi-autonomous" has never been used before.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 2: The National People's Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law.

What is the relationship between "semi-autonomous" and "a high degree of autonomy"?

"Semi-" literally means half. So Cameron wants Hong Kong to be half-autonomous, or "50% autonomous."

If high is used in the dichotomy of "high-low", then "high" means 50% to 100% whereas "low" means 0% to 50%.

If high is used in the trichotomy of "high-medium-low", then high means "67% to 100", medium means "33% to 67%" and low means "0% to 33%".

A 50% autonomy is worse than either "50%-100%" or "67%-100%" autonomous.

In conclusion, David Cameron wants less autonomy for Hong Kong. That's just fine with Xi Jinping. It's a done deal!

- Yellow Ribbons are upset that the Chinese 5-star flag is riding over the Union Jack:

- (HKG Pao) After visiting the United States, Joshua Wong went next to the British Isles. But the topic that he espouses (namely, the demand for civil nomination of Chief Executive in Hong Kong) is too remote/out-of-touch for the Brits, so he had to switch it to "monitoring human rights conditions in China." This is way over his head, and therefore generated very little interest. In the BBC interview, he was challenged about whether the Umbrella Movement that he brought about has actually caused democracy to slip back in Hong Kong. After the trip to the British Isles, Joshua Wong traveled next to Tainan city, Taiwan. The organizers invited 466 persons but only 109 showed up. It would seem that our global leader does not get much attention and respect.

[347] Lingnan University Clash (2015/10/20)

(Oriental Daily) October 20, 2015.

Board member Franklin Lam Fan-keung being prevented by students from leaving
Yesterday, Lingnan University students blocked the entrance to the meeting room of the board of directors. They tried to barge into the meeting room. It was chaos. Ultimately the meeting was canceled, and the directors had to come out to speak publicly with the students. A number of directors sat on the ground. They were allowed to leave after they accepted the students' demands.
Some students were not satisfied with the appointment of five new board members, including Junius Ho and Maggie Chan. At yesterday's board meeting, the new board members were not sworn in yet. But several dozen students gathered outside the meeting place. Some of the students pushed aside the iron barricades and sat in front of the entrance to prevent the board members from entering. Some students yanked at the door and yelled slogans.
Lingnan University president Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon and board chairman Auyeung Pak-kuen tried to persuade the students to yield passage. They spoke to the students in public for about 20 minutes. With respect to the Chief Executive being the university chancellor automatically, Auyeung Pak-keun said that this system exists in all eight universities and any reform must go through broad discussions in soceity as a whole and cannot be solely decided by Lingnan University alone. The students demanded that the two state their positions on the matter and promise to appoint a special group to follow up. Auyeung Pak-kuen said that he must remain neutral on all matters as the board chairman. Cheng Kwok-hon said that he refuses to state his position when he is being pressured in public. Cheng got into an argument with the students.
As Cheng and Auyeung spoke to the student representatives, several other students attempted to break through through into the building through another entrance. They were eventually stopped by the security guards and Lingnan University Student Union president Lau Chun-lam. Lau emphasized that they wanted to surround the meeting place, not to charge into it.
Because the students refused to yield passage, the board decided to cancel the meeting. They sent Auyeung Pak-keun, Cheng Kwok-hon and six board members to meet with the students. The students refused to accept. Eventually all 21 board members in attendance came out and spoke to the students together. Most of the board members agreed that a special task group should be established. Board member Wong Kwan-yu objected and said that the student were holding a "public trial."

Videos:

(Apple Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwUSDWdbZmg
(Oriental Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ITfdFn-Fg
(dbc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8Z_gEgewds
(InMedia) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MIXrtd0ONs
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tKIE-4kpjc Part 1
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g51VQfu6cN0 Part 2
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TYSdmaO_BE Part 3
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgL9TvMkrcc Part 4
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT29DFBOU38 Board member Franklin Lam was prevented from leaving
(The Epoch Times) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcVynnRwH6M Photojournalist quarrel with non-student
(Speakout HK

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) October 20, 2015.

This is getting out of hand. They charge, they lay siege and they occupy the campus for any reason. Lingnan University advocates an education that is refined and cultivated, but their students are anything but refined and cultivated. They are barbarians. It is true that students have the right to demonstrate, but they must follow the laws and regulations. But these students want a revolution every time? What kind of world is this? What is the point of any regulations?
Democracy adheres to the principle of tolerance of different opinions. "I may not agree with your viewpoints, but I swear to defend your right to express your viewpoints." Unfortunately, university students are the opposite. If they disagree with someone's viewpoint, they will take away that person's right of expression. The university is supposed to be a microcosm of society at large, with persons with different political views within. But on matters such as these, the students regard themselves as the saviors of justice and push aside all others as "blackguards" to be chased off the campus. How are they different from the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution?
Thus, there is a reason why the international rankings of the universities in Hong Kong are tumbling down, every one of them. At Hong Kong University, their motto has turned from Sapientia et Virtus (明德格物="Wisdom and virtue" ) into (失德格鬥="unvirtuous combat"). At Lingnan University, its motto (博雅教育=refined and cultivated education) has turned into (博鬥教育="combat education") in an equally disappointing manner. Confucius would not want to see what is happening in Hong Kong.

- (Ming Pao) October 22, 2015.

On the day before yesterday, Lingnan University president Leonard Cheng Kwok-hon sent an open email to students to express profound regret and pain with the students who interfered with the board meeting. He pointed out that actions such as using bicycle chains to lock the entrance to the meeting room, charging the Wong Administration Building and surrounding the board members and preventing them from leaving are not peaceful and rational ways of expressing opinions. Cheng said that these actions hindered the operations of the board of directors and the administration. Cheng reminded students that the purpose of a "refined and cultivated education" is to have mutual tolerance and respect. Therefore using threatening methods won't be accepted and will be condemned.
The Lingnan University Student Union responded that this email was absurd and unacceptable. The Student Union says that it advocates rational communication, but the school ignored them when they tried to work through the system. That was why the student had to resort to collective action. The Student Union said that the school using the system's violence on behalf of the authorities, and using threatening methods won't be accepted and will be condemned.
- Here is a most significant photo:

Six Chinese University of Hong Kong "puppet actor" students carry a banner: "University board chairman due to be replaced; political interference by the authorities will not be tolerated." There are three outsiders: Left (1) Johnson Yeung Ching-yan, deputy convener at the Civil Human Rights Front; left (2) Fung Ka-keung, chief executive of the Professional Teachers' Union; right (1) Nathan Law, better known as "Law 37", secretary-general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. That's all the proof needed of outside forces meddling with the internal affairs of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
- The CUHK student are demanding that they be allowed to attend the board meeting later on during which there may be a discussion on who will succeed as board chairman. Well, how much confidence do we have in the judgment of students who burned the Basic Law?

- Famous sayings by the students:

(1) When the students walked over to the empty space in front of the meeting building to face the board members, they said "The puppets of the authorities serve as board directors who don't realize that education is for the public good."
(2) When the board was preparing to meet in the Wong Administration Building, the students said: "Board members come out! I order you turtles hiding your heads to come out!"
(3) After two hours of meeting, some board members want to return to the meeting room but the students aid: "I order you to stand still!"
(4) When university president Cheng Kwok-hon said that "refined and cultivated education" involves mutual respect, the students said: "Do you know what is 'refined and cultivated education'? Do you know how to be a university president? How did you get the title of professor?"
(5) When the board members respond to the students' question, the students said: "Do you agree or disagree to establish the task force (for the amendment of the regulations)? You say so now!"

[346] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 4 (Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings) (2015/10/16)

In the previous District Council elections, the Civic Party was routed. Party chief Alan Leong held a press conference in which he denounced the trend towards using snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings to buy votes. This year, the Civic Party has learned their lesson. But they are not going to try to go down into the local communities and find ways to serve the people. Instead, they will now be doling out snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings!

(HKG Pao @YouTube) October 12, 2015.

0:05 Civic Party legislator Alan Leong: We don't want to see the Hong Kong District Councils being driven only by snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings, a platform to distribute welfare benefits and practical advantages.
0:20 Photos of the snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes, rice dumplings, one-day tours and other handouts organized by Alan Leong himself.
0:34 Leong: Starting the election machine in Hong Kong -- snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings ... snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings ... snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings ... to retain a good lawyer or an engineer ... to demand that they spend 10 hours working in the district. If you keep doing snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings, then I can't justify sending a young professional down there.
1:04 Photos of Civic Party legislator Claudia Mo with snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Voice of Claudia Mo: "We are the Civic Party. We call ourselves democrats. We won't pretend to be this or that."
1:20 More photos of Civic Party's snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
1:26 Claudia Mo: "We will not use snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings in exchange for votes."
1:29 Claudia Mo: "The truth is that we don't do snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings."

(Ta Kung Pao) October 15, 2015.

Yesterday the Federation of Trade Unions held a press conference to denounce Woo Chi-kin and Leung Tat-po for using the Choi Hung Estate Service Association for campaign purposes. The related activities included
(1) 12 "$100 buffet meal one-day tour" tiprs between July 26 and August 30;
(2) distributing 4 kilograms of rice each to more than 7,000 Choi Hung Estate families between September 7 to 16;
(3) distributing more than 4,000 moon cakes/fruits to more than 4,000 families/businesses between September 22 to 25;
(4) hosting about 160 tables of free dinners to honor senior citizens, and distributing gift parcels from Woo Chi-kin and Leung Tat-po (including their names and photos) containing two packs of instant noodles, one pack of soda biscuits and one pack of white sugar cake;
(5) $30 afternoon tea sets between October 16 to 30;
(6) $35 hotel buffet meals between November 1 to 10, including free transportation.
The promotional materials for these activities all carry the names of Woo Chi-kin and Leung Tat-po. The gift parcels showed their names and photos.

In the August $100 buffet meal one-day tours, the promotion materials have the images of Democratic Party legislator Woo Chi-wai along with the image of Woo Chi-kin, with the slogan "Chi-wai, Chi-kin go together." Woo Chi-kin is the assistant of Woo Chi-wai.
According to FTU district councilor Mok Kin-wing, the senior citizen banquets cost more than $1,000 per table, so that the event must have caused more than $100,000. This exceeds the district council campaign maximum of $60,000. As for the rice distribution, Mok said that senior citizens usually have to go in person to claim. "But this time, they distributed it door by door to everyone and anyone. When nobody is home, they can still return later to claim. More than 7,000 families. Where did the money come from?

(Wen Wei Po) October 15, 2015.

The Federation of Trade Union points out that the gift parcels carroes the names and photos of Woo Chi-kin, Leung Tat-po and Chuang Li-ling. According to information, Woo Chi-kin has entered the District Council elections on October 5, while Chuang entered on October 12. Both listed their party affiliation as the Democratic Party.

(HKG Pao) October 16, 2015.

The banquet to honor senior citizens was held on the evening of October 11. The menu contained items such as fish stomach soup, chestnut braised duck, braised grouper fish, etc. According to information, the cost per table was $1,080. Our reporter counted 126 tables, so that the entire event cost $136,000 for about 1,500 persons. The promotion materials said that the participants must be Choi Hung Estate residents who are association members. Non-member senior citizens aged 65 or over can also participate for free upon showing ID's (Hong Kong ID, Choi Hung Estate resident ID and senior citizen card). Those Choi Hung residents under age 65 can participate for $70.
The Association chairman Wong Chai-chung made a speech in which he mentioned that Leung Tat-po was going to challenge the Federation of Trade Unions candidate Mok Kin-wing. He also mentioned Democratic Party candidate Woo Chi-kin who will be competing against Federation of Trade Unions councilor Ho Yin-fai in the Chi Chio district (Wong Tai Sin).
After the banquet, the participants received a gift package containing a moon cake, biscuits, fruits and instant noodles. There is a promotional piece containing a photo of the five Association executives with Leung Tao-po standing in the middle. On the day after (October 12), Leung Tat-po filed to run in the Choi Hung district council election. He listed his political affiliation as "independent."
According to information, Leung Tat-po is a retired police sergeant who had served as a police-civilian liaison officer at the Wong Tai Sin Police Station. After he retired three or four years ago, he got interested in singing and joined the association, whereupon he eventually became the chief executive. It is rumored that he is backed by triad businessmen.
Our reporter also found out that the shops and restaurants at Kim Pik Building all carried campaign posters for Leung Tat-po and Woo Chi-kin. A business operator said that "big brother" told them that they must display those photos.
Woo Chi-kin told our reporter that he did not attend the banquet. But participants said that they saw Woo and Association chief executive Chuang Lai-ling at the scene, and they were introduced by Association chairman Wong Chi-chung.

(Wen Wei Po) November 3, 2015.

At 1pm on November 1, a double decker bus arrived on schedule to pick up Choi Hung Estates residents to a small star-class hotel on Observatory Road in Tsim Sha Tsui. About 70 and 80 people attended to enjoy the buffet meal which includes curry chicken, fried fish, chicken wings, pasta, fried rice, egg tarts, fruits and drinks. According to the waiter, the restaurant does not ordinarily offer buffet meals but did so at the request of the Choi Hung Estate Service Association. The meal cost the participants $35 but the actual cost is $55. "So somebody is paying part of the costs."

On November 2, our reporter went again. Choi Hung Estate Service Association chairman Wong Chai-chung came and delivered a speech. He reminded the attendees to "remember to vote" and "cast your sacred vote on November 22, thanks!" Many audience members applauded. Suddenly someone in the audience asked aloud: "Which is the candidate number to vote for?" Another person answered aloud: "Number 1 (=Leung Tat-po". Another women yelled directly: "Vote for Brother Po!" Wong Chai-chung merely smiled and did not comment.

(Wen Wei Po) October 17, 2015.

Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan distributing moon cakes at this Legislative Councilor's office
On March 25, five Hong Kong newspapers reported that Labour Party vice-chairman Tam Chun-yin wants to run in the Yau Oi North district as district councilor. Under the election regulations, anyone who declared that they want to run is regarded as a candidate (regardless of whether they have actually filed or not) and is subjected to the anti-bribery ordinance (such as a maximum of $63,100 in campaign budget).
Last month Tam Chun-yin began to distribute double egg yolk white lotus seed moon cakes to residents. The value of the package is approximately $168. In response to the inquiry from our reporter about whether this violates election regulations, Tam Chun-yin said: "I have always done so, so this is business as usual." He also said: "At the time (early September), I have not filed to run yet. Therefore, my moon cake expenditure does not go into the campaign expenses."
Tam said: "The relevant department (ICAC) will look into this. I absolutely have no intention to bribe people to vote for me. I didn't even mention the subject of the election." Tam admitted that the moon cakes were distributed with his pamphlets. But he explained: "The pamphlet only informs the residents about the progress in the sewerage project and also reminding those senior citizens 80 years or older that they will be receiving twice as much 'fruit money'. It had nothing to do with the election."

(Wen Wei Po) October 28, 2015.

Last Friday (October 23) around noon, the volunteers for Yue Wan district candidate Chui Chi-kin (an Umbrella Soldier) suddenly brought in more than 20 boxes of expensive Swiss chocolates and began distributing them near a bus stop to residents passing by. Each recipient got more than 40 pieces of chocolate, with the market price being estimated to be more than $200. This was very "generous." Very quickly more than 20 senior citizens were in the line and it got somewhat chaotic. At the same time, another volunteer for Chui Chi-kin was handing out campaign leaflets on the side. This volunteer also stepped dangerous onto the roadway.
Yesterday our reporter went out to Yue Wan to investigate. According to Grandma Lui, she and her husband were in the queue that day because they wanted to get chocolates for their grandchildren. When she received the chocolate, she felt that the chocolate was icy as if it was just retrieved from a refrigerator. She checked the packing and spotted that the expiry date was October 19, 2015. She told her husband, who told her to throw both packs of chocolate out. But Grandma Lui said that she had already eaten several and was concerned that she may get sick.
Another resident said that he stopped to watch last Friday when he saw more than 20 senior citizens in a queue. The volunteer handing out the chocolate told him that it came from a "legislator." But this volunteer had been distributing leaflets for Chui Chi-kin over the past few days, and Chui is not a District Councilor. Therefore he thought that this was strange. The volunteer displayed a bad attitude and left soon afterwards. At that time, Mrs. Chung Shu-kun passed by and he told her. She said that they did not distribute any chocolates. She emphasized that they had suspended all free services (such as free haircuts, free blood pressure checking, etc) during the election period. But those chocolates were expensive, "So where did Chui Chi-kin get the resources?"
According to district councilor/legislative councilor Chung Shu-kun, there was the case of North Point candidate Chan Tak-wai in 2007. At the time, his volunteer was offering free blood pressure checks while the candidate wore a campaign ribbon and paced back and forth. The magistrate found Chan guilty of bribery and sentenced him to nine weeks in jail.
Our newspaper contacted Chui Chi-kin about the alleged incident. Chui said: "Where do I have the money to distribute it!?" He said that he was not at the scene and therefore he was not aware of what happened. When told that it was his volunteers who distributed the chocolate and handed out campaign leaflets, Chui said: "I will have to find out from the volunteers!"

Videos:

(ShameOnEvilParties @ YouTube)

0:01 (Voice of Alan Leong) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
0:11 (Andrew Wan, vice-chairman of Democratic Party) In local districts, we can see many instances in which materials are used to swap for votes.
0:15 Photo of Andrew Wan distributing New Year presents to senior citizens.
0:38 (Andrew Wan in Occupy area) We have been able to accomplish certain things. We are doing it. For example, occupying this street today is "non-cooperation." Cars should be running on this street. Right? Under normal circumstances. We came out to occupy it.
0:56 (Voice of Alan Leong) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
1:03 (Andrew Wan, repeat) In local districts, we can see many instances in which materials are used to swap for votes.

(ShameOnEvilParties @ YouTube)

0:01 (Voice of Alan Leong) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
0:07 (Voice of Roy Kwong, Democratic Party district councilor running for re-election) In Form 4, I finished last in the class. I attended a private school. I only scored 13 points in the joint exam.
0:15 (RTHK voice over) After serving four years as District Councilor, Roy Kwong says that he is still trying to learn how the District Council operates.
0:21 (Democratic Party Legco candidates) Unlike certain political parties, we do not hand out rice or moon cakes.
0:24 (Unchained Melody)
0:46 (Roy Wong) They say one thing but they do something else. They are unable to monitor the government.
0:51 (Unchained Melody)
0:57 (Voice of Alan Leong) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.

(ShameOnEvilParties @ YouTube)

0:01 (Voice of Alan Leong) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
0:05 (Democratic Party candidate Chan Shu-ying) We very much trust that the eyes of the citizens are as clear as snow.
0:11 (Voice of Alan Leong with photos of citizens attending banquets and accepting handouts from Chan Shu-ying) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
0:14 (Chan Shu-ying) We don't want double standards!
0:18 (Voice of Alan Leong with leaflet of Chan Shu-ying handing out sunglasses) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
0:19 (Chan Shu-ying) So far, public opinion support for the pan-democratic camp is still quite strong. They still have more support than the pro-establishment camp.
0:33 (Voice of Alan Leong with leaflet of Chan Shu-ying giving away umbrellas, cups and plastic wrap) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
0:35 (Chan Shu-ying) A person must not have double standards.
0:37 (Voice of Alan Leong with leaflet of Albert Ho, Chan Shu-ying and others handing out 10,000 rice dumplings in Tin Shui Wai) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.
0:41 (Chan Shu-ying) This is about telling lies. This is about individual trustworthiness.
0:46 (Female) Are you kidding, you Democratic Party!?
0:47 (Voice of Alan Leong with leaflet of Albert Ho, Chan Shu-ying and others handing out 10,000 rice dumplings in Tin Shui Wai) Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings.

(Wen Wei Po) November 14, 2015.

Lai Chi-keong is a member of the Civic Party, the "rule-of-law" party. He is the incumbent district councilor in the Fei Tsui district, Hong Kong Island Eastern District. Recently, he distributed a leaflet that listed his activities. Among the periodic activities are:
- Distribution of 2,000 rice dumplings to senior citizens during the Dragon Boat Festival, and also moon cakes during the Mid-Autumn Festival (thanks to Town Gas for sponsorship)
- Birthday dinner for senior citizens every quarter, including birthday presents and luck draws
...
Among his non-periodic activities are distributing cakes, soup, congee, fruit, soy sauce, beans, lunch boxes, etc; holding events such as movie shows, auctions, food banks, etc; providing services such as letter writing, tax preparations, group buying, visa, senior citizen cards, etc.
As the incumbent district councilor, it was fair to mention the list of accomplishments to residents. But as soon as the election period begins, district council should temporarily halt services to avoid the appearance of vote-buying. Under Hong Kong law CAP 554 Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, a person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person offers an advantage to another person as an inducement to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates.

(Wen Wei Po) December 4, 2015.

Yam Chi-keung was the Neo Democrats district councilor who got elected with the highest number of voters. After winning the election, his immediate project is a snake banquet co-sponsored with Neo Democrats member Kwan Wing-yip. The snake banquet costs $190 per haed, and includes all manners of snake delicacies.
Meanwhile Democratic Party member Wong Yui-tak is organizing a trip to Guangdong province next month. According to information, the 2-days-1-night trip includes a tour of Banyun Mountain in Guangzhou, a hot pot dinner with congree base, and a one-hundred-birds-in-the-best banquet. The accommodations will be at a four-star hotel. The cost will be a mere $799 per person. During the election, Wong had told residents that "If you want tourist trips, you can vote for my opponent!" Now that the election is over, Wong is offering tourist trips.

Internet comments:

- TVB interviewed an Umbrella Soldier who gave a lucid explanation. He said that the pro-establishment camp hands out snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings in exchange for votes. But they hand out snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings for the sake of people's livelihoods. Therefore, he says that there is a huge qualitative difference.
- If you are a good lawyer/engineer, why are you spending 10 hours a day working as a District Councilor on the side? Why, oh why? Please make up your mind one way or the other. If you can't do a proper job as District Councilor, you shouldn't run for election. That would be doing a favor for yourself as well as the district residents.
- Another difference is that the pro-establishment camp hands out snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings that are made in China, whereas the pro-democracy camps hands out snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings that are made outside China.
- You must be kidding, because all the restaurants buy their stuff from China. For example, how many snake farms are there in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom or the United States?
- Whosoever hands out snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings, I am going to vote for their opponent.
- When the Civic Party got routed last time, they blamed snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. If they get routed again this time, what would be the excuse given that they are also doing snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings?
- There is an entire Facebook page called Shame On Evil Parties devoted to the snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings coming from the pro-democracy politicians. Here are some samples:

- The Yellow Ribbon mind works this way: If the Yellow Ribbons do it, it's okay. If the Blue Ribbons do it, it's evil. When asked to explain the double standards, they will respond with some combination of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE RULE OF LAW INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. This will allow them to enjoy their snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings without any sense of guilt.
- Democratic Party candidate Lam Siu-chung was in the business of handing out rice packets. Now he is saying that the election is close and "democracy is in peril." That's because he can't hand out rice packets during the election period, even as he regrets not handing out many more rice packets before now.

- Volunteers of Louis Wong Yui-tak in the Allway district, Tsuen Wan are openly telling people to vote for him if they want to have travel trips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bYbrcu1JtY
- The Democratic Party produced this cartoon:

Top left: "Grandma, please remember to vote for candidate #1." "But ..."
Top right: "... I want to vote for candidate #2."
Bottom left: "You filled out a form to get the rice dumplings. You will be breaking the law if you don't vote for candidate #1." "Huh!?"
Bottom right: "So I'll have to vote for candidate #1." "That would be right."
For their troubles, the Democratic Party got a torrent of abuse because they also hand out "snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings."
Comment: "Really? Why haven't you called the police already? I am afraid that the police will end up arresting one of your party members. Doesn't the Democratic Party distribute snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings? How come I saw your vice-chairman doing that ... and he still lost."
Response from the Democratic Party: "Every political party distributes the goodies, but it depends on how they distribute it. We are not like the pro-establishment camp. We don't bully grandpas and grandmas to vote!"

[345] Declaration of War on the People of Hong Kong (2015/10/16)

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 16, 2015.

Occupy protester and Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu day has been charged with assaulting and obstructing 15 police officers, none of whom are the seven officers who allegedly beat him last October during the pro-democracy Occupy protests.
Tsang, who is due to appear at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on October 19, was accused of assaulting 11 police officers by pouring water onto them. Tsang was said to have splashed liquid onto officers on Lung Wo Road from the embankment of the underpass, after which he was arrested. He apparently resisted arrest. Tsang was notified of the charges on Thursday morning and arrived at the police station for arrest “by appointment” on the same day.
Meanwhile, the seven officers who were said to have beaten Tsang up were also charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent on Thursday and have been publicly named. The group, which includes a chief inspector, a senior inspector and five junior officers, were released on bail after reporting to the police station. One of the officers, Chan Siu-tan, who was accused of assaulting Tsang at the police station, was also charged with common assault.

All of the seven officers will appear in court on the same day Tsang faces charges against the 15 other officers. Both incidents took place on October 15, 2014, exactly a year from when they were charged.

“I want to say that today’s charges and arrangement are very ridiculous… for a normal charge, the defendant would receive an allegation based on a police investigation, or brief facts of the case… the police has provided neither of these things to me today in charging me,” Tsang told RTHK.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen, however, said that the decision was made on the advice of a Queen’s Counsel, whom the Department of Justice had been consulting with. “We believe that the two cases should be handled in the fairest possible way, and that’s why we made arrangements for Mr Tsang and also the seven police officers to be charged on the same day, this is today… it would be beneficial for both of them to be appearing before the same court on the same day,” he said. “I don’t think there is any delay,” he also said, in response to media inquiries on why it took such a long period of time to charge the seven officers.

Video: TVB news report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKf4Y9HUjUM

(SCMP) October 15, 2015.

Seven police officers accused of beating activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu during the Occupy protests last year could face prison after police said all had been jointly charged with wounding or striking with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. One officer is also charged with one count of common assault. The charge of shooting or attempting to shoot, or wounding or striking with intent to do grevious bodily harm carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

All seven officers have been released on bail and are due to appear at Eastern Court on Monday. It is understood that there would be no plea and the prosecution would apply to have the case transferred to the District Court for trial.

The District Court however can only hand down jail terms of up to seven years. The prosecution can apply to have a case heard in a lower court than the High Court - which handles more serious cases with penalties of more than seven years - if they think it does not warrant a jail term longer than that. The seven officers reported back to police this morning after spending almost a year suspended from duties.

Police confirmed their names as Chief inspector Wong Cho-sing (Organised Crime and Triad Bureau); Senior inspector Lau Cheuk-ngai, Sergeant Pak Wing-bun, PC Lau Hing-pui, Wong Wai-ho (all Kwun Tong district); PC Kwan Ka-ho (Kowloon City district); and Chan Siu-tan, a police constable in the Kowloon East district crime unit, who has also been charged with common assault.

(SCMP) October 16, 2015.

A charge of assaulting police filed against an Occupy protester at the centre of a police brutality case relates to an incident in which he allegedly splashed liquid on a group of officers, the Department of Justice said on Thursday night.

The victims of Ken Tsang Kin-chiu’s alleged crime were not the seven officers who have been charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent in an incident that took place moments later, the department revealed. Tsang was also handed four charges of obstructing police who tried to apprehend him after the incident at Lung Wo Road, Admiralty, in the early hours of October 15 last year.

The department also revealed that a further charge of common assault against one of the seven officers accused of attacking Tsang, PC Chan Siu-tan, related to an incident in an interview room at Central Police Station after Tsang’s arrest. The department released further details of the case hours after Tsang and the seven were charged a year to the day after the alleged assaults. All were released on bail to appear before Eastern Court on Monday.

Dismissing suggestions that charging both Tsang and the seven on the same day was an attempt to divert the public’s attention, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said on Thursday evening that the alleged offences all happened in a very short time span, so both cases should be handled simultaneously.

“The whole point, if I may emphasise, is to ensure procedural fairness between Tsang on the one hand, and the seven police officers on the other,” Yuen said. Yuen said the arrangement under which both Tsang and the seven would appear before Eastern Court on Monday would allow both parties to express their views to the court should there be any concern. Asked why the Department of Justice had decided to apply for the case against the officers to be transferred to the District Court, Yuen said his department considered various factors, including the appropriate sentence upon conviction and the circumstances of the case.

The District Court can hand out a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, though the charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

(EJinsight) October 15, 2015.

Tsang, meanwhile, told reporters Thursday that he received a telephone call from the police this morning, informing him that he too will have to face a charge of inflicting harm on police officers. Tsang then visited the Central police station in the afternoon. Responding to the accusations against him, Tsang described the charge as ridiculous and untrue, and said he sees it as a sort of vendetta of the establishment. He pointed out when he was arrested last year, he had been accused of only things, namely obstructing government officials, participating in illegal assemblies, and failing to produce identification. All of those charges were subsequently dropped by the police. In the charges last year, there was no mention of inflicting harm on police officers, Tsang noted.

Internet comments:

- For a discussion of the controversy of the award-winning TVB news report, please see #028.

- Ken Tsang is saying that the Hong Kong Police, the Department of Justice and other government officials have declared war on the people of Hong Kong by charging him with inflicting harm on police officers. Tsang described the charge as ridiculous and untrue.

Well, Ken Tsang is not being charged with being the victim of police violence. That is not a crime. The basis for the charge against him can be seen right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKjtgPFaHCU: NOW News/TVB News had news videos showing a masked man standing on the edge of a parapet and pouring unidentified liquid from a plastic bottle onto police officers on Lung Wo Road below. A man (Ken Tsang) was apprehended and taken away by the police.

P.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MOzR9aXTwE Cable TV news report, including the arrest of Ken Tsang
P.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNf052V2Og in slow motion
P.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roq3t_jk0nU The longer version of the TVB news report

As Democratic Party legislator James To pointed out, this incident took place at a location and a time that was sufficiently removed from the police assault case. So it should be considered separately. On the basis of these news videos, there is probable cause for the charge. Ken Tsang can have his day in court. Maybe his lawyer will argue that it was a case of mistaken identity, or maybe he poured the water on the police to relieve heat. But that would be during the court trial.

- Mistaken identity indeed. You can never trust your lyin' eyes.

- Ken Tsang will be found guilty and given the standard sentence of 80 hours of community service.

- Ken Tsang seems to relish speaking to the press. He has plenty to say except for those things that people are most interested in. For example, "What was the liquid that you poured onto the police? Distilled water or urine?" He won't confirm or deny that he was the masked man in the news videos from TVB, NOW TV and Cable TV. He prefers to talk about the government's declaration of war on the people of Hong Kong. This has generated several thousand comments from Internet users who failed to see the connection between the prosecution of Ken Tsang and any war on the people.

- (Speakout HK @YouTube) Ken Tsang complained to the press about how the police arrested him in such a high-profiled manner in consideration of public relations. Well, who summoned the press there? The Hong Kong Police did not notify the press that an appointment was made with Ken Tsang for him to come in for the arrest. The Department of Justice did not notify the press either. It was Ken Tsang who summoned the press for a high-profiled conference in consideration of public relations.

- I know who has declared war on the people of Hong Kong. It is not CY Leung, or the Department of Justice, or the Hong Kong Police. It was the Yellow Ribbons who occupied the streets and prevented the people of Hong Kong from leading their normal lives. They said that they are protesting against the government, yet they were targeting We the People without ever affecting the government.

- (HKG Pao) In his Hong Kong Economic Journal column, Joseph Lian said that the Hong Kong government succumbed to pressure from the United Nations and the United States Congress to prosecute the seven policeman. He wrote: "The business community saw that their interests would be affected if the US Congress took action, so they forced the government to made the minimal response." If this were the case, then foreign forces have now interceded into Hong Kong affairs and destroyed judicial independence. So where are those senior barristers who like to parade silently in black clothes around the High Court to protest the death of judicial independence?

Besides, the Hong Kong people can see on the various news sites just how the American police enforce the law -- they can shoot unarmed citizens dozens of times; they can attack school children violently on campus; they can waterboard suspects; etc. Under those standards, what can the US Congress say about what these seven policemen did? Wouldn't they be too embarrassed to do so?

- Ken Tsang said that the simultaneity of his arrest and the arrests of the seven policemen was an act of public relations. There are two other ways to proceed.

Firstly, Ken Tsang is prosecuted first before a decision is made on the seven policemen. Tsang's case is easy given the video of him throwing an unidentified liquid onto police officers. The video and the testimonies of the eleven arresting officers are sufficient to proceed. If that were to happen, Ken Tsang would cry foul! He would divert attention on his own case by asking why the seven policemen weren't charged yet. The Civic Party would demand the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, the US Congress and the British Parliament intercede and impose economic sanctions on Hong Kong. That would be an act of public relations, with most of the discussion centered on Ken Tsang being clearly guilty and so why shouldn't he be prosecuted?

Alternately, the seven policemen are charged but Ken Tsang is not. The television shows would be showing the videos of both Ken Tsang throwing the liquid and the beating in the dark corner. Enraged citizens would demand to know why Ken Tsang hasn't been charged yet. Most of the discussion would be centered on Ken Tsang being clearly guilty and so why hasn't he been prosecuted yet?

Either way, Ken Tsang is not going to be able to avoid facing up to his own culpability.

- Ken Tsang is charged with assaulting 11 police officers. This led people to say that Ken Tsang must be even more powerful than Ip Mon who challenged ten Japanese karate experts together. Well, let me remind you that the Mong Kok acid thrower Part 2, Mong Kok acid thrower Part 3 once injured 24 persons by tossing corrosive liquid from above.

[344] Joshua Wong Wants To Be Legislative Councilor (2015/10/15)

(EJinsight) October 13, 2015.

It’s not for nothing that Joshua Wong wants the age limit lowered for candidates for public office. When he launched a legal challenge on Monday to slash the minimum age requirement to 18 from 21, it came with more than a hint of his intention to run for the Legislative Council next year.

Wong, who rose to prominence during last year’s democracy protests, turned 19 on Tuesday, not too young to vote but not old enough to be voted on until at least 2017. As a student leader of the protest movement, Wong no doubt was one of the best of the class of 2014. He proved his mettle opposite top government officials and with fellow students, but does he have what it takes to prosecute his advocacy from the other side? Some people are asking because his petition for a judicial review is creating a buzz.

Never mind that it is only the first step in a complex legal and procedural process whose chances of success are at best uneven in the present political environment. But what Wong has done is bring attention to an election regime that has allowed the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps to dictate Hong Kong politics since the first post-handover Legco elections in 1998.

Wong came of age during the protest movement, along with a welter of student leaders and young people who saw an opportunity to influence local politics beyond exercising their right to vote. He wants people old enough to vote to be old enough to run for public office. The idea is to encourage more young people to engage in the reshaping of the political landscape when they have the most at stake in Hong Kong’s future.

Wong knows he cannot be a student leader all his life. Which is why he is willing to trade his moral halo for a politician’s hat and get into the cut and thrust of a completely different arena. If that happens, he would be an interesting case study.

Most young Hong Kong people are not interested in politics, despite their exposure to its street version last year. Also, they see no incentive in an unrepresentative election framework dominated by functional constituencies. They don’t think such an arrangement allows their voice to be heard.

That’s where Wong disagrees. In his mind, those voices should not be left in the streets and should be brought to bear on political issues in an elective forum.

Wong obviously believes that reform of the political system is best fought from within. Already, he is putting veteran politicians on notice about his intentions, so it’s no surprise that establishment figures are giving his plans the cold treatment.

Acting Chief Executive Carrie Lam is adamant the public has no appetite to overhaul the election age requirement anytime soon.

Stay tuned.

(SCMP) October 13, 2015.

Student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung is launching a court battle to fight a minimum age of 21 for people seeking a seat in the city's legislature - and says he could run for a Legislative Council seat next year if he wins.

Wong, who turns 19 today, yesterday filed a judicial review application to the High Court challenging the rule, arguing that most other jurisdictions - including the mainland - allow people to seek office at 18.

"It is ironic that people can stand for election to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress [at] just 18 years old," he said outside court. "It is really unreasonable that the age limit for contesting the Hong Kong Legislative Council election is 21 years old."

Wong, convenor of student group Scholarism, has built an international reputation since leading a successful fight against national education in schools, and was a key figure in last year's Occupy protests. He said he would consider running in next year's poll if he won.

"After the 'umbrella movement', we hope to encourage more young people to bring their ideas, such as self-determination, and future problems in Hong Kong from the streets to Legco," he said. "That's why I am applying for this judicial review; I hope to achieve a breakthrough in the current system."

Wong said he had discussed the case with fellow Scholarism members but had made the application alone. He intends to seek legal aid.

In his writ, Wong says the minimum age of 21, as set down in the Legislative Council Ordinance, is "unconstitutional". He points to Article 26 of the Basic Law, under which all Hong Kong residents have the right to vote and the right to stand for election in accordance with the law. Wong says this constitutes unequal treatment of people aged between 18 and 20.

He names many countries, including Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland and Germany, which set the minimum age for both voters and candidates at 18. Only Singapore sets the minimum age for both voters and candidates at 21. He says 18 is also the minimum age for the national and local people's congresses of the People's Republic of China.

"It is far from apparent that there is a need to set the minimum age for candidacy at [a] higher age than the minimum age for voting," the writ says. "Conversely, there is good reason for the minimum age for candidacy to be the same as the minimum age for voting. The natural and logical assumption must be that a person who is deemed mature enough to vote … would also be sufficiently mature to stand for election."

Wong states that, as a potential candidate, he was directly affected by the requirement. He therefore asked the court to let him challenge it.

(SCMP) October 13, 2015.

Hongkongers have not indicated a strong desire in public discourse to lower the minimum age for Legislative Council election candidates, acting chief executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor says. Lam was responding to a judicial review application filed by student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung to challenge a rule in election laws requiring people contesting Legco seats to be aged at least 21.

Wong wants the High Court to lower the minimum age to 18 – the same as for the national and local people’s congresses of the People’s Republic of China.

Lam said ahead of an Executive Council meeting today: “In the process of taking Hong Kong forward in democratic development, and in discussions with the Legislative Council and the public on electoral arrangements, we have not come across a very strong desire to lower the age from 21 to 18.” Even if a strong desire for such a change emerged now, she said, any amendments to election laws were unlikely to happen in time for the Legco election next year. “It appears time is very tight,” she said.

(Kinliu.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 15, 2015.

A few days ago, Joshua Wong said on radio that "today's parliamentary politics is the politics of old people." Wong probably does not know much about history, because politics has always been an adult affair. Those who lack knowledge and experience have no place in politics.

The people of Hong Kong are familiar with Margaret Thatcher, who served as Prime Minister until she was 65 years old. Americans love Ronald Reagan, who began campaigning for president when he was 69 years old. So by any international standards that you care to raise, politics is the politics of old people. Wong is 19 years old and he already wants to get on the politics platform. He thinks that all he has to do is get a microphone, say something and get some applause, and that would be success, glamour and genius. With due respect, that is a trap that you will be sorry about when you look back eventually.

After the Umbrella Riots, some bleeding hearts suggest that the social destroyer Joshua Wong should go back to school, read more books and learn to be humble. But it would seem that those words have fallen on deaf ears. Instead our bad boy has antagonized his fellow travelers and angered the bankroller. By talking about "old people's politics," he has offended everyone in the Legislative Council? With one fell swoop, he has dismissed everything that they did over the past several decades. Wong says that he has difficulty finding allies in the Legislative Council. He talks big, but it is had to see what kind of allies he is looking for.

I wonder why nobody would give him a straight talk. For his own good, his parents and friends should say something. Being 19 is the best age to learn humbly, not to be unbearably arrogant.

When Joshua Wong went down to the courthouse to hand in the judicial writ, he took a taxi. When the taxi arrived at the destination, he hopped off and started walking ahead. The driver yelled: "You haven't paid yet!" This small act showed that a child who has never needed to pay the pay don't even know that you have to count your money before you get off. You can pay off the taxi fare eventually, but when you ever pay back the debt known as Occupy Central?

A child who has never earned money, a boy who has never been to class, a citizen who has never paid taxes, a student who is in school because of taxpayer subsidies, a dependent who does not even know how to pay the bill ... he who has never known about hardships now want to rule the world. Will we let people like him get away with it?

(Wen Wei Po) October 15, 2015.

Recently Scholarism convener Joshua Wong applied for a judicial writ to the High Court to reduce the age requirement for Legislative Councilor to 18 years old. He said that if he wins, he will enter the Legislative Council elections next year, because "there is a serious problem with old man politics in the legislative council" and "talents" such as himself are needed. Although Joshua Wong's family is well-off and live in a middle-class housing estate, he applied for legal aid. If as expected, legal aid is approved in all matters of a political nature, then Joshua Wong will be able to enter the elections without spending a cent of his own money.

But Joshua Wong might have overreached with his greediness. Why was he able to rise up so quickly in recent years? That's because he has a "moral aura" due to his student status. Some citizens think that he is a student with no ulterior political motives. But now he wants an unnecessary judicial review so that he can get a job that pays more than $100,000 a month. Such selfishness won't be acceptable. Oddly enough, the fiercest criticisms are coming not from the pro-establishment camp. Instead, he is coming from the pro-democracy camp, especially from Civic Party chief Alan Leong. In an essay, Alan Leong said that Wong will lose his aura if he enters the elections for legislative council. Leong also lectured Wong on respecting the pan-democrats and not dismiss their efforts over the past two or three decades as "old man politics."

Is Alan Leong right? He is very right. By his action, Joshua Wong has ripped aside his mask and showed that "the young hero of democracy" is just another "greedy political hack" who only looks after his personal interests. As for "old man politics," the fact is that all those legislators were elected by voters and therefore what they do is what the voters want. There is no reason why the Legislative Council should be filled with "red guards" like Joshua Wong who lack both knowledge and ethics.

Of course, Alan Leong is launching a public attack not for the sake of justice. He is just worried about the upcoming Legco elections. If Joshua Wong wins the judicial review, other Scholarism members will enter the elections as well. This will put pressure on the Civic Party. If Alan Leong really wants to retire from his Kowloon East seat, Joshua Wong might run there. Scholarism is not going to be able to steal the votes delivered by the Democratic Party precinct captains, but they sure can steal some of the "celebrity" and "concept" votes of the Civic Party. If Joshua Wong runs, he won't affect the Democratic Party much. But he will affect the Civic Party and other radical parties such as People Power and League of Social Democrats.

Alan Leong knows what is on Joshua Wong's mind. After the Occupy episode, they know that these "red guards" don't respect them and will do whatever they want without any mediations. This will put the Civic Party in an embarrassing position. Therefore, Alan Leong had no choice but to pick on Joshua Wong for saying "old man politics." Alan Leong's best hope is for the judicial review to fail. But if Joshua Wong wins, Leong must need to knock the sheen off the Scholarism auara. As Leong wrote, "I want to give Joshua some advice. When you get into politics, there are many temptations and trials that will bring out the best and the worst of you." Right now Alan Leong is showing us the worst of Joshua Wong. When it comes to Legco seats, the Civic Party will not let up on Joshua Wong. Even the financier will probably step in to teach Joshua Wong a lesson. It will be interesting to see how long Joshua Wong's aura can last.

(The Sun) October 15, 2015.

The Yellow Guards said that "old man politics" is a serious problem at the Legislative Council and they want to bring in the voices of the young generation. Thus, they are gunning right for the old pan-democratic farts by stealing their voter base. This is the usual ghoul-versus-ghoul fight. The Yellow Guards said very bluntly that many of the pan-democrats hang on until they are fifty something years old only to keep their Legco seats. In recent social movements, these old farts incite young people to charge the front lines while their own children sit home to watch television or study overseas without breaking the law. But the old farts are too smart for themselves, and the young turks find themselves having to pay the price.

The old farts are able to enjoy themselves for decades by just saying "democracy". The Yellow Guards have now gained fame and therefore they want to reap the fruits of their revolution. Nothing is more attractive than a Legco seat.

In truth, the Hong Kong legislative councilor is a great job -- it pays a lot and the workload is very light. There is nothing better than this job in the world. Don't you see the legislators clipping their fingernails, or browsing sexy girlie photos, or napping, or not even showing up while still collecting their monthly salary of $90,000+? Of course, they will use up most of their $2 million+ annual expense allowance. Whenever a senior government official comes in for a Q&A session, they will routinely yell some slogans, toss some objects, get expelled from the chamber and show up on television news.

When the Chinese rebel, they always say that they are trying to fight for justice. But all they want to do is to sit on the emperor's throne themselves. The Yellow Guards may have started out with some pure ideals. But in the end, they only want the benefits of officialdom. Congratulations! The Yellow Guards are coming of age!

Internet comments:

- Joshua Wong's group Scholarism has a war chest of hundreds of thousand of dollars, but of course he won't use up the money for this judicial review. Instead he will apply for legal aid as a indigent student with no income, so that We the People will pay for it. Of course, this is being done for our good. Of course.
- At first, Joshua Wong posted on Facebook said that he would pay his own way although he just may apply for legal aid. This drew a lot of complaints about spending the blood-and-sweat money of the taxpayers. One day later, Wong went ahead to apply for legal aid and posted a queue ticket on his Facebook to rub it in. This goes to show that Wong doesn't give a rat's ass about what the public thinks.

- (Oriental Daily) October 12, 2015.

Did he really forget?

When Joshua Wong's taxi arrived at the High Court, he got out of the car and started to walk. The taxi driver yelled aloud: "You haven't paid yet!" Wong returned to pay the fare. Afterwards, Wong said that the taxi fare was around $80. When our reporter asked him where he came from, Wong got aggressive and said that he does not need to account for his personal details. He characterized our reporter's question as stupid. According to information, Joshua Wong lives in Southern Horizons, Ap Lei Chau. So it is likely that Wong took at taxi from there to here.

This is not the first time that Joshua Wong forgot the social rules and norms (see, for example, #261). When he does not care about obeying laws, why bother with legislating laws?

- Why does he take taxis? Because he is liable to be attacked by citizens in public area (see, for example, #323).

Taxi driver: "$ - I want genuine taxi fare payment!"

- "He names many countries, including Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland and Germany, which set the minimum age for both voters and candidates at 18. Only Singapore sets the minimum age for both voters and candidates at 21."

When someone produces a list like this, you should be immediately suspicious about the omissions. What is so special about Denmark and Finland that Wong ignored much larger democracies such as the United States of America, Australia, France, India, etc? Would an all-star cast of United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc be more convincing?

Let's look at the most glaring omission: The United States of America.

(US presidential eligibility)

Article Two, Section 1 of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(US Senate eligibility)

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: 1) they must be at least 30 years old, 2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past 9 years, and 3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election.

(US House of Representatives eligibility)

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for representatives. Each representative must: (1) be at least twenty-five years old; (2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and (3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent. Members are not required to live in the district they represent, but they traditionally do.

Joshua Wong cannot use the United States to support his case.

- "He says 18 is also the minimum age for the national and local people's congresses of the People's Republic of China." "Wong wants the High Court to lower the minimum age to 18 – the same as for the national and local people’s congresses of the People’s Republic of China." What are the facts?

(NPC.gov.cn)

All citizens of the People's Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of ethnic background, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education level, property status or length of residence. People who have been deprived of their political rights according to law do not have the right to vote and stand for election.

So far so good on the age requirement. But here is what happens next.

(NPC.gov.cn)

Deputies to the people's congresses of cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, counties, autonomous counties, townships, ethnic minority townships and towns are elected directly by their constituencies. Deputies to the NPC and the people's congresses of the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, cities divided into districts, and autonomous prefectures are elected by the people's congresses at the next lower level.

In Hong Kong, the Legislative Council is divided into five geographical constituencies which are divided into hundreds of smaller districts each with several thousand voters. So if you follow the NPC method, you can only have direct election of district councilors who will indirectly elect the legislative councilors.

Somehow I don't think that this is the system that Joshua Wong wants, given that each and every of the 18 district councils is dominated by pro-establishment councilors. He is just cherry-picking what he wants to have.

P.S. The youngest ever National People's Congress Standing Committee member was 38 years old.

- (Ming Pao) October 17, 2015. Former legislator Allen Lee said that Joshua Wong's demand is a selfish act because he wants to find a new platform for his social activism. He called on Joshua Wong to withdraw his judicial writ. In response Wong said that he did so because he felt that the election system was unfair. The courts and the citizens are the ones who will decided whether he can bring his ideas into the Legislative Council. Wong has no intention of withdrawing his application because of the criticisms of one or two persons.

- (HKG Pao)

Early last year, I said that once Joshua Wong leaves secondary school, his political influence will tumble down. Once away from secondary school, can he influence secondary school students anymore? Will the current students listen to him? Or will they start their own thing?

The tertiary schools have their own turfdoms. Joshua Wong's grades are not good enough to get him into the eight universities. Why would the university students listen to an outsider?

Outside the schools, what is left is Joshua Wong's so-called old-man politics with fierce internecine struggles. Since he does not have a group of precinct captains to work the local districts, he won't have much influence. By the time that he reaches 21 years old, his celebrity status will be spent. Therefore, he has no choice but to file the judicial writ to obtain a Legco seat as soon as possible.

This is the reason for Joshua Wong's action: Time is not on his side. The same thing happens to all the child stars in the movie industry. If he cannot enter the 2016 Legco elections, he will probably leave Hong Kong and continue to be an overseas pro-democracy activist in America.

- (HKG Pao)

In order to mobilize public support, Joshua Wong changed his Facebook to say "Charging into the Legislative Council with generational reforms, judicial review on election age eligibility" with a large number "18". He must have thought that this would bring him a lot of LIKE's but his fans had some surprising reactions.

- Why are you doing such pointless things to waste taxpayers' money? I have supported you before, I even donated money to you. Ever since the Umbrella Movement, your immature comments have disappointed me. This shows that an 18-year-old is unqualified to become a Legislative Council! I will UNLIKE you from now on.

- Was the law designed for your sake? Will the law be changed for your sake?

- I support you to seek a judicial review of the Basic Law. It should be completely written by you ... but first you have to sue your parents first for giving birth to you without your consent.

- Actually, it makes no difference whether the eligible age is 18 or 21. Under these circumstances, who is going to vote for the River Child?

- There is no problem with you seeking a judicial review. But please use your own money. Do not use Legal Aid. That is a waste. If you can't even solve the "XX does not represent me" problem, how can you get into politics? Isn't this going to be a waste? (Note: "XX does not represent me" refers to the fact that there was no leadership during the Umbrella Revolution).

- But 18 would not meet international standards. In the United States, you have to be 25 years old in order to run for Congress.

- What is the problem with waiting until you are 21? Are you afraid that three years later, those people who support you now will see that everything you do is to pave your way to become a political hack?

- You did so many things just so you can earn the $90,000 monthly salary as Legislative Councilor? I am disappointed in you.

- The current minimum age for Legislative Council candidate is 21. Are there any Legislative Councilors 21 years old? None. 22? 23? 24? 25? ... According to Wikipedia, the youngest Legislative Councilor is 36 years old (born in 1979). Why not younger? Because a 21-year-old won't have the knowledge and experience to handle the job. Will an 18-year-old do better? That is a rhetorical question.

- Joshua Wong is immensely popular with the citizens (and the western media). Here is a photo posted on his own Facebook of himself handing out voter registration forms to enthusiastic citizens in Wanchai. He counting on them to vote for him in the Legislative Council election.

[343] Yet Another Student Referendum (2015/10/15)

(Ming Pao) October 12, 2015.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students and the student unions at the 8 universities planned to hold a student referendum in February 2016 on a number of issues: (1) the elimination of having the Chief Executive become the chancellor automatically; (2) increasing the ratio of insiders (students, teachers and staff) on the board of directors and university council; (3) increasing the number of students on the university council; etc. According to Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Wong Hon-leung, the current chancellor CY Leung has been violently interfering with internal affairs within the universities. Wong said: If the Chief Executive is not elected by one-person-one-vote, "On what basis can he represent the people of Hong Kong to supervise the universities?"
Wong Hon-leung said that there was a historical reason why the Chief Executive is automatically the university chancellor, but that was when the British colonial governor never intervened with internal affairs at the universities. Wong agreed that external members are important for the board/council, but he said that this does not mean that the Chief Executive to appoint his people. There are instances in which the chancellor is elected by the alumni on a one-person-one-vote basis.

Independent self-determination to reclaim the glory of our school
Unite as one to resist the ambitious wolf

(SCMP) October 12, 2015.

Referendums will be held at eight local universities as student activists seek to amend the laws that make the city's chief executive the chancellor of their universities and allow him to appoint his allies to the institutions' governing bodies.

The plebiscites would follow a controversial decision last month by the University of Hong Kong's council to reject liberal scholar Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun's candidacy for a key managerial post. The vote sparked public outcry over the university's autonomy. Fears were revived last week after Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying appointed Beijing loyalists to Lingnan University's council.

"The government has turned the universities' councils into its own 'back garden' via personnel appointments," said Alan Wong Ka-fai, a deputy secretary general of the Federation of Students, which is coordinating the upcoming polls. "[The councils] have become a place to distribute political rewards … and conduct political retaliation." The university ordinances stipulate that the chief executive is chancellor of all public universities and authorise him to appoint council members.

The referendums, which are to be carried out separately by the eight universities' student unions before next February, will seek students' opinions on the need and means to amend the ordinances, including the possibility of removing the chief executive as chancellor and increasing the proportion of student and staff representatives on governing bodies. Wong said the student unions would urge their institutions to set up a committee to work on the amendments if a majority of students backed the motion. He added that polls would consolidate students' voices and build a basis for further protests.

This month, Baptist University student representatives will meet university president Professor Roland Chin Tai-hong to raise the plan. Student unions of the University of Hong Kong, Polytechnic University and Baptist University this year disaffiliated from the federation following the Occupy sit-ins last year, but they have teamed up to push the polls. Wong explained: "The crisis we are facing now affects not just one school but every institution, student and staff. What happened made us more united."

City University, which also left the federation, was the only public university not to join the referendum plan. Its student union was disbanded last month.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 13, 2015

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying stated on Tuesday that the Chief Executive has certain responsibilities in Hong Kong’s government-funded universities. The statement was made at the airport before Leung’s departure to the UK and Israel for an official visit.

Leung said that the extent of his involvement and responsibilities, as well as that of the institution’s management and staff, varies according to the legislation of the respective tertiary institutions. As head of government, he said, he must act according to his responsibilities under the ordinances that form these universities. He further added that the views of staff and students on potential amendments to the governing structure of these institutions would be considered.

The Chief Executive automatically serves as the chancellor to all of Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions, a role that is traditionally only symbolic.

(SCMP) Wish for end to chief executive's role at universities could be a slippery slope Hong Kong can't handle. Alex Lo. October 22, 2015.

Student activists want to end the practice of the chief executive automatically becoming the chancellor of our publicly funded universities to defend their autonomy and academic freedom. In principle, they are right. In practice, it is almost impossible to do. Moreover, they should be careful what they wish for. Radical as it is, they may not know they are threatening the whole governance structure of Hong Kong.

Our system of government is not described as being "executive-led" for nothing. Practically all the heads of public bodies and most if not all of their board members are appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the chief executive. Among these are the commissions on tourism, competition, law reform, women and the elderly, equal opportunities and privacy, as are the Audit Commission, the Town Planning Board, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, judges and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance.

The financial secretary appoints all the board members of the Securities and Futures Commission through delegated authority by the chief executive. The government likewise appoints the heads of the Commission for Innovation and Technology and the Hong Kong Economic, Trade and Cultural Office in Taiwan. The same argument that public universities must enjoy institutional autonomy from government interference applies in principle to many of those public bodies as well. If the governing councils of universities are to be free of appointees by the government or the chief executive, why shouldn't those other public bodies? We are then talking about a major overhaul of our political system! Don't start what you can't finish or take it too lightly.

The university councils only have a third to half of their members being government appointees. The rest are picked by staff, students and/or professors and by council members themselves. Comparatively, they enjoy more autonomy than the boards of most public bodies. As recipients of public funding, universities are accountable to the government. If the chief executive were to play no role in their affairs, there would need to be a number of government officials sitting in those councils. That could be worse.

Internet comments:

- A comment from a current university council member was this: "Don't just say what you don't like; please give us a concrete proposal about what you would like to have." For example, you seem to agree that it is important for the board/council to have external members and you want more internal members too. So what external-internal ratio would you like to have? On what basis would the trustees be chosen (if not appointed by the Chief Executive)? And if you don't want the Chief Executive to become the chancellor automatically, then can you explain where the chancellor should come from (e.g. appointed by the Secretary for Education; one-person-one-vote with civil nomination by the students, staff members and teachers; etc)?
- I am sure that there are many examples of great foreign universities electing their chancellors by one-person-one-vote. I looked up Wikipedia for the British universities. Here are some examples of chancellors at some very illustrious British universities:

University of Aberdeen, HRH The Duchess of Rothesay
University of Bath, HRH The Earl of Wessex
University of Birmingham, The Lord Mayor of Birmingham
University of Cambridge, David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville
Canterbury Christ Church University, The Archbishop of Canterbury
City University London, The Lord Mayor of London
University of Cumbria, Archbishop of York
University of Derby, 12th Duke of Devonshire
University of Edinburgh, HRH The Princess Royal
Harper Adams University, HRH The Princess Royal
University of the Highlands and Islands, HRH The Princess Royal
University of Huddersfield, HRH The Duke of York
University of London, HRH The Princess Royal
University of Oxford, Chris Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes
University of Surrey, HRH The Duke of Kent
University of Wales, HRH The Prince of Wales
York St John University, The Archbishop of York

P.S. The Queen, The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor also serve as Visitor at a number of universities. The Visitor, and not the courts, has the right to adjudge alleged deviations from the university statutes.
Were these chancellors elected by one-student-one-vote? Or for their excellence as academic scholars/researchers?
- On the matter of ratios, here is some history:

(HKU) A three-person review panel, comprising Professor John Niland (former Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of New South Wales), Professor Neil L. Rudenstine (former President of Harvard University) and The Hon. Justice Andrew Li (the Chief Justice of Hong Kong who had been the Chairman of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (now UGC) for many years) was established by the University to review its governance and management structure.

The panel submitted its report (the Fit for Purpose report) to the Council in February 2003, with 17 recommendations on means of enhancing the University governance and management structure and procedures.

All recommendations in the Fit for Purpose report were accepted by the Council of the University for implementation in 2003. These recommendations include the reduction of the size of the University's governance bodies, the reorganization of the management team, the establishment of full-time appointed Faculty Dean positions, the introduction of the trusteeship concept in membership of the Council, student and staff memberships on Council, changes to the staff grievances procedures, clearer definitions of the role of the governance bodies, improvement of communications, and streamlining the University committee structure.

Specifically, the University Council was reduced from the previous 54 persons to between 18 and 24 persons, and the ratio of outsider-insider went from 3:2 to 2:1 so that more outsiders can provide independent and objective views to improve governance.
So what would the students now like? 1:1? 1:2? And what happens to the notion that "more outsiders can provide independent and objective views to improve governance"? What happens to a university council that is dominated by an entrenched tenured staff interested in protecting their domains and a transient student body (four years and they graduate) with no interest governance (unless politics is involved)?
- On the matter of selection method, where could the exterior members come from? Do you want to advertise for volunteers from society at large, screen them and then let the students vote on them? What kind of people are you likely to wind up with?
At this moment, the graduate student representative Aloysius Wilfred Raj Arokiaraj on the Hong Kong University Council has resigned and a replacement has to be elected. So far there are two candidates about whom not much is known yet. The only thing known about the male candidate is that he is Zhu Ke (which is a mainland pinyin spelling) in the Electrical Engineering Department and presently the chairman of the Hong Kong University Postgraduate Students Union. For the female candidate Annabelle Mak Wing Man, someone has located one photo of her with former police commissioner Andy Tsang Wai-hung and another photo of her with police spokesperson Steve Hui Chun-tak. Is that going to disqualify her from serving on the university council? That simple question isn't even settled yet, because it touches upon the freedoms of speech, expression and association.

- The Hong Kong Federation of Students executive committee is not elected by one-student-one-vote. So why don't they start with fixing that first?

"Congratulations to Nathan Law for winning the Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general election by a high tally of 37 votes in total."
- This Wong Hon-leung guy says that the Chief Executive isn't elected by one-person-one-vote and therefore has no right to represent the people of Hong Kong to supervise the universities. Fuck you! If it weren't for you guys and your Occupy/Umbrella thing, we would be having one-person-one-vote for the 2017 Chief Executive election! Instead, you have only guaranteed the re-election of CY Leung by the 1,200-person election committee.
- Wong Hon-leung wasn't elected by one-student-one-vote and therefore has no right to represent the students of the eight universities.
- Students at four out of the eight universities have voted to withdraw from the Hong Kong Federation of Students. So Wong Hon-leung is even less representative than the title of the organization suggests.
- The students speak as if they can be an autonomous entity that is beyond outside scrutiny. Here is why the general public wants to know about how the universities operate.
(University Grants Committee)

2013/2014 Total Recurrent Grants
Chinese University of Hong Kong, $3,679,700,000
City University of Hong Kong, $1,776,100,000
Lingnan University, $359,500,000
Hong Kong Baptist University, $904,000,000
Hong Kong Institute of Education, $649,700,000
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, $2,403,500,000
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, $1,965,900,000
University of Hong Kong, $3,648,100,000
TOTAL, $15,385,500,000

There are 7 million people in Hong Kong. $15,385,500,000 / 7,000,000 = $2,198 per capita. The citizens have the right to know how their money is being spent.
Of course, the universities can always turn down the government subsidies, go private and raise money on their own. Then they shall be truly autonomous (except to that handful of big donors).
Alternately, the students can pay their own way. There are about 100,000 students, so the average burden will be $15,385,500,000 / 100,000 = $153,855 per student on top of what they are already paying for tuition/board.
- "CY Leung has violently interfered with internal affairs at the universities." That is an assertion that has so far not be backed by any concrete direct evidence. The assertion is usually backed up by the "fact" that the Chief Executive appoints a number of university board/council members. However, they always get the facts wrong, probably deliberately so.
(SpeakoutHK @ YouTube)

0:15 Radio host: You have not found anything about how Chief Executive CY Leung has influenced the council members.
0:22 Wong Hon-leung (Hong Kong Federation of Students) CY Leung has directly nominated seven members to the Hong Kong University Council.
0:33 Radio host: The first issue is that CY Leung makes the appointments. Do you know how many council members were appointed by CY Leung?
0:40 Billy Fung Jing-en (Hong Kong University Students' Union president) There are six plus one. That is, there are six council members appointed by CY Leung, and the council chairman is also appointed by CY Leung.
0:55 Civic Party legislator Alan Leong Ka-kit: First, he appointed Lo Chung-mau and Arthur Li. Then ...
1:00 Radio host: Lo Chung-mau was elected by the academic staff.
1:05 Leong: Lo Chung-mau was ... yes ... yes ... you are really right.

The correct answer is that, by law, the Chief Executive can appoint seven members (including the chairman) to the Hong Kong University Council. In truth, CY Leung has only appointed two members as the terms of the other members who were appointed by the previous Chief Executive Donald Tsang have not yet expired.
Do you have evidence that CY Leung controls the other five members? And since Johannes Chan was voted down 12-8, where did the other additional 5 unappointed votes (= 12-7) come from?
- Reference: William Waung, University Autonomy, Academic Freedom & Independent Governance.

[342] Yet Another Protest Against The Hong Kong University Council (2015/10/10)

(SCMP) October 9, 2015.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying met the head of the University of Hong Kong in the weeks leading up to the controversial rejection of a liberal academic's promotion to a senior manager's job, the Post has learned. The revelation has raised fresh concerns about political interference in the administration of HKU, but Leung's office would only say: "The chief executive meets with people of all backgrounds from time to time to exchange ideas."

A source close to the university said Leung had sought meetings with HKU vice-chancellor Professor Peter Mathieson in August and September to discuss the university's operation. "They met at least once in the weeks before the university council's meeting on September 29," said the source, referring to the date when HKU's governing council voted against appointing former law faculty dean Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun as a pro-vice-chancellor.

Critics have linked Chan's rejection to his friendship with Occupy Central organiser Benny Tai Yiu-ting. The decision, which came after months of delay and controversy, was condemned by students and alumni, who accused pro-government council members of politicising an academic matter and threatened to challenge it in court.

It remains unclear whether Leung, who is the university's chancellor by law, and Mathieson discussed the controversy. Mathieson refused to comment on the meeting, but an HKU spokesman said: "He stressed that in the course of representing the university's best interests, he meets with people from all walks of life."

Ip, also convenor of the HKU Alumni Concern Group, pointed out former governors, and later chief executives, served as ceremonial heads of the universities. "It would be a huge workload to have separate meetings with a university chief irregularly, let alone on a regular basis," Ip said. "It was strange for Leung to meet with Mathieson at such a sensitive time. I have reasonable grounds to believe Leung attempted to exert influence … on matters such as Johannes Chan's appointment."

(Oriental Daily) October 10, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Students' Union, the Hong Kong University Alumni Concern Group, the Hong Kong University Teachers and Staff Unions and other groups held an assembly on the space outside the university library to condemn the university council for not appointing Johannes Chan as pro vice chancellor. They demanded that the incoming council president/members must be acceptable to the students, teachers and staff. The organizers claimed that almost 4,000 persons attended.
Legislator and HKU Alumni Concern Group member Ip Kin-yuen said that it has been reported that Chief Executive/Chancellor CY Leung met twice with Hong Kong University vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson twice before the council meeting. Ip wonders if Leung applied pressure on Mathieson. He demanded the government make an open disclosure.

(Oriental Daily) October 11, 2015.

Earlier South China Morning Post reported that Chief Executive CY Leung met with HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson in a closed-door meeting before the council meeting to decide on the appointment of pro vice chancellor. Then a website reported that they met twice or thrice, and not just once. Actually, CY Leung is also the chancellor of Hong Kong University, so it would be normal for him to meet with the vice-chancellor.
Hong Kong University issued a written statement which said that in the meeting of CY Leung with Peter Mathieson and university council chairman Leung Che-hung, the subject of the appointment of the pro vice chancellor never came up.
Meanwhile, CY Leung was attending a function yesterday. When asked about this issue, he said that he has never interfered with the appointment of the HKU pro vice chancellor. He also said that the news report was not being specific by saying that they met "weeks" before the council meeting. How many weeks is that? Two or 50? Leung said that as the chancellor of all eight universities, it is normal for him to meet with various people including the vice-chancellors.
When our reporter checked back with Ip Kin-yuen, he said that he does not know if CY Leung is lying or not. Besides, even if they didn't talk about the appointment of the pro vice chancellor, Leung could be applying pressure on other internal affairs of the university. Therefore, Ip felt that there was no need to apologize for the serious charges that he raised.

Video:

(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCZ1nDLRUw4

Internet comments:

- I know that the pro-democracy are obsessive-compulsive about the need to exaggerate attendance figures. But this is ridiculous. How do you count 4,000 people from this photo?

- (HKG Pao) When you have a photo, you have the truth. As soon as the bird's-eye-view photo showed up, Internet users came to heap scorn upon the claim of 4,000. It is said that one Victoria Park soccer field can accommodate 6,500 persons. So can Chung Shan Plaza outside the library accommodate 4,000 persons? Some Internet users sarcastically said that they needed to get their eyes checked because they were not seeing 4,000 persons. Director Ko Chi-sum said: "No need to see an eye doctor. As executive producer, I am an expert in counting heads. It's 400! But these compulsive liars always multiply by a factor of ten. They are the best in lying to the people."
- First the HKU students flunked English with Return Home Card. Now they flunk mathematics by counting 4,000 out from 400.
- The Chinese University of Hong Kong students who should be better in Chinese than the Hong Kong University students have also flunked Chinese. (Oriental Daily) In a banner about CY Leung's interference with the universities, they said that the universities are in a state where "the lips are cold and the teeth are lost."

Doesn't make sense, does it? Well, they meant to say 唇亡齿寒: If the lips are gone, the teeth will be cold. That is to say, if one of two interdependent things falls, the other is in danger.
- (EJinsight) Three Hong Kong University of Science and Technology students flunked legal theory and practice when they were arrested for stealing bamboos poles from a construction site.
- This is near the Double Ninth Festival (Chung Yeung Festival) when the ghosts of the ancestors come out to be fed. They'll all there, except you need to be endowed with the special paranormal abilities to see them.
- Hong Kong University chancellor CY Leung meets with Hong Kong University vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson. Something nefarious must be going on? If Leung never meets with Mathieson, then Leung is failing in his job as chancellor. So why would you like Leung to do? Meet or not meet?
- The answer is simple. Leung can meet with Mathieson as often as he likes, but all proceedings must be videotaped and posted onto YouTube for the sake of freedom/democracy/justice/transparency/right to know/universal values.

- A few days ago, the students and teachers came out in academic gowns to demonstrate. The organizers claimed 2,000 participants. Here is a photo of 2,000 persons:

How in the world did they count 2,000?

- And the media are gullible to report as is: (EJinsight) Around 2,000 students and staff of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) took part in a silent march Tuesday to outline their concern over perceived political interference in the university’s affairs. Signaling their aim to defend academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the protesters began their march from the university’s Centennial Campus and went on to Sun Yat-sen Place, where they stood for a minute in silence. Around 30 teaching staff wore their academic gowns while the others were dressed in black, Apple Daily reported.

- That was not the most interesting photo from that event. It is this one of a former Democratic Party and regular Shopping Revolutionary named Virginia Fung King-man (see HKG Pao). When she ran for District Councilor in 2003, she was 54 years old and filed that she was a secondary school graduate. Now she is all of a sudden a Hong Kong University student/teacher/staff member. Did she further her education in the interim? Well, in 2006 she was convicted of defrauding the government out of $600,000 in rent subsidies and spent 18 months in jail. Did she take a HKU correspondence course when she had lots of time in jail?

Here is Fung King-man running for district councilor in 2015.

Addendum: (Wen Wei Po) November 27, 2015.

Last evening, the Democratic Party released a statement to the effect their Central Committee has accepted the decision by their disciplinary committee to expel Virgina Fung King-man, who had entered the district council election against the Labour Party. The action takes effect immediately.

Fung was a Democratic Party member. From 1998, she had exaggerated the rent payment for her district councilor's office for four years to defraud the government of more than $600,000 in subsidies. In December 2007, she was found guilty of four counts of filing false information. The magistrate pointed out that public servants are held to a higher standard of ethical conduct and Fung had betrayed the public by systematic fraud over many years. Fung was sentenced to 18 months in prison, later reduced to 12 months on appeal.

This year, Fung entered the Hung Hom Bay district election with the approval of legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man to run against Labour Party. On October 15, the Democratic Party suspended her party membership. Thus, Fung could not run in the election as a Democratic Party member. Nevertheless, she continued to present her political affiliation as the Democratic Party and thus misled the public. The Democratic Party has filed a complaint against her with the Electoral Affairs Office.

Eventually, Fung got only 162 votes. The Lablour Party candidate Chiu Shi-shun got 1740 votes and lost to the pro-establishment candidate Cheung Yan-hong who got 1811 votes. If Fung were not in the race and her votes went to Chiu, Chiu would be the winner.

YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuP-SfJfaoU Response by Fung to the decision of the Democratic Party to expel her

- (EJinsight) October 7, 2015.

Pro-Beijing politicians and establishment camp members from Hong Kong University’s governing council may be taking some comfort from the turnout figure at Tuesday’s protest march organized by staff and students.

In the rally, which came a week after the university council blocked liberal law professor Johannes Chan from becoming the new pro-vice-chancellor, only 2,000 students and teaching staff took part.

While the number was enough to make the government camp sit up and take notice, it however represents less than 10 percent of the university’s total staff and student strength.

According to HKU website, the university had 7,197 academic staff in the 2014-15 academic year. As for the student population, while we do not have the latest precise figure, it could be well above 25,000.

In the last academic year, the university had a total of 27,933 students, including more than 6,000 from mainland China.

Now, what explains the relatively weak turnout at Tuesday’s rally which was aimed at outlining the need to protect academic freedoms and curb political interference in the university’s affairs?

Some senior professors who took part in the silent march said many junior colleagues chose to stay away as they were afraid that their career prospects would be affected if they come out openly and take a stand against the establishment.

As Chan was victimized for his liberal views and support for pro-democracy activists, there was fear among junior staff that they too might suffer if they stand up and denounce the university council. Lecturers, for instance, may be denied promotions or permanent tenures.

The argument definitely sounds convincing, but what about the lack of more student participation? How does one explain that?

Well, if we search for honest answers, we may be staring at one stark reality: many students have either become weary, or have simply resigned themselves to the prospect of Beijing’s hidden hand in key decisions of the university council.

And some may be even supporting the council’s recent decision on Chan, as they believe an antagonistic stance toward China won’t be in HKU’s long-term interest.

While institutional autonomy must be preserved as much as possible, the university also needs to learn to operate in an environment where Beijing will seek to protect its own interests, those students feel.

With students and staff from China constituting a significant part of HKU now, it will also become more difficult for the university to take a strong stand against political interference from Beijing.

Student scholars from China accounted for more than 30 percent of HKU’s 674 international professoriate staff last year. Also, mainlanders made up over 64 percent of the total international student number at the university.

Given all these factors, it is not surprising that a large section of students chose to stay away from the latest protest following the Johannes Chan saga.

While there is a general perception that local university students are all pro-democracy and anti-Beijing, many youth are actually taking a more realistic approach and avoiding overt hostility toward China.

The weak turnout at Tuesday’s rally could prompt pro-Beijing politicians to argue that the HKU council’s decision on Chan is being supported by the university’s “silent majority”.

[341] Leung Kwok-hung By The Roadside (2015/10/10)

(YouTube, YouTube)

League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung was eating a late night snack when confronted by persons of different opinions.
0:01 (First man) Your mother's cunt! Fuck your mother! You caused chaos in Hong Kong. You goddamned people! Your mother's stinking cunt!
0:07 (Leung) What's the matter?
0:10 (First man) You are so fucking rich, and you are still eating trash?
0:16 (Another man) Please keep your voice down.
0:17 (First man) You are so fucking rich, but you still eat trash? Fuck your mother! You are hogging a public housing unit. Your mother's stinking cunt!
0:24 (Third man) Fuck you! Fuck your mother!
0:31 (First man) Traitor! Dickhead! May your whole family die! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother's cunt!
0:44 (Woman) Now you know to call the police? Weren't you afraid of the Black/Evil Police?
0:46 (Third man) People like that deserve to be fucking cursed out!
0:49 (Fourth man) We are trying to run a business.
0:50 (Third man) I know too. I patronize this place too.

Related link: "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung versus "C9" Housewife
Addendum: SaluteToHKPolice Facebook, January 9, 2016. An incident in which the soccer player Leung Kwok-hung was chased by people who accused him of spitting in public.

Man: Don't leave yet!
Another man: Fuck your mother!
Man: Throw garbage everywhere? Spitting? Fuck you! And you dare to curse other people out? Fuck you! Not fucking you enough? I fuck your mother! Do you hear? I fuck you. Turn around! Hey, Long Hair! I only fuck you because you spit! Fuck you! Turn around and take a look! I keep telling you. I keep telling you but you won't leave! Huh? You have to keep pressing. Why don't you chase me? Come on! Are you coming over? Come again, come again, come again. Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck your mother! Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck. Fuck your mother! Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. Okay!
Discoverhongkong.com: Hong Kong has strict laws about maintaining environmental hygiene, including fixed penalty fines of $1500 for littering or spitting. See what constitutes a littering offence here.

Internet comments:

- This food stall is obviously unlicensed because the seats are placed on an unlit sidewalk. Lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung is aiding and abetting law-breaking activities.
- Leung Kwok-hung normally thinks that he is good with words, but in this case he was completely overwhelmed. What can he say in the face of the furious citizens? That he only makes $93,000 per month? That he needs the public housing unit in case he loses the next election?
- Of course, Leung Kwok-hung did the only thing that can be done under such circumstances: Call the police. All of a sudden, they are "good police uncles" and not "evil/black police" anymore.
- Leung Kwok-hung is a trailblazer in the destruction of the four principles of "Reason, Peace, Non-violence and No-foul-language". So he is getting a dose of what he wanted others to have.
- Is it wrong to use foul language to curse someone out? Not according to teacher Alpais Lam. If the Yellow Ribbons are willing to defend her unalienable right to say "What the fuck!", then they must defend the right of these citizens to use the same kind of foul language on Leung Kwok-hung.
- Of course not. It is the unalienable right of Yellow Ribbons to use foul language against all those who disagree with them, but it is a crime to use foul language against Yellow Ribbons. This is the essence of the Umbrella Revolution brand of democracy.
- The Yellow Ribbons say that the unpopularity of CY Leung is clear because he cannot go anywhere without being chased and cursed out. Well, if that is the sole criterion for unpopularity, then the same can be said of the pan-democrats (see #020). The only thing for certain is that everybody is vulnerable when polite discourse is tossed away.

[340] The Crown Insignia On Hong Kong Postal Boxes (2015/10/10)

(Oriental Daily) October 10, 2015.

When Hongkong Post announced that it was going to cover up the insignia of the British royal family in the colonial-era mail boxes, some Internet users started a campaign to demand that these boxes be preserved. As of 5pm yesterday, about 500 people have said that they will participate in a campaign to send postcards to express their demands.

(The Guardian) October 7, 2015.

Hong Kong authorities are trying to airbrush history, say conservationists, who are complaining old postboxes still bearing the royal ciphers associated with Britain’s rule are being covered up.

Of the 1,148 iron mailboxes that dot Hong Kong, 59 still bear the royal insignia as they were put in place before 1997, the year the territory reverted to Chinese rule. To mark the handover of sovereignty all the mailboxes were painted bright green, covering the royal red, while the Post Office logo was added.

The two oldest mailboxes, bearing the ciphers of Queen Victoria, have been placed in local museums but others are still in daily use. These include seven bearing the insignia of King George V, two that were installed under King George VI, 46 that carry the cipher of Queen Elizabeth II and one with the Scottish crown.

The Hong Kong Post Office has announced it intends to cover up the royal insignia with a metal plaque, officially to “avoid confusion” among the public.

Conservationists are up in arms. “These are very valuable mailboxes,” said Peter Li Siu-man of Conservation Alliance. “They are antiques, street monuments that do not belong to a museum, but are part of Hong Kong’s heritage and daily life. They are made of cast iron, which makes them very durable.”

The group has created an Old Mailboxes Fans Facebook page, inviting members of the public to post photos of the royal cipher postboxes, with a Google map that allows them to locate each one.

The Post Office, which could not be reached for comment, has not explained further why the crowns on the mailboxes have suddenly become problematic, but many believe the political climate is to blame.

“There have been some very sensitive comments expressed recently on decolonisation,” said Li, referring to the angry remarks by Chen Zuo’er, a retired Beijing official who berated Hong Kong for its “failure at decolonisation”.

Chen, the former deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Bureau, did not mention that Hong Kong was a colony of election, with a population composed of refugees from the mainland, but instead criticised those who didn’t “cast aside the colonial legacy” as “harming Hong Kong”.

In a city where constant real estate developments have obliterated much of its colonial architectural heritage, even the humble royal-era mailboxes may soon be unrecognisable.

Internet comments:

- Why might someone be confused about mail boxes of different designs? Here is the mail box that is most likely on your street corner. It is identified as the property of Hongkong Post, and you use it on a regular basis. You have seen similar ones all over Hong Kong.

But today you are running an errand in another district, and you see this object:

It says "EIIR Post Office". You've never seen anything like this before. Are you going to stick your letter with the credit card payment check into this box?
- (Oriental Daily) Regular demonstrator Lui Yuk-lin showed up at the Central Post Office to protest. She pasted two pieces of paper saying "Hongkong Post is shameful for murdering history". She posed holding two replicas of the old mail boxes and demanded history be respected.

This short detour with the props captures the absurdity of the whole thing. There are 1,150 mail boxes in the streets of Hong Kong where the public can put their cards and letters for the Hongkong Post to pick up. Of these, 59 are old mail boxes with various royal crown insignia and royal cypher (such as EIIR).
Look, if you are nostalgic about the British colonial-era mail boxes, just remember that they were red. After the handover in 1997, all mailboxes are painted in green. If your collective memory has a green colonial-era mailbox, then you must have been sniffing airplane glue.
By the way, where were the protestors when the mailboxes got painted green from red? Why are they suddenly all preservationists in 2015 but not before?

[339] Couple vs Policeman (2015/10/09)

(EJinsight) October 9, 2015.

A grumpy couple’s online attack on a police officer who ticketed them for a parking violation in Ma On Shan did not go according to plan, Apple Daily reported Friday.

The husband and wife, surnamed Yeung and Tong, were sitting in their car with their children in a space reserved for green minibuses at a public transport exchange in Wu Kai Sha at around 2 p.m. Thursday when a police officer referred to as Ah-hang issued them a parking ticket.

The couple took a video of the exchange between them and Ah-hang on their smartphone and posted the two-minute, 39-second clip on a discussion group for Ma On Shan residents in an attempt to badmouth the police officer. To their consternation, almost all the netizens who responded to the video blasted the couple for using foul language at the police officer in front of their children in the car and for making sarcastic comments about Ah-hang being merely a frontline officer.

Yeung and Tong were quick to publish an open apology online to Ah-hang Thursday night, saying they had reflected on their mistakes and fully regretted their unacceptable and insulting behavior. Netizens praised Ah-hang for his high emotional intelligence, professionalism and ability to keep calm despite being confronted with abusive language.

In the video, when Yeung swore furiously at him, Ah-hang merely replied “same here”. When Yeung challenged him to further his studies in the hope of being promoted to inspector, Ah-hang said, “there are advantages to being a frontline officer”, which some internet users noted favorably as being quite a philosophical sentiment.

The couple had reportedly called the 999 emergency hotline asking to see a senior police officer. They also filed a complaint against Ah-hang with the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO), saying his attitude was problematic and demanding an apology. Yeung and Tong subsequently uploaded the video online, which proved to be a huge mistake.

Ah-hang, who is in his 20s, has been working as a police officer for six years and was assigned to the Ma On Shan regional team two years ago. The officer in charge of the New Territories South police district called Ah-hang to compliment him on his professional and restrained behavior, the report said.

Link with video: http://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20151008/s00001/1444279290722

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRVUtHfQhhc

0:01 (Child) Great! Post it on the Internet!
0:03 (Woman) Can you be faster? I really want to reach the school. I am in a hurry. You say something. You reply. You are not responding.
0:11 (Child) Hurry up!
0:18 (Woman) He is doing his job properly. You can talk back, but you are not talking back.
0:24 (Man) Let's see if your mother gives birth to a child without an anus. Your mother's cunt!
0:31 (Child) Don't be like that, daddy!
0:36 (Man) You deliberately came out to intercept me. Fucking stupid! Fuck your mother! Even the Chief Executive has broken the law! Dickhead!
0:44 (Policeman) The Chief Executive is processed in accordance with the judicial process.
0:45 (Man) Your mother's law! Go study some more!
0:48 (Woman) Can you be faster? I'm in a hurry. I really want to reach the school.
0:50 (Man) Fuck your mother!
0:54 (Woman) You don't have to do this just to show off.
0:56 (Policeman) Issuing a ticket isn't showing off.
0:57 (Man) Hey, go eat shit! Hurry up!
1:00 (Policeman) Issuing a ticket isn't showing off.
1:01 (Man) Fuck your mother! You work a couple more years.
1:04 (Policeman) I have more than two years. I have more than twenty years to work slowly.
1:06 (Man) Yes, fuck your mother!
1:08 (Policeman) Same to you.
1:18 (Man) Your mother going to have a son sooner or later. Your mother's stinking cunt!
1:20 (Policeman) My mother gave birth to a son and that would be me.
1:22 (Man) Huh?
1:23 (Woman) Hurry up! How much longer will you be taking? I am going to be late.
1:32 (Man) I see that you look like a beggar dog. Fuck your mother!
1:33 (Woman) Hurry up! I let you issue a ticket so you should hurry up. I am in a hurry to get to the school. You see that I have to look after so many kids.
1:40 (Man) We are not stopping you from issuing a ticket. Only $450 but you are still being fucking stupid.
1:48 (Man) Fuck your mother! You work here everyday. Is your mother human? You ticketed one taxi but not the other. I said sorry to you. Your mother's stinking cunt. You want to look like a cunt. May your whole family die.
2:02 (Man) Are you done yet? Why do you taking so much fucking time?
2:05 (Policeman) I am writing it. Please wait a moment.
2:07 (Man) Fuck your mother. Study a few more years and take the exam for inspector. Dickhead!
2:13 (Woman) You take so much time to write just a few words.
2:13 (Policeman) There is some pleasure not being a senior officer.
2:15 (Man) Pleasure your mother! Pleasure!
2:17 (Child) Daddy, don't talk so loud.
2:21 (Woman) I only know that you took three minutes to write up a ticket. I have filmed everything.
2:22 (Policeman) You go ahead and film. I did take 3 minutes to write. There is no problem.
2:28 (Man) Is it necessary to issue another ticket here? The yellow line.
2:31 (Policeman) It is not necessary to issue a ticket, because ...
2:31 (Woman) You hurry up, you hurry up, you hurry up. I am in a hurry.

Internet comments:

- Why were Yeung and Tong so quick to apologize? That's because Internet users identified them. Yeung is a BBQ meat chef and Tong is a receptionist at the Star Seafood Restaurant in Sham Shui Po. That restaurant was flooded with telephone calls to make reservations and take-out orders for BBQ meat.

Yeung

Tong

(SCMP) When you disrespect Hong Kong police, you don't deserve to be treated gently by them. By Yonden Lhatoo. October 22, 2015.

I came across a shameful viral video online last week showing a Hong Kong police officer being verbally abused by a family he had pulled over for a traffic offence. The 2½ -minute clip, taken from inside the family’s vehicle, shows the young officer writing up a ticket while a belligerent man, woman and child yell at him to hurry up. The man launches into one of the foulest tirades I’ve heard in Cantonese, bringing the officer’s anatomy, mother and entire family into the expletive-laden equation.

The policeman takes his time with the booking, but does nothing about the aural assault. I’m impressed by his self-control and composure, but also incredulous that the police force allows its frontline personnel to put up with such vile abuse.

What’s even more appalling is that this family decided to show off their “victory” over the policeman and post the video clip online. Talk about delusional self-righteousness. Their only saving grace is that they had to post a follow-up apology after triggering a barrage of condemnation from other internet users.

Let me say this to those three people in the vehicle, including the child, and anyone else in Hong Kong who might take their side: You have no idea how lucky you are to live in a city policed by such gentlemen. Imagine if this had happened in the world’s “greatest” democracy, the United States, which often lectures us on human rights. Someone would have been manhandled, tasered or perhaps even shot dead.

Ditto in India, the world’s biggest democracy. A search on YouTube for recently leaked video clips of police in the state of Gujarat going on the rampage in August will give you an idea of how bad it is out there. They can be seen vandalising public property, smashing car windows with sticks and rifle butts, and terrorising citizens with total impunity.

There’s a whole bunch of other video clips online showing Hongkongers berating police officers. They’re displayed like trophies celebrating people’s success in “sticking it to the man”.

This is apparently a spillover from last year’s Occupy protests, when the lines between what’s legal and illegal were blurred to the extent that police officers were expected to not only allow lawbreakers to block roads in the name of democracy but to actually protect them while they broke the law for 79 straight days.

Without getting into the justification – or lack thereof – for the civil disobedience movement, I just want to say the drubbing that morale took last year was damaging enough for the police force. This kind of public-versus-police fallout is the last thing our city needs.

Like it or not, one of Hong Kong’s biggest strengths is its police force. Our officers are not called “Asia’s finest” for nothing. Granted, the bad apples bob up occasionally, but there’s an effective system in place to sort them out. Disrespecting and demoralising them will undermine the foundations of the safest city in the world. That would be the real beginning of Hong Kong’s downfall.

The question of criminalising verbal abuse against police officers has been pretty much swept under the carpet, given that Hongkongers are acutely aware of their rights and freedoms and ultra-sensitive to anything they see as a threat to them.

So frontline officers take it on the chin, even though theoretically they have the right to arrest offenders on the grounds of “disorderly conduct in a public place”, or “resisting or deliberately obstructing police in the execution of their duties”.

This is more than just a matter of foul-mouthed nimrods being obnoxious to frontline officers. At a deeper level, it reflects a misguided sense of entitlement and contempt for authority that should be nipped in the bud. If you think we have it bad without Western-style democracy in Hong Kong, wait until you get Western-style law enforcement. Then you’ll really have something to cry about.

Those who disagree and sympathise with the family in the video should try that kind of tinpot tyranny on London or New York police. They might come back with newfound appreciation and affection for our police officers – if they come back at all from hospital or prison.

[338] Hong Kong MTR vs Musicians (2015/10/03)

(Oriental Daily) October 3, 2015.

Previously, Hong Kong MTR employees refused a female student to carry a traditional Chinese music instrument on board at the Tai Wai station. Local musicians have issued a call to protest at the Tai Wai station today between 6pm and 8pm. So far, more than 3,600 persons have signed up on Facebook to participate. All participants are to carry large musical instruments and play music outside the station. They want to continue to have the right to use the subway.
The organizer Teresa Lung Man-wai said on radio today that they want to focus on the issue of musical instruments and not about any parallel traders moving their wares on the subway. She said that the MTR has always been lenient, so that her younger sister could carry a double bass violin.

(Oriental Daily with video) October 4, 2015.

Although several thousand persons signed up on Facebook, ultimately only about 60 persons brought their musical instruments to the scene. However, the event also attracted several dozen regular Localist demonstrator who brought along their British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence, yellow umbrellas and "I want genuine universal suffrage" banners to carry out their Shopping Revolution/Reclaim actions. Several dozen Civic Passion members and other Localists blocked the elevator and ordered the mainland Chinese passengers to "go back to the mainland."
After the Tai Wai protest ended at 8pm, Civic Passion member Cheng Chung-tai and "four-eyed brother" Cheng Kam-mun led more than a dozen people to Sha Tin where they intercepted individuals towing luggage cases and ordered the MTR employees to measure the sizes. They cursed out the mainland Chinese travelers.

"Captain America" Andy Yung waving the British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence.

Demonstrators wrote slogans in red paint on the floor tiles while one of them ripped up a Chinese Communist Party flag.
[Comment: Some poor sod is going to mop the floor, but of course pro-democracy activists don't care.]

As usual, there were many more photographers than demonstrators.

Demonstrator versus passenger with different opinions

Videos:

(Big Person) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPCiIC2LCj8
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqWGDi5N-Gw　
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mSvW2yxNW0
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT37bPLi7qs

Internet comments:

- (Speakout HK @YouTube) Who came out to defend the musicians' right?
0:25 Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion)
0:30 Han Lian-shan (teacher who went on hunger strike against national education)
0:35 "Captain America" Andy Yung Wai-yip
0:39 Barry Ma (DLLM Orchid)
0:44 Masked anti-parallel trade demonstrators
0:55 The organizers and participants of the original event acknowledged that their event was distorted and hijacked.
1:07 Some of the demonstrators moved onto the Sha Tin station to surround mainlanders towing luggage cases.
1:31 Confrontation between black-shirt demonstrators and passengers
- An earlier incident at 7:40pm on October 3, 2015 with some Golden Forum users deciding that they were going to enforce the law if the MTR employees won't. The video is at (On8 Channel @Facebook) (copy @YoutTube)
(Ming Pao) The video began with one black-shirted man and one black-shirted woman standing by the subway door and demanding the MTR employees to measure the luggage inside the car. The MTR employee said "alright," asked the man and woman to leave and told the train driver to depart. But the man and the woman said: "We don't trust you." They demanded that the MTR employees move the luggage out of the car onto the platform. The man used his body to block the train door from closing. A passenger tried to stop the man and the woman and there was some pushing and cursing. The police came. The train left the station. The MTR employee measured the luggage case (as 88m, 40mm, 55mm adding up to 175mm) and said that it was within the limits. The MTR employee apologized to the owner "Thanks, sorry." The train arrived at Fotan Station where the persons involved alighted. The owner of the luggage continued with the trip without ever uttering a word throughout.

- It is in fact against MTR regulations to interfere with train operations or otherwise annoy other passengers. For preventing the doors from closing, the fine is $2,000.
- When you block one train from departing, all other trains behind this one are blocked as well. So you say that you block tens of thousands of people from going home because you want to carry out justice? Was justice served to those persons who were delayed by you? Delay No More!
- When you are unhappy with the government, you use Occupy Central to harass other citizens. When you are unhappy with the MTR, you harass other passengers. This is completely consistent. Therefore it makes perfect sense.
- Isn't this funny? You want to stop parallel traders, so you demand the MTR to crack down on over-sized luggage because they interfere with other passengers. The MTR started measuring the carry-on's and rejected certain large-sized musical instruments. And now you are having a hissy fit!
- (YouTube) A second view of the same incident from outside the train. The train left leaving a screaming black-shirted woman who explained that they used their body to prevent the train from leaving because a man was assaulting a woman inside the departed train.
- This is odd because there are several video angles of the same incident. This had to be a concerted plan with several cameras. Furthermore, the intercept took place only after the carrier entered the car and then the doors were prevented from closing in order to create maximum disruption.

[337] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 3 (The Candidates) (2015/10/03)

(Oriental Daily) October 3, 2015.

Yesterday morning, Labour Party chairman and Legislative Councilor Lee Cheuk-yan accompanied two Labour Party members to file for district council elections in Tsuen Wan. Lee told those present that the pro-establishment camp dominated the district councils and spend the money for their own entertainment. He was promptly booed by the supporters of other candidates. A middle-aged woman said that Lee Cheuk-yan was the one who was wasting public money by filibustering in the Legislative Council. She said that Lee has so far refused to admit that he took political contributions from Next Media's Jimmy Lai. She yelled repeatedly "You are good for making trouble" and "you make trouble at the Legislative Council." Lee Cheuk-yan looked embarrassed during this encounter.
SocREC video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_mV5cXIOf4
Meanwhile Democratic Party vice-chairman Andrew Wan accompanied party members to file for the Kwai Ching District Council elections. When Wan called out "pan-democrats unite for the community," someone countered with "Give me back my elections" in reference to the fact that the pan-democrats vetoed the one-person-one-vote plan for the 2017 Chief Executive election. That person added: "Thanks a fucking lot!"

(HKG Pao) October 4, 2015.

According to the records, Andrew Wan has attended only 18 Audit Committee during his four years as District Councilor. In 2013, he attended only 1 out of 46 meetings. In 2015, he has attended none of the meetings. In the 18 meetings in which Wan attended, the first five meetings were intended to elect the chairpersons and deputy chairpersons and took just one hour, with the shortest one being only for 3 minutes. Apart from these 5 special sessions, Andrew Wan arrived late or departed early in 10 of the other 13 formal meetings. He was on time only on three occasions.
According to the records, Andrew Wan has spent 23 hours 3 minutes in the Audit Committee meetings. Over the course of the four years, he earned a total of $3,791,564.80 in salary and subsidies. Therefore, Andrew Wan is the District Councilor with the highest hourly pay.
In response to the Wen Wei Po reporter, Andrew Wan blamed it on the lack of issues at the Audit Committee.

(Oriental Daily) October 12, 2015.

About forty to fifty pan-democrats were holding a rally in Tsuen Wan. Suddenly someone tossed two water bags from above. Two persons were splashed, including a reporter. The arrested a 29-year-old man and a 31-year-old man for throwing objects from a high place.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 13, 2015.

A group of seven people running in the coming district council election have put yellow ribbons – a symbol of the pro-democracy Occupy protest or umbrella movement last year – on their campaign pamphlets, but they are being criticised by groups that supported the protest as “fake umbrella soldiers” who aimed at snatching votes from other pro-democracy camp candidates.

A new Facebook page “New Youth Group” was started on September 18. Deep Li Chak-sum, one of the members of the group running in the Nam Fung constituency of the Eastern District, has put a yellow ribbon on his campaign pamphlet, which reads “Say no to the wolf [Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying], pro-Beijing camp and fake democracy,” and his group are “against the pro-Beijing and pro-democracy camp controlling the district council and exploiting people’s rights.”

Six other people of the group running in the election shared similar or identical sets of pamphlets. They shared phone numbers for people to contact them through whatsapp or wechat.
Umbrella Unity, a group which supported the Occupy protest, has said on their Facebook page that the members of the group were “fake umbrella soldiers”, not to be confused with those who decided to run in the district council election after joining the protest.

Li will challenge incumbent Democratic Party district councillor Cheung Kwok-cheong. Cheung won by 889 votes in the last election in 2011.

New Youth Group posted a message on its page today that said, “If we wanted to snatch votes from the pan-democrats, we would only target the pro-Beijing camp, not both camps. Therefore, how can we snatch votes from pan-democrats?”

The message today also read that they were “harassed by pan-democrats” and “threatened by several young people who claimed to be triad members, we believe it was harassment by the pro-Beijing camp,” after local media reported them as “fake umbrella soldiers.”

Andrew Chiu Ka-yin, convener of the group Power for Democracy, which coordinates pan-democrat candidates for the election, told Apple Daily that the members of the New Youth Group – which he also dubbed “fake umbrella soldiers” – never showed up during the period of coordination: “They know exactly what they are doing, and the people who support democracy have clear eyes [to distinguish them from others].”

Li was also accused of being a triad member, after netizens on HKGolden forum found a Next Magazine report last year saying a person with the same name as him was jailed for nine months for claiming to be a triad member.

Li told HKFP that he was never jailed, and that the accusation was wrong as “Cap 547 District Councils Ordinance 21(e) said with details that a person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate at an election, and from being elected as an elected member, if the person has been convicted in Hong Kong or any other place, of an offence for which the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 3 months.”
Cheung Kwok-cheong told HKFP, “I am too busy campaigning for the election, I have no idea about him except he is running in the district.”

Yang Mo, who was an appointed district councillor of the Southern District and considered pro-Beijing, was another candidate nominated in the district.

Winnie Wun Kei-yan of the group will challenge incumbent Democratic Party district councillor Henry Chai Man-hon in the Wah Fu North constituency of the Southern District. Chai won by 423 votes in the last election.

Chai told HKFP, “I urge voters to vote for the pan-democracy camp candidates designated by our coordination mechanism, so that we can beat the pro-Beijing camp.”

Wong Choi-lap of pro-Beijing DAB Party and independent candidate Law Yuet-wah were also nominated in the district.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 12, 2015.

Localist group Civic Passion has announced that six of its members will be running in the upcoming district council elections in November. The group will be up against the Democratic Party in five of the six districts.

Cheng Chung-tai, a teaching fellow at Polytechnic University, will be directly challenging Democratic Party district councillor and lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan in the Lok Tsui constituency in Tuen Mun.

At a campaign kickstart event, Cheng said: “It is an important election for Hong Kong people to choose whether they support those who can represent their, and the localists’ voice.”

While localist groups support democracy, they are better known for their anti-communist stance and close association with movements promoting the expansion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and independence.
“Tuen Mun residents affected by parallel trading would not agree with Albert Ho and the pan-democrats who have criticised protests, saying they have ‘crossed the line’,” Cheng said.

Cheng said that Ho did had failed to carry out a “pseudo-referendum” on political reform through a by-election by not resigning from the legislature as promised. “He does not deserve to be a pan-democrat councillor anymore.”

He also said that Ho had helped to lower the year limit for new immigrants to apply for government aid and thus betrayed Hong Kong people’s interests.

In response, Albert Ho told Ming Pao that “it doesn’t matter, I won’t pay too much attention to them.” He said that the move would not affect his campaign, but he questioned why Cheng did not choose to run in neighbouring districts where a pro-Beijing district councillor remained uncontested. He said Cheng “did not aim at winning” and was “paving the way” for the pro-Beijing camp.

Former Law Society president Junius Ho Kwan-yiu and former Democratic Party member Yuen Wai-chung have also announced campaigns in the Lok Tsui constituency.

Incumbent Democratic Party district councillors Au Nok-hin and Lo Kin-hei of Lei Tung I and Lei Tung II constituencies in Southern District will also be contested.

Timothy Tsoi Man-lung, who will be challenging Au, said that his run was aimed at “exposing how the Democratic Party has betrayed people’s livelihood” including joining two closed door meetings with the China Liaison Office.

Pro-Beijing DAB party members will also be running in the constituencies.

Other constituencies where Civic Passion members will run include Tin Ping West in North District and Tsz Wan West in Wong Tai Sin, where Democratic Party members are running against the incumbent pro-Beijing Federation of Trade Union and DAB party district councilors respectively. Civic Passion candidates will also stand in Un Chau & So Uk in Sham Shui Po, where only one incumbent DAB party councillor is running.

Civic Passion did not opt to join the pan-democratic camp’s coordination mechanism to avoid running against each other.

In the last district council election in 2011, Democratic Party members were targeted by the People Power party for supporting the government’s political reform package in 2010. The Democratic Party rejected the government’s new political reform package in June.

(Wen Wei Po) October 12, 2015.

Civic Passion members handing out leaflets at a Tuen Mun Light Rail station
Cheng Chung-tai, nicknamed "Civic Passion Worm", was one of the earliest Civic Passion members to begin canvassing. Early last month, Cheng set up a street booth in Lok Tsui district (Tuen Mun). Recently, our reporter observed that Cheng and three Civic Passion members were distributing pamphlets around Mei Lok Garden and the light rail station. Mei Lok residents said that these pamphlets were mostly about "Localism/Democracy" and they used a megaphone to advocate the overthrow of the central government. At the same time, Cheng denounced Democratic Party legislator Albert Ho for betraying the people of Hong Kong. Many Lok Mei residents do not appreciate Cheng's message. "First of all, he won't talk about how to serve the Lok Tsui community. Secondly, he only wants to pitch his so-called 'democratic ideas.' Thirdly, he curses out 'AV Yan' (=Albert Ho's nickname). I really don't know what he wants to do for the people of Lok Tsui. Most likely, this is just an internal squabble."
Since Cheng Chung-tai is not a Lok Tsui resident and Civic Passion does not have an office there, it is hard to say how many votes he will get. But before that, Cheng needs to secure ten signatures from local residents before he can become a candidate. It was thought that his celebrity status could easily secure that number, but he found to his surprise that practically nobody wants to sign. Finally, Civic Passion used Facebook to call on supporters to come forth with the signatures. If Cheng can't even get ten signatures to nominate him, how many votes does he expect to get in the actual election?
In like manner, Civic Passion member Wong Yun-kay wants to run in the Lei Tung 1 district. On March 1 during the Reclaim Yuen Long action, Wong took part but made sure that he wore a mask to avoid identification. Wong also had a problem with securing enough signatures for nomination.

Our observations in Lei Tung (South Island) and Yuen Chow (Sham Shui Po) are that these Civic Passion candidates like to yell through the megaphone, but even more so they want passersby to sign the nomination. But practically no one signs. According to one Civic Passion member, "Frankly, they don't know anything about you. What would they hand over their personal information (such as Hong Kong ID number and address) to you? Who knows what it will be used for?"

(Wen Wei Po) October 14, 2015.

The policy platform of Civic Passion advocates "Nation-building for Hong Kong" and "The People setting up a Constitution" which will overthrow the Basic Law. However, the District Council election regulations require that the nominees declare that they "support the Basic Law and guarantee their loyalty to the Hong Kong SAR." So how can Civic Passion members such as Cheng Chung-tai enter the election? When asked, Cheng was apparently taken by surprise. He replied that "nation-building" was just a proposal which only means that they want to bring the voices of "localism" into the district councils. "When you build a new nation, you need to have guns. That would be breaking the law. We don't think that this should be considered. We are hoping that the people of Hong Kong can bring the voices of Hong Kong back into the district councils."

For all those who think that they are building a Hong Kong nation, this must be disappointing. Civic Passion's idea of nation-building consists of just bringing Hong Kong voices into the district councils, as if the current district councilors are aliens who dropped in from outer space. If the Civic Passion candidates are elected, they will have to take the oath of loyalty to the Basic Law. So what is the point of screaming "Resistance" all the time?

Frankly, Civic Passion is just an opportunistic radical organization. They like to yell "Valiant Resistance" but they are actually scared of being arrested. Their so-called resistance is always about fanning the passions of young people while people like Wong Yeung-tat, Cheung Chung-tai and even Raymond Wong Yuk-man watch from the sidelines. As the young people charged, they get to exploit the situation. Their interests lie in obtaining political benefits. Thus, they say that they are resisting the establishment but they do everything possible to enter the establishment as Legislative Councilors and District Councilors. The young people merely serve as the stepping stones.

According to information, Cheng Chung-tai has been neglecting his teaching duties at the Polytechnic University and his future over there is dim. So he is committing to a full-time career in politics. On this occasion, he has no real hope of defeating Albert Ho because this is a winner-take-all election. However, he needs this campaign to enhance his celebrity status in preparation for the Legislative Council elections next year, because those elections are proportional representation with multiple persons elected in each district..

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 14, 2015.

On Tuesday a group of pro-government protesters tried to barge into the office of Passion Times, a video from the online media portal shows.

Passion Times is based in Kowloon Bay and run by localist group Civic Passion. The incident happened during a live broadcast. The instigators repeatedly tried to force their way into the office through a door whilst shouting insults. Many insults were targeted at Cheng Chung-tai, who will be running for district council election in Lok Tsui constituency in Tuen Mun. “You want to be elected as a Tuen Mun district councilor? Eat shit! Ask [chairman of the Tuen Mun district council] Lau Wong-fat first,” screamed one protester. “Don’t let me see you in Tuen Mun!”

People inside the Passion Times office managed to stop the group from getting in but they continued to shout and beat on the door after it was closed, leaving a few minutes later. The police arrived after the group left, Passion Times reported.

Man Shek, one of the protesters who was present, is an organiser of pro-government protests. He led one of the pro-government rallies on September 28, the anniversary of the pro-democracy Occupy protests.

“Now that the Hong Kong communists or the pro-government organisations can threaten and harass people that are anti-government and preparing to run for election, this proves that the so-called election system in Hong Kong is under threat and faces direct violence,” Cheng told Passion Times after the protesters had left. He added that he will remain strong, and reminded Hong Kong people that “anti-communism and anti-colonialism is the only way to defend Hong Kong.” Cheng will submit his nomination form today to officially run as a candidate in the Lok Tsui constituency in Tuen Mun.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-lLMt3QLk

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 14, 2015.

Chiu Yan-loy, former assistant to pro-Beijing New People’s Party (NPP) district councillor and lawmaker Michael Tien Puk-sun has joined the upcoming District Council election to run against his then-boss. Previously, the assistant had revealed he was an “undercover” at the party, before joining the pro-democracy Labour Party.

Although Chiu was never a member of the NPP, he worked in the party for four years. In the last District Council election, he helped Tien to win his seat in Tsuen Wan’s Discovery Park constituency before revealing that he had in fact been “undercover” in the NPP. He then joined the pro-democracy Labour Party.

Chiu told Next Magazine in 2013 that he was active in the group the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. He said he had a close relationship with the Alliance’s now-deceased former chairman Szeto Wah, who also co-founded the Democratic Party.

Szeto encouraged him to go “undercover” as an assistant when he applied to work for Tien, which he did until his cover was blown in 2012. He expressed suspicions that the China Liaison Office—which had been monitoring him—revealed his true identity to the NPP.

Chiu, now nominated by the Labour Party to stand against his former boss, told Apple Daily that he did not choose Tien’s constituency in order to run against him, but simply because he grew up in the district.

Chiu said that he was “confident” about the election, and that his advantage was “being young, willing to do things and eager to fight.” Chiu said that he hoped to reform the District Council, change the government’s current public consultation model and raise residents’ participation in the community.

He added that he was also concerned about the amount of tourists visiting the Discovery Park mall and squeezing out small businesses, as well as the issue of bus routes and noise from the nearby MTR depot.

In response to Chiu’s campaign, Michael Tien told the newspaper that he had “showed performance” in the past four years by dealing with issues around bus routes and noise from the nearby MTR depot.

“If I criticise my opponent and say how bad he is, that is just politics; that is what my opponent is doing. I can’t think of anything he has done in the past four years, as it was mostly piggybacking,” he added.

Tien also said that Chiu’s campaign focussed on the same issues as his own campaign. Using the Discovery Park mall as an example, Tien said that “some people – who do not do practical work, but politics only – know only one thing: to protest with banners. That may work in dealing with the government, but not with private enterprises.”

Tien said he would talk to developers to push for change.

Tien also questioned Chiu’s comment that Szeto Wah had encouraged him to go undercover. “The Szeto Wah I knew was strong on principle… he would not have asked his subordinate to do such thing.”

Top: Sponsors: Mong Kok Lord Kwan's Temple; Tai Kok Tsui Sheep Head Buddhism Society; Don't Eat Small Animals Promotion Centre; China Street Hot Spicy Rice Noodle Diners Social Club; Hong Kong City-State Royal Family Members
Middle: Cherry District Community Executive, Nakade Hitsujiko
Left: "Fully support Xi Jinping"
Bottom: "Defend the Cherry paradise, refuse to become the back garden of the Strong Nation"

On October 22, the cross-dressing person known as Nakade Hitsujiko issued a call on Facebook to gather 10 nomination signatures from Cherry district (in Tai Kok Tsui) residents in order to enter the District Council elections. The person goes by the nickname of Princess Chiu Ming of the Hong Kong City-State.

Previously, this person had set up a street booth on Sai Yeung Choi Street South to solicit campaign donations. The SM act has the person flogging another person (Yeung Wai-yip, the Empress' Brother in the Hong Kong City-State) in chains. However, all this has fallen apart.

"Important announcement: The celestial soldiers and generals did not arrive. I don't have enough nomination signatures. I am out of the election. They conned me to come to Cherry but they can't even do something so simple. Xi Jinping, you get ready to blow up. I don't care. After finishing the accounting tonight, I will refund the money left back to the donors in proportion."

"I repeat: Someone pulled a stunt so that all the nomination signatures were voided. I am out of the election. On reflection, I have nothing to be ashamed of. I am just too gullible. I got conned because I don't know about the evil in men. I am going into hiding. Don't bother to find me. When I finish the clear-up, I will re-surface and clear up the accounts."
Here is a recap: A candidate needs to deposit $3,000 and gather 10 signatures from registered voters in the same district (not outside). Nakade Hitsujiko lives in Tai Kok Tsui, but the people who work in his building live elsewhere. Given the way he looks, not many people in the street would nominate him. Therefore he has trouble obtaining the 10 signatures. Someone promised him to take care of it. He trusted that person, but it turns out that the 10 signatures were all voided. Therefore he was out.
P.S. (Ming Pao) October 15, 2015.

Nakade Hitsujiko has just announced that he received a new nomination from from a "mysterious concerned City-State citizen" wherein all the names have been authenticated. Therefore, he is formally in the District Council elections.

(Oriental Daily) October 21, 2015.

Yesterday Nakade Hitsujiko re-posted an email from the Registration and Electoral Office that, after seeking legal advice, they believed that the platform of this candidate contains the slogan "Nation building in Hong Kong" is basically in conflict with Hong Kong Basic Law Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." Election candidates have to swear that they support the Basic Law as well as swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Therefore, the REO requested Nakade Hitsujiko to delete this statement himself or else it will be removed by the REO.
Nakade Hitsujiko responded that he does not believe the two are in conflict and if the REO removes the statement, he will seek legal aid to file a judicial review.

(Election campaign poster)
Defend Basic Law, Uphold Sovereignty
Hong Kong Nation Building, acceptable under the law and the constitution
Follow Comrade Deng Xiaoping's route for China and Hong Kong to benefit each other

(Wen Wei Po) October 27, 2015.

In July this year, Lingnan University assistant professor Wan Chin had announced that the pro-independence pro-valiant-action Hong Kong City-State group will field five to six candidates in the District Elections so as to let "flowers bloom everywhere." Although the Grand Teacher of the City-State issued that call, few followers were able to acquire the minimum ten voter signatures to enter. By the deadline on October 15, only two City-State candidates were entered. Afterwards, one candidate (Yeung Wai-yip also known as the Brother-in-Law of the City-State) turned out to have some invalid signatures and was therefore barred from the election. This left only the cross-dressing Nakade Hitsujiko as the sole City-State candidate. Faced with this debacle, even Wan Chin wasn't boasting.

And then there is the ultimate campaign weapon: T and A.

SocREC videos: Part 1, Part 2.

The true face of the so-called "Independent candidate" in Central, Vienna Lau -- she once worked at the anti-Occupy Central signature campaign!
Is this good strategy to say that all those who opposed Occupy Central must be stopped? The polls have consistently shown that about 50% support the goals of genuine universal suffrage but only 10% want Occupy Central to continue. You have just shoved the 50% - 10% = 40% into the enemy camp. This is worse so when Vienna Lau's district is Central. Did you think the local residents enjoy and support being "occupied" by outsiders?
(Hong Kong Free Press) October 16, 2015.

As the nomination period of the District Council election ended on Thursday, 66 constituencies were uncontested. Pro-Beijing parties secured 35 uncontested seats, with the rest going to local pro-Beijing groups or independent candidates. None are held by the pan-democrats.

With the increase of the total number of seats to 431 from 412 in the last election in 2011, and a record-high 951 nominations, the uncontested constituencies that the pro-Beijing camp grabbed dropped from 76 to 66. They will be automatically elected if their nominations were confirmed.

Ultimately, the DAB party claimed 20 seats, followed by the New People’s Party, with seven seats, and the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) which won six. The Liberal Party were unchallenged in two. Only two lawmakers, Alice Mak Mei-kuen and Kwok Wai-keung, both of FTU, were uncontested. Former China Liaison Office top official Wong Chun-ping‘s seat was also uncontested.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 22, 2015.

A district council election candidate from a localist group has decided to withdraw from the race, as it has been revealed he joined a group supporting Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying which attacked protesters who were not in favour of Leung in 2013.

Ho Wai-cheung is a Lingnan University student who was a member of the Tuen Mun Community Concern Group running in Fu Tai constituency in Tuen Mun. In a statement, he said he did not want to hurt anyone. “I was instigated by friends to start conflicts with protesters in the 2013 protest against Leung Chun-ying in Tin Shui Wai, but I must stress that I did not attempt, nor have the intention, to harm anybody.”

“In fact, I was a young person with no knowledge in politics. I only wanted to help a friend, I did not think it over and made such a mistake,” Ho said, adding, “I give my most sincere apology to all the related people.”

His involvement with the group of masked people was first discovered by netizens on HKGolden forum on Wednesday night. Back in 2013, after the Tin Shui Wai incident, Apple Daily reported that the masked people involved were from triad groups.

Ho said he joined a student organisation last December to learn more about politics and change himself. He decided to join the district council elections to “correct past mistakes.”

He had published articles online as a Scholarism member. He also joined the Tuen Mun Community Concern Group after it was started in December 2014. “But I only realised now that I have not done enough … To show my sincerity, I am willing to withdraw from district council election activities, and resign from the Tuen Mun Community Concern Group, I wish to serve the residents wholeheartedly in the future, to show I am willing to turn over a new leaf.”

Tuen Mun Community Concern Group also issued a statement apologising for the incident. “We admit that due to insufficient election preparation time, we have not been able to investigate the background of some of our candidates, which has caused unnecessary speculation and misunderstanding. We apologise for that,” the group said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 23, 2015.

A member of a localist group, who is running for a District Council seat in Tuen Mun in the Nov. 22 elections, was found to be among a group of masked men who attacked pro-democracy protesters during a visit by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to Tin Shui Wai in 2013, Apple Daily reported on Friday.

Ho Wai-chueng, a member of the Tuen Mun Community Concern Group (TMCCG), admitted he was among the group of CY Leung supporters in the 2013 incident, but stressed that he did not use violence against anyone or receive any monetary reward for his participation. “I was asked to go to an event by friends of mine,” he said. “I was only told to help CY leave the place safely when I arrived.”

Ho, who is running for a local council seat in Fu Tai district, said earlier on Thursday he would withdraw from the elections and quit the TMCCG, but changed his mind later in the day. He said he was politically naive when he joined the CY Leung supporters in 2013 and that his participation in the District Council elections was part of his efforts to change himself. He also said he would not allow his rival Chan Man-wai to get elected without any competition.

It was also learned that Ho was a member of the student group Scholarism and was an active participant in last year’s Occupy protests. He said he quit Scholarism in July this year in order to focus on his studies.

The TMCCG issued a statement apologizing for its failure to conduct thorough background checks on members running in the upcoming District Council elections. Hon Lai-yin, the group’s co-founder, said Ho joined the organization in September and never mentioned that he was involved in the Tin Shui Wai incident in 2013.

The Registration and Electoral Office said there is no exit mechanism for candidates after the nomination period.

Ho is one of the two candidates in Fu Tai district, the other being Chan Man-wai of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions. Chan refused to comment on whether it is appropriate for Ho to pull out of the race, but said people with violent behavior should not run in any election.

(Wen Wei Po) October 25, 2015.

Yesterday Ho Wai-cheung got on an Apple Daily internet program and said that he was invited by "ball-playing friends" to "go over to have a chat." When he arrived, he saw that "the people on his side" were quarrelling with League of Social Democrats chairman Leung Kwok-hung and realized that he was summoned to "support CY Leung." He wanted to leave but he "was prevented from doing so." He said that someone was handing out money at the scene. He said that he was "sold out" and "ambushed."

Ho Wai-cheung described himself as if he was just a passerby at the time. But netizens said that the newspaper photos showed that Ho Wai-cheung wore black clothes and surgical mask just like the other assailants. Therefore he could not possibly be as "innocent" as he claims.

The Democratic Coalition for District Council Election has vetted the candidates and came up with an endorsed list of pan-democratic candidates. These are the people that you must NOT vote for. If they get elected, they will OCCUPY your district and filibuster the District Councils to make sure that nothing ever gets accomplished in order to prove that the Hong Kong Communist government is oppressing the people of Hong Kong.
(Hong Kong Free Press) October 26, 2015.

At least 88 of the 384 independent candidates in the District Council elections on Nov. 22 were found to be members of active associations close to the pro-establishment camp, Ming Pao Daily reported on Monday.

An investigative team from the newspaper found that 66 of the 88 candidates came from three associations controlled by the pro-establishment camp, namely the Hong Kong Island Federation (HKIF), Kowloon Federation of Associations (KFA) and New Territories Association of Societies (NTAS).

NTAS chairman Leung Chi-cheung confirmed that it is supporting 161 candidates in the District Council (DC) elections, second only to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, which is fielding 171 candidates.

However, only five candidates have revealed they are backed by NTAS.

The Registration and Electoral Office said DC candidates are not required by law to disclose their political affiliations, but they can opt to release such information for the information of the public. The REO has not replied when asked about its definition of political affiliations.

Bunny Chan Chung-bun, who is running for the Hip Hong district of Kwun Tong, is a Hong Kong deputy to the National People’s Congress, chairman of KFA, honorary chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Guangdong Community Organizations (FHKGCO), and chairman of a group he founded. Chan said KFA and FHKGCO are not political groups, while the group he founded is not a party, but an independent platform for legislative and district councilors.

HKIF president Choi Ngai said he could not comment as he is not well-versed with the issue.

Of the 66 candidates affiliated with pro-establishment groups, 16 were unopposed while 78 percent of the remaining 50 candidates are competing with those from the pan-democratic camp, the report said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 19, 2015.

Activists from Hong Kong’s pro-democracy Umbrella Movement will be vying for seats at key local elections this weekend — the first real test of public sentiment after mass protests gripped the city last year.

Dubbed “Umbrella soldiers” by local media, the campaigners have set their sights on the district-level polls, the first elections since the pro-democracy rallies brought parts of the city to a standstill for more than two months. The protests failed to win concessions from Beijing or the Hong Kong government on political reform and activists now hope launching into local politics will prove a more successful strategy.

“The elections are considered to be a bellwether this year,” says Willy Lam, professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Centre for China Studies. “Beijing, Hong Kong and the international community are watching very closely to see whether the mass enthusiasm for democracy galvanised during the Umbrella Movement will bear fruit in the ballot box.”

Hong Kong is semi-autonomous after being handed back to China by Britain in 1997, but there are fears its freedoms are being eroded by Beijing. Last year’s rallies were sparked after Beijing insisted that candidates for Hong Kong’s next leader must be vetted by a loyalist committee.

Yau Wai-ching, 24, is a former pro-democracy protester and one of nine members of new group Youngspiration standing in the district vote. “I can’t accept that now the movement has ended there is nothing we can do,” says Yau, who quit her job as an administrator to run for office. “We are Hongkongers. We are not politicians. We are coming out to do something we think is right.”

However, with scant experience and resources, and with the democracy movement splintering, there are questions over how far they will get.

There are also fears the new generation will split the democratic vote as they are competing with members of more established pro-democracy parties in some constituencies. But young campaigners say it is an important step as they try to reignite the movement.

“Even if they lose (in the district elections), I hope the umbrella soldiers can continue their effort and passion,” Joshua Wong, the teenage face of the democracy movement, told AFP. At 19, Wong is too young to stand as candidates must be 21 — he has launched a judicial review to bring the age restriction down to 18. “It is possible to motivate youth and teens after the movement. It’s not an easy thing to do. But I still have expectations,” says Wong.

Voters will choose 431 representatives for the 18 district councils — currently pro-establishment parties hold a majority.

With the city deeply divided between those who favour more democratisation and those who support Beijing, pro-government candidates are casting themselves as a force for stability, in contrast with democracy campaigners who they blame for disrupting life in the city.

“We would like to get a comprehensive victory,” said Tang Ka-piu, a candidate for the Federation of Trade Unions, a major pro-Beijing group. “This will be a message that mainstream society wants stability,” he adds. “We need to demonstrate… who is really doing good for Hong Kong.”

Although pro-democracy lawmakers succeeded in voting down the Beijing-backed reform bill that sparked last year’s protests, their failure to win concessions has led to a sense of hopelessness for some. “Even if we elected democrats they wouldn’t have enough power (to accomplish their goals) as they are suppressed… the city is now part of China,” says Lun Hon-hung, 68, who runs a name card business and says he will not vote.

But others remain more optimistic. “We need to make our voices heard,” said 28-year-old resident Sam Wong, who said she would vote on Sunday. “Hopefully through voting we can still fight for democracy.”

[336] Who Are The Shopping Revolutionaries? (2015/10/2)

(Ming Pao) October 2, 2015.

Last November after the Occupy Mong Kok site was cleared by the police, certain Occupy participants began to assemble in Mong Kok for the Shopping Revolution ostensibly in response to Chief Executive CY Leung's call to "support businesses by shopping." They raised yellow umbrellas and banners and they roamed around Nathan Road to play catch with the police. One year later, the Shopping Revolutionaries are no longer what they were. To observers, they have changed qualitatively. A Revolutionary said: "In reality, the method has indeed changed but it is conceptually the same."
At 4pm on September 19 (Saturday) in Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok), 58=year=old Mr. Yeung set up his public address system together with some yellow umbrellas. He began to narrate certain familiar news topics. A man walked by and wanted to debate Yeung. But several of Yeung's fellow travelers rushed up and made the man felt "pointless" and left. Mr. Yeung explained. "We are not gentlemen. When we encounter opposition, we will not be passive!" Mr. Yeung is semi-retired, and he spends several days in the week to stand there and deliver speeches.
On the last day of Occupy Mong Kok, a teenager carrying an umbrella in hand and wearing a foam rubber board on his forearm told the reporters: "This is the last day of Occupy. We will hold up." But in the end, those who held up the longest are a bunch of middle-aged and elderly people. Mr. Yeung said: "I am angry every day. Therefore I propagandize (Occupy) every day."
Another hardcore Shopping Revolutionary is 79-year-old Uncle Ng. After he retired, he became a regular Shopping Revolutionary. Uncle Ng said that whenever there are important social incidents such as a Shopping Revolutionary getting arrested, he would come out from his Wong Ta Sin home to government headquarters, the Legislative Council building or the police station to offer support. Every day after he participates in the Shopping Revolution, he would post the day's happenings onto his Facebook. From the day that Occupy Central was declared, Uncle Ng has been staying in the Occupy area. At night, he slept on Cheung Sha Street. When it got cold, he walked and sat in the area at night. On the last days of Occupy Admiralty and Occupy Causeway Bay, he "sat down deliberately" in order to await arrest.
It has been almost 300 days of the Shopping Revolution. Uncle Ng has been in Mong Kok almost every day to carry an umbrella. He is even busier than a young worker. "There is no reason not to support this, because it benefits all of the people of Hong Kong. It is a good thing ... I am old. Will I be arrested? Will I be injured? Sometimes I am worried. But I am not worried now. I am not worried. I can take a lot. I can stand 12 hours straight without sitting ..."
Last November after Occupy Mong Kok ended, a number of young demonstrators were in the Shopping Revolution. A large number of people walked onto the roadway and said that they were trying to pick up loose change. Sometimes they went over to the Chiu Luen minibus stop to protest and curse. Sometimes they stood outside the Broadway Cinema and sing the adapted song "I go to the Shopping Revolution every day, I respectfully reject your monitoring ..." They even tried to claim to want to march down to Tsim Sha Tsui and played catch with the police all night.
Everything came and went quickly. Suddenly things quieted down. From the several hundred people at first, there are now only several dozen middle-aged and elderly people left. "I don't have to work, I don't have to go to school, I can come out every night. We live long enough to come out." Uncle Ng said with a smile.
Shopping Revolution core member Ms. Chin said; "60% to 70% of those Shopping Revolutionaries left are retirees. I estimate that there are 200 hardcore people left ... Frankly, some young people are scared after being 'harassed' by the police! They got ID'd and searched. They are too scared to come out again. Some Valiant Warriors think that we serve no purpose by just standing around ... they don't agree with what we are doing ..."
The student named Lam participated in Occupy Mong Kok for the full 79 days. After one week of Shopping Revolutionary, he quit because he felt that it was all over. "At the time, I was looking for a solution. But I found that it didn't work. It was time to stop. The Shopping Revolution is different from the Occupy Movement. At the time, we were looking to get bargaining chips. It didn't work." But he appreciated the determination of the Shopping Revolutionaries. "Maybe one day the conditions will be ripe for action!" Lam believes that young people will pour into the streets once more if the conditions are right.
But many people seem to think that the Shopping Revolutionaries are just a bunch of people who stand there and yell, and therefore they cannot affect anything. But the Shopping Revolutionaries think that there is a different meaning. Mr. Yeung said: "Most people do not need the Shopping Revolution. But it is only a continuation of the spirit. As long as it does not extinguish, it's okay." Ms. Chin said: "We won't withdraw from the frontline unless we really got a genuine universal suffrage, or if we are no longer able to walk anymore ... street resistance will continue indefinitely."

(East Week) October 14, 2015 Issue 633.

Sharp-eyed people have noticed that there is a small group of foreigners among the Shopping Revolutionaries, and they are even weirder than the Localists. There are about a dozen or so of these people, mostly foreigners from the United States and Europe and they are often present at the various demonstrations. They take videos, add commentary and post them onto various social media, including a Facebook page called Lost Dutch. Many people actually mistake them for an Internet media outlet.
Among these people is a 30-something-old Asian named James. He likes to use his mobile phone to chase after plainclothes police officers, asking them in English or impure Cantonese: "Are you a policeman? Why are you not wearing your ID card?" He has confronted plainclothes policemen many times, cursing them out while his companions took film. Sometimes his companions also interject from behind the camera.

Some people who know James said that he is a Korean named Fong. Apart from operating an Internet store, he also promotes Bitcoin. "During the Occupy period, someone asked people to buy Bitcoins from him and he promised to spent all the profits on buying lunch boxes to feed the people sleeping int he streets."

After the Occupy movement ended, James became part of the Shopping Revolutionary. However, this movement is more limited and less appealing to foreigners. So James and his companions turned to harassing the plainclothes policemen for not displaying their ID's. He said: "It's amazing how much you can say to a cop in Hong Kong." However, some Internet users questioned the purpose of these actions, and so James is less popular now (just as Bitcoin).

Videos:

(Apple Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZO5QOZFuI Uncle Ng on Day 311 of the Shopping Revolution

Internet comments:

- If these retirees have time on hand, they could spend it better by working as volunteers to help people in need.
It is better to give than to receive. This is the way to contribute to society.
Joining the Shopping Revolution?
The politicos won't even say thanks for serving their political goals. They will only smirk at your foolishness.
So far you have only angered everybody else.
You say that you are doing this for all the people of Hong Kong.
But you are only using this as an excuse for your own ridiculous tantrum.
You are rubbish!
- At least the retirees have something to do. It is better than sitting around and waiting to die.
- Uncle Ng has so much time on hand because he is a social welfare recipient. He takes government money so that he can overthrow the government.
- No, you completely misunderstand. Uncle Ng is working for genuine universal suffrage. When that comes, the people of Hong Kong will elect a government that will increase social welfare payments by taxing the rich heavily. That is the main point of genuine universal suffrage.
- The young wastrels of the Umbrella Revolution told the old farts to bugger off and not block their way to genuine universal suffrage. But in the end, only the old farts are left to carry on.
- Economics 101: Retirees cost a lot less to hire than triad gang members. The bankroller is trying to conserve his stash after burning several hundred million dollars on Occupy.
- The photo of Ms. Chin, a core member of the Shopping Revolution:

What is the purpose of all the effort? The ad below showed that Chin Po-fun is looking for citizens to nominate her in the District Council elections. If you are a resident of Yau Oi (South) in Tuen Mun and you want to nominate her, please contact Legislator Chan Wai-yip (League of Social Democrats). All of a sudden, she is no longer a raving and ranting maniac. Instead she is now packaged as a well-coiffeured candidate in a pink dress suit (see YouTube) working for people's livelihood instead of destroying it.

The bottom left photo shows Chin Po-fun being ejected for disrupting a Legco hearing and refusing to leave by claiming bone aches (see Oriental Daily, May 23, 2015)

- (HKG Pao) At the campaign kickoff meeting, Chin Po-fun denounced the government for ignoring livelihood issues and wasting public money. So she says that same thing as Chan Wai-yip. However, she had nothing to say about the livelihood issues in the Yau Oi South district. She did not describe her platform for people's livelihood. She kept reiterating worn-out issues such as "monitoring the government; I want genuine universal suffrage; civil nomination." Residents wondered if Chin is unfamiliar with the Yau Oi South district and didn't care either. Chin's Facebook contained contents related mostly to Occupy Central and the Shopping Revolution with little or no personal background information. On this morning, she deleted her Facebook on the grounds that Internet promotion is not allowed during the campaign. She isn't going to have much of a chance when she refuses to provide personal background and has no platform for people's livelihood.
- P.S. After losing the district council election, Chin Po-fun returned to the Shopping Revolution in Mong Kok. She gave a speech to explain why she lost. Very simply put, she said that she does not have the temperament to serve the people, so she knew that she would lose for sure. https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1669789693232945/ Thanks for wasting everybody's time.

- Some people do this out of sheer boredom. Other people do it for political ambitions. Is there anyone who thinks that the Shopping Revolution by 50 senior citizens will actually work? Namely, achieving the minimum goals of

(1) making the National People's Congress Standing Committee rescind its August 31st resolution;
(2) making the National People's Congress Standing Committee, the Hong Kong SAR government and the Legislative Council come up with a 'genuine' universal suffrage based up on civil nomination of the Chief Executive candidates;
(3) making CY Leung resign.

- Of course, it won't work. Even the Shopping Revolutionaries know that. They only want to let off some steam and annoy people. CY Leung isn't annoyed because he is perched securely in Government House. The police know that they are just doing their jobs. The only people who are annoyed are the Sai Yeung Choi Street South residents who have to put up with people yelling outside their windows at night, and the business operators who are suffering economic losses.
- (Resistance Live Media @YouTube) October 11, 2015. Three men were arrested by the police at the scene of the Shopping Revolution.
- (Facebook November 3, 2015) "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun spoke on radio about the history of the Shopping Revolution. After Occupy Mong Kok was cleared, Chief Executive CY Leung called for citizens to revive the economy in Mong Kok and demonstrators showed up for the Shopping Revolution. Cheng said that the first week of the movement was successful, because they were able to increase the cost of governance for the government, allow the demonstrators to express their discontent and draw public attention. Cheng remembered that the police had to deploy a thousand police officers each night in case the demonstration became another Occupy Mong Kok.

Mong Kok denizen "Bearded Guy" then recalled what happened next. After one week or so, an auntie carrying a yellow umbrella showed up. "Later on, we found out that she is Auntie Chin, a core member of People Power and currently running for Tuen Mun district councilor." She started the lead the crowd to chant slogans and she barred the demonstrators from heading towards the Chiu Luen minibus stop. At one point, "Bearded Guy" suspected that Auntie Chin has an agreement with the police who provided a designated demonstration route to her. Because the Shopping Revolution failed to live up to its original purpose, fewer and fewer citizens showed up over time. In the end, it became a private activity for Auntie Chin and a dozen or so individuals. Each night they walk around Nathan Road and they chant "I want genuine universal suffrage" and other slogans. Nowadays Auntie Chin does not show up anymore because she is busy running for election. So the so-called Shopping Revolution is alive only in name.

[335] National Day Demonstrations (2015/10/2)

(dbc) October 1, 2015.

More than 10 People Power members gathered this afternoon near Star Ferry (TST) to commemorate those who perished in the Lamma Island ferry disaster. They raised banners that read "Commemorate the dead, resist tyranny" and they chanted slogans such as "It is no crime to commemorate the dead." They also set fire to the Chinese national flag. The participants engaged in a minute of silence with some of them holding up yellow umbrellas. People Power legislator Chan Chi-chuen said that People Power wants to cancel the national day fireworks show permanently.

(Oriental Daily) October 2, 2015.

About 50 League of Social Democrats and Chinese Democracy College members marched from the Western District Police Station to the China Liaison Office to hold three minutes of silence for the dead in the June 4th 1989 movement and the late mainland democracy activist Li Wang-yang. League of Social Democrats member Koo Sze Yiu attempted to pick up the coffin prop and toss it inside the China Liaison Office, but the police stopped him. Social activist Lui Yuk-lin tried to set fire to a Chinese Communist flag but the police doused water to put out the fire.
Meanwhile another 30 people of the Tiananmen Mothers Movement including League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung, Alliance to Support Democratic Patriotic Movements in China's current chairman Albert Ho and former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan marched earlier in the morning from the Western District Police Station to the China Liaison Office. They held banners and wreaths, and demanded that the June 4th movement be vindicated. They placed the wreaths outside the China Liaison Office and bowed to the wreaths. Several counter-demonstrators showed up and demanded Lee Cheuk-yan and others to "pay the bill" (in reference to accepting responsibility for Occupy Central). The police separated the two sides. Eventually they all dispersed peacefully.

(Oriental Daily with video) October 2, 2015.

League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung and about 20 persons set out from the Family Planning Council in Wanchai towards the site where the national day flag ceremony was to be held. They carried a coffin and flower wreaths and they chanted slogans to demand the vindication of the June 4th 1989 movement. They clashed with a group of Localists who carried banners that say "Hong Kong Independence" and "I am not Chinese." These Localists cursed out Leung and company for being "off the ground." Meanwhile regular demonstrators Andy "Captain America" Yung and others waved their British Dragon/Lion colonial flags for Hong Kong independence.

(Wen Wei Po) October 1, 2015.

Civic Passion cadre Cheng Chung-tai led a group of ten or so radical Localists towards the Convention Centre. The police on duty stopped them from approaching the Golden Bauhinia Plaza. So Cheng and company set up a stage on an empty lot near the intersection of Convention Avenue and Fleming Road and started yelling. Several City-State members waved the British Dragon/Lion colonial flags and showed Hong Kong independence banners. Hong Kong Indigenous cadre Ray Wong also put in an appearance. Meanwhile across the street from the Convention Centre, Hong Kong Localism Power cadres CK Ho and Simon Sin yelled at passersby by megaphone. League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung brought more than 10 persons to try to approach the Golden Bauhinia Plaza, but they were also stopped by the police.

Videos:

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUiZz08QNUY Awful rendition of "Do you hear the people singing?" led by Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRVmAVRuXSM League of Social Democrats march towards Golden Bauhinia Plaza
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEKctZA-Gqk CK Ho chanting "I am not a Chinese person" and "Hong Kong is already a nation"
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccHVX7K3IU Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) gives a speech
Resistance Live Media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCNdY-fbgXA People Power commemorate the ferry disaster victims by chanting "Bring down the Communist Party" and burning an imitation Chinese national flag

Internet comments:

- How do the number of demonstrators compare against a benchmark as reported on the front page of Sing Tao --- Headline: "270,000 forgot their worries and enjoyed the fireworks on both sides of the harbor"?

- (Wen Wei Po) 31,829 were present at the Sha Tin Horse Racing Course on National Day.
- They are not Chinese, but they didn't mind taking the Chinese National Day holiday. Why aren't they working on a Thursday?
- You are not a Chinese person. Okay, so what are you then? I can't tell because you have hidden your face (cap, sunglasses and ski masks on a hot day). How do you expect me to ever support a man who won't show me his face? P.S. Is he missing four fingers on his right hand?

- The message from this banner is perplexing in three ways.

Firstly, the Chinese phrase is translated directly as "I am not a Chinese person." That is a negative statement, which naturally leads to the question: "So what are you? Pakistani? Filipino? Korean?" This banner does not provide an answer.
Methinks that they want to say: "I am a Hongkonger." I think just about every Hong Kong citizen of any political persuasion will agree with the statement "I am a Hongkonger." So that serves no purpose.
Methinks that they really want to say: "I am a Hong Kong person and/but I am not a Chinese person." This is going to raise many more questions about the meaning of "I am not a Chinese person":

Do you mean that you come from a different genetic pool, like the Maoris versus the British in New Zealand or the American Indians versus the white Europeans in USA?

Do you speak/write a completely different language (that is, does your Cantonese dialect not come from the city of Canton (=Guangzhou) in Guangdong province, People's Republic of China?)?

Do you have different cultural traditions (for example, you don't have the Chinese New Year, Dragon Boat Festival, Ching Ming festival, Mid-Autumn Festival, Chung Yeung Festival, rice dumplings, carrot cakes, moon cakes, hairy crabs, etc)? Are your holidays Hanukkah, Epiphany, All Souls Day, Armistice Day, St Patrick's Day, Yom Kippur, Bastille Day and Martin Luther King Jr Day?

What is your citizenship/nationality as stated in your passport (the HKSAR passport is issued by the People's Republic of China, while a BNO passport does not confer UK citizenship)? and your ID card (also issued by the People's Republic of China's Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government)?

Secondly, the English phrase is "Hong Kong Is Not China." I checked the map:

This statement is true: Hong Kong is just one little black dot whereas China is the big yellow chunk in the middle. In the same way, New York City is not the United States, Osaka is not Japan, Marseilles is not France, Perth is not Australia, Manchester is not England, Hamburg is not Germany, Milan is not Italy, etc. But what is the purpose of saying so?
Thirdly, the Chinese phrase and the English phrase do not match each other. Why, oh why? I know the answer. It means that you have to employ double-speak to the Chinese- and English- readers because you have a problem with saying the same thing.
The problems with this banner reflect the bigger problem of the lack of a grand narrative for an independent and sovereign Hong Kong that makes sense.
- Here is a simple test: Ask them who issued their Hong Kong ID? It is the People's Republic of China's Hong Kong Special Administration Region. If they don't have an ID, they are breaking the law.
- Hong Kong Localism Power's CK Ho declared that Hong Kong is already a nation. As a nation, taxes can be raised from the people. So please send in your checks to government headquarters at Hong Kong Localism Cultural Company Limited, Portland Street Number 280, Mong Kok, Kowloon c/o East Asia Bank account number 015-515-68-?????-?.

[334] HKU Council Meeting - The Main Event (2015/09/29)

(Wen Wei Po) September 27, 2015.

A 200-day-plus chronology of the Johannes Chan affair.
January: The Research Assessment Exercise that was conducted by more than 300 international-class scholars evaluated the research articles of 4,400 Hong Kong scholars. Hong Kong University's School of Law had only 46% of its articles rated "excellent" or "world-leading" whereas the 10-year-old Chinese University of Hong Kong's School of Law was 18% ahead. The former Faculty of Law dean Johannes Chan was ridiculed by Internet users for "successfully degrading the HKU Faculty of Law." Johannes Chan counter-attacked and said that all criticisms of his RAE problems are "political oppression" because he is reported to be a candidate for pro vice-chancellor. Some media agreed with Chan's viewpoint and characterized the criticisms as "political oppression."
February: Unidentified parties told the media that Johannes Chan was recommended unanimously by the selection committee headed by HKU president Peter Mathieson as the vice pro-chancellor. At the same time, these parties also said that the Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive CY Leung applied pressure on the HKU Council members to thwart the appointment of Johannes Chan. A member of the selection committee was interviewed by other media, and said that the committee has made no recommendations yet. The Chief Executive's office also issued a strong denial. Other HKU Council members also said that they have never been under any pressure. They thought that the leaker must have ulterior motives to pass out such erroneous information. Although nobody ever emerged to substantiate the media stories and no evidence was ever produced, the pro-democratic legislators and certain media insists that the autonomy of HKU has been "politically interfered with" and they want to exercise the special Legco powers to investigate government interference. They also demanded HKU explain the pro vice- chancellor selection process and to immediately appoint Johannes Chan to that position. Meanwhile Johannes Chan tried to deflect attention on himself and proposed that the Chief Executive should not serve as the university chancellor in accordance with the law.
March: With questions being raised about Johannes Chan's academic leadership and a report on the "secret donations" being due, he was at risk of losing out. So certain media polled the various deans of HKU schools and finally came up with four school deans praising Johannes Chan. Although HKU president Peter Mathieson said that there was no government pressure on the appointment of the pro vice chancellor and that his personal conversations with the Chief Executive did not broach this topic, some groups are still demanding the amendment of the university ordinance which automatically makes the Chief Executive the chancellor at all eight universities. In addition, the appointment of Executive Council member Arthur Li to the HKU University Council was taken as proof that he was interfering with the appointment of Johannes Chan and that the pro-establishment camp was affecting autonomy at the university. At the end of the month came the report on the "secret donations." Certain media said that the report said that Johannes Chan did not break any regulations and therefore this should not affect this appointment as pro vice chancellor. But the report clearly stated that there were problems with how Johannes Chan handled the money, and his conduct was said "not to meet the expected standards" of a senior administrator at the university. During the regular March meeting of the University Council, there was no discussion about the pro vice chancellor position because the selection committee has not yet made it recommendations. Certain media reported that "the University Council was stalling on the appointment of the vice pro chancellor."
April: Hong Kong University Surgery Department director Lo Chung-mau was elected by the staff to represent them in the Council. However, the opposition said that this conclusively proved that the University Council is now populated with CY Leung fans. The Professional Teachers Union once again called for amending the university ordinance so that the Chief Executive is no longer the chancellor of the eight universities.
May: At the time when Johannes Chan was the Dean of the Faculty of Law, he took $300,000 in donations to the Law School via Occupy Central Trio member Benny Tai. He did not follow procedure and report the name of the donor. The school had to ask Benny Tai. Johannes Chan's conduct was said not to meet the expected standards of the university.
The opposition now mounted a defense offered by Johannes Chan and Benny Tai, namely that there are no expected standards as such at Hong Kong University and therefore this is making up charges against them.
June: Former Ming Pao chief editor Kevin Lau wrote in an opinion column in Ming Pao that Johannes Chan applied for the pro vice chancellor position after being persuaded by HKU Council chairman Leong Chu-hung. Lau said that Chan was supposed to be promoted to that position in March, but his appointment was stalled. The opposition promoted this allegation to apply pressure on Leong Che-hung and the council to make the appointment. But the facts were that Johannes Chan's secret donation issue is unresolved and the selection committee has not made any recommendations. But the opposition didn't care and continued to say that the Council was stalling on Chan's appointment. On June 30, the "secret donations" report came out. The investigation committee said that Chan and Tai acted in a manner that does not meet expectations and they recommended the university to take action. At the Council meeting, university president Peter Mathieson said that the provost will be arriving in August and so the council voted 12-to-6 to postpone the appointment of the pro vice chancellor until the provost arrives. The opposition protested against the delay and threatened to use the special powers of the Legislative Council to investigate the matter.
July: The opposition said that it was unreasonable to wait for the provost. The HKU Alumni Concern Group conducted various activities such as gathering signatures, holding press conferences, and publishing statements to demand that HKU make the appointment. Former Ming Pao chief editor Kevin Lau published an article just before the July meeting of the Council that "the pro-establishment camp led by Arthur Li and Leong Che-hung" asked a middleman to persuade Johannes Chan to withdraw his candidacy.
On the day of the July meeting, several dozen HKU students and several radicals unconnected to Hong Kong University charged into the conference room and applied pressure on the council members. Lo Chung-mau fell down on the ground injured. Ayasha Macpherson felt ill after being surrounded and not allowed to leave. The two were taken to the hospital by ambulance. Arthur Li was surrounded by students and called "shameless." Afterwards, Johannes Chan told the investigating press that Arthur Li has never sent anyone to get him to withdraw.
August: The assault was regarded negatively by society and that was unfavorable to Johannes Chan's candidacy. But Johannes Chan disclosed that he had been "recommended" to become a candidate for pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources. He said that his successful appointment means that the university still has autonomy and vice versa. The opposition chimed in to say that failure to appoint Johannes Chan would lead to the disintegration of civilized society.
On the day of the August meeting, it was noted that all four candidates for the provost positions have withdrawn in view of the known situation and so a provost cannot be found in the short time. The Council decided to discuss the appointment of the pro vice chancellor in its September meeting. With respect to the "secret donation" affair, the Council accepted the university senior administrators group's advice to make recommendations to the various principals. The letter to Johannes Chan reminds him that as a senior staff member, he has certain duties and responsibilities which he must not overlook in the future.
September: The HKU Alumni Concern Group worked through the Convocation to hold a referendum in which several non-binding motions were passed by more than 7,000 persons, including demanding the Council to appoint the pro vice chancellor within 30 days. Although the turnout rate was only 4.8% of the Convocation, the HKU Alumni Concern Group told the Council that there is a strong public opinion among the alumni.
In summary, the opposition has been using seven dirty tricks:
1. They disseminated false information through the media to portray themselves as being politically suppressed
2. They made false accusations against the Hong Kong SAR government and the University Council as if these are the enemies
3. They used violent force to lay siege to the University Council members
4. They gathered signatures, issued statements, bought newspapers ads and held press conferences to force the University Council to appoint Johannes Chan
5. They used the Hong Kong University Convocation to apply pressure
6. They put HKU president Peter Mathieson in a bind by saying his governance would vanish if he fails to appoint Johannes Chan
7. They said that if Johannes Chan is not appointed, it would mean the disintegration of civilization.

(Wen Wei Po) September 28, 2015.

Yesterday, Profession Teachers Union legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen held a press conference to release an open letter to the University Council. The letter contains two demands. The first demand is for the University Council to makes its appointment of the pro vice chancellor of academic staffing and resources. The second demand is that the University Council must provide detailed explanations of their rationales. Ip said: "The University Council should adhere to the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy while forgetting any political issues. The University Council members are held responsible for their decision. We recommend that the vote be conducted by open balloting with all the votes being written into the record." Of course, this recommendation is inconsistent with the principle of confidentiality that is in place for the University Council.
Ip Kin-yuen said that they don't really care who gets appointed or not, but they want the University Council members to make the decision in accordance with the guidelines and rules. He said that he will present a petition at the meeting and HKU Alumni Concern Group representatives will be outside. A forum will be held one week later at which point Leong Che-hung will explain the relevant decision. "As for any other actions, that depends on whether the explanation of the University Council is reasonable." When asked whether there will be violence like during the July meeting, Ip Kin-yuen said that they will use peaceful means to express their views. HKU Student Union president merely said "Nothing further to add" to avoid answering the question.

(Ming Pao) September 28, 2015.

The HKU Council has 21 members. One of them will be away from Hong Kong. That leaves 20 votes to be cast. According to the assessment of the HKU Alumni Concern Group, 9 votes (mainly staff members, teachers and students) support Johannes Chan's appointment. The pro-establishment side has 10 votes. That makes president Leong Che-hung's vote critical. If he supports the appointment, the vote will be 10-10 and further debate will be necessary. If he vetoes the appointment, then the game is over.

(HKG Pao) September 29, 2015.

On radio this morning, legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen said that it was rare for the University Council to hold secret balloting, and that it was also rare for the University Council to reject a candidate recommended by the selection committee. Former HKU Council member Cheung Pok-yin was on the same radio program and pointed out that during his tenure, controversial issues were usually voted by secret balloting and not "rare" as Ip asserted.

(HKG Pao) September 29, 2015.

The HKU Council has 21 members, of which 8 come from inside (namely, staff members, teachers and students). One of them will be away from Hong Kong tonight. Of the 8 from inside, 7 (including HKU president Peter Mathieson and School of Physics dean Kwok Sun) are for and 1 (Surgery Department director Lo Chung-mau) is opposed. Of the 12 from outside, all are opposed. So the writing is on the wall not to appoint Johannes Chan as the pro vice chancellor.

(Oriental Daily) September 29, 2015.

The Hong Kong University Council voted on the candidate for pro vice chancellor recommended by the selection committee. Council president Leong Che-hung did not cast a vote himself. By a small majority, the candidate was rejected. There were 20 members present. The vote was 12-8. Afterwards, Leong Che-hung told the press that the decision was made for the sake of the long-term interests of the university. Based upon confidentiality, Leong said that they will not discuss the decision-making process and they can't even provide any information on the unnamed nominee.

(SCMP) University of Hong Kong’s council votes 12-8 to reject Professor Johannes Chan’s appointment as pro-vice-chancellor. September 29, 2015.

After months of delay and under a cloud of controversy, the University of Hong Kong’s governing council has voted by 12 to eight to reject Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun’s appointment as a pro-vice-chancellor. The decision was described by the chair of the institution’s governing council Edward Leong Che-hung, who did not take part in the vote, as being in the "long-term interests" of the university.

The outcome is likely to cause outrage among students and alumni, who are accusing the council of making a politically-motivated decision. Previous discussion deferrals on the pro-vice-chancellor appointment matter have been seen as an attempt to punish Chan for his support of democracy and his close ties to colleague Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a co-founder of the Occupy Central movement. Beijing-loyalist media have heaped criticism on the pair.

Ahead of the critical meeting that has decided whether liberal scholar Johannes Chan Man-mun will be appointed to the key managerial post at the University of Hong Kong, Leong said he was giving up his vote in order to be “objective and fair”. Leong announced his move before the meeting started at 5pm, which was a turn from his previous practice as he voted twice in the decisions to defer deliberations of the appointment. The council voted in a secret ballot on Chan’s appointment tonight.

“I really hope [the issue] can conclude as soon as possible,” said Leong as he arrived. “I hope the meeting can reach a consensus.” Leong and university vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson received letters from an alumni group and a group of university students, who urged the council to confirm the appointment.

Earlier, ahead of the meeting too, Chan urged the council to make a decision tonight, whether or not it wants to take him or reject him for the post, because the delay had affected the university’s operation. “I hope the council will conduct business in a transparent manner, particularly because this is a matter of public concern,” Chan said. “If their decision falls short of public expectation, it’s inevitable they should explain.” Chan disagreed with the council’s tendency to keep everything confidential.

(SCMP) Going down swinging: University of Hong Kong's Johannes Chan decries political interference and wants reasons after appointment defeat. October 1, 2015.

Legal academic Johannes Chan Man-mun yesterday urged the University of Hong Kong's governing council to give a public explanation for its controversial decision to reject his appointment to a key managerial post, as renowned international scholars spoke up for him. But Chan said he had no plan to challenge the decision in court, even though students and alumni were considering such a move as well as a class boycott.

The council set off a storm by voting 12-8 in a secret ballot on Tuesday night against a search committee's recommendation that Chan be made the pro-vice-chancellor in charge of academic staffing and resources. Opposition to Chan's appointment had been linked to the liberal scholar's close ties to colleague Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a co-founder of the pro-democracy Occupy Central movement.

On a radio programme yesterday, Chan said the council, being a statutory publicly funded body, had a duty to act fairly when exercising its powers. "Rule number one is openness and transparency," the former law dean said. "Confidentiality should not be an excuse to avoid accountability to the public, especially when this matter has drawn a great deal of public interest." Chan added on another radio show that he thought his rejection stemmed from "political interference", citing over 300 articles in pro-Beijing newspapers attacking him.

However, Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, the city's sole deputy to the National People's Congress Standing Committee, said those who alleged Beijing interference should prove it.

After the closed-door discussions on Tuesday night, angry student representative Billy Fung Jing-en abandoned confidentiality rules and revealed the reasons eight pro-government members had given for rejecting Chan, ranging from his having no PhD degree to his failure to "show sympathy" to a council colleague who collapsed in July when students stormed a meeting.

Several renowned international public law scholars, including HKU's Yash Ghai, dismissed council members' reservations about Chan's academic qualifications. They said a doctorate degree was not important in the discipline, and praised Chan's work and professional experience. "As a long-serving member of HKU … it grieves me greatly to see the council turn to these nasty tricks to deny [Chan the job] in order to - one must assume - appease the Chinese government," Ghai said.

But some of the council members who were "exposed" by Fung hit back. Arthur Li Kwok-cheung accused Fung of lying, Leonie Ki Man-fung said the student leader had no integrity in breaching confidentiality rules and he "misinterpreted" their words, and Edward Chen Kwan-yiu denied saying Chan did not have a PhD. But they refused to reveal what they had actually said.

Meanwhile, HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson clarified a Reuters report that quoted him as saying he could not rule out Beijing was behind the rejection of Chan. He said last night the interview was done on August 4, and he was talking about his email account being hacked, since he "did not know who" did it.

An alumni group is inviting council chairman Dr Leong Che-hung and other members to a forum to explain the decision.

(Ming Pao) A century-old university weakened by political struggles. October 2, 2015.

THE COUNCIL of the University of Hong Kong has rejected the recommendation to appoint Johannes Chan, the former Dean of the university's Faculty of Law, as a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the university. The issue might have come to an end, but Hong Kong as a whole has paid dearly. First, the university has been severely weakened by the turmoil. Second, the international community is likely to form a negative impression about Hong Kong's academic freedom and the autonomy of its educational institutions. Furthermore, there are a lot of signs showing that different political forces have been involved in the affair. They have turned the university into their battleground.

The Council, in accordance with the principle of confidentiality, did not release an official explanation for rejecting Chan's appointment. However, Billy Fung, the HKU Student Union president and student representative to the Council, has breached confidentiality by disclosing some of the comments made by Council members. If what Fung said is true, it will mean that the Council does not have any convincing arguments to support their rejection of Chan's appointment. No doubt Fung's breach of confidentiality is itself a controversial action, and he might be punished by the Council. However, his unofficial account has brought to light the thinking of some Council members.

The Search Committee, which was led by the university's Vice-Chancellor, recommended five individuals for the posts of Pro-Vice-Chancellors. Johannes Chan was one of them. The other four individuals have all received their appointments and are carrying out their duties. True, the HKU Council has the power to make a better arrangement regarding the appointment of Johannes Chan. However, if Chan has failed to get the job just because he does not have a doctorate or his academic achievement is not up to standard, this will mean that the Search Committee might have failed its tasks. It is because, if a doctorate and a solid academic background are the prerequisites of the job, Chan should not have been recommended for the job in the first place. And there is a Council member who claimed that Johannes Chan did not send him regards after he tripped and fell. If this was one of the reasons why Chan was denied the post, most people will be left speechless or be stumped for words.

In fact, by rejecting the appointment of Chan as a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the HKU Council has mounted a challenge to the authority of the Vice-Chancellor. It is because the Search Committee was led by the Vice-Chancellor. Though the Council is the organisation that has the final say in the university, its focus should be on the university's long-term strategy. The Vice-Chancellor, on the other hand, should be responsible for its routine operation. This incident has the effect of redrawing the line between the power and duties of the Vice-Chancellor and those of the Council. It is worth our concern whether the Vice-Chancellor will be able to lead the university effectively. When interviewed by a foreign news agency, Peter Mathieson, the HKU Vice-Chancellor, said he and Chan's supporters had been under pressure. He also disclosed that his email account had been hacked into and some of its contents had been published by the media. He would not rule out the possibility that the incident was a carefully orchestrated one, he said.

Hong Kong's political situation remains unclear in the post-constitutional reform era. The political struggles that arose from the appointment of Johannes Chan are in fact a microcosm of Hong Kong's political situation. Unless all sides change their mindsets and give up political struggles, incidents of similar nature will keep coming up in different forms. As the powers that be play a crucial role in shaping the political climate, society will fare better if the authorities give up political struggles. The University of Hong Kong has received a huge blow from the political struggles it has been caught up in. It is our hope that the university and Hong Kong will no longer be plagued by political struggles, that all disagreements will be resolved in a rational, tolerant manner and that internal strife will be kept to a minimum.

(Sky Post) Did the HKU Council make the correct decision? By Professor Francis Lui (UST School of Business). October 2, 2015.

Most scholars who teach and do research in universities do not like politics coming onto their campuses to interfere with freedom of academic research and expression. At the same time, they are also very tolerant about people with different political views, because this is part of freedom of expression. If, within this domain, the university senior staff has clear political positions and preferences, then there could be many internal struggles that work against the interests of the university. For this reason, I have previously said that Johannes Chan should not jump into this mess. Obviously, my words are not worth much and have no effect.

As expected, there was a vicious fight in which two opposing political forces all came in. I am aware that the teachers were divided as well. Within the HKU Council, there were clearly two sets of opinions. During the fight, all the background details of Johannes Chan were blown up into the open. Normally, personnel debates within universities are kept strictly confidential so that nobody outside knows the details. But the Student Union president has disclosed parts of the confidential discussion to the public, so that the media are making amateurish judgments. In this case, academic persons are obliged to explain to the public just how universities operate so that they won't be misled. I am not interested in the Council members who are not academics; I am only interested what the academics think. The only information is based upon the brief comments by the person whom Arthur Li has called the "Big Liar." He did not say much and I am not sure that he covered everything, but I immediately recognized some ideas which are often used in academia. But perhaps the student doesn't understand academic standards and therefore unintentionally took the words out of context. So I will attempt to use standard academic logic to reconstruct the speakers' original intentions.

Is a doctorate essential? That depends. The doctorate is the minimum entrance ticket in academia, so it doesn't amount to much. Under special circumstance, scholars without doctorates can be esteemed. One of my thesis advisor Leo Hurwiez never got a doctorate because World War II stepped in his way. But he was highly esteemed within the department and he eventually won the Nobel Prize. By then, obviously nobody cared about whether he had a doctorate or not. If you don't have a doctorate, you must have much better academic accomplishments than others in order to win over other professors. Does Johannes Chan meet this requirement?

If Johannes Chan is going to be pro vice chancellor in charge of housing, infrastructure and finance, I am sure that not many people care whether he has a doctorate or a distinguished academic career. But this pro vice chancellor is someone who can determine who gets hired, fired, promoted or demoted. Although we don't know how the new Provost will eventually share power with this pro vice chancellor, it is certain that the job involves assessing the academic accomplishments of various professors. If the professors harbor doubt about Chan's curriculum vitae, he will be facing endless challenges if he gets the job.

The academic world rates a scholar based upon the anonymous expert opinions of his peers (those who have worked with or collaborated with him are not considered to be sufficiently independent, so that the Hong Kong media were wrong to interview his friends and collaborators). They also look at the number of books that he has published, or the number of articles published in the major academic journals and their subsequent citations. Arthur Li and Edward Chen have both served as university vice-chancellors before, so they clearly understand the logic behind this practice. I don't have time to figure out what the top law journals are. So I used Google Scholar to find the citation rates of Johannes Chan's article. There are about 400 citations (after excluding names that are close but publishing in different fields). Is that enough?

Different academic discipline have different citation rates. A good medical professor will be cited more often than a social scientist, so they cannot be compared directly. In economics, you have some status if you get cited one or two thousand times (young scholars are disadvantaged because it takes time to accumulate the citations). What about legal scholarship? I don't have an accurate answer. My articles are often cited in legal journals and that amazes me. This makes me think that legal scholars are also generous with citations and they must be at the same level as economic scholars.

Lo Chung-mau (according to the student representatives) said that Chan's qualifications are worse than an assistant professor. In universities, accomplished scholars often make these kinds of evaluations of others. I know any number of such people. But those who dare speak this way are major scholars or else they will be counter-criticized by their numerous enemies. Is Lo Chung-mau qualified to make this kind of statement? I checked Lo's citation rates, which numbers more than 20,000. His best 20 articles have been cited 11,577 times. Even though medicine has different citations rates than law, we think that it is hard to say that Lo is unqualified.

When a university professor makes an honest profession opinion on someone else, it can be very hurting and it may create enmity. Therefore a system of confidentiality is an essential part of the university. The purpose is to make sure that the scholars can co-exist harmoniously. If there is enmity, then the reputation of the department, even the university, may be devastated. I have seen such situations in the United States. Fortunately at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, I and my colleagues work together well and we have never seen any office hostility or enmity. At present, there are rifts within the HKU Council, and that is not a good thing. I am even inclined to believe that the HKU Council members who voted against Johannes Chan very much welcome the students to file a judicial review because they are convinced that they will win.

(SCMP) University of Hong Kong council member accuses student of 'dishonest means' in Johannes Chan decision uproar. October 2, 2015.

A University of Hong Kong council member has slammed a student representative who sits on the institution’s governing body for disclosing discussion details of a controversial personnel decision.

In a statement issued late Thursday, Dr Lo Chung-mau also said some had been “exaggerating matters” by attacking him online. He said such actions would “further split HKU” and “split Hong Kong.”

Lo, a renowned liver surgeon, was quoted today by RTHK as saying he had received 2,000 emails since details of Tuesday's council meeting were exposed. He said some messages contained offensive language.

In his statement, Lo referred to a student member on the council breaching a confidentially agreement by “one-sidedly making statements on what was discussed by council members” during a recent meeting to discuss whether to appoint former university law school dean Johannes Chan Man-mun to a key managerial post.

Lo did not identify the student representative by name.

“Integrity is the cornerstone of character,” Lo’s statement read. “Using dishonest means to achieve goals must not be tolerated.” He added that he hoped the student could reflect on what he did.

After the closed-door discussions on Tuesday night, student representative Billy Fung Jing-en angrily abandoned confidentiality rules and revealed the reasons pro-government members had given for rejecting Professor Chan’s candidacy for the post.

According to Fung, one reason raised by Lo was that Chan failed to “show sympathy” to him when he collapsed in July when students stormed a meeting. Reasons from other members included Chan's not having a PhD, Fung said.

Fung was immediately criticised by several pro-establishment figures, including those mentioned in his revelations, with some calling him “a liar” and “lacking in integrity”.

Meanwhile, Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, a university alumnus, said he felt sad about what had transpired. The handling of the incident was undesirable and would hopefully not be repeated, the veteran lawmaker said.

Pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po first revealed last year that Chan was the recommended to the post of pro-vice-chancellor, and since then the appointment – which was supposed to be confidential until it was confirmed – had been heavily debated in the public sphere.

Tsang yesterday defended the newspaper’s move, saying “it was hard to stop media from reporting”. Even if Chan were approved by the council, Tsang expected it would be very hard for him to be effective given his clear pro-democracy bent at odds with the central government. “Some staff [in the university] might question whether [Chan’s decisions] not to promote them are related to their patriotic stance,” Tsang said. “These excuses could easily be made and would make Chan’s job very difficult.”

In the face of criticism from several pro-establishment figures, including those mentioned in his revelations, Fung yesterday said on a Commercial Radio programme that he had no other goals to achieve than ensuring students’ right to know. “I don’t benefit from this,” said Fung. “This is different from some executive council members who leaked information for their own interests.”

(Wen Wei Po) October 2, 2015.

HKU Vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson was quoted by Reuters that he could not rule out the possibility that Beijing was behind the episode. Mathieson quickly clarified that the interview took place in early August and was taken out of context. But certain people refuse to accept the explanation. They said that the storm over the pro vice chancellor appointment showed that Mathieson has no leadership qualities and therefore he should resign in order to protect the reputation of the university.

About 20 members of the Cherish Group and the Defend Hong Kong Together Group demonstrated outside the HKU MTR Station. They said that Mathieson smeared our nation and his "Beijing interference" talk is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Hong Kong. Mathieson has also been completely indifferent to Billy Fung's breach of confidentiality.

It so happened that HKUSU members were also using the megaphone on campus. So the two sides started cursing each other out and drawing more than a hundred spectators. A teacher cursed the students and then broke down in tears. Students cursed out the demonstrators with obscene language and displayed their middle fingers. Finally, the university sent out a representative to accept a letter from the demonstrators who then dispersed peacefully.

(SCMP) University of Hong Kong council leak prompts debate over transparency. October 2, 2015.

On Tuesday, there were red faces all around when barely two hours after the university's governing council voted 12-8 against appointing law professor Johannes Chan Man-mun to a managerial post, a student representative let the cat out of the bag.

Billy Fung Jin-en abandoned confidentiality rules and exposed the reasons pro-government members of the governing council of the University of Hong Kong had given in the closed-door meeting for rejecting Chan for the post of pro-vice-chancellor. Their arguments allegedly ranged from him not having a doctorate to his failure to "show sympathy" to a council colleague who collapsed in July when students stormed a meeting.

It was not as if the council had been unprepared. Sources told the Post that before the discussion on the appointment began that afternoon, a council member suggested that all members have their phones taken away to stop anyone leaking the closed-door discussions to the media.

The phones were put in sealed envelopes and were only returned when the meeting ended.

They took this extra step even though the council had been tightening its confidentiality rules over the years.

Advocates of the move argued it made for more free-ranging discussion, while critics claimed it also allowed people to offer blunt or even offensive comments without fear of being challenged publicly. Yet others said outsiders should respect the council's decisions.

The council updated its Guide and Code of Practice in August amid accusations it had been delaying Chan's appointment due to political interference.

In the latest version, the guide says "it is absolutely necessary to keep confidential the council agenda, supporting papers and minutes".

In last year's version, the line said "it is necessary" to keep things confidential, while the 2004 version read "it is normally necessary".

Dr William Cheung Sing-wai, chairman of the HKU Academic Staff Association, said ever since the latest change, some council members had told him their discussions had been more "one-sided" towards members who supported the government.

But pro-establishment lawmaker Christopher Chung Shu-kun, who is also a member of HKU's court that has the power to amend university statutes, said the council needed to change its rules according to new circumstances. He called on every council member to obey the rules and outsiders to respect the governing body's decisions.

While the council is considering punishment for Fung, Chung said the student leader should be kicked out for breaking the rules.

The controversy has raised questions as to how confidentiality rules being tightened and then breached will affect the council.

Chong Yiu-kwong, a solicitor and senior teaching fellow at the Institute of Education's department of education policy and leadership, said it was not possible to make everything absolutely confidential. He cited exemptions such as when the council's discussions were part of a police investigation or a court case, when someone's rights were infringed or when there were "overriding ethical considerations".

He said a public university funded by taxpayers' money should strike a balance between transparency and confidentiality. "The university is not an independent kingdom," he said.

Former civil service minister Joseph Wong Wing-ping said in many countries, whistle blowers who revealed confidential information for "greater justice" would be protected.

The Guide for Members of Governing Bodies of Universities and Colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which the HKU council's code of practice refers to, says: "The agenda … and the signed minutes of governing body meetings … should generally be available for inspection by staff and students."

But matters related to individuals or commercial sensitivity may be kept confidential, it says.

This is the crux of the issue - whether information relating to individual appointments ought to be made public even if a person has waived his right to confidentiality and the implications for hiring decisions.

Internet comments:

- Why secret ballots? The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous, forestalling attempts to influence the voter by either positive or negative reinforcement. The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.

If you cast an open ballot and I know how you vote, I can take retaliation. For example, here is the entire history of HKU Council member Ayesha Macpherson. If you don't like how she voted, you can take retaliation against her, her husband, her mother, her biological father, her foster father, her company, her book publisher, etc.

If you cast an open ballot, it will become obvious that you sold your vote because you voted the opposite of what you say that you believe. So that will stop vote buying.

But if you cast a secret vote, it will also stop vote buying. In Taiwan where vote-buying is rampant, they always tell you to take money from all possible sides and then vote according to your conscience because nobody is going to know how you actually voted.

So it all depends on the situation. If you are a legislative councilor, your vote should be open because you are accountable to those who elected you and your voting record will be decisive as to whether you are elected, re-elected ousted, impeached, etc. If you are an ordinary voter in the District Council/Legislative Council elections, your vote should be secret because your choice is nobody else's business.

Ip Kin-yuen wants an open vote. In the short term, it will make life hellish for those who voted nay. In the long term, it is going to make sure that no decent person would want to serve on the Hong Kong University Council because of what happened here. When that happens, Ip Kin-yuen will respond as he did last time to the violence in the July meeting: "Hey, I didn't bring those people here. Why are you blaming me?" The scenario here is foreseen by anyone who knows anything about the Hong Kong Internet (especially the Golden Forum guys).

- Why does Leong Che-hung say that the Council cannot disclose any information on the unnamed job candidate(s)? Well, you imagine that when you apply for the job, you may not have informed your current employer yet. If you get the job, you may then give notice to your employer that you are leaving. If you don't get the job, you will have to continue to work at the same place. You wouldn't want your employer to read in the newspapers that you were the candidate for a job elsewhere. That may affect trust, promotion, contract renewal and bonuses in the future. That is the reasoning behind the principle.

- You don't believe this could happen? Well, it has already happened. Because Billy Fung told everybody that Council member Lo Chung-mau criticized Johannes Chan did not "show sympathy" to him when he was injured by students in the July Council meeting, Progressive Lawyers Group convener Kevin Yam used his Facebook to start a "Show sympathy to Lo Chung-mau" campaign. "If we want to show sympathy to Lo Chung-mau together, compose your message and add the hashtag." Many netizens joined the campaign. Yam told the newspaper that he did not expect such a great response, but he noted that many of the comment crossed the line and so he is asking people to refrain from personal attacks and foul language.

- Ip Kin-yuen demands that Leong Che-hung give him a full explanation of the decision. Leong said NO WAY and hid behind the shield of privacy/confidentiality. The voting was by secret ballots, so Leong is in no position to say who voted which way. The only thing for sure is that he didn't vote himself. During the pre-vote discussion, certain members said certain things from which one can infer revealed preferences. But other council members did not articulate their preferences so their votes are unclear. The decision was made in a 12-8 secret vote, in which each member cast his/her vote this or that way for their own personal reasons. This is an aggregated decision. There is no way that Council chairman Leong Che-hung or anyone else can give a "full explanation" on behalf of the Council.

- As Henry Tang said after losing to CY Leung, "I lost because I didn't get enough votes."

- Ip Kin-yuen seems to be the only pan-democratic legislator standing out in the open to push for Johannes Chan. Everybody else is in hiding. The reason is that the political parties have to be concerned about their District Council election prospects, whereas Ip Kin-yuen is the Legislative Council representing the Education sector. Ip is not running for District Council and his re-election as Legislative Councilors is virtually guaranteed by the support of the Professional Teachers Union.

- The missing Council member is Abraham Razzak, who is overseas for the moment. He is a pro-establishment legislative councilor representing the real estate/construction industry. He would most likely vote against the appointment too. Also chairman Leong Che-hung recused himself, but he is labeled by Kevin Lau as pro-establishment, so we assume that he will also vote NAY in the event of a tie. That is, the final score should be 14-8.

- In social activism, it is common to use misinformation to attain your goals (such as talking about the specter of the phantom voters during these District Council elections). But this is usually done to mislead the people who hold the votes. The misinformation campaign here was conducted by people like Kevin Lau, who wrote a number of evidence-free "exposés". So the people of Hong Kong may have been successfully misled. But the people of Hong Kong don't hold the votes here. The votes are in the hands of 22 council members. They read Kevin Lau's articles about government pressure on them, and they don't find that to be true in their real lives. So there is this huge blowback now because they won't submit to this type of dirty trick!
- Example of misinformation:

September 28, 2014
One hour ago: Armored vehicle has arrived at Government Headquarters; independent media reporter threatened with being shot at; the orange flag has been raised; the police may open fire.
31 minutes ago: Somebody appears to have been shot with rubber bullets.
4 minutes ago: Latest news - they will begin shooting soon at 8pm; please be careful.

- Is there any chance that Arthur Li could vote for Johannes Chan? Previously, Kevin Lau wrote in Ming Pao that CY Leung and Arthur Li sent a middleman to persuade Johannes Chan to withdraw. This precipitated the student siege of the Council members at the July meeting. Kevin Lau wrote this breaking story in his opinion column and therefore he said that he did not need to verify the information. A Ming Pao reporter contacted Arthur Li before publication, and Li denied that he did anything like that. However, Ming Pao did not publish Li's response. It was several days later that Johannes Chan told the media that Arthur Li did not send any middleman to contact him. Yes, this was several days later when he knew exactly what the truth was the moment that Lau's column appeared in Ming Pao. As far as Arthur Li is concerned, Johannes Chan has problems with integrity, and he does not have the interests of Hong Kong University as his top priority.

- (The Stand) Ip Kin-yuen said that he was really pained and disappointed by the decision. He said that it was clear that this was made for political reasons, and that is why he is angry and pained. "Hong Kong University will likely be ruined in the hands of the outside members of the HKU Council." He pointed out that someone has took over personnel appointments through the HKU Council. He doesn't know where HKU's autonomy has gone. He said that Leong Che-hung has sworn that he won't give any accounts and he questioned whether this was the right attitude. He condemned the Council for talking only about privacy and confidentiality while tossing accountability and transparency to the winds.

- Leong Che-hung hinted obliquely that the decision was made for the "long-term interests of the university." What does the codeword stand for?
In the short term, the appointment of Johannes Chan to pro vice chancellor will make Ip Kin-yuen, Billy Fung Jing-en, the Civic Party, etc shut up. That is good.
In the long term, Johannes Chan will be a negative asset to Hong Kong University. First of all, every decision that he makes as pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources will be regarded as political. For example, if he approves the hiring of XXX or the dismissal of YYY, it will be regarded as political. XXX and YYY may decide to file a judicial review just like Ip Kin-yuen threatened to file a judicial review over Johannes Chan's non-appointment. Secondly, Chan's boss is the Provost, for which all four candidates have backed out already. Nobody wants to have a political time bomb ticking under his/her wings. The Provost wouldn't dare reprimand Johannes Chan for any mistakes, because Chan will scream: "Political witch hunt!" If Johannes Chan is appointed, they may never be able to hire a Provost. Thirdly, if Johannes Chan is appointed, he will always be in a weak position because his critics will continue harping away at how he is unqualified but given the job for political reasons. He will never get R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Fourthly, if Johannes Chan is appointed, it will validate the perception that the way to get a promotion is to "use force to stop tyranny" while "feeding misinformation to the press."
- The best example of someone who draws fire no matter what he does is Chief Executive CY Leung. But he pushes on, only because even if he resigns, his replacement will be in the identical situation. For the pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources, they should be able to find a completely apolitical person to fill that job.

- According to Cap 1053 University of Hong Kong Ordinance, the Council shall consist of:

(a) 7 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Chancellor, one of whom shall be appointed the Chairman by the Chancellor;
(b) 6 persons, not being students or employees of the University, appointed by the Council;
(c) 2 persons, not being students or employees of the University, elected by the Court;
(d) the Vice-Chancellor
(e) the Treasurer
(f) 4 full-time teachers elected in accordance with regulations;
(g) 1 full-time employee of the University, not being a teacher, elected in accordance with regulations;
(h) 1 full-time undergraduate student elected in accordance with regulations; and
(i) 1 full-time postgraduate student elected in accordance with regulations.

Why is there only one undergraduate student representative on the Council? Because undergraduate students are there for only four years and have no idea how to run a University (even if they think they do).

Here is the current HKU Council membership (see also SCMP). You can Google their respective qualifications. Example: Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

- The university belongs to its staff, teachers and students. All decisions should be made by these stakeholders and not by any outsiders who know nothing about the university and its regulations.
- Know nothing? Pick any current council member from outside the university and any student now enrolled in the university, and quiz them about university regulations. Who do you think is more likely to know nothing?
- The mental hospital belongs to its staff and patients. All decisions should be made by these stakeholders in a democratic fashion. Since there are far more patients than staff, this means that all decisions in the mental hospital shall be made by the patients.
- No, schools are not mental hospitals. The situation is different.
- Okay, the elementary school belongs to its staff, teachers and students. All decisions should be made by these stakeholders in a democratic fashion. Since there are far more students than staff and teachers, this means that all decision in the elementary school shall be made by the students who are aged 12 or under. Okay?
- The reason why there are outsiders on the Council is that they provide broader perspectives and they have no conflict of interest. For example, Ip Kin-yuen says that the Hong Kong University Ordinance should be amended so that the HKSAR Chief Executive is not the chancellor. Fine, but how do you get there? HKUSU president Billy Fung's method would be to "use force to stop tyranny." That may crack a few skulls (mostly their own plus some of the security guards) but it won't change the ordinance. You can get an opinion from Council member Abraham Razzak, a legislative councilor who can tell you one or two things about legislating.

- Last time, Hong Kong University Students' Union president Billy Fung Jing-en said:"We are going to charge and clash at all of the University Council meetings."

- The Oriental Daily news story says that Hong Kong University Students' Union president Billy Fung has just spilled the beans. He is the undergraduate student member of the HKU Council. So much for privacy and confidentiality. Here are some of the highlights:

Arthur Li said that Johannes Chan does not have a doctorate and is therefore unqualified to be pro vice chancellor. The reason why Johannes Chan got to become the Dean of the Faculty of Law was because he was a 'nice guy.'

Leonie Ki, Margaret Leung Ko and Benjamin Hung said that the personal integrity of Johannes Chan is dubious because he jumped the gun to claim that he was the sole candidate recommended by the selection committee. As senior managers in large corporations, they would not hand the job over to Chan.

Lo Chung-mau was bitter that Johannes Chan did not show sympathy to him when he got injured in the Council meeting in July. Lo also said that Chan's academic accomplishments are worse than assistant professors.

Former Lingnan University president Edward Chen said that Johannes Chan rarely publishes in academic journals and he wonders if his academic accomplishments are as good as other pro vice chancellors.

Martin Liao said that Google showed that Johannes Chan's academic articles have been searched for only four times in the last five years.

Rosanna Wong said if Johannes Chan is appointed, it would be cause great rifts within Hong Kong University.

Billy Fung said that he was willing to be criticized for violating the confidentiality rules, and he apologized for it.

Video: Resistance Live Media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk9nHxN1TDI

- (SCMP)

- Former Lingnan University president Edward Chen was contacted by Ming Pao for Billy Fung's quotation of him. Chen said that he did not say that. He seemed to imply that Fung was not paying attention to the content of the discussion. "He did not even know who said what."
- (Wen Wei Po) Another source said that what Edward Chen said was that Johannes Chan seldom published in academic journals. Furthermore, Johannes Chan was not evaluated after he was promoted to professorship in 1998 so that there is no up-to-date objective assessment of his academic qualifications at this time. So there is a discrepancy with Billy Fung's presentation of what Edward Chen said.
- Billy Fung said that he was merely reading from the notes that he took during the meeting, and he does not know for sure it was Edward Chen who said it. Is that fair?
- (Speakout HK @YouTube)
0:25 Radio host: Edward Chen did not say that (Johannes Chan) did not have a doctorate. He said that maybe you weren't paying attention while you listened.
0:30 Fung: I was taking notes. When each person spoke, I jotted down notes. I was listening to what they were saying. Maybe while I was jotting ... I did not make an audio recording ... I cannot go back and check whether he said it. But when I was jotting at the time, this was what I jotted down.

- Martin Liao was quoted by Billy Fung as saying that he used Google Scholar to check up on Johannes Chan and found that his articles were "searched" for only four times over the last five years. Internet users immediately checked and found that Johannes Chan was "cited" more than four hundred times over the last five years. This proves that Martin Liao does not know how to use Google Scholar and therefore Johannes Chan should be appointed vice pro chancellor. Eh, the alternate scenario is that Billy Fung's English was poor and he knows nothing about Google Scholar such that he took "cite" to mean "search" and he jotted down "four" instead of "four hundred." Is that what Edward Chen is hinting at?

- (Wen Wei Po) On DBC radio, another council member Cheung Kie-chung said that Lo Chung-mau began by declaring that he has no relationship to Johannes Chan (including no contact even after the July meeting when Lo was injured) and therefore he is basing his decision on academic qualifications. This is what Edward Chen meant when he said that Fung "did not even know who said what."

- (EJinsight) "HKU Council member Cheung Kie-chung said he believes that Fung was left with no choice but to make a disclosure to the public, given the lack of explanation surrounding Tuesday’s vote." Well, that's sweet. If people are harboring doubts about whether Fung is telling the truth or merely misunderstanding what was spoken, then maybe the righteous Cheung Kie-chung can hold a press conference to confirm that everything that Fung said was true or otherwise make some corrections. But, no, Cheung Kie-chung has a choice and he has decided to say nothing. This is just typical Yellow Ribbon Zombie behavior -- he tells others to charge at the police while he stays behind because he says that there has to be a division of labor.
- Eight council members voted to support Johannes Chan. Where have the other six gone? They've got the same problem as Cheung Kie-chung.

- The most common reasons used against Johannes Chan are his lack of a doctorate, his poor academic citation rate and, most importantly, his mishandling of the secret donation to Benny Tai. It seems incredible that none of the council members mentioned this. More likely, one or more of them did, but Billy Fung cannot mention this. It is possible to come up with a defense of the lack of a doctorate because not every pro vice chancellor does; it is possible get cronies to stand up for his academic publication record; but there is no defense for the mishandled donation. Therefore, it has to be deep-sixed.

- Suppose that Billy Fung quoted correctly what the council members said and suppose that we don't even worry about the incompleteness of Fung's quotations. What were these people saying? They talked about Chan's lack of a doctorate, lack of publications in academic journals, not showing sympathy to the injured council members, etc. These council members appear to have very different reasons to vote against Chan. But in what way or manner do these reasons add up to "Beijing's interference"? In what way do these reasons add up to "the death of self-determination/autonomy at the university"?

- Billy Fung said that he had nothing personal to gain but he wanted to protect the students' right to know. Fine. So why is he only quoting the council members who appear to oppose the candidate. What about the others? For example, what (if anything) did Vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson say? Shouldn't we know where he stands? Why is the selective release of partial information protecting the students' right to know?

- (Wen Wei Po) Billy Fung said that one criticism of Johannes Chan was that he revealed in public that he was selected before the appointment process ended. However, people tracked down later that Wen Wei Po was the first to leak that Johannes Chan had been selected. This is confusing the roles of the press and the principals. On one hand, the press has the freedom to report on what it thinks is important to the public. On the other hand, the principals have the obligation to stay silent about the appointment process. Indeed, the Council kept its side of the bargain and declined to answer all press questions about the pro vice chancellor appointment. Even after the final vote was taken, the Council chairman Leong Che-hung refused even to name the candidate on privacy grounds. But the principal Johannes Chan decided to speak to the press and talk about his candidacy. LegCo chairman Jasper Tsang said: "If a newspaper reported that Chan is the sole candidate, those in the know who support or oppose him should remain silent, or simply answer that no comments will be made on a matter that is being handled. Perhaps the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po does not like Johannes Chan for what he did during Occupy Central. Maybe Wen Wei Po published many articles to denigrate him. But so what? As the saying goes: It takes two to tango. If Johannes Chan and the other Council members refuse to comment, there is no story."

- These Council members were questioning Johannes Chan's academic accomplishments. His supporters (including Billy Fung) seemed to be ill-prepared to mount a defense either because they were unfamiliar with his work (so how could they make a reasoned decision then?) or else they were familiar with it and knew that it was indefensible. Their only recourse is either to "use force to stop tyranny" in the July meeting or else hold a post-meeting press conference to launch a news bomb with misattributed information.

- The diatribe from Billy Fung may just lead investigative reporters to look into the scholarly articles of Johannes Chan and give them a proper appraisal. Not sure that Johannes Chan would appreciate this. Nothing good can come out of this for him, because the fight for the pro vice chancellor job is over and done with already.
- With allies like Billy Fung, who needs enemies?
- This seems to be the message that the discussion forums are getting -- namely, Johannes Chan sucks in academic research. They are wondering if Billy Fung is helping Johannes Chan, or stabbing him in the back?
- The tragedy is that Billy Fung actually believes that he is doing a favor to Johannes Chan.
- (Wen Wei Po) Arthur Li neither confirmed nor disavowed to i-Cable about what Billy Fung attributed to him. He criticized Fung for signing a letter of confidentiality and then betraying the promise. "Should you believe this liar?" Li said that there are many reasons why the contents of the discussion should be kept confidential, because there are some allegations that may have negative impact on the character, reputation and standing of Johannes Chan. In a free discussion, allegations may be raised but also rebutted with counter-arguments. But if you insist on total transparency, it means that everything you say will be used against you.

- Billy Fung said that if the council members are not ashamed of what they did, they should not worry about other people knowing what they said. Fung does not understand what the system of confidentiality is there for. Lo Chung-mau said: "As a university scholar, anonymous academic or job evaluations should be routine. For example, articles that are published in the academic journals, applications to fund research projects, nominating individuals for academic prizes and awards, job promotions/demotions/transfers/hires/dismissals are all based upon this gold standard. Confidentiality allows one to be objective and honest in making the evaluations. Without confidentiality, everybody becomes hypocrites who act as rubber stamps for the sake of friendship and power."
- Yes, there should not be any attorney-client, doctor-patient and priest-penitent privileges. Every discussion with your attorney/priest and all your medical information should be posted on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter. If you don't, it means that you must be ashamed or guilty of something or the other.

- If Johannes Chan is such a lousy candidate, then why is he the only choice for the selection committee? So he must have some good.
- Easily explained. Johannes Chan and his cohorts have turned the whole affair into such a stinking mess that no one else would put themselves forward for that position. Thus, Johannes Chan was the only applicant. What else could the selection committee do?

- Billy Fung said that he will accept the consequences of his news bombs. This sounds exactly like the kind of rubbish that Alex Chow was spouting: "You break the law, but as long as you surrender yourself afterwards, you will have completed the loop for the rule of law." Except one year later Alex Chow hasn't surrender himself and completed the loop yet. Billy Fung has no intentions to either. He will continue to sit on the Council and read out the minutes to the press afterwards. If he gets booted off, he will cry POLITICAL PERSECUTION!
- Who is going to hire Billy Fung when he graduates? He has shown himself to be thoroughly untrustworthy. If he goes with you to meet with a client, he is going to post what everybody said on his Facebook with negative annotations!
- Not even pan-democratic legislators would hire him as an aide. How can you let him get close to any secrets? You go and have a lunch with a government official, and nothing really happens. When you get back to the office, you find that the lunch date is already known all over Facebook. You ask him, Why? He'll tell you that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have to worry that everybody knows.
- Apple Daily can hire him for their paparazzi team. He seems to have no moral scruples and knows how to rant on about the people's right to know and the freedom of expression.

- Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki said that the confidentiality system isn't everything and should not override the quest for justice. I'm all for it. So why doesn't Kwok Ka-ki ask Occupy Central trio member Chu Yiu-ming who gave him that secret donation? So far Chu has been hiding behind the shield of confidentiality! Don't we the people have the right to know just who was funding Occupy Central?
- Johannes Chan got reprimanded for that affair too, so he presumably knows the identity of that secret donor. If there is "nothing to be ashamed of" (in the words of Billy Fung), Chan should tell us who that was.
- While we are at it, we the people also want to know the financial details for Alliance to Support Democratic Patriotic Movements in China, Occupy Central, Scholarism, etc. All these organizations solicit donations from the public by street booths and other means. None have divulged where the money came from or went to. We the People have the right to know.
- (Oriental Daily) April 6, 2015. The Federation of Students objected to the recommendation that those university students who have defaulted on their student loans have the information forwarded to the credit bureaus. The amount of default loan is $200 million over the past 3 years. Well, why have they suddenly embraced confidentiality? If the defaulting students have nothing to be ashamed of, they shouldn't violate the public's right to know who the deadbeats are.

- (i-Cable) October 2, 2015.

Because Billy Fung named the council members one by one and detailed what they said, he has become a target of criticisms. Fung said that he had decided to disclose what the council members say on the day before the meeting. He also assessed the potential consequences.

Afterwards, Billy Fung was denounced for being a "liar" and for violating the confidentiality rules. Fung counterattacked by saying that if he was lying, then he would not be violating confidentiality. He said that the worst case scenario was that he would have to withdraw from the school.

Fung said that he was still seeking legal advice. Once the council makes its decision, he would file for a judicial review as an individual and he will apply for legal aid to pay the bills.

- If he told the truth, then he broke the confidentiality rule. If he lied, then he is a liar. Either way, he has an integrity problem. What kind of student would back himself into this dilemma? Is this the typical HKU student?

- Usually you play the coin tossing gain with "Heads I win, tails you lose." Billy Fung plays "Heads you win, tails I lose." He is a true gentleman.

- If he told the truth, then he may get kicked off the Council or even the university. If he lied, some council members may file libel suits. So which is worst for him?

- Half the time he told the truth, and half the time he told lies. He broke confidentiality and he is a big fucking liar too. So he gets kicked out of school and then sued for libel.

- Fung wants to apply for legal aid in order to file for a judicial review. DLLM! I as a taxpayer will have to pay the bill! Fucking parasite!

... digging an ever deeper hole for himself each day.

- (Passion Times) September 30, 2015.

Cheung Ka-man (Apple Daily): Fung Jing-en, do not think that just because you did something heroic means that you can look down on everybody. If it is alright if you don't respond. But saying "I feel that it is a common courtesy to show your telephone number when you call" and "I only speak to XXX and YYY over at Apple Daily" really makes people laugh. When those two colleagues of mine call you, you don't fucking reply either? These are unusual times, so I don't want to fucking scold you. But I need to say this: "I fuck your mother, please don't be so naive, University Student, Student Union president!"

Melody Chan (Occupy Central Secretariat): He worked on withdrawing from the Federation of Students, but he won't work on a class strike now.
Cheung Ka Man: So it is.

Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok (former HKUSU president): Everybody, I understand that it is important to have polite manners with others. But I hope that you can appreciate the pressure he has been under over the past half year. Each time that a reporter calls, it is not one independent call. Several dozen more calls will be coming in. Sometimes he becomes a machine that answers the calls from reporters. Over the past couple of days, he finds it hard to even attend work meetings. I apologize on his behalf to everybody for not being thoroughly considerate. I hope that you can appreciate that. Even though he is elected by the students, he is responsible for everything in the Student Union. In the end, public relations should take the majority of the Student Union president's time. I think that he must be vexed now.

Cheung Ka Man: To the Queen, it's okay. The peers and I are alike. We will just mumble something on our Facebook. When we write our articles, we won't target his lack of manners.

- (HKFP) Hero or traitor? Student leader Billy Fung receives mixed reactions for HKU Council leak. October 2, 2015.

The University of Hong Kong Student Union president Billy Fung Jing-en has come under fire from members of the HKU Council for disclosing confidential information regarding the appointment of the pro-vice-chancellor.

On Tuesday Fung breached the Council’s confidentiality rules by publicly revealing the reasoning behind the Council’s controversial decision to reject Johannes Chan Man-mun’s candidature for the University’s pro-vice-chancellor.

Council member and HKU professor Lo Chung-mau released a strongly-worded statement accusing Fung of using “dishonest means to achieve his aim”, RTHK reported.

Earlier, Council chairman Edward Leong Che-hung had also issued a statement condemning “the deplorable action” by Fung for showing “disregard and disrespect for… the Council member’s pledge of confidentiality.” He said the Council would consider sanctions against Fung.

Fung, however, continues to defend his decision. He told the RTHK that the open and transparent operation of the Council is more valuable than the confidentiality clause. He also said that his revelation was not for personal gain but was in-keeping with the right of the students to know the Council’s reasoning.

Others are applauding Fung’s move as a heroic one.

In a China File blog post, Oxford University doctoral student and China commentator Samson Yuen said that if it was not for Fung’s “heroic” leak, the public would have been kept from the Council’s “anti-intellectual” reasoning behind Chan’s rejection.

Chairman of HKU’s Academic Staff Association Dr. William Cheung Sing-wai told The Stand News he is proud of Fung for speaking up for righteousness.

- (EJinsight) October 8, 2015.

A maverick businessman has offered an employment contract worth HK$480,000 to Billy Fung in a show of support for the HKU Student Union president after the recent controversy related to the university governing council meeting.

After Fung revealed to the public what transpired during the Sept. 29 HKU Council meeting, when pro-establishment members blocked law dean Johannes Chan’s appointment as the pro-vice-chancellor, the student leader faced criticism for breaking the council’s confidentiality arrangement.

Some people from the pro-Beijing camp even said that Fung wouldn’t be able get any job in the future as employers would see him as a person who can’t be trusted.

Now, to disprove such critics, Kwok Shiu-ming, who has various business interests and ventures including Man Fook Jewelry, has announced that he is willing to offer a two-year contract to Fung with a monthly salary of HK$20,000 anytime within the next three years.

Kwok said he was furious when he learnt about the personal attacks on Fung, saying that they were akin to what happened during the Cultural Revolution in China. “Our society should not be like that,” Kwok said. “Authorities are trying to bully an ordinary citizen. There must be justice in society.” “When a society catches an unhealthy trend, we need to reverse that with a healthy trend,” the businessman told independent online media outlet SocREC.

Kwok, who is not to be confused with Sa Sa chairman Kwok Siu-ming who shares a similar Chinese name, has now hit back at the critics, calling Arthur Li “rubbish” and challenging Li Tien-ming for a public debate.

A man of mystery and miracle, Kwok had a PhD in Buddhism and founded an international exchange of Sakyamuni cultural centre. Once a boxer and also a car mechanic, Kwok evolved into a businessman and launched multiple ventures. In 2010, he stood for election in the Kowloon West geographical constituency but secured just 91 votes, ending his ambitions of becoming an independent legislator.

On a Buddhism website, he has been described as a man with a crew cut who drove a Morris Minor in the 50s playing Indian music and wearing a 20s Rolex watch. Going by his latest pronouncements, Kwok still hasn’t lost his rebellious streak.

- HKU Department of Education associate professor Li Hui: "You (Johannes Chan) have no doctorate and no genuine academic accomplishments. We can deal with that. But while you were the Dean of the Faculty of Law, you led the way to encourage Occupy Central, you mishandled donations, you destroyed the rule of law and you violated university regulations. We find that hard to accept. We cannot believe that you are qualified or that you have the nerve to still want to become the university pro vice chancellor. Even if you get the job, how can you convince the masses?"

- (The Stand) The 12 Council members and the Council president Leong Che-hung were implementing a political assignment from the Chinese Communists and the 689 government. They gave up academic freedom and institutional autonomy. They damaged the basic interests of Hong Kong University. The students, staff, teachers and alumni have no choice but to fight till the very end for themselves, their alma mater and Hong Kong society as a whole. The most direct action is for the students to stop attending classes and the teachers to stop teaching. Let us boycott the Council until as such time as the decision is retracted. Hong Kong University affairs is not just for Hong Kong University people. It is actually an extension of the Umbrella Movement. The democratic movement did not end with the clearance of the Occupy sites. As long as the deep-layer social contradictions are resolved, they will explode out at various levels. The battle will continue until we attain the final victory.
If we cannot occupy the streets, let us occupy the University of Hong Kong.

- CY Leung must be saying: "Yes, go ahead. Stop attending classes and stop teaching, as if I care. Ouch, this is really hurting me ... NOT! Go ahead make my day."

- If the students go on strike by not attending classes, they may get failing grades and thus postpone their graduation. But that would be something that they choose to do themselves as adults. If the teachers go on strike by not holding class, some student is going to file a civil lawsuit to recover tuition fees and/or lost time. E.g. "I'm in my sixth year of undergraduate studies and I am only two courses short of graduation. I've paid my tuition fee of $50,000 for the year already. I plan to go overseas and study Buddhism next year. But now the teachers refuse to hold classes!? I am screwed!"

- The student/teacher strike is consistent with the philosophical approach of Occupy Central. That is to say, you hold the entire student/teacher population (especially your own selves) as hostage in order to extract something that your small group wants from the authorities.

- Another similarity with Occupy Central is that the tactic dominates over any goals (their definitions and realistic assessment of the likelihood of success). Do you think a student/teacher strike will enable Johannes Chan to become the pro vice chancellor? Or make the Legislative Council amend the law so that the HKSAR Chief Executive does not automatically become the chancellor of all eight universities? Or make the University Council be elected completely from among the staff, teachers and students by genuine universal suffrage without any outside members? What are the chances of these goals being realized by student/teacher strikes?

- The biggest similarity with Occupy Central will be the end result. After months of student/teacher strike, the silent majority is going to explode in anger, speak out and stop this type of thing from then on. Except for a few diehards, the participants will pretend that they have nothing to do with the strikes.

- (HKG Pao) October 2, 2015. Former HKUSU magazine Undergrad deputy chief editor Chan Ah Ming wrote on Facebook: "After the battle last year, I no longer advocate a student class strike. A class strike only hurt yourselves, not them. It does more harm than good. At the next Council meeting, let's have another physical clash to counter-attack the Communist dogs. This is the best option out of very bad options." This drew praises from many radicals: "Magnify it" "The revolution is the main dish, because it is better than small actions without material gains" "Bring tomatoes to throw at the Council members" "Fucking beat up Arthur Li and Lo Chung-mau!" "If only we had beaten up those old bastard Communist dogs so that they have to be hospitalized for a few months ..."

- (Reuters)

... the HKU's president, Peter Mathieson, told Reuters before the vote that he believed pressure on him and others who back Chan's appointment was being "orchestrated". He said his personal emails had been hacked and some had been published in pro-Beijing media. He added that he could not rule out the possibility Beijing was behind the episode.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) September 30, 2015. Hong Kong University president Peter Mathieson believes the pressure on him and others who had backed the appointment of Johannes Chan as pro-vice-chancellor was “orchestrated” by some political elements. Mathieson told Reuters that his personal emails had been hacked and that some had been published in pro-Beijing media. He said he cannot rule out the possibility that Beijing was behind the episode.

- Well, I can rule out the possibility that Beijing is hiding underneath my bed -- I just checked. I am being facetious here, but what grown-up can tell the media that? This is the same as the factually challenged fantasies from the poison pen of Kevin Lau or the $100 million man Leung Kwok-hung -- if Peter Mathieson has a shred of evidence (such as a midnight phone call from the bogeyman CY Leung), please say so.
- Interesting. You cannot rule out the possibility of XXX. Just how can you rule out that possibility? Maybe Xi Jinping gave you a call and assured you, but can you trust him? Maybe the CIA/MI6 told you that their surveillance did not reveal anything, but that only means the Commies are even smarter? There is in fact no way for you to rule out the possibility of XXX.

- (RTHK) As a HKU graduate, Martin Lee feels ashamed and humiliated by the outcome. With respect to Vice-chancellor Peter Matheison's disclosure that he could not rule out the possibility of Beijing behind the affair, Martin Lee said that Johannes Chan would be pro vice-chancellor already but for Beijing's interference.
If not for Beijing's interference, Martin Lee would be President of the Hong Kong Republic already.
If not for Beijing's interference, Jimmy Lai would be operating Next TV in Hong Kong already
If not for Beijing's interference, Hong Kong would have vindicated the June 4th 1989 movement already.
If not for Beijing's interference, [Please fill in the blanks with your own wish list; don't worry if you have no evidence because that is not a requirement]

- (SCMP) "Meanwhile, HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson clarified a Reuters report that quoted him as saying he could not rule out Beijing was behind the rejection of Chan. He said last night the interview was done on August 4, and he was talking about his email account being hacked, since he "did not know who" did it." Dr. Mathieson, welcome to the Hong Kong world of media distortion!
[Note: The above is put in bold red because it did not seem to have been picked up by other media outlets.]

- Every word that Reuters reported was accurately transcribed as spoken by Peter Mathieson, except it is being placed in a different context for reporting purposes!

- I am sure that Reuters will be happy to issue a non-apology apology: "We are sorry that certain users misunderstood."

- (SCMP) The university’s vice-chancellor has declined to say whether Beijing was behind the council’s decision. Speaking after the official National Day reception this morning in Wan Chai, Professor Peter Mathieson stated, “The council made the decision based on a thorough debate of all the issues.” When asked whether he believed Beijing interfered with the council members’ deliberations, Mathieson said only that council members could speak for themselves. “Everybody has their own reason,” he said. “The principle should be that decisions are made in the best interest of the university, and that’s certainly the principle I bring to all my decisions.”

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 1, 2015. In an interview with Reuters published on Tuesday, Mathieson reportedly said back in August that he believed pressure on him and others who back Chan’s appointment was orchestrated. He also said that the contents of his email had been published by state media and it was possible “Beijing was behind the episode.” However, Mathieson told Ming Pao on Wednesday that the interview took place before the Tuesday HKU Council meeting. He said the contents were taken out of context. He also said he was not sure who was behind it and that he could not exclude any possibilities, but he was not deliberately criticising or pointing the finger at anyone.

- (SCMP) In a statement, Johannes Chan said he had no further comment, now that the decision was made. "This is not an issue of personal gain or loss, but one about the core values of academic freedom and institutional autonomy," Chan said. He called on HKU supporters to keep safeguarding those values and not to feel frustrated.
- Thus begins the Johannes Chan watch to see how many days elapse before he files a judicial review. He will not be ignored. Addendum: He was only able to hold off for less than 12 hours as he turned up on two radio programs the next morning. Tsk tsk tsk.

- On July 27 2015, Johannes Chan told the Hong Kong Economic Journal in an interview that he was informed by the HKU Selection Committee in December 2014 that they will recommend him for the job of pro vice chancellor. The start date was set at March 17 2015, and all the terms and conditions in the contract have been agreed upon. According to the Cap 1053 Hong Kong University Ordinance Section 12 Officers and teachers, their appointment, powers, duties and emoluments Article (6) The Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Treasurer, the Registrar, the Librarian, and the other officers designated as such by the statutes shall be appointed by the Council in accordance with the statutes." That is to say, the power to appoint the pro-vice-chancellor lies solely with the Council and nobody else. So who on the selection committee is telling Johannes Chan that he has got the job ready to start on March 17 2015 with all the terms and conditions being finalized already? Just on March 4, 2015 Vice-Chancellor Peter Mathieson said that the selection committee has not forwarded its recommendations to the Council. If Johannes Chan has some familiarity with Cap 1053 Hong Kong University Ordinance, he must surely know that the person is acting way beyond his authority. If Honorary Senior Counsel Johannes Chan is not familiar with that piece of legislation, then maybe he should not think about become pro vice-chancellor at that university.

- (Bastille Post) The Third Kind of Opinion. September 30, 2015.

At a dinner with friends, the Yellow Ribbons and Blue Ribbons began to argue with each other just like they did during Occupy Central (...). At this time, one person who seldom touched political subjects suddenly interjected: "If this keeps on, what will happen to Hong Kong University in the future?"

This friend is a HKU alumnus. He graduated more than 30 years ago. His daughter is in Form 5 of an elite school and considering whether she should apply to HKU to do a double major in Business Administration and Law. She is rated as capable of getting 34 marks in the DGSE and therefore can qualify for that program. But her father said that HKU is increasingly politicized and surpassed by UST in the most recent QS ranking. The daughter is vexed, because she does not like the politicized environment of HKU. She asked her dad whether she should be going instead to study law in England instead.

My friend said that law schools in England are just as good, but there is a separate problem. In recent years, the legal sector in Hong Kong has protected itself by requiring graduates from law schools in England to take a PCLL course before they are allowed to intern. Previously, those who graduated from law schools in England are automatically allowed to intern. Since PCLL places are limited, this may be a risk.

My friend said that he is a HKU alumnus and his daughter is a potential applicant. As such, they qualify as so-called "stakeholders". But does anyone care about what they think? He said that everybody likes to do politics nowadays, so that HKU has been a political institution with quarrels breaking out daily. Everybody including the University Council, the University president, the staff, the teachers and the students don't seem to care about the university rankings or recruiting the best and brightest. My friend said that if his daughter chooses to go to England, she better go there to do AS level at Form 6 in order to get into a good school. In England, the annual expenses are more than $400,000 per year. This is far more than the $50,000 to study at HKU. So it will cost him more than $2 million over five years. He said that universities in Hong Kong are subsidized by the taxpayers. But why do they wind up like this? If these people want to play politics, they ought to go to the Legislative Council.

As my friend went on, he got angrier and angrier. The Yellow Ribbons and the Blue Ribbons at the table dared not speak, because nobody knew how to answer him. Before he left, he reminded me to write down what he said and publish it, because there are many people like himself in the silent majority. They are all sick and tired of the endless politicking. They want to lead normal lives without politics driving everything. Unfortunately for them, things are otherwise as they find by reading any newspaper. Their "third kind of opinion" is completely ignored. He only wants to the university to stop politicking and do their academic work well.

- (SCMP) Doctorate not that important for HKU managerial post, says committee member in Johannes Chan case. October 1, 2015.

A member of the search committee that recommended Johannes Chan Man-mun for a pro-vice-chancellor's post at the University of Hong Kong has said professional experience and standing is more important than a doctorate degree.

As the committee's recommendation was rejected by HKU's governing council on Tuesday night, the member, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the council's considerations "differed" from the selection body. During the meeting, pro- government members who opposed Chan's appointment were said to have cited reasons including Chan having no PhD degree and not publishing enough in international journals. "This is a managerial post. We put more weighting on the managerial skills than academic qualifications," the member said. "For professional faculties such as law, medicine and dentistry, professional experience and standing count more than publications in journals."

International and local legal scholars came to Chan's defence. Yash Ghai, an internationally renowned public law scholar and an emeritus professor at HKU, said it was "absurd" to say Chan was not qualified for the job because he had no PhD, as some of the world's leading law professors and scholars did not have doctorate degrees. To say Chan seldom published in journals was a "deliberate attempt to vilify him", Ghai said, noting he had published in well known journals locally and overseas.

Chan has a 30-page list of publications on his HKU webpage that includes books, articles, conference papers and research projects. One of the recent works, Law of the Hong Kong Constitution, which he co-edited and co-authored, was hailed by former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang as "a seminal work" on the Basic Law.

Cheryl Saunders, a laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, added that many senior public law scholars had published major books instead of undertaking PhD studies. Cambridge University professor David Feldman, who does not have a PhD, said it was a mistake to regard the international ranking of journals as reliable indications of the quality of the work published in them. Michael Ramsden, associate law dean at Chinese University, pointed to the fact that Chan was the only legal academic in town who was made an honorary senior counsel, having argued in landmark cases on constitutional law and human rights. He said it "speaks volumes" about Chan's contribution to the field.

- (Wen Wei Po) October 1, 2015.

According to Section 31A CAP 159 Legal Practioners Ordinance,

(4) The Chief Justice may, after consultation with the chairman of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society, appoint a barrister as honorary Senior Counsel if he

(a) is a member of the academic staff of a faculty or school of law of a university in Hong Kong; or
(b) holds office as Director of Legal Aid or as a Deputy Director or Assistance Director of Legal Aid; or
(c) holds office as Official Receiver or an office specified in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6); or
(d) holds office as Director of Intellectual Property or an office specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Director of Intellectual Property (Establishment) Ordinance (Cap 412), and who has in, in the Chief Justice's opinion, provided distinguished service to the law of Hong Kong.

(5) The appointment of a person as a Senior Counsel in an honorary capacity does not confer on the person a right to act as an advocate in proceedings before the courts of Hong Kong and will not accord precedence before the courts.

Chan's supporters said that the fact that he is a honorary senior counsel showed that he is "qualified" to be pro vice chancellor at the University of Hong Kong. According to senior barrister Devon Sio Chan-in, a honorary senior counsel is a honorific title compared to a senior counsel who had to have been a senior barrister with more than 10 years of experience, in a way that a honorary doctorate is to a doctor of philosophy degree. Sio explained: "Your curriculum vitae is your curriculum vitae, but a honorary senior counsel is a honorific title. Being a honorary senior counsel does not stand for your curriculum vitae." When HKU graduate Rita Fan was asked whether a honorary senior counsel is qualified to be pro vice chancellor, she had to say that she did not know what the term means. Is this an academic degree? Or does this mean that the person is a legal practitioner who specializes in court cases?

Another law practitioner said that the "honorary" before a title makes it a honorific title: "A honorary senior counsel is not a proper senior counsel." A honorific title does not imply academic accomplishment. The universities in Hong Kong have awarded a number of honorary doctorates, in order to praise the accomplishments of those people in their respective domains. "But that does not mean that these people are qualified to teach in universities."

- Jackie Chen is a honorary professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and a honorary Doctor of Science from the Hong Kong Baptist University:

- (Hutchison-Whampoa) Mr Li Ka-shing, GBM, KBE, Commandeur de la Légion d’Honneur, Grand Officer of the Order Vasco Nunez de Balboa and Commandeur de l’Ordre de Léopold, has received Honorary Doctorates from Peking University, the University of Hong Kong, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong, The Open University of Hong Kong, University of Calgary in Canada and Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.

- (City University) Honorary Doctors of Law
John J Swaine (November 1993)
Woo Po-shing (May 1995)
Lu Ping (November 1998)
Henry Tang Ying-yen (November 2003)
Norman Leung Nai-pang (November 2004)
Xiao Yang (November 2004)
Patrick Chan Siu-oi (November 2008)
Simon Ip Sik-on (November 2009)
Andrew Li Kwok-nang (November 2010)
Tsang Yok-sing, Jasper (November 2011)
Hatoyama Yukio (November 2013)

- Top 10 Chinese celebrities with doctor degree
#1. Maggie Cheung (actress), honorary degree from the University of Edinburgh
#2. Zhang Yimou (director), honorary degree for Doctor of Fine Arts from Yale University
#3. Andy Lau (singer/actor), honorary doctorate from the University of New Brunswick, Canada although he was only a secondary school graduate.
#4. Jackie Chan (actor), honorary Doctor of Science from the Hong Kong Baptist University and honorary fellow of the Hong Kong Academy of Performing Arts
#5. Lisa Wong (actress), honorary Doctor of Letters from the City University of Hong Kong
#6. Wong Kar-wai (director), honorary doctorate from the Open University of Hong Kong
#7. Chow Yun-fat (actor), honorary doctorate from the City University of Hong Kong
#8. Ang Lee (director), honorary doctorate from the Taiwan Art University
#9. John Woo (director), honorary doctorate from Hong Kong Baptist University
#10. Eric Tsang (actor), honorary doctorate from University of Dayton in Keladuoha.

- Johannes Chan is the only individual in Hong Kong who was given the honorary senior counsel title. Isn't that proof enough of his exceptionalism?
- Ahem, every other senior counsel earned it the hard way by working for decades. Johannes Chan got the honorary version through some cronies in the Bar Association/Law Society without having to work for it.

- (Bastille Post) A lot of universities hire pro vice chancellors with no doctorates mainly because these people are hired for their ability to raise funds from the business community. Very often, these people are hired with contracts that stipulate the expected amount of donations. If they failed to reach quota, their contracts will not renewed. Johannes Chan would clearly not be expected to fulfill this kind of function.
In addition, the university rankings often include the percentage of doctorates among its teaching staff as one criterion. Therefore they need to have a good reason before they will hire a pro vice chancellor without a doctorate.

- (EJinsight) October 2, 2015.

Is a doctoral degree necessary for the post of university pro vice chancellor?

The question arose after the governing council of the University of Hong Kong voted on Tuesday night to reject the search committee’s recommendation to appoint former law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources.

Billy Fung Jing-en, president of the HKU Students’ Union and a council member, told media that during the deliberations, council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung said that Chan had no doctoral degree and therefore was not qualified to be a pro vice chancellor.

Fung quoted Li as saying that Chan could have been appointed dean of law just because he was a nice guy.

Going by Li’s stated reason for turning down Chan suggests that his being the only “honorary senior barrister” in Hong Kong is still not enough to qualify him for the post.

Chinese University professor Simon Shen Xu-hui, who specializes in international relations, indicated in a Facebook post that it is ridiculous to use a doctoral degree as a requirement for the post.

Shen cited the case of Chi’en Mu, who was considered one of the greatest historians and philosophers of China in the 20th century.

In 1949, he co-founded New Asia College, which later became the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and became one of its first principals. Ch’ien’s highest educational level was only junior high school.

In fact, from 2013 to this year, only four out of six current or former deputy vice chancellors and pro vice chancellors are doctoral degree holders, according to research by Ming Pao Daily.

In 2003, Chan said in a media interview that he did study for a doctoral degree in the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1988, but he later decided to give it up because he wanted to spend more time helping people understand legal problems in Hong Kong society that was then facing multiple issues regarding its return to Chinese rule.

Chan, who has published a number of books and theses and represented many famous legal cases besides teaching, said he has never regretted his decision.

On Thursday, Chan told Commercial Radio Hong Kong that a doctoral degree is not that important for someone in the legal profession, citing some judges in the Court of Final Appeal as examples.

- The supporters of Johannes Chan cite the case of Martha Minow, who is Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School. Here is what is said about the education background of Martha Minow:

After completing her undergraduate studies at the University of Michigan, Minow received a master’s degree in education from Harvard and her law degree from Yale. She clerked for Judge David Bazelon of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States. She joined the Harvard Law faculty as an assistant professor in 1981, was promoted to professor in 1986, was named the William Henry Bloomberg Professor of Law in 2003, became the Jeremiah Smith Jr., Professor of Law in 2005, and became the inaugural Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor in 2013.

Martha Minow does not have a doctorate. Therefore doctorates cannot be all that important. Right?

But you should take a look at this phrase: "She clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States." That changes everything. (Reference: The influence of the Supreme Court clerk at the SCOTUSblog). It means that many people know that Martha Minow was a central figure in many of the major decisions of the Supreme Court. So who did Johannes Chan clerk for? Nobody. In summary, you don't have to have a doctorate to become pro vice chancellor. But you need to have other accomplishments that are equivalent to or surpassing a doctorate. If you want to make the case for Johannes Chan, you cannot just say "Many other Law School deans don't have doctorates". That is just negating a negative; you need to accentuate the positives.

- From the Hong Kong University Department of Surgery staff list: Professor Lo Chung-mau, Chair Professor and Head of Department, MBBS(HK), MS, FRCS(Edin), FRACS, FACS, FHKAM(Surg), FCSHK. Well, this bloke doesn't have a doctorate (either doctor of philosophy (PhD) or doctor of Science (ScD)). All he has is a bachelor and a master, plus a bunch of fellow titles handed over by cronies. So how did he get to become a Chair Professor and Head of Department? By having cronies in high places, of course.
- Oh, on his way to cronyism, his papers have more than 20,000 citations and he carried out the world's first double liver transplant recently.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong liver transplant expert Lo Chung-mau is a hero wrongly condemned as a villain. By Alex Lo. March 21, 2016.

We Hongkongers love to beat ourselves up. But every now and then, it’s worth pondering things that we do right – like having one of the world’s great liver transplant team of doctors at Queen Mary Hospital. But for the efforts of Professor Lo Chung-mau and his team, a 39-year-old Canadian liver patient and father of three would have certainly died.

Mike Watson suffered from a serious liver condition that could kill in three months. However, his doctors in Canada told him he would have to wait six months for a transplant. The waiting list was a virtual death sentence.

But his enterprising wife, Lisa, started researching treatments around the world and found out about Hong Kong’s pioneering transplant expertise. “There are a lot of people willing to become a donor, but the doctors in Canada told us Mike was too sick to undergo such surgery,” Lisa said. “They wouldn’t even give us a survival rate.”

Lo’s team was able to transplant a substantial portion of Lisa’s liver to her husband. Both have an excellent chance at recovery.

Lo is a pioneer in performing transplants from live donors. His expertise is recognised around the world.

People like Lo are our city’s treasures, but he is not being celebrated as such these days. Instead, trolls on the internet have attacked him mercilessly, while student activists have hounded him on campus.

This is because he was one of the members of the University of Hong Kong’s council that voted against hiring Johannes Chan Man-mun as the school’s pro-vice-chancellor for research and personnel last year.

Being a council member for a man of his scientific stature is clearly a thankless task. Professor Yuen Kwok-yung, HKU’s renowned virus hunter, saw the Red Guards were coming and wisely quit before the whole thing went out of hand.

Lo pressed on out of a sense of duty and was rewarded with public denunciation and character assassination. But you could hardly accuse him of being a Beijing stooge, when he was one of the least political persons on the council.

These days, there is no point for capable and meritorious people to take up public office because those little Red Guards will go after them unless they toe the “correct” political line.

- (Oriental Daily, October 4, 2015) In order to retaliate against Lo Chung-mau for whatever it was that he did, Internet users have ferreted out the detailed information on his daughter, including her name, her university and her department, her telephone number, even her ex-boyfriend. She has immediately deleted her Facebook account.
- Too late for the ex-boyfriend ... He has only himself to blame for having made a poor choice.

- They say that outsiders outnumber insiders on the 22-person university council and therefore the university has lost its autonomy. But all that happened in 2003.

(HKU) A three-person review panel, comprising Professor John Niland (former Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of New South Wales), Professor Neil L. Rudenstine (former President of Harvard University) and The Hon. Justice Andrew Li (the Chief Justice of Hong Kong who had been the Chairman of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (now UGC) for many years) was established by the University to review its governance and management structure.

The panel submitted its report (the Fit for Purpose report) to the Council in February 2003, with 17 recommendations on means of enhancing the University governance and management structure and procedures.

All recommendations in the Fit for Purpose report were accepted by the Council of the University for implementation in 2003. These recommendations include the reduction of the size of the University's governance bodies, the reorganization of the management team, the establishment of full-time appointed Faculty Dean positions, the introduction of the trusteeship concept in membership of the Council, student and staff memberships on Council, changes to the staff grievances procedures, clearer definitions of the role of the governance bodies, improvement of communications, and streamlining the University committee structure.

Specifically, the University Council was reduced from the previous 54 persons to between 18 and 24 persons, and the ratio of outsider-insider went from 3:2 to 2:1 so that more outsiders can provide independent and objective views to improve governance. CY Leung or the Commies have nothing to do with this. If you want a meaningful discussion of this issue, please go read the 2003 Fit for Purpose report first. The panel was formed because the University of Hong Kong was seriously lagging behind international norms in governance and management structure. The reasoning is that insiders tend to be myopic and conservative (that is, they accept the existing structure as natural, they do not see the need or possibility for change and they will react reflexively to protect their own existing interests). If you want to move to reduce the proportion of outsiders, you better think hard first about the governance/managements problems that had existed before 2003.

- Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2015-2016

#26 National University of Singapore (#25 in 2015)
#42 Peking University (#48 in 2015)
#43 University of Tokyo (#23 in 2015)
#44 University of Hong Kong (#43 in 2015)
#47 Tsinghua University (#49 in 2015)
#55 Nanyang Technological University
#59 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
#85 Seoul National University
#88 Kyoto University
#116 Pohang University of Science and Technology
#138 Chinese University of Hong Kong
#167 National Taiwan University
#201-250 City University of Hong Kong
#201-250 Fudan University
#201-250 Hong Kong Polytechnic University
#201-250 University of Science and Technology of China
#201-250 Tohoku University
#201-250 Tokyo Institute of Technology
#251-300 Korea University
#251-300 Nanjing University
#251-300 National Tsing Hua University
#251-300 Osaka University

The trend for the rank of the University of Hong Kong (Wikipedia for historical data):
#21: 2010-2011
#34: 2011-2012
#35: 2012-2013
#43: 2013-2014
#43: 2014-2015
#44: 2015-2016

Yes, we need the students to quit going to class and the teachers to quit teaching so as to raise the rankings.
- What university in the world would let its students charge into a Council meeting and falsely imprison those members who appear to hold dissident views? If there was a Democracy Index for World Universities, the University of Hong Kong would shoot through the top of the charts.

(Harbour Times) December 21, 2015.

According to the Times Higher Education’s online World Universities Ranking Tables, the past six years have seen a precipitous decline Hong Kong Universities statistics compared to 2011 when HKU was amongst the 21 best universities in the world. In the recently published 2016 rankings, the university dropped 23 places on the list to 44.

That wasn’t the worst. Hong Kong University hit the 34th place in 2012, the 35th place in 2013, 43rd in 2014 leading to the all times low, 51st position in 2015. For all six years the number of students enrolled in the university remained 19,835, the percentage of international students 38% and the student:staff ratio 17.60% remain unchanged.

From these rankings, analysis of the statistics shows the impact of the 2014 developments on Hong Kong University.

From 2013 to 2014 the University of Hong Kong noted a 21.43% drop in teaching, 1.71% drop in the international outlook category and a 18,63% drop in the research sector. The lists did note a positive change in 2015 in comparison of the 2014 academic year with 5.85% increase of citations, 3.86% increase of research, 1.99% increase of the international outlook, 0.81% for teaching but the industry income further dropped 1,58% more leading to 56%.

From 2014 to 2016 the teaching ranking (based on the reputational survey (15%), the staff-to-student ratio (2.25%), the doctorate-to-bachelors ratio (2.25%), the doctorates awarded-to-academic-staff ratio (6%) and the institutional income (2.25%; defined below)) dropped 3,91%.

By contrast, through the passage of two academic years the international outlook of staff, students and research (measured by the international-to-domestic-student ratio, the international-to-domestic-staff ratio, and international collaboration) improved 23,29% . The volume, income and reputation of the research conducted by the Hong Kong University (defined by a reputational survey (18%), the research income (6%) and the research productivity (6%)) saw a growth with a raise of 3.02%.

Citations also improved, rising by 13,82% but the greatest growth was noticed in the international outlook sector which grew by 23,29%. The industry income or knowledge transfer, is determined by how much research income an institution earns from industry and the institution’s ability to attract funding in the commercial markets of Hong Kong, contrarily dropped by 6.84%, in comparison with 2014 resulting to a negative -5,34% in 2016. However, the rises were not enough to get the university on its original place and that is why for the 2016 results (published in 2015), the university dropped again to 44th place, 23 spots down since 2011.

The rankings, for all the criticism leveled at them, have some weight. Many students in the competitive global market base their choice of which school to attend based on these rankings. Usually the higher you score, the brighter the minds you attract to your campus, increasing your standing in rankings in a virtuous circle.

Students look at the rankings, but also how they are designed, what the trajectory of particular schools is and how that will impact on their personal future. Mr Lü adds, “I am aware of the recent scandals regarding the appointment of vice-principal in HKU. I believe that the international reputation of the University has been damaged due to the fact that the radical confrontations between the student representatives and the university council staffs have been widely reported by the media. The appointment of vice-principal should be an internal issue of the university and should not require media attention. However, the fact that members of the university cannot properly handle the incident portrays a negative image to the general public. Additionally, media reports unveil that the university’s operations are in fact closely tied with politics. This seriously undermines the academic freedom of the university and confidence of the general public in the quality of education provided by HKU. In the future, I believe this may reduce the number of exchange students choosing HKU, as well as the ability of HKU to attract talent to the university.”

Tang Kai Tsung Louis, a first year Marketing and Finance student at Lancaster University says, “Political factors is one of the criteria of university rating, which means political issues led to the decline in the world university ranking of HKU.”

Hammond Mo, a second year law student at the University of Central Lancashire originally from Hong Kong says, “university ratings can be affected by all different kind of factors and sometimes [the lists] are unreliable. I think the reason of rating drops is last year’s revolution. The students were out protesting, having as a result [the suspension of their learning.]”

Universities as well do take under consideration the lists and the the impressions they create to both domestic and international students they serve and that is why the university of Hong Kong is trying its best to gain the students’ trust, proving that even after the protests, incidents with the appointment of professors democracy will find a way to be achieved in Hong Kong as the statistic analysis of 2016 suggests.

Almost every sector on the list saw major improvements comparing to the aftermath of the 2014 suggesting that although there is a long way until the university is back amongst the academic institutions stars where it was in 2011, a lot of effort is put down since then and this is the highway to excellence.

While students take note of rankings, it appears that they approach them with a grain of salt and do look into the nuances of individual categories and how they may be influenced by recent events. They weigh those factors up against their own criteria to make their decisions of which institute suits them.

So for those who criticise rankings for leading to simplistic decision making, it would seem to be that the decision makers aren’t so simplistic when choosing their career developers after all. Hong Kong University may still have a reputational fighting chance if students like what they see in the details of university rankings.

- (US News & World Report)
2016 rankings
University of Tokyo, #1 in Asia, #31 globally
Peking University, #2 in Asia, #41 globally
National University of Singapore, #3 in Asia, #49 globally
Tsinghua University, #4 in Asia, #59 globally
University of Hong Kong, #5 in Asia, #64 globally
Chinese University of Hong Kong, #11 in Asia, #119 globally
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, #16 in Asia, #142 globally
City University of Hong Kong, #23 in Asia, #187 globally
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, #28 in Asia, #217 globally

(Oriental Daily) University of Hong Kong plunged from #42 to #64 globally, and from #3 to #5 in Asia.

- (Speakout HK @youTUbe)

0:05 Host: What specifically did people from the Hong Kong Institute of Education do in the Hong Kong University incident?
0:10 Hong Kong Institute of Education Student Union president Leung Ho-ching: When they charged into the meeting chamber earlier at Hong Kong University, the Institute of Education people were present. We were there in person to support and assist.
0:35 Host: Did you spontaneously charge inside on your own, as Billy Fung said? Did you organize?
0:38 Leung: No, I mean to say that Institute of Education people were there.
0:41 Host: But you charge inside spontaneously and separately on your own?
0:44 Leung: Spontaneously charged inside. Yes.
0:47 Host: The Hong Kong University Students' Union keep saying that people from the outside should not be interfering with what is happening inside the school. You come from the Institute of Education. You are obviously someone from outside the school.
0:52 Leung: Yes.
0:53 Host: So why are you interfering with them? They don't welcome your interference.
0:55 Leung: Eh, you have to ask the Hong Kong University Students' Union whether they welcome the people of the Institute of Education coming in.
...

- (Times Higher Education) 2014/2015 ranking in Social Sciences

National University of Singapore, #29 in world
University of Hong Kong, #39 in world
Peking University, #42 in world
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, #38 in world
Peking University, #42 in world
Chinese University of Hong Kong, #66 in world
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #81 in world
University of Tokyo, #87 in world
Nanyang Technological University, #92 in world
Tsinghua University, #98 in world

(Times Higher Education) 2015/2016 ranking in Social Sciences

National University of Singapore, #28 in world
University of Hong Kong, #39 in world
Peking University, #52 in world
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, #72 in world
University of Tokyo, #83 in world
Tsinghua University, #93 in world
Nanyang Technological University, #95 in world

- (Oriental Daily) December 22, 2015.

For the 2012/2013 academic year, Hong Kong University ran a surplus of $12.3 billion. For the 2013/2014 academic year, the surplus was $2.5 billion. For the 2014/2015 academic year, the surplus dropped more than 50% to $1.23 billion.

For the 2014/2015 academic year, the contribution from the University Grants Committee, tuition income, research revenues, rent incomes, etc all increased slightly. But donations and investment earnings dropped 55% and 44% respectively. Specifically, donations and benefactions went from $1,626,785,000 to $681,949,000.

Reference: The University of Hong Kong Annual Report

- (Oriental Daily) February 24, 2016.

In 2013/14, private donations to the universities amounted to $2.53 billion. In 2014/15, private donations to the universities fell to $1.83 billion. Among the 8 universities, donations to Baptist University fell by 2%, Institute of Education by 33% and Hnog Kong University by 55%.

[333] The Anniversary Waltz - The Main Show (2015/09/28)

(Oriental Daily) September 28, 2015.

September 28th is the first anniversary of Occupy Central. People Power's Tam Tak-chi said that he will assemble 1,000 persons to charge onto Gloucester Road and Harcourt Road at 5:58pm to occupy two car lanes for 87 minutes. The purpose is to commemorate the 87 tear gas canisters at that moment one year ago at that spot. This afternoon, the police used a megaphone to tell Tam Tak-chi not to incite the crowd, and to tell the crowd not to participate. Soon after 5pm, several dozen persons were assembled near the Admiralty overpass near Connaught Road. They held yellow umbrellas with People Power insignia and they approached the CITIC overpass. In response to the police calls, the crowd booed and gave the finger to the police.

(Oriental Daily) September 28, 2015.

At 5:58pm , the People Power members yelled for the police to open the road. The police warned them not to charge the police line, but some of the demonstrators broke through. As People Power advanced, another person used the megaphone to denounce those "evil-hearted people who pushed others forward to die." The People Power members stood off against the police for 30 minutes at the intersection of Tim Mei Road and Harcourt Road. Eventually Tam Tak-chi told his people to conduct wildcat-style Occupy's instead.
Afterwards Tam Tak-chi said that People Power was not retreating. He was just assessing the situation and judged that the police may use batons and pepper spray if they get on the Harcourt Road. As he spoke, many people cursed him out for "cowardice."
Because of what People Power was doing, the police asked the other groups of people who were holding a moment of silence to retreat up Tim Mei Road.

(Oriental Daily) September 28, 2015.

Many pro-Occupy organizations gathered and held up yellow umbrellas for ten minutes at 5:58pm. The group dispersed at about 7pm. The police said that there were about 1,100 persons around Government Headquarters today. About 180 were anti-Occupy demonstrators, and 920 were pro-Occupy. The organizers said that they did not count the number of attendees but they were satisfied that so many turned up in spite of the suppression. As for People Power's attempt to charge onto Harcourt Road, the organizers said that they were too busy with their own assembly and did not pay attention to these other folks. The organizers said that there needs to be clearly articulated goals for any Occupy activity, otherwise the public won't know why.

Photos: The Umbrella Movement, one year later The Big Picture
Videos:

dbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFCSUqFCm6I
dbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUBZZABP0Dw Oust the Pan-Democrats march
ATV/NOW TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5gkvYqR0UM News reports
INT News Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xlbb4ki0CY Occupy Central Trio Chan Kin-man, Benny Tai and Chu Yiu-ming
INT News Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHc6mJZFQPk Law37 and Joshua Wong
INT News Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBJdRJ-Hiz0
Resistance Live Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDdOU9v3SmY Demonstrators said that they want to charge onto Harcourt Road. All talk and no action.

Internet comments:

- Here is the "slippery road" argument of the day: "Today, they used tear gas against us; tomorrow they will massacre us all." Therefore the man is out here raising his yellow umbrella, as if that helps to stop the massacre to come. I guess the police ought to shoot all these people, because today they are chanting slogans; tomorrow they will be detonating nuclear bombs (or something).

Video: https://www.facebook.com/socrec/videos/1227626740597588/?fref=nf
- Comedy of errors by "Female Long Hair" Lui Yuk-lin: At 7pm after the moment-of-silence assembly was over, Lui attempted to release a sky lantern with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage." The police told her not to, but she ignored them. But before Lui even released the lantern, it had already caught fire. The police had to use a fire extinguisher to put out the fire.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9xqyhcj-0g
- They are just kidding when they said that they didn't care about the numbers. It is true that they don't really care about how many showed up. What they really care about is how much money was donated by the attendees. The organizers aid that they hope to raise $2 million to pay for the legal fees of those are being suppressed politically for their Occupy Central activities.
- When asked about the police estimate of 920 pro-Occupy demonstrators, Civil Human Rights Front convener Daisy Chan said that the people know the truth and will not believe in the police estimate.
- Yes, I wouldn't believe the police either. My primary school has 1,000 students. So how could an Occupy Central assembly have fewer attendees than the student body? No, sorry, I can't accept that.
- There were more people in the 1,200-person Chief Executive election committee, which is therefore more representative than these 920 demonstrators.
- If they hold the police in such contempt, why did they bother to apply for a "no-objection" notice from the police to hold this assembly?
- $2 million donations from 920 persons, which works out to be an average of $2,000 per capita. These must be very wealthy students. But didn't they say that they can't even make a living and that was why they have the special responsibility to take action?
- 920 persons coming from 12 organizations, which works out to be fewer than an average of 80 per organization. What kind of organizations were those?
- Oh, you don't get it, each of the 12 organization has around 700 people. The total was only 920 due to overlapping memberships. Haven't you noticed that they are always the same old faces?
- Lost at sea:
(881903)

Former Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow said that seeing so many resisters gathering again proves that people never give up and everybody has not abandon the goal of getting democracy. He believes that the chances of another Occupy action today are remote, because citizens know that this is not the right moment for a large-scale Occupy action again. He thought that the group that planned to dash out onto the roadway is only making a symbolic gesture.

--- First law of valiant resistance: Never go back and say what might have been if only we did it earlier/later/not at all. If you want to do it, you can do it this very moment. There is never any right moment that can be chosen. Instead, you take the action and you create the moment.
--- Alex Chow is still confusing Occupy Central/Occupy Movement/Umbrella Revolution/Umbrella Movement with the Democracy project. They are not the same. Public opinion polls have consistently show that the majority of the people of Hong Kong want 'democracy' but also the majority of the people of Hong Kong want Occupy Central to shut down and go home. The people agree with the goal but not the method. Veterans like "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung must know that there is no hope for a social movement to succeed when the masses are against it. But the students are too arrogant to listen to such advice back then, and they still don't get it even now.
--- The group that planned to dash out onto the roadway is not making a symbolic gesture; this is an election campaign stop for them.
--- Scholarism convener Joshua Wong said that they had expected 10,000 people to participate in the Occupy Movement last year, but ultimately 200,000 came. He thought that was a miracle. He hopes that Hong Kong politics will be different by September 28 next year.
--- The students wrought a miracle to whittle the 200,000 down to 920. The students were arrogant, they offended everyone and they made all the wrong decisions.
--- Last year: 200,000. This year: 920. Next year: 30. Yes, that will be different.
--- (Oriental Daily) September 29, 2016. About 200 persons opened up yellow umbrellas and stood in silence at 5:58pm to commemorate the second anniversary of the Hong Kong police firing teargas at demonstrators. They said that they will continue to hold commemorative meetings until "genuine universal suffrage" arrives.

- Tam Tak-chi (People Power) said that he would bring 1,000 people onto Harcourt Road to block two lanes of vehicular traffic. Since there were only 920 people, he didn't do it. It has nothing to do with cowardice (about getting clubbed on the head by police batons and hit in the eyes by pepper spray). It is because the people let down People Power.
- (Wen Wei Po) People Power did not apply for a "no-objection" letter from the office. So they deliberately set up their megaphone stand close to the Civil Human Rights Front's grand stage. Thus People Power intentionally blended in with the others. In addition, People Power planted their party flags all over the street, making it seem as if everybody came to attend their event.
- Tam Tak-chi is said to harbor aspirations for elected positions (District Council/Legislative Council) in Kowloon East district. Today's event says that his base support is only several hundred persons at most across the entire region. He needs to be better known, but he is not the brightest light bulb. Anything he tries (such as today's event) only brings more negativity. And he has to be careful because a criminal conviction will cause him to lose his position even if elected. What can he do?
- The ideal situation is for Tam Tak-chi to get arrested and jailed for a period of less than three months. That would make him a folk hero without disqualifying him from electoral office.
- (Passion Times) Tam Tak-chi said that his planned action reflected co-existence. He only wants to occupy two car lanes so that the cars can use the remaining lanes. But he has to get onto the roadway no matter what, because that is the only way to make a show of force in front of the people of Hong Kong. Thus, this is a self-restrained action of expression. But the action did not take place. Tam said that he saw the police formation and was worried about unnecessary injuries if the police use batons and pepper spray. Therefore he called off the action. However he disagrees that the action was a failure.
- (Wen Wei Po) Even as Tam Tak-chi was unable to get past the police line, a dozen or so masked Civic Passion member began to holler from behind: "Tam Tak-chi, we support you to charge! Please do not disappoint me by bailing out!" They also chanted: "They tell other people to charge, but they don't charge themselves!" There were numerous quarrels but no physical clashes. Finally, after about one hour, Tam Tak-chi chose to bail out and leave his supporters behind.
- (Born In Chaotic Times Facebook)

--- Tam Tak-chi was in Admiralty earlier. At the time, he was leading citizens to charge the police line. One hour later, here he is Mong Kok already. He told the media that he spotted the police putting on "gloves with hard objects" and therefore he called the action off so as to avoid serious injuries to citizens. He does not consider the action a failure. He believes that an action should not be evaluated by success/failure; instead it is about whether experience was gained during the process.
--- Because the news was that Tam Tak-chi was eating at the Mui Kee Congee Restaurant in Mong Kok, a large number of citizens went there to demand Tam to fulfill his promise. The police were called and the citizens had to leave. Tam eventually left through the back door.
--- At 22:00, the People Power's Shopping Revolutionaries cursed out other demonstrators for wearing surgical masks and therefore must be police moles.
--- At 23:00, the other demonstrators demand the People Power members apologize for what they said before. The People Power members told these other demonstrators to take off their masks before speaking.
--- The issue of masks first surfaced several months ago. At the time, the Shopping Revolutionaries posted this policy statement:

In translation:

The Shopping Revolutionaries have never insisted on the single approach of insisting on peacefulness!

The Shopping Revolutionaries have always respected the decision of other persons to wear masks. They never demand others to remove the masks.

The Shopping Revolutionaries do not have spokespersons, and nobody can instruct what the Shopping Revolutionaries about what to do or not.

The Shopping Revolutionaries are justice fighters from all over the place (City-State, Civic Passion, Localists, People Power, League of Social Democrats, Civil Human Rights Front, Democratic Party, Labour Party, various anti-Communists uncles, etc). Nobody represents anyone else. We co-exist. We have no representatives.

I WANT GENUINE UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE

But that was before People Power took over the Shopping Revolutionaries and used them to further their own political agenda.
(Facebook) https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1665791143632800/ In April 2015 on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, People Power (including Auntie Chin) was surrounded by a large number of citizens for smearing those localists who wore masks at demonstrations. People Power members eventually left under police escort. People Power members hurl insults at the police all the time but once they are in trouble themselves, they seek police protection.
--- The next night, four hundred people showed up during the regular Shopping Revolution meet. Except many of those who came are from competitive radical organizations who want Tam Tak-chi to fulfill his promise of occupying Harcourt Road. The regular Shopping Revolutionaries told them that they don't know who Tam Tak-chi is. This is wildly hilarious.

- (Passion Times) September 28, 2015.

"Are you coming with me to the anniversary event for Occupy Central?" The message came. I was upset by this message. Why are they still calling it Occupy Central? Was Central ever occupied? Or are they talking about the Occupy Central when the ground floor of the HSBC building was occupied in mid-October 2011? If it is the Occupy Central that the Occupy Central trio talked about, then it lasted only one day. That is because they told people to leave even as the police were still firing tear gas canisters.
This is the anniversary of the 9/28 incident. One year ago today, a bunch of unarmed warriors went into the streets and were showered with 87 tear gas canisters. The live television broadcast was still vivid in memory. After the first tear gas canister was fired, I expected the people to scatter and not return. Surprisingly, they scattered and then they fearlessly returned. My heart was pounding and tears came out of eyes.
One year later today, as expected, the pan-democrats held a commemorative ceremony in Admiralty. It was a happy scene in a sea of yellow, with yellow ducks, yellow belts, yellow ribbons, yellow flowers and free t-shirts. If my school's Fun Fair (=Carnival) had as many fine gifts to hand out, it would be marvelous. My school has a lot to learn from these people. This show must have taken up a lot of effort and money, right? It is disgusting that these politicians would spend so much time and energy on these useless vanity and aura instead of something truly useful.
It is one thing to pass out presents, but it was absurd for them to raise the yellow umbrellas and sing "Me Today." With due respect, they are just a bunch of fools who raise their umbrellas (note: they would be waving their mobile phones if this was nighttime), sing some karaoke songs and disperse peacefully afterwards. They bring disgrace to Beyond because they have caused the Beyond songs to be branded as "leftist retard." I do not completely negate the value of commemoration. But their vanity and narcissism constitute a betrayal of those warriors who were hit by the tear gas last year. The government officials must be thinking: "When they finish singing, they will leave."
I am such a secondary school girl. My own contribution was to hand out mineral water at the supply station. I was not hit by tear gas on 928. I did not stay overnight. I did not sleep many nights on the road without taking a shower. I was not clubbed on the head by the police. But I would never attend the commemorative ceremony in Admiralty in order to make the politicians look good. Please do something useful, or else Hong Kong will never have genuine democracy and autonomy.
I remember that on the day of clearance after 79 days of the Occupy Movement, there was a long banner with the words "We'll be back." One year has elapsed. When will we be back?

- (SCMP) One year after Occupy Central, the world is no longer buzzing to support Hong Kong's democracy. By Michael Chugani. September 30, 2015.

A year ago, the city was raw with anger. Live television images of riot police raining tear gas on citizens had seared the public psyche. A defiant uprising that came to be known as the "umbrella movement" lit the world's imagination, pushing Hong Kong into the glare of the international media. The movement's leading players boastfully declared "the eyes of the world are on us" - a warning to Beijing and the Leung Chun-ying administration not to crush the uprising. The world indeed was watching. Tent communes occupying key districts and a sea of yellow umbrellas fascinated the foreign media and spooked foreign leaders who feared a colour revolution that would be crushed by the People's Liberation Army.
Well, the world has lost interest. If it really cared, wouldn't it have been opportune on the first anniversary of the democracy uprising for Barack Obama to press for Hong Kong's case during his recent summit with President Xi Jinping ? He didn't, even though the US is supposed to champion global democracy.
The harsh reality is that Hong Kong is on its own in its fight for democracy. Will history judge Occupy as a success or failure? The jury is still out. But pro-democracy politicians are already running scared about how voters will judge them in the upcoming elections for their roles in the uprising. Most shunned Monday's ceremony marking Occupy's first anniversary. This is puzzling. If they believe occupying parts of the city for 79 days to press for democracy had the people's support, they should be cocksure of winning instead of fearing what they did has become political baggage.

- At this time, it does well to remember what happened afterwards. On June 28, 2015, the 28 pan-democratic legislators vetoed the constitutional reform proposal. By virtue of that veto, the Chief Executive will continue to be elected by the old method of 1,200 election committee. The pan-democrats promised that they would re-start the five-step constitutional reform process immediately to get a new election system with civil nomination.
Well, this is three months later. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS HAPPENED SO FAR. AND THEY DON'T ACT AS IF ANYTHING WILL HAPPEN EITHER. Like CY Leung, the pan-democrats must think that talking about something is the same as doing it.
The restart would require the Chief Executive CY Leung to act and the National People's Congress Standing Committee to go along with him. Leung is in no haste to proceed, and there is nothing that the pan-democrats can do except to filibuster livelihood issues at the Legislative Council and blame CY Leung/Chinese Commies for the resulting pain.

- By inflicting pain on the people, the pan-democrats will make CY Leung pay. Revenge is so sweet!

- (SCMP) Two years on: Hong Kong’s Occupy but not so much love and peace. BY Michael Chugani. September 27, 2016.

Not that it matters, but today is the second anniversary of the start of Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Love and Peace? John Lennon would grimace in his grave. If you know of any love and peace parked somewhere in our politics, please Google me a map.

Political correctness requires us to accept that Occupy was an exemplary example of peaceful civil disobedience. Yes, it was mostly peaceful. But those unafraid of the truth know the 79-day uprising wasn’t exactly marked by flowers in your hair.

The images we saw were not of occupiers planting roses on the batons of policemen or flashing peace signs. Occupy images ingrained in our memory are of battles between the two sides: teargas, pepper spray, blocked traffic and attempts to break into the Legislative Council.

One side wore police riot gear, the other helmets, makeshift shields and body armour. Which side started the sporadic episodes of violence is open for interpretation but blaming the police alone is morally dishonest.

Love and peace do not belong in the same breath as Occupy, but the opposites of the two words certainly have a place in Occupy’s offshoots. Only those uncomfortable with the truth would fault you for using hate and violence to describe the Mong Kok riot. Occupy’s other offshoot – the independence movement – prides itself on the willingness to use violence to achieve its aim. Hate fuels the ABC – anyone but CY – campaign.

This particular offshoot most baffles me. It reshapes our entire politics into a bizarre entity of hate directed at one man. ABC didn’t exist when law professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting first conceived Occupy in 2013 to press for so-called true democracy.

Beijing countered with a restrictive August 31, 2014 reform framework that centred on screening chief executive candidates. Occupy was Hong Kong’s middle-finger response to Beijing. Will ABC – which is essentially shooting the messenger – nullify Beijing’s August 31 ruling which sparked Occupy?

ABC instigators say dumping Chief Executive Leung will at least heal the division in society. Sure, and the moon is made of green cheese. Leung is combative, but solely blaming him for our political polarisation is avoiding the truth.

Half of Hongkongers hate their communist masters, want so-called true democracy as a shield and want China to be a sovereign only in name. Beijing has responded to our middle finger with a fist. This stalemate is the real root of the political mess we are in.

[332] The Second City University Referendum (2015/09/27)

(Passion Times) September 25, 2015.

City University has been in existence for 30 years. The 30th Executive Committee consisting of the cabinet "CITYAURA" has just been recalled based upon a no-confidence vote. Previously, 1,200 signatures from students were gathered to start this referendum. After seven days of voting, the results of this referendum are:

Total number of votes = 2662

Number of votes for = 2,206

Number of votes against = 317

Abstentions = 86

Null votes = 52

Thus the motion was passed and the entire executive committee is ousted.
According to the Impeach City University Student Union Concern Group member Haley Lai, the executive committee laid down many obstructions on the way. As a result, the referendum was postponed until the current academic year. This meant that the graduating seniors lost their chance to vote and the freshmen were thrown into this process without much knowledge of the issues. Therefore, Haley Lai was pessimistic. As it turns out, the motion received overwhelming support (2,206 against 317), which showed the gross unpopularity of the current executive committee. New elections are scheduled to be held in December. A temporary executive committee will be formed under the University Council president.

Internet comments:

- The first major strike against the CUSU executive committee took place last may when the president Cyrus Chu refused to sign off on the signature campaign for the referendum to withdraw from the Hong Kong Federation of Students. The referendum was eventually held (see #237). That campaign featured many cheap tricks. The most egregious example is this: the Student Union was responsible for publicizing the referendum and indeed they did with a large wall banner:

The photo shows the banner to call on students to vote. The white letters are: Plebiscite: The City University Student Union should leave the Federation of Students? The details (such as time and place) are provided in the text below. Unfortunately, the details are black letters written on a black background! In other words, the election organizers have followed the letter of the law by spelling out all the details except nobody can read a thing!
The results of that referendum were:

Total number of votes = 3,290

Number of votes for = 2,464

Number of votes against = 527

Abstentions = 174

Null votes = 72

Therefore, the City University Student Union is no longer a member of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. Because of the cheap tricks used by the executive committee, some students started the no-confidence motion referendum against them. The size of the landslide victory of the first referendum meant that the CUSU executive committee would likely lose in no-confidence motion. Hence came all the cheap tricks again.
The second major strike against the CUSU executive committee took place at the Conrad Hotel, where there was a ceremony to celebrate a $200 million donation from businessman Yeung Kin-man to City University (see #319).

The City University Student Union said that they suspect that there are political aims behind this sudden donation. Accepting the money will destroy the autonomy of the university, including personnel appointments. They demand that the university authorities reject the donation. "Firmly reject blood-and-sweat donations, give integrity back to our City University" was the banner that they carried. The university administration angrily responded, pointing out that the City University Student Union was aware but deliberately refused to mention that $50 million of that donation was specifically earmarked to enable students to go on overseas exchange programs.

In between those two major strikes are some lesser strikes, such as the executive committee taking $30,000 from the university to go on a trip to Japan which has more to do with pleasure traveling than any duty. And then there was the lead-in-water challenge (see #302).

- Eh, you missed the most egregious mistake of this executive committee. They screwed up on the annual computer festival. This was very important for the students, because they get to buy computers at sharply discounted prices. Even if they don't use those computers, they can always sell them for considerable profits. But now the students have nothing.

- On one hand, some people are sure to argue that these City University referenda show that democracy works because an unpopular executive committee was ousted by democratic processes. On the other hand, other people will argue that this shows the opposite is true. First of all, the turnout was only 15%. Who are the 85%? They could be people who came to City University to study and don't want to be bothered by any so-called social activism. They could also be people who know all about social responsibilities, but despair of a system that will replace one group of wastrels by another. When this so-called democratic system fails to engage 85% of the base, it is not working.

- The CITYAURA cabinet is running up against a mixture of opponents.

(1) There are Valiant Warriors who think the CITYAURA people were wrong to align themselves with the leftardist (=leftist retard) Federation of Students. They want a new executive committee that will engage in Valiant Resistance by Force against the government.

(2) There are pro-China/pro-establishment students (such as the mainland students) who thought the CITYAURA people were wrong to align themselves with the rebellious Hong Kong Federation of Students. They want a new executive committee that is less focused on political issues and more focused on livelihood issues.

(3) There are politically neutral students who are simply disgusted by the series of cheap tricks used by CITYAURA.

Meanwhile, CITYAURA supporters are few in numbers.

This breakdown is the same opposition line-up that the pan-democrats will be facing in the upcoming elections.

(1) There are Valiant Warriors who think that the pan-democrats' system has failed to deliver after 30 years, and therefore it is time to engage in Valiant Resistance.

(2) There are pro-China/pro-establishment voters who think that it is a patriotic duty to vote against the pan-democrats.

(3) There are politically neutral voters who are simply disgusted by Occupy Central, Shopping Revolution and Reclaim XXX. They want to elect people who are less political and more focused on livelihood issues.

So do the pan-democrats have a strong enough base to survive?

[331] Shopping Revolutionaries March (2015/09/27)

(Oriental Daily) September 26, 2015. (Wen Wei Po) September 27, 2015. (Oriental Daily) September 27, 2015.

With the anniversary of Occupy Central near, the Shopping Revolutionaries planned to march from Mong Kok to Tsim Sha Tsui to Government Headquarters in Admiralty. They anticipated 100 attendees, but there were only about 20 persons present. Meanwhile, the police (including uniformed officers, plainclothes anti-triad team members and PTU members) numbered 60 to 70.
Those present today carried yellow umbrellas or yellow lanterns, shouting "Don't forget our original intentions, let us hold hands together and march, we shall return to Admiralty". These present included Leung Kam-shing, the Chalk Girl, Captain America, etc. The marchers started out at 710pm, proceeded to the Star Ferry terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui and took the ferry across the harbor to Central. As more joined in along the way, their numbers swelled to 60 to 70 (including the so-called "photojournalists"). About 50 police officers accompanied them.
Along the way at Haiphong Road, a citizen annoyed by the commotion told them to shut up. There was an argument but the police quickly calm things down. Shopkeepers along the way were negative. In Mong Kok, a dispensary workers said "this type of action is pointless" and "Do you see any customers come in while they march?" In Yau Ma Ti, retailer Mr. Chiu said the Shopping Revolutionaries have caused his business income to be down by 70% over the past year. In Tsim Sha Tsui, a fashion store worker said that the Shopping Revolutionaries have caused her revenue to be down by 20% because their pointless actions are disturbing peace and order.

(Oriental Daily) September 26, 2015. (Wen Wei Po) September 27, 2015. (Oriental Daily) September 27, 2015.

At around 930pm, about 30 to 40 Shopping Revolutionaries reached the Legislative Council. The Federation of Students and Scholarism were holding an 8-hour long seminar there, featuring social activists, scholars and Occupy Central founder Chan Kin-man. During the early afternoon there were about 20 to 30 people in the audience.

By the evening, the audience grew to 60 to 70 persons, most of whom are middle-aged persons with very few young persons. The two groups met up, the student groups applauded, but the Shopping Revolutionaries said "We are not welcomed here" and went ahead to Government Headquarters. There they tossed balls at paper dolls of government officials. The Shopping Revolutionaries demanded that Civic Plaza be re-opened to the public. They also assured the police that they were too fatigued to scale the wall and do so themselves.

Afterwards Federation of Students secretary-general Law37 and Scholarism member Agnes Chow explained to the press that it is not that they did not welcome the Shopping Revolutionaries but rather they couldn't get anywhere with them. Later Law and Chow went over to Government Headquarters to kiss and make up, but the Shopping Revolutionaries cursed them out with foul language. It was a very awkward situation.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 27, 2015.

Around 40 “Gau Wu” protesters marched from Mong Kok to Admiralty on Saturday night to commemorate the anniversary of pro-democracy Occupy protests. Jordan Chan, one of the organisers, told HKFP that “more people usually come out to protest on Saturdays, and we did not want to clash with commemoration events by other organisations on September 27 or 28.”

The rally started at around 7pm. Protesters chanted: “Remember our goal [of true democracy], walk hand in hand, we will be back in Admiralty together!” along the route. The protesters moved on to Tsim Sha Tsui and boarded the Star Ferry to Central.

Demonstrators said they intended to use the slogan “retake the Civic Square”, which was stormed on the same day last year – an event that kickstarted the 79-day Occupy protests. The group, however, had previously told police that they did not intend to storm the square in an application letter for the event’s approval.
Outside the legislature, protesters urged the government to reopen the square, calling it “Admiralty Prison” as it was fenced-off and guarded. “It belongs to the Hong Kong people, it was built with our tax money, we have the right to get inside to protest,” a protester surnamed Chin said, “This government only knows how to destroy things but not use them in the right way.”

Coloured balls were then thrown at effigies of China Liaison Director Zhang Xiaoming, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen in protest. The officials were depicted as prisoners, in reference to the protesters calling Civic Square a prison.

...

The “Gau Wu” protesters started to gather in Mong Kok nightly after the pro-democracy Occupy protest camps were cleared in Mong Kok in November last year. The movement was nicknames “Gau Wu” — Mandarin for shopping — as protesters claimed they were in Mong Kok to shop. It followed a call from Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, urging people to help small businesses in Mong Kok affected by Occupy, after the protests were cleared.

Videos:

(Apple Daily) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0stVAwyXY24 News report
(SocREC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRWDHG_Kn8M Speeches in front of Government Headquarters. Law37 visits them.
(Resistance Live Media) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-l1dZBWL4M Marching down Canton Road to Star Ferry to Admiralty.
(SpeakoutHK) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND6t_PxB7As Shopkeeprs criticize the Shopping Revolutionaries.

Internet comments:

- This is "Captain America" Andy Yung with a yellow umbrella. He did not bring his British Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence, probably because they won't allow him to carry it onto the Star Ferry.

- Andy Yung is wearing a "Reject Fake Suffrage" t-shirt. Cable TV once interviewed him: (YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXryhmJcRcA).

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.

That is to say, he has memorized a bunch of keywords but has no idea what they mean when taken together.
- I wonder what the purpose is. Do you think that this 20-person-strong march is going bring this "genuine universal suffrage" thing any closer? No one would realistically think so. So why are they doing this? Because they feel good. Twenty years later, there just may be a "genuine universal suffrage" because or in spite of their efforts, and then they will move on to protest something else. This will never end, because their pleasure is to show up every night and yell something or the other. The substance is immaterial. Only the action is important. This is called Existentialism.
- They started out tonight at 710pm. These Shopping Revolutionaries normally begin their "shopping" expedition around 10pm, after most shops are closed. During Occupy Mong Kok, the occupying force at least had the decency of turning down the volume after 10pm. These Shopping Revolutionaries are the opposite, because they begin their work after 10pm.
- They choose the 10pm start time in order to maximize impact on local residents and minimize impact on local businesses. They are Shopping Revolutionaries and their mission is to stimulate the local economy?
- They know to leave when they feel that they are not welcomed? Is this a joke? Do they think that the shopkeepers and commercial drivers welcome them?
- I saw this photo:

Where do they find these people? Is that Lord Voldemort in the middle? If they are leading a revolution, then I'm not following.
- They fit right in with the high-income, high-education and young-age profile of Yellow Ribbons.
- (RTHK) I understand that Law37 wants the best of both words. When asked about the poor attendance at these seminars, Law37 told the media that the audience size does not matter and the important thing is the exchange between the speakers and the audience. After all, this is a seminar and not a mass mobilization to pressure the government. He said that the believes that most people are staying at home in order to let the meaning of Umbrella Movement "settle in."

[330] HKU Council Meeting - The Prelude (2015/09/25)

(Ming Pao) No End To HKU Crisis. By Kevin Lau. September 24, 2015.

On September 29 (Tuesday), the HKU University Council is expected to vote on the appointment of the Pro Vice-chancellor of Academic Staffing and Resources. The Alumni Concern Group has made many efforts, but so far has only gotten the support of about 8 of the 21 council members. The pro-establishment side has 12 council members. It is estimated that the person recommended by the committee headed by HKU President Peter Mathieson (namely, former Law School dean Johannes Chan) will be voted down by the University Council. Some HKU senior staffers are worried that the appointment decision will only mean that the crisis is just beginning instead of stopping.
According to the private communication from one relatively open-minded university council member, many council members either don't dare or are unwilling to vote for Johannes Chan's appointment. The main reason is that the Beijing authorities have expressed their opposition through the official media. So if they vote for the appointment, Hong Kong University may be subjected to retaliation. The current frequent academic exchanges and cooperation will be hit, business and government subsidies will fall, and then HKU will be surpassed by other local universities within a few years.
But this council member also privately admitted to close friends that even if the university council does "the right thing" this time to vote down Johannes Chan's appointment, it does not mean that the central government or the Hong Kong SAR government will forget the past and spare them. From now on, the appointments of the Pro Vice-Chancellor, the Provost and even the extension of the contract for the Vice-Chancellor will need the approval of the governments before the pro-establishment members of the University Council will vote to approve. In the face of such huge political pressures, the administrative autonomy of the Hong Kong University and academic self-determination are likely unsustainable.
[...]

(Wen Wei Po) September 25, 2015.

In February this year, former Ming Pao chief editor Kevin Lau reported that the HKU selection committee unanimously recommended Johannes Lau as the pro vice-chancellor for academic staffing and resources. In July this year, Lau reported that Arthur Li got a middleman to "persuade" Johannes Chan to withdraw and this caused the students to riot. Time and again, these allegations were shown to be lies. Yesterday Kevin Lau offered yet another exposé. How credible is it? Maybe Kevin Lau does not know that he is "crying wolf," but Ming Pao placed his article in the corner area and also did not provide much follow-up reportage.
The Lau article yesterday is self-contradictory and deceptive. Lau said that many council members "either dare not or are unwilling" to vote for Johannes Chan's promotion. This creates the impression that the council members are being pressured. But if you parse the language carefully, you will notice that both "dare not vote for" and "are unwilling" are grouped together. "Dare not vote for" may be construed as "being pressured", but "unwilling to vote for" clearly means that the voter does not approve of Chan's character or thinks that Chan is unqualified for the pro vice-chancellor.
The former is supportive, whereas the latter is oppositional. So how can Kevin Lau's sophistry group the two together. Even those who opposed Chan are said to be worried that HKU will face retaliation? Did Kevin Lau deceive even himself to think nobody would think that Chan lack academic leadership, or was involved in the "secret donations" affair such that his integrity is in doubt?
Kevin Lau said that "if the appointment is approved, HKU may be subject to retaliation." Let us suppose that this is true. Next Kevin Lau said that "even if the appointment is vetoed, it does not mean that the central government and the Hong Kong SAR government will spare HKU." One does not know whether to laugh or cry? No matter whether Johannes Chan is appointed or not, HKU will face retaliation. Such being the case, the council members have no exit. So if they genuinely support Johannes Chan, how could they "not dare" vote for him?
By this point, the smart readers will see that Kevin Lau is running out of tricks. He wanted to use "facing retaliation" to inflame emotions. But the careful reader will remember that in the previous episodes, Kevin Lau was saying that the central government "actively attacked", "attempted persuasion" and "applied pressure." But now that the vote is coming, they have done nothing except for some articles published in the official media. Meanwhile the only thing is that the council members got worried by thinking on their own. Did someone forget what he lied about previously?
Finally, let us look at Kevin Lau's "imagination." He claimed that "some people are worried" that if the appointment is approved, then HKU will be "retaliated against," with lesser government subsidies so that it will be surpassed by other universities. If the appointment is vetoed, HKU will still be "retaliated against" and lose its independence and autonomy, its president Mathieson will want to leave, scholars won't come to HKU, HKU will be ruled by the pro-establishment camp ... any reasonable person will have to laugh at his slippery slope argument. Even if Kevin Lau has no understanding about the government subsidy system, the most direct question should be: Is HKU going to sink faster if Johannes Chan who mishandled the donations and failed in academic leadership was appointed? Or not appointed?

(Wen Wei Po) September 25, 2015.

The appointment of the pro vice chancellor ought to have been handled by the University Council with full authority. Instead, the pro-democracy camp applied pressure on the council on many occasions to appoint Johannes Chan, who was involved in illegal contributions during the Occupy Central period. Yesterday former Ming Pao chief editor Kevin Lau wrote another essay about how an open-minded council member said that "many council members either dare not or are unwilling to vote for the appointment of Johannes Chan. They were worried that HKU may be 'retaliated against'" in the form of reduced exchanges and cooperation with the mainland and 'even reductions in government subsidies'." This is alarming but Kevin Lau offered no evidence whatsoever. The essay then contradicted itself by saying that even if Johannes Chan is not appointed, that doesn't mean that the central government or the Hong Kong SAR government will stop.
Our reporter has made inquiries with the various council members about Kevin Lau's essay. They said that they did not experience anything like that. The "relatively open-minded" council member Man Cheuk-fei said that he does not know what other council members are thinking, but he himself hadn't seen the phenomenon of what Kevin Lau was saying. He pointed out: "The voting is by secret balloting, so that the council members shouldn't feel much pressure." Another council member condemned Kevin Lau's assertions as being preposterous, emphasizing that the council members are learned and principled individuals who won't be influenced by others. He said that he did not personally come under any pressure.

(Wen Wei Po) September 25, 2015.

Educational Policy Concern Group chairman Cheung Man-bing said that if Kevin Lau has any evidence, he should produce them, or else it is unfair to everybody. He said that the voting is done by secret ballots, and there is no way to know how the 20+ council members individually voted afterwards.
Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers chairman Wong Kwun-yu said that Kevin Lau was obviously manufacturing opinion in order to intimidate the council members: "He asserts that all those who won't vote for Johannes Chan were coerced, and all those who cast the NAY vote either capitulated or were gutless. In the final analysis, he wanted them to vote for Johannes Chan. Why couldn't he make it blunter and say: "Unless you vote for Johannes Chan, HKU will sink"? He needs to poll one council member at a time to see if this is true, or else he is just saying whatever he wants to say." Wong said that a news worker should not be publishing speculations as fact. He wondered if Kevin Lau is taken advantage of his job at Ming Pao to manufacture opinion, for that would be very wrong.

(HKG Pao) September 25, 2015.

Recently, the HKU Alumni Concern Group sent out a team of lobbyists to individually persuade the HKU Council members to vote for Johannes Chan as pro vice-chancellor. They reminded the council members that they must support Chan or else they will be guilty of a "political crime" with unforeseeable consequences. This amounted to political intimidation, and some council members found it to be most annoying.
The HKU Alumni Concern Group and other supporters of Johannes Chan have frequently said over the past several months that the government or the China Liaison Office have been reaching out to the council members. But the council members have not been contacted by any central government or related persons. Instead, they are being lobbied by the HKU Alumni Concern Group. So who is really interfering with the autonomy of the university?
The lobbyists tell the council members that if Johannes Chan gets appointed, they will at most listen to a few days of criticisms from the pro-establishment camp and it will all blow over with their reputations intact. But if Johannes Chan does not get appointed, they will have to face the wrath of the administrators, staff members, students and alumni with unforeseeable consequences which not even the university can bear. This type of lobbying is clearly a threat to the council members. The lobbyists even positioned the appointment of Johannes Chan as the battle to defend the 100-year-old reputation of HKU. They said that if Johannes Chan is not appointed, then the whole world will believe that HKU has lost its autonomy and is obeying Beijing on everything.
A council member reached by the lobbyists wondered, Does opposing the appointment of Johannes Chan mean that the central government is exercising political control? But who is really politicizing the whole thing here? As council members, they don't have any political powers behind them. Therefore the lobbyists are insulting them and their independence with this kind of talk. The lobbyists kept wanting the council members to take sides. This is tremendously annoying and not conducive for the council members making a reasoned decision. Another council member said that a soon-to-retire council member was told by the lobbyist to think about the pros and cons and avoid "losing his reputation in his last years of life."
The lobbyists completely failed to mention Johannes Chan's lack of academic accomplishments and involvement in the secret donations scandal, while insulting their characters with this kind of talk.

[329] A Mong Kok Youth, The Incomprehensible Battle (2015/09/25)

(The Initium) September 22, 2015.

He said that he is known as Fire.

Pale, thin, black t-shirt and black pants, so that he can hide easily in the darkness. Two large earrings hang down from his ear lobes. It is not hard to notice that the ear lobe piercings are almost 2cm long.

He is good-looking and sometimes want to look handsome. He is an amateur artistic bicyclist. Hong Kong is not a big place. He is like a small-town boy. He said that he comes from Tai Po, he love the place, he knows it so well that he can walk around with his eyes closed. Strictly speaking, he has never left there. He grew up there. He graduated from secondary school and got all his jobs about the Tai Po Centre area. He has make milk tea, sold Internet access, sold electronics, sold clothes ... he loves to sell mobile phone most of all. That is his current job, which pays a base salary of only $10,000. When customers come in, he doesn't have to hard-sell them. He plans to save more than one hundred thousand dollars in a couple of year and open his own mobile phone store.

It was a late summer night at the end of August. After getting off work at 10pm, Fire came with a low-slung bicycle to the Waterfront Park, Tai Po. This is different from the normal artistic bicycle, because it is painted black like a ghost warplane. He built it up himself, and it is better than brand name models. It costs him one month's salary.

I met Fire in mid-October 2014. It was late night in Mong Kok when the police and demonstrators were both taking a break during a lull. He and many other resisters took off their gear and sat down wearily by the roadside to rest.

When I spoke to Fire, he was polite and friend. He and many others who stayed to defend in Mong Kok consider themselves Valiant Ones for resisting the police and the unjust system. The mainstream opinion classified them as "troublemakers" or as fully-armored masked "moles" sent in by the Chinese Communists to radicalize the Movement.

"The glory of the Admiralty was gained with our blood. Never mind that, because it is alright by me. But to say that the Valiant Ones are saboteurs? I was hit and I had to get treatment at the hospital. Am I a mole?"

That was one year ago, and we are now by the balustrade of the Waterfront Park and not in Mong Kok anymore. But Fire is still angry.

"Peace, Reason, Non-violence, Non-foul language?" He snorted. Although we were standing several meters apart, I could still see the glint in this eyes.

"The government saw through us. They ignored us completely. Those 'peace, reason, non-violence and non-foul language' people eventually sat there and got arrested." He said: "They are celebrities so nothing happens to them. We are nobodies. We have to earn a living. We can't afford to sit down and get arrested."

This is the most controversial aspect of the masked Valiant Ones: They choose to use radical methods to clash with the police while criticizing the more moderate persons. To many people, they are missing the willingness to accept the legal responsibility in civil disobedience.

"If all those Valiant Ones who are willing to resist are arrested, who is left to resist?" Fire doesn't understand why staying behind to be arrested should be "responsible civil disobedience."

Fire did not think that he was playing around during the Umbrella Movement last year. He was using his blood, sweat and tears to resist for 74 days. He used his body, not his morality, to resist. That is the logic of his movement.

Do you know what the fuck is resistance? Do you know what the fuck is valor? While I was tear-gassed and clubbed, where the fuck were you leftist retards? Seventy-four days. I gave up my job for seventy-four fucking days. I stayed to defend Mong Kok. I went to to Admiralty for a couple of days, but I left because your bunch of dickheads were holding a singing competition on the Grand Stage!

...

To stand in the front row holding a wooden shield, do you know how it feels?

Let me tell you. I was fucking scared. It was fucking hard to take. Do you know?

The front row protects the back row. The front row is the most important. I am not a military man. Facing a group of undisciplined disciplinary force, I had no idea what to do. I only knew that if one person takes it, everybody else is better off. I was clubbed several dozen times. Several dozen times. I know that I am rough and I am accustomed to frequent injuries in practicing artistic bicycling. But I can be hurt and I feel pain. What about everyone else?

He had nowhere else to explain. He wrote his thoughts on his Facebook. Only 31 persons pressed "Like."

On the evening of September 28 last year, Fire saw the tear-gas in Admiralty on television. He remembered that his younger sister was there. He asked his boss for time off and immediately rushed over to Admiralty. Like many other persons, he said: "I want to protect the students."

In truth, Fire was born in 1994 and therefore younger than many of the students. But he has entered society for six years already: "I am a grown-up, so of course I have to protect the students. I know a lot more than Joshua Wong and them about things that they cannot see in school."

He and his artistic bicycling friends went to Admiralty. At 11pm that night, the Federation of Students and the Occupy Central trio said on Facebook that the police had used rubber bullets and they called on citizens to withdraw. Fire was astonished at the scene: "There were more than a hundred thousand of us. The situation was great. How can we withdraw?" He was angry, he thought that the movement leaders were abandoning those stay remind.

Fire was not yet born on June 4th 1989. He bet that the Communists won't shoot this time. It was like betting on show-hand. It is not that he was unafraid, but there was nothing to be afraid of when he is at the bottom. "My life isn't worth much. Let's see who has more guts."

Unlike those Hongkongers who carried the scares of June 4th, Fire's judgment is simple and direct, just like many of the young people that I have encountered in the Umbrella Movement. On the morning after September 28th, a 17-year-old tanned first-year university student with short dyed blonde hair said calmly and firmly to me: "If we retreat because of the bullets, the government will do so in all future demonstrators. So what is the difference with the previous demonstration marches? Hong Kong can never be changed."

The crowds did not disperse. Thus began the unprecedented 79 days of the Occupy Movement in Hong Kong.

In a mere five days, Fire thought that he was not a fellow traveler with the movement leaders in Admiralty.

On the night of September 28, some of the Admiralty resisters drifted to Causeway Bay and then to Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui in Kowloon. For a long period of time afterwards, there were three Occupy areas in Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay.

The Occupy Mong area is centered at the intersection Nathan Road and Argyle Street. It is a shopping area, and also where prostitutes, pimps and gangsters mix around. During the 2014 Occupy Movement, it obtained a new identify: The symbol of valiant resistance in Hong Kong. Fire found his belongingness there.

[...]

Like many Occupy Movement participants, Fire set up a daily schedule: He gets off work at 10pm and he takes the minibus to Mong Kok. He stays until 6pm, walk 5 minutes over to the Mong Kok East Station to take the first train back to Tai Po. He showers, sleeps and goes to work at noon. He did that for 74 days. "If it wasn't for the clearance, I could continue to Occupy." He said proudly.

Compared to the utopian Harcourt village in Admiralty: tents, study rooms, bountiful supplies, music concerts, artistic creations, tidy public restrooms, Mong Kok was not a comfortable place for staying.

In the earlier days, the Mong Kok intersection became a spot for citizens to articulate their ideas: Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons, citizens, mainlanders took turns to air their complaints. The triads and the Blue Ribbons often act violently. The police cleared the site by force. Each time, Mong Kok looked like it would die but it was always resilient and bounced back. There were even statutes of Lord Guan and a Jesus Christ altar. However, the gods of the east and the west could not stop the feces, the vermin and the curses to rain down from above ...

"If there wasn't Mong Kok, I would not have stayed behind. I don't belong to Admiralty." Although Fire seldom got any good sleep during the 74 days in Mong Kok, he didn't mind. "I am accustomed to living in uncomfortable conditions."

Fire grew up in public housing. His parents who sold fish balls paid $1,000 a month to rent a public housing apartment with two bedrooms and one living room totaling 300 square feet. His family of five lives there. He is lucky because he would have to wait ten years if he were single.

At this time, he shares a room with his sister while his elder brother sleeps in the living room. "Hong Kong housing is too expensive. There is no way to afford it. All the resources of this government are given over the middle-class and the wealthy, and none to us." He has calculated that he needs to earn $20,000 a month before he can think about buying a house. Right now, he only makes half that amount. "My hourly salary is $40. A meal costs $40. It is impossible for me to move outside."

In Fire's mind, the carefree university students ought to stay in Admiralty. They are civilized and polite, they make the people of Hong Kong proud and the world praises them. There is no excuse for the government. He accepts that those glories are not his. If Admiralty is Light, then Mong Kok is Shadow. He belongs to Hong Kong's shadows. There is no happiness and calmness. His world is the unstable and chaotic Mong Kok.

Given that there is not much hope, he has thought about moving to Taiwan. "But when I consider that Taiwan will ultimately become China's and no different from Hong Kong, I changed my mind."

Fire thought that the double-no pregnant women, the parallel traders and the individual-permit mainlanders are stealing Hong Kong's resources, so that young people like himself are squeezed with nowhere to go. "There is no reason why the young of Hong Kong should bear the burden." He said that this was another reason why he resisted. "We are not just going this for 'genuine universal suffrage'. We are also fighting for the simple basic life that we want all along."

I got to know Fire two days after the re-taking of Mong Kok.

On the early morning of October 17, 2014, about 800 police officers came to Mong Kok to "dismantle obstacles." About 100 demonstrators staying there were cleared off, and traffic resumed at the intersection of Nathan Road and Argyle Street. That evening, several thousand citizens got off work to attempt to re-occupy the location. After a battle with pepper spray and baton, the resisters broke through the police line and re-took the intersection. They called it "the re-taking of Mong Kok."

Such battles were not rare in Mong Kok. Many resistsers were injured. I asked these young men why they would "rather die than retreat"? Why were willing to stand in the front row to face the violence? During the interviewing, I got to know Fire.

At the time, Fire and his partners were fatigued after facing off against the police. He was smoking a Mild Seven and sitting on the ground to rest. He used plastic bottles and silicone floor coverings as protective devices on his forearms and lower legs, like a robot cop.

Since the moment when the students charged into Civic Plaza, the Occupy people's equipment were upgraded with each battle. At first, they wore plastic wrap, umbrellas and raincoats to protect against the pepper spray. Eventually, they had fully equipped helmets, gas masks, shields and body armor. They started with holding up their hands when confronting the police, now they go full tilt.

Fire's fighting evolved over the 74 days.

When the police baton arrives, he is scared. But he was filled with the sense of resisting with his body. When the police baton falls, he raises his hand to ward it off. He remembered that it was a dull pain without bleeding. It was different from ear piercing and tattooing.

"The pain of being by the police was nothing." Fire said lightly. For him, the ear piercing ritual to join the artistic bicycling group was far more painful. For him, the piercing of the ear, the infection and the subsequent healing to create a 2-cm long hold was a growing-up ritual. He was not an adult, and therefore can protect the students as a Valiant One, such as Mong Kok was protecting Admiralty.

Tattoos, bicycle crashes, ear piercing, resistance. Fire got his sense of existence through pain. Fighting the state apparatus seems to be the only way for him to do something for his homeland -- he is not an intellectual, he is not a leader, he can't offer explanations, he can only use resistance and defense to show that he was present, even if it was all futile.

But the true hurt did not come from the flesh. Instead it was about not being understood.

To those who opposed the Occupy Movement, the Occupy Mong Kok area is the root of all evil, being filled with "Golden Forum young men who were incited." To many who supported the Occupy Movement, Mong Kok is a trouble-making spot where violence and clashes abound, thus causing the Movement to lose the moral high ground and public popular support. It may even be a conspiracy to destroy the Occupy Movement.

"These Valiant Ones carry out Hit-and-Run every time. The anarchists and flash mobs do not take on any responsibility. They go to Mong Kok to make trouble. Strategically speaking, it makes no sense to occupy Mong Kok." Long Hair (Leung Kwok-hung) is a representative figure of the preceding generation of resisters and he told me that.

Fire's self-sacrifice was deprecated and not praised. Fire felt deeply betrayed. He emphasized repeatedly that he did so to protect the students and Hong Kong, and that he is not a person incapable of independent thinking.

"Last July 1st, 510,000 persons marched in the streets. Was that any use? At Admiralty, they hold singing contests for Vast Sea Boundless Skies from morning to night but they shouldn't smear us." In this eyes, the Hong Kong democrats toiled thirty years with nothing to show, and that prove the old-style method of resistance does not work.

Mong Kok and Admiralty stand for two different routes of resistance, and they split up due to differences in real life. When the masked young men charged into the Legislative Council and broke the glass doors, there was a furious storm that led to an internal splitting of the movement. The pan-democratic legislative councilors unanimously condemned the act because it destroyed the image of "Love and Peace" of the Umbrella Movement.

Long Hair (Leung Kwok-hung) thought that the Valiant Ones failed because these political rookies used their very limited political experience to analyze the resistance movement, and thereby forgot that the most important political strategy is to win the support of those who are previously indifferent: "Success cannot be accomplished by a small number of individuals taking direct action. The direct action must grow into larger and larger actions."

But Fire's reasoning is: "The Grand Stage wants to gain the popular support of the wealthy middle-class. But the middle-class will only give some talk and never take to the streets, thus betraying us young people who are stilling to stay behind to defend."

Before the Occupy Movement ended, there was a rift between Admiralty and Mong Kok. This became an underlying factor in the internal divisions of the Hong Kong democracy movement after 79 days of the Occupy Movement.

December 11. Early morning on the day when Admiralty was to be cleared, Fire came with his equipment to Admiralty. He imagined that this would be the final battle. But the atmosphere in Admiralty was serene, with people hugging and bidding farewell to each other and taking commemorative photos.

"I can't accept sitting down and being carried away. That would be surrendering. It applies no pressure whatsoever on the government. There is no bargaining chip whatsoever." So he left.

He remembered watching the live broadcast the next day when the politicians sat down on the front row to be carried away. He was angry. "Putting on a show!" he said. To him, these resisters were sitting down and waiting their turn to be arrested. With the high degree of media coverage, they didn't have to worry about being beaten up. They have lawyers to help them all the way. They become heroes. But this is the logic of survival for a working class person like himself.

But Fire's reasoning is sometimes self-contradictory. He is sometimes angry, sometimes carefree. He is disappointed, but also hopeful. "When these Hong Kong students came out, they give us hope. We need leaders. I am willing to trust one more time, but it should not make us regret."

No matter what, Mong Kok changed Fire.

If it were not for those 74 dark nights, Fire would never care about politics. Everyday, he would go work at the mobile phone store. When he gets off work, he will go out and have fun. He would be a Tai Po young man who dreams of earning $20,000 a month and establishing a family.

He is spending the same type of life now, he goes down to Mong Kok often to have fun but he doesn't feel the same way. As he walks on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Shanghai Street, Nathan Road, Shan Tung Street and the back streets and alleys, he can clearly remember that he came down here prepared to be hit last year. He remembered saving someone at some spot, or the marvelous camaraderie with his fellow warriors. These are the emotions that Mong Kok evoke in him.

"I never imagined that I would be like that. But I feel very proud." Fire thought that he could tell his grandchildren some day that their grandfather once shed blood to defend Hong Kong. He felt that for the first time, he made history and became part of Hong Kong's destiny.

As we said goodbye in the Waterfront Park, Fire yanked his bicycle into the air in a move that took 3 years to perfect. When he got back down on the ground, he sped away into the darkness of the night. He did not give me any reply, just like the Mong Kok that has vanished.

[328] What Went Wrong? - Part 2 (2015/09/24)

(HKG Pao) The True Message Behind "Broken Umbrellas, Broken People". By Robert Chow. September 23, 2015.

Today is September 23. In five days, it will be September 28. On that day last year, Occupy Central began. 79 days later, it ended in total failure.
Over the past several days, the media have started reporting on recollections and memories about what it was like one year ago and how it looks one year later.
Once again, the Occupy Central trio, the former Federation of Students leaders and the minor characters emerge to share their memories. If we look carefully, we see that even though they try hard to look positive, they nevertheless seemed disconsolate as well as worried over the potential legal consequences.
If you knew that before, why do it then?
Many of those 2 million Hong Kong citizens who suffered from Occupy Central and joined the signature campaign may find it incomprehensible why the media limelight is still shining on these criminals?
If you say "The media are like that", you will just make people angrier! So why not look at the true message?
They are blaming each other, they can't say "We screwed up" and they say that "it was someone else's fault, with the worst screw-up being so-and-so." This showed the quality of those involved in Occupy Central! Most importantly, do you see anyone standing up to defend them?
The foreign forces and the financier-agents have vanished completely or are hiding. Are they showing that they "are not acquainted with those gentlemen and ladies"?
That is the most important message! A bunch of nincompoops screwed up and have lost the confidence of the financiers. So how can they ever come back?
And do you hear any popular demand for the Occupy Central Trio, the pan-democratic legislative councilors who raised the yellow umbrellas high and proud once upon a time and the so-called student leaders who have been hauled off the stage to come out once again to lead the troops and raise the yellow umbrellas to finish the job? It would seem that even the Civil Human Rights Front is pondering whether bringing these people out front may draw the largest public response --- in the form of boos!
How did it come to this? The reason is very simple -- they are no longer regarded as leaders. Today, the people of Hong Kong are not done with their anger. Therefore the Democratic Party, Civic Party, the Labour Party and the ADPL legislative councilors who exploited the situation last year have all draw their lines and beat a quick retreat. When there are no advantages, politicians always bail out for such is their nature. The District Council elections are coming up in November. Do you think that the legislative councilors will bring out the yellow umbrellas that they are hiding inside their homes to remind the voters about what they did?
Obviously, the Yellow Ribbon radio stations and Internet media will strongly promote this anniversary. But could the actual consequence be to bring these models up further so that they fall harder in court?
How do people feel? Rather than be angry, we should just watch how they look and act now compared to their elation on year ago. Then we realize now that their "broken umbrellas, broken people" is just the start.
So do you understand better now? Do you feel better now? Is it time to have a drink now?"

(Wen Wei Po) September 24, 2015.

In an earlier interview with Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai said that the Federation of Students/Scholarism were very arrogant when they refused to retreat. Yesterday, in the latest interview with Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai said that the problem was that "nobody was planning, nobody was making the arrangements ... at the time, it was the young kids at the Federation of Students who did this, they let the young kids make the decisions ... but because nobody was really in charge, the kids at the Federation of Students took charge. You cannot ask for too much."
On the same day, the interview with Joseph Zen said that he had differences of opinion with the young people of the Occupy Movement. Zen proposed a "retreat" but he was stopped because "they don't want to listen to that, they will boo you." In earlier October, he proposed a 7-party platform but nobody listened. Zen said that "if you want to communicate with the students, they show up late and they are also sleepy." Zen said that the marshals and supplies were allocated by the Occupy Central trio but the students were not grateful. "They thought that they were in charge, they got carried away, they frequently made mistakes, it was chaotic." Although Occupy Central was a disaster, Zen still thinks that the Occupy Central Trio are the "best choice for the next wave of the movement." "I have a lot of confidence in them. They are very rational. But the Federation of Students will have to be re-organized first."
Occupy Central Trio's Chan Kin-man was interviewed on radio. He said that Occupy Central failed because there wasn't a second dialogue with the government. "After the students met with the government officials the first time, they got a lot of citizen support. That made them ambitious and they turned down a second dialogue with the government. In truth, the time after the first dialogue would have been the right moment to retreat and then use the resignation of legislative councilors to trigger a de facto referendum."
Occupy Central Trio's Chu Yiu-ming said that the Occupy Central movement because they did not withdraw in time. "Society at large believes that the movement has failed, and the action ultimately led the citizens into a 'dead end.' If we knew when to push forward and when to pull back, the power of the people would be better used."
Occupy Central Trio's Benny Tai said that Occupy Central did not destroy the spirit of rule-of-law in Hong Kong because there is no rampant street crime right now. Many citizens broke the law because they want to get democracy. "Although I don't approve of the students escalating Occupy Central action, we can't blame the students."
Next week at the anniversary of Occupy Central, the Occupy Central Trio plan to hold a ceremony in which they will hold umbrellas and stand still silently. Benny Tai said that as long as the social problems are unresolved, there is always the possibility of an Umbrella Movement II or Umbrella Movement III in Hong Kong, although the format is still undetermined at this time. "This is the time to rest and recuperate. Everybody should take a break and give some thought. Therefore, this is not the right moment to re-boot the Occupy Movement. The organizers next time should set up a joint decision-making organization."
Former Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow denied that that the refusal of the students to withdraw was the principal reason why the Occupy Movement failed. "That's because there was never a best moment to withdraw. Withdrawing at any time would have divided the masses into halves. The problem is whether it is bearable to have the masses divided." "It is very cheap criticism" to say that the Federation of Students caused the Occupy Movement to fail.
The pan-democrats, the Occupy Central Trio, the Federation of Students/Scholarism and civil groups set up a 5-party decision-making platform, but Alex Chow said that that it was no help towards unity. Instead, the escalation, the withdrawal and the surrender were decided and carried out individually. That was because the 5-party platform did not had mutual trust. "At the time, everybody thought that everybody else had their own political calculations, such as the political parties angling for the elections ..." The entire movement could not reverse its top-down hierarchical structure and became alienated from the masses and engaged in mutual recrimination. This responsibility was collective, because it was a "joint enterprise."

(Passion Times) September 23, 2015.

Benny Tai said that he has been thinking about the road to democracy over the past year. He is basically hopeful and optimistic about the future. He emphasized that the citizens joined the movement in order to fight for genuine universal suffrage and did not willfully break the law. At this time, street crime is not rampant. Tai said that as long as the government does not respond to the citizens' demand for genuine universal suffrage, there will be another wave of the Umbrella Movement. He says that it is necessary to examine the inadequacies of the past movement, and discuss the format of the resistance next time.
Chan Kin-man said that the students might have been somewhat over-ambitious, but the government must be held partially responsible because they did not deal with the constitutional reform issue for 2017 as promised. After the Occupy Movement, Localism has risen which will give the Beijing authorities an excuse to use even harsher methods against Hong Kong. Some young people believe in "using force to stop tyranny" and that also causes Beijing to intervene more so. In turn, that interference is going to cause more reactions. Therefore, the Beijing government ought to reflect itself. Chan says that it is hard to render a verdict on the Occupy Movement at this time, and it will take next year's Legislative Council election results to tell.
Chu Yiu-ming criticized the government for creating social conflicts in a way that is like burying bombs. He said that there is a sense of failure because the movement ended in a clearance. He thought that the demonstrators should have withdrawn on their own, showing that they can advance and withdraw at will. He thought that the best moment to withdraw was right after the Federation of Students met with Chief Secretary Carrie Lam and others. But the students refused to have a second dialogue, and that was the biggest mistake.

(EJInsight) September 23, 2015.

Pro-democracy groups are planning a silent protest to mark the first anniversary of last year’s protests. A series of commemorations is planned for Sept. 28 when the 79-day occupation of major Hong Hong streets began in 2014, Apple Daily reports.

Civil Human Rights Front, Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and other groups said in a joint statement Tuesday that there is no turning back for the democracy movement. They said they have no regrets despite the failure of the movement to achieve its objectives. Also, they called on Hong Kong people to turn up on Monday with the same fervor as they did during last year’s protests. They want Hongkongers to reflect on the movement and ensure it will last, a member of Scholarism was quoted as saying. The activists plan to use “Lennon Wall” in Admiralty as a backdrop for a show of force, complete with yellow umbrellas and banners — symbols of the street protests. They will stand in silence for 15 minutes starting at 5:28 p.m. to coincide with the first police action on the protesters in which tear gas and pepper spray were used.

The co-founders of Occupy Central, the civil disobedience movement which played a key role in the protests, will attend. Cardinal Joseph Zen will say an outdoor mass near the public entrance to the Legislative Council building.

A campaign against political persecution will be launched to support activists who are facing police charges and raise funds for their defense.

Meanwhile, Scholarism, HKFS and the Chinese University of Hong Kong student union will host a public forum on democracy from Tuesday until next Wednesday.

(Wen Wei Po) September 26, 2015.

Former Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that when the five-party platform was first established, the media regarded it as the decision-making group for the Occupy Movement. But the Occupy people did not think this way. The government chose to have a dialogue with the Federation of Students, which were not elected. That caused certain Occupy demonstrators to be unhappy and increased the internal rifts.

Shum said this was a historical problem. As in other past movements, the decision-making model of Occupy is "not transparent to a certain extent." This may indeed draw more people to participate, but the systems cannot deal with many of the disagreements, from whence sprung distrust. Therefore, any self-examination should not be focused on specific individuals but on the system itself so that future movements will not repeat the same mistake.

Shum suggested that the Occupy Movement failed because the Labour Party which was supposed to organize labor strikes and the Professional Teachers Union which was supposed to organize school strikes failed to come through. He said that there were no large-scale strikes so that the wheels of society rolled on smoothly, and that means there was no leverage against the government. With no cards left to play, the Federation of Students had to take unusual steps like trying to go to Beijing.

(Sing Tao) September 26, 2015.

Joseph Zen said on radio that the Occupy Central Trio did a lot of work. Without the three promoting Love and Peace in Occupy Central, the movement may have ended in a bloody manner. He also said that the student occupation of Civic Plaza was successful because it drew a lot of attention. He said that frankly there won't be immediate democratic results, but the prospects of genuine universal suffrage are better now than before because Hong Kong has changed.

When he advised the students to go home, he was not saying that they had lost. Instead, he meant to tell them that they had already won because the government has lost its mind and resorted to tear gas. So this was not a defeat. Well, maybe a lot of imperfect things happened later, but they did not take away this victory. But he said that it would have been better to end earlier.

(Oriental Daily) September 27, 2015.

At the City Forum, Occupy Central trio member Chan Kin-man was told by an audience member to accept his legal responsibility. But Chan said that the Occupy Movement was led by the students. The audience downstage called him out for "shirking his responsibility." Chan explained that in Hong Kong, one cannot just go to jail if one feels like. A year ago, the government and the citizens wanted the students to negotiate and that makes them the ones in charge. Chan said that he only wished that he had more responsibilities.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Interview: Occupy was ‘a protester’s dream’ but not good for Hong Kong – Allan Zeman. September 28, 2015.

Zeman calls the pro-democracy Occupy movement last year a protester’s dream. “Occupy Central was the first time students were able to come out and get together [to] made a statement. People from all walks of life in Hong Kong joined in, anyone with a problem joined in, because it was a protester’s dream.” By that, he said, he meant that the movement was able to carry on for so long, that one could just go out to protest to make their point heard, and choose from different camps and options, from Central to Causeway Bay.

“I think it really made China realise the problems that do exist, especially for young people – the high property prices, the shortage of land, the different problems they face on a daily basis – that they need to be addressed. Especially when you’re at that age when you’re very idealistic – every generation has gone through it… It was again a misunderstanding between the older and younger generation, and the so-called establishment – so many students were crying out to be heard.”

Zeman said that the protesters were making a good and peaceful statement unlike some countries’ social movements, but thinks that on the whole the movement did not do Hong Kong a favour. “It just, a bit, carried on too far and went on for too long. The professors had an idea that people joined in, and then they lost control, nobody had control. The problem you have with mob rule is that nobody controls the mob. And that’s exactly what happened – there were so many factions and groups and Occupy Central just lost its impetus. Originally it was just a short period of making a statement, and it would have been a lot more effective, than carrying it on for too long. It just kept going on without ending – and some students, some people, thought they could just move in here, and it was fun.”

He also said it had an effect on the economy. “Obviously Occupy Central was not a good thing for Hong Kong, especially for the commercial world. Number one, it caused a lot of hardship…the roads were blocked off, it caused a lot of problems getting home [and] getting to work in the morning, and in that respect it really inconvenienced a lot of local people. Second thing I didn’t like about it is that, while I respect the reasons, it brought Hong Kong into the world limelight in a negative way. Many media had a way to turn the story around to fit what they’re used to… They were expecting people to be fighting and they couldn’t believe how peaceful it was, but some reports coming out of here – they didn’t understand Hong Kong.

“Somebody sitting in New York in business that wants to invest here or come here thinks this is totally unstable. This was not the case of what was really happening, and it gets portrayed in a way that was wrong, and in fact it hurts the whole economy, it hurts everyone, because if people stay away jobs will suffer and business will decline… And then of course they take young leaders who have their opinions and put them on the cover of TIME Magazine – it just makes Hong Kong look like we have revolutionaries here and that it was not a safe place to come, and people just go elsewhere.”

(Oriental Daily) September 29, 2015.

On September 28, the five members of the Hong Kong Federation of Students who met with the government officials in October last year were interviewed. After that meeting, they tried to push for the legislative councilors to resign and trigger a de facto referendum. Then they laid siege to Government Headquarters. In mid-December, the Occupy areas were cleared by the police. At each stage, they appeared to have a good hand to play.

Yesterday former deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that he felt things were not going right during the early glory days in early October. "We had nothing left except for the ability to call for action. However, we couldn't really call for many things." Of course, a school strike and a business strike would be the most powerful actions, as well as other non-cooperation actions. However, none of these could be carried out across all the social strata.

Former executive committee member Yvonne Leung admitted that "they made many wrong decisions." But she insisted that it is okay as long as they don't regret it. She said that many people around her got injured and paid heavily.

Former permanent secretary Eason Chung said that reporters kept asking how when decisions are right or wrong and who is responsible. This made many people reluctant to tell their side of the story. This became very frustrating.

Former secretary-general Alex Chow said that he kept blaming and negating himself, including whether he was lacking in ability and/or judgment so that the whole movement was losing its direction.

Current secretary-general Nathan Law said that he did not want to think about past events in detail. He said that the people around him and dynamic and idealistic and have returned to normal lives one year later. But it seemed that these five students are probably even more lost now than a year ago.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Interview: "We are our biggest enemies," says student leader Alex Chow. October 2, 2015.

A year after the Occupy movement, Hong Kong remains divided on how the event should be viewed, though more than 1,000 people showed up for the commemoration events at Admiralty on September 28. Others condemn those who look back on the memories fondly, calling this a ‘self-indulgence in failure’ and saying that there was nothing worth celebrating. Alex Chow, one of the Occupy student leaders and former secretary-general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, refuses to label the movement a failure.

“I remember I was quite depressed and frustrated – back in early September 2014, Hong Kong was like a dead city and we didn’t know how to deal with the White Paper. Before the tear gas, you wouldn’t think that Hong Kong people were capable of doing something like this…a community was born. People really enjoyed going to Admiralty, because they had built a community and reimagined the space. I think it unlocked a lot of ideas we had about what a community could be like. I think these are achievements,” he said.

“Instead of just trapping ourselves — thinking only about the August 31 decision and backing ourselves into a dead-end where we’re at a loss of what to do when they refuse to give us the political reforms we want — there’s also other things like [a sense of community] that came out of the movement. People don’t talk about this so much any more.

“Of course, this isn’t the only thing we should focus on – there are limitations too – but now it seems like people like to deem the entire thing a failure. I think that this is still pretty damn encouraging, the fact that so many of us came out onto the streets.” Chow said that one of the moments that touched him the most during the 79-day movement was when he saw, after being released from the police centre at Wong Chuk Hang, that crowds of people had poured into Harcourt Road in Admiralty. “This unique personality – it deserves to be articulated and praised. It’s a foundation that we need to build on during our fight of resistance.”

Chow, however, admits that even after the movement, more needs to be done. “Hong Kong people need tactical empowerment. The Occupy movement empowered people, but then it seemed like we didn’t really know what to do next. I think if we have a winning streak even with the smaller issues and slowly build our energy up, we can later tackle the bigger problems and not just be completely defeated when the difficulty level goes up. Now it seems like we’ve lost with the most important issue and then no one is really coming out to take the initiative to tackle the smaller ones in a different way.”

What tactics did the social activist have in mind? “First of all, there has to be a good foundation established in society, and secondly such localised campaigns should pave the way for discussion on issues such as universal suffrage after there is stronger political power and unity among the citizens. We need to be a stronger force of resistance against the government,” Chow said.

With the District Council elections coming up, Chow said that there needs to be more participation in local community affairs to strengthen civil society and reshape politics. “Our past democratic movements were always focused on fighting for universal suffrage for Chief Executive and Legislative Council elections. But under these circumstances the social landscape is overlooked. From things such as how the land is used to how the community is designed, it’s all up to the government or District Councillors to handle. I think there needs to be a breakthrough.”

“A lot of people are quite detached when it comes to elections – they’re like, what does this have to do with me? We have this misconception that democracy is only about elections, and most people doesn’t feel an immediate connection between that and their lives. Ultimately, democracy has to tie back to one’s own district or community, and the immediate problems that one faces in life – say lead in water, lack of recreational space, or urban redevelopment. There’s a lot of problems in the community, but we take it for granted that it’s like that, and we need to change that mentality and get creative.

“Look at To Kwa Wan – there are so many areas there that will undergo redevelopment, and it could hypothetically get destroyed by anyone. Places like that and Tai Po actually have a lot of space for development of resistance ideas. I remember that there were weird slogans that came out of Tai Po during the last elections – like ‘Hong Kong’s Tainan’ or something – but it’s this sort of imagination that we need, otherwise we’ll be stuck in reality and box ourselves up.”

District politics isn’t the only area where Chow is calling for more creativity. Chow also reflected on the fact that during the Occupy movement, the only real act of civil disobedience the protesters had was blocking the road. “But if we have only one tactic, it’s quite weak and the government can’t really feel our resistance. They also have different ways of stopping you, such as using police, triads, their own pressure groups, legal injunctions. I think the most effective method is to strike – it doesn’t really happen in Hong Kong. Even after tear gas was deployed last year, there wasn’t a strike when it comes to the businesses – the students did, but only partially. I believe that we need more experience and creativity when it comes to methods of resistance.”

When asked about his opinion on what the next step is for Hong Kong, Chow believes in a bottom-up approach. “The Hong Kong [citizens’] charter – the idea of people coming together to draft a plan and then have the plan endorsed by a referendum – it could give us a clearer picture of the change we want for Hong Kong in the future, not just with democratic reforms but also socially and economically.”

“I think we are our biggest enemies, when it comes to Hong Kong’s development and future. We focus a lot on the ‘self’ – we don’t appreciate others. We don’t cooperate with each other and there’s a lot of mistrust. I think all of us need to take a step back and look at this vicious cycle we’re in. It’s quite spiritual, but also quite practical. We have to realise that even with people we don’t agree with on certain things, they’re acting this way because they really care about Hong Kong and they’re suffering.”

Chow said that he has been learning how to achieve inner peace through studying Buddhism. “I don’t want to be overtaken by emotions when I make decisions – I want to have a clear head. When emotions overburden you, they could have destructive consequences.”

Chow, who still has two courses to go before he graduates with a Bachelor of Arts in Comparative Literature at the University of Hong Kong, wants to pursue a postgraduate degree in cultural studies overseas. He said that there needs to be people who look at Hong Kong from a different perspective. “How we decipher Hong Kong’s past also determines how we understand our problems today. I’m interested in a post-colonial reading of Hong Kong. I think I want to be a scholar who takes part in social movements…I don’t think I’ll be running for office.”

Internet comments:

- So what is the scoreboard in the blame game?

Occupy Central Trio member Benny Tai says that he doesn't blame the students, although he thought that the students were wrong to escalate. Thus, he blames the students obliquely.

Occupy Central Trio member Chan Kin-man says that the students may have been over-ambitious, but it is too still early to have a verdict. Thus, he blames the students obliquely.

Occupy Central Trio member Chu Yiu-ming says that the students should have retreated after their first dialogue with government officials. Thus, he blames the students directly.

Jimmy Lai says that the students were arrogant pricks who had no idea what they were doing, and that grown-ups should be taking charge instead. Thus, he blames the students directly.

Joseph Zen thought that the students were unorganized and chaotic. Thus, he blames the students directly.

The former Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow said that there was never a best moment for retreat, because any retreat would have split the movement. He said that it is "very cheap" to criticize the students.

The former Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum said that the decision-making system was defective and that the Labour Party/Professional Teachers Union failed to deliver large-scale labor/school strikes.

In summary, it is always somebody else's fault and never mine.

- Oh, wait, didn't they have a five-party platform? Who has gone missing? Certainly the Civil Human Rights Front and other civil groups always insist that they are there to assist and not to lead, so it can't be their fault and they won't issue any post-mortem analyses. But the missing elephant in the house is the pan-democrats (political parties, legislative councilors and politicians).

Do you remember the yellow umbrella show that was so carefully choreographed inside the Legislative Council?

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgBpCMpD5Cw

The pan-democrats have completely vanished from view at this time. Nobody has shown up to share their thoughts on what went wrong or what is to be done. Nobody has promised to show up at any commemorative ceremony. It is as if they don't know those Occupy Central people.

Why?

As Alex Chow noted, everyone has his political calculations. In the case of politicians, it is first and foremost about elections. If you don't have an elected seat, you are nobody. If you have an elected seat, power and money flows from it.

In the past, the rule-of-thumb is that the electorate is divided into 60% pro-democracy and 40% pro-establishment. Occupy Central has pushed 20% of the moderate pro-democracy camp over to the pro-establishment side. Of the remaining 40%, 10% will go to the radical parties and 30% to the traditional pan-democratic base. That means serious trouble for the pan-democrats. They won't be able to win the 10% radical voters by any means. For example, on November 29 2014, Fernando Cheung (Labour Party), Helen Wong (Democratic Party) and Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre) went down to Occupy Mong Kok area and were roundly boo'ed: "Who asked you to come down here?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkYMS4-grnU ). So they must try to win the moderates back by pretending that they had nothing to do with Occupy Central.

But the Internet has memories: Photo of pan-democrats with "Unite to support Occupy Central"

- When people are leaders of a mass movement, they are supposed to have empathy with what the masses are feeling. What do the masses think about Occupy Central? Look at Mong Kok first:

(Oriental Daily) November 1, 2014.

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 ... 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. ... 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.

The leaders of Occupy Central have not uttered a word about the small businesses which suffered economic losses during that time. Nothing whatsoever.

- To say something sympathetic to the small business operators would be to admit that Occupy was flawed, and then the 10% radicals would say that you are a traitor. But actually shutting up would mean losing a lot more votes.

- I was talking to a female friend and I asked her about how Occupy Central affected her (if at all). She began to curse: "I live in Ma On Shan, and I take the bus every morning to go to work in Admiralty. Because they occupied Causeway Bay, the bus had to make a detour. Because they occupied Admiralty, the bus stopped somewhere in Wanchai, except the location of the terminal stop was different almost every day. It was total chaos because nobody knew what was going on. After I got off wherever the bus let me off, I had to walk to the office. I have arthritic knees, and all that walking really hurts. My normal door-to-door bus ride was about one hour. During Occupy Central, the trip took two hours." None of the Occupy Central leaders have ever uttered a sincere word of apology to people such as my friend. That is why she will never vote for a pan-democrat again.

- To say that the sufferings of common folks need to be considered is the talk of "leftist retards." According to the Valiant Warriors, the rest of the Hong Kong population are just pigs to be led to the trough to feed whatever whenever.

- Benny Tai said that rule-of-law has not been impact, because street crime is by no means rampant. Who are these people then?

The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 1

The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 2

The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 3

The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 4

The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 5

The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 6

Or this compilation of violent incidents https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDbx6CMlrbc

- On November 19, 2014, this was where public opinion stood:

(HKU POP - PopCon Survey on Occupy Movement)

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 (such as 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

Summary:
13.8%: Continue
79.2%: Stop

Unfortunately, the students who were the nominal leaders were incapable of stopping Occupy Central. Simply put, if they said STOP, then the (4.4% + 6.1%) would be crying BETRAYAL! That 10.5% would have gone on their own way to "valiantly resist with force." However, if they just lumber on with Occupy Central, they would risk more people getting sick and tired of a seemingly pointless task, because the central government seems perfectly happy with how things were turning out. That is what Alex Chow was talking about. In the end, the Federation of Students called for an escalation to lay siege to Government Headquarters, a move that they knew would fail but it gave them the reason to exit afterwards.

But the point is not to analyze the past. The point is to realize that Occupy Central must not and should not be repeated, because (1) it is unpopular and alienates more people as time goes by; and (2) it has no discernible impact on the central government with respect to the demands of the demonstrators. The first time was a tragedy for Occupy Central; if there is a second time, it would be a farce.

- Lester Shum points to the organizational problems as the underlying factor. He said that they were not democratic enough and made decisions that were not always transparent to the followers. Look, if they want to run a democracy and they put up to vote on: Should we withdraw? If all 60% of the pan-democrats voted, it would be 50% moderates/traditionalists for and 10% radicals against. But the 10% radicals won't accept the outcome. They will simply continue to Occupy. There will be no motivation for the government to negotiate with the students or the Occupy Central Trio or the pan-democratic political parties again because their decisions mean nothing to the radicals. And the radicals are the ones who are chanting "Bring down the Communist Party!"

- Joseph Zen is alone to say that Occupy Central is a success and not a failure. He reasoned that because the movement made the government lose its mind and used tear gas against the demonstrators, it was successful in showing the true nature of this government. Fine, a logical extension would be: If the movement escalated and made the government use live rounds and kill 200 students, it would be even more successful. And it is never too late, because the students can always go and toss petrol bombs at the China Liaison Office this very minute!

- In the HKFP interview, Alex Chow is once again chanting his mantra of district politics. He has totally forgotten how it went when they tried it:

Reaching Out To Local Communities - Part 1
Reaching Out To Local Communities - Part 2
Reaching Out To Local Communities - Part 3
Reaching Out To Local Communities - Part 4

Here is my advice to Alex Chow: Get lost! Go overseas to study Buddhism, as you promised! This is sincere advice because your face is recognizable as one of those responsible for the debacle known as Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution. You were a failure in all aspects, including goal definitions, strategizing, organizing, building coalitions, negotiations, leadership, etc. If you get involved in a local community project, you will be a negative asset and you will torpedo that project upon announcement. Let us have some fresh face without your type of baggage, okay?

[327] The Struggle Between The Two Lines of Revolution (2015/09/23)

(Wen Wei Po) September 23, 2015.

To use unlawful methods? Or to use violent methods? Which way makes more sense? Yesterday, the Baptist University Student Union held a Civil Disobedience vs. Using Force To Stop Tyranny forum. They invited Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong and former Hong Kong Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum to attend. The audience numbered less than one hundred, with many of them being middle-aged folks. Although both speakers are regarded as opposed to the government and responsible for disturbing social order and peace, they attacked each other over the effectiveness of their respective methods.
Ray Wong began by promoting the idea of violence. He advocated that the Hong Kong citizens must start an "armed revolution." He said that force is only exercised in reaction to the police force. Therefore it is pure "resistance." He said that "the highest noble force" is intended only to make the other side "yield" and thus "put a stop to the conflict." Even if it is unable to stop the police, it will at least raise the cost for law enforcement.
Ray Wong explained how "armed revolution" will be carried out. He said that the Hong Kong police force has about 30,000 personnel. When Occupy Central first began, the number of demonstrators is several times that of the police. They absolutely had the numbers. However, the number of people showing up today to resist is a lot less. Therefore each resister will have to amplify their power many times in order to overwhelm the police. He said that there was no need to respect the legal system in Hong Kong. "Only by carrying out armed revolution can the government be changed."
Meanwhile Lester Shum said that "he is not opposed to violence in principle." But he repeatedly raised doubts about the support level for Ray Wong and his ideas. Wong rebutted that "civil disobedience" is just lying down on the ground waiting to be carried away, and has delivered no results.

Videos:

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra9YAKDAbV8 Part 1
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZNXqc3f7Iw Part 2

Internet comments:

- Let me ask one more time: Who is happiest when fellow pro-democracy activists go at each other's throat? Answer: The Chinese Communist Party, of course.

- And that is why you need to keep donating money to the Hong Kong Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. Even though they haven't achieved a thing for 26 years, you can't criticize them because that would make the Chinese Communists very happy.

- Ray Wong wants to increase the cost of law enforcement. Fuck! The Hong Kong Police is paid for by Hong Kong taxpayers. If the Police have to spend an extra $500 million for overtime pay, we are the ones who have to pay for it. [Note: Ray Wong is jobless and pays no taxes, so he doesn't mind.]
- Currently Ray Wong's "armed revolution" actions are carried out by just a few dozen people. So he says that each revolutionary must amplify his power by many times in order to reach the same level as the 30,000 police officers. I know of a certain serum (Super Soldier Serum) that will do just that:

- Ray Wong was criticized for split personality. On one hand, he insists that he and his group Hong Kong Indigenous have been at the frontline of all major battles and therefore experienced to lead. On the other hand, he will apologize for having made many mistakes due to inexperience, because experience has to be acquired through practice. What is for certain is that he and Hong Kong Indigenous have no experience in "armed revolution" or "armed insurrection". If an armed revolution were to happen today and he finds himself in the frontline (as he insists he always will be), he wouldn't have a clue about what to do. You must be a fool to follow Ray Wong.
- Ray Wong got the analysis wrong in many ways.
Ray Wong thinks that the enemy is the Hong Kong Police force which numbers 30,000 and then he plays a numbers game. On the first day of the Umbrella Revolution, 120,000 were reported to be present in Admiralty. He thinks 120,000 will be enough to overwhelm 30,000, because it is 4-against-1 combat. This may be true if you are playing tug-of-war.
Quantitatively, if you name your time and place, the Hong Kong Police cannot field 30,000 persons. The Police have to work in shifts, so some people patrol during the day and others during the night. The Police have set duties that must be covered (e.g. maintaining security at the airport). That was why during the days when clearance was near, the Police were reported to have 7,000 officers on standby and they worked 14 hours per day. So you have to worry about fewer police officers than Ray Wong thinks.
Qualitatively, the issue isn't about fielding 120,000 warriors against 3,500 police officers. You can go back to the siege of Government Headquarters:

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. (see TVB News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7j9hoiPPKA ).

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. (see INT News Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTmjsnBHmL4 ).

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.

Has Ray Wong address the simpler issue of how to deal with the 100 Special Tactical Team members (="Blue Smurfs")? Show us how you can solve the "Blue Smurfs" and maybe people will come out again. Right now people have no confidence in Ray Wong and Hong Kong Indigenous, or any other tough-talking revolutionaries. If Ray Wong doesn't like Lester Shum's type of "civil disobedience" (lie down on the ground and wait to be carried away), then there isn't much to like about Ray Wong's "armed revolution" either (50 people surround Mong Kok Police Station, chant slogans and toss garbage cans/recycling bins onto Prince Edward Road West to block vehicular traffic).

Also Ray Wong does not address the level of force that the Hong Kong Police is employing. Basically, the tenet is that the police will use a level of force appropriate to the situation such that they continue to maintain control. So if the revolutionaries are unarmed and take actions such as chanting slogans, rattling metal barricades but not physically attacking police officers, the police will respond with batons and pepper spray (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfUTqQmF_vU ). But if the revolutionaries escalate, the police will also escalate to maintain control. If the revolutionaries use batons, the police may fire rubber bullets. If the revolutionaries use butcher knives, sharpened steel pipes, baseball bats and spears to cause injuries, the police may fire Remington shotgun shells. If the revolutionaries toss petrol bombs, the police may fire live rounds or even use hidden snipers. Ray Wong has no experience in dealing with the consequences of escalation. The police are probably hoping that he would escalate.

Hong Kong police officers are armed with pistols. In the well-known Lung Wo Road incident in which three police officers were surrounded by dozens of demonstrators and photojournalists for many minutes, the police only used their batons. Had the unarmed revolutionaries escalated at that moment (e.g. use rods to hit the police), the policemen might have pulled out their pistols in self-defense.

The Hong Kong Police made a mistake in firing the 87 teargas canisters on September 28. Anywhere else in the world this is just international standard and no one would give a blink (see, for example, the Hungarian police using tear gas against Syrian refugees (including women and children) recently)). Only in Hong Kong do some people think that this is the end of human civilization. The Hong Kong Police made the mistake because they did the same in 1966 and it was okay then (see SCMP archive photo):

- That's a lot of verbiage. But a revolution is not inviting guests to dinner. If Ray Wong wants an armed revolution, he and his lackeys can just pick up machetes, sharpened steel pipes, axes and spears, then charge into the police station and kill everybody inside, then declare the establishment of the Republic of Hong Kong. Let's get it over with once and for all, one way or the other (most likely the other) instead of puttering around with theoretical debates about armed uprisings.

- Well, Ray Wong stated clearly that his idea of "armed revolution" is to use violence to intimidate the enemy to surrender and thus to put an end to the conflict, not to kill them all.

- Ah, I totally get it. In other words, you are saying that Ray Wong is a pussy.

- If the Hong Kong Police should melt away in defeat, Article 18 of the Basic Law kicks in:

Article 18

The laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be this Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of this Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region.

National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may add to or delete from the list of laws in Annex III after consulting its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the government of the Region. Laws listed in Annex III to this Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by this Law.

In the event that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the Region, decides that the Region is in a state of emergency, the Central People's Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in the Region.

That means the Central Government can declare martial law, send in the People's Liberation Army and impose a curfew indefinitely. Those found on the streets during curfew hours will be shot on sight. Ray Wong would be shot or arrested unless he gets asylum at a foreign consulate.

- If the Chinese Communists really want to sent the PLA in and replace One Country Two Systems/Basic Law with martial law, they couldn't get a better enabler than Ray Wong. With enemies like these, who needs friends?

- You worry too much. Occupy Central Trio member Chan Kin-man has assured us that the Chinese Communists will collapse on their own really really soon. So Hong Kong needn't worry about any PLA, martial law or whatever. The revolution will be handed over on a platter.

- Ah, yes, everybody is sitting on their hands waiting for the mythical 支爆 (The China Meltdown). Nobody knows when it will happen, but everybody knows that it will happen. In the interim, what can you do? Donate more money more frequently to Ray Wong's Hong Kong Indigenous to prepare for that day!

- If Ray Wong's "armed revolution" fails and the PLA marches in, he'll just shrug his shoulders and say, "It was worth a try. At least we've got a civic awakening of the young people. It is certainly better than sitting around and doing nothing."

[326] Commemorating 300 Days Of Shopping Revolution (2015/09/21)

(Oriental Daily, Oriental Daily) September 21, 2015.

Ever since the police cleared the Occupy Mong Kok area last November, Shopping Revolutionary (Gau Wu) members have gathered almost nightly on Sai Yeung Choi Street South to yell and quarrel with shopkeepers and passersby.

On the day before yesterday, the Shopping Revolutionaries announced beforehand that they would celebrate the first 300 days of the Shopping Revolution last night at 8pm on Sai Yeung Choi Street South.
The event was preceded by a forum organized by People Power featuring Tam Tak-chi. At around 745pm, a 51-year-old woman who was taking mobile phone photos of People Power's Tam Tak-chi giving a speech claimed to be punched by a 56-year-old man such that her mobile telephone hit the corner of her eye and caused an injury.

The man was surrounded by a large number of Yellow Ribbons. The police came and took the man onto a police van. The injured woman was taken to the hospital by ambulance.

Meanwhile, Andy "Captain America" was waving his British colonial dragon-lion flag for Hong Kong independence.
When the People Power forum ended, it was the turn for the Shopping Revolutionaries. They brought in a large "I want genuine universal suffrage" banner and they posted posters making fun of government officials.

At around 10pm, the one hundred or so Shopping Revolutionaries raised their umbrellas and punched some yellow balloons. Then they began to march from Sai Yeung Choi Street South to Nathan Road, led by a woman who said that she accepts neither China nor its people and who held a Republic of China flag. They were shadowed by a large number of police who wanted to make sure that these marchers do not charge onto the roadway to block vehicular traffic. During this period, there were clashes between the Shopping Revolutionaries and dissidents. The police took away four persons, including Ronald Leung Kam-shing (North District Parallel Imports Concern Group), the under-aged "Chalk Girl" who was once arrested for drawing graffiti outside Government Headquarters and two other men. The four were identified by a man who claimed to have been injured by them. The rest of the demonstrators then proceeded to surround the Mong Kok Police Station to demonstrate
The Shopping Revolutionaries announced that on September 26, they will march from Mong Kok to Tsim Sha Tsui, take the ferry across the harbor and return to Admiralty. In addition, on September 28, which is exactly one year after the police fired tear gas, they will be in Admiralty to watch the moon and eat moon cakes.

(Apple Daily) September 21, 2015.

About 50 persons gathered as usual on Sai Yeung Choi Street South last night. They said that they will continue to do so until they get genuine universal suffrage. At around 11pm, an obese man wearing a white t-shirt claimed to have been assaulted by Shopping Revolution regular Leung Kam-shing. The man was bleeding in the head. But Leung told our reporter that he never touched the man. Leung was taken onto a police van. According to information, another man and a woman ("Chalk Girl") were also take away. The Shopping Revolutionaries then called for everybody to go down to the Mong Kok Police Station to show support.

(Wen Wei Po) September 21, 2015.

About 20 Shopping Revolutionaries held a street forum. They raised banners for "I want genuine universal suffrage" and "Persist to the very end", and they held yellow umbrellas. The members took turn to tell everybody about how they feel over the past year. There were many civilian spectators and police observers.
Loyalty Alliance member Ah Man was present as an observer. The Shopping Revolutionaries tried to provoke him, but Ah Man held his arms akimbo and declined to react.
The forum ended after 10pm. The demonstrators proceeded from Sai Yeung Choi Street South and walked up Portland Street in order to demonstrate at the Mong Kok Police Station. Suddenly somebody shouted "Assault!" A man wearing a white t-shirt claimed to have been assaulted by three of the demonstrators. The demonstrators were in an uproar on Argyle Street. The police removed three demonstrators and the man in the white t-shirt to investigate.
When the demonstrators arrived at the Mong Kok Police Station, they conducted a countdown to commemorate the 87 tear gas canisters. But that led to an internal squabble because the Localsits objected to any celebration of the anniversary of Occupy Central. The Localists and the Shopping Revolutionaries exchanged a lot of obscenities.

(Oriental Daily with video) September 21, 2015.

At 450am, the three men and one woman were released. The four were arrested for "assault causing actual bodily harm." The 15-year-old girl was also charged with criminal destruction of property. In addition, the 59-year-old man was found with Part 1 Poison on his person and he will also be charged with possession of Part 1 Poison (note: Part 1 Poison are typically prescription drugs that that must have a prescription signed by a doctor and then sold by a licensed pharmacy. The reason is that the drugs may be dangerous to certain persons in certain conditions (e.g. pregnant women). An example is codeine which is sometimes used as a recreational drug.)

Videos:

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOwxNQ7nNyM More photographers than either police or demonstrators. Followed by march to Mong Kok Police Station.
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isKHwsI52ZI Buffet meal for the participants. Countdown from 87 and down. Singsong.

Internet comments:

- They are running a human flesh search on this guy:

They believe that he may be a Blue Ribbon who previously participated in the assault on Yellow Ribbons.

But that is not germane to the present case.
- The Yellow Ribbons characterize themselves as being young and having better education and higher income. But take a look at this photo of the Shopping Revolutionaries outside the Mong Kok Police Station. They look like a bunch of regular uncles and aunties?

- (Coconuts Hong Kong) January 19, 2015.

A 14-year-old girl who was arrested for chalking flowers on Lennon Wall and faced being taken into care will be allowed to stay with her family, a court ruled today.

City authorities had been seeking a "care and protection" order for the teenager, who was sent to a children's home after being caught scribbling on the wall at the Admiralty protest site in last month. Although she was later allowed to return to her father on bail and under curfew, the case sparked fears authorities are carrying out a clampdown on protesters after the end of two months of rallies for free leadership elections.

"After considering the facts and based on suggestions made by social workers, there is no need to make such an order now," Hong Kong magistrate Winnie Lau said today.

Prominent pro-democracy veteran Martin Lee, who represented the girl, said the teenager "should be happy today." The girl herself was not available for comment.

If the Chalk Girl was allowed to stay with her family, there had to be certain "good behavior" conditions. To be out there late at night in Mong Kok, "commit assault with actual injuries inflicted" and "cause criminal destruction of property" is going to violate those conditions. So this may not be the end of the story for the Chalk Girl.

P.S. The "criminal damage of property" refers to the charge that she yanked at the strap on someone's backpack until it broke. This is not like breaking the glass door at the Legislative Council to cause $570,000 in repair costs.

- Noted from various Facebook posts:

- At around 630pm, a man assaulted a woman outside the Chung Shun Building on Sai Yeung Choi Street South and caused an injury on her left eye. The attacker went inside a McDonald's. He was detained by citizens and handed over to the police. The woman was sent by ambulance to the hospital.

- The Shopping Revolutionaries insisted the police to interrogate the man in their presence, but the police took the man down to the police station to assist in their investigation. Why? It was impossible to ask any questions when there are a dozen obscenity-screaming people surrounding you. What were they saying? "Why the fuck do you need to ask any fucking questions!?" "Put the handcuffs on him, he is a criminal" "Eat shit, Evil Police!" "You are going to fucking release him?"
The policeman said: "We are conducting a preliminary investigation. I never said that I was going to release him. I never said that I was going to release me. If you keep up with this, I am going to charge you with obstructing police business."
- Here is an added detail about the attack outside the Chung Sun Building. The man and the woman may be acquainted with each other, so that the cause of the attack is now uncertain.

- At around 900pm, the Blue Ribbon guy known as "Magnifying Glass" showed up to watch the proceedings.

- At around 930pm, the Blue Ribbon guy known as "Ah Man" showed up. The Shopping Revolutionaries greeted him and asked him when he is going to jump off the roof. Ah Man smirked and did not react. The police eventually escorted him to leave through the MTR subway.

- At around 1000pm, a Shopping Revolutionary took a video of the Blue Ribbon guy named "Magnifying Glass" congregating with several other men. They appear to be getting paid by somebody for their activities, although other interpretations are possible.
- At around 1030pm, the Blue Ribbon guy nicknamed "Magnifying Glass" approached the Shopping Revolutionaries to "resolve a previous misunderstanding." As the Shopping Revolutionaries argued with him, a large group of Blue Ribbons charged up to attack the demonstrators. Many police officers came and separated the two groups. One of the Blue Ribbons wearing a white t-shirt said that he was assaulted by the demonstrators. The police asked him to identify his attackers. A woman directed him to make the identification. With the help of this woman, the man identified Leung Kam-shing, the "Chalk Girl", Sam and Peter. The police put the four onto a police van down to the police station to assist in the investigation. Other Shopping Revolutionaries followed down to the Mong Kok Police Station and demanded to know why those four Shopping Revolutionaries were taken away whereas the Blue Ribbons who attacked the Shopping Revolutionaries were not. The police said that there was no proof that the four did not attack the man, that the man had identified these four as the attackers, so they had to bring everybody down to the police station to sort things out.
- At around 1155pm, one group of citizens was getting ready to sing in order to celebrate the 300th day of the Shopping Revolution.

Other citizens objected because there is no reason to celebrate the arrest of the four brave warriors tonight. Both sides exchanged opinions.
"Is it alright for us to commemorate the tear gas?"
"If you are afraid, you should eat shit! You are fucking useless!"
"Is it alright for us to commemorate the tear gas?"
"Alright, I'll stand here."
"Is it alright for us to commemorate the tear gas?"
"Do I have to ask your fucking permission to do what I want?"
"Is it necessary to be so overbearing?"
"Why do I have to fucking ask you? Who the fuck are you? You eat shit! You Hot Dogs (=Civic Passion) eat shit! Why do I have to fucking ask you?"
Then Hong Kong Indigenous convener Ray Wong Toy-yeung led the citizens present to chant: "We demand to get a reasonable explanation! We demand to get a reasonable explanation!" and then finally "Down with the Communist Party! Down with the Communist Party!"

- It is said that People Party are the puppet masters behind the Shopping Revolutionaries on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall. Therefore, the events were organized tonight as a People Power showcase for Tam Tak-chi in his quest for a Legislative/District Council seat at 5pm, followed by the Shopping Revolutionary 300th day ceremonies at 8pm. However, the script got broken when a Blue Ribbon was assaulted afterwards. With four persons taken down to the police station, Hong Kong Indigenous members showed up and took over the show. They seemed better experienced in laying siege to the Police Station and obtaining legal help for detainees.
- But where does the bit about "Down with the Communist Party!" come from? There were about 70 persons present at the time, and this may be fine with them. But if Hong Kong Indigenous should harbor ambitions for the Legislative/District Council elections, then this is negative (and unnecessarily so) baggage.

- At 0045am, a woman explained what has happened so far. There are three men and one girl inside the police station. The person who claimed to be assaulted by the four is undergoing a medical examination at the hospital. Legal representatives have arrived and are filing the relevant papers. She said that those who have to go to school or work can leave first. However, some of those present cursed her out with obscenities for telling people to disperse.

- At around 1am, one demonstrator had an epileptic fit. The police went to offer assistance. The individual recovered afterwards.

[325] "Mental Patients" In The Umbrella Revolution (2015/09/20)

(Apple Daily, with video) July 19, 2015.

At the Hong Kong Bookfair, Yazhou Zhoukan organized a forum titled: <Hong Kong: The Games Inside and Outside The Umbrella> and invited writer Chris Wat Wing-yin and others to speak. Wat said that the Occupy Movement "attracted many mental patients to come out." Wat also said that people are basically bad but they become good because of the law. "When you know that the police are standing on the side, you wouldn't cross the street against the DON'T WALK sign; but if there are no police around and you don't see any cars, you may think about crossing the street. Such is the unspoken proclivity to break the law." She also thought that the Occupy Movement opened up Pandora's Box so as to bring out all the hidden criminal intent out into the open. She used herself as an example: "I tend to think that I am a very normal person. During these 79 days of Occupy Central, I really thought about parking wherever I wanted, because I thought that the police would be too busy elsewhere to issue a parking ticket to me."

(Apple Daily) September 19, 2015.

Recently the Internet user known as Lau Ma Che had an encounter with Joshua Wong Chi-fung in the MTR (see #323). Lau now says on Facebook that he intends to ambush Joshua Wong again on Sunday at the City Forum in Victoria Park. He said: "Joshua Wong, you fucking fool, I am issuing an official declaration of war now."
Last evening Joshua Wong replied on Facebook: "You took a photo of yourself carrying a Yellow Ribbon umbrella in Mong Kok, now you go around and criticize the Occupy Movement for affecting grandpas and grandmas. At the time when you made a video to criticize me, you were actually in the Occupy Movement." Joshua Wong then quoted writer Chris Wat Wing-yin: "The Occupy Movement attracted many mental patients to come out." Joshua Wong said that Chris Wat "has seen through many things in the world." Joshua Wong also said that he was not scheduled to attend the City Forum anyway.

Who are the more famous "Mental Cases of the Umbrella Revolution"? Below are some obvious candidates:

Andy ("Captain America) Yung Wai-yip (originally posted at #016)

(YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=750pjPpQHsM) This is a compilation of videos showing the exploits of the character known as Captain America in the occupied Mong Kok area.

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-yip 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.

Eric ("The Painter") Poon Won-tong (originally posted at #285)

(Sing Pao) June 30, 2015.

27-year-old Eric Poon (nickname "Hexagonal wrench") has been arrested by the police. Poon is suspected of having accosted a girl under the age of 16 and offered to show her some paintings. Then he kissed her against her will. The girl lodged a complaint with the police.

(Wen Wei Po) July 1, 2015.

Eric Poon showing his form with spitting, cursing and making obscene gestures

On June 11 2015, a fourteen-year-old girl was molested by a man under the pretext of showing her some paintings. Her mother learned what happened and filed a police complaint on June 25. According to the court records, a man with the same name (Poon Won-tong) was found guilty of raping/molesting a 14-year-old girl in Tuen Mun in June 2006 on three separate occasions (in a parking garage platform, a restroom for handicapped persons in a recreational area and in a parking garage stairwell). At the time, the defense claimed that the defendant had previously sustained an injury to his brain and therefore he has sub-normal intelligence.

(The Sun) July 14, 2007. A 14-year-old runaway girl was raped/molested thrice by a young man named Poon Won-tong on three occasions, once on a table tennis table for the public in Shan King Estate parking garage, once in a public restroom for physically handicapped persons in Yeung King leisure park and once in the stairwell of the Shan King Estate parking garage. On the first occasion, the defendant tied up the girl and raped her on top of the table tennis table. On the third occasion, the man forced the girl to commit fellatio. On one occasion, there was a under-aged male who watched the rape while fondling the girl. The defense claimed that the defendant is mentally retarded due to brain damage.

(Apple Daily) July 14, 2007. According to the defense lawyer, the defendant dropped out of secondary school Form 3. His parents got divorced last year. Last October, the defendant was taken to mainland China to live with his maternal uncle to learn interior decoration. After the police contacted his father over this case, the father went to mainland China and brought the defendant back to Hong Kong to surrender to the police. According to the prosecution, the defendant and the victim agreed to run away on June 6. On the same day, he took her to the platform in the Shan King Estate parking garage and asked for sexual intercourse. She refused. He used a towel to tie her hands up and carried her onto the table tennis table to rape her. Afterwards, the defendant took her into the public restroom for physically handicapped persons in the Yeung King Road leisure park. At the time, a 14-year-old boy asked to be allowed to watch. So the defendant removed the victim's clothes, used a towel to tie her hands up and raped her. On the same day, the defendant woke the victim up in the parking garage stairwell and forced her to engage in fellatio.

(Oriental Daily) July 29, 2015. At 3pm on May 21 2015, the defendant Eric Poon got into an argument with a worker on the fourth floor of the Fa Yuen Street Public Library (Mong Kok). The worker asked Poon to be quiet, but the Poon said: "If you don't know who I am, I will tell someone to beat you to death." The defendant was found guilty of criminal intimidation and sentenced to three months in jail.

Video: Eric Poon looking for a one-to-one fight at the Mong Kok Public Library.

0:55 Poon: You shut up! Leave!

1:05 The other man who is a head shorter than Poon: Leave? How can I leave? You are blocking my way!

1:07 Poon: Leave! Fuck your mother! Are you scared? Let's have a one-to-one fight!

(Wen Wei Po) August 1, 2015. On January 3, 2015, Eric Poon is suspected of injuring a male pedestrian named Law inside Hollywood Plaza (Mong Kok). Poon has been charged with one count of common assault.

(Oriental Daily) August 15, 2015. The trial of Eric Poon on charges of sexually molesting a female minor will be held on October 5. The defendant Eric Poon pleaded not guilty. The prosecutor said that there will be four witnesses. Because the victim is a minor who was sexually assaulted, she will testify via video conference. The prosecutor said that the defendant is serving three months of jail sentence for criminal intimidation while still awaiting trial for three other cases. Since the defendant had been known to skip bail before, the prosecutor asked that the defendant not be allowed to bailed out. The magistrate ruled that the defendant will be detained until the trial.

(Oriental Daily) September 24, 2015. Eric Poon filed an appeal on his 3 months jail sentence for criminal intimidation. He was not represented by a lawyer. He said that the original magistrate was wrong to accept the testimony of the victim, because when Poon said "Brothers", he was only referring to ordinary citizens and not triad members. In addition, that testimony diverges from that of another librarian. He said that the case was trivial and therefore should not have ended up in a jail term.

Poon said that he has been a street artist for more than a decade, and he sometimes took part in the Occupy Movement. Therefore, he has become a semi-celebrity. Since entering jail over this case, he has been beaten by correction officers and inmates on an almost daily basis. He was frequently harassed about whether he was paid to take part in Occupy Central. This has caused his fragile mind to suffer immensely. Therefore he asked the judge to release him immediately.

The judge said that the Occupy Movement is unconnected to the present case. Poon had to demonstrate how the prosecutor failed to accuse him of a crime without reasonable doubt. Furthermore, this was not Poon's first offense because he has multiple criminal records/jail sentences since 2012 including assault, criminal damage of property, possession of weapons of assault, etc. The judge denied the appeal.

(Oriental Daily) October 9, 2015. Eric Poon was charged with assaulting an off-duty police officer on January 3, 2015 on Sai Yeung Choi Street, Mong Kok. Poon pleaded not guilty. The magistrate said that the defendant was not a reliable witness given that he has 8 previous violence-related cases. However, considering that the police officer was not seriously injured, the magistrate sentenced Poon to 10 days in jail. It was disclosed during the proceedings that although Poon claimed to be a designer by profession, he is receiving $2,100 in social welfare payment per month.

(Facebook) At 11pm on November 3 2015, Eric "The Painter" Poon was arrested by the police on Sai Yeung Choi Street South on suspicion of sexual assault on his former girlfriend.

Oh no! ... the painter will be prosecuted.
The police refused to grant bail
Kowloon City Court Number one courtroom November 6 09:00
Case: Sexual misconduct
Our Yellow Umbrella Jesus (Father Franco Mella) has been in contact with him by telephone over the past two days
Tomorrow he will try his best to help him post bail.
The painter's actions and words stood out during the Umbrella Movement
He is necessarily the target of oppression by the police.

(Wen Wei Po) April 22, 2016.

The victim is a 40-year-old female who has been diagnosed to be moderately mentally impaired. She met Eric Poon during the Occupy Mongkok period and became steady. On October 31 last year, Poon forcibly kissed the victim in an elevator in Mong Kok. The incident was captured by closed-circuit television. Afterwards, Poon took the victim into a backlane and touched her breasts and vagina. On the day after, the victim told fellow churchgoers about the incident, and they took her to file a police report.

The magistrate said that the defendants had been jailed previously for similar offenses. In the current case, he sexually assaulted a victim who was mentally defenseless. This makes his action even more disgusting. Therefore the magistrate sentenced the defendant to 10 months in prison.

According to the court file, Eric Poon has close to 30 cases under his name. Eight of these involved violence and the rest are about sexual assaults and criminal intimidation.

Here is a collection of YouTube videos on Eric Poon:

Video: Eric Poon lying down on the ground and being interviewed by Simon Ng. He equates the 87 tear gas canisters in Admiralty with the June 4th 1989 Tiananmen Square incident. The closing comments:

"What is your name?"

"Eric."

"Everybody please support Eric and donate more money."

Video: Unidentified man punched Eric Poon in the eye with a straight right during an attempted clearance of Mong Kok by unidentified individuals in civilian clothes.

Video: eetv interviewed Eric Poon about being injured on his eye previously. "It was around 3:50pm on October 22. I was over there by the intersection of Dundas Street and Nathan Road. A group of people who claimed that they were bailiffs ... they claimed themselves ... that is to say, they are fakes. They dismantled our roadblocks. About ten of them. There were more of us than them." "If there were more of you, then how did you end up bleeding in your eye?" "We wanted to pull the iron barricades back. Then there was was a Green Ribbon who wore grey sunshades. He held scissors. He cut up our stuff to take away. I pushed him. After I pushed him, I scratched his eyeglasses because I had longer arms. I wanted him to show his face. He was displeased. He hit me and broke the left side of my eyeglasses. That was right in front of the police. The police didn't care." "Did you ask for police assistance?" "Yes, then we went down to the police station. The police released him immediately. I saw it. My friends saw it."

Video: Eric Poon and Ng Ting Pong expounding on the finer points of democracy in Occupy Mong Kok area.

Video: Eric Poon has a confrontation with a Hong Kong Broadband salesman outside Hollywood Plaza on Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok. Lots of chest bumping and loud talking.

Video: Eric Poon quarrels with an unidentified man holding a camera. He begins with showing off his middle finger and "What the fuck! You know!" in English. He said that he was injured. "All the newspaper front pages covered the story." The unidentified man asked: "What has this got to do with us?" Poon said: "Of course, it has to do with you people. You work for C.Y. Your mother!" The man asked: "This has to do with me. You answer me first." Poon said: "Yes, it's got to do with you. Fuck your mother! Dickhead! Use your brain! You are giving us post-80's a bad name!" The man said, "Thank you for your invaluable opinion." Poon said: "Invaluable opinion? Your mother and your father will both drop dead and go to hell!" The man said: "Oh, so you are the one can decide. I fully understand." Poon said: "This is what your fathers CY Leung and Xi Jinping said." The man said: "If my father were CY Leung or Xi Jinping, I wouldn't have to stand here." Poon said, "Yes, you stand here because you get paid. Two hundreds dollars a day. I know." The man said: "Not as much as what you get, not as much as what you get." Poon said: "I earn my own money." The unidentified man (sarcastically): "Oh, I understand!" Poon said: "I paint, you dickhead! Have you ever painted? Fuck your mother!"

Video: Eric Poon using a megaphone to scream obscenities at everyone and everything.

Video: Eric Poon rambles on with a speech on Occupied Nathan Road in the first 1:38 of this video. He is discussing the major incident that took place on August 4, 2014. The newspapers did not report on this matter. In summary, Poon went down to Mong Kok to cause trouble and the police arrested him. After Poon spoke, the two other speakers who followed on are a scriptwriter who is reading from his written script and a housewife who has to get on welfare because her husband has cancer. They have occupied Nathan Road because of these personal issues.

Video: Eric Poon bullies a woman as he slaps her hard in the head. When others tried to get him to stop, he said: "Shut up! It's family business!" The woman said: "I really did not borrow any money." But Poon said: "No? You stole my money until there's only 24 dollars left." A person came up to intercede but Poon pointed two fingers at him and said: "None of your business. It's a personal matter." Although there were many Yellow Umbrellas around, nobody stopped Poon who eventually left on his own.

Video: Occupy Mong Kok was cleared on November 25, 2014. At 1:23, Eric Poon uses a mini-megaphone to babble incoherently as the audience looked perplexed while the police looked bemused.

Umbrella Revolution
Road blocker democracy trash
Yellow ribbon freedom statue

Video: At 18:00 on December 6 2015, pro-democracy activist Eric "The Painter" Poon appeared to be suffering another relapse in his mental ailment. He cursed out pedestrians and charged into a store to curse out the sales assistants. The store had to summon the police.

Video: At 18:15 on December 13, 2015, pro-democracy activist Eric "The Painter" Poon sat on a chair and used a megaphone to launch a stream of obscenities to nobody in particular.

Videos: Part 1 and Part 2. July 31, 2016. Pro-democracy activist Eric "The Painter" Poon confronts members of the Politik Social Strategic.

Ava Chan ("The Cross-dressing Guy") Mei-kay (originally posted at #040)
(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 being 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" who 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 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 to 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 me. 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 Legco property damage."

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 individual 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 telephone 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 of SocREC refused on the ground that personal conduct was not relevant to job performance. As a result, more than half of the SocREC reporters resigned.

Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee

(East Week) Issue #583.

It has been more than one month since the Occupy Movement got started. Some people describe the Occupy Admiralty area as "Utopia." The Occupy Causeway Bay area is so quiet that it tends to be forgotten. But the Occupy Mong Kok area is volatile, with bloodshed and large-scale clashes possible at any moment.

Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee climbed on the barricades and did the zombie hop last night
Our reporter observed the Occupy Mong Kok area for many days. There were plenty of homeless people, marginal young people and mental patients hanging around. Their idiosyncratic behaviors were truly astonishing. There is a supply station across the Bank Centre at which a vicious-looking, foul-mouthed woman took charge. When someone takes more supplies than necessary, she was would curse out: "Everybody is allowed only one bottle of water. If you take more than one bottle, I'll fucking beat you up." She not only likes to scold people, but she is also emotionally unstable especially in the presence of persons with different opinions.

Yan How Yee kissing a duckie in front of her personal tent on top of the Mong Kok MTR Nelson Street entrance

(Oriental Daily with video)October 24, 2014.

Last night around 7pm, a woman wearing a yellow/green jacket jumped around like a possessed zombie with a yellow sticker saying "I want genuine universal suffrage" hanging down in front of her head. This angered some Occupy Mong Kok members because they felt that she disrespected the movement.

(The Sun) October 26, 2014.

Yesterday morning at 8am, there was a quarrel between a Food and Hygiene Department contractor and an old woman scavenging for cardboard paper. 25-year-old Yan How Yee in yellow joined the quarrel together with a 38-year-old woman named Lau in white. The woman in yellow and the woman in white went from verbal jousting into physical tussling onto the roadway. The woman in white yelled: "Aren't you a volunteer? Do the volunteers transcend all authorities? Are the volunteers allowed to beat people up?" The woman in yellow was more agile and jumped onto the roof of the MTR station entrance and cursed back. The police arrested both women for fighting. Both women claimed to be injured.

(Oriental Daily with video) October 30, 2014.

Last night a middle-aged man came down to the Occupy Mong Kok area to look for his daughter. There he found his daughter and the two had a loud quarrel in the streets, including pushing and shoving. Afterwards, the daughter Yan How Yee told the press that she was touched by the television news report about the police using tear gas to disperse demonstrators and therefore she volunteered to work in Occupy Mong Kok.
25-year-old Yan How Yee is a single parent with a one-year-old son. Since September 30, she has left her son in the care of her parents and elder brother and gone to live in the Occupy Mong Kok tent city, going home to visit her son for only two hours a day. Yan How Yee said that she understands that her parents are worried about her personal safety. She is sorry for neglecting to care for her son.

(Oriental Daily) October 31, 2014.

25-year-old single mother Yan How Yee was a part-time restaurant waitress. Since last September 30, she has abandoned her family and her work to become an Occupier. She quarrels with anti-Occupy people almost every day, she has been taken down to the police station and she has been quite noticeable. Her father has come down to Mong Kok numerous times to persuade to return home, but she refused. At 7pm on the day before yesterday, her father came again and argued in the street until the daughter fled. The father left angrily.

Daughter and father quarrel in the street
Yan How Yee reflected: "I must first say 'Sorry' to my father, my mother and my elder brother. I stay here all night and I neglect to care for my son. I cause my family members to worry about me. They are worried that I could be arrested. If something happens to me, then there is no one to look after my son. I did not give birth to my son so that he can become an orphan. I fully understand why my family is upset at me." She said that she has found her existential value and meaning in the Occupy Mong Kok area.

(Tai Kung Pao) December 31, 2015.

According to the father of Yan How Yee, when Mong Kok got occupied, she was "very scared" and refused to step outside her home. After she saw the call to action on the Internet, she completely changed. For the past twenty plus days of Occupy Mong Kok, "She didn't care for her son. She didn't care for anything. I don't know what happened."
Many Internet users criticize her failings as a mother. "It has gotten to the point where Occupy Central is even closer to her than her son or parents." "Occupy Central is an evil cult." "This single parent seemed to have been recruited into an evil cult ... she abandoned her son and family."

(Oriental Daily) November 11, 2015.

Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok") How Yee brought her 20-month-old son to keep watch with her at the supply station.

(Oriental Daily) November 13, 2015.

At around 11am, Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee used a handcart to remove wool blankets and other materiels from the Nelson Street materiel station to the top of the MTR subway station entrance. Other Occupy Mong Kok volunteers immediately pointed out that the materiels are still needed by people, but Yan argued that the materiels may be spoiled or destroyed during the upcoming clearance. She said excitedly: "I am not taking it for myself!" The police had to come in to mediate.

(Oriental Daily with video) November 15, 2015.

A dozen or so anti-Occupy people held a Peace Forum at 3pm in the Occupy Mong Kok area. Shortly afterwards, they began a shouting match with the pro-Occupy people who were about 5 meters away. There were about 50 people on each side. The Occupy people used a megaphone to yell obscene language. The anti-Occupy people played mainland music on the mobile phone. So the Occupy people played Beyond's Vast Skies and Boundless Sea on the mobile phone amplified by the megaphone. Finally, Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee grabbed the microphone and sang along. So this forum somehow turned into a musical concert. The police watched from afar.

(Oriental Daily with bleeped video) November 20, 2015.

At around 11am, a female mainland tourist walked by a scaffold on Nathan Road near Shan Tung Street, and quarreled with construction workers over the obstruction of the pedestrian path. Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee heard the commotion and rushed over to "assist" the construction workers. She cursed out the mainlander and used a siren against her. The female mainlander fled inside a jewelry store. Police came over to mediate.
Video: Phoenix TV

(Oriental Daily with video) November 21, 2015.

Yesterday Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee declared that she was donating about 200 corkscrews used to open red wine and beer bottles. She tossed the corkscrews on the ground and invited pedestrians and other Occupy Mong Kong people to take them. When asked for the reason, Yan said: "It is the Red Wine Festival time! Of course, we have to open up red wine to celebrate!" The police came and asked questions, but took no further action.

(Oriental Daily with video) November 22, 2015.

The distribution of the corkscrews has caused internal turmoil within the Occupy Mong Kok community. Yesterday, some individuals took advantage of the absence of Yan How Yee and removed more than 300 corkscrews, placed them in a black plastic bag and discarded the bag on the street. For safety reasons, the police have removed the bag and its contents. They asked the owner of the corkscrews to contact them.

(Oriental Daily with video) November 21, 2015.

At around noon, Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee returned to her materiel station outside Bank Centre and found it ransacked, with one sofa and other materials missing. There were cigarette butts and empty beer cans on the ground. The police were summoned. According to Yan How Yee, she was booed yesterday by a group of Occupy Mong Kok persons after she handed out wine-bottle corkscrews and so she went home to rest. When she returned, this was what she found. She also said that there were eyewitnesses to the process. She asked the police to send in the Organized Crime and Triad Bureau to investigate.
Yan How Yee told the reporters that she felt being targeted and therefore she has decided to withdraw from the Occupy Mong Kok movement effective immediately.

(Oriental Daily) November 22, 2015.

There was a primary school boy who ran away from home. At first, he slept under the Hung Hom overpass. Then he drifted over to Mong Kok because he can find food and shelter there. Thus, he became a member of Occupy Mong Kok. During this period, he was taken by a man to stay over in an apartment. When the anxious family members located him in the Occupy Mong Kok area, they learned that he was touched in the genitals twice. The police arrested a suspect who works for a gay volunteer group.
This case of sexual molestation explains at least two issues. Firstly, the Occupy areas have provided perfect food-and-shelter for homeless people. For those who want to skip school, work or family, this is paradise with magnetic attractions. Secondly, the Occupy area is perfect for those with ulterior motives, such as for predators, drug abusers, thieves, voyeurs, rapists, pedophiles, etc.
Honestly, the Occupy Central Trio's Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man have retreated from the frontline because they want to keep their job. The only people who can still hold on are definitely those who don't have to work for a living. These include Scholarism/Federation of Students heroes who receive government subsidies and who apparently don't have to show up for classes, do homework or take exams; opposition politicians who get paid $90,000 a month by the government but spend their time causing trouble; a lifeguard who fakes a work-related injury and goes on paid medical leave from the Leisure Services Department in order to work full-time as Jimmy Lai's personal bodyguard; the Goddess of Gambling Tsui Tsui who claimed that her entire personal assets were stolen from her Occupy Central tent; the white-haired old lady who gets paid to act as a human shield; ... There are all manners of modern knaves and weirdoes.
Among these people, the well-known Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee deserves a special mention. She is a single mother with an infant son and elderly parents. Called by the spirit of genuine universal suffrage, she abandoned her son and her family to become the new Goddess of Democracy. But it is incomprehensible how such an individual who gave herself to the streets for the sake of Hong Kong's future could be targeted by other Occupy Mong Kok denizens and forced to withdraw. This is a huge loss for the Occupy Movement as well as the grand project of Hong Kong democracy.

(Oriental Daily) December 28, 2015.

Several dozen Shopping Revolutionaries gathered as usual after 10pm last night outside the Hollywood Plaza on Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok). A number of Blue Ribbons were gathered there too. A large number of police officers were present to prevent the two groups from charging onto the roadway and to maintain order.
Yan ("Occupy Mong Kok woman") How Yee claimed to feel ill and sat down on the sidewalk, then charged onto the roadway and refused to leave. After several minutes, Yan How Yee claimed to be ill and the police called an ambulance to take her to the hospital.

In last October 2015, Yan How Yee was reported to be marrying soon.

Other flashes-in-the pan with no staying power:

- Video of a man talking with the voices inside his head in Occupy Mong Kok
- Students doing the Zombie Jump

- Occupy Mong Kok fighting for genuine universal suffrage on Nathan Road in Occupy Mong Kok zone:

(Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 22, 2015.

After the Umbrella riots, many demons emerged in society. This is no exaggeration. During the year or so, we can see many abnormal persons coming out in the many social incidents, both large and small.
There is a mental patient who likes to go around naked, there are men and women who have bipolar disorder, there are drug users who don't show their faces, there are men who wear skirts, there are pretty girls who use foul language ...
At the Hong Kong University incident, the MTR incident, the earlier Reclaim actions, the late-night Shopping Revolution, these demons showed up back and forth.
The pan-democrats have never faced this issue directly. The Yellow Umbrella soldiers become evasive about this phenomenon. But no matter how you draw the line between you and them, these crazy people are the by-products of the Umbrella riots. They are carbuncles that emerge in the name of "genuine universal suffrage."
If a side condition for obtaining FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE is to release your sickness and bestial instincts, then the genuine/fake universal suffrage would be useless for you because your society will become the paradise for mental patients. This is what Hong Kong today is like ...

[324] Anniversary Waltz (2015/09/19) Vera Lynn's Anniversary Waltz for all World War II sweethearts

(Oriental Daily) September 16, 2015.

September 28 will be the anniversary of Occupy Central. So far, there is no indication of any commemorative activity within the pan-democratic camp, nor any sign of re-Occupy. So far, only Scholarism and the Federation of Students appear to be holding a large symposium which the pan-democratic legislators and other civil groups are not participating. Could it be that the approaching District Council elections is causing the pan-democrats to separate themselves from Occupy Central and other post-Umbrella groups? And those who are still facing charges of illegal activities during Occupy Central now have to be on their best behavior?
The Civil Human Rights Front met with Scholarism/Federation of Students on September 15. They said that many civil groups are interested in holding commemorative events which the Civil Human Rights Front will plan and publicize. However, there is no consensus yet on the specific activities. Scholarism/Federation of Students want to hold a series of civil lectures by university professors mainly on the class boycotts, civil society, etc. However, they don't have any concrete plans on the day of September 28th.

(HKG Pao) September 19, 2015. (Wen Wei Po) September 18, 2015.

On September 12 (Saturday) at the regular Shopping Revolution on Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok), Tam Tak-chi (People Power) got on a ladder and used a megaphone to announce to the people that he wants to start the action of "Do not forget our original intentions, return to Admiralty" on September 28th. At 5:58pm this coming September 28, I call for 1,000 persons to walk out onto Gloucester Road (Admiralty) and sit down for 87 minutes." The 87 minutes is in reference to the 87 tear gas canisters fired by the Hong Kong Police last year on September 28th.
Tam Tak-chi also pointed out that his statement may be guilty of "incitement of unlawful assembly." Tam promised to the supporters: "If you only sit down on the ground, the police can't beat you up because they don't have cause. They can only carry you off one at a time."

On the Facebook of Tam Tak-chi (People Power), he has a promotional poster: "People Power, resist, never give up! Please join our actions: 9.28 return to Admiralty; 10.1 fireworks resistance!"
For most of the political parties interested in the District Council elections, Occupy Central is a loser of a cause. Therefore they couldn't stay far away enough from any September 28 commemorative activity. People Power has only one incumbent district councilor. In each district, one and only one councilor is elected based upon the highest number of votes. Therefore People Power does not have any realistic chance of winner any district council seats. Tam Tak-chi is only interested in getting name recognition for himself in preparation for next year's Legislative Council which is based upon proportionate representation (for example, the top six vote-getters in Kowloon West will get Legco seats) so that it is possible to get in with less than 10% of the votes.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAoPL-8gd1A September 18 Tam Tak-chi on Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok)

(Oriental Daily) September 20, 2015.

At around 10am, the police received a report about a banner on the pedestrian overpass from Harcourt Road to Government Headquarters. They got there and found a 15 meters by 2 meters yellow banner with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage" with many water bottles dangling from the bottom. The police determined that the banner posed an immediate danger to car drivers (i.e. the banner or the bottles may fall down onto passing vehicles below). Therefore, the banner was removed.
Internet comments:

- The vertical banner was horizontally place, so that you have to turn your head 90 degrees to read the words. This means that this was leftover originally intended to be hung from a tall spot (e.g. Lion Rock), but now someone is emptying the warehouse after it sat there unused for months.

- Well, its use consists of hanging there for a couple of hours and then removed, kept for a while in a warehouse and destroyed ultimately when no one shows up to claim (=admit to an illegal act).

- In Cantonese, "to speak sideways" means "to have your say carry the day by force against all reasoning." That's about right here.

- In Cantonese, "to sleep sideways" means "to be dead." That's about right here too, because "genuine universal suffrage" is now dead and we are stuck with electing the Chief Executive by a 1,200-person Election Committee for the foreseeable future.

- The banner indeed commemorates Occupy Central. It reminds us that the entire Occupy Central episode was completely fruitless with nothing whatsoever accomplished. Of course, they say that there had been a civil awakening among young people. That is just selfish and narcissistic, just like hanging these banners. They serve no purpose other than make those involved feel good about themselves.
- Thanks to these clowns, we didn't get any universal suffrage, genuine or otherwise. Instead we got exactly the same 1,200-person election committee just as before for the foreseeable future.
- Hey, I have a better banner for them: "Dead chicken trying to kick off the pot lid #ChickenMovement" The image is that of a cooked chicken still trying to kick off the pot lid and hoping to live. This saying is used to refer to people who are still in denial even when the game is over already.

(Ming Pao) September 27, 2015.

The Civil Human Rights Front made clear at its press conference today that there is no plan to stay around after the commemorative activities. They said that they will have several dozen marshals on duty to maintain order. On September 28, the Blue Ribbons will be in Tamar Park while the Yellow Ribbons will be at the Legislative Council and Lennon Wall.
When the Civil Human Rights Front held their meeting, they did not discuss the possibility that someone might dash onto the road. Even if People Power's Tam Tak-chi called for such action, the response seems cool. This means that the likelihood is low. But if someone should attempt that, the Civil Human Rights Front won't be able to stop them. However, they can disown the action and dissociate themselves from the perpetrators.
An Umbrella Soldier (someone from the Umbrella Movement planning to run in the elections) told us: "There is a high risk of conflict, because the crowd is in its largest size." If there should be clashes, people will be reminded of their fear of the Occupy Central and thus impact their election chances.
In addition, Cyd Ho said that the pan-democrats will not take charge of the 9.28 activities, because their role in last year's Occupy Movement was merely supplementary. Some civil groups are critical of the pan-democrats for this attitude. But one pan-democrat sighed and wished that the civil groups would sympathize with the fact that the all-important district elections are coming up, and there should be a division of labor whereby the civil groups organize the activities while the pan-democrats concentrate on the district elections. This pan-democrat says that all the pan-democratic legislators will be present on September 28.

Internet comments:

- Why is Occupy Central a loser of a cause in winner-take-all elections? Tam Tak-chi posed this question on his Facebook:

Remember the four demands of the students?

(1) Civil nomination of the Chief Executive/elimination of the functional constituencies in the Legislative Council
(2) Rescinding the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee
(3) Resignation of Chief Executive CY Leung, and the political reform trio of Carrie Lam, Rimsky Yuen and Raymond Tam
(4) Open Civic Plaza to the public

I won't blame you if you should think: "What is the fucking use? None of these demands were realized." But I point out that would be because you are callous and indifferent in shoving your own responsibility lightly onto others. Such is the tragedy of our era.

Well, everybody knows that the four demands got nowhere. That is a fact. The first question is: Why? There are many possible answers. First and foremost, the Occupy Central principals were nincompoops. Second choice is the method which inflicts hurt on common folks without affecting the governments. In any case, what people want is a realistic assessment of what went wrong, what to avoid and what alternatives can be used in the future. People do not want the same nincompoops to repeat the same method and accomplish nothing again while accumulating even more ill will. The pan-democrats don't want to be identified as the nincompoops in charge of a failed method. Here, Tam Tak-chi says that he will go where no one else dares to go by repeating the same miserable failure.
- At least Tam Tak-chi has tacitly acknowledged that a long-term Occupy is no longer possible today. He can Occupy for 87 minutes, but not for 87 days. Long-term Occupy is only good at building public resentment while accomplishing nothing. Short-term (=87 minutes) Occupy can generate good media coverage for an aspiring radical politician such as Tam Tak-chi while accomplishing nothing else.

- Incitement of and participation in unlawful assembly may lead to a jail term of 3 months or more, which excludes the miscreant from running for Legislative Council. Therefore, Tam Tak-chi will word his incitement speeches carefully and watch from the sidewalk while the fools who listened to him get arrested.

- Here is an invitation to the 300th day banquet for the Shopping Revolution, meeting as usual at 8pm, September 19, 2015 outside Broadway Cinema, Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok. The Shopping Revolution is a very-short-term Occupy, inheriting the characteristic of building public resentment and accomplishing nothing.

The event promoters called it off without much ado "because there were too many police." At the time, they were harassing the Chiu Luen Minibuses.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqg4zWbUBH8
- A number of Blue Ribbon groups have filed an application for a no-objection from the police to march on September 28 from Chater Garden to Government Headquarters from 2:30pm to 6:00pm. They said: "If we don't take up this space for this time period, the Yellow Ribbons may Occupy it again and then September 28 becomes the totem pole for continual chaos in Hong Kong; so let us block their evil plot!"

[323] Joshua Wong vs. The Horse Carriage (2015/09/17)

(EJInsight) When a young man confronted Joshua Wong on an MTR train. September 16, 2015.

If he was just aiming for some fresh attention from the online community, Lau Chun-hin has succeeded in his mission, even though he wouldn’t be totally happy about the viewer response. The 19-year-old online video enthusiast, who uses the nick name Lau Ma-che, uploaded a new clip on his Facebook page Tuesday, showing a chance encounter with student activist Joshua Wong on an MTR train.

In the video which has gone viral, Lau confronts Wong in a packed rail compartment and asks him how feels about his actions during last year’s Occupy Movement. Does he not regret that people’s daily lives were affected due to the street blockades, the student activist is asked, among other questions. When Wong doesn’t respond, Lau says he would take it as a signal that Wong is accepting the blame.

Another topic raised was the allegation that Wong’s actions were influenced by some foreign forces. Wong remains silent but tells Lau to put away his mobile phone and stop filming. Lau doesn’t heed the request, opting to continue the video interrogation.

Now some fellow passengers get annoyed and tell Lau to stop his activities. “You are disturbing me. Can you keep quiet?” one man says, while another complains that Wong is causing obstruction on the train.

Lau later posted the video online, saying he felt threatened by some passengers. He claimed that he came across Wong by accident on the train and seized the chance to ask him some questions about the Occupy protests.

Wong later posted his own message online, saying that he chose not to respond to the questioner on the train as he believed it was the best thing to do under the circumstance. If had made any comments, it would have only excited Lau further, Wong wrote, suggesting that Lau was merely seeking some attention.

Meanwhile, several netizens have slammed Lau for his conduct, describing his actions as stupid among other things, Apple Daily reported.

According to some details that emerged on Lau, he was asked to join a reform center in 2013 after he admitted making an online video in which threatened a probation officer. It is also said that he had been sent to a psychiatric hospital five times. Lau does not belong to any anti-Occupy groups. In fact, he posted last year a picture of himself holding a yellow umbrella at an Occupy site. He said in a previous interview that he intends to create a buzz on the internet in order to draw in more viewers for his videos.

(SCMP) Moment YouTuber confronts Hong Kong Occupy Central leader Joshua Wong on packed MTR train (and angry passengers tell him to stop). September 16, 2015.

A video showing a teenage YouTuber confronting Scholarism leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung in a busy MTR train compartment – and then be greeted by curses and swears from other passengers – has gone viral. The five-minute clip was filmed by 19-year-old Lau Chun-hin, known online – where his videos typically attract several thousand views – by his nickname “Lau Ma Che”.

The film begins with Lau slipping through a crowd of passengers in a packed MTR compartment to reach Wong after apparently spotting him by chance. Lau demands the student leader explain how he feels about last year’s Occupy Central protests, saying Wong did not respect Hongkongers.

When Wong asks Lau to stop filming, saying he was causing a disturbance to other passengers, Lau continues: “Oh, now you are afraid of obstructing others. So when you occupied Mong Kok and Central – at that time you were not obstructing others?” “If you think you were disturbing others at that time, why you did things to hurt others? Did you receive any advantage?” Lau questions the 18-year-old student activist.

Wong keeps nodding his head but remains silent. Lau then says: “I have wanted to speak for Hongkongers for a long time. I don’t care how high your moral values are. I feel that when you hurt others, affect others, then you are wrong.”

An angry male passenger joins the conversation at this point, telling Lau: “So how about you now? You are now filming us. Which station do you want to get off?” “You are disturbing me. Can you be quiet?” the man says. Another male passenger complains that Lau is obstructing him: “You take all the space here. What are you doing here? All of us have to give way to you.” As the first man gets off the train, a third man approaches to confront Lau with swear words. “Are you taking a picture of me? If my photo is put onto the internet I will hunt you down,” he warns.

Lau’s film has been viewed almost 160,000 times on YouTube since being uploaded yesterday. While it has earned fewer than 1,000 “likes”, more than 5,000 users have given him the thumbs down.

Some YouTube users described Lau’s video as a “stupid”, “pointless” work in which he only aimed to seek attention. They also said Lau had breached MTR by-laws by causing a nuisance to other passengers. “Such a moron. The questions asked are all stupid,” said user Cheuk yinh Yeung. “Stupid Lau Ma Che. I used to support you ... But this time you are just too stupid,” another called lun xo said.

Lau was ordered by a court to attend a reform centre in 2013 after he admitted making an online video in which he threatened a probation officer. This took place while he was serving a probation term for making another video in which he intimidated a girl. Lau told the court at the time he wanted to develop a career in the entertainment industry.

(YouTube) Lau Ma-che versus Joshua Wong + Foul-mouthed uncles. The whole world is shocked!

0:10 (Male voice) Wong Chi-fung. Where is Wong Chi-fung?
0:25 (Lau) Mr. Wong Chi-fung, can you tell us about how you feel about Occupy Central? Mr. Wong Chi-fung, I am ...
0:29 (Wong) Can you put your phone down?
0:32 (Lau) I want to interview you about how you feel about Occupy Central?
0:36 (Male voice) Hey, there are senior citizens here. Do you know? Can you shut your phone off?
0:39 (Lau) Because I feel that you really don't respect the people of Hong Kong. That is, if you don't respect people, there is no possibility to expect them to respect you back. I think that your actions during Occupy Central affected the livelihoods of the people of Hong Kong. The lives of old ladies. They can't get any peace and quiet at night. Here I want to see if you have any explanations.
1:01 (Wong) I don't want to say anything in the MTR car. There are other citizens around ... everybody is ...
1:03 (Lau) So now you are worried about interfering with other citizens. But back then when you occupied Mong Kong by force, you occupied Central by force, that was not interfering with citizens? That is, a lot of commutation ... you affected other people in going to school, going to work ... they were affected a great deal. Why do you think that people are affected at this moment? If this moment is affecting people, why back then did you so many things that hurt others? Did you get any benefits? Can you tell us? You won't respond? A silent admission? Yes, that was a silent admission. I have always wanted to ask you. Today I came across you here. I want to ask you why you did those things. I don't care how noble your ideas were, or what your demands on Hong Kong are. I feel that you hurt people, you affected people and that is wrong.
1:56 (Male voice from unseen speaker) What about you now? You are affecting us. Do you know? Where do you want to get off? Where do you want to get off?
2:00 (Lau) Get off?
2:00 (Male voice) Which stop? You are affecting me. Do you know?
2:05 (Lau) Millions of people in Hong Kong were affected.
2:06 (Male voice) Why don't you get off the train and talk? Where are you getting off?
2:10 (Lau) We get off, we get off.
2:12 (Male voice) When are you getting off?
2:13 (Lau) Getting off right now.
2:21 (Male voice) When you take your photos, you better not take a photo of me.
2:21 (Lau) I won't take your photo.
2:22 (Male voice) You are acting as if you are high and noble, buddy.
2:27 (Lau) I am not pretending to be high and noble.
2:24 (Male voice) You are taking photos.
2:25 (Lau) Is that not allowed?
2:27 (Male voice) Yes, that is not allowed. What do you want to do? What do you want to do?
2:34 (Lau) Call the police.
2:35 (Male voice) Call the police! That's even better. Development zone. You are affecting me. Do you know? You are affecting me. Can you shut up, alright? If you want to express yourself, get off the car and express yourself. Do you know? You are affecting people.
2:45 (Lau) Yes, yes.
2:49 (Male voice) Kid, please make way. I am getting off.
2:58 (Male voice) The two of you should get off the train and discuss at your leisure. You should take him with you and discuss at your leisure.
3:00 (Lau) He won't get off with me.
3:01 (Male voice) You get off. He'll get off together with you. You can call the police. You can do whatever you want. Do you know? You say that people were affected. You are affecting us. Do you know? Make way. We are getting off.
3:12 (Lau) We are getting off.
3:13 (Male voice) Move over a bit.
3:14 (Lau) There is no need to be so rough.
3:16 (Male voice) Not being rough. Just deliberately talking louder.
3:16 (Lau) Is that so?
3:18 (Male voice) Yes.
3:19 (Lau) Speaking loudly is rude, right?
3:21 (Male voice) Whatever you say.
3:24 (Male voice) I think that you are somewhat cockeyed. Is that right?
3:25 (Lau) Yes. I am cockeyed.
3:27 (Male voice) I can see that.
3:28 (Male voice) Feeble-minded.
3:29 (Male voice) No, don't say that about people. You are making something out of nothing.
3:32 (Male voice) You have read a lot of books.
3:34 (Male voice) But the brain has gone to rot.
3:37 (Lau) Hong Kong has a lot of such people who are making things so bad in Hong Kong.
3:40 (Male voice) You film at your leisure, fool! (exits)
3:46 (Man in black t-shirt approaching while pointing his finger) You took my photo!
3:47 (Lau) When did I take a photo of you? I didn't take a photo of you. What do you want?
3:48 (Man in black t-shirt ) Huh!
3:49 (Lau) I didn't film you. You call the police.
3:52 (Man in black t-shirt ) Call what the police for what? Show me your camera.
3:53 (Lau) You call the police.
3:52 (Man in black t-shirt ) You took a photo of me.
3:54 (Lau) I'll call the police.
3:56 (Man in black t-shirt ) You call the police immediately.
3:58 (Lau) What do you want? You tell me.
3:59 (Man in black t-shirt ) I ask you if you took a photo of me.
4:01 (Lau) I didn't take a photo of you. You are not qualified to appear on my video.
4:03 (Man in black t-shirt ) I fuck your mother!
4:06 (Lau) Please come over. Will the citizens help by calling the police? You are threatening me.
4:17 (Man in black t-shirt ) What is your family name?
4:18 (Lau) My family name is Lau.
4:19 (Man in black t-shirt) Fuck your mother! This is fucking giving your ancestors a bad name!
4:22 (Lau) How is this affecting my ancestors? You are giving all the Chinese people a bad name.
4:28 (Man in black t-shirt) Fucking what Chinese?
4:29 (Lau) You are not Chinese?
4:32 (Man in black t-shirt) I ask you, Fucking what Chinese?
4:33 (Lau) Are you Chinese? That's all you have to say.
4:34 (Lau) I am calling the police now.
4:36 (Man in black t-shirt) Please call the police.
4:37 (Lau) Many people have taken videos. You are threatening me.
4:39 (Man in black-t-shirt) Are you stupid? Don't fucking go outside then. Beat you up?
4:45 (Lau) I'm so fucking scared. (smiles)
4:50 (Lau) You come up nearer and I'll call the police.
4:54 (Man in black t-shirt) You are fucking crazy.
4:55 (Lau) Yes, I'm fucking crazy. You're most normal.

Internet comments:

- This video has caught me in a dilemma. If I share it, it would be giving publicity to this Horse Carriage dickhead. If I don't share it, it would be tolerating and abetting this Yellow Ribbon Zombie bastard. This dickhead/bastard is such a fucking nuisance.

- This was an ambush setup. Previously, Lau Ma-che had posted onto YouTube his anti-Yellow Ribbon sentiments. In the Joshua Wong encounter, Wong was already on the train when Lau entered with the camera running. He had to know that Wong would be in that particular subway car at that moment. So someone was following Wong and telling Lau how to make the intercept.

Of course, this was just the sort of thing that Joshua Wong would do to ambush government officials (see, for example, #215), using information most likely provided by the Apple Daily news team.

- Public figures can be harassed anywhere in Hong Kong, because of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE RULE OF LAW. For more examples, see #021. As Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to harass people in public places." Joshua Wong has done so any number of times before already. He could have given Lau Ma Che some tips about how to do this better (e.g. not be distracted by the uncle).

- In this ambush, the question was "I think that your actions during Occupy Central affected the livelihoods of the people of Hong Kong. The lives of old ladies. They can't get any peace and quiet at night. Here I want to see if you have any explanations." This is a question that many people may want to ask, but only because they thought that the answer should be that it was wrong.

By now, it should be clear that Joshua Wong already has his own answer down pat. "In fighting for universal suffrage, it is unfortunate that some people had to suffer some minor inconveniences. However, such sacrifices are necessary because Hong Kong will be a lot better off in the long run. It is true that we accomplished zero results with respect to constitutional reform. But the sacrifices were worthwhile, because the Umbrella Revolution has proven to the Moment of Enlightenment for the young people of Hong Kong."

- A harder question for Joshua Wong would be: "Why did you tell the students to assault Government Headquarters on December 1 2014, while you sat in the Legco Building watching live television and eating instant noodles?"

- The newspapers do not convey the depths to which Lau Ma-che (=The Horse Carriage) has plunged into. Ma-che is a famous YouTube person who has run through numerous user names because he keeps getting banned for various policy violations. Here are some favorites:

In 2012, he uploaded a video of himself wielding a chopper while naked. He claimed to have thrust the chopper up his anus, although the video does not show this detail.

Here is a video of him using a shoe to clobber himself in the head:

Here is a video of him issuing a threat to another Internet user named Shek Chi-heng:

- Post-race YouTube report from Lau Ma-che. At 1:50, Lau said: "I apologize to all those people who were on the MTR subway that day as well as all those who watched the video. I want to say sorry, because it is very disrespectful to film people in that manner. It was affecting people. But why did I apply this method to Joshua Wong? I want to apply the Joshua Wong-method to the shit-eating dog Joshua Wong. He makes mistakes but he would never admit them. Fuck your mother! I am imitating you now! You say that you don't want to affect people. You eat shit! How many Hong Kong people did you affect back then? Today you say that you are worried about affecting old ladies on the subway? Nobody believes what you say ... "

- Post-race Facebook post from Joshua Wong: "With respect to people like these, I think that it is better to keep your cool. The greater your response, the more he will harass you, because such people are attention-seeking. Here I wonder whether any Blue Ribbon websites (such as SpeakoutHK or NewsHK) will 'report' this story (which I think has no news value) and then spin along the line of "Joshua Wong is like a rat scurrying across the street chased by everybody, ha ha!"? It is quite pathetic if the pro-establishment media could stoop so low as to get a mental patient Lau Ma Che to attack a student with dissident views."

- When the guy is standing in front of you, you cower speechlessly. When you get home, you use Facebook to call the guy mentally disturbed. Isn't that the definition of a coward?

- I am curious about the man in the black Harley-Davidson t-shirt. He looks more like a bodyguard for Joshua Wong. Who is paying him to do that? Let's see if he is present the next time that Joshua Wong makes a public appearance.

- The follow-up video of the Lau Ma Che video has the man in the black t-shirt fleeing from Lau and his cameraperson. With a bodyguard like this, who needs assassins?

- So many commentators deplored Lau Ma Che for disturbing people on the MTR train. Really? Where were you when when the Yellow Ribbon people with V-masks were yelling on the MTR train because they want their genuine universal suffrage?

Or how about Scholarism disturbing the playing of the National Anthem last October 1st?

- The essence of Lau Ma Che's many points is about the double standards maintained by Joshua Wong. In the United States of Amerika, they have iokiyar. In Hong Kong, we've got iokirayr (it's okay if you're Yellow Ribbon).

[322] QS World University Rankings (2015/09/15)

(EJInsight) CityU leaps in latest QS world university rankings. September 15, 2015.

Four Hong Kong universities are among the world’s top 60 institutes of higher learning, according to the latest survey by the British education company Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). The City University of Hong Kong (CityU) made a huge leap, jumping to the 51st place from 57th a year ago. The University of Science and Technology ranks 28th this year, the highest in the territory, while the Chinese University of Hong Kong is No. 51 on the list. The University of Hong Kong (HKU) now ranks 30th this year, down from 28th place last year.

According to QS, Hong Kong is at the heart of Asia and is a doorstep away from mainland China. English is widely used in the city’s highly internationalized universities, which is one of the reasons why a number of local universities have made to the list, Ming Pao Daily quoted the QS report as saying.

When asked whether HKU’s ranking will be affected by the recent turmoil over academic freedom in the university, QS said the incident did not have much effect on the ranking this year. However, instability in the internal or political environment of a university may affect its ranking in the long term. For example, if a number of significant scholars are forced to leave their posts for political reasons, that would certainly affect the ranking, QS said. Earlier this month Times Higher Education published an article entitled “Unsafe harbour? Academic freedom in Hong Kong”, which said Beijing mouthpieces in the territory have been attacking prominent pro-democracy scholars, who are now paying the price for “politically incorrect” talk. For example, former CityU professor Joseph Cheng Yu-shek was being called a traitor for supporting last year’s Occupy protests. Johannes Chan Man-mun, former dean at the HKU faculty of law, was being blamed for the poor quality of research in his department. Benny Tai Yiu-ting, one of the three convenors of the Occupy Central movement, is an associate professor in the faculty.

(SCMP) Top of the class! Hong Kong University of Science and Technology rated city's number one in latest world rankings. September 15, 2015.

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has ranked top among the city’s tertiary institutions, according to the latest QS World University Rankings. HKUST, which jumped from 40th last year to 28th this year, beat the University of Hong Kong, at 30th this time, to become the top institution in the city. They were the only two local universities that made the top 50.

The city is on a par with its regional rivals – Singapore, Japan and South Korea – which also have two top-50 institutions.

The QS World University Rankings, which have been setting league tables for universities worldwide since 2005, assess institutions through six criteria: academic reputation, employer reputation, student-to-faculty ratio, citations per faculty, international student ratio and international faculty ratio.

Chinese University, which was 46th last year, was pushed out of the top 50 this time, coming in at 51st. However, it shares a top-50 slot with HKU for academic reputation.

QS head of research Ben Sowter said the drop for the University of Hong Kong and Chinese University was due to a change in the way that citations per faculty were evaluated. There used to be a historical bias towards life sciences and medicine. “Since CUHK and HKU both have medical schools, their results are slightly weaker than they would have been under our previous approach,” Sowter told the South China Morning Post. “The strengths of other Hong Kong institutions in engineering, technology and social sciences has been more equitably recognised.”

The adjustment was seen to give a fairer evaluation to universities with a strong profile in areas producing less research, such as the arts, humanities and social sciences. Both HKU and CUHK had gained ground for attracting academics from other places and remained within the top 0.25 per cent of world universities, he added. Sowter said that Hong Kong had a lot of strengths in tertiary education, including geographic location at the heart of Asia, a highly international environment with a history of publishing in English and a capability to operate effectively across disciplines.

HKUST said it was “very pleased” with the improved rankings, which it felt could always be improved. An HKU spokesperson said the latest rankings would serve as a “general reference for the university”, and different university ranking systems should be viewed with a degree of ambivalence as ranking criteria and methodologies may vary and be revised from time to time. Chinese University noted that various league tables used different evaluation criteria and parameters, and thus produced different rankings. It said it continued to strive for excellence in teaching and research.

Internet comments:

- HKUST got to the top because of its nickname: "The University of Stress and Tension." Even mainlander students were driven to commit suicide due to the stress and tension.

- Yet another Hong Kong University victory to justify the path chosen by Johannes Chan, Benny Tai, Alex Chow, Yvonne Leung, Billy Fung and the Undergrad magazine. Here is a new school logo for them: "Tomorrow's wastrels"!

- From the movie Infernal Affairs 2: "When you join the triad, you expect to pay for it eventually."

- We are glad to see that in the event of Hong Kong University sliding down the tube into oblivion, Hong Kong can count on the University of Science and Technology to hold its head up high.
- On the Internet forums, Hong Kong University has a nickname of Shek Tong Tsui University. Once upon a time, Hong Kong University was simply the one and only internationally recognized university of Hong Kong. No more now. It is the one and only internationally and locally recognized only in the Shek Tong Tsui town of Hong Kong Island.

- The QS spokesperson explained that the rankings have changed because the weight of the school of medicine was reduced relative to engineering, technology and social sciences. UST does not even have a school of medicine, so it got zero points from there but nevertheless came out ahead in the overall score.

- The interesting point of comparison is less about HKU (#28 to #30) vs UST (#40 to #28). Rather it is the two rivals in Singapore. The National Singapore University went from #22 to #12, while the Nanyang Technological University went from #39 to #13. It is said that the People's Action Party did well in the recent elections because it felt "a sense of crisis" and responded accordingly. When you focus on HKU vs UST, it means that you don't have any sense of crisis.
- Once upon a time, Hong Kong University was tops in Asia. Today, even Tsinghua University is ahead at #25 coming up from #48.
- Ever since the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, HKU was doomed to fail because it was forced to accept these low-quality mainland students, including offering them generous scholarships. HKU can improve its standing instantaneously by refusing to accept any more mainland students or scholars, and thus maintain the self-determination/autonomy that will ensure academic freedom.
- Go back to the historical data for HKU:
2011:#22
2012:#23
2013:#26
2014:#28
2015:#30
Do you spot the trend? Next year, HKU will be #32 or worse.

- Hong Kong University was willing to sacrifice a temporary drop in global ranking. It was worth it, as the courageous teachers (such as Benny Tai and Johannes Chan), staff (such as Robert Chung) and students (such as Alex Chow, Yvonne Leung and Billy Fung) gave up their scholarship and studies to fight for genuine universal suffrage in Hong Kong. In the long run, Hong Kong University and all of Hong Kong will come out ahead because of all the good things that will come out as a result of universal suffrage.
- We have to thank the HKU folks for their valiant efforts. As a result today, Hong Kong now has genuine universal suffrage in the form of 1,200 Election Committee members nominating and voting for our next Chief Executive in 2017. This is the same fucking thing that we had before the HKU folks started on their great struggle. Yes, we didn't go forwards, but they were able to make sure that we didn't go backrwards.

- HKU may be counting on its School of Medicine to prop its overall standing up, but not if the politicos have their way. Recently Civic Party legislator Alan Leong has accused School of Medicine professor Lo Chung-mau of "stopping the world from turning." Lo Chung-mau had just successfully performed the world's first double liver transplant. But Alan Leong wants him gone. Leong said: "I am very angry. They are ossified, they have been left behind my times. At 60 or 70 years old, they take pride in being 'successful' and want to impose their ways onto young people. They lack empathy. They don't try to understand what young people think. They only know how to criticize the method of expression of the young people and punish them for not obeying the authorities. They want to cling onto their social positions and they won't yield the way for young people. Society can only continue to progress if a new generation can replace the old generation."
- Yep, that's about right. Let's force Lo Chung-mau into retirement and let Billy Fung do the next double liver transplant.

- (HKG Pao) September 15, 2015.

September 28th will mark the anniversary of Occupy Central. On September 29th, the Hong Kong University Council will be meeting to vote on the Pro Vice Chancellor matter. According to information, the radical political parties People Power, Civic Passion and others will show up in large numbers to join Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students.

Legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen says that Johannes Chan must be appointed Pro Vice Chancellor became he has become a symbol of self-determination/autonomy at the university. That is to say, Hong Kong University must be allowed to make its own decisions free of outside interference. Therefore, several hundred masked outsiders in black (none of whom were or are Hong Kong University students, teachers, staff members or alumni) will show up on campus to defend that freedom and valiantly force the University Council to vote their way. Nothing is most absurd; things can only be more absurd.

- Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Nathan ("Law37") Law just boasted to the press that the Federation of Students helped out in the siege of the Hong Kong University Council members. Well, the Hong Kong University Students' Union is not a member of the Federation of Students and Law37 is a student at Lingnan University. This is proof of outside interference of the autonomy/self-determination of Hong Kong University.

- (SpeakoutHK) The tortoise has caught up. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 13, 2015.

In England, schools usually start in mid-September. My daughter is a new student and has to report in earlier. She got together with the international students to greet the new academic year. She listened to advice and did not stick to Hongkongers. On the first day, she made friends with a German, an African and a mainland Chinese.

My daughter said that the mainland Chinese student kept speaking to her in English. She thought it strange and said in putonghua: "Actually, you can use putonghua because I can understand it." The mainland Chinese student was surprised and so they started speaking in Chinese.

On the second and third day, she made more friends. The teachers deliberately mixed persons from different nations. During meals, they did not segregate by place of origin. Oddly enough, when mainland students encounter Hong Kong students whether to eat or ask for directions, they still speak in English.

"I don't understand what they are saying?" said the Hong Kong student.

"You can't understand ..." The mainland Chinese student said.

The faces are similar, their nationalities are similar, and they want mutual support and understanding in an unfamiliar place. Nevertheless they speak in a foreign language.

Even more tragically, Hongkongers think that they come from a cosmopolitan city and often make fun of the backwards mainlanders as a hare-versus-tortoise race. But they don't even realize now that the tortoise has caught up and passed them. My daughter said that the mainland Chinese students basically speak better English than the Hong Kong students do. Their pronunciation is quite proper. By contrast, our English clearly has a Hong Kong accent. So our English is worse than theirs and we are no good in putonghua either. We are neither east nor west. After one week in England, my daughter's greatest reflection is: "Hongkongers are in big trouble."

(EJinsight) September 14, 2015.

Netizens are tearing into an outspoken pro-Beijing columnist for calling Hong Kong people ignorant, dismissing her as a “superficial patriot”. They’re accusing media veteran Chris Wat of hypocrisy after a Sept. 11 op-ed in Sky Post in which she compared Hongkongers to the ignorant hare in the Aesop fable.

She said Hongkongers don’t understand that Hong Kong and China are not rivals. Wat cited her daughter’s experiences in Britain as an example of how Hongkongers and mainlanders use English to communicate instead of a Chinese language or dialect. She said Hongkongers speak English with a distinctive Hong Kong accent and can’t communicate well in Mandarin. On the other hand, mainlanders are fluent in both Mandarin and English, she said.

Barrister David Tang accused Wat of using the article to brag that her daughter studies in Britain. In a blog post, Tang said Wat should have sent her daughter to China if she was a true patriot. “In short, Wat is simply another superficial patriot,” he said.

Netizens weighed in, saying Wat should not take her daughter’s views or experiences and apply them to the rest of Hong Kong. Some said Wat has no business discussing English proficiency if she really cares that much about Mandarin.

Internet comments:

- As to whether Wat should generalize from her daughter's experiences to the rest of Hong Kong, the Return Home Card episode made it clear that even The Best And The Brightest of Hongkongers are lacking/lagging in English and/or general knowledge. It is just that there is no sense of crisis here.
- The English Proficiency Index (EPI) should have given a sense of crisis, but people seemed to have recollection of that this time.
- Even if there is no crisis here, shouldn't we always better ourselves? If we merely live off past glories, we can only slide backwards.

- This is not a fair comparison. On one hand, let us suppose that 70,000 Hongkongers are studying overseas. That would be 7,000,000 / 70,000 = 100 (one out of 100 or 1%). On the other hand, let us suppose that 700,000 mainlanders are studying overseas. That would be 1,400,000,000 / 700,000 = 2,000 (one out of 2,000 or 0.05%). So it is no surprise that the top 0.05% of mainland students are better than the top 1% of Hong Kong students. An equitable comparison is top 1%-vs-1% or top 0.05%-vs-0.05%.

- But 0.05% of the Hong Kong population is just 7,000,000 x 0.05 / 100 = 3,500. Those 3,500 would be small specks in a sea of 700,000. Size does matter.

- The difference is that young Hongkongers are circling the wagons and want to localize at a time when everybody else wants to globalize. Instead of using their natural advantages in schooling on two languages (Chinese and English) and three dialects (Cantonese, putonghua and English), they prefer Cantonese, they are poor in English and they don't want to hear any putonghua or read any simplified characters anywhere.

[321] Still Looking For That Single Spark (2015/09/11)

(Marxists.org) Mao Zedong. A Single Spark Can Start A Prairie Fire. January 5, 1930. [This was a letter written by comrade Mao Tse-Tung in criticism of certain pessimistic views then existing in the Chinese Communist Party.]

... The subjective forces of the revolution have indeed been greatly weakened since the defeat of the revolution in 1927. The remaining forces are very small and those comrades who judge by appearances alone naturally feel pessimistic. But if we judge by essentials, it is quite another story. Here we can apply the old Chinese saying, "A single spark can start a prairie fire." In other words, our forces, although small at present, will grow very rapidly. In the conditions prevailing in China, their growth is not only possible but indeed inevitable, as the May 30th Movement and the Great Revolution which followed have fully proved. When we look at a thing, we must examine its essence and treat its appearance merely as an usher at the threshold, and once we cross the threshold, we must grasp the essence of the thing; this is the only reliable and scientific method of analysis ...

Any single incident could be that spark.
(Hong Kong Free Press) Red minibus drivers ‘occupy’ Mong Kok in 3-hour standoff with police. September 10, 2015.

Around 20 red minibus drivers blocked off a junction with outside Langham Place in Mong Kok with their vehicles on Wednesday evening after discontent arose over a traffic ticket, sparking a three-hour standoff with the police. One minibus driver has been arrested and released on bail.

The incident kicked off at around 9pm at the minibus terminal on Shanghai Street. A minibus driver, 62, returned to his vehicle to find a police officer issuing a traffic ticket for violating traffic regulations. The driver then hopped in the vehicle and drove into the bus terminus and was said to have crossed double white lines on the road while doing so.

A senior police officer was about to issue another traffic ticket for dangerous driving when the driver suddenly drove the vehicle forward. The officer said that his right hand was hit. A number of drivers then blocked off parts of Shanghai Street with their vehicles in protest. Three out of four traffic lanes were taken over by red minibuses. Eyewitnesses told Apple Daily that they saw police being physically violent.

During the confrontation, a minibus driver was heard to shout, “Occupy Nathan Road!” Due to the stand-off, vehicles were unable turn into Shanghai Street from Argyle Street, causing a long line of traffic that extended towards Mong Kok Road.

The police and minibus drivers were able to reach a consensus at around midnight. Drivers moved their vehicles off the roads and traffic gradually returned to normal. The 62-year-old driver was arrested for driving dangerously and released on bail. Both the driver and police officer were sent to hospital.

Minibus drivers’ representatives will reportedly head to a meeting at the Mong Kok Police Station on Thursday afternoon to discuss the incident.

The incident came amid a series of police crackdowns on red minibuses in the neighbourhood. Some drivers were said to have repeatedly violated traffic regulations.

(EJinsight) Mong Kok minibus drivers in tense standoff with police. September 10, 2015.

Dozens of red minibuses and more than 100 people blocked three lanes of a major road in Mong Kok Wednesday night in support of a minibus driver who claimed he was attacked by a policeman after being accused of dangerous driving. The driver was moving the vehicle to a bus stand after being issued a parking ticket when the officer stopped him.

The alleged attack happened during an altercation in which the policeman accused the driver of reckless driving, according to Apple Daily. The officer claimed the minibus clipped him and injured his right arm. When other drivers arrived, they were warned by the officer not to interfere with a police matter.

About 30 of them drove their vehicles to the scene in protest, blocking three lanes of Shanghai Street, as dozens of people began to stream in. A tense standoff ensued after police reinforcements arrived and closed the street, creating a massive traffic jam in Argyle Street and Mong Kok Road. The drivers were later persuaded to return to a minibus station.

Driver representatives and the police are meeting Thursday to discuss the incident

Ling Chi-kung of the Public Light Bus General Association said red minibuses often park outside the bus stop near Langham Place but their drivers have seldom received parking tickets. The drivers might have thought they were being targeted by the police, triggering the confrontation, Ling said. He said the police should issue warnings before handing out parking tickets.

(SCMP) ‘Occupy Nathan Road!’: Minibus drivers bring Hong Kong traffic to a halt after an alleged altercation over a motoring offence. September 10, 2015.

Traffic in Mong Kok ground to a halt on Wednesday night as dozens of public minibuses blocked a busy road in protest against police law enforcement.

The clash was triggered when a driver of a red-topped minibus was pulled over for crossing continuous double white lines shortly before 9pm, near the minibus terminal at Langham Place shopping mall on Shanghai Street.

Other drivers were called in by radio and about 20 minibuses were soon blocking all three lanes of the road. Queues of vehicles were backed up along Mong Kok Road and nearby roads, while bus passengers were seen getting off and walking away.

In the subsequent fracas, both sides claimed to have sustained injuries. An officer’s arm was hurt by a moving minibus during an argument, a police spokesman said. He called for assistance and was taken to Kwong Wah Hospital, Yau Ma Tei for treatment. The driver of the minibus, who was later arrested, also requested treatment and was taken to the hospital.

Another minibus driver, who was part of the impromptu sit-in, said an officer had beaten a driver after issuing a ticket. “A driver was given a ticket. He grumbled a bit. Then I saw the officer chasing him, slapping his vehicle and opening the door [of the minibus] and hitting him. I saw it … And [the officer] also gave him a ticket for ‘dangerous driving’,” he said. Another driver said: “[The officer] gave chase before hitting the driver.” Other minibus drivers at the site shouted: “Occupy Nathan Road!”

At about 11.30pm, the drivers agreed to move their vehicles and talk to the police.

Police on Thursday confirmed that a 62-year-old minibus driver was arrested for dangerous driving. The driver, who said he required medical assistance after being arrested, has been released on bail. He is due to report back in late September.

(SCMP) Don't blame Hong Kong minibus drivers for traffic offences - blame Mong Kok terminal design, says protest leader. September 10, 2015.

Minibus drivers have blamed the poor design of the Mong Kok terminus for parking offences at the site after dozens of drivers blocked a road with their vehicles on Wednesday in a protest over a policeman issuing a ticket.

Officers told a drivers' group why the enforcement action was necessary in an hour-long meeting yesterday that a police source described as "calm". Minibus group representatives refused to comment after the meeting.

The chairman of the Public Light Bus General Association, Ling Chi-keung, said the terminus at Langham Place was too small and had only one access point for both incoming and outgoing vehicles. This often forced drivers to wait outside for vehicles going the other way to pass. He said police could exercise their powers not to issue tickets for such minor offences.

The Transport Department said last night that no one in the minibus sector expressed a view during a government consultation in 2004 on moving the terminus to its current site.

Mong Kok district councillor Chris Ip Ngo-tung said the only long-term solution was to build a larger terminus. One possible site is in nearby Sai Yee Street, which is occupied by government offices that are to be relocated.

Traffic ground to a halt on Wednesday night as dozens of drivers blocked a section of Shanghai Street to protest over a driver being issued a ticket.

The clash was triggered when a driver of a red-top minibus was pulled over for crossing continuous double white lines shortly before 9pm, near the minibus terminal. Drivers said a ticket was issued to one driver. A police officer was injured during an argument.

Police today confirmed that a 62-year-old minibus driver was arrested for dangerous driving last night. The driver, who said he required medical assistance after being arrested, has been released on bail. He is due to report back in late September.

Ling said he hoped police could exercise discretionary powers not to issue tickets for minor traffic offences at the terminal. “Because there is no space inside, the minibuses have to be parked outside, or wait at a nearby street corner,” Ling said. “I hope the police can be more tolerant, and use more warnings and appeals instead of issuing tickets.” He said a driver’s daily income was around HK$400 to HK$500 and a HK$320 ticket would take away a large part of it.

The Transport Department said that no one in the minibus sector expressed a view during a government consultation in 2004 on moving the terminus to its current site. Mong Kok district councillor Chris Ip Ngo-tung said the only long-term solution was to build a larger terminus. One possible site is in nearby Sai Yee Street, which is occupied by government offices that are to be relocated.

(EJinsight) Minibus drivers vow to cooperate after ‘Occupy’ protest. September 11, 2015.

Protesting drivers pledged to cooperate with traffic enforcers after occupying three lanes of a major road in Mong Kok in support of a colleague who claimed he was attacked by a policeman. Dozens of minibuses and more than 100 people blocked Shanghai Street opposite Langham Place on Wednesday night after the arrest of the minibus driver who was issued tickets for illegal parking and dangerous driving. The drivers said police officers have started issuing them traffic violation tickets for parking their vehicles along the street. The drivers said they had been using a portion of the street as parking space while awaiting passengers because the Mong Kok terminus was not adequate.

A minibus driver surnamed Wong, who was arrested during a standoff with the policeman, said traffic officers issued tickets without giving them any verbal warning first. He said minibus drivers normally leave if they see that there are already too many vehicles parked in the area which could cause traffic jams.

During a two-hour meeting on Thursday, representatives of the drivers agreed to cooperate with the police in traffic enforcement.

The police force said in a press release that they will continue to enforce traffic rules to ensure smooth traffic flow on Shanghai Street. However, police officers will exercise flexibility and discretion depending on traffic conditions, manpower deployment and whether a location is a traffic black spot, the statement said.

Wong said the conflict was triggered by an incident on Wednesday, when a police officer hit him in the chest and refused to let him go. He said he is considering filing a complaint against the officer in question.

A driver surnamed Poon said the police “raided” their “territory” three days in a row instead of just asking them to leave the area, which was the previous practice. Another driver, surnamed Liu, captured the incident involving Wong and the police officer and uploaded the clip online. He said the officer in question was “rude and arrogant” and even threatened that he could do anything to the drivers.

Ming Pao reported that the policeman had the same identification number as the officer who was captured on video during the Occupy protest in Mong Kok last year ordering a hotel employee to kneel down after the latter complained that a police van had not switched off its engine.

Videos:

Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoKze3a6ZjY

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIfKat8imYs Eyewitness said that he saw the police beat up the minibus driver.
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1DAGv9h84c Part 1 of street confrontation
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-csXOqcsnpU Part 2 of street confrontation
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-znOThI1uME Public Light Bus General Association representatives leave without comments after meeting with the police.

Resistance Live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmmjXroLD8c

Hao Zhongguo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGzhUIaqpQ Four-eyed brother trying to incite the taxi driver.

Siu Ching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kou6eYYtmU Woman uses megaphone to harangue the minibuses for continually breaking traffic laws.

But the best story is the one that the English-language newspapers won't cover.

(Wen Wei Po) September 11, 2015.

Top left: Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion), Hong Kong Localism Power members CK Ho and Simon Sin in background
Top right: CK Ho (Hong Kong Localist Power)
Middle left: Cheng Kam-mun
Bottom left: Hung Hom Affairs For Hung Hom People member Hinson
Bottom right: People Power's Chin Bo-fun, who is in charge of directing the Shopping Revolutionaries

The incident took place at around 8pm. A traffic police officer issued an illegal parking ticket to a minibus on Shanghai Street. The minibus drivers were upset. More than 20 minibuses arrived to block the street to express dissatisfaction. There was massive congestion in the area.

This minor traffic incident quickly got picked up by the radical elements and propagated through social media. A number of activists said that Occupy Mong Kok has re-surfaced and the masses should rush down in support. Over at Sai Yeung Choi Street South, People Power member Chin Po-fun was directing the Shopping Revolutionaries on their usual activity. She immediately seized the megaphone and brought her people over to curse the police out.

Shortly afterwards, Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat came with several cadres. He took videos at the scene and posted them to the Civic Passion website about the new Occupy Mong Kok by minibuses on Shanghai Street. He wrote: "It is possible that the situation will become even more severe." Other Civic Passion members such as Cheng Chung-tai were not at the scene, but they responded on Facebook with texts, photos and videos. Cheng Chung-tai wrote: "Young wastrels blocking the street! Time to get worried?" Two hours later, the incident was over. Cheung Chung-tai cursed on Facebook: "Damned useless!" to show his dismay that the minibus drivers did not continue to 'occupy'.

Student Frontier leader Cheng ("Four-eyed brother") Kam-mun filmed with his mobile phone. Through Facebook, he said: "Occupy Mong Kok! Full-scale mobilization!" He claimed falsely: "The minibus drivers have decided to escalate their action." He called for people to rush to Mong Kok in support. When he learned that the minibus drivers have reached a deal with the police and were going to withdraw from the scene, Cheng Kam-mun began cursing in foul language on Facebook.

A number of pro-independence City-State supporters also rushed to the scene because they didn't want to lag behind the Localists. Our reporter spotted Hong Kong Localism Power convener Simon Sin and spokesperson CK Ho yelling by megaphone in the crowd. According to information, both Sin and Ho are interested in running in the District Council elections later this year. An observer noted: "Who is going to vote for troublemakers?"

Another City-State faction Hung Hom Affairs For Hung Hom People member Hinson and others also came late at night. But by that time, traffic had resumed flowing on Shanghai Street with a strong police presence. So they were reduced to spectatorship from the curb.

(Wen Wei Po) September 11, 2015.

Chin Po-fun

When the minibuses started to block Shanghai Street, the first group of radical activists to show up to exploit the situation were the Shopping Revolutionaries from nearby Sai Yeung Choi Street South. Many of their members come from the radical group People Power. According to information, People Power have set up Sai Yeung Choi Street South as their turf and they will stop other radical groups from entering their territory. Every night, the Shopping Revolutionaries shout and holler on Sai Yeung Choi Street South. The shopkeepers hate them because of the damage to business, but they are fearful of retaliation if they should complain.

At first, the Shopping Revolutionaries were assembled by People Power executive committee member Tam Tak-chi. But Tam is interested in running in the District Council elections, so he must stay away. At present, the loudest voice comes from a woman named Chin Po-fun. According to information, she is retired public servant and now an active People Power party member.

Unlike other assemblies, the Shopping Revolutionaries consist of a few shouters as well as a number of mysterious men who look like bodyguards. These men say nothing and only watch passersby. According to information, these mysterious men also accompanied Tam Tak-chi to court. They were also present with the Shopping Revolutionaries in Shanghai Street tonight. According to our source, People Power was very active in Occupy Mong Kok. If there should be an recurrence, they want to be there sooner than other radical groups.

(Oriental Daily) September 12, 2015.

On September 9, a video was uploaded to Facebook. The video is 2:23 long, showing a minibus driver being interviewed by the press. He said that they want to disperse now and then decide on the next steps. Suddenly a voice came out: "Do you trust the evil police? ... If you leave now, what chips do you have to bargain with them?" This questioner is "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun, who was mixed in with the reporters. The minibus driver immediately replied: "Why do you have to use the descriptor of 'evil police'? You shouldn't call them 'evil police.' The police are trying to make a living as well." Cheng asked again: "Are you quitting now? What chips do you have to bargain with them? You say that you want to negotiate. You must have some chips in order to negotiate!" The minibus driver said: "You shouldn't say that. One thing at a time. I have all my chips already. Rest assured, okay! You shouldn't be so excited. You shouldn't be exploiting this situation! Okay or not?"

Initially some people thought that a reporter was provoking the minibus driver. People also praised the minibus driver for being reasonable and not exploited. Our reporter contacted Cheng Kam-mun. He admitted that he was present and he asked those questions. But he denied that he posed as a reporter. Cheng also said that he did not incite anyone. Instead he was hoping to use his own similar experience to make the minibus driver aware.

Internet comments:

- Here is a next-day report that would upset the revolutionaries even more: "Our reporter observed that the minibuses in the Langham Place neighborhood today were very law-abiding. Those coming in or out of the Langham Place minibus terminal did not take on passengers by the exit. They pretty much kept to the order."

- "The Public Light Bus General Association representatives met with the police and left without commenting to the media." Chances are that the police "read the riot act" to them. The minibus drivers are more vulnerable than the typical unemployed/unemployable Occupy Mong Kok welfare recipient because their means of livelihood can be impounded and their licenses suspended. There is likely now an agreement in place, wherein orderly illegal parking will be overlooked. However, there won't be any more minibuses parked to block the terminal entrance while the drivers eat lunch in nearby restaurants. The agreement probably prohibits public discussion as well.

- Why would the minibus drivers trust the Shopping Revolutionaries/Occupy Mong Kok people? During Occupy Mong Kok, it was the minibuses and taxis who were most opposed to these actions because their livelihoods were being devastated. At the time, the Occupy Mong Kok people wanted the police to ban the minibuses from parking in the streets.

(EJinsight) December 8, 2014.

Chiu Luen Public Light Bus is facing a backlash after it secured a restraining order from the court to stop protesters from occupying roads in the shopping district of Mong Kok. Now the minibus operator has its hands full trying to fend off complaints that it is committing the same illegal activity, occupying Tung Choi Street in the same district for parking. It is reported that Chiu Luen’s minibuses were using three of the four lanes on Tung Choi Street as parking area without authorization from the transport department.

The complaints may start hurting its business. Internet activist group Passion Times reported that at least one of its minibuses received a parking ticket from a traffic warden in Mong Kok on Monday morning.

Chiu Luen’s role in spurring police to clear the protest sites in Mong Kok has placed it on the other side of the pro-democracy campaign. As a result, calls for commuters to boycott its routes are spreading on social media, and many Occupy supporters are joining the campaign. One netizen said he would rather walk than ride on a Chiu Luen minibus.

As one of the oldest minibus associations in Hong Kong, Chiu Luen has seen a thriving business plying the routes from Mong Kok to Kwun Tong, Tsz Wan Shan and To Kwa Wan. On average, a minibus driver has to pay around HK$2,000 (US$258) a month if they want to join any of its lines, according to Apple Daily reports. The operator’s route income, as it is called, could reach as high as HK$800,000 a month for some popular routes such as Mong Kok to Yuen Long.

Reports said Chiu Luen’s income wasn’t really affected by the Occupy campaign. In fact, traffic along the routes improved because of less congested thoroughfares in Mong Kok and more passengers were going to the area to join the protest campaign or were switching from double-decker to minibus as their means of transport.

In its application for a restraining order, the minibus operator said that the street occupation was hurting the business of minibus operators as well as drivers and passengers. But the fact is, Chiu Luen has been charging the same “management fee” during the Occupy period. So why is Chiu Luen against the pro-democracy campaign? It is said that officials of the minibus operators are close to the organizers of the Anti-Occupy Central Alliance.

Chiu Luen was founded in 1968 by a group of minibus drivers who came from Chiu Chow in eastern Guangdong province. The association now has a fleet of over 100 minibuses with 300 drivers. Unlike the green minibus, Chiu Luen’s red minibus lines offer non-scheduled services. The minibus industry often criticizes the government for setting too many restricted zones that only apply to minibuses, and complains that minibus drivers are always ticketed for illegal stopping and parking in these restricted areas.

Chiu Luen would often represent the industry to negotiate with the government. Sometimes, it would even organize strikes to press its demands. Such actions have prompted authorities to look the other way when minibuses are illegally parked, sources say. Although the practice is illegal, red minibuses have been parking on Tung Choi Street for decades, according to one Chiu Luen driver.

The public light bus or minibus service became legal as a result of the 1967 Hong Kong riots. At the time, workers of China Motor Bus and Kowloon Motor Bus went on strike, crippling public transport in the city. As no buses and trams were plying the streets, the minibuses entered the scene. In the early days of their operations, minibuses had to fight for routes, and reports suggest that some of the operators established ties with gangsters. They also found ways to deal with traffic policemen. Thus, Chiu Luen gradually developed its connections and extended its influence.

But will it be able to withstand the boycott campaign being put up by Occupy supporters?

So why would the minibus drivers think that Civic Passion/People Power/Hong Kong Indigenous/Hong Kong Localism Power/Hong Kong City-State will ever really be on their side? The modus operandi of the radical elements is to throw the first rock and then disappear before the full-scale riot breaks out.

Video: Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rvpI8j2dw Earlier about 200 Shopping Revolutionaries surround the Chiu Luen minibuses to protest the fact that they park in the street.

- Anyone with half a brain would know that the minibus drivers can't and won't do anything like Occupy XXX. If they use their minibuses to set up a blockade on Shanghai Street, then what gets affected immediately? Minibuses won't be able to enter the terminal to pick up or discharge passengers! That is to say, they are going to kill off their own livelihoods by their own actions. If some protest action is to take place, it will be elsewhere (e.g. Mong Kok Police Station).

- The most effective police response is to help the minibus drivers occupy Shanghai Street by using police cars to seal off both ends and blocking all vehicular traffic in the area. It will quickly sink into the heads of the minibus drivers that they are losing money by the minute.

- Also, most of the minibus drivers do not own the vehicles. Most vehicles are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who have managed to become immensely wealthy (at least, on paper based upon the number of licenses that they own and the fact that the cost of a minibus vehicle is somewhere between $900,000 and $1,300,000). While this action may have been started spontaneously by the drivers, the ultimate decision will be made by the owners. The owners won't destroy their own wealth (in the form of license suspension or damage/destruction of the vehicles during a riot which may not be covered by insurance). The radical activists are fantasizing when they think the minibus drivers will escalate the action. They know nothing about the socio-economic environment.

- When Mao Zedong was talking about that single spark in the prairie, the situation was that the Chinese Communist Party was still too small to lead the people into mass actions. Instead, they had to wait for opportunities to jump onto. This is the same with the radical Localists right now. For example, when North District Parallel Imports Concern Group held its guided tour of the Sheung Shui parallel trading stores, only a dozen or so people showed up. Nobody is going to pay attention to them. What they needed is something like the Reclaim Sheung Shui the week before when violence is hinted, and that attracted outsider demonstrators and reporters like flies.

- (Resistance Live Media via YouTube) At around midnight on September 9, Shen Tai-fung finished supporting the Langham Place minibus drivers and returned home. He was attacked by three men at New Town Mall and warned "Not to cause so much trouble." Shen chased the men while calling for people to summon the police. At the CLP building in Mong Kok, he clashed with the three men once again. When he reached Dynasty Theatre, he was too weak from blood loss and sat down to wait for help. Shen Tai-fung said that the incident is related to his participation in the To Kwa Wan District Council election.

[320] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 2 (Localist Candidates) (2015/09/10)

(EJinsight) Anti-parallel trading protests linked to upcoming elections. September 8, 2014.

Legislator Yiu Si-wing (inset) said the protests were aimed at wooing voters in the District Council elections. But activist Ronald Leung (holding mike) said the protests were going on for the past three years
Legislator Yiu Si-wing, who is also a director at China Travel Service (Hong Kong) Ltd., said the recent protest against mainland parallel traders in Sheung Shui was part of efforts by some people to solicit voters’ support in the upcoming District Council elections. Yiu, who represents the tourism sector in the Legislative Council, said in a radio program on Monday that he felt it was strange that anti-parallel trading protests re-emerged in the past few days even though the government is addressing the problem through tighter customs inspections and a plan to build a shopping facility at the border. Yiu said the protests were hurting the local tourism industry.

But Ronald Leung Kam-shing, a spokesman for the North District Parallel Imports Concern Group, disagreed with Yiu’s comments, noting that such protests have been going on for the past three years. Leung said it was laughable that someone would think the protests were related to the elections. He said those who are saying so are simply trying to discredit legitimate protest.

Legislator Vincent Fang Kang said the wholesale and retail sector which he represents is going through a difficult period that is worse than the situation during the SARS outbreak in 2003. He blames declining retail sales in the city on protests targeting mainland visitors and shoppers.

According to the Census and Statistics Department, retail sales for the first seven months this year dropped 1.7 percent from a year ago, but plummeted 6.1 percent during the same period in 2003, when Hong Kong was hit by SARS. Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing refused to speculate on whether the protests were related to the District Council elections, but stressed that such mass actions would not help any election campaign.

Leung said it was Yiu who was taking an overly political perspective on the protests, which should not be regarded as part of an election campaign.

Meanwhile, the Federation of Hong Kong Trade Unions in Tourism issued a statement blasting the anti-parallel trading protesters for being “uncivilized” and hurting the interest of the local tourism sector. The union said it feared such protests would lead to more layoffs in the industry.

(Oriental Daily) September 8, 2015.

Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong; North District Parallel Imports Concern Group's Leung Kam-shing

Early this year, the radical localists initiated the Reclaim actions to sharply reduce the number of mainland tourists coming to Hong Kong. Six months later, they started Reclaim Sheung Shui again. This is allegedly tied in with the publicity for localist candidates in the District Council elections this November. At least four radical localists interiorare planning to enter those elections. Is it possible that even people who try to destroy local jobs can attract voters?

Candidate #1: Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong took part in Reclaim Sheung Shui last Sunday and was arrested by the police. According to some sources, Ray Wong will enter the To Kwa Wan North district election in Kowloon City to challenge DAB legislative councilor/district councilor Starry Lee. But this is actually a smokescreen because the real candidate is another Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Leung Tin-kay, who is studying philosophy at the Hong Kong University. Leung will be feeding off Ray Wong's fame.

Candidate #2: North District Parallel Imports Concern Group spokesperson Ronald Leung Kam-shing has been uploading to Facebook photos of himself passing out flyers at the Sheung Shui MTR station. According to some sources, Leung wants to challenge the New Territories North District Council president So Sai-chi. However, Leung admitted in an interview that local reception was not enthusiastic. So he may be considering another district. This is a case of conceding defeat before the race even got started.

Candidates #3/#4: Hong Kong Localism members Simon Sin and CK Ho gained notoriety in the demonstrations against 12-year-old Siu Yau-wai. They are now changing their modus operandi. According to the group's Facebook page, Simon Sin has gone to test lead-levels in the water at Tsui Ping Estate, Kwun Tong. Meanwhile, CK Ho has been present at street booths in Po Tat (Sau Mau Ping) and Wong Tai Sin.

The pro-establishment camp does not seemed concerned about these localists who parachute into local communities out of nowhere. Their initial reaction is that voters will not support people who destroy jobs.

(Oriental Daily) September 9, 2015.

This morning, Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong admitted that they are actively recruiting people to run in the district council elections. They hope to use the elections to publicize Localism and ambush the pro-establishment candidates. Wong denied that the Reclaim actions were intended as electioneering tactics. He said that he was merely a participant and not an organizer in last Sunday's event. He also said that he won't be running in the elections.

(HKG Pao) September 15, 2015.

According to Wen Wei Po, Civic Passion member Cheng Chung-tai has recently been showing up in the Lok Tsui district in Tuen Mun to distribute pamphlets and make speeches. His point was that it was expensive to do food shopping in the Mei Lok Gardens because the current district councilor Democratic Party's Albert Ho had supported the privatization of the Link REIT which brought in supermarket chains to replace the mom-and-pop stores. Cheng also said that Ho is failing in his position as Legislative Councilor. It seems clear that Dr. Cheng plans to challenge for Ho's seat.

(Wen Wei Po) September 17, 2015.

More recently, Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) has started another wave of criticism against Albert "AV Yan" Ho Chun-yan, focusing on four points: (1) Ho supported the privatization of Link REIT; (2) Ho promised to resign in order to trigger a de facto referendum in the by-election, but he failed to carry it out and chose to hold secret meetings with mainland government officials instead; (3) Ho assisted newly arrived immigrants to ask for a judicial review in order to receive social welfare immediately; (4) Ho supported the construction of the third runway at the Hong Kong International Airport when he is also on the board of directors of the Airport Authority.

Last Tuesday, Civic Passion threatened to disrupt the Tuen Mun District Council meeting. On that day, Cheng Chung-tai brought about a dozen or so supporters to the scene. They stayed for about 10 minutes but left when they couldn't see Albert Ho. Instead they went to Lok Tsui to hand out pamphlets about how Albert Ho is betraying Hong Kong.

In February 26, 2014, Albert Ho was filmed by the media as viewing sexy girlie photos while the Legislative Council was in session debating the government budget. Ho was probably not planning to run for District Council again. He arranged for a lawyer to parachute into his district. However this lawyer showed up for only about 1 month of so in April/May this year and has since disappeared. Meanwhile "AV Yan" is back in full gear.

According to information, Raymond Wong Yuk-man is sending Cheng Chun-tai to run in the Lok Tsui district because the middle-class citizens there are more likely to be impressed by Cheng's doctorate degree. However, Cheng is not interested in the district council seat. Instead he is drilling in preparation for the 2016 Legislative Council election in New Territories West.

The Democratic Party is aware of what is happening. Therefore "AV Yan" is forced to postpone his retirement. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has to modify its plans in other Tuen Mun districts mainly because some of their candidates are upsetting residents.

In the last District Council election, Raymond Wong Yuk-man sent out Chan Wai-yip to run against Albert Ho under the slogan "Repay by voting." Chan lost badly against Ho. Afterwards Wong insulted Chan by saying: "His quality is poor and so we can't blame the 'repay by voting' strategy." Chan immediately severed relations with Wong.

Internet comments:

- If the localists run in the district council elections, will they still be wearing black masks on their campaign posters?

- Of course they will wear masks. How could people recognize them otherwise?
- Ray Wong's campaign poster:

Candidate #1: The Wastrel
Sheer destructiveness, no constructiveness
There is no maximum uselessness, there is only greater uselessness
Please cast a vote for The Wastrel. If you don't vote for The Wastrel, he will fucking beat you up.

- It is a basic human right to cover your face if you should so choose to. Many countries in the world have the Sharia law for just this.

- The Hong Kong Police's Special Duties Unit (nicknamed Flying Tigers) wear masks on their missions too.

- The greatest Hong Kong movie ever is Election: Even triad gangs can hold democratic elections but the Communists China won't let Hong Kong have it.

- Indeed, here is the Hong Kong University Students' Union triads led by Billy Fung Jing-en:

Next we need an Election poster for Ray Wong and Hong Kong Indigenous.

- District Councils deal with truly microscopic issues, such as planting a tree at the intersection, placing a bench at the bus stop, moving the bus stop 20 meters down the road, etc. Voters look for someone who has lived in the district for a long time and has a lot of social ties (with Property Owners Association, Parents Teachers Association, etc). Parachuters with no local ties and knowledge have no chance (especially if they insist on wearing black masks).

- The name of the game is $MONEY$. When you enter to run, you have the opportunity to solicit donations. If you win, you get a job position that pays about $22,000 per month plus an operating expense subsidy of about $30,000 per month. The District Council is the springboard to the Legislative Council, where the job pays about $93,000 per month plus expenses subsidies as much as the salary itself.

- When you come into the limelight, you will be scrutinized. Such is the case of Ray Wong:

(HKG Pao) September 9, 2015.

Our reporter found out that Ray Wong Toy-yeung was born in 1993 and is 22-year-old now. He is thin in stature, he usually wears black round-rimmed glasses. He was rebellious and was not a good student. In the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Exam, he did not score high enough to make university. So he entered the Caritas Bianchi College of Careers to pursue an associate degree in interior decoration. In 2013, in the last year of his studies, he dropped out of school due to a difference of opinion with the teaching staff. Thereafter he worked as a freelancer in interior decoration. His income was unsteady, and his clients were mainly introduced by friends and previous clients. Last year before he entered radical politics, he claimed to have engaged six jobs averaging $60,000 in profits per job. So his income was good.

Ever since he started the anti-parallel traders demonstrations, his business was greatly affected. He admitted that "China-capital companies won't seek me out and Blue Ribbon decorators won't work with me. Some clients are worried that if I got arrested in the middle of a project, then what happens to the project and the deposit?" Therefore, he has not gotten any more business since the Lunar New Year.

Ray Wong said that he was most influenced by Wan Chin's book <The Hong Kong City-State Theory>, and his political views are influenced as such. However, he does not think that the City-State theory is feasible in Hong Kong. Instead, he thought that the Hong Kong University Undergrad's theory of ethnic self-determination was more relevant for the people to Hong Kong to build their local ethnic awareness.

Ray Wong comes from a middle-class family. His father is an engineer and his mother works for a trading company. His radical behavior has caused relations with his parents to deteriorate. At one time, he left his family and he has not improved relations since. He loves cycling, skateboarding, music and moves. He is up on current affairs. He tracks the latest information on Hong Kong politicians, organizations, traditional and Internet media. He is active on social media where he expresses his personal views. His language is radical, often mixed with obscenities.

Although Ray Wong does not think that Hong Kong Indigenous is like Civic Passion, his Facebook carries two photos: one in the sound studio of MyRadio which was established by Raymond Wong Yuk-man and another group photo with Raymond Wong, Wan Chin, "Four-eyed Brother" Alvin Cheng. This suggests that his group and Civic Passion come from the same roots -- namely, they are Raymond Wong's people. According to an informed source, Hong Kong Indigenous deliberately differentiates itself from Civic Passion but they only do so in order to get twice the exposure for localism. If the police should bust one group, the other can still carry on.

According to Ray Wong, the Hong Kong Indigenous group has about 50 core members who want to defend "Local values." Group members use this Facebook of a masked blue cartoon ninja icon for identification:

Why is the ninja clad in deep blue, which is the color of the Blue Ribbon foes? Ray Wong explained on Facebook: "Hong Kong Indigenous wears blue jackets in order to disrupt the dichotomization of Yellow Ribbon versus Blue Ribbon by the mainstream media. This is even better for promoting localist ideas."

Internet comments:

- Why is Ray Wong so anxious to see small businesses flop all over the place? Because when you discontinue your rental contract, you have to restore the site to its original condition. And you need to hire an interior decoration contractor to do that. And Ray Wong is willing and able to fill that role.

- Why didn't this article publish Ray Wong's home address? I am curious as to whether he lives in Sheung Shui or not. Wouldn't it be funny if he lives in Tuen Mun or Chai Wan, which are more than one hour away? After all, those XXX Affairs for XXX People organizations (where XXX = Hung Hom, Sheung Shui, etc) insists that local affairs can only be decided by local people.

- This is actually more localism within localism.

At the top level, it means that Hong Kong affairs should be decided upon by the people of Hong Kong.

At the next lower level of the 18 districts of Hong Kong, it means that Sheung Shui affairs should be decided upon by the people of Sheung Shui, Wan Chai affairs should be decided upon by the people of Wan Chai, etc.

At the next lower level of sub-districts, it means that Cheung Chau affairs should be decided upon by the people of Cheung Chau.

At the next lower level of neighborhoods, it means that affairs on the block surrounded by Nathan Road, Soy Street, Dundas Street and Sai Yueng Choi Street South should be decided upon by the residents of that block and not by a bunch of yahoos from the outside.

At the next lower level of buildings, it means that affairs in the Sun Hing Building should be decided upon by the people who reside in that building.

At the next lower level of floors, it means that affairs on the 16th floor of the Sun Hing Building should be decided upon by the people who live on that floor.

At the next lower level of families, it means that family affairs should be decided upon by family members.

At the next level of social dyads, it means that affairs of two individuals should be decided upon by those two individuals. For example, husband-and-wife, father-and-son, etc.

At the next level of individuals, it means that what I do is my business and the rest of the world should just fuck off!

This sounds fine, but it won't work -- what if the people on the 16th floor of the Sun Hing Building vote unanimously to just dump their garbage out of their windows onto Nathan Road below? What if I decide to set my bed on fire and burn the whole building down instead?

- I thought that there was going to something new, but Ray Wong is just another unemployed bum living off social welfare like Umbrella Revolution stalwarts such as "Captain America" Andy Yung, "The Painter" Eric Poon, "Capone" Ng Ting-pong.

In Soviet Russia, they would have charged these people with parasitism. In 1964, the Russian poet Joseph Brodsky (1987 Nobel Prize in Literature) was charged with social parasitism because his series of odds jobs and his role as a poet did not contribute to society. They called him a "pseudo-poet in velveteen trousers" who failed to fulfill his "constitutional duty to work honestly for the good of the motherland."

- Not true. Ray Wong claimed that he made $360,000 last year. If he is frugal, he has enough savings to fight some more years for Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights and, most importantly, Local Values.

- Well, I'll bet that Ray Wong did not pay his income taxes like other honest Hong Kong citizens. He probably even filed for social welfare unemployment benefits too while having an unreported income.

- Rubbish. Who has ever heard of an inexperienced interior decorator without even an associate degree making that kind of profit!? Even experienced interior decorators working on large projects can't do that. The average profit margin is 2%. So a project would have to worth $60,000 / 0.02 = $3,000,000 to generate $60,000 in profits. How many $3,000,000 projects are out there when the average price of apartments are just in the millions? What are you trying to build? The Eiffel Tower? The Empire State Building?

- When you are young and inexperienced, the only way you can bid for a job is to have razor-thin profit margins. You may even have to lose money purposefully in order to gain the experience.

- Many other Occupy Central regulars just live off their parents. However, Ray Wong has the integrity to disown his parents. In matters of great right versus great wrong, the law comes in second place and the family comes in third place.

Here is a TVB screen capture of an Occupy Mong Kok demonstrator announcing: "I feel that the law comes second."

- Normally I am likely to say: "May his whole family drop dead." But in Ray Wong's case, I pity his parents who brought up such a difficult child. So I say: "May Ray Wong drop dead."

- No, he came out this way because his parents brought him up this way. They should be made to repay society for the damages wrought by their son.

- Jackie Chan was right: "The Chinese needs to be supervised (中國人是要管的)." Ray Wong is a fine illustration.

- Hong Kong Indigenous numbers only 50 members, or so Ray Wong claims. Why do the other 7 million Hong Kong residents have to accede to their wishes?

- If there are 1.2 million Occupy Central participants as reported by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, some of them can surely bring Ray Wong some business, so that he can continue to fight for "localist values." Where are they? Are they all talk and no action? Or all talk and no money?

- This is the first of the many hatchet jobs on Ray Wong and his cohorts. I wasn't as appalled as I thought I might be. There are actually plenty of other avenues to explore. I look forward to future installments (such as the one about his living conditions -- how he is growing his own chickens, rice and vegetables; setting up his own water supply; generating his own electricity and collecting rainwater because he is practicing Localism as opposed to just talking about it).

- I want to ask Ray Wong: Why do you people wear masks? Is there something really bad in the air, and why won't you tell us? More importantly, how can you represent us when we don't even know what you look like?

- Ray Wong wears a mask for business reasons, so that his prospective clients won't recognize him when they come in to discuss proposals, negotiate prices and sign contracts. Why would you hire an interior decorator who could end up in jail anytime and leave your project unfinished?

- The case of Ray Wong makes me think of a uniquely Hong Kong term: "Litter cum recycling."

Ray Wong is definitely "litter" for sure. I am not sure if he is "cum" which is useful for procreation. But he should be sent to "recycling."

- (Foreign Policy) Meet the Man Who Wants to Make Hong Kong a City-State. May 18, 2015.

Beneath an elevated subway station, with cars whizzing past, Ray Wong exhorted citizens on a recent Sunday to join a revolution – just not in so many words.

“If we allow communists to prescreen our chief executive,” the head of Hong Kong’s officially independent government, then “the chief executive will not represent us!” Wong boomed into a microphone. He scanned the tide of pedestrians sweeping past, searching for a receptive ear. The city, he said, must reject a Beijing-backed elections plan that’s up for a vote this spring and defy Chinese leaders from exerting more control over Hong Kong. Remember, Wang noted, that the nation silenced the last call for democracy in 1989. “If you do not want the slaughtering-unarmed-students communist government to prescreen our chief executive, we must stand firm and reject this arrangement!” Wong’s lanky frame was decked in a crisp, light blue tee shirt with white letters reading, “Hong Kong Indigenous.” Most shoppers scooted to a nearby mall without looking his way.

These are low days for democracy in Hong Kong. A few months back a massive street occupation sought free elections and beckoned everyone to debate the city’s political future. Since then, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, the university group that led tens of thousands of people to stand up to riot police, splintered, accused of being opaque and incompetent. Scholarism, another student group that led protesters, has been muted, focused mostly on posting objections to the election plan on social media. Old guard democrats are playing parliamentary games. Weeks from a vote that could give Hong Kong its first direct elections in history – albeit for candidates backed by Beijing – with the city split on the plan, the fire and heat of last fall has been doused.

Into this vacuum has stepped Wong and dozens of angry youth. Their friendships forged during the protests, many of them said they had wanted to provoke the police during the occupation to force government concessions, but lost out to more moderate voices. Since then, these activists have argued online and on the streets that Hong Kong, 17 years after Britain turned the colony back to Beijing, would be better off without China. For the city to self govern, these youth say, it must fight off a mainland “incursion” that threatens the city’s language, culture, and traditions that are distinct – and superior, they argue – from those of the People’s Republic. Their first step has been to discourage mainland arrivals.

Weeks after the police cleared the protest camps, Wong started Indigenous, a grassroots group with about 40 members, and headed to the city’s northern suburbs near the mainland border. There Wong, along with members of the radical political party Civic Passion, led hundreds of people to protest the illicit trade in powdered baby formula and other goods hauled off in suitcases by mainlanders. The gatherings were ugly and at times violent, with participants cursing at mainland tourists riding northbound buses. To a degree, the demonstrations worked. After the third gathering, the central government said it would restrict Shenzhen residents to one visit a week. It was the kind of concrete concession democracy protesters had failed to secure.

Wong’s brand of nativism has attracted working-class youth as well as elite college students and graduates frustrated by the slow drip of political change. Many agree with Wong’s message that preserving Hong Kong for Hong Kongers is the best way to fight for democracy. If residents strengthen the city’s identity, they will be ready one day to leave the mainland and form a city-state akin to Singapore, he said. But he cautioned that Hong Kong citizens aren’t ready for that yet. “We’re not creating trouble for nothing,” he said, speaking carefully in an interview with Foreign Policy. “Many Hong Kong people don’t want to see Hong Kong become just another Chinese city.”

Admirers and critics say Wong has tapped into the anxiety of modern Hong Kong youth who fret about their future under China in this hyper-competitive, uber-expensive city. According to the agreement forged between the mainland and Hong Kong’s former ruler, Britain, the city remains technically autonomous until 2047. Those freedoms seemed to have perished for many last June when the communists decreed in writing that the city was subservient. The report was seen as a betrayal by many and especially inflamed youth who didn’t remember the days of colonial subservience. “It’s fear of China, fear of the [Communist Party], fear of invasion, fear of losing our culture, our language,” said Raphael Wong, a 27-year-old member of the League of Social Democrats who’s critical of the tactics of Ray Wong (no relation). “And fear makes anger.”

The seeds of nativism sprouted in the massive fall occupation, sowed by members of the Civic Passion party, a theatrical group of radicals who spread the notions of self-governance to youth through a manga-filled print magazine, Passion Teens Weekly.

But the ideas, known here as localism, date back. In 2006, activists tried to save area landmarks as city bulldozers cleared paths for more skyscrapers and rail lines. Arguments made to preserve Hong Kong’s ferry pier and farmland – vestiges of the best of British colonialism and traditional China — were rooted in the writings of an ethnography professor at Lingnam University, Horace Chin Wan-kan, said Sonny Lo, a political science professor at Hong Kong Institute of Education.

In 2011, Chin asserted in a book that Hong Kong’s route to independence rested not on a future democratic China, but on the city’s re-birth as an autonomous city-state. Chin’s edgy theories made the book a hit, but his subsequent knock on democrats who have staged an annual vigil for victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre bruised his reputation. (Chin did not respond to requests for an interview.) Few advocates, though, have grappled with the inconvenient truth that Hong Kong depends on the mainland for much of its energy, water and food.

Chin’s theories primed the city for the 2012 battle against a proposed patriotic schools curriculum. After massive strikes led by school children, the then-new chief executive, C.Y. Leung, decided that schools could opt to use the lessons or not. Still, fears grew that communist notions were creeping into Hong Kong through the growing number of mainland residents arriving to give birth, attend school, and work. Far more Hong Kong locals told pollsters that they were Hong Kongese than said they were Chinese.

By last August, when a committee of the mainland legislature presented Hong Kong with an blueprint for the 2017 elections — rejecting the notion of public nomination and dictating that chief executive candidates would be screened — the city’s localists were primed. Some residents have said it’s a low-grade battle that could drag on for decades.

“The Hong Kong perspective is becoming stronger and stronger,” said Lo, who is publishing a book in July about prospects for Hong Kong democracy. “As long as Beijing is paternalistic in terms of Hong Kong, there will continue to be confrontation and arguments between the young people and the central government in Beijing.” If the number of nativists grow, he added, “the Hong Kong people will be divided, deeply divided.”

On his social media and his Internet radio show, Wong of Hong Kong Indigenous is busy building his case. A mainland “incursion” is stripping residents of their identity and rights, says Wong. He points to the increased use of standard Mandarin in Hong Kong schools instead of the native Cantonese. The growing number of mainland migrants, he says, will be “diluting the ratio of local people.” More mainland arrivals are “depriving us of resources,” he said, especially in primary schools, public housing and certain jobs. (A 2014 Hong Kong government study rejected such claims.)

In a city already teeming with competition, Wong’s speeches have tapped into the frustrations and angst of the city’s youth, said Cheng Chung-tai, a member of Civic Passion. He helped lead the winter baby formula protests against mainland traders. “We are facing a big and powerful invader,” said the university lecturer. “If you can feel that Hong Kong is facing a situation of re-colonization by the Communist Party, then you can call yourself Hong Kong indigenous.”

The fight for an independent Hong Kong will no doubt be long, perhaps violent, Wong says solemnly. But he says he’s prepared to lead, if asked. If brute force is the intended tactic, Wong hardly appears equipped. At 125 pounds, with his Harry Potter spectacles and a bed at his parents’ apartment, the lanky graduate doesn’t look like he could withstand one blow of a police baton. He described his several arrests during the fall and winter protests and showed a picture on his phone from the November night when he claimed to have helped a gang ram metal barricades into the windows of the city’s legislative chambers.

He then caught himself and countered that he doesn’t directly advocate violence. But it’s clearly part of the plan. During a March taping of his radio show, his voice clear and steady, Wong said that once Hong Kong citizens realize they’re facing a crisis — that their culture and community has been “infiltrated by the communists,” and they are being “oppressed,” then “they’ll gradually develop an antagonistic ideology. This,” Wong concluded, “can be our so-called preparation for the next mass fight.”

- (HKG Pao) September 17, 2015.

On September 13 (Sunday), Ray Wong and members of the League of Social Democrats, the Labour Party, Scholarism and other radical groups went down to Hong Kong Police Headquarters to protest his own arrest in Sheung Shui and unjustified arrests in general. Those present included League of Social Democrats vice-presidents Wong Ho-ming and Ng Man-yuen, former Federation of Students deputy secretary-general Lester Shum, Labour Party member Chow Nok-hang, etc. These people are classified as "Leftist Retards" by the Localists. So when Ray Wong was reported to be present, the Localists turned on Wong for betraying their cause. Cemetery News said that Wong was a "traitor" and a "piece of trash" who will "go to hell."

Early on Monday morning, Ray Wong wrote more than 1,000 words to defend himself. Wong said that he did not attend the demonstration in order to "unite with leftist retards" but he "wanted to use the occasion to expound upon Localist ideas." But his clarification only drew more attacks from the Localists. Some Internet asked Legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man to boot Ray Wong off his Internet radio program under the threaten of withholding monthly subscription fees. Meanwhile Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat said that Ray Wong is no longer a fellow traveler.

To dampen passions against Ray Wong, Raymond Wong asked his radio station director Leung Kam-cheung to play guest host on the radio program alongside Ray Wong and others. During the program, Leung repeatedly condemned Ray Wong for being "fucking stupid" to attend the demonstration. Leung said: "You are not permitted to commit this type of mistake again" and "I cannot give unconditional support to those who make mistakes." Ray Wong also made abject apologies a number of times.

Just when people thought that the affair will die down after Ray Wong's apology, his supporters counter-attacked on Wednesday. They condemned Leung Kam-cheung of "acting like a bully" and "coercing people to apologize." Meanwhile, the Localists' leader Raymond Wong Yuk-man has been completely silent. A supporter noted: "Whenever there is trouble among the Localists, the founder becomes a turtle hiding inside its shell. With a founder like this, who needs enemies?"

- (Polymer) Leftist retard villains, revolutionary hypocrites. September 11, 2015.

Among those in the resistance movement of social activism, the better known people right now are City-State's Wan Chin, Legislative Councilor Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Civic Passion's Wong Yeung-tat and certain post-Occupy figures such as Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong Toy-yeung, former Student Frontier's "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun, North District Parallel Imports Concern Group's "Grandmaster Kam-kam" Ronald Leung Kam-fat, etc.

... Over the three months of the Occupy movement, those who were present at the sites have recognized the true nature of the Leftist Retards. The enemy and ourselves are clearly distinguishable. We know now that the Leftist Retards' narrative is "poison." If we have to make another critique, it would only be for the benefit of the ignorant Hong Kong 'pigs' so that they won't be victimized by that evil cult.

The Revolutionary Gang (the title came from a Wan Chin essay) is now best known through Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong Toy-yeung and City-State's Wan Chin. In recent Internet battles, the "Lam Lei-yip's opinion about the dress uniform of Hong Kong Indigenous" and "Wan Chin and CK established their differences" issues have drawn much attention. But there is only one conclusion: We should be scared of the revolutionary hypocrites.

As a scholar who wrote the book on City-State, Wan Chin spouts revolution in his essays. He says that he is willing to offer his life for the goal of establishing a new nation. However, his praxis is incomprehensible. Nation-building can only be accomplished by revolution. That is fine, but his idea of giving up his life for the sake of the revolution consists of "Analyzing the situation in China, waiting for the Chinese Communists to destroy themselves," "going down to the Occupy area and demonstrate how to use a plastic luggage case as a shield," "Nakade Hitsujiko (=Princess Chao Ming in the City-State hierarchy) raising the Reclaim The Intersection At Midnight placard and then quickly fleeing before the hour arrives", "Yeung Wai-yip placed Lord Guan's altar as a road block, and the priority mission during the police clearance is to protect Lord Guan," etc.

Here is a YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp9IkCrVXXQ in which someone has made a cartoon off Wan Chin's demonstration on how to wield a shield that was made out of a suitcase.

Nakade Hitsujiko and the "Reclaim the intersection at midnight" sign.

Lord Guan's altar in Mong Kok

I can only say that his group must be "saboteurs" of the revolution.

His group has been soliciting donations. Of course, they always say that they are looking for "reforms" instead of "revolution" in order to get the suckers to hand over the money. They keep fantasizing about the revolution, they fantasize that "the Chinese Communists will destroy themselves and then Hong Kong will be saved," they fantasize that "the gods and the ghosts will show up and rain disaster upon the police trash." They have never done anything practical, nor have they educated people about how to do it.

His group will turn out for the "elections." Everybody knows that the Hong Kong electoral system is a failure. Everybody knows that the District Council votes are bought by offering small favors (snake banquets, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes, rice dumplings) to grassroots folks. People got into resistance in the streets because they know that the councils are failing and they want to have a revolution.

To run in the elections, they need money. The money has to come from their 'supporters'. Did their supporters give their money thinking "I support your election effort" and "I hope that you can bring in some reforms"?

So this is the case of the snake-oil salesman!

Meanwhile Hong Kong Indigenous' Ray Wong recently wrote that "if you want to fight with words, there are ways to fight with words; if you want to fight with force, there are ways to fight with force." He said that he was a rookie when he joined Hong Kong Indigenous.

Well, I was the first one to point out that when his organization first surfaced, they said "We are a group of anonymous Hongkongers who stand on the foremost frontline in every battle to defend Hong Kong" and "The previous resistance models are ineffective against the Hong Kong Communist regime, so that we are compelled to stand up and seek a breakthrough." But now he is slapping his own face with this new essay. Isn't this fraudulent?

Think about it! How many persons believed that his organization was "always been at the foremost frontline," "much experienced," "use force to lead the way," "discard the old and establish the new" etc, and then put in their efforts? When they show up, they ended up being hit by police batons because of those "inexperienced rookies"?

Today, he said that he is reflecting and therefore he can forget his previous fraudulent of claim of "valor" and "experience" and toss himself into running for election. Isn't he awesome?

Obviously, someone is going to say that we should get young people a chance, or that the City-State theory just may have some merits ...

Internet commentary won't destroy something; it merely gives a direction for people to think some more about. I want to say that while we know that the Leftist Retards are clearly the enemy, you as a revolutionary should ponder whether this group has the same "ideas" as your "goals".

Do you think that their method will succeed?

Do you think that they are always looking for ways to succeed?

I think that you must think that "revolution" is "easy" if you trust the Organization and you work hard for that Organization.

Yes, this is is just like Communist education.

[319] Does City University Want a School of Veterinary Science? (2015/09/09)

(Wen Wei Po) September 2, 2015.

Entrepreneur Yeung Kin-man has donated $200 million to City University. Of these, $100 million is earmarked for the School of Veterinary Science. Another $50 million is donated to found a number of chair professorships in various schools and faculties. The remaining $50 million will be used to subsidize City University students to go overseas as exchange students. According to the strategic development plan, 65% of the City University will be able to go overseas as exchange students between 2015-2020.

(Apple Daily) September 7, 2015.

The invisible tycoon Yeung Kin-man recently donated $200 million to City University. The university board of directors voted by a majority to accept the donation, and planned to change the name of the Academic Building (1) to the Yeung Kin-man Academic Building. The university has not announced the matter. Our newspaper obtained confidential documents of the university board of directors showing that half of the donated amount will be used to support the School of Veterinary Science and related biological and medical science course development.
This seems to be a regular donation, but it is suspected of being a political gift. When CY Leung was the chairman of the City University board of directors, he strongly supported the establishment of a School of Veterinary Science but he was repeatedly defeated. Recently City University wants to establish the school on its own by soliciting donations amounting to $2 billion. By early this year, it had only managed to procure $500 million. City University responded that $100 million was allocated by Yeung to the School of Veterinary Science. As for the naming of the building, the donation and its uses, everything followed the established guidelines and procedures.
Yeung Kin-man is a low-keyed person who is in the business of making mobile telephone monitor screens. It was a big change in style to donate money to City University this time and have a building named after him. In May this year, Yeung and other business people set up a Happy Hong Kong Charity Foundation which has donated $30 million to the pro-establishment camp for community work. Two of the Happy Hong Kong Charity Foundation honorary sponsors are HKSAR Chief Executive CY Leung and China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiao-ming.

(EJinsight) September 9, 2015.

Students of the City University of Hong Kong (CityU) urged the school administration to reject a HK$200 million donation made by businessman Yeung Kin-man as they accused the entrepreneur of exploiting his workers, Ming Pao Daily reported on Wednesday. The donation is the largest the university has ever received.

Yeung is the founder and chief executive of Biel Crystal Manufactory Ltd., one of the largest manufacturers of glass covers and touchscreens for mobile phones. The company’s factories on the mainland employ more than 100,000 workers. Its clients include Apple and Samsung Electronics.

The CityU student union staged a protest during the donation ceremony on Tuesday.

Cyrus Chu Kwok-chi, president of the student union, had tried to submit petition letters to Yeung and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who is the university chancellor. However, Chu was blocked and carried away by security guards at the venue. The union expressed shock at the way Chu was treated, saying that he had received an invitation letter to the ceremony.

Chu was sent to hospital after a confrontation with security guards who blocked him from entering the venue again. But a spokesperson for the university denied that Chu was manhandled by security guards, noting that the student leader felt unwell because he had been shouting at the venue for more than an hour.

In 2013 the Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour, a non-government organization that monitors misconduct in work places, accused Biel Crystal of forcing 11-hour shifts for seven days a week and giving workers only one day off each month. It also said that at least five workers in the company have committed suicide since 2011.

The newspaper failed to reach Yeung for comments.

(Oriental Daily, with video) September 8, 2015.

"Firmly refuse the blood-and-sweat donation
Give our City University its integrity back"

A security guard is injured

The City University board of directors' community relations committee recently passed the motion to accept the $200 million contribution from businessman Yeung Kin-man. Yesterday there was an acceptance ceremony at Conrad Hotel in Admiralty. More than a dozen students stood outside, held up protest banners and chanted slogans. They said that their Student Union president was inside and they were concerned about his personal safety. The chaos went for 2 hours and stopped only when the university board of directors chairman took a letter of petition from the students.

When the students arrived to protest, the police set up a protest zone outside the hotel. As the demonstrators discussed whether to leave, the City University Student Union president Cyrus Chu Kwok-chi was removed from the meeting. According to Chu, he wanted to hand a letter to Chief Executive CY Leung during his speech, but he was carried off by eight security guards as soon he stood up. He was refused re-entry into the meeting hall. Chu demanded the university authorities to give him a reasonable explanation. Meanwhile other students tried to charge into the meeting hall. Chu tried to breach the security guards by jumping down the standing room area by the stairway. Because his action was dangerous, the fire department and the emergency medical service were summoned. Chu laid on the stairwell and refused to be taken away. Eventually, he was taken to Queen Mary Hospital to receive treatment.

A security guard claimed to be hurt. He sat and looked pained, but he refused treatment. According to information, he told the police that someone kicked him amidst the chaos.

The City University Student Union suspects that there are political aims behind this sudden donation. Accepting the money will destroy the autonomy of the university, including personnel appointments. They demand that the university authorities reject the donation from Yeung Kin-man as well as to cease and desist everything that involves the naming of buildings and chair professorships.

Videos:

City Broadcasting Channel

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1qbUiNBcCo

Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzV7ZuPzNVs

Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZdHhYhv1s

Part 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYqdoUIc3Vg

Part 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9vnHZazyc

Part 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xz5BEATSo0

Internet comments:

- I fully support the stopping of all large-sum donations from celebrities (actually, Yeung Kin-man is barely known in Hong Kong despite the size of his businesses) to universities. All universities should be self-funded in order to maintain their integrity and autonomy. They can work out their own destinies.

- I also support the stopping of all government subsidization of universities, because CY Leung is the Chief Executive and head of that government. If the university accepts money from the government (=CY Leung), we will all die (or something).
- The immediate consequence of stopping donations/subsidies is that tuition fees will have to be raised through the roof. But that is okay, because it is worth the price. We expect to pay that price in order to maintain our dignity and integrity.

- Of the $200 million, $50 million was designated by Yeung Kin-man to subsidize City University students to go overseas as exchange students. The City University students will now have to pay their own way in full to show us their dignity and integrity.

- City University Student Union president Cyrus Chu was accused in April 2015 of taking $30,000 from the Student Affairs Office so that he can go on an exchange program to Japan along with his girlfriend. So Chu has made his romantic trip and he doesn't give a damn about anyone else hereafter.
- The City University administration has condemned the Student Union for deliberately not mentioning the purpose of this $50 million.

- It is a strange idea that Yeung Kin-man should put down $200 million in order to make CY Leung look good (or something). There is plenty of other things that $200 million can be used for, other than "make CY Leung look good." Here is an example: (Economic Journal, 2014/12/08): The Land Registry said that units 36A and 36B of Legend Tower, 7 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong with an area of 18,156 square feet has been sold for $203,347,200 at a rate of $11,200 per square foot. The buyer is Fu Tai Industrial Development Company Limited, whose director is Yeung Kin-man.
- "Firmly refuse the blood-and-sweat donation." Blood-and-sweat? The donor Yeung Kin-man is in the business of manufacturing mobile phone touch screens. (Economic Journal) September 8, 2015.

You may be unfamiliar with the name Yeung Kin-man, but you are likely to be very familiar with his company's products. When you touch the screen on your mobile phone, that piece of glass screen very likely came from his factories. Yeung factories in Shenzhen and Weizhou accounts for one-third of all mobile phone screens in the world. His clients include Apple (USA), Samsung (South Korea), Sony (Japan), Xiaomi and Huawei (China). In addition, about 100 of the glass covers of the 30 million luxury European watches are manufactured by his companies. He hires as many 110,000 employees. Recently he donated $200 million to City University to support a School of Veterinary Science and other scientific research and development as a way of promoting innovation ...

If you object to Yeung Kin-man because he runs sweatshops, you should also object to Apple/Samsung/Sony/Xiaomi/Huawei because they buy their screens from Yeung's sweatshops. Since that means you can't post onto Facebook without your mobile phone, this is surely out of the question for you.

- No, you can always use HTC because their screens are made in Taiwan. While that wouldn't be hip, it would satisfy your conscience.

- Yeung Kin-man is suspected of being a "689" (= Chief Executive CY Leung) lackey because (1) he is involved in a certain Happy Hong Kong Charity Foundation and (2) CY Leung is a honorary sponsor of the said charity foundation.
This is like saying that these City University students should quit attending university in Hong Kong because, by virtue of being the Chief Executive, CY Leung automatically becomes Chancellor of all eight universities according to the university ordinances. If they insist on attending university in Hong Kong, they may become brainwashed (or something).
- Why are the City University students adamantly opposed to a School of Veterinary Science? Because this was what CY Leung wanted when he was the chairman of the board of trustees at City University. Since anything that CY Leung wants is bad, the school must be aborted at all cost. Furthermore, while CY Leung couldn't get his way when he was here, Yeung is now coming to complete it for him. So the project must aborted at all cost. City University must never get a School of Veterinary Science. I don't know why, but this just cannot be allowed to happen or else we all die (or something).

- No, you won't die. It's just that many animals will die unnecessarily.

- Just an observation about the two hours of chaos for the purpose of having a student handing over a petition to the chairman of the university board of directors. An obvious question is: Why can't the students just send it by post? Hehehe. You are missing the point! The students don't care about the stinking letter either. Everybody knows that the letter will be filed in the circular bin. They only want the media taking pictures of them handing some piece of paper or the other over to the chairman of the university's board of trustees.
- Just a point about what happened to City University Student Union president Cyrus Chu Kwok-chi. One report said: Chu wanted to re-enter the meeting hall but was blocked by 8 security guards, so he tried to jump down two stories. Then he laid down on the floor, refused to be moved for an hour but eventually agreed to go to the hospital. Another report said: A spokesperson for the university denied that Chu was manhandled by security guards, noting that the student leader felt unwell because he had been shouting at the top of his lungs at the venue for more than an hour. A third report said: Chu was taken to the hospital because of a leg cramp. So the total picture comes from the pieces.

- City University has been in the news quite a lot recently. For example, their O (Orientation) Camp brawl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y67wP_zWJRw shows us that they've got plenty of dignity and integrity.
- When I got to the part about "The City University Student Union suspects that there are political aims behind this sudden donation. Accepting the money will destroy the autonomy of the university, including personnel appointments" I almost choked to death. What about the sudden mysterious donation of $1.4 million to Benny Tai which he re-routed to Occupy Central-related projects? What about the clamor by politicians for the appointment of Johannes Chan to Pro Vice Chancellor at Hong Kong University? It is as if they transplanted all the problems from Hong Kong University to City University almost verbatim with only the names of the individuals changed.

- No, the situations are different. In the case of City University, the donation was offered to the university itself and the board of trustees discussed and approved it. The university gave it maximum publicity by holding a ceremony at the Conrad Hotel. In the case of Hong Kong University, the donation went to Benny Tai and the university council found out only by reading the Communist rags Wen Wei Po/Ta Kung Pao much later. In summary, the first situation was against Freedom/Democracy/Justice/Human Rights/Transparency/Rule of Law/Universal Values while the second situation was for Freedom/Democracy/Justice/Human Rights/Transparency/Rule of Law/Universal Values.
- (Wen Wei Po) Leung Hiu-yeung used to be the City University Student Union External Affairs Secretary. He was kicked out of school last month due to failing grades, so he is now an 'outsider.' On this day, he also stood dangerously outside the two-storey-high stairwell just like Cyrus Chu. So City University now has evidence of outside interference with the autonomy of the institution.

[318] Hong Kong vs Qatar (2015/09/09) The Hong Kong vs. Qatar World Cup Qualifying Round match is drawing attention due to interest in whether Hong Kong fans will boo their own national anthem.

(SCMP) Fifa has a cheek to lecture Hong Kong fans about booing China national anthem - but they ought to heed the warning. James Porteous. July 19, 2015.

Two opaque bodies wielding immense global power, riven with corruption allegations. Answerable to nobody, handing down diktats with abandon. Billions of dollars sloshing around, making a skim here and there irresistible to some. Transparency International, Amnesty and similar organisations are not fans. Nor are the US and many other Western governments - though they do have support from the likes of Qatar and Russia.

Yup, Fifa and the Chinese Communist Party have a lot in common - though China's governing body has done more to improve life for the people they represent than football's.

Another thing the two august bodies have in common, it seemed last week, is a clumsy determination to stoke protest in Hong Kong by issuing heavy-handed proclamations.

Just as Beijing appeared hell-bent on stoking passions during Occupy Central by barking orders, so Fifa might have helped guarantee angry scenes from Hong Kong fans in their next World Cup qualifier, against Qatar on September 8.

Fifa sent a letter at the start of the month to the Hong Kong Football Association noting that "according to information at our disposal, the fans of the representative team of Hong Kong booed their national anthem" before the team's first two qualifiers in June. Yes, our own anthem, not Bhutan's or the Maldives'.

"[We] would be left with no other option than to impose sanctions against your association, should such incidents recur," Fifa said. Predictably, when the HKFA revealed this and pleaded (once more) with fans not to boo the March of the Volunteers again, fans reacted furiously.

"How can you be punished for booing your own national anthem?" was the gist of complaints, but Fifa's "principles of fair play" apply not only towards opposing teams "but also towards your own association and its representative team".
Who better than Fifa to say what's fair, of course. This is the organisation that was compared to the mafia by US Senator Richard Blumenthal during a Senate hearing last week into their ongoing corruption crisis. He did backtrack: "[that was] almost insulting to the mafia ... because the mafia would never have been so blatant, overt and arrogant in its corruption," he clarified.

The same day, Transparency issued recommendations on how to begin cleaning out the Augean Stables in Zurich. Later, former vice-president Jeffrey Webb was on a plane to New York under extradition to face corruption charges, one of 14 men indicted by the US Justice Department. Then sponsors (finally) spoke out.

It wasn't all bad news: president Sepp Blatter, absent in New Zealand and Canada for the Under-20 World Cup and Women's World Cup, will be heading to Russia for the 2018 World Cup draw. Nothing to do with Russia having no extradition treaty with the US.

You wonder how the mandarins can be bothered to hammer minnows like Hong Kong, but life goes on for those of the 400 members of staff in Zurich whose time is not occupied by paper-shredding and panicked telephone conversations with expensive lawyers.

We asked Fifa: who reported the booing (presumably the match delegate, but who knows); has a team been punished before for such a "crime" (the Spanish government made unhappy noises when Basque and Catalan fans booed Spain's national anthem ahead of the King's Cup final between Athletic Bilbao and Barcelona recently, but no punishment seems to have been made); and what might happen if the March of the Volunteers is raspberried again?

After an initial meaningless statement confirming the warning, they sort of answered: "cannot comment … cannot confirm ... cannot comment". Thanks. We had to laugh when Fifa's ultra-oxymoronic ethics committee proclaimed the very same day that "more transparency" was needed.

What is transparent is that the HKFA will be very worried. Hong Kong Stadium still has not been approved by the government for the qualifier against China in November, sure to be a testy affair.

"High-level talks" are ongoing, we understand, with the government believed to be worried about 40,000 fans seeing the game as an ideal opportunity to rile the mainland.

It could even be played behind closed doors if there's more booing at the Qatar match - which would likely be a relief for the Hong Kong government as it would help them avoid a tricky decision.

So, much as it sticks in the craw to take advice on manners from Fifa, let's hope fans hold their tongues in September.

(SCMP) September 8, 2015.

James Porteous: Hmmm ... some fairly loud booing for China's national anthem for 30 seconds before other fans tried to drown it out with applause - could Hong Kong be facing punishment from Fifa for that, having been warned?
...
The China national anthem was booed before kickoff again, for perhaps 30 seconds before being drowned out by applause from fans realising the potential repercussions - HK could face playing games behind closed doors, or be docked points by FIFA.

(Apple Daily, with video) September 8, 2015.

When the national anthem came on, many fans in the stand clapped and booed, with some of them shouting "We are Hong Kong" to drown out the national anthem. TVB used to broadcast the national anthem part, but they did not have a live broadcast this time.
In June this year, the Hong Kong team won its home matches against Bhutan and Maldives. However, some Hong Kong fans booed their own national anthem. In July this year, the Hong Kong Football Association received a letter from FIFA that if such improper conduct were to appear again in future matches, appropriate penalties will be imposed, ranging from closed door matches, forfeiture of matches, points deduction or even expulsion from the World Cup.

(Oriental Daily, with video) September 8, 2015.

When the national anthem began, the Power of Hong Kong core members were very restrained and did not boo. They even called for the fans around them not to boo. But fans in others parts of the stadium booed aloud. Some fans began to sing to the national anthem in an attempt to drown out the booing. But the booing was louder. Some fans turned their backs to the playing field in a display of their attitudes. TVB News Channel broadcast the singing of the national anthem, but the TVB J2 channel which broadcast the full match live did not broadcast this part.

(SCMP) September 19, 2015.

Soccer boss Brian Leung Hung-tak is hoping the Hong Kong Football Association's "sincere efforts" to curb fan misconduct will result, at worst, in a light punishment from Fifa after a lemon-tea throwing incident in a World Cup qualifier came to light yesterday.

The Hong Kong Football Association is facing a “potentially damaging situation” after it emerged a fan threw an object at a Qatar player during the World Cup qualifier at Mong Kok Stadium last week. The HKFA is already trying to limit the damage of another case of fans booing the Chinese national anthem before the game, which Hong Kong lost 3-2 on Tuesday, September 8.

“It is regrettable that despite continuous pleas for fans to behave themselves, it appears that the behaviour of a small minority of fans has placed the HKFA in this potentially damaging situation,” said chief executive Mark Sutcliffe on Friday. “The HKFA has received correspondence from Fifa announcing that disciplinary proceedings have been opened against the HKFA in relation to incidents that took place during the recent Hong Kong v Qatar match. The first incident referred to concerns one of the Hong Kong fans throwing a small box [a paper tetra pack 250ml with lemon tea] on to the field of play aimed deliberately at player number 10 of Qatar. The second incident is the booing of the Hong Kong national anthem by some of the Hong Kong fans,” Sutcliffe said. “The letter states that these two incidents appear to be a violation of the Fifa regulations [article 65ff of the Fifa disciplinary code] and the Fifa stadium safety and security regulations.”

The HKFA has until September 22 to provide relevant information to Fifa which will be considered together with all other available evidence at the next meeting of the Fifa disciplinary committee to decide if any action should be taken. Possible sanctions could include having to play the next home qualifier, which would be against China in November, behind closed doors.

HKFA chairman Brian Leung Hung-tak said he hoped his body’s "sincere efforts" to prevent fans from booing the anthem would result, at worst, in a light punishment. “Right now we are gathering information to show Fifa that we truly asked fans not to boo the national anthem. We hope this will show Fifa that we did our best,” said Leung. As for the box-throwing incident, Leung said: “Fifa’s evidence is sound and a fine is expected. They took a picture of the drink box. It took place in the 60th minute.”

Fifa had already warned the HKFA after fans jeered during their World Cup qualifiers against Bhutan and Maldives in June, prompting Leung to make a special appeal to the supporters.

Videos:

Ellis Kwong Wai Kwan
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfe6HWJFJ5o
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyQxNBpfNmg
Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sikF0qSgE0w
YouTube Spoiling the Spanish anthem

Internet comments:

- Apple Daily reported that TVB did not broadcast the national anthem part. According to Oriental Daily, TVB J2 which aired the whole match live did not show the national anthem part, but the TVB News Channel (and the TVB Jade late night news report) both aired the national anthem part. What is the difference? The TVB J2 live match broadcast would be seen in mainland China, and thus do even more damage to Hong Kong tourism/retail/hospitality industries. But the people of Hong Kong can watch their local news and see what some of their people are trying to do here.
- Here is the Hong Kong team: Yapp Hung-fai; Jack Sealy, Festut Baise, Jean Kilama, Cheung Kin-fung; Bai He, Huang Yang; Lo Kwan-yee, Lam Kaw-wai, Jaime McKee; Chan Siu-ki. Those five names in bold are homegrown players, and the other six players hail from elsewhere (the two defensive midfielders are from mainland China). So what is there for the Hong Kong localists to cheer about? Why are the Labour Party's legislators not complaining about Hong Kong-born footballers being deprived of employment opportunities?

- Maybe you argue that anyone who has lived continuously in Hong Kong for seven years, earned the right of abode and applied for 3 stars on their Hong Kong ID is a Hongkonger regardless of their origins. Except the localists won't accept this argument if that person came from the mainland. So a middle-aged Chinese female may have three stars on her Hong Kong ID, but she is still a mainland vermin/louse who must not be allowed to sing/dance in public.

- The booing is a microcosm of Occupy Central versus Valiant Warriors. Occupy Central wanted the central government to make concessions and therefore negotiations are needed; the Valiant Warriors think that only valiant resistance can bring down the Chinese Communists and no compromise should ever be made. So in like manner, the Power of Hong Kong group did not boo and they asked others not to boo because of the potential FIFA sanctions; the Valiant Warriors think that only valiant booing can bring down the Chinese Communists and no compromise should ever be made.
- If the next home match against China is turned into a closed-door affair, Hong Kong's valiant localists warriors will go and beat up Sepp Blätter/Michel Platini.

- In Europe, law-breaking fans are identified and banned from matches. The Hong Kong boo'ers have failed to take the standard tactic of wearing masks to avoid identification.

- Since Hong Kong fans were booing their own national anthem instead of their opponents' national anthem, the penalty should be less.

- You misunderstood the reasoning. The penalty is really for injecting politics into soccer by whatever form or means. If you want to play politics, do it elsewhere; you have plenty of other opportunities.

- This is pathetic. The last match was against China in Shenzhen, and there was no booing from the 2,000 Hong Kong fans. They were too intimidated by photos of the Chinese armed police with police canines drilling beforehand in the stadium. If you get arrested for disorderly conduct in public on mainland China, it is 15 days of administrative detention without any means of appeal. P.S. Bring your own toothbrush because the detention centre does not supply it.

- In Hong Kong, we have the notion of a "watch dog" (門口狗). This is a guard dog at the entrance. When the dog is on its home turf and spots a stranger, it will bark and yelp loudly to intimidate. When you take the dog outside for a walk, it will droop its head and whimper lamely because it is scared silly by the outside world.

- It is the Hong Kong soccer fans who have no manners, not Hong Kong fans in general. Hong Kong fans don't create any problems with the Chinese Women's volleyball team (now world champions) or the Chinese diving team.

- Support the Hong Kong team = Boo the national anthem. What a brain-damaged idea!
- What is for certain that those booed do not love Hong Kong. FIFA had issued their warning already. These fans won't mind if the Hong Kong team gets penalized. They don't love Hong Kong.

- 人必自侮，然後人侮之；家必自毀，而後人毀之；國必自伐，而後人伐之。 There is saying in Chinese: "A person must debase himself first before others debase him; a family must ruin itself first before others ruin it; a nation must destroy itself first before others destroy it."
- What do you think the Hong Kong national anthem should be? My vote is George Lam's Love You Until I Am Feverish. It is usually sung with an alternate set of lyrics to Love You Until I Eat Bananas.
- All these cost-benefit analyses are missing the point. The only thing that mattered to the perpetrators is that they feel good. That is all they care about. Just like the Umbrella Revolutionaries/Shopping Revolutionaries/Reclaim Revolutionaries.
- Want war? Got real war! See Football War.
- The Internet says that it is unlikely that FIFA will impose penalties. Ignoring the question of whether you can trust the Internet, let it be said that if no penalties are imposed, then FIFA is encouraging the Yellow Ribbons to cause greater trouble in the next game when Hong Kong hosts China. That may be a good (or bad) thing, because a major incident may cause Hong Kong to be expelled from the tournament altogether.

[317] What Went Wrong? - Part 1 (2015/09/08)

(Oriental Daily) September 7, 2015.

Alex Chow (Federation of Students), Chan Kin-man (Occupy Central Trio), Joshua Wong (Scholarism)
September will be the anniversary of the Occupy Movement. At a forum today, Chan Kin-man (Occupy Central), Alex Chow (former secretary-general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students) and Joshua Wong (Scholarism convener) all agreed that the Occupy Movement did not force the Central Government to rescind the 831 resolution and did not obtain universal suffrage for the people of Hong Kong. They acknowledged that all the efforts went for naught. Furthermore, Chan Kin-man said that the moderate pan-democrats have rebelled so as to impact the support for pan-democrats in the District Council and Legislative Council elections.
It is noticeable that no pan-democrat legislative councilor participated in the forum today. Could it be that they are disavowing the Occupy Movement at a time when the District Council elections are coming up?
The Occupy Movement moved ahead of schedule after the so-called 926 charge into the east wing of Government Headquarters, which is sometimes referred to as Civic Plaza. Chan Kin-man acknowledged that a pessimistic view of the Occupy Movement was that its greatest failure is the failure to obtain genuine universal suffrage. It also firmed up the hard-line stance of the pro-establishment camp and it caused the democracy movement to become even more constricted. So this seems to be a total defeat. Chan also said that the Occupy Movement caused certain moderate pan-democrats to switch sides, such that the support level for the pan-democrats have fallen from 60% to 40%. This means that the moderate pan-democratic candidates will be staring into a crisis in the upcoming elections.
But Chan Kin-man said that all has not been lost because the remaining 40% will be a "critical minority." Why did the movement seemed rudderless in its final stages? Chan said that most citizens regard the students as the movement leaders and therefore the Occupy Trio could not change the students' decisions. Does that mean that the students should be blamed for the failure of the movement?
At the forum, Joshua Wong acknowledged that the decision-making structure was undemocratic and that there was lack of democracy within the movement. For example, the Hong Kong Federation of Students had more than half of the votes in the five-party platform (consisting of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Scholarism, Occupy Central, the pan-democratic legislative and the civil groups). So even if Occupy Central and Scholarism agree on something, it won't go through if the Federation of Students disagrees. In other words, Joshua Wong criticized the leadership of the Federation of Students.
Meanwhile Alex Chow said that they could not resolve the internal contradictions of civic society and therefore nothing can be accomplished without the trust. He said that the students initiated the escalation without consultation. The tragedy of the student movement was that they had no more cards to play or they played whatever cards they could without justification. Chow said that it takes 40 years to develop students movements elsewhere, so this means that large-scale movements will have to keep going indefinitely.
But the best move came from the pan-democratic political parties. Not a single pan-democratic legislator showed up for this forum. During the Occupy period, these people showed up regularly to offer support. Could it be that the elections are more important now, and the pan-democrats want to maintain a "safe distance" away from the anniversary of Occupy Central?

(InMediaHK) September 3, 2015.

Alex Chow said that the Umbrella Movement was a landmark in political culture and the democracy movement. It exposed the mutual distrust within the civilian sector. Many of the decisions made by the Occupy Movement leadership (such as deliberations and voting) were controversial, and bred more distrust.
Alex Chow said that most of the decisions were made by the Occupy Central Trio, the Federation of Students, Scholarism and the civil groups. In Hong Kong, citizens do not trust groups. Under this type of decision-making structure, citizens won't understand or support the decisions, and the decision-makers need to have superhuman abilities to deal with all the political issues.
Alex Chow said that the civil society continued business as usual during the Umbrella Movement, which means that the organizers have no cards to play. Even after 9/28, the civil society did not start a non-cooperation movement, as there were no labor strikes, no business strikes and no school strikes. Public servants, teachers and the communities continued to work/function normally. When civil society cooperates with the government, there are no cards left to play. Meanwhile the pressure grew, anxiety grew, discontent grew and dialogues reached dead ends. Chow said that every card played was ineffective, the options became fewer and clearance was coming up. Thus came the tragedy of Lung Wo Road on November 30, 2014.
Alex Chow said that the everyday politics of civil society in Hong Kong does not practice the democracy movement. Even if a more large-scale movement were to take place in the future, it is still doomed to defeat. "The Umbrella Movement is the result, not the cause, of our everyday politics over the past several decades. If we keep thinking the same way, any future movement is doomed to fail. The only way to break through is to hope for the government to make a mistake. Is that what our strategy will be?"
Alex Chow also mentioned the university students voting to withdraw from the Hong Kong Federation of Students. He said that this is quite similar to the Umbrella Movement. Students are still electing representatives to handle all the affairs. This means that the student movements are like the April 5 movement -- namely four or five representatives doing everything for them. Students only think that their job is supervise the elected officers without having to participate themselves. This type of thinking restricts the power of civil society and stalls the student movements.

(InMediaHK) September 3, 2015.

Legislative councilor Leung Kwok-hung said that the Umbrella Movement was not a revolution. The foreign correspondents were merely hyping things up. He said that if we think that this was a revolution, then we don't understand ourselves too well. However, this is being defined not as a revolution because we want to decide whether we want a revolution sometime in the future.
Leung said that the word revolution refers to something irreversible, such as the Copernican Revolution. There has been no narrative for the Umbrella Revolution. Nobody in Hong Kong wants a revolution. The Umbrella "Revolution" evolved from the Occupy Movement, which is not a revolution in itself.
In retrospect, the Umbrella Movement kept lowering its demands for universal suffrage in order not to clash with the government. This proves that the Umbrella Movement was not a revolution. There was a referendum that included three options all of which included civil nomination. Benny Tai thought that the three options were not moderate. The design of the Occupy Central movement was to have middle-class citizens and intellectuals make some sacrifices and call on the people of Hong Kong to come forth. Therefore Benny Tai attached 12 other options that met international standards for the Chinese Communists to pick. The Chinese Communists refused to accept any. This forced the Hong Kong people to take action. If the Chinese Communists had accepted any one option, the Umbrella Movement would never take place. Therefore 9/28 happened in order to stop the counter-revolution, not to start a revolution.
According to Lenin on revolution, there should be a set of guiding principles, organization, propaganda and mobilization. However, the Hong Kong democracy movement does not even have a narrative.
...
On reaching out to the local communities, Leung said that the point is not so much about going into the communities as about what you do out there. Leung said: "I have lots of friends who play soccer with me, but they ignore my politics." He says that before going into the local communities, you need to resolve the problems of the Umbrella Movement and the democracy movement first. Otherwise you have nothing to talk to people about.
"The mistake in the Umbrella Movement was that we were too optimistic." He said that we couldn't stick to non-violence during the movement and we couldn't force our enemies not to use violence against us. In the five-party platform, none of the parties dared to make the decision to attack Government Headquarters. That would have been a grave decision. In his own case, Leung did not make any proposal between September 28 and October 2.
In mid-October, the Blue Ribbons began to interceded violently. This effectively curtailed the mobilization of the Umbrella Movement. "The Communists were really crafty." The movement was now doomed to shrink. The presence of the Blue Ribbons meant that we could not concentrate on the government. Afterwards, "when you talk, you get cursed out; when you get beaten up, you don't even understand why; the civil disobedience campaign became more and more distant."

(InMediaHK) September 3, 2015.

Joshua Wong said that the Umbrella Movement did not fail; it merely failed to achieve anything. He said that the five-party platform merely meant that each party said whatever they want to say. So the pan-democrats and the Occupy Central trio were not interested in more escalations. This meant that the platform was led by the students. Nobody thought about how to incorporate the localists and newbies into platform.
Joshua Wong said that they held meetings day and night, "with dozens of reporters waiting for us to come out." He said that the students never thought about withdrawing whereas the pan-democrats and Occupy Central trio do not want any escalation. This meant that there is a political tussle within the platform. "They each have their say" and "nothing was ever resolved."
In the National Education campaign of 2012, more than twenty organizations took part but only three of them really made the decisions. When Scholarism thought that they had won and wanted to withdraw, some people surrounded them and demanded explanations. What Scholarism did was to remove all the microphones. So that was a top-to-bottom decision.
Joshua Wong said that the ideal social movement should be run bottom-to-top. In Malaysia and Taiwan, the student movements were run top-to-bottom. In theory, every movement is initiated by an organization. The point is that the organization must be democratized. At Scholarism, volunteers or members will sometimes question why decisions were made without consultation. At the Federation of Students, they couldn't consult all the member universities all the time.
Joshua Wong said that even before the Umbrella Movement, some people were accusing the "leftist retards" for "betraying Hong Kong. During the Umbrella Movement, some localists challenged the decisions made by the Grand Stage. The localists and the newbies were not incorporated into the decision-making process. These people came into the movement in ways that do not conform to the traditional model. Traditionally, students participate in student unions in school and then graduate to join NGO's etc. The localists and newbies do not come this way. In the latter stages of the Umbrella Movement, 30% to 40% of the participants were either localists or newbies. Therefore future movements must think about how to incorporate them into the decision-making process.

(EJinsight) Why Jimmy Lai thinks student leaders are arrogant and foolish. September 10, 2015.

It must have been tough for Jimmy Lai to openly criticize the student leaders of last year’s protests for being “arrogant” and “foolish”.

The media maverick, who stood in the frontline of the pro-democracy movement, said the students ignored their elders in the Occupy Central movement when the latter called for a retreat two months after the street occupation began. “The way they treated the Occupy Central founders could not be worse,” Lai said.

He was reflecting on the movement in an interview with his own weekly magazine ahead of the anniversary of the protests.

He compared the students to people who finish a messy meal and leave everyone else to clean up after them. “They were late for meetings, not just two minutes but an hour or more,” he said. “When they called a meeting, they wanted us to be there right away. But they came only when everyone else had arrived.”

Lai’s frank revelations were carried by pro-establishment newspapers which earlier accused him of shirking responsibility for his role as a financier of the 79-day movement. They also highlighted a deepening generational conflict — post 1950s activists against their post 1990s counterparts.

The difference in strategy between Occupy Central on one hand and the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and Scholarism on the other emerged in November when the former tried to persuade the latter to withdraw from the streets and save their energy for the next phase of the movement. But the students wanted more radical measures, knowing they had the support of the wider population.

At one point, the students pressed lawmaker Albert Ho to quit in order to trigger a by-election and proxy referendum on political reform. Ho announced he was going to resign in January but the move fizzled after it got a cold shoulder from the public. Lai described it as “crazy, foolish and irresponsible”.

He was no less unforgiving toward student leaders Alex Chow and Joshua Wong, whom he condemned for not having respect for veterans like him and others. Chow disappeared from the limelight after the protests ended, yielding to Nathan Law as HKFS secretary general. Wong, Time magazine’s No. 3 candidate for 2014 Person of the Year, has an active media presence, especially in Lai’s publications.

It was not the first time Lai had been critical of the student leaders. He seriously disagreed with their decision to hold out until they got concessions from the government which never came.

To be fair, the students had run out of energy and their inability to show up on time at important appointments should not be taken too seriously.

It’s no secret that Chief Secretary Carrie Lam is no fan of Joshua Wong, who often publicly embarrassed her without giving her a chance to reply. But Lam showed her soft power by appearing to win over Alex Chow in their first and only meeting during the protests.

I’m sure there will be more details when people come out with their own version of events. We think Lai’s grumbling is only the beginning.

(Commercial Radio) September 15, 2015.

Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Nathan Law and Scholarism convener Joshua Wong admitted that the Occupy movement achieved "zero results" with respect to the constitutional reform. However, the Occupy movement became the Enlightenment for a new generation. Nathan Law felt bad because the students called for an escalation which led to many Occupy participants to be injured and arrested. Joshua Wong said that the Occupy movement was besieged internally and externally in the latter stages and he felt pressured from both sides.

Both thought that there are no pressing issues with which to mobilize the people after the veto of the constitutional reform. Nathan Law said that the Hong Kong Federation of Students is focusing on issues related to higher education, while Joshua Wong said that Scholarism will hold a meeting to discuss future directions towards realizing universal suffrage.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Occupy co-founder Benny Tai says he regrets not ending protests sooner. September 18, 2015.

Last year’s pro-democracy Occupy protests should have ended sooner, a key figure in the movement admitted on Thursday. Occupy Central with Peace and Love (OCPL) co-founded Benny Tai Yiu-ting told RTHK that civil disobedience actions require public support, and that if he had ended Occupy sooner it would not have drained so much energy from Hong Kong civil society.

Tai, also an associate professor of law and the University of Hong Kong, told the broadcaster that it will take time for society to recover from the drain and he regrets not drawing the movement to an end sooner. However, he does not regret fighting for genuine universal suffrage through the civil disobedience movement.

Tai also said that the protest achieved more than he had expected in terms of civil awakening, although it did not succeed in reforming the political system. Tai, comparing Hong Kong’s prospects for political reform and the legal implications he might face to “walking into a dark tunnel,” said he will not stand in the front line of pro-democracy protests again. Instead, he would prefer to serve as a point of connection between different parties as they seek a new path to political reform.

Fellow Occupy Central co-founder Dr Chan Kin-man told RTHK of differences he had with students protest leaders during the group’s 79-day occupation of Admiralty.

Chan, an associate professor of Sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said he did not agree with attempts to surround the Central Government Complex and impede regular operations, thereby increasing pressure on the government. Should these actions result in a toppling of the government, Chan said it would have provided an excuse for the People’s Liberation Army to become involved.

Whilst Chan said that he understood students would not leave until they achieved genuine universal suffrage, he asked young people to reflect on when it is best to fight and when it is best to communicate with the government.

Although Chan made frequent trips to the mainland over the past 20 years to conduct academic research, he has acted the advise of mainland friends and has not crossed the border since the Occupy movement was launched.

(HKG Pao) September 20, 2015.

Caption: Occupy Central Trio member Chu Yiu-ming: "I want revolution, I want peace, I don't want to go to jail!!"

Occupy Central Trio member Reverend Chu Yiu-ming was interviewed about the one year anniversary of Occupy Central. Chiu said that he was criticized by other church pastors for betraying his faith, but he used the fact that Occupy Central ended peacefully in rebuttal. Reverend Chu probably forgot that even though there were no casualties in the streets, the mental and economic damage to citizens was tremendous. And after the "peace," the social rift will have a much deeper impact.

In truth, the demonstrators did not achieve peace themselves. In the Occupy areas, there were a lot of thefts, sectarian clashes, damage of public property and even surrounding police cars, topping barricades and constructing barbed obstacles and other unpeaceful things. The reason why there was no large-scale clash was because the police acted in restraint and the citizens endured things quietly. For Chu to have the chutzpah to credit himself, isn't he lacking in the attribute of humility in Christianity?

Chu Yiu-ming said that his health is failing and he has been in and out of hospitals many times since Occupy Central started. So at the age of 70, he doesn't know if he will be prosecuted and sent to jail. He seemed to be rallying public opinion to get himself out of jail. Didn't the Occupy Central Trio said initially that they will quietly let the rule of law takes its course, that they will not resist and they will be sentenced without protest? But now we see the Occupy Central trio coming up with individual reasons why they should be able to stay above the fray. How can the masses gain victory when they have perfidious leaders like these?

Chu said, "The younger generation will never be the same after the baptism of tear gas." He is right. The tear gas caused the young people to become rebellious and released a Pandora's box of Shopping Revolutionary, Hong Kong independence, destruction of rule-of-law and contempt to the law. Furthermore the silent majority also saw that street violence is even more evil than tear gas. So we must counter-attack, disband Occupy Central and put the Yellow Ribbons to the law.

[316] The (Yellow Ribbon?) Miss Hong Kong (2015/09/08)

(South China Morning Post) September 1, 2015.

In 2009, the former Diocesan Girls’ School student talked to the press after she scored 10 As in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examinations (HKCEE). Mak told reporters at the time that she would like to become a politician and even the Hong Kong chief executive one day. “I want to become an influential [person], not only for the pay,” she said at the time. When asked again in the interview, Mak said: “[This will be] something in ‘N’ years. It is hard to know.”

(South China Morning Post) September 7, 2015.

She may be a beauty queen with a Cambridge law degree who expressed interest in being a political leader, but one dream is too big for Louisa Mak Ming-sze – moving out of her family home.

“If I wanted to move out of my parents’ home, I would have a lot of issues financially,” the new Miss Hong Kong said in an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post. “I do feel strongly about it because a lot of my friends recently graduated, got jobs and want some freedom from their parents and are unable to get anywhere to sleep.”

The 23-year-old said the city’s soaring property prices had left young people unable to chase their true vocations and instead chasing high-paying jobs in sectors like finance and medicine. “If you don’t even have a place to sleep, how can you talk about dreams and aspirations?”

And Mak – who, after achieving top grades in her school exams in 2009 told the media that she was interested in becoming a politician – said tackling the problem would mean taking on vested interests, including homeowners as well as big business.

“That’s why us Hong Kong people have to be united … and try to think how we can go forward with the interests of the bigger society in mind. No one wants the price of their own house to go down. But we must realise that this is a very immediate issue. It’s affecting a lot of the younger generation.”

But Mak also sees a need for the city to strengthen its legal and social systems to prevent “the tyranny of the majority” as it moves towards democracy. She said comments by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying during last year’s Occupy protests – that poor people would dominate in a full democracy – were not a “novel idea”.

“When the majority can decide everything, then there may be unjust results,” she said. “People like to quote the Nazi regime, though it’s a bit confusing because whether they were the majority is still debatable … But I do take the point that democracy in itself is not enough, because when the majority can make decisions, then they can suppress those in the minority. That’s why we need protection from the legal system.”

She said there was still a lot of discrimination in Hong Kong’s legal system and society, which needed to be improved through education and other means. “It’s always time [for Hong Kong to have democracy], but whether it’s feasible is another issue,” she said. She would not comment on whether it was feasible, saying instead: “We are trying to [realise democracy]. That’s what we are all aiming for at the moment.”

(South China Morning Post) September 7, 2015.

She may be better known as a beauty queen, but as a straight-A student and Cambridge law graduate, the new Miss Hong Kong has strong ideas on what she would do if she were to become the city's leader - including tackling vested interests to cut inflated housing costs.

"If I were the chief executive, I would definitely want housing to be affordable," said Louisa Mak Ming-sze, who, after gaining a perfect score in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination in 2009, said she wanted to enter politics and even become chief executive one day.

The 23-year-old said she understood the difficulties in making housing more affordable, particularly because of vested interests, which included not only businesses but also individual property owners.

She said every policy would inevitably affect some interests, leading to some people losing. She said if she was chief executive, she would make sure that the majority was winning. "There is not going to be a policy where everyone is going to be happy. And that's why it's difficult, and I'm not confident enough in myself."

Perhaps this is why the new Miss Hong Kong, although she sounded certain that she wanted to be a politician back in 2009, is now not so sure about this path any more.

She said there were constraints on the road of politics that she did not expect when she was younger, such as power struggles and financial requirements.

"There is this thing about being politically correct. I myself have always tried to be correct, but not politically correct. I need to know whether I have the capabilities to serve society in that role, because I learned that it takes much more than simply caring about society."

Mak said she was open to different options, including performing, because she is passionate about dancing and drama.

"I realise that the media is a very powerful influencer … When I was doing some drama productions at university, I found it a very satisfying experience to be able to send out messages, but through someone else's mouth. I am looking forward to bringing some new content to the media, if I am able to."

Being an "influencer" has been Mak's dream since she was little. Last year, she interned at Sing Tao Daily for four months as a feature writer to "send messages out there and to voice your opinions … indirectly", while "pretending to be neutral".

At about the same time, she posted a photo on her Instagram account showing her in the middle of the pro-democracy Occupy protests.

"I appreciated the movement because it really made us think. Some people were very for it and some people were very against it, but I think it's that clash that will inspire us to think. It was beneficial to Hong Kong because we finally saw people with passion for society. On a social level, I think it really allowed different sections of society to communicate, despite hostility sometimes."

But Mak said she was disappointed in seeing that people were not able to tolerate different views during the movement and she described it as "the worst thing you can have in a democratic society."

She said she went to the protests because it was a "special moment of Hong Kong's history". She said both the movement's supporters and detractors should have gone to the scene to "see for yourself, to feel it".

She did not say whether she was a supporter or a detractor. "I think action speaks for itself."

The desire to be an influencer is is also why she sought to become Miss Hong Kong, a decision that seemed a far cry from her dream and her education. "In order to do good on a larger scale you really need some people to see you and hear you. That's always what I wanted to do since I was young. Money or material things never satisfied me. I thought Miss Hong Kong was something that would only add value and help me to … bring some influence to society. I thought it was the most suitable opportunity at that time."

In the coming year, she wants to be able to host shows interviewing different people and make documentaries to "bring food for thought to the audience". But despite her legal education, becoming a lawyer seems an unlikely option, as she likes to try new things, tends to overlook details and does not "enjoy the prospect of being in an office from 9am to midnight".

Born in Australia, Mak moved to Hong Kong with her parents when she was two years old. Her father, Mak Cheuk-sang, is the vice-principal of SKH Lam Woo Memorial Secondary School, a local elite school, and her mother is an occupational therapist.

Some have said that winning the beauty pageant will help Mak climb to an even higher social class and may eventually lead to a rich husband, but Mak scoffs at the idea. "I can't be more offended [by the idea], to be honest." She said she would not have needed the pageant to seek a rich spouse because there were "a lot of eligible bachelors around me" at university.

"It's just normal that we do want to achieve more and make it to a more influential position … Miss Hong Kong to me would be a ladder, but a ladder to more opportunities and a more influential position, where I can then further my own aspirations." However, people have been criticising beauty pageants more and more for degrading women.

Videos:

(YouTube) Louisa Mak after the 2009 HKCEE results were announced

(YouTube) Louisa Mak during the Miss Hong Kong Pageant

(SCMP) Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak says Occupy Central 'was a special moment in Hong Kong history' September 7, 2015. Also YouTube version.

Internet comments:

- The Miss Hong Kong pageant is an example of an undemocratic election. It is true that anybody can enter the contest. But the roster is screened by a panel of judges and filtered down to a much shorter list. The final vote is open to the public (more precisely, you have to own a mobile phone). In other words, this is similar to the August 31st framework from the National People's Congress Standing Committee.

- (ET Today) The favorite Louisa Mak took the Miss Hong Kong crown as expected in addition to being elected the Most Photogenic Lady. But she was also the most disliked Miss Hong Kong in history. After the results were announced, the other nine contestants rushed up to congratulate the first runner-up Ada Pong and second runner-up Karmen Kwok while totally ignoring the winner Louisa Mak. This shows that the newly crowned Miss Hong Kong needs to pay more attention to her social skills.

Of course, she seems to understand that if she were ever to be in a policy-making position, she is bound to upset certain people and will need good acting skills to feign to care about everybody.

- She said: "I appreciated the movement because it really made us think. Some people were very for it and some people were very against it, but I think it's that clash that will inspire us to think. It was beneficial to Hong Kong because we finally saw people with passion for society. On a social level, I think it really allowed different sections of society to communicate, despite hostility sometimes." But Mak said she was disappointed in seeing that people were not able to tolerate different views during the movement and she described it as "the worst thing you can have in a democratic society."

There are plenty of other opportunities to do the same, such as discussions about the meaning of July 1st or October 1st in Hong Kong. There was no need to Occupy Admiralty for 79 days for nothing. Can she really name any benefit that came out of it?
- It is the opinion of many Hongkongers is that the Umbrella Revolution has vindicated the Chinese Communists in their clearance of the Chinese students in the June 4th 1989 incident.

- Louisa Mak posted a photo of herself at Occupy Admiralty. Has she gone in to surrender herself to the police for attending an unlawful gathering? According to Professor Benny Tai, this final step is necessary in order to complete the rule-of-law process for civil disobedience. Lousia Mak is a law student, and should be well-aware of this.

- About the Umbrella Revolution: She said she went to the protests because it was a "special moment of Hong Kong's history". She said both the movement's supporters and detractors should have gone to the scene to "see for yourself, to feel it". She did not say whether she was a supporter or a detractor. "I think action speaks for itself."

At one level, this is a lot of words about nothing. It is vacuity (=lack of thought or intelligence; empty-headedness). At another level, this is smart because by saying nothing of substance, she can't offend anyone. If she stands up for one of the sides, she will be marked as the enemy by the opposite side. So it is smart to say a lot of sweet nothings. At yet another level, this type of cynical obscurantism means that the speaker has no moral principles and therefore must never ever be trusted on anything. At her age, she is already well-versed in reciting the script in the manner of the Clintons.
- As such, Louisa Mak is the second coming of CY Leung.

- Well, Louisa Mak has some wishful thinking about being able to stay above the fray. She has signed with TVB and that means she can't give interviews to Apple Daily/Next Magazine as a matter of company policy. However, Apple Daily has taken her South China Morning Post interviews and reported them as news. Their particular way of positioning things means that Louisa Mak is regarded as the Yellow Ribbon Miss Hong Kong by some people already. The title of their piece is: "10 A's Miss Hong Kong responds on Occupy Central photo, the Umbrella Movement was beneficial." And she can't afford to either admit or deny for fear of offending one side or the other.

Whether you support or oppose the movement's supporters and detractors ...

... you should have gone to the scene to see for yourself, to feel it

even though she has not directly answered whether she supports or opposes Occupy Central

- If Louisa Mak decides to come out of the closet as a Yellow Ribbon, she may become the first Miss Hong Kong ever without a Home Visit Permit for traveling to mainland China.

[315] Occupy Sheung Shui Redux (2015/09/06)

After the glorious days in which Hong Kong established itself as the tourist-bashing capital of the world:

Occupy Sheung Shui (2015/02/02)

Occupy Tuen Mun (2015/02/08)

Occupy Sha Tin (2015/02/15)

Occupy Tsuen Wan (2015/02/22)

Occupy Yuen Long (2015/03/01)

Occupy Sheung Shui/Tuen Mun/Tsim Sha Tsui (2015/03/08)

Occupy Sheung Shui (201503/22)

there was a long lull. But now the summer vacation is over and we set out for another round of tourist-bashing.
(Wen Wei Po) August 31, 2015.

According to Facebook posts, the Localism Alliance and Sheung Shui Affairs For Sheung Shui People are jointly organizing the Reclaim Sheung Shui event. Both groups were formed very recently. They declare that on September 6th at 2pm, they will assemble at the Sheung Shui MTR station. The stated goal is to protest against parallel traders. There are two march routes, including the Sheung Shui Metropolis Plaza, Lung Sum Road, Shek Wu Hui district Sun Fung Road/Sun Wan Road and the Shek Wu Hui taxi stand. These locations are the main distribution points and transportation hubs in Sheung Shui.
According to our investigation, not many people are active in Localists Alliance and Sheung Shui Affairs For Sheung Shui People. Previously the anti-parallel trading action were initiated by the North District Parallel Traders Concern Group led by Ronald Leung Kim-shing. So far, 65 persons have indicated that they will join the upcoming action, including Ronald Leung Kim-shing. In early 2014, Leung Kim-shing organized an anti-locust movement to curse out mainland tourists on Canton Road in Tsim Sha Tsui. The incident was roundly condemned by Hongkongers and Leung was forced to apologize afterwards and that movement stopped.
According to our information, the Sheung Shui Affairs For Sheung Shui People members come from the Hong Kong City-State faction. Most of them are local Sheung Shui residents. Other Hong Kong City-State people have formed similar organizations such as Hung Hom Affairs For Hung Hom, People etc.
In April this year, the central government announced that the multiple-visit permits for Shenzhen residents will be turned into once-a-week permits. Afterwards, the localist radicals became clearly more restrained. According to information, they want to re-start the Reclaim campaigns because the District Council elections are coming up.
Our newspaper contacted Sheung Shui rural affairs committee chairman Hou Chi-keung. He said that he is opposed to anyone who wants to attack his community, especially businesses. "We should welcome anyone who comes to Hong Kong to spend money as long as they are not doing any illegal." He said that these protestors are not interested in opposing parallel traders, but they only want to get more votes. "If this goes on, not just Sheung Shui but all of Hong Kong will be victimized."

(Wen Wei Po) September 5, 2015.

According to information, the organizers applied for a no-objection notice from the police. They proposed two march routes. The police met with the organizers on Wednesday. The planned route begins from the Sheung Shui train station and goes past the Metropolis Plaza, Lung Sum Road and a number of streets in Shek Wu Hui before ending back at the train station. Along most of the way are various pharmacies, cosmetic stores, jewelry stores, etc. The police may be shutting down certain vehicular lanes to allow them to march instead of on the narrow sidewalks. However, the organizers did not promise.
Our reporter made field observations at Lung Shum Road and Shek Wu Hui on Thursday afternoon. Although this is a three-day holiday in mainland China, there were not a lot of mainland customers. One pharmacy owner says: "Business volume is half of what it was compared to the beginning of the year. We can be said to be sustained by saline solution. We don't know how long we will last." When told that people are coming to "reclaim Sheung Shui" this Sunday, the pharmacy owner moaned: "I am more dead than alive already. I'm surely going to die this time."
A Ms. Wang from Shenzhen said: "Previously, I came two to three times a week to shop here. Now I come once a week or every ten days. I usually come with three or four other persons. We are not parallel traders. We want to buy some daily necessities while in Hong Kong. We don't want to be regarded as parallel traders."

(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2015.

Front page cover:
Anti-parallel trade demonstration returns
Retail industry: Rub salt in wound

Monthly year-to-year comparisons of retail trade sectors.
Columns: Jan-Feb (combined to smooth out Lunar New Year impact); March; April; May; June; July
Rows: (1) Jewelry, accessories, watches and luxury gifts; (2) Clothing; (3) Emporiums; (4) Medicine and cosmetics; (5) Overall
Example: Clothing was down 13% in July 2015 compared to July 2014.
Hong Kong's retail industry has gone through seven consecutive months of declines. Even as the retail industry is shrinking, the Localism Alliance and Sheung Shui Affairs For Sheung Shui People groups are organizing Restore Sheung Shui to demonstrate against dispensaries and shops in Sheung Shui.

(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2015 16:12.

About 30 Localism Alliance members and about 30 Loyalty Militia members were separated by metal barricades outside the Sheung Shui MTR station. The Loyalty Militia said that they were forming a new group to represent authentic localism. The two sides hurled insults at each other. The Localism Alliance called their opponents "dog thugs" and accused them of forming an unlawful gathering to betray the people of Hong Kong.
The procession grew to about 100 persons. As they turned from Lung Sum Road into Sun Kong Street, they stood outside dispensaries and dried goods stores and cursed them out for betraying the nation of Hong Kong. They chanted loudly: "Please give our homes back our peace and tranquility." Many dispensaries shuttered their gates when the procession approached. A number of pedestrians exchanged foul-mouthed curses with the demonstrators. When the procession neared Sun Sing Road, they surrounded a police car and accused the police of mistreating a police dog by locking it inside the car.
The Localism Alliance began their march at around 3pm, with regular demonstrator "Captain America" waving the British Colonial Dragon/Lion flag for Hong Kong independence. The Loyalty Militia planned to follow them to publicize the violence wrought by the localists' anti-parallel trade activities. But since they didn't get a letter of mon-objection from the police, they were not allowed to proceed. They split up on their own after an hour or so.

(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2015 16:20

A number of stores decided to shutter their gates just in case of trouble. One fruit store owner said that "I have to feed my wife and kids" and he was going to lose several thousand dollars in sales because of these demonstrators.
Some dispensaries moved their goods indoors and lowered their gates. Fortunately this was a false alarm as the demonstrators moved away peacefully. Other dispensary workers ignored the police warning and continued to do business.
Jewelry store worker Mr. Liu said that they will be half-opened/half-closed. He said that before March, 70% of his business came from mainlanders and now his total volume has dropped to 50% of what it was before the demonstrations began in March.

(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2015 16:36.

When the procession got back to the Sheung Shui MTR station, the organizers said that the march was over. However, more than 100 persons stayed behind to quarrel with the Loyalty Militia who called the demonstrators "scoundrels" and "trash."

(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2015 17:17.

Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong was reported to have been arrested. This angered the localists who then blocked the pedestrian overpass and two entrances into the Sheung Shui MTR station.

(Wen Wei Po) September 7, 2015

The Reclaim Sheung Shui action was instigated by two Facebook pages, the Localism Alliance and Sheung Shui Affairs For Sheung Shui People. However, the organizers declined to disclose their relationships with other organizations. At around 2pm or so, two young men wearing black t-shits and black masks claimed that they were the organizers. Before the march began, one of the men went up to a woman in a black t-shirt at the corner of the train station. The two held a conversation which the woman seemed to be issuing instructions while the young man kept nodding. The woman then left quickly and did not participate in the march.
When the march began, there were Hong Kong Indigenous members led by Ray Wong, the People Power members who were the core of the Mong Kok Shopping Revolutionaries, City-State members led by Cheng Hup and Sammy Wan, and the North District Parallel Trade Concern Group led by Leung Kam-shing. However, apart from Captain America hoisting the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong independence, none of the other people carried flags that identified their organizations.
The young man in black said that his family name was Leung and would not uncover his face. After the march ended, our reporter followed Leung to the Sheung Shui MTR station, and saw him change his black t-shirt into a blue denim shirt and from round-rim glasses to thick rectangular glasses. He also purchased a single-trip ticket and did not use an Octopus card, because this stops the police from tracking his movement by the Octopus card.
In reviewing the records, our reporter found that Mr. Leung bear a strong resemblance to a Leung Chi-han who was arrested during Occupy Central. In early October 18, Leung Chi-hang was arrested for tossing a metal barricade onto Nathan Road in Mong Kok and charged with disorderly conduct in public. On May 12, Leung Chi-hang was found guilty. On July 22, Leung Chi-hang won an appeal on the basis of a newly found video tape and was set free. According to information, Mr. Leung has close ties with Hong Kong Indigenous, which showed up in force to support him.
City-State member Sammy Wan is a follower of Grandmaster Chin Wan. In the City-State hierarchy, he is known as the Big Golden-winged Roc General. He is also closely linked to Leung Kam-shing and both have appeared on Wan Chin's City-State Forum. In March 3, this Hong Kong Police's Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau arrested a man named Wan for teaching demonstrators how to break through the police line, including information on how to manufacture petrol bombs and percussion grenades.

(EJinsight) September 7, 2015.

Some “localist” groups staged a protest Sunday against the so-called parallel-goods traders from the mainland, resuming a controversial campaign after a break of about six months. The protest took place at Sheung Shui, with demonstrators chanting slogans such as “Tackle parallel trading, return my peaceful homeland” and “Protect livelihoods, reclaim Hong Kong”, Apple Daily reported. Police detained at least one activist as the protest forced some shops in the area to pull down their shutters.

Leung Chi-han, a member of the Local League and the organizer of the protest, said parallel-trading activities have revived in Sheung Shui in the run-up to the mid-Autumn festival. Many drugstores sell moon cakes manufactured and branded by local hotels, attracting a lot of parallel traders. Fresh activities by parallel traders have affected the lives of local people, protesters say.

According to the police, about 150 people took part in the demonstration Sunday. As the protesters marched near San Kung Street and Hong Chai Street, where most drugstores are located, police set up a cordon to prevent the demonstrators from getting too near. Some shops downed shutters for the whole day while some re-opened after the protesters passed.

A Sheung Shui resident surnamed Fok, who didn’t join the protest himself, said parallel-trading activities have been getting more serious recently. The traders throw rubbish such as cardboards and lunchboxes everywhere, and some would even urinate in the streets, Fok was quoted as saying.

There were some conflicts, verbal as well as physical, between the protestors and supporters of the pro-establishment camp.

Ray Wong Toi-yeung, a spokesperson for the group Hong Kong Indigenous, alleged that a person from a pro-establishment group had laid his hand on a volunteers’ neck. He wondered if the police would arrest that person. Wong himself was involved in a skirmish with the police, an incident which led to Wong and a police officer falling to the ground. Wong was later arrested on charge of assaulting the officer.

Videos:

TVB News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0unyeKLkpo This is your fair-and-balanced report giving time to the demonstrators, the counter-demonstrators and the government.
TVB News http://news.tvb.com/local/55ec4eaf6db28ca464000004 Demonstrators obstruct police car outside Sheung Shui police station
Epoch Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrZw6DZ-ND0
HKG Pao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQdqbUyZi7U Counter-demonstrators calling the demonstrators "Trash".
HKG Pao https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=13&v=gku--aKc6mU Arrest of Ray Wong
HKG Pao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QHjTUwpZ_0 Demonstrators obstructing police vehicle from entering police station.
INT News Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7NPwCDDKY 14:50 Start of the demonstration march, including the counter-demonstrators.
INT News Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNwZoc8JLEo 16:27 Follow-up action after the demonstration ended.
INT News Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ezR_-bIHqw 16:52 Inside the Sheung Shui MTR station
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLOIlhnvuT0 Mr. Leung addresses the press
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIHT_JNH9QE Counter-demonstrators give speeches
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrQgT_b_qTY 1:03:00 full-length record
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrOnrZ2eX8U A female shop owner is unhappy with the demonstrators
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QorQ3vfWbIM Demonstrators go past a dispensary, with someone shouting about wanting peace and tranquility with a megaphone.
SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=441&v=7HjciT8ds-s Marching through the streets
SpeakoutHK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpHICQCnW3g

Internet comments:

- The iconic photo of masked valiant warriors harassing a little girl in the name of Justice:

- Different group, different people, but same modus operandi. Here is the very fearful Mr. Leung (no full name, please) of the Localism Alliance speaking to the press. It's very hot today, Mr. Leung is sweating but he doesn't want to remove the mask.

There is even another guy who wore a black mask as well as a black wool cap! It was more than 30 degrees centigrade out there today!

P.S. Ming Pao reports that people yelled at them: "All of you are wearing masks to hide your faces because you are breaking the law!" and "Take off those masks!"
- Living off mainland tourists is addictive. We should wean off it.

- Great. What do you propose as substitute?
Develop our manufacturing industry, so that we go back to making plastic flowers and Christmas trees?
Develop our agricultural industry, so that we go back to grow rice in Yuen Long and raise cattle in Tai Wai?
Develop our fishery industry, so that we go back to living on sampans in Aberdeen/Causeway Bay and catching fish?
You can have your crazy ideas, but you are not going to force us to come with you.

- Any such protests won't put a dent to the parallel trade industry. So why do it? Simple. The protestors want attention. They are not the only ones as more groups have set up to steal the limelight.

- I want attention too. I am going to set up a City-State Localism People Power League of Alliance Concern Group.
- The demonstrators show up one Sunday afternoon in one location every three months with pre-event publicity (3pm-5pm Sunday at Sheung Shui Plaza). All the parallel traders have to do is to avoid that time period and that location. They will carry on as usual at all other times.
- The name of the action is Reclaim Sheung Shui. This means to take back Sheung Shui, not just for two hours every three months but it should be forever. All those who attend this event to walk and talk are just jerking off. It has nothing to do with the meaning of Reclaim. Frankly, I really want to ask them: Why bother, if you can't accomplish what you say that you want to do?

- (Oriental Daily) September 6, 2015 13:09.

The Facebook group "Defend Localism" has initiated a Reclaim Sha Tin action today. They will gather at 2pm in New Town Plaza, Sha Tin. So far 30 Internet users have indicated that they will attend.
The counter-demonstration group Loyalty Militia will set up a booth at the entrance to the Metropolis Plaza this afternoon. This means that the booth will be along march route of the the Localists Alliance and Sheung Shui Affairs For Sheung Shui People. The Loyalty Militia said that certain people are harassing mainlanders (parallel traders, tourists and immigrants) in the name of Localism. They say that such people only want to vent anger, but their actions cannot accomplish anything except to establish Hong Kong as the international tourist-bashing capital of the world. They said that these so-called Localists do not represent the people of Hong Kong.

- The premises behind Reclaim Sheung Shui are self-contradictory.

(1) The flag hoisted by the demonstrators is the British Dragon-Lion flag for Hong Kong independence. If you want an independent Hong Kong, then it should be freed from both the former British colonial masters and the Chinese Communists. But their idea of an independent Hong Kong is under the flag of the Brits.

(2) Mr. Leung (no first name, please) said that parallel trade business is even better now than before the demonstrations earlier this year, and that is why they have to come out again. If the retail/restaurant/hospitality/tourism industries are all looking at consecutive months of year-to-year decline but the parallel trade business is booming, then that means that the earlier demonstrations did not reach the intended target and hurt innocent others instead. How about some reflection on the implications? Why repeat an action that has proven to be a failure? Why keep on hurting innocent others?
(3) The demonstrators marched through the streets of Sheung Shui. They used megaphones to scream "Give us our peace and tranquility!" There was more noise pollution coming from the demonstrators than the parallel traders ever did.
(4) The demonstrators gathered to leave and created congestion at the Sheung Shui MTR station, especially since they want to harass the counter-demonstrators. There was more congestion and chaos coming from the demonstrators than the parallel traders ever created.
(5) (Commercial Radio) The demonstrators said that they objected to the dispensaries putting their merchandise on the street. For them, this is encroaching on public space. Well, they're the same ones who defended the inalienable right of unlicensed peddlers to set up the Kweilin Night Market on public space. Even more so, they are the same ones who occupied public space in Admiralty, Causeway Bay, Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui for days on end.
(6) The demonstrators said that they objected to dispensaries selling shampoo. They said that dispensaries should only sell medicine and nothing else in order to serve the people. It's wonderful that the freest market in the world should have a bunch of masked men making decisions on what goods can be sold or not in specific types of stores. Where have they been anyway, because dispensaries all over Hong Kong have been selling shampoo for decades already?
P.S. I have always wondered why they sell condoms in 7/11 convenience stores. (The answer is simple: 7/11 is responding to market forces.)
(7) The demonstrators said that stores should serve their local community members, and that is why there shouldn't be so many dispensaries and jewelry stores in Sheung Shui. Does that mean that they are not allowed to buy or use anything outside their own communities? For example, if your mother drops dead, you better not hold services at the funeral parlors in Hung Hom because they are only allowed to serve Hung Hom residents. You have to bury her in Sheung Shui. Since there is no cemetery or funeral parlor in Sheung Shui, you just going to have to dig a hole somewhere and toss her remains into it. By the way, you are reminded that this is against the law.

- This particular demonstrator named Tse Kim-lung was arrested by the police. He was released shortly afterwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyl6AAIoo5w http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150906/54173258 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyl6AAIoo5w Guess for what? Freedom? Democracy? Justice? Human Rights? Universal Suffrage? Universal Values? No, he was smoking a cigarette in a restricted area and refused to comply with a police order to put out that cigarette. He is a Freedom Fighter and he should be exempt from the normal laws because we live in chaotic times and we have certain very special responsibilities.
- Hong Kong Indigenous member Ray Wong was arrested by the police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYdEjHFhaok
http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=465751 https://www.facebook.com/HongKongHermit/videos/1051197121558213/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJphI2ZsrM His group encountered a group of counter-demonstrators, the police separated the two groups, there was shouting, Wong insisted that the police must arrest the other party (namely, the Blue Ribbon guy nicknamed "Magnifying Glass") for assault, Wong screamed: "I ask you. I ask you. Are you going to arrest him?", Wong got pushed back up the stairs by policemen even as he kept screaming, the policeman wanted to see Wong's ID, Wong said: "I'll show you, but are you going to arrest him?", the two men hit a parked bicycle and fell down on the ground, Wong was arrested without resistance, both Wong and the policeman underwent medical examinations at the hospital later. Wong will likely be charged with assaulting a police officer.
- i-Cable http://cablenews.i-cable.com/webapps/news_video/index.php?news_id=465764 After being released, Ray Wong told the press: "There were two police officers in the police van. One of the policeman put a grip around my head. Both my hands were cuffed at the time. The other policeman kept using his elbow to hit my chest. More than ten to twenty times. He also kept slapping me in the face, hitting my head, pulling my hair. This episode lasted for about 10 minutes." Well, I looked at the video and I didn't see any redness on his face. How can you not have any sign on the face after 10 minutes of slapping?
- Confrontation between the two groups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HufD4sCcZRM inside the Sheung Shui MTR station.
- Comparison of newspaper coverages:

Oriental Daily: Considered mainstream pro-establishment, pro-China, largest circulation newspaper

Anti-parallel trade clashes
Localists arrested
Wen Wei Po: Considered pro-China, pro-establishment

Apple Daily/Ming Pao: Considered pro-democracy, anti-China

Buried somewhere in the back pages.

(HKG Pao)

Throughout yesterday, the Reclaim Sheung Shui incident featuring the men in black masks were continuously featured on television and Facebook. So this story was naturally on the front pages of most of the mainstream newspapers. The two exceptions were Apple Daily and Ming Pao, which normally like to pump up social conflicts but chose instead to be low-keyed in this case.
Everything is about the getting the votes for your side. Such is democracy. Previously political parties entered the fight over the appointment of the Pro Vice Chancellor at Hong Kong University because there are 170,000 HKU alumni most of whom are voters. The students tried to help by "using force to stop tyranny" but the public reaction was adverse and only 6% of the alumnus turned out for the HKU Convocation's Extraordinary General Meeting. The Civic Party calculated that they had more to lose than gain, so they have retreated silently and left the mess to legislator Ip Kin-yuen, who faces less pressure as the Education sector candidate backed by the Professional Teachers Union and therefore not accountable to the total population.
As the main promulgator of Umbrella Revolution, Apple Daily knows full well that the citizens disapprove of violence as in Occupy Central and Shopping Revolution. With the District Council elections coming up, the pan-democrats obviously wish that the citizens could forget about the 79 days of occupation. So they have quickly switched their stances to become warm, fuzzy, friendly and moderate.
So when those radicals came and started another round of violence-filled clashes shown around the clock on television and Facebook, the Yellow Ribbon newspapers naturally downplayed the incident and hoped that their readers won't notice.

[314] Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting (2015/09/04)

(EJinsight) HKU convocation wants CY Leung out as chancellor September 2, 2015.

A University of Hong Kong (HKU) convocation voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to have Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying step down as chancellor. About 82 percent of 9,298 people who attended the extraordinary general meeting in person or voted by proxy backed a non-binding motion to change the HKU charter that makes the Hong Kong chief executive nominal head of tertiary institutions by default.

Also, 84 percent wanted the university council to confirm the appointment of Johannes Chan as pro vice chancellor before the month is out. Chan is the only candidate recommended by a search committee.

Meanwhile, a motion to support a July 31 statement by a group of senior academics regarding the appointment process was crushed. The statement, jointly issued by 10 deans of the university faculty, defended the appointment process, saying it’s protected by the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini constitution. The deans also criticized the storming of a July 30 meeting of the HKU council by some students.

Council chairman Leong Che-hung said he respects the voting results. He said the council will follow the HKU statutes to ensure academic freedom and autonomy.

Chan said the results clearly reflected the views of HKU alumni. He said he hopes the council will consider the alumni’s opinions and follow the usual practice in appointing key university officials.

(SCMP) Emotions run high as HKU alumni speak out against political interference in school's council. September 2, 2015.

University of Hong Kong alumni made emotional speeches lambasting political interference in their alma mater's governing council as more than 3,000 gathered on Tuesday to debate the controversially delayed appointment of a pro-vice-chancellor.

Dubbed the "biggest reunion of HKU alumni", it was an extraordinary general meeting of the HKU Convocation, a statutory body comprising 162,000 graduates and lecturers.

Results of the votes on six non-binding motions, relating both to the appointment and the role of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying as ultimate head of the university, will be announced on Wednesday morning. More than 9,000 votes were cast, either in person or by proxy.

"It is a historic occasion," said Tai Keen-man, a member of the Convocation's standing committee, before the meeting at the Convention and Exhibition Centre. Some 3,200 attended it.

Alumni old and young turned up, including high-profile figures such as former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Democratic Party veteran Martin Lee Chu-ming, radio host Stephen Chan Chi-wan and former pro-establishment lawmaker Choy So-yuk.

Most of those selected by lot to speak expressed anger and disappointment at the deferred appointment as pro-vice-chancellor of Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, a former law dean lambasted by Beijing-loyalist media over his ties to an Occupy Central co-founder.

The chief executive's role at HKU should merely be to "hand out diplomas" said law graduate Sean Leonard. "Minus 30 points to the council, whose members acted as drama queens," he added, in apparent reference to an incident in July when council member Lo Chung-mau collapsed on the floor as students stormed a meeting.

Another member said the council should "show love and care for students instead of calling them 'red guards'." Council member Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung had used the term to describe students who stormed the July meeting.

Writer Dominic Tsim Tak-lung said universities should be universal: "There should be no discrimination in terms of sex, age … or political beliefs".

The few who argued HKU was not subject to political interference , including Beijing loyalist Chang Ka-mun, were greeted with catcalls.

The motions included calls for Chan to be appointed, for the chief executive to be removed as chancellor and for structural reform. Another supported a statement by 10 HKU faculty deans, which called for institutional autonomy but condemned the storming of the meeting.

The Education Bureau later issued a statement. “We appeal to the community not to impose pressure on the council, and not to hinder the normal functioning of the university and the council,” it said.

The bureau also said the chief executive - as chancellor - did not interfere with academic freedom and institutional autonomy, nor did he participate in the selection of staff. The bureau went on to defend the existing system, saying it was effective and appealed to different stakeholders to respect and comply with the law.

- (HKGPao) Observations inside/outside Part 1. By Lam Wan-seng. September 2, 2015.

1. Almost all the important figures of the Civic Party were present. Many Democratic Party luminaries from various generations were present too. This was like an annual party for political parties. Most luminous were Anson Chan and her sister.
2. The speeches became a Civic Party show as Audrey Eu, Alan Leong, Margaret Ng, Kenneth Kwok and others spoke. This went on for three hours. Overall, this event became a pro-Johannes Chan forum.
3. Interestingly, while the Democratic Party was present in large numbers, only the retired Martin Lee and Yeung Sum spoke. Did they reach a backroom deal for the Civic Party to assume ascendancy? Or did the Democratic Party deliberately take the back seat in a fight for a HKU Pro Vice Chancellor? Interestingly, the Democratic Party never responded to HKG Pao's question on whether they supported the students' siege on the HKU University Council members.
4. While the political parties assumed such prominence during the proceedings, Ip Kin-yuen who initiated the motions insisted that that no political parties were involved. This was quite ironic.
5. This Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting took place in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, but all speakers were required to speak in English. It was particularly humorous to hear the speaker say in English that they want to eliminate the "anachronistic tradition left behind by the British colonial administration in Hong Kong" of having the Chief Executive serve as HKU Chancellor. What if the speaker used Cantonese to say exactly the same thing? Would the speaker be accused of Communization of Hong Kong?
6. Everybody knows that the "anachronistic tradition left behind by the British colonial administration" had never been a problem either during the entire colonial period or the terms of the first two Chief Executives after the handover. If there is a problem now, then it is a problem with the current Chief Executive. They said that if Wen Wei Po/Ta Kung Pao said that Johannes Chan is unqualified for not possessing a doctorate degree, then neither does CY Leung. But how many of the former Chief Executives/Governors hold doctorates? They were HKU Chancellors because they held the top post in Hong Kong. That was all.
7. There were some voices against Johannes Chan. The difference was that when the speaker was supportive, the audience sat quietly and respectfully. When the speaker was not supportive, they booed. So what is this about defending the right of others to speak their opinions with your life?

(HKGPao) Observations inside/outside Part 2. By Lam Wan-seng. September 2, 2015.

Out of 9,298 valid votes, 7,821 votes agreed with "confirming Pro Vice Chancellor within 30 days," 7,657 votes agreed with "the Chief Executive shall not be the Chancellor" and 7,633 votes agreed with "the University Council chairman must be acceptable to the students and the teachers." Meanwhile Lawrence Pang Wang-kee's proposal to "support that statement from the ten deans" was vetoed.

Can those 7,000+ votes represent all of the 170,000 or so HKU alumni? Can the publicly subsidized HKU hide inside their campus and ignore the opinion of the general public? At this time, the pro-Johannes Chan faction has mobilized and won the HKU Convocation EGM vote. All those alumni who did not show up and all those others who have no voting rights shall now be "represented" in public opinion.

Here I have to say that the Yellow Ribbons have a good propaganda apparatus. On the way over from the Wan Chai MTR to the Hong Kong Convention Centre, I received three pro-Johannes Chan pamphlets. These informed me about how many articles Wen Wei Po/Ta Kung Pao have published against Johannes Chan, etc. They didn't tell me about Johannes Chan's embroilment in the donation scandal or how many articles Apple Daily has published on behalf of Johannes Chan.

Along the way, I also came across a number of other organizations setting up booths or collecting signatures against Johannes Chan's qualifications. An Internet poll showed that almost 70% of Hongkongers don't think Johannes Chan should be the Pro Vice Chancellor. So does the one-sided support inside the Convention Centre represent genuine public opinion?

In history, the most active and vigorous voices comes from the radicals. The majority opinion often gets overwhelmed. Such was the case with the issue of the HKU Pro Vice Chancellor. Such was the case with Occupy Central at first. To the silent majority who doesn't want to be "represented" by these people, can you afford to stay silent?

(Wen Wei Po) September 3, 2015.

On the issue about setting up a committee to follow up on the incident, Lawrence Wan said: "How can we follow up on something that hasn't taken place yet? I think that we should wait to see what happens, and then see how to follow up."

However, Ip Kin-yuen couldn't care less. He pronounced victory after fewer than 5% of the alumni voted in favor of the resolutions. He equated the results to the preferences of the entire alumnus body. He insisted that the University Council must heed the opinions of the alumni.

When asked about whether the 5% of voters could represent all the alumni, Ip Kin-yuen changed the subject. He said that many people gave up their personal time to attend this meeting. He said that one individual even "signed a notice for his daughter even as he attended the meeting." But when the reporter pressed him on giving a direct answer, he said that he wants to "leave it up to everybody to decide for themselves."

Internet comments:

- Why were the results of the HKU Convocation non-binding? Well, that's because it is not up to the HKSAR Chief Executive, or the University Council, or the HKU Convocation, or the alumni body as a whole, or the Student Union officers, or the student body as a whole, or the HKU Academic Staff Association, or the staff body as a whole, or the people of Hong Kong (whatever that means) to decide. If there is going to be a change, it will have to go through the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Here is what the law says:

With respect to the position of the HKU Chancellor during the British colonial era, Cap 1053 University of Hong Kong Ordinance s 12 Officers and teachers, their appointments, powers, duties and emoluments (30 June 1997):

(2) The Chancellor shall be the chief officer of the University
(3) The Governor shall be the Chancellor ...

This was replaced after the handover from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997 by CAP 1053 University of Hong Kong Ordinance s 12 Officers and teachers, their appointment, powers, duties and emoluments:

(2) The Chancellor shall be the chief officer of the University
(3) The Chief Executive shall be the Chancellor ...

Therefore, the Hong Kong University Convocation can vote from here to eternity and it wouldn't change a thing. They need to have a vote in the Hong Kong Legislative Council to change the Cap 1053 University of Hong Kong Ordinance. Meanwhile everything else is just a lot of hot air from politico-types. Let them waste their time if they want to. Don't let them waste yours.
- Hong Kong Free Press says: "The Chief Executive serves as the chancellor for all of Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions—a custom that begun with the territory’s colonial-era governors. Traditionally only a symbolic role, opposition to this system has increased along with perceived interference in university governance by Chief Executive Leung."
No, it is not a custom (Merriam-Webster: (a) a usage or practice common to many or to a particular place or class or habitual with an individual. (b) long-established practice considered as unwritten law. (c) repeated practice. (d) the whole body of usages, practices, or conventions that regulate social life.). It is the written law.

- If it is your custom to wipe your bum with your left hand holding the toilet tissue, you can easily change to using your right hand. Not so easy if it is the written law!

- (HKG Pao) September 2, 2015.

At the Hong Kong University Convocation Extraordinary General Meeting, there were 9,298 valid votes. Of these the proposal of Lawrence Pang Wang-kee received 1,814 votes for. This means that 7,484 persons disagreed with the proposal.
What does Pang's proposal say? Pang's proposal is a statement of support for the joint statement from the ten HKU Faculty Deans. It says: "We will not tolerate any uncivilized action that disrupts the normal operations of the University ... we are deeply disturbed by the actions harassing the HKU University Council." Basically, the idea is that they wanted to defend academic freedom and autonomy. This is consistent with what the other proposals are saying. So how can this be vetoed by 7,484 out of 9,298 persons? Do these people support what Billy Fung and his fellow students as well as unknown outsiders did on that night? Has the era of the Yellow Guards arrive at the Hong Kong University?

- Look at these numbers:

(Wen Wei Po) September 3, 2015

When asked whether the Convocation voting is representative of the alumni body, John Wan Chung-on did not respond directly. He is said that this was a data point of reference. The Hong Kong University Convocation has 162,000 or so members. Of these, 9,298 cast valid votes, either in person or by verified proxy.
9,298 out of 162,000 is 5.7%.
Of those who voted, the four motions on "The University Council must confirm the appointment of the Pro Vice Chancellor within 30 days," "Amend the Hong Kong University Ordinance so that the Chief Executive won't be the Chancellor", "The Chief Executive can only hold ceremonial responsibilities in university matters," and "The Hong Kong University Council will set up a special group to follow and implement the resolution" received between 7,745 to 7,821 votes (4.8% or so).

Do you think that these 5.7% feel/think the same way as the absent 94.3%? No way. Because of:

Response bias:

A typical RDD phone survey being conducted today has a cooperation rate of less than 20%. 10% is considered a good response rate from an online panel. When we report results of these studies, we are assuming that the vast majority of people who didn’t respond would have responded in the same way as those who did. Often, this is a reasonable assumption. But, sometimes it is not.

We know for sure that those who didn't show up are different from those who did, because the latter cared about the issues (even though the entire effort was futile as everyone who is a university graduate must surely know about the Hong Kong University Ordinance) to attend in person or sign a proxy statement.
Because the distribution of opinions among those who didn't show up is unknown, it would be wrong for an academically-minded individual to say one way or the other. Ip Kin-yuen only wants political exploitation, so he is quite willing to state that THE HONG KONG UNIVERSITY ALUMNUS BODY HAS VOTED THIS OR THAT BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.
In like manner, do you remember the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme's "REFERENDUM"? They got 792,808 valid votes overwhelmingly in support of "Civil Nomination" of Chief Executive. Even if they are truly valid (ignoring all the documented ways of casting unlimited votes in their system), we have to remind ourselves that the population of Hong Kong is 7.3 million of which 3.5 million are registered voters. Do you think that the non-voters feel/think the same way?
- Spiral of Silence:

(Wikipedia)

The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory proposed by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann.

Spiral of silence theory stipulates that individuals have a fear of isolation, which results from the idea that a social group or the society in general might isolate, neglect, or exclude members due to the members' opinions. This fear of isolation consequently leads to remaining silent instead of voicing opinions. Media is an important factor that relates to both the dominant idea and people's perception of the dominant idea.

...

The following steps summarize how the process works:

We can distinguish between fields where the opinions and attitudes involved are static, and fields where those opinions and attitudes are subject to changes... Where opinions are relatively definite and static – for example, “customs” – one has to express or act according to this opinion in public or run the risk of becoming isolated. In contrast, where opinions are in flux, or disputed, the individual will try to find out which opinion he can express without becoming isolated.

Individuals who, when observing their environments, notice that their own personal opinion is spreading and is taken over by others, will voice this opinion self-confidently in public. On the other hand, individuals who notice that their own opinions are losing ground will be inclined to adopt a more reserved attitude when expressing their opinions in public.

It follows from this that, as the representatives of the first opinion talk quite a lot while the representatives of the second opinion remain silent, there is a definite influence on the environment: an opinion that is being reinforced in this way appears stronger than it really is, while an opinion suppressed as described will seem to be weaker than it is in reality.

The result is a spiral process which prompts other individuals to perceive the changes in opinion and follow suit, until one opinion has become established as the prevailing attitude while the other opinion will be pushed back and rejected by everybody with the exception of the hard core that nevertheless sticks to that opinion.

This process of formation, change and reinforcement of public opinion. The tendency of the one to speak up and the other to be silent starts off a spiraling process which increasingly establishes one opinion as the dominant one. Over time, these changing perceptions establish one opinion as predominant one and they change from the liquid state to a solid norm.

Nazi Propaganda: The Nazi Party used the Spiral of Silence in their favor as they constantly bombarded the public with the images and ideas which they were trying to popularize. They were giving the masses an impression that everyone was in compliance with their ideals and if one was not, punishment was sure to ensue. ... A large number of Germans were more indifferent than supportive to the Nazi idea of Aryan race superiority. They were not all-in or all-out which led to a more passive stance on the discrimination. The Nazi government realized the impact of peer pressure, especially in youths, and used it to gain support.

If you feel differently but you are too afraid to speak up, then you will be voiceless on all that happens afterwards. You will shoulder the blame.

- (Ta Kung Pao) ET Net/Sky Post held an online poll. Of the 1,128 respondents, 75% said that they don't agree with the motion to ask the university council to confirm the appointment of the Pro Vice Chancellor within 30 days. 71% said that they don't agree with not having the Chief Executive as the university chancellor.

[313] Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 6 (2015/09/04)

(Oriental Daily) September 3, 2015

Recently, the court decided that 17 defendants accused of contempt of court during Occupy Mong Kok will be released because the Department of Justice was unable to follow the procedures to issue the summons on time. This was absolutely incredible. Occupy Central was the single most significant event in recent Hong Kong history, and it is also basic procedure to file documents on a timely basis. It is incredible that the Department of Justice could commit such a basic error. Nobody can believe this, unless someone deliberately let defendants off.
It has been rumored that the Department of Justice was infested with Yellow Ribbons. During the Occupy Central period, many Department of Justice openly wore yellow ribbons to work. They ignored the standard protocol that public servants should be politically neutral. While the higher-ups were aware of this problem, they couldn't do anything because not even Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen could do anything. During Occupy Central, the police made numerous arrests. It is rumored that many of those cases went into oblivion, because the Department of Justice declined to prosecute.
Is this true or not? That is hard to prove. But this most recent incident makes it hard to believe that the Department of Justice people did not deliberately stall or mishandle the cases. These are the hard facts.
The pro-China people have always said that the British colonial administration deliberately left a lot of government workers to enable them to continue their influence in Hong Kong. Thus, many government departments worked to obstruct the central government in conjunction with the pan-democrats and foreign forces. The corruption charges against former Chief Executive Donald Tsang is an example. Such rumors have acquired greater support with the recent dismissal of contempt-of-court charges against the 17 Occupy Mong Kok individuals.

(Oriental Daily) August 31, 2015.

16-year-old Form 3 student Kwok Ho-bun and 21-year-old university student Chan Ming-fung were accused of assaulting a police officer and obstructing police business on March 8, 2015 in Tuen Mun.
The magistrate said that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent with the videos that were presented. For example, the police testified that he saw Kwok throwing a water bottle from 7 meters away and therefore went up to arrest him. At the time, no one was between them. However, the video showed that there were quite a few people between them, which means that the witness did not enough room to spot Kwok throwing the bottle. In the video, Chan Ming-fung could not be seen to be pulling to free Kwok either.

(HKG Pao) September 1, 2015. (Oriental Daily) September 15, 2015. (Wen Wei Po) September 16, 2015.

On November 20, 2014, 31-year-old waiter Tung Fat-yin allegedly got to know the 12-year-old boy victim in the Occupy Mongkok area. At the time, the boy was afraid of being punished by his parents for not doing his homework. Therefore he was roaming around the Occupy Mongkok area and got to know the defendant. It began raining, and the two entered an empty tent where the defendant placed his hand on the shoulders of the boy to talk. The boy had no money so he followed the defendant to the apartment of a friend in Yau Ma Ti district. As the two got to Sai Yeung Choi Street South, the defendant suddenly groped the private parts of the boy. Later that night in the Yau Ma Ti apartment, the boy got up at 4am to use the restroom when the defendant suddenly reached out to grab the genitals again. The defendant told the boy not to tell anyone. The boy was too tired and sleepy to leave. The missing boy's parents checked the Facebook of their son and suspected that he was with the defendant who was a most recent addition as Friend. They learned that the defendant worked with a gay organization on Nathan Road. So they went looking around that area and saw the two coming out of a building. They called the police to arrest the defendant.
On June 27, 2015, the defendant allegedly sexually molested a 14-year-old boy, whom he had gotten acquainted with over Facebook. At the time, the boy was staying in Caritas Hospital. The defendant visited the boy as the friend of the boy's guardian. During the visit, the defendant suddenly put his hand underneath the blanket and touched the private parts of the boy. The boy was scared and did not say anything immediately because he knew that the defendant is a Taekwondo expert. Several days later the boy told the doctor.
The defendant pleaded guilty on three counts of sexual assault in Kowloon City court. The defense claimed that the defendant did what he did out of "curiosity." The magistrate set sentencing on September 15 pending reports on the background and psychological conditions of the defendant. Meanwhile the defendant will continued to be held in detention.
The defendants' parents promised that they would take their son to see a psychiatrist. The father said that he felt ashamed that he did not bring up his son right. But the magistrate said that the defendant first became friendly with the boys before suddenly touching their genitals. As such, the action was premeditated and dishonest. Therefore the magistrate sentenced the defendant to 9 months in prison.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 4, 2015.

A man has been found guilty of assaulting a police officer during the pro-democracy Occupy movement last year based on the testimony of the attacked police officer, which was deemed “trustworthy.” The verdict on Ho Man-chung, 36, came despite the two video clips submitted as evidence failed to show him carrying out the attack. Ho appeared in court on Friday on the charge of assaulting a police officer. He was charged after he ignored police warning and refused to leave Tamar Park, then was said to have pushed away a police officer last October.

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung, handing down a guilty verdict, said that although the two video clips submitted to the court as evidence failed to show the defendant pushing and swearing at the police officer as was alleged, the attacked police officer appeared “trustworthy” and did not hesitate under cross-examination.

Counsel for the defence argued for a lighter sentence, saying that Ho is currently unemployed and that the said police officer was not physically injured. The magistrate, however, said that assaulting a police officer was a serious offence. Ho was released on bail and the case was adjourned to September 21 for sentencing, after the magistrate reviewed reports on the defendant.

(Oriental Daily) September 4, 2015. (Oriental Daily) August 19, 2015. (HKG Pao) September 5, 2015.

36-year-old unemployed man Ho Mun-chung was accused of attacking police sergeant Yip Chun-bong in the early morning of October 15, 2014 in Admiralty.
36-year-old unemployed man Ho Mun-chung was accused of ignoring police warnings to leave the Lung Wo Road/Tamar Park area during a clearance. Furthermore, Hon was alleged to have pushed sergeant Yip Chun-bong in the chest, leading to a charge of assaulting a police officer.
The prosecution presented testimony that the defendant unbuttoned all his shirt buttons, bared his chest and challenged the police sergeant: "Shoot me!" The police sergeant testified that the defendant then pushed him in the chest. So the police sergeant yelled "Assaulting a police officer" and arrested the defendant with the help of his colleagues. Two other arresting police testified but they said that they did not see the defendant push Yip.
The defendant chose not to testify himself. The defense said that there was no evidence that the defendant participated in the Occupy Central movement. The location of the incident was far away from the Occupy Central area. Therefore the possibility cannot be excluded that the defendant was passing by the scene on his way home (at 2am on the October 15) and then Yip sprung out to tackle him. Furthermore Yip was not carrying out any clearance duties because there were only about a dozen individuals in total at the scene and none of them were disturbing the public order.
The magistrate said that the sergeant's testimony was clear and direct with no evasion. Therefore, he is a reliable witness. The defense presented two videos. In those videos, the defendant's hands were blocked from view. So the magistrate decided the videos neither proves nor disproves the culpability of the defendant. Therefore the overall evidence led to a guilty verdict.
The magistrate said that even though the defense presented two videos, it could not be determined whether the location was Tamar Park, or whether it was the time of the incident, or whether the defendant shoved the police sergeant. The magistrate chose to believe the sergeant and found the defendant guilty.
The defense pleaded in mitigation that the 36-year-old man was a graduate in mechanical engineering but is presently unemployed and living alone. The videos showed that the assault was not severe, the police sergeant was not injured and therefore the case was trivial. Since the defendant is now aware that assault is a serious action, he should be sentenced to either a fine or community service. Sentencing will be held on September 21 pending probation reports.

(Oriental Daily) September 21, 2015.

The defendant Ho Man-chung stated that while he has degrees from Hong Kong University and the University of Science and Technology, he wanted to lead his own lifestyle and therefore does not have a fixed job. At present, he is living in the offices of Citizens' Radio, but that doesn't mean that he could not perform community service. He emphasized that he is no homeless bum. He expressed regret at his crime and promises that he will be a law-biding citizen in future. The magistrate sentenced him to 120 hours of community service.

(Oriental Daily) September 22, 2015.

Last year, National People's Congress deputy secretary-general Li Fei came to the Asian Expo to explain the August 31st resolution. About 20 Civic Passion members demonstrated outside. Two of them were arrested: 26-year-old Ma Kai-chung and 22-year-old Chow Mun. Ma was charged with unlawful assembly, while Chow was charged with unlawful assembly and resisting arrest. The prosecution summoned the security manager Wong Tak-chun as witness. Wong testified that the two defendants traversed the table/barrier that they had set up for security checks and headed towards the metal barricades manned by the police. The closed circuit television had recorded the entire scene.

Ma Kai-chung and Chow Mun

(Wen Wei Po) September 22, 2015.

On September 1, 2014, about 20 Civic Passion members demonstrated outside the Asia Expo. Ma was the first to cross the security line while yelling "Down with the Communists!" Chow followed right behind to the police line, waving a flag and rattling the iron barricade. The two defendants pleaded not guilty at first. During the trial, the magistrate said that it was clear from the video that the two defendants were disturbing the peace and he failed to understand what the defense could be arguing about. On September 22 in court, the two defendants changed their plea to guilty.
The first defendant pleaded through his lawyer that this was a first-time offense in which nobody got turn, and he acted only out of his concern for Hong Kong and his political demands for "civil constitution, civil nomination." Therefore he hopes for a lenient sentence. The magistrate pointed out that while the people of Hong Kong have the right of assembly, it must be in accordance with the law and it must not disturb social peace and order. Sentencing will take place on October 14.
The second defendant continued to plead not guilty to the charge of resisting arrest. Undercover police officer Chow To testified that Chow Mun resisted repeatedly at Shui On Centre (Wan Chai). It took three police officers to subdue him. The trial will resume on September 23.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbPuiEK1fMM
(SCMP) January 11, 2017.

An activist who was fined for obstructing police officers during the 2014 Occupy movement in Hong Kong lost her bid on Wednesday to challenge her conviction after a High Court judge found that her conduct at the time had “undoubtedly” made the execution of police duties more difficult.

Julie Li Sin-chi, who was slapped with a HK$2,500 fine in August 2015 following the conviction, said on Wednesday that she would consider pursuing her case at a higher court.

On October 15, 2014, Li was sitting alone on a pavement near the junction of Lung Wo Road and Tim Wa Avenue enclosed by metres of metal fencing. She was later lifted and taken away by policewomen from the site, and did not struggle during the process.

In an appeal against her conviction for obstructing police, Li, an office executive, dismissed her arrest more than two years ago as a violation of her right to peaceful assembly. She appealed on the grounds that a lower court had erred in its finding that the two policewomen who took her away from the pavement were carrying out their mission properly. Li also argued that the lower court had erred in finding her to have been intending to obstruct police officers on a mission.

In a ruling on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Judianna Barnes Wai-ling rejected Li’s argument that the officers had not been authorised to clear the pavement near the main protest site.

“Given the circumstances, police were required to clear the sites, including the road and the pavement, lest people gather on the pavement and make trouble,” the judge stated. “The measures put in place by police were reasonable,” she added.

The judge also found it “impossible” that Li could not hear the police warnings broadcast over loudspeakers. “It was reasonable that police believed [Li] was taking part in an unlawful assembly and removed her,” Barnes said. The judge thus found the police action necessary and proportionate, even though Li was exercising her right to peaceful assembly at the time.

She ruled that the conviction was safe and dismissed Li’s appeal. Before the ruling, Li and her supporters, including lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, blamed the government for violating Hongkongers’ right to peaceful assembly in this case.

[312] 2015 District Council Elections - Part 1 (Voter Registration Fraud) (2015/09/04)

(SCMP) Hong Kong's pan-democratic parties face dilemmas in November poll. April 7, 2015.

To politicise or not to politicise? That's the dilemma facing pan-democratic parties as Hongkongers go to the polls in November for the first time since last year's Occupy protests.

Some in the camp are keen to build on the passion generated by the 79 day sit-ins by focusing on big questions of democracy and Beijing's influence in the city. Many see parallels to 2003, when pan-democrats secured an overwhelming victory in the district council polls just months after 500,000 people took to the streets to fight a national security law. But others - mindful of the fact that many voters resented the youth-led protests and the disruption they brought - feel it would be better to run on a track record of hard work in the community rather than on grand questions of universal suffrage.

The former strategy is reflected in the mushrooming number of new groups of young people looking to take the momentum of the umbrella movement forward by chasing some of the 431 seats on 18 councils that are up for grabs on November 22. But incumbent district councillors - and even one of the founders of the Occupy Central movement - are not convinced.

"The Occupy protests somehow affected voters' impression of pan-democrats, but such negative sentiments have been fading out," one district councillor said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss his strategy. "We believe we could still win back these people's support, especially when [Chief Executive] Leung Chun-ying continues to make inappropriate remarks on democracy … but politicising the election would only remind people of the inconvenience brought by the sit-ins."

Lo Kin-hei, a Southern District councillor and Democratic Party vice-chairman, agreed community work came first, unlike in the Legislative Council race where ideology played a bigger part. "Politics is only a side dish in a district council race," he said. "You have to perform as well as your rival in terms of community work, then politics perhaps can be an extra advantage for you if your voters share your stance."

Dr Chan Kin-man, one of the three co-founders of Occupy, agreed a politicised race would not guarantee a repeat of 2003. "Even those who didn't join the march back then had been supporting the cause and opposed legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law," Chan said, in reference to the clause of the mini-constitution under which the government tried to introduce anti-sedition legislation. "But the umbrella movement has indeed torn the city apart … it might not lead to the outcome which the 2003 rally brought." He said introducing new ideas - including on how to improve the district councils, long criticised as ineffectual and too focused on minor issues - might yield better results than running on wider political questions. "I'm afraid the young people will turn more cynical should they have a severe setback in this election," he said.

Typical of the new groups is Youngspiration, an alliance formed recently by young people who met during Occupy and plan to contest at least eight seats. The groups present another dilemma for established parties. Many newcomers are prepared to run against other democracy supporters, saying that their ideologies differ. But the older parties still want friendly relations with the newcomers.

Bill Lay Yan-piau, secretary general of the Civic Party, said his party had run two advice seminars for about 10 such groups. "They are independent from us, but we are offering help because we hope that they will continue to embrace the democratic spirit of the movement, and that they will not attack the pan-democratic camp," Lay said. One of the seminars involved informing the groups about the legal aspects of running for election, while the other was on things they should take into account when setting up street booths in their neighbourhoods. But the party would not offer them money or manpower, Lay said. Instead it was looking to raise HK$1 million to support its 20 or so potential candidates. The party would invite some of the groups to join a so-called co-ordination mechanism that aims to prevent pan-democrats from running against each other.

(SCMP) Hong Kong post-Occupy young bloods eye up district council elections. April 15, 2015.

Political groups emerging from the Occupy sit-ins are evaluating whether to field candidates in November's district council polls - and whether they can separate themselves enough from the protest movement to be viewed by the electorate as people who could make a difference in community politics.

It's a new breed of politician who are making it clear their vision is not always the same as traditional democratic parties, and some say they won't necessarily conform to the practice of "coordinating" candidates to avoid splitting the pro-democracy vote in some constituencies. Some of the names of the groups highlight their willingness to ignore convention.

The inspiration behind these groups came from a post that appeared on the online forum hkgolden.com right after the 79-day sit-ins for democracy ended in December. Called the "18-district project", the post aimed to connect people who wanted to explore the possibility of running in the district polls.

About 10 groups aligned to different districts have since set up Facebook pages and begun reaching out to people.

One of them is Tsz Wan Chan Constructive Power, which is looking at Wong Tai Sin council. Currently, the pro-establishment Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong holds lion's share of the 29 council seats. The new group, most of whom live in the area, comprises about 10 members, one of whom is Brandy Cheng Yuen-ching. "We won't raise yellow umbrellas when we're working because, after all, not everyone supported the protests," said Cheng, 30, referring to the symbol of the Occupy movement. "But it is my belief that everyone has a right in their home affairs, and from there we build up the spirit of democracy."

With Occupy edged out of the manifestos, the focus is on micro-issues within the various neighbourhoods and "nativist" issues, riding on anti-mainland sentiments and Hongkongers' urge to assert their own cultural identity.

North of the Rings, with its name inspired by the Lord of the Rings novel, is working in Sheung Shui and Fanling in North District, which has seen an expansion of shops catering for parallel traders from Shenzhen, most notably pharmacies. "We hope our district will have more shops that serve the needs of locals," said Man So. So far about five people in this group are considering running. So said they were in touch with mainstream pan-democrats but insisted it was not an affiliate, despite Democrats and the Labour Party already expressing concerns about post-Occupy groups splitting the pan-democrat vote. "If we believe we have a higher chance of winning in a certain constituency, we would ask them to give way to us," So said.

Another new group, the East Kowloon Community, has its eyes on Kwun Tong District Council. It is drawing residents' attention to a decision by the council - again under DAB control - to build a HK$100 million musical fountain, arguing it is a waste of public money.

So far, none of the new groups has officially declared plans to run in the district polls. As Cheung Long-hin, of East Kowloon Community, said, they are "testing the water".

Tanya Chan, Civic Party vice-chairwoman, has been in touch with some of the groups. She said: "It would be good if they pooled their resources in one district and together think of new ideas on district management and the role of the councils - that way they can breathe new life into the political scene."

Back in 2003, another mass protest saw fired-up young activists form political groups. A decade on, they are warning newcomers inspired by Occupy to prepare to be disillusioned.

One major weakness of this last wave of groups was their tendency to be so loosely run as to be unsustainable, said Cheng Ki-kin, a founding member of Civic Act-up, which was formed with politician Cyd Ho Sau-lan's support after the half-million-strong rally on July 1, 2003, decrying plans to introduce national security laws. "Civic Act-up was so loosely organised that you did not feel you were part of it," Cheng, now a Wan Chai district councillor, said. "There was no regular meeting, and it seemed everyone was working independently and separately, especially after the 2003 [district council] elections." Cheng himself quit Civic Act-up soon after 2003, while Ho now serves as a Labour Party lawmaker after co-founding the new party in 2012.

"A loose organisation is difficult to sustain. You need a clear goal and a road map. Slogans such as genuine democracy are too abstract and clichéd. What is it and how and when this can be achieved? No one seems to know, or care," he said. And the problem was not confined to Civic Act-up. "Many of the young groups were … without a structure and could thus lose direction easily," he added.

Another former activist, Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, noted that the leadership in last year's Occupy sit-ins was unclear.

The Federation of Students was one of the main groups that tried to rally the protesters but it was unpopular among some of the young occupiers.

"Being unorganised is perhaps an inevitable result because the rise of the new young groups is due to their mistrust of any organisation," said Yeung, who is now a barrister and chairman of the Civic Party's New Territories East branch. "They do not even want to be represented by the federation." Yeung was a core member of the now-defunct 7.1 People Pile, a pro-democracy group named after the 2003 big march. Its aim was to push for democracy by keeping up the spirit of "people power" that was demonstrated in the march. The group fielded three candidates in the 2003 district council polls. All were defeated.

One of those three defeated candidates, Bobo Yip Po-lam, called for patience. "I appreciate [the new post-Occupy groups'] efforts in trying to change the mindset of the people," said Yip, now a project officer with the Catholic Diocese's justice and peace commission. "But if your aim is to change a culture, you cannot just parachute into a constituency and ask people to vote for you. It takes time to see change. I would say, it may take six years."

Yeung agreed. "District councils are more about neighbourhood issues, not political ideology. You need to be on the spot to serve residents. Simply saying you are pro-democracy won't help much." Looking back at the 2003 polls, Yeung said it was unfair to judge whether the youth movement at the time was successful or not just by looking at the groups' electoral outcomes. "On the surface, we lost the elections and many of the groups faded out of the political scene. But the movement had sown the seeds. People have been enlightened and are more willing to fight for their rights by means of mass social movements."

(HKG Pao) August 21, 2015.

Recently the key radical figures have all disappeared from the Shopping Revolution activities. Our reporter watched the Shopping Revolutionaries around Sai Yeung Choi Street South for several nights last week. Activist participants such as League of Social Democrats' Tam Tak-chi, Hong Kong Localism Power leaders Simon Sin and CK Ho, etc rarely made appearances anymore. Only a number of unknown radical elements were seen loitering around.
Our source informed us that Simon Sin and CK Ho showed up last Saturday (August 15) in Lam Tin district. They dressed smartly, they bowed to citizens and said hello. This was a change from their regular image (see photo below).

Meanwhile Civic Passion leaders Wong Yeung-tat and Cheng Chung-tai as well as Hong Kong Indigenous leader Ray Wong are likely to enter the District Council elections (in 2015) and Legislative Council elections (in 2016). Therefore they have long gave up those physical clashes. Even if they did show up, they will quickly disappear after shouting a few slogans.
Our reporter interviewed a manager of a consumer electronics store in Sai Yeung Choi Street South. He said: "I hate them to death! They show up almost every night, so that both mainland and local customers go away. My business is worse now than during Occupy Mong Kok." The manager said that while the summer should be peak season for business, their revenues are down 30% this year. If things keep up this way, the owner may close the store.

(Oriental Daily) August 24, 2015.

After the Umbrella Movement was over, a number of "Umbrella Soldiers" plan to participate in the November 2015 District Council elections. They will run against the traditional pan-democrats. So far, "Umbrella Soldiers" are known to be clashing with pan-democrats in 14 districts.
This year, the Democratic Party will be fielding 94 candidates. In 2011, they fielded 132 candidates. In 2007, they fielded 108 candidates. Based upon previous experience, this time they are fielding their best and brightest. Of the 94 candidates, 40 are incumbents, 27 have run in previous elections and 27 are first-timers.

(HKG Pao) August 23, 2015. Also Wen Wei Po, August 22, 2015.

Recently a number of "Umbrella Soldier" organizations have claimed that they were contacted by a man named Anthony Cheng and offered to provide about $150,000 in funding to compete in designated districts which are not controlled by the pro-establishment camp.
One of the organizations Youngspiration published the contact on their Facebook page. Another organization Shatin Community Network worked with Cable TV to uncover the case. After the case was exposed, the Umbrella Soldier organizations fell into mutual acrimony about people who publicized the case pre-maturely. Meanwhile the individual Anthony Cheng said that he is an Internet radio host and he wanted to test the resources of the various Umbrella Soldier organizations for a special program. That program was scheduled a month from now, but this is now impossible given the recent developments.
So who is Anthony Cheng? According to our report, he ran a talk show in which the guests are politicians and entertainers. Later on, he stopped his production due to a dispute with the sponsors and now he is making micro-movies (including sending his female actresses to sell alcohol at his sponsor's bar). Recently, Cheng is a host at the OurTV website, focusing on women's bust lines and bisexuality.
On his Facebook, he has shown pictures of Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau who is also a host at OurTV as well as Tam Tak-chi of the League of Social Democrats.
Cheng has hinted that a financier wanted to take over all the Localists organizations. He hinted that there is a money-taking procedure in which the applicant provides an "election participation proposal" to get a 25% advance; another 50% will come after the applicant files to run in the election; the final 25% will come after the election. The total amount is $150,000 per district. The applicant does not have to win, but needs to get 150 to 200 votes (not enough to win but may affect who the winner is). The applicant does not have to return any unspent campaign money.
After Cheng's involvement was exposed, both his Yellow Ribbon and Blue Ribbon friends "unfriended" him in large numbers.
According to one view, these so-called Umbrella Soldier organizations were largely unknown until this incident. Furthermore they did not call the police and chose instead to work with the media to do an undercover news story. This makes the whole incident look like a publicity stunt to smear the pro-establishment camp.

(SCMP) September 26, 2015.

A man has been charged by the Independent Commission Against Corruption for allegedly offering bribes totalling HK$550,000 to prospective candidates in the coming district council election.

Cheng Wing-kin, a 31-year-old waiter, will appear in Eastern Court this morning. He’s accused of offered advantages to four persons to stand as candidates, or get others to stand as candidates, in the November polls. He was arrested on Thursday and faces five counts of corrupt conduct in an election.

The ICAC investigation was triggered by a complaint. Two of the charges allege that Cheng, between Jul 8 and July 18 this year, offered advantages of HK$400,000 to a person to run for election in a specified geographical constituency, and to get another person to stand as a candidate. Cheng is also accused of offering HK$10,000 and two unspecified sums of money to three persons between July 12 and August 17 to induce them to get three others to run in three specified districts.

(SCMP) September 26, 2015.

A waiter in Hong Kong allegedly offered bribes totalling at least HK$550,000 (US$71,000) to persuade four people to either stand as candidates in this year’s district council elections or find people who could. Cheng Wing-kin, 31, entered no plea to five counts of engaging in corrupt conduct at an election during a hearing at the Eastern Court on Saturday. He was arrested on Thursday.

Magistrate Jason Wan Siu-ming adjourned the case to November 20 to give the city’s Independent Committee Against Corruption (ICAC) time to can carry out further investigations while prosecutors seek legal counsel. Wan also granted Cheng bail of HK$3,000 cash on the condition he surrender his travel documents.

The ICAC launched its probe into the case after hearing allegations of corrupt conduct during the elections. Cheng is believed to have contacted a man called Wong Hok-lai between July 8 and 18 this year claiming he could pay him HK$200,000 to stand as a candidate at a specific constituency for this year’s district council elections. Cheng allegedly offered Wong the same amount if he could find an additional body to stand in the elections. Cheng was also accused of approaching Tsang Ka-lam, Wong Chun-yeung and Leung Chung-hang to enlist their help in finding more candidates. The court heard that he offered unspecified sums to Tsang and Wong as well as HK$150,000 to Leung.

(SCMP) 'Tip of the iceberg': Warning from pan-democratic parties over 400 suspicious Hong Kong voter records. August 25, 2015.

Pan-democratic parties flocked to the election watchdog yesterday to lodge more complaints about the records of over 550 voters with suspicious or false residential addresses, warning they could be "the tip of the iceberg".

A flood of cases reported to the Registration and Electoral Office recently included complaints by residents of unknown people registering their home addresses for voting in the district council elections in November. Among new cases yesterday were voters registering addresses that do not exist, and seven or eight voters registering as living together in flats of 200 to 300 sq ft. In one case a voter claimed to be living in a hospital.

Mak Tak-ching of the Labour Party, who led colleagues to file 300 cases to the office, said such irregularities were widespread in constituencies including Tsuen Wan, Hung Hom, Sai Wan Ho and Ma On Shan. "We believe it is only the tip of the iceberg. The electoral office should take it seriously and proactively launch an investigation," Mak said.

Democratic Party community officer Winfield Chong Wing-fai, whose party reported about 50 suspected vote-planting cases, accused the office of laxity. "There is one case of a voter who registered a power distribution transformer station as the home address. This could not have been accepted in the first place if the office was serious about its work," said Chong.

The Post has previously reported on voters claiming they live in hotel rooms, the Cultural Centre, Tsim Sha Tsui, and parks. Civic Party lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching warned that such irregularities could erode confidence in the election system.

Yesterday was the last day for voters to check and update their particulars in order to vote in November, and for the public to report suspicious cases.

An office spokesman said all complaints would be handled in accordance with the law. A person who gives false or incorrect information in making a voter registration may face up to six months in jail and a HK$5,000 fine. Scores of people were convicted of registering false addresses in 2011.

The district council elections will be held on November 22. It will be the first general elections since the Occupy protests and the pan-democrats' rejection of the government's proposed reform for the 2017 chief executive election. The polls are seen as a key test of voters' reaction to the pan-democrats' tactics.

Meanwhile, the Privacy Commissioner reminded candidates not to use voters' personal data for electioneering activities without their consent. Since 2012 the office has received 200 complaints about such election-related offences. It said the data should be destroyed after completion of all the electioneering activities.

(SCMP) District councillors' addresses changed on register, raising fresh doubts on work of elections watchdog. September 1, 2015.

The elections watchdog is facing more scrutiny after two district councillors learned their registered addresses were changed without their consent. The pair affected were Nixie Lam Lam, a Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong member of Tsuen Wan District Council, and Lam Yuk-chun, a non-affiliated Southern district councillor, said DAB vice-chairman Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan. The DAB reported the cases to police.

It came to light when Lam checked her registration status online. Cheung warned that a change of address - which could be made by anyone with the voter's identity card number and name - could cause a person to miss a verification letter from the Registration and Electoral Office, leading to their voter registration being cancelled and making them ineligible to stand in November's district polls. "It is also a criminal act for anyone to fill in [a voter registration] with wrong information," said Ip Kwok-him, a DAB lawmaker who serves with Cheung on Central and Western District Council.

A series of irregularities have been spotted in the provisional register, raising doubts about the adequacy of the office's verification work after a flood of voter fraud cases at the last district polls four years ago.

Cheung said the DAB had found over 100 irregularities on the register for Central and Western, including 98 cases of voters claiming to live in commercial buildings or street-level shops, and 19 of people living in buildings vacant for redevelopment. Voters were also registered in a demolished building and on the 12th floor of a 10-storey building. Cheung said that instead of relying on letters and visiting voters to verify addresses, the watchdog should set up a database. "If a building is demolished or vacated for redevelopment, the Buildings Department [and the Urban Renewal Authority] would know … The [office] should collect this information and match it against the electoral roll."

(Oriental Daily) September 1, 2015.

The Registration and Electoral Office had previously sent out registered letters to registered voters in order to verify their addresses. At this time, about 47,000 voters have their registration voided because they did not respond in time. Together with about 32,000 voters who are deceased, this means that a total of about 80,000 voters have left the voter rolls. By district, it appears that Wong Tai Sin at 253 and Kwun Tong at 240 are the most seriously affected. Since District Council elections are sometimes decided by one or two dozen votes, disenfranchised voters or losing District Councilors may be filing lawsuits to block the election results.

(Wen Wei Po) September 2, 2015.

Civic Party's Joshua Li

Voters were supposed to update their registration information by August 25. Many pan-democratic parties filed complaints against suspicious voters. In particular, Civic Party's Joshua Li filed 596 letters of objection against registered voters in the Mei Foo district (specifically, in Mei Foo Stage 5, Mei Foo Stage 6, Ching Lai Court, Nob Hill). Most of these objections were based upon either the number of different surnames per household or the use of seemingly non-existent addresses. The thresholds that Joshua Li chose to use were lower than what other political parties are using (to wit, Li objects to four different surnames in one family and it becomes the onus on that family to prove that all four persons are (1) real by submitting copies of their Hong Kong ID's and (2) actually reside there by showing bills with their names and addresses, etc.).

With so many people being affected and thus contacted by the authorities for verification, there was a blowback. The Civic Party has apologized to the real voters who were affected. So far Joshua Li has withdrawn his objections to 486 of those registered voters. However, he is persisting on objecting to the remaining households with more than seven different surnames per household or seemingly non-existent address.

(Oriental Daily) September 3, 2015.

Democratic Party vice-chairman and Shek Yam district councilor Andrew Wan Siu-kin was accused of mistakenly filing complaints at the Registration and Electoral Office against more than a dozen voters.

Yesterday Legislative Council Ben Chan Han-pan and others held a press conference together with four voters. The four voters were deeply disturbed to receive demands to appear in court to explain their voter status. One senior citizen burst into tears and said that she was so fearful that she couldn't eat or sleep.

Ben Chan said that he has received thirteen citizen complaints so far. Most of these are senior citizens who don't understand the legal issues and sought his help. As a result, they will have to appear in court to defend themselves. Chan wonders if someone has been abusing the system.

Meanwhile Democratic Party vice-chairman Andrew Wan denies that he is using the system against any persons. He emphasized that his complaints were completely based upon the validity of the addresses or the presence of multiple surnames at a single address. Other political parties make similar complaints, and so the Democratic Party should not be isolated for criticisms. Wan says that he will apologize to those voters who were erroneously affected, but only after he receives the relevant documentation.

Letter to request court appearance due to complaint about election registration fraud in which the complainant is listed as Andrew Wan.

(HKG Pao) 13 Kwai Ching residents contacted legislator Ben Chan for assistance. These included members of the neighborhood self-help committee, presidents and members of the apartment owners' committees, etc. Grandma Lam has been living in the Kwai Ching district for 15 years. Previously she was a volunteer for Andrew Wan and the Democratic Party. Recently she became a volunteer of the rival DAB party. Therefore Andrew Lam filed a complaint against her to make her lose her eligibility. When Grandma Lam got this letter, she was "so scared that she couldn't eat nor sleep." Other targets of Wan's complaints will have to take time off from work to show up in court to defend themselves.

(Oriental Daily) September 6, 2015.

Three pro-establishment district councilors (Lau Kwai-yung of Yuen Long, Lam Lam-tong of Tsuen Wan and Lam Yuk-chun of Hong Kong Island South) found that some unknown person(s) had changed their addresses on the Registration and Electoral Office without their knowledge, and this may cause them to lose their eligibility to run in the district council elections.

Lau Kwai-yung lived in Tin Hang Estate in Tin Shui Wai before she got married. Recently she found out that her home address has been moved from Yuen Long to Tin Shui Wai. She thinks that someone is using a trick to make her ineligible to run in the election. Fortunately she found out before the deadline. Yesterday, she found out from the Registration and Electoral Office that someone had forged her signature to fill out a change-of-address form. She intends to file a police report.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 7, 2015.

A magistrate has slammed the Registration and Electoral Office for incompetence after a court reviewed hundreds of complaints relating to fraudulent or bogus particulars arising during the voter registration process. Many of the errors were a result of the office’s incorrect inputting of data, the Sha Tin Magistrates’ Court heard on Monday.

Around twenty citizens accused of having provided fraudulent details attended court to defend themselves. In one case, it was found that a single address belonged to people with three different surnames because the voter, Ms Ho, lived with her husband and maternal grandmother, all of whom have different surnames. In another case, the court heard that people with five different surnames were found to be registered to one address because those who had moved away did not renew their details.

Magistrate Andrew Ma criticised the Registration and Electoral Office for causing confusion among voters and wasting the court’s time and resources by inputting voter data incorrectly. The magistrate also said that some of the suspicious cases could be the doing of political groups who want to prevent those with opposing views from voting. Ma urged the office to address the issues immediately and praised voters for fulfilling their duty as citizens by highlighting the discrepancies through legal processes.

The voters were assisted by Legislative Councillor Ben Chan Han-pan, of the pro-establishment DAB party, who said that many of the accused were innocent senior citizens unfamiliar with the regulations and procedures related to the election process. He suspected that some people had been making complaints maliciously and abusing the reporting mechanism.

Under current procedures, the Registration and Electoral Office has to refer notice of objections made by complainants to a judge, who will resolve the matter through a hearing. The voter whose particulars were being questioned can then personally appear in court or act through a lawyer to confirm their registered address.

(dbc) September 8, 2015.

The Registration and Electoral Office stated that they will investigate when an address contains seven or more voters, and/or five or more different family names. They believe that Civic Party's Joshua Li's four different family names is too low a threshold. The magistrate concurred and said that the right to vote cannot be deprived unless there is evidence of voter fraud.

(Oriental Daily) September 8, 2015.

Joshua Li lodged a complaint against a family with four voters having different family names. The subject appeared in court to explain that the family consisted of a married couple with their son and daughter-in-law who have different family names. The court rejected the complaint. Civic Party secretary-general Lay Yan Piau had accompanied Joshua Li to court, and he apologized outside the court to the affected family.

(Ming Pao) September 8, 2015.

The resident with four different family names living in the same address in Mei Foo appeared at court in person. The female head-of-house thought that it was hilarious. She pointed out that she, her husband, her son and daughter-in-law and her daughter and son-in-law live together. The magistrate dismissed the complaint against her.

(Wen Wei Po) September 10, 2015.

Six persons from five families in Shek Yam district have gone down to file a complaint against Democratic Party vice-president Andrew Wan and others. These residents said that there was no way that Wan did not know that they still live there. After all, Wan's assistant came last month to contact them. Therefore there was absolutely no reason for Wan to report that they filed false address information to the Registration and Electoral Office. Under Hong Kong law, it is a crime to file false claims about the eligibility of a voter.

There six persons have also released a statement. Because Wan filed a complaint against them, they had to respond to the Registration and Electoral Office in a very short time and attend the court hearing. Furthermore, they have been harassed in person, by telephone calls and text messages. They were told to "watch themselves" and "don't overdo this." "Recently, some people have openly said that we are making something out of nothing and making unfounded charges. Even more ironically, they wondered why we didn't call the police. That is why we are angry."

The statement continued: "Everybody makes mistakes. The matter would be over if a sincere apology is offered. But someone insists on not apologizing and refuses to let the matter end. They keep shirking responsibility and in fact turn around the table. We are vexed. We are forced to ask the police for help, so that the law enforcement agencies can get to the truth."

(Oriental Daily) September 25, 2015.

Yesterday, the Democratic Party chief executive Lam Cheuk-ting called a press conference over their discovery of a number of suspicious voter registration records. They said that they just studied the official voter registry released today and found that a number of voters who were deemed to be suspicious (usually too many different family names at the same address) by the Registration and Electoral Office have now been split into two or three different addresses elsewhere in the district. The press conference was scheduled at 4pm at the Legislative Council.

When the reporters arrived, they saw workers quickly removed the banners on the back wall about the press conference. Soon Lam Cheuk-ting appeared and confessed that they made a mistake when they compared the old and the new voter registries. Specifically, when they copied the information from one spreadsheet to the other, they shifted one row so that the new and old were no longer aligned correctly. Therefore Lam said that the press conference has been called off, and he apologized at least six times to the reporters who showed up.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 19, 2015.

Two people were charged by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) on Wednesday with conspiracy to accept a bribe of up to HK$200,000 as inducement to stand in Sunday’s District Council elections.

Thirty-two-year-old renovation worker Ku Ka-ho and merchant Chan Kin-loong, 37, face a joint charge of conspiracy to engage in corrupt conduct at an election, contravening the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance and Crimes Ordinance.

The charge alleges that between July 12 and August 9, Ku and Chan, together with Anthony Cheng Wing-kin and one other person, conspired for Ku to engage in corrupt conduct by accepting an inducement from Cheng of between HK$150,000 and HK$200,000.

The sum was intended for Ku to persuade Chan to stand as a candidate in a specified geographical constituency. Chan ultimately did not put himself forward as a candidate. Cheng, an online TV host, has previously faced charges of bribery.

The defendants have been released on bail and will appear at the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on Friday afternoon for mention.

On the same day, the ICAC also charged a registered voter in the 2015 Rural Representative Election with accepting a bribe of HK$2,000 for her to vote for a particular candidate and to have her mother vote similarly. Ho Ching-yi, 27, unemployed, faces two counts of engaging in corrupt conduct at an election.

Ho, an indigenous inhabitant of Wong Nai Tun Tsuen in Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, was registered to vote in the 2015 Rural Representative (Indigenous Inhabitant Representative) Election for Wong Nai Tun. She has been released on bail and will appear at Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court on Thursday for plea.

Internet comments:

- Usually, the District Council elections are a case of pan-democrats versus pro-establishment candidates. The Factor X this year comes from the post-Occupy Central "Parachutists". These are the Young Turks who came out of Occupy Central. They hate the pro-establishment camp, but they also think the traditional pan-democrats are sell-out. Therefore they will run to gain political power at the grassroots level, namely the District Councils.

(Ta Kung Pao) August 25, 2015.

According to Democratic Party vice-chairman Andrew Wan Siu-kin, they will be sending forth 94 candidates in the District Council elections. This is less than the 132 last year, but want to use their limited resources on those candidates who have a chance. Last time, the Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan had to resign after so many of their candidates lost.

Wan said that there are about 200 pan-democrat candidates in the field, of which there are at least fourteen cases where post-Occupy Central "parachutists" are also running. Of these, eight are in districts in which Democratic Party candidates are running. Wan is pessimistic about reaching compromise, because the parachutists' idea about mediation is that the Democratic Party candidates should withdraw. Wan says that their party will field the candidates regardless.

- Joshua Li was forced to withdraw 486 of his 596 complaints? Only 2,000 to 3,000 people will likely vote in his district, but he wants to disqualify one-fourth of them? What was he thinking when he made the filing? Where were the grown-up supervisors?
- What are his prospects after alienating/offending a quarter of the voter base before the voting even begins? And those voters have friends and relatives living in the same district too.

- If the complaints against registered voters are systematically spread across the board, there may be no reason for concern. But if you are profiling by complaining against some and ignoring others, you can gain an advantage.

Here is an example of how it is done: The most typical profile of the pan-democratic voter is young, high-income and high education. Voter registration data only tell you about gender and age. Census information tells you about median income by sub-districts. So you target older voters in poorer sub-districts. You don't have to purge them from voter rolls. You can simply intimidate them by making the voting process hell (namely, having to appear in court to prove that you are who you are). That will give you an advantage.

This is just the sort of thing that highly-educated people can come up with.

- A family with four different surnames? You live with your mother, mother-in-law and wife using their maiden names and you are criminalized.
- How do prove that you are yourself? That's more Orwellian than Orwell. But if you can't do that, Andrew Wan won't withdraw his complaint against you and you will never be able to vote.

- Andrew Wan can make fun of rhe pro-establishment camp of buying votes with their snake dinners, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings. But what does he do himself? A discount 2-day trip for Kwai Ching senior citizens to Zhuhai (People's Republic of China).

- Why is Andrew Wan so aggressive?

(SCMP) Hong Kong's pan-democrats look to regain control in Kwai Tsing in November polls. September 7, 2015.

To pan-democrats, Kwai Tsing is a sympathetic oasis of voters as it is the only one out of the 18 districts where the camp has the edge over their pro-establishment opponents.

However, they do not hold the top posts of chairman and deputy - as six appointed seats in the 35-member council tipped the balance of power to the government-friendly side, even though democrats won 15 out of 29 directly elected seats in 2011.

But as appointed seats will be abolished this year, the prodemocracy camp is now hoping to extend its advantage in the November polls and turn Kwai Tsing into the city's only district council that is not dominated by Beijing loyalists - a position it has held in the past.

Democratic Party vicechairman Andrew Wan Siu-kin, a Kwai Tsing district councillor, said the camp could realise the goal should it beat its opponents in two key constituencies - On Ho and Ching Fat. Opinion polls indicate that Democrat candidates are leading there.

"But it's a very, very tough battle," Wan admitted.

"The pro-establishment camp has been pouring way more resources into districts like Kwai Tsing - or Sham Shui Po - where the pan-democrats exert significant influence. They don't really care much about the districts where Beijing loyalists already enjoy the absolute advantage."

Kwai Tsing has long been regarded as the bridgehead for the pan-democrats. They won 23 out of 28 popularly elected seats in 2000. But over the past decade, the margin between the two camps has been narrowing, leaving the pan-democrats just one seat ahead in the last polls.

Wan, who beat his opponent by more than 1,000 votes in the 2011 race, said the current election atmosphere was the worst since he first ran in 2003.

He accused pro-Beijing aspirants of distorting the councillor-voter relationship by handing out extravagant free gifts, which he said was no different from indirectly "bribing voters".

"I also give out free gifts - such as moon cakes, Chinese New Year gift bags and festive dumplings for the Dragon Boat festival," he said. "But now the Beijing loyalists do not just do it at festivals but throughout the year, giving out free bags of rice weighing several kilograms and even electronic appliances … I hope people can rate the aspirants by their ability and not by how many free gifts they offer."

Another district councillor, Tam Wai-chun of the Business and Professionals Alliance, said the council could be controlled by pan-democrats if her allies failed to stay united. "The pro-establishment camp does not necessarily have better electoral coordination as not many of us are in the same boat," she said.

In some constituencies, she said, more than one Beijing loyalist had indicated an intention to run, which could allow pan-democrats to reap the benefits of a multi-candidate contest.

Tam also hit back at Wan's accusation about giving out gifts, saying pan-democrats had done the same.

- Andrew Wan has a problem for his own re-election campaign and that is why he needs to do something to avoid getting pinned down on his negative image. (The Sun) September 4, 2013.

Last year, the Democratic Party felt that Andrew Wan was capable for running for Legislative Councilor, but he suddenly withdraw. Rumors abounded at the time that he was carrying an extramarital affair with a woman.

So now Andrew Wan has come out to defuse the time bomb by telling the media about this extramarital affair. He tells us that about five years ago before the 2008 Legco elections, he had just joined the Democratic Party. At the time, his marital situation was terrible as the couple kept quarreling all the time. At the time, he got to know a woman in her 20's and they carried on an affair for about six months. At the time, he had lost his mind and became totally unaware that this was wrong. He even let friends see the two openly. After six months, he realized that he couldn't continue. So he broke up with the woman and told his wife about the affair. His wife was very mad but eventually forgave him.

It is hard to say whether the voters will forgive him. He has come out clean with the media in the hope that they will. Otherwise, he may even lost his District Council position and thus any chance of reaching the Legislative Council.

In politics, your personal interest comes ahead of your party's interest which is ahead of your beliefs and principles. In order to bury his own negative image, Andrew Wan is willing to risk his party's and his pan-democrats' chances with an action that is generating negative publicity.

- Two pictures tell a thousand words about who is winning this public relations war.

Democratic Party led by vice-chairman Andrew Wan:
Democratic Party
Thorough investigation of voter registration
Protect election fairness

Crying grandma who used to work as a volunteer for the Democracy Party's Andrew Wan. Why is she scared? She's been receiving letters and phone calls from strangers, her apartment does not have a steel gate and she thinks someone might break the door down and kill her.

- Interestingly, Andrew Wan had a photo taken at Occupy Admiralty with the celebrity lifeguard who was a full-time marshal while on paid sick leave from the government. On his t-shirt are the words: "Eggs against the high wall, fasting for universal suffrage." The grannies are the eggs and Andrew Wan is the high wall here.

- Andrew Wan's nickname is "Fat Boy". His fasting was unsuccessful, both for himself and universal suffrage. He is as fat as ever and universal suffrage is nowhere thanks to the veto by the pan-democrats.

- (Wen Wei Po) September 14, 2015.

Yesterday a citizen told us that a large truck brought a large amount of moon cakes to the office of Andrew Wan. Democratic Party members Leung Wing-kuen and Lau Chi-kit were in charge of taking delivery. A man moving the moon cakes used a cart with Lau Chi-kit's telephone number printed on it. In the 2011 District Council elections, Leung Wing-kuen lost in the On Yam district to FTU's Leung Chi-wing, while Lau Chi-kit lost in Ching-Fat district to the unaffiliated Poon Siu-ping.

According to the photo provided by the citizen, three pallets were loaded with boxes printed as "Mid-Autumn Festival Moon Cakes" and "1x40". This photo shows so far three pallets, with a total of (3 pallets) x (10 layers per pallet) x (4 boxes per layer) x (40 moon cakes per box) = 4,800 moon cakes.

This citizen said that whereas the Democratic Party likes to accuse the pro-establishment camp of using "Snake dinners, vegetarian dinners, moon cakes and rice dumplings" to buy votes and win elections, they are now also giving away large numbers of moon cakes themselves. "I think that the Democratic Party is courageous in criticizing others people, but incapable of criticizing themselves. They claim to be poor, but where do they get the money to give away so moon cakes? Suppose one moon cake costs $10. 4,800 moon cakes would add up to $48,000."

This citizen said that in recent days, Andrew Wan has gotten a rotten reputation for harassing registered voters in Shek Yam district. So maybe he wants to give away large numbers of moon cakes so that the residents may forget his evil deeds.

This citizen said that Andrew Wan's office has a notice that he will give away packets of rice on September 30. "How so! The District Council election filing begins two days later. Is this bribery?" According to the information, the rice distribution is handled by Thailand Buddhist Culture, but people can get their tickets at the address Shek Yam Estate Yung Shek Building Ground Floor B Room. That happens to be Andrew Wan's office.

- Voter suppression is a universal human right and an international standard. It is more common than civil nomination of election candidates.

[311] Your Payment Is Due (2015/09/04)

(EJinsight) August 19, 2015.

Alex Chow, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Derek Lam

Four student protesters are facing indictment for storming the Central Government Offices during last year’s democracy protests. They have been told by the police that they will be charged in court by the end of the month.

Apple Daily is reporting that Joshua Wong, convenor of student activist group Scholarism, will be indicted for taking part in an illegal assembly and inciting others to participate. Alex Chow, then leader of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) and its sitting secretary general, Nathan Law, will be prosecuted for either offense. A fourth protester, Scholarism member Derek Lam, faces a charge of common assault.

The charges stem from an incident in which activists climbed over a perimeter wall and occupied the East Wing forecourt of government headquarters on Sept. 26 last year, two days before the protests began.

All four, who were held briefly under “arrest by appointment”, said they have no regrets.

Law, who faces a charge for inciting others to join an unlawful assembly, said in a Fecbook post Tuesday that the government does not distinguish between social activists and common criminals. “No wonder the government sent cops from the Organized Crime and Triad Bureau when Scholarism members set up booths in the streets.”

Chow called the charge against him political revenge, adding three other key HKFS members have not received calls from the police about any legal action.

Separately, Wong wrote on Facebook that it’s a “joke that citizens have to face prosecution for entering an open public space”. He said he hopes the democracy movement will find a new direction to stay alive as the first anniversary of the Sept. 28 protests draws closer.

(SCMP) Trio of Occupy Central student leaders charged over protest that sparked 79-day movement. August 27, 2015.

Three student leaders of last year’s Occupy protests in Hong Kong were charged by police today for their roles in a protest last year at government headquarters in the days leading up to the start of the movement.

Scholarism leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Federation of Students secretary general Nathan Law Kwun-Chung and his predecessor Alex Chow Yong-kang attended police headquarters in Wan Chai this morning to accept the charges. Wong said he was charged with taking part and inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly. Chow said he was charged for taking part in an unlawful assembly while Law was charged for inciting others to take part in it.

The trio were among a group of students who broke into the forecourt of government headquarters in Admiralty on September 26 last year. The break-in came after students staged a class boycott for several days outside the building in protest against Beijing’s stringent framework on political reform. The break in triggered the 79-day Occupy protests two days later. Speaking before entering police headquarters this morning, Wong said: “The break in was the best decision I made in the last four years.”

Referring to the forecourt of the government headquarters, Wong said previous protests had been held there without incident. “‘Civic Square’ had been a place where we gathered freely to protest against the national education curriculum and the free television licence decision. We were only trying to get into that place ... So this is a political prosecution,” he added.

Wong declined to say whether he would plead guilty, but Law dropped a strong hint that he would not. “We are jumping into this procedure today to expose [the injustice] in it. When the law is used to suppress the people, we will not bow down ... and show remorse or apologise just to get a milder penalty,” Law said.

The activists will attend court on Wednesday.

Wong’s lawyer Michael Vidler said he is considering asking the court to end the legal proceeding permanently because it was wrong to prosecute 11 months after the incident.

About 100 activists, including pan-democrat lawmakers, gathered outside police headquarters to show their support for the trio.

(EJinsight) Joshua Wong charged amid cries of persecution. August 28, 2015.

Hong Kong student leader Joshua Wong and two other democracy protesters were formally charged with illegal assembly Thursday amid cries of political persecution from their supporters. Police pressed charges against Wong, founder of student activist group Scholarism, as well as Alex Chow and Nathan Law, former and sitting chairman of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. They will stand trial in Eastern Magistrate’s Court on Sept. 2, accused of taking part in an unlawful assembly and inciting others to participate, according Apple Daily.

Supporters holding yellow umbrellas, symbol of last year’s street protests, chanted anti-police slogans as the trio arrived at police headquarters in Wan Chai for booking formalities.

Chow said the trial is an opportunity to reiterate the values of the Umbrella Movement. But simply pleading guilty will cut short the civil disobedience campaign, he said. Chow said they plan to illustrate in court the brutality of the government and how it failed to safeguard the peace and harmony of society. “The Umbrella Movement started when the police unleashed tear gas bombs, which subsequently prompted hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets,” Chow said. He said those who ordered the use of tear gas should be prosecuted.

(SCMP) Case against Occupy protesters including Joshua Wong ‘shouldn’t have taken a year to get to court’. September 2, 2015.

A magistrate yesterday told prosecutors it should not have taken them so long to bring Occupy protesters to court, as student leaders from the movement including Joshua Wong Chi-fung appeared before her almost a year after the pro-democracy protests began.

Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai was speaking to the prosecutor in charge of the case against student Chui Tsz-chun, one of eight defendants pleading not guilty at Eastern Court to several charges related to events a day before the Occupy protest got into full swing in September.

The prosecutor said he would like to see the case dealt with soon as it was “straightforward”, to which Chainrai replied: “If it is pretty straightforward, it should not take a year to prosecute.”

In court yesterday, former Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang, 25, faced one count of taking part in an unlawful assembly on September 26 and 27, while his successor, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, 22, faced one charge of inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly on those days. Wong, 18, the convenor of student activist group Scholarism, faces both charges over alleged offences on September 26.

A protest outside government headquarters in Admiralty last September resulted in demonstrators storming the space outside the complex known as “Civic Square”, but the court has not heard whether the charges relate to those events.

However, Wong, when asked to make a plea, said: “Citizens have the right to enter Civic Square.”

Chainrai replied that the courts were not the place to %express his political views.

Wong was represented by Randy Shek, while Alvin Yeung appeared for the other two. Five other protesters – Chau Kwan-ting, 29, Ngan Chin-fung, 24, Wong Ho, 35, Chui, 17, and Scholarism’s Lam Shun-hin, 22 – each face one count of common assault of policemen and security guards outside government headquarters and the Legislative Council on the same two days.

The magistrate adjourned the case against Joshua Wong, Chow and Law, which involves 51 witnesses, to October 30 for a pre-trial session. The rest are scheduled to attend their pre-trial session on October 5.

Internet comments:

- This case is a no-brainer. Here is evidence in the form of the TVB news report ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyLqUrjlIpE)

0:23 Joshua Wong: I am now calling everybody let us all charge together into Civic Plaza.
0:32 Nathan Law: Everybody charge into Civic Plaza. The vanguard is already charging into Civic Plaza.

That would be the incitement.
Their presence in Civic Plaza would be the participation in an unlawful gathering. The police warned them that this was an unlawful gathering before arresting them.
- The relevant law is this: Cap 245 Public Order Ordinance s 18 Unlawful assembly

(1) When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly.
(2) It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if being assembled, they conduct themselves in such a manner as aforesaid.
(3) Any person who takes part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of the offence of unlawful assembly and shall be liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

Whether Civic Plaza is "open public space" is not germane to the case.

- Somebody is not pleased but for other reasons:

(Oriental Daily) September 1, 2015

Roman Catholic Church Cardinal/Bishop Emeritus Joseph Zen Ze-Kiun said that he was "ashamed" that he has not been "contacted for an appointment to be arrested." He questioned whether the law is equal for everyone.

Who gives a fuck about a has-been and/or nobody? He does, obviously. Nobody else does, though.

- Joshua Wong said “it is a joke that citizens have to face prosecution for entering an open public space”.

--- The Legislative Council building is an open public space, therefore citizens can enter or leave at will.
--- Government House is an open public space, therefore citizens can enter or leave CY Leung's bedroom at will.
--- The Tsing Ma Bridge is an open public space, therefore citizens can enter or leave at will.
--- The Hong Kong International Airport is an open public space, therefore citizens can enter or leave at will.
... Anyway, the general idea is that you can enter or leave any place you want to as soon as you declare it to be "open public space." That was the theoretical premise of Occupy Central. Democracy is so wonderful.

- Joshua Wong lives in South Horizons on Ap Lei Chau. Since the Ap Lei Chau Bridge is open public space, I can occupy it and stop all traffic. Then Joshua Wong won't be able to go anywhere.

[310] The Case of Cheung Ray (2015/09/04)

(HKG Pao) August 20, 2015.

19-year-old British law student and Hong Kong resident Vivian Chan Wing-yan was among those killed in the Bangkok bombing. It was disclosed that her mother was a former senior inspector in the Hong Kong Police force.

On Facebook, a user named Cheung Ray wrote: "In order to demonstrate that I am kind-hearted, I hope that she was blown to smithereens when she died. If she were merely burned to death, I would still think that it was terrible. When you are the daughter of a police officer/_\, you know that you are going to have to pay for it sooner or later/_\."

(HKGPao) August 31, 2015.

Earlier cold-blooded Yellow Ribbon Cheung Ray said that British law student and Hong Kong resident Vivian Chan Wing-yan deserved to die because her mother was an ex-policewoman. As a result, Internet users launched a campaign to ferret out the identity of Cheung Ray. They said that the information points to Cheung Ray being "City University student Cheung Man-po." Cheung is about 30-years-old and currently works for Kowloon Motor Bus as an assistant. He lives by himself in a public housing unit in Tin Shui Wai. His political position is pro-Japan and anti-Hong Kong. He has links to Civic Passion, Hong Kong City-State and Hong Kong People Online.
Our reporter went to Cheung's apartment in Ching Moon House, Tin Ching Estate in Tin Shui Wai city, Yuen Long District. We were there past midnight, and Cheung Man-po just came back from work while wearing a Kowloon Motor Bus uniform. Our reporter politely identified himself and asked from six feet away why Cheung made those cold-blooded remarks about Chan Wing-yan? Cheung immediately looked scared and dashed into the lobby. He tried to evade, ran into the stairs, returned to the lobby and told the reporter: "I don't know you. I am going to call the police!" He seemed to have forgotten how much he hates the police. He demanded the building staff to give him a phone to call the police. The staff asked him, "Why don't you use your own mobile phone to call the police?" Finally the staff member gave Cheung a phone. Cheung picked it and put it down. Then he dashed into the elevator.
Earlier our reporter went to his apartment and pressed the doorbell many times without getting any response. The door was locked, with the warning: "Do not press the door bell or knock on the door unless you are a postman or courier." There were also two close-circuit television cameras directed against the outside, so that everyone walking in the passageway will be videotaped.
We learned that Cheung lives there by himself. So how does he get a public housing unit for himself? We have initiated an inquiry with the Department of Housing on this matter and are waiting to hear from them.
We have also spoken to other residents on the same floor. They said that Cheung is a weirdo who comes and goes at odd hours, and many neighbors have not seen him in years. Those who got to know him have mostly "unhappy experiences." Whenever it rains, Cheung hangs out his umbrella outside to dry with a threatening sign: "If you take my umbrella, your whole family will die terribly." Earlier this year, Cheung left large bags of garbage outside his door to obstruct the passageway. He refused to act in spite of many advisories and eventually the police had to be summoned.
During the Occupy Central Period, Cheung started to post photo "reports" from the scene. He said that "he was moved to tears by the unity." He was in Admiralty, he was in Mong Kok, he was very active. He said that "we can win only if we drive the police crazy" and "we'll buy guns from the western countries." At the July 1, 2014 march organized by the Civil Human Rights Front, his group The Yasukuni Shrine Reverence and Adoration Association held up the Japanese national flag in parade.
Previously Cheung Ray has called the Chinese "Chinamen", said "The Nanking massacre is a piece of fiction" and "We ask the joint Japanese-Taiwanese Allied Armies to take over Hong Kong and kill all the Hongkongers!" Is such a person a mental patient? Is he dangerous to society? Since he is a Kowloon Motor Bus employee, should passengers be concerned? That is a question that Kowloon Motor Bus will have to answer.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyHA6I8JAUI

Internet comments:

- Cheung Ray said smilingly on television: "For me, the Chinese people is a derogatory term."

- Cheung Ray lives in a public housing unit provided by the Department of Housing of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government of the People's Republic of China. He holds an identification card issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, identifying him as a citizen of the People's Republic of China. If he finds this intolerable, he can renounce his Chinese citizenship, apply for a Japanese passport, give up his public housing unit and move to live in a tent underneath a highway overpass.
- This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS0PImXtMvM Cheung Ray is allegedly the green-shirt guy.
0:07 (Man in white) If you keep raising the placard this way, I am concerned about your personal safety.
0:10 (Man in green) It does not matter, because the police will provide protection.
0:13 (Man in white) Everybody loves their country. Everybody is ...
0:14 (Man in green) I love your mother!
0:19 (Man in white) You and I are both Chinese. We are both Asians.
0:22 (Man in green) You eat shit! I am not Chinese!
- Even more extreme than the typical Yellow Ribbon. While the typical Yellow Ribbon calls the police dogs, Cheung Ray says that they are Chinamen. However, they are all the same when they get into trouble themselves -- they call the police (uncles, not dogs) for help!
- Cheung Ray meets all the qualifying requirements for being a Young Wastrel:

Normal times

[X] Talk tough
[X] Talk rough
[X] Talk revolution
[X] Talk insurrection
[X] Talk extermination of all locusts

Troubled times

[?] Live off social welfare payments (due to physical/psychological disability, etc)
[X] Live in public housing
[X] Call the police for help
[X] Beg the court for mercy

- What's the problem with a single person hogging a public housing apartment unit? Legislator Leung Kwok-hung does the same. Monkey see, monkey do.
- Here is a bet that I want to make. Regardless of the China-hating bile, Cheung Ray still bought Made-in-China security cameras instead of Japanese ones. Can the reporter confirm?
- Please do not harass this person anymore. He may take an entire busload of Kowloon Motor Bus passengers down the hillside with him. Reference: Speed (1994)
- Does anyone know where he works? I am going to curse him out every time that I pass by. If he retorts, I will lodge a complaint with Kowloon Motor Bus.
- I don't understand this at all. How did Cheung Ray come to think that he is a Japanese right-wing extremist? Do the Japanese right-wing extremists accept him? What are the Hong Kong Yasukuni Shrine Reverence and Adoration Association, or the Grand Alliance To Exterminate the Chinamen?

- Even more perplexing is that Cheung Ray wants the Japanese/Taiwanese allied armies to come to Hong Kong and exterminate all Hongkongers. Who is left afterwards? How many Japanese and Taiwanese live in Hong Kong now? Are they going to move millions of their own people en masse over to live here? Why would they come? Hong Kong has no natural resources and will have no population anymore. There's plenty of uninhabited land back in Japan and Taiwan. Why move to Hong Kong? What was he thinking? Did he tell his psychiatrist? Has he forgotten to take his medication?
- Cheung Ray is babbling all this nonsense in a cynical preparation in case he gets arrested. At the subsequent trial, he will have documented evidence of diminished mental capacity.

- Thankfully, the uniform on this Cheung Ray in the HKG Pao photo is not that of a KMB bus driver. It is only the uniform of a KMB ground staff worker, who is typically a part-timer responsible for recording information (arrival/departure times, passenger counts, etc.) The typical pay is $6,000 to $8,000 per month.

- Which depot does Cheung Ray work at? Wouldn't it be fun if he worked at the B1 terminal in Tuen Mun, where all the mainland parallel traders get on to take their wares home. But of course he would shut up when it's 100 luggage-carrying mainlanders against just himself.

- Kowloon Motor Bus is now put into a dilemma. If they fire him, Lee Cheuk-yan and others will say that this is a violation of the freedom of speech because what people do outside of work is none of the employer's business. Fair enough. If they keep him and he runs a bus down the hillside, then KBM is guilty of negligence in the presence of clear and present evidence of mental derangement/paranoid schizophrenia.
- (Ta Kung Pao) Novebmer 15, 2016.

Last week, legislator Elizabeth Quat received a letter sent to her c/o "Legislative Council Building, Admiralty district, Hong Kong Nation." The letter was signed by the Hong Kong Yasukuni Shrine Reverence and Adoration Association president Cheung Kin-kwok. In the letter, Cheung praised legislators-elect Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching as valiant knights, insulted China as "Shina", offered support Hong Kong independence and accused China of fabricating the Japanese invasion including the Nanking massacre.
Our newspaper found out that the Hong Kong Yasukuni Shrine Reverence and Adoration Association was registered in 2013 by a man named Cheung at an address in a Tin Shui Wai public housing estate. The purpose of the Association is to promote the Japanese Shinto religion and Hong Kong-Japanese relations. However, the Association stopped operating in 2014.
Previously in 2004, a website announced the establishment of the Manchurian Government in Exile. A new emperor was elected, and this man named Cheung was the Prime Minister.
The Defend Diayutai Islands Action Committee had also received letters from the man named Cheung, who demanded the Committee to stop its anti-Japanese rhetoric or else the Hong Kong Yasukuni Shrine Reverence and Adoration Association will teach them a lesson. Cheung also said that he would take legal action, but nothing has happened yet.

[309] Little Red Riding Hood vs. Yellow Rat Weasel (2015/09/04)

(SCMP) The unhappy state of Hong Kong's taxi service. September 1, 2015.

Passengers erupted with an outpouring of dissatisfaction with taxi services after police made a high profile arrest of Uber staff for alleged violation of regulations governing the operation of commercial vehicles.

Many comments in the media were spot on about the problem of an over-regulated industry that has completely stifled competition for too long. Current regulations work in the interest of taxi licence holders (valued at HK$7 million apiece), but not taxi drivers, not passengers, and not even the general public.

The government’s framework for regulating commercial transportation seeks to satisfy multiple goals, including meeting the different demands of passengers, avoiding excessive congestion on the roads, ensuring standards of safety are met and prices are reasonably affordable by passengers, and providing choice between transportation modes. This is not an easy task and one should not belittle its accomplishments despite some obvious flaws.

However, one flaw is that we have ended up with a taxi industry that provides a homogeneous, low-quality service that fails to satisfy customer demand.

Why have we come to this?

Three regulations drive the industry to behave as a uniform monopolised service. First, the number of taxi licences has been fixed at 18,138 since 1998 and no new licences have been issued. Second, the fare is also fixed and only periodically adjusted, which means there is no price competition. Third, taxi vehicles have to be painted in the same uniform colours, making it practically impossible to compete on branding and product differentiation.

In practice, more than 90 per cent of the taxis are primarily managed by four taxi companies, creating a quasi-monopolistic industry.

With fare competition illegal, the best business model is to provide the lowest tolerable service quality the market can bear. This is a winning business strategy because there are 218,617 drivers – outnumbering taxis by more than six times per shift on average – which keeps wages fully competitive all the time.

The entry of Uber and other mobile apps like HKTaxi, GoGoTaxi, Easy Taxi and Kuaidi is changing the landscape. Uber has introduced fare competition and also brought in new, outside drivers. The other apps are primarily platforms for taxi drivers and feed business to them.

Taxi groups recently indicated they would launch their own car-hailing mobile app and a credit system for drivers to help improve service quality in the face of the new competition. This is to be welcomed, but if they aim to make theirs the exclusive app, it would once again stifle competition. Product differentiation through online competition would end.

The government is also reported to be pondering whether to permit a more luxurious taxi service. This would only set back market innovation – better to let service improvements be driven by competition online.

Is there any way to implement these changes while minimising disruption to the industry and existing stakeholders?

A moderate approach could require all online car-hailing apps, including Uber, to use licensed taxis and licensed taxi drivers. Apps companies could add value by hiring, firing, and managing taxi drivers in their service. Drivers could simultaneously work for themselves and for multiple app companies. Fares on rides booked through apps could be deregulated and free, but taxis hailed down on the streets and boarded at taxi stands could be regulated as they are now.

Taxi licence holders could be allowed freedom to provide a greater variety of vehicle models, including the physical appearance, to meet market demand. They could also lease out their taxi licences to app companies altogether, to be stocked with their own vehicles. Licensed taxi drivers could in principle hire-purchase their own vehicles, or sign up to work for apps companies with taxi licences to rent.

Legislator Michael Tien has announced a similar proposal. The basic underlying regulatory framework would be unchanged except to allow for product differentiation through the branding secured through apps. Taxi licence holders’ interests would be preserved but shared. Since this is a value-added service, tariff deregulation would be permissible.

A more progressive approach is to obviate the need to require apps companies to use only licensed taxis. This will bring even greater benefits to society by tapping into the full potential of innovation and better resource utilisation.

We should ask which approach will better fit in with an appropriately proactive government: is it the moderate, or progressive approach, or maintaining the status quo?

(Oriental Daily) September 1, 2015.

From Joshua Wong's Facebook:

Today I went out and tried to hail a taxi driver:
Driver A: "Eh, I don't know how to get to Festival Walk."
Me: "You don't even know how to get to Festival Walk? ..."
Driver A: "Yes, I can take you to anywhere on Hong Kong Island."
Me: "Can you take me to the Kowloon Tong MTR station?"
Driver A: "No, no, no. Anyway I really don't know how to get there!"
So I left Taxi A and then I tried the next taxi.
Me: "Driver, please go to Festival Walk."
Driver B: "I don't have time to to go Kowloon. I am sorry."
Me: "You taxi is a city taxi. How can you have no time to go to Kowloon?"
Driver B: "I am in a hurry to pick up my daughter after school."
Me: "Don't your shifts end around 4pm or 5pm?"
Driver B: "She is ill and I am taking her to visit a doctor."
Me: "(Sigh) ... Forget it ... But I want to say that I have been refused by two taxi drivers in a row. Have you ever met a taxi driver who won't even take you to Kowloon Tong?"
At this point, a lot of people may think that I was going to recommend Uber to everyone and praise Uber for convenience and good attitude. But I have really taken Uber ...

(HKG Pao) September 1, 2015.

Little Red Riding Hood is the nickname for the drivers of the red-top taxis in Hong Kong. During the Occupy Central period, some of the taxi drivers came out to clear the barricades themselves in order to protect their livelihood. After all, Occupy Central impacted them directly. Those political ideas and demands were abstract and remote, but their decreased daily incomes were immediately and painfully obvious.

Joshua Wong's last name is Wong which is a homonym for Yellow. Joshua Wong is the Yellow Rat Weasel. The Yellow Rat Weasels refused to open the roads for Little Red Riding Hood. The Yellow Rat Weasels also wanted to "break existing rules" and therefore they are the principal supporters of Uber. Obviously, Little Red Riding Hood is not pleased with the Yellow Rat Weasels.

The Yellow Rat Weasels demanded that the police must protect all citizens equally. But Little Red Riding Hood is not a public servant and therefore does not have to give a rat's ass. It was very polite of Taxi Driver A to say that he didn't know how to go to Kowloon Tong.

The real world is not an electronic game where everything goes reset to normal when you quit. In the real world, your actions have consequences which you must deal with sooner or later.

Internet comments:

- This is not the first time that Joshua Wong has been treated brusquely by taxi driver.

(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.

So why were these two taxi drivers any different? What has this got to do with the superiority of Uber? If Occupy Central were still going on, Uber drivers wouldn't treat him any differently either because their livelihoods would be affected just as much.

- Joshua Wong also said that he wanted all taxis to have GPS installed, so that they can't claim to not know the way. LOL. You can have Google Map installed, but Google Map has no idea that Occupy Central people have certain roads blocked. Furthermore, roads are sometimes dynamically blocked with no warnings (as in punks tossing traffic cones onto the roadway, or pretending to pick up coins). When your taxi gets trapped, are you going to open the door and abandon the taxi, leaving the taxi driver stuck? Or are you going to stay with the running meter? Answer that!

- The reason why Taxi Driver A didn't know the way and Taxi Driver B wanted to pick up his ill daughter is that they recognized Joshua Wong and didn't want him as their passenger.

- If you want to go quickly from Hong Kong Island to Festival Walk (Kowloon Tong), you should note that the cross-harbor tunnels are congested all the time. So it is quicker to use the subway, as Festival Walk is right at the Kowloon Tong MTR station. Joshua Wong can even take a snack during the trip.

- Since Joshua Wong's group Scholarism is flushed with cash, he can afford to take taxis instead of riding the subway where he has to mix with the hoi polloi. If he rides the MTR, he may be mobbed by his many fans. After all, Scholarism is supported by 0.1% of the population.

- It is against the law for a taxi driver to refuse a ride. Joshua Wong should have called the police immediately ... oh wait, he doesn't believe in rule-of-law and he breaks the law all the time himself. It was certainly illegal to block the streets, especially for 79 days in a row. So never mind ...

- The taxi drivers broke the law, and therefore Joshua Wong was among kindred spirits.

- As the Yellow Ribbons say, in matters of great right-vs-wrong, the law comes second. So the law matters for naught. The only issue is whether the taxi drivers felt righteous at the time that they kicked Joshua Wong out. They did. QED.

- The taxi drivers knowingly broke the law out of personal beliefs and they accepted any consequences that may come out of the unjust legal system. Therefore they were engaged in a courageous act of civil disobedience.

- It is against the law for a taxi driver to refuse a ride. But if a skunk got into the taxi, must the taxi driver take it to the destination?

- Wrong analogy. Joshua Wong is not a skunk. Joshua Wong is a Yellow Rat Weasel.

- Hey hey, Joshua Wong, this is the Internet age. When you got assaulted in Ta Kok Tsui, your girlfriend's first reaction was not to protect you but to take our her phone and start filming. In like manner, your first reaction should have been to film the taxi driver's license information. Afterwards, you don't even bother file a complaint through the official channels. Instead, you post it on your Facebook page and call for an all-out human flesh search to destroy the man, his company and his family. To the extent that you couldn't provide any further details, it means that you were using the Apple Daily/Next Magazine journalistic style of fiction-writing in order to score some points on the Uber issue.

- To make a fair-and-balanced full-length documentary, Joshua Wong should have summoned a Uber car immediately and showed how wonderful the Uber service is.

- Even if Joshua Wong had the taxi driver information to call the police, he couldn't because of the ignominy of "Calling the police Uncles when you need them, calling them Dogs when they stand in your way."

- The whole point about Joshua Wong's Facebook post is not about taking revenge against Taxi Drivers A and B. It is about getting people to donate more money so that Joshua Wong can continue to ride taxis whenever he can find drivers willing to take him.

[308] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/08/27) (Silent Majority) The Hong Kong Research Association conducted two waves of telephone interviews. The first wave took place on July 17-23 with a response rate of 45.8%. The second wave tookplace on July 24-29 with a response rate of 47.3%. The respondents were Cantonese-speaking adult Hong Kong residents.

Q1. The ratings of the 20 pan-democratic legislative councilors were as follows (from low to high):
39.9 Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)
40.6 Raymond Wong Yuk-man
41.9 Chan Wai-yip (League of Social Democrats)
42.3 Chan Chi-chuen (People Power)
44.1 Albert Ho Chun-yan (Democratic Power)
44.5 Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party)
45.6 Claudia Mo Man-ching (Civic Party)
47.8 Cyd Ho Sau-lan (Labour Party)
48.3 Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo-democrats)
49.1 Alan Leong Kah-kit (Civic Party)
50.8 Emily Lau Wai-hing (Democratic Party)
50.9 Woo Chi-wai (Democratic Party)
52.0 Helen Wong Pik-wan (Democratic Party)
52.1 Sin Chung-kai (Democratic Party)
52.7 Leung Yiu-chung (Neighborhood Worker Service)
53.0 Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party)
53.9 James To Kun-sun (Democratic Party)
54.1 Kenneth Chan Ka-lok (Civic Party)
55.0 Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung (Labour Party)
56.8 Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL)
Q2. Top 10 Legislators in approve rates (with Net approval rates = Approve - Disapprove)
63.1% (+43.5%) Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL)
57.5% (+33.2%) James To Kun-sun (Democratic Party)
55.4% (+21.5%) Emily Lau Wah-hing (Democratic Party)
51.9% (+15.0%) Alan Leong Kah-kit (Civic Party)
49.1% (+29.9%) Sin Chung-kai (Democratic Party)
47.9% (+26.3%) Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung (Labour Party)
46.7% (+22.8%) Helen Wong Pik-wan (Democratic Party)
45.0% (+0.7%) Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party)
44.0% (+9.4%) Cyd Ho Sau-lan (Labour Party)
43.3% (-1.0%) Albert Ho Chun-yan
Q3. Top 10 Legislators in disapproval rates (with Net Approval Rate = Approve - Disapprove)
51.9% (-12.2%) Raymond Wong Yuk-man
51.0% (-9.9%) Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)
45.5% (-2.6%) Chan Wai-yip (League of Social Democrats)
44.3% (+0.7%) Lee Cheun-yan (Labour Party)
44.3% (-1.0%) Albert Ho Chun-yan (Democratic Party)
39.7% (-6.2%) Chan Chi-chuen (People Power)
38.7% (+0.3%) Claudia Mo Man-ching (Civic Party)
36.9% (+15%) Alan Leong Kah-kit (Civic Party)
34.6% (9.4%) Cyd Ho Saul-lan (Labour Party)
33.9% (+21.5%) Emily Lau Wai-hing (Democratic Party)
Q4. Pan-democratic non-legislators ranked by disapproval rate (with Net Approval Rate = Approve - Disapprove)
46.5% (-10.2%) Joshua Wong Chi-fung (Scholarism)
46.2% (-17.0%) Jimmy Lai Chi-ying (Next Media)
44.2% (-10.7%) Benny Tai Yiu-ting (Hong Kong University)
41.3% (-4.9%) Joseph Zen (Catholic Church)
31.6% (+16.6%) Martin Lee Chu-ming (Democratic Party)
28.9% (+9.1%) Robert Chung Ting-yiu (Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme)
26.3% (+26.8%) Audrey Eu Yuet-mee (Civic Party)
Internet comments:

- How bad were they? There happens to be a comparative norm -- against Chinese Communist Party dictators who never got elected by popular mandate.
(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme) 1,003 Hong Kong residents were interviewed on August 14-20, 2015. The ratings for the recent Chinese Communist leaders were:

63.9: Wen Jiabao
61.9: Xi Jinping
58.1: Li Keqiang
55.9: Hu Jintao

[307] Hong Kong By The Numbers (2015/08/27) (Hong Kong Research Association) 1,069 Hong Kong adults were interviewed on August 14-20, 2015 by telephone.

Q1. Do you agree that the Hong Kong University Council has the ultimate authority to make the decision to appoint the pro vice chancellor?
75%: Yes
11%: No
8%: Hard to say
6%: No opinion
Q2. If the University Council ultimately rejects the recommendation by the selection committee, do you think this decision violates the principle of "self-determination and freedom" for the school?
30%: Yes
51%: No
11%: Hard to say
8%: No opinion
Q3. Do you accept that a person with clear political positions becomes the pro vice chancellor at a university?
21%: Accept
65%: Does not accept
9%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion
Q4. Do you approve of the actions of the students and activists against the University Council earlier?
17%: Approve
70%: Disapprove
8%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion
Q5. Do you think those who attacked the University Council should be held accountable?
56%: Yes
24%: No
14%: Hard to say
6%: No opinion

[306] The Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 6 (2015/08/26)

(Hong Kong Free Press) Occupy protesters get community service for smashing LegCo door. July 14, 2015.

Protesters who smashed into the Legislative Council building during last year’s 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 prosecution’s request that the accused pay a total amount of almost HK$587,000 in reparations, saying that the prosecutor’s 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 barriers and bricks to break the building’s 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.

(Oriental Daily) July 14, 2015.

The prosecution requested the court to make the defendants pay more than $580,000 in reparations for property damage. The defendants claimed through their lawyers that they are unable to pay the amount, because they work only as salesman, kitchen workers and accounting clerks with just over $10,000 in month income. The magistrate said that the amount exceeded the $100,000 maximum for the lower court and suggested that the prosecutor should commence civil proceedings to recover the cost.

(Wen Wei Po) August 19, 2015.

At court yesterday, the prosecution pointed out that the sentence of community service does not accurately reflect the seriousness of the nearly riotous activity. Therefore, the prosecution is appealing to replace community service by jail term. At court yesterday, the prosecution showed the news video for the first time. It can be seen that defendants Cheng and Tai held up the iron barrier and ram it against the glass door. Cheung used a metal rod to bash the glass door. Shek kicked the glass door with his foot.

The defense said that the reporters were in proximity to the defendants and they did not exhibit any fear. Therefore, the case must surely not be as serious as the prosecution asserts. After all, nobody got hurt. The magistrate asked: "Is a picture worth more than a thousand words?"

The defense lawyer for defendant Cheng said that his client quit his job in order to participate in Occupy Central, spent a whole month sleeping in the street and got emotionally upset, but this shows that he is a young man who cares about society. The defense lawyer also said that the defendants did not enter the building after they broke though, so this proves that they merely wanted to express their discontent and they had no intention of entering/occupying the building. Furthermore, the defendants acted because of some incorrect information about Internet Article 23, and therefore they were victims themselves.

The four defendants were charged with participating in an illegal assembly at the Legislative Council building on November 19, 2014. They were also charged with destroying 9 glass doors, 7 glass walls, the ceiling and 25 manhole covers costing $587,000 to repair/replace.

(SCMP) Hong Kong protesters handed jail time for using metal barrier to charge doors of Legco building. August 26, 2015.

Three protesters previously sentenced to community service for breaking doors at the Legislative Council building during a rally last year had their sentences changed to 3 ½ months in jail on Tuesday after a magistrate reconsidered the violent nature of their actions.

Tai Chi-shing, 24, Cheung Chi-pong, 23, and Shek Ka-fai, 24, were jailed by Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai at Eastern Court. They were released on bail, pending an appeal.

Their co-accused, Cheng Yeung, 19, was remanded in custody, pending a series of reports for sentencing on September 8.

In July, the four were ordered to perform 150 hours of community service, but the Department of Justice has since conducted a review of their punishments.

Chainrai said she considered the non-custodial sentence inappropriate after hearing submissions from the prosecution and given “the level of violence, the number of people involved, the extensive damage caused as well as the intimidating nature of the gathering giving rise to reasonable fear among bystanders”.

The four had pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful assembly and another of criminal damage in using a metal barrier to charge at the Legco building in Admiralty on November 19 last year.

At a hearing earlier this month to review the sentences, the prosecution played video exhibits to the court showing how Tai and Cheung charged the glass doors of the building several times while holding the steel barriers during that night’s protest against proposed amendments to the Copyright Ordinance.

Shek was seen prodding the doors with a metal pole, while Cheng was captured banging a door once with a metal barrier.

On Tuesday, barrister Johnny So Chun-man, for Cheng and Cheung, said in mitigation submissions that the rally was an “extension of the Occupy movement” last year and that the two were emotional and made a bad decision.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Occupy protesters who smashed door at legislature get jail time after Dept. of Justice appeal. August 25, 2015.

Protesters who smashed a door at the Hong Kong legislature during last year’s pro-democracy Occupy protests will now face three-and-a-half months imprisonment instead of 150 hours community service following an appeal by the Department of Justice. The DoJ argued that the original sentence was not heavy enough.

The four defendants, who were charged with criminal damage and taking part in an unlawful assembly, appeared at Eastern Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday morning.

Three were given jail time and released on bail, though their lawyers have said they will appeal the sentence. The fourth defendant’s case has been adjourned to next month in anticipation of a report from the detention centre, as he was only 19 years old at the time of the incident, local media reported.

(Oriental Daily) September 8, 2015.

The 150-hour community service sentence for 19-year-old Cheng Yeung was upheld. The defense pointed out that Cheng was influenced by the crowd and committed the crime in a moment of rashness. Afterwards, he regrets his action. So far, he has completed 40 hours of community service. His 11-year-old sister wrote a letter of petition, and his grandparents both said that he was a good grandson. The magistrate decided to give the young defendant a chance and upheld the original sentence.

(The Standard) February 25, 2016.

Three young protesters lost appeals against convictions for unlawful assembly, criminal damage and assaulting a police officer during the 2014 Occupy movement and were imprisoned immediately.

Four of a group of protesters who stormed the legislative building at Tamar using metal barriers as rams following rumors the Copyright (Amendment) Bill was to be discussed on November 19, 2014, had pleaded guilty before a magistrate to charges and were sentenced to community service in July.

Authorities thought the punishment too light and the Department of Justice asked for a review of the sentences.

In September, the court upheld the community service order with regard to the youngest of the four, 19-year-old Cheng Yeung, but sentenced the others to 3 months' imprisonment.

Tai Chi-shing and Shek Ka-fai, both 24, appealed against their sentences but were rejected and ordered to serve their sentences immediately. Third defendant Cheung Chi-pong, 23, gave up his appeal. In appealing, Tai and Shek said the storming incident was not rioting and that sentences for the four should be the same.

But High Court judge Judianna Wai Ling Barnes said yesterday that the number of participants, the degree of violence and threat of the clashes were comparable to a riot and the magistrate did not err in sentencing.

(Wen Wei Po) February 16, 2017.

In the early morning of May 13, 2016, unemployed Yuan Tsz-fung and interior decoration worker Cheung Yeung came out of City Garden Hotel, North Point and put their backpacks and plastic bags onto a vehicle. Police officers approached to check them, and found that the backpack contained more than 10 boxes of My Beautiful Diary sheet masks which contained drugs, plus packaging equipment, aluminum bags, sealing machine, etc. In total there were 3.51 kilograms of the drug known as 'ice' (crystal methamphetamine) worth more than $1 million on the streets.

According to the court records, these two individuals took part in the clash at the Legislative Council in November 2014. 18-year-old Yuan was found guilty of hitting a police officer on the upper lip and sentenced to a probation order. 18-year-old Cheng was found guilty of illegal assembly and criminal destruction of property and sentenced to a 150-hour community service order.

Yuan's mother wrote a letter to say that because she and her husband had bad relations, their son wandered around the streets and hung around people who were bad influence.

Cheng said that he had no idea that Yuan was dealing with drugs when he booked the hotel room. When he found out that drugs were present, he wanted to leave immediately. But Yuan persuaded him to stay and help with packaging and transporting. Therefore, the judge should give him a shorter sentence.

Yesterday, Yuan and Cheng pleaded guilty to drug sales. Yuan was sentenced 16 years 8 months in jail, and Cheng was sentenced to 17 years in jail.

Videos of the incident:

Apple Daily http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAbUX9WIbF8

Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t0Sv32YFT4

Ming Pao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBgGUpLfrv4

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

NOW TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwAek2z6x98

Bastille Post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmbaqGhKcYA

dbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3Gy-qSIqnQ

dbc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VupQGMXKUOg

Phoenix Satellite TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snpQEZjTw

Epoch Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWMvz2eSrn8

InMediaHK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDqEPxCqLvM

Franky Leung https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0dR6FSEO9o

Ho Jorma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYFIhZnbfHM

Ho Hon-biao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=171w5sBy3HE

News Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv6es1YkRs8

Internet comments:

- Schadenfreude!

- I was eating at a restaurant when the on-site television set aired this piece of good news. A number of customers spontaneously applauded. We haven't forgiven the Yellow Ribbons yet for what they did to us!

- That 150 hours of community service was absurd. Do you remember the civil servant who had to serve 200 hours of community service because he used a fake doctor's note to take four sick days off. Take a look at these photos. Which is worse?

- This was civil disobedience. Benny Tai said so. Civil disobedience should never be punished, especially since they are fighting for genuine universal suffrage on behalf of the people of Hong Kong.

- I am a teacher and I couldn't go to Occupy Central every day because of my job. But those who engaged in civil disobedience have earned my respect, especially the young people who are the future pillars of society.

- Fuck! If these people are the pillars of society, then Hong Kong will sink into the mud! And another big Fuck You! for being all talk and no action.

- So what if a window or two got broken? More windows are broken each time that a typhoon hits Hong Kong.

- Those four young men tried to defend themselves with the iron barriers, which hit the glass door by accident. Community service was the appropriate punishment.

- Smashing the glass door is no different from Raymond Wong Yuk-man throwing a glass of water at Chief Executive CY Leung. Nobody got hurt. In American football, the saying goes: No harm, no foul. The four defendants should be released immediately just as Raymond Wong Yuk-man should be. That is, if rule-of-law prevails.

- Apart from anything else, Raymond Wong smashed one glass whereas these four guys caused $587,000 in damages. And that magistrate won't even make them pay for it! Instead, the magistrate recommended the prosecutor to pursue a civil case!

- If I come to your house and cause $587,000 in damages, is that okay with you as long as I didn't hurt you?

- The relevant statute is: Cap 200 s 60 Destroying or damaging property. The relevant punishment of offences is Cap 200 s63:

(1) A person guilty of arson under section 60 or of an offence under section 60(2) (whether arson or not) shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for life.
(2) A person guilty of any other offence under this Part shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 10 years.

If creating $587,000 in property damages brings only 3-1/2 months of jail, then you need to create at least $587,000 x 120 / 3.5 = $20,125,714 in property damages to earn the maximum of 10 years (=120 months) in jail. Just thought that you might want to know.

- On the first day of Occupy Central, legislator Lee Cheuk-yan said that if you get arrested by the police, you should shout out your name and Hong Kong ID number and then hundreds of lawyers will come out to represent you. I wonder how many lawyers are representing these four defendants. This is relevant because the four have been disowned by both the pan-democratic politicians as well as the students for their violent behavior.

- There was a reason why the sentence was 3-1/2 months of jail and not less. See Wikipedia on Criminal Records in Hong Kong.

Criminal records are not purged regardless of time or seriousness of the case.

However, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance (HK Laws. Chap 297), a criminal record is considered 'spent' if it was the first criminal offence, sentenced to less than 3 months in jail or fined less than $10,000 and a period of 3 years has elapsed since conviction and no new conviction is registered against the said person.

Spent records are recorded as such with the exception to:

Attempting to be licensed as a barrister, solicitor, accountant or insurance broker

Applying to become a trustee or controller for Mandatory Provident Fund or a bank controller, executive or employee

Disciplinary proceedings against any judicial officer, members of disciplined services, probation officer, employees of Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (insurance officers) and Securities and Futures Commission (executive grade only)

Disciplinary proceedings against government officials who are paid on any Directorate or Directorate (Judicial/Legal Group) Pay Scale and those above point 27 on the Master Pay Scale.

All Hong Kong residents who plan to adopt children or travel/emigrate to another country can request for a Certificate of No Criminal Conviction - a document that is issued directly to the Consulate and/or government agencies and not to the requester. Spent records do appear on such certificates with annotations that such records are spent according to Hong Kong law.

- I read the fine print. The magistrate sentenced the three to 3-1/2 months in jail. However, since the defendants had already completed 24 hours out of their 150 community service hours, the magistrate reduced their jail time by 1/3. This magistrate badly needs a calculator, because 24/150 = 16% and not 33%.

- Since these defendants don't have money, they will get legal aid for their appeal. So it's a lot cheaper to just let them go.

- These defendants used a victimization strategy -- they said that they were misinformed by other individuals and therefore they are victims too. The same strategy can be adapted for all those who were charged with unlawful assembly during Occupy Central -- to wit, Professor Benny Tai told us that Occupy Central was a righteous act of civil disobedience for which there are no legal consequences. We believed him and therefore we are victims too.

- Why did one magistrate impose community service at the initial trial, but another magistrate imposed jail sentences upon appeal? The difference was that the prosecution presented the news video of the event this time.
I suspect that the first magistrate was being very rash. Perhaps the prosecution offered to show her the tapes, but she said not to waste her time. She "refused the prosecution’s request that the accused pay a total amount of almost HK$587,000 in reparations, saying that the prosecutor’s report failed to illustrate the value of the destroyed items." Perhaps the prosecution offered to provide with the details, but she said not to waste her time.

- The above scenario is totally wrong. The defendants pleaded guilty directly in the initial trial so that no evidence was presented to the magistrate. Based upon the fact that the defendants had no prior records, seemed to be gainfully employed, entered a guilty plea without contest, avoided the expense of holding the trial and promised not to ever do this again, the magistrate imposed the lenient sentences. This was good strategizing by the defense lawyers. However, the prosecutor appealed the sentences and presented the videos to the same magistrate for the first time. Everything changed, for this was not the run-of-the-mill sit-down love-in by the side of the road. This society would break down if such activities become normalized. Even if the magistrate had personally seen the news reports at the time, they are not admissible evidence for the case and she must exclude them from her considerations. But she is allowed to consider the evidence after the prosecution introduced it during the appeal hearing.

- Interesting. The magistrate said that the normal sentence for criminal destruction of property was 3 months, but she reduced it to 1-1/2 months due to mitigating circumstances. The normal sentence for illegal assembly was 6 months, but she reduced it to 3-1/2 months due to mitigating circumstances. The two sentences were to be served concurrently and that was why the total jail term was 3-1/2 months. So remember this: the starting point for illegal assembly is 6 months. Are you listening ... Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, Nathan Law, etc?

- The case of the attack on former Ming Pao chief editor Kevin Lau ended with the two attackers being sentenced to 19-year jail terms (see EJinsight). The outcome was unsatisfactory because we still don't know who paid these two men to do it. And what was the reason?

In like manner, the jail sentences for the four defendants may be satisfying in themselves, but we still don't know who manufactured the rumor that the Legislative Council would be holding a hearing the next day on the non-existent Internet Article 23. And why?

- At the time, one theory was that there were policemen pretending to be demonstrators and egging others (including the four defendants) on (ref: a self-proclaimed eyewitness at the scene: Commercial Radio HK, or Lee Wai-ling at Apple Daily). Of course, it is always somebody else's fault and you don't know enough to tell right from wrong.

- The defendants want to appeal the sentence. There have been previous cases in which an appeal led to a heavier sentence, because the defendant clearly showed no remorse and insisted on wasting the court's time.

- There are more than 600 comments in this tread already. The comments are almost completely one-sided, except for that one troll who is trying to be difficult. However, you shouldn't expect Apple Daily to report this type of reaction (even though their news gathering activities are now almost completely based upon the Internet).

- Look what happened. The Yellow Ribbon judge let these guys off with probation order/community service. Then they come back hauling 3.5 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine ('ice'). By giving a 12-month probation order to hitting a policeman on the upper lip, they think that crime pays.

[305] Eggs and High Walls (2015/08/21)

(SCMP) Former inmate challenges policy over Chinese and Western meals in Hong Kong prisons. August 19, 2015.

A protester who was jailed for throwing an egg at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah has accused the Correctional Services Department of racial discrimination for serving him smaller Chinese-style meals instead of larger Western portions.

League of Social Democrats’ secretary general Derek Chan Tak-cheung, who was jailed for three weeks, claimed in a High Court document that the arrangement was unlawful and unconstitutional.

Chan said he was detained at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre between April 29 and May 2, and at Tong Fuk Correctional Institution from May 2 to 19. But he soon noticed that the diet provided to Chinese prisoners was different from what was given to Western inmates.

He said that the Chinese breakfast included rice with a little meat, while the Western meal had cheese, jam, butter, toast and milk tea. The Chinese lunch was congee with beans, Chinese tea and a piece of bread, while the Western one consisted of a hamburger, vegetables, a boiled egg, toast, potatoes and milk tea. For dinner, the Chinese meal options were vegetables and meat, fried fish with bones or chicken wings, while the Western options included a hamburger, pork, boneless fried fish steak, fried chicken wings, potatoes, baked beans in tomato sauce, bread, butter and jam, and milk tea. “Sometimes the Western diet would provide deep-fried chicken wings, which were not available in the Chinese diet. The portion for the Western diet was also larger,” Chan wrote in the document.

He observed that officers classified prisoners by their skin colour. Those with “yellow skin” would be given Chinese meals, while those with “black or white skin” would receive Western-style food.

Chan tested the arrangement on his last day in prison by asking for a Western meal, but he was refused.

“For the avoidance of doubt, both the Chinese diet and the Western diet are normal prison diets, and [Chan] was not asking for a diet that differs from the normal prison diet,” the document stated.

Chan claimed that he understood and believed this was the department’s practice. However, he found this arrangement breached the Race Discrimination Ordinance and Article 25 of the Basic Law, which states that all Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law. He asked the court to review the department’s arrangement.

Meanwhile, the department said its prison meals were in line with all legal requirements for providing “simple and wholesome” food to inmates. Weight and nutritional value of meals were approved by accredited dietitians, the Department of Health and in accordance with international health guidelines.

All newly-housed inmates are assigned rice-based staple meals, known as the “dietary scale one”. Inmates can then apply to change to other food categories, according to their health, dietary or religious needs.

If there are “appropriate reasons”, the department will help them change their meal plan – dietary scale two includes curry and chapati as staple food; dietary scale three includes potatoes and bread as staple food; and dietary scale four comprises a vegan meal. The CSD has a total of 29 types of meal available, according to a spokesman.

(EJinsight) Activist files lawsuit against ‘meal discrimination’ in HK jails. August 18, 2015.

Why is it that Western inmates are given better food than their local and Asian counterparts in Hong Kong prisons? This is the gist of a petition for judicial review that a pro-democracy activist filed with the High Court on Tuesday.

In the petition, Derek Chan Tak-cheung, secretary general of the League of Social Democrats, complained that Chinese and other Asian prisoners are not allowed to take Western meals, which he said could be a form of racial discrimination and a violation of Article 25 of the Basic Law.

He said the servings and contents of Western and Chinese meals are considerably different.

For instance, Western lunch is much richer, consisting of a hamburger, vegetables, eggs, potatoes and milk tea. On the other hand, a Chinese lunch only comprises congee, tea and a slice of bread.

Chan said the assignment of what kind of meals an inmate gets is done according to the prisoner’s skin color. Based on his experience in prison, he said, those with “yellow skin” are given Chinese meals while Caucasians and black people get Western meals. At present, Asians and other foreigners are separated while dining.

Chan called for the removal of the policy as it is discriminatory.

Chan served a three-week jail sentence in late April and May in Tong Fok prison after he was found guilty of common assault for throwing eggs at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah during a public forum in December 2013.

(Coconuts Hong Kong) Egg-throwing inmate complains of racist Hong Kong prison food. August 20, 2015.

An activist who was jailed for three weeks for throwing an egg at Financial Secretary John Tsang has complained that the meal allocation system in prison is racist. Derek Chan of the League of Social Democrats said he was served smaller Chinese-style meals instead of hearty Western portions just because of the colour of his skin.

He was detained at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre between April 29 and May 2, and at Tong Fuk Correctional Institution from May 2 to 19, according to the SCMP.

In an official document submitted to the High Court, Chan said the meal system was unconstitutional and unlawful. He claimed “yellow"-skinned inmates received rice and meat for breakfast, compared to cheese, jam, butter, toast and milk tea for “white or black” inmates.

For lunch he was served congee and beans, Chinese tea and bread, while the foreigners got a hamburger, veggies, a boiled egg, toast, potatoes and milk tea. For dinner, Chan says he got vegetables and meat, chicken wings and fried fish with bones.

The Westerners, however, got a boneless fried fish steak, pork, chicken wings, (another) hamburger (more) potatoes, baked beans(!), bread, butter, jam, and milk tea.

Jeez. We’re pretty sure the Western diet was designed by an American. No offence, fatties.

“Sometimes the Western diet would provide deep-fried chicken wings, which were not available in the Chinese diet. The portion for the Western diet was also larger,” Chan wrote in his complaint.

However, the Correctional Services Department has responded by saying all prison meals have been approved by dieticians and are in line with the requirement to provide “simple and wholesome” food to inmates. They also said inmates can change to a choice of 29 meal types if they apply through the proper channels.

Who’s betting juice cleanse and paleo are on that list somewhere?

(SCMP) A continental breakfast behind bars in Hong Kong jails. August 20, 2015.

The League of Social Democrats (LSD) is fighting hard for gender and racial equalities - in our jails.

Last year, LSD co-founder and lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung sued the Correctional Services Department for making him cut his signature locks. His argument was that women prisoners could keep their hair long, so why couldn't he?

Hummm, it sounds like vexatious litigation to me.

But his LSD sidekick Derek Chan Tak-cheung may have a better argument about racial discrimination in terms of the different food being served to prisoners based on their race.

Chan has just been released after serving three weeks in jail for throwing an egg at the financial secretary. In prison, he found that ethnic Chinese are served Chinese food, in smaller portions and with fewer varieties than Western meals given to non-Chinese. He has launched a case against the department at the High Court, arguing the practice of serving different meals to different prisoners on the basis of their race is unlawful and unconstitutional.

According to Chan, the Chinese breakfast includes rice with a little meat, while the Western meal has cheese, jam, butter, toast and milk tea. The Chinese lunch offers congee with beans, Chinese tea and a piece of bread, while the Western one consists of a hamburger, vegetables, a boiled egg, toast, potatoes and milk tea.

For dinner, the Chinese meal options are vegetables and meat, fried fish with bones or chicken wings, while the Western options include a hamburger, pork, boneless fried fish steak, fried chicken wings, potatoes, baked beans in tomato sauce, bread, butter and jam, and milk tea.

I don't know about you but the Western meals sound definitely tastier, especially the breakfast, which is like a continental breakfast served at hotels. The only things missing are a croissant and a scone.

Chan argues the different meals served amount to a breach of the race discrimination law and the Basic Law.

Instead of fighting Chan and his lawyers in court, the department should really review its food policy. Here's an easy way to make everyone happy at very little cost. Give every prisoner a choice between having a Chinese and a Western meal.

Internet comments:

- Of course, the newspapers will report only on what Derek Chan has to say, as in SCMP:

He [Derek Chan] said that the Chinese breakfast included rice with a little meat, while the Western meal had cheese, jam, butter, toast and milk tea. The Chinese lunch was congee with beans, Chinese tea and a piece of bread, while the Western one consisted of a hamburger, vegetables, a boiled egg, toast, potatoes and milk tea. For dinner, the Chinese meal options were vegetables and meat, fried fish with bones or chicken wings, while the Western options included a hamburger, pork, boneless fried fish steak, fried chicken wings, potatoes, baked beans in tomato sauce, bread, butter and jam, and milk tea. “Sometimes the Western diet would provide deep-fried chicken wings, which were not available in the Chinese diet. The portion for the Western diet was also larger,” Chan wrote in the document.

What is the reality? Well, you have to see the photos for yourselves and decide whether the western meals (Type III) are tastier than Chinese meals (Type I).

(Oriental Daily) August 18, 2015.

The Correctional Services Department said that there are four types of meals for the prisoners. New prisoners are typically assigned to Type I rice-based staple meals (see top left photo). Prisoners can apply to switch their diets. Type II meals include curry and chapati as staple food (see top right photo). Type III meals include potatoes and beans as staple food (see bottom left photo). Type IV meals are vegetarian (see bottom right photo).

(Daily Mail) Inside the Hong Kong hellhole where 'psycho banker' is held. November 5, 2014.

For God's sake, this is just prison food, which is cruel and unusual by definition. This is part and parcel of your punishment! Stop fretting about not getting Michelin-starred food!

- If the League of Social Democrats don't like CY Leung to be in charge of their prison meals, they could demand to sub-contract food services to the Japanese.

- (Daily Mail) As a prisoner of war camp it became notorious as a place of torture and execution, with Mateen Ahmed Ansari - an Indian army captain - posthumously awarded the George Cross after being beaten, starved and eventually executed by Japanese troops who unsuccessfully demanded that he renounce his allegiance to the British army and sow seeds of discontent among his comrades. Nearly 600 prisoners of war and civilians killed by the Japanese during the occupation are buried in the nearby Stanley War Cemetery.

- On the last day of his jail sentence, Derek Chan demanded to have a western meal instead of the usual Chinese meal. He was turned down. The rejection has a simple explanation in terms of logistics.

The Tong Fuk Prison has capacity for 925 prisoners. When new prisoners enter, they declare their meal preferences. Each day, the meals are prepared in accordance with the stated preferences. For example, there might be 800 Type I meals, 10 Type II meals, 90 Type III meals and 25 Type IV meals. The prison does not fill à la carte orders. That is, you cannot expect to wake up in the morning and decide that you shall have hamburger at the spur of the moment.

If à la carte orders become the order of the day, then the staff should prepare 925 Type I meals, 925 Type II meals, 925 Types III meals and 925 Type IV meals so that each inmate can make their choice on the spur of the moment. In the end, 925 assorted meals will be consumed and the remaining 2,775 meals taken to the landfill. This is called being wasteful.

If Derek Chan wants to have western meals, he can make an application through the appropriate channels. He can even switch from Chinese to western meals with sufficient notice. To make an unexpected demand on the last day of his jail term is just grandstanding.

[304] The Fan Ling Golf Course (2015/08/20)

(The Standard) Golf club protesters take a swing at rich. August 17, 2015.

Around 20 protesters barged into the Hong Kong Golf Club in Fan Ling yesterday, demanding that the government take back the land to build public homes. The protesters held up placards that read: "Reclaim golf land, build affordable housing" and "Return my right to live, return land justice." They also carried banners that read: "The powerful have land to play ball, while the poor have no land to settle."

Among the nine groups involved in the protest were the Land Justice League, Grassroots Housing, and Kwu Tung North Development Concern Group. There were also groups representing residents in subdivided flats.

The protesters said Hong Kong faces a stark housing supply problem, with more than 100,000 residents living in subdivided flats while 280,000 families are on the waiting list for public housing.

"[Chief Executive] Leung Chun- ying on the one hand asks where is the land, and on the other sells a hectare of farmland in the golf course to Henderson Land Development for building high- density luxury flats," the groups said. "Leung claims he will build new towns for everyone to solve the problem of high rents and long waiting times for public housing, yet he bends to the powerful and the rich, and places the residents who lost their homes in the northeastern New Territories on the opposing side against grassroots residents in urban areas to divide and smear the weak."

Instead of driving residents and villagers away from the northeastern New Territories, the protesters argued that the government should take back "73 pieces of land" that are currently used for private clubs as these only serve the rich and powerful. They demanded the golf club land be reclaimed for public housing and called for a complete review of all lands that involve private recreational leases.

League of Social Democrats vice chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming said: "You drive people away from occupied land, but keep the vacant ones. How ridiculous." Another protester said the golf course is the "size of Tsuen Wan where 100,000 units for the grassroots could be built." They also demanded an end to the northeastern New Territories development project.

Security guards earlier tried but failed to block the protesters.

Some 9,900 public homes were built last year, about 20 percent lower than the targeted 12,700.

Video:

(Cable TV) News coverage of the dozen or so demonstrators who charged into the Fan Ling Golf Course.

(Ming Pao) News coverage

With respect to slogans such as "Reclaim golf land, build affordable housing", "Return my right to live, return land justice" and "The powerful have land to play ball, while the poor have no land to settle", the case should not be limited solely to the Hong Kong Golf Club in Fan Ling. There are a number of other clubs in similar situations (that is, with unreasonably low land lease arrangements). When you selectively designate one club for reclamation while leaving the others alone, that would be the rule of man. The law needs to be uniformly applied to all applicable cases. The following articles give the details for some of the clubs that fall into this situation.

Definitions:

Rule of law:

Rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of lawwithin society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.

Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, collective leadership, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law.

Rule of man:

Rule of man is absence of rule of law. It is a society in which one person, or a group of persons, rules arbitrarily. The Sovereign exercises absolute authority and is not bound by any law, he as a person stands outside law. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes advocated such a society, saying that a society would be better if it had one absolute monarch as he would be free to choose and do what he thinks is best for the society without taking into account the opinions of others.

Others dissent by historical evidence that points in the opposing direction claiming the impermanence of the systems brought on by dictators like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong which are remembered in having fared more by despotism than government system and thereby typifying the exertion of "rule of man" within their reigns. The results of which comprised violations to internationally recognized basic human rights. Relating the common inference of warning against the utility of such regimes that many have cited within the adage that Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

History:

(SCMP) Hong Kong Club hits HK$60m rental gold. May 30, 2010.

Within the exclusive portals of Hong Kong's poshest private club, the future looks rosy. Having resumed full ownership of its premises in Central in the middle of last year, the Hong Kong Club is looking forward to rental income of at least HK$60 million from this financial year on. Even better, it pays government land rent of just HK$324 a year, thanks to a 999-year lease inked in February 1895, after the club was formed by eight taipans in 1846.

A few blocks away in Harcourt Road, Wan Chai, the Hong Kong Red Cross pays HK$1,370 for its Anne Black headquarters, while the Chinese Anglican Church is charged HK$1,000 for its St James' Settlement Multi-Service Community Centre in Stone Nullah Lane.

Many of the tycoons who enjoy the Hong Kong Club's exclusive facilities would probably welcome such a deal for their own businesses. In addition, the club paid no premium for the land from which it will now reap tens of millions of dollars a year.

Under a 1983 deal, Hong Kong Land redeveloped the prime site next to Statue Square and opposite the Legislative Council building into a 24-floor tower. It took rental income for 25 years from all but four podium floors reserved by the club for bars, restaurants, a fitness centre with two squash courts, a billiard room and four bowling alleys. The club also took a small portion of rental income from the higher floors.

Since the arrangement ended last year the club has signed several new tenancy agreements with regional and Wall Street investment bankers such as Davis Polk, which moved into room 1904 for HK$185,570 a month, and Somerley, which took up the 10th floor for three years to September 2012 for HK$590,784 a month. 'The budgeted rental for [2009] is HK$61.9 million, up from HK$28.2 million in 2008,' the club wrote in its latest annual report.

Publicly, it has nothing further to say about its low land rent and rising rental income. Responding to inquiries it said: 'As we are a private club, we thus have no comment on the subject.'

The redevelopment plans took shape while Hong Kong's future was being negotiated between premier Zhao Ziyang and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

There was intense debate in the club and among the public about whether the old building should be torn down. Preservationists led by the Heritage Society proposed saving the 80-year-old Victorian structure, while the club management expressed concerns about potential fire and structural hazards in the largely-timber building. It prevailed.

The club's membership list, which reads like a Who's Who of the city's business elite, includes 1,400 resident members and about 2,500 absent members. The current chairman is Swire Properties chief executive Martin Cubbon with Wing On International Holdings director Bill Kwok Chi-piu as vice-chairman. Other board members include William Elkin Mocatta, director of Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons, which oversees Kadoorie family interests in Hong Kong and overseas.

The Lands Department says the Hong Kong Club and others were given land free or with nominal premium payments to promote recreational development. It sees no problems with the Hong Kong Club's commercial arrangements, saying the land is not restricted to recreational use.

'The granting of a private recreational lease at nominal premium may be approved provided that the relevant policy bureau gives support to the application and the grant is agreeable in all circumstances,' a spokesman said.

Privately owned land in Hong Kong is mostly held under a government lease by which land owners have to pay rent to the government in return for the right to hold and occupy the land for a specified term. Most rents, imposed under the Government Rent (Assessment and Collection) Ordinance, are 3 per cent of the rateable value of the property.

Private social and sports clubs, however, benefited from extraordinarily low land rents from the colonial days until the handover in 1997.

The Hong Kong Football Club, which paid HK$1,000 a year until December 1996, has been charged 3 per cent of its rateable value since 1997 - an estimated HK$850,000 this year on a rateable value of HK$28.5 million. But some clubs still enjoy low rents - Hong Kong Golf Club pays HK$1,808 a year for its 160-hectare course in Fanling.

The Hong Kong Club is among more than 20 private clubs that cater exclusively for the upper class.

Most, such as Craigengower Cricket Club and the Hong Kong Football Club, are owned by non-profit-making entities formed by their members, while a few, like the Aberdeen Marina Club, are held and operated by private companies.

All limit the size of their membership, and to become a member requires money, connections and time - in some cases the waiting list is 30 years or more. A transferable corporate membership traded on the second-hand market is the only short cut - but the prices are high.

Records of Everfine Membership Services show that the Hong Kong Golf Club is the most expensive, with a case of membership changing hands for HK$9.5 million earlier this year and one on the market for HK$9.7 million.

Aberdeen Marina Club and the American Club are the most popular among the new rich as their prices are relatively affordable - HK$1.9 million to HK$2 million.

'People are willing to pay millions to bid for a membership from the second-hand market as most of these private clubs no longer recruit new members or already have a long queue lining up for a vacancy,' said Athena Wong, director of Everfine.

Hong Kong Club's figures

Year of establishment: 1846
Number of members: around 1,440
Net surplus of 2008: HK$17.4 million
Balance of general fund at end of 2008: HK$109.4 million
Budgeted rental for 2009 financial year: HK$61.9 million
Land rent each year: HK$324
Term of land lease: 999 years

(SCMP) The lease clause HK's top clubs would like to forget. May 31, 2010.

Hong Kong's eight most exclusive private sports and recreation clubs are not as exclusive as they might seem. All are required by their land leases to allow schools and youth organisations to use their facilities - if the government asks them to.

It means that the city's youngsters can in theory enjoy the surroundings of institutions such as the Hong Kong Golf Club in Deep Water Bay - where the city's richest man, Li Ka-shing, plays golf - the Hong Kong Country Club, Hong Kong Football Club and Craigengower Cricket Club.

But, in the decades that these requirements have existed, no government department has ever made any such request and organisations that might have taken advantage of the rule say it is news to them.

The clause was applied to the properties of the eight clubs - which also include the Chinese Recreation Club, Clearwater Bay Golf and Country Club, Kowloon Cricket Club and Hong Kong Cricket Club - because they paid nothing or a nominal amount for the prime sites on which their facilities sit.

'Is it real?' asked seasoned social worker Sze Lai-shan, who said she had never thought about booking private clubs for the underprivileged children's groups she organises.

'Aren't these clubs only open for members? Will they really let us in? Do we have to pay? If it is free, it will be an option for us when planning activities for the children.'

Officials of departments that should be helping such groups to pry open the clubs' exclusive gates seem just as confused, as are the clubs.

A Social Welfare Department official said neither he nor his colleagues had heard about such arrangements and he could not find any written requisition record. Neither the Leisure and Cultural Services Department nor the Education Bureau had made any such request either. The Home Affairs Bureau said it had not invoked the land clause because it had not found the need to.

Under the clause, officials have to give the clubs not less than six weeks' notice in writing, ensure the use is not at weekends or public holidays, and that it does not interfere with care and maintenance. The clubs are allowed to keep their buildings and other areas, such as swimming pools, exclusively for members but have to allow the visitors to use toilets, changing rooms and open space.

The leisure department said clubs such as the Craigengower Cricket Club, Hong Kong Football Club and the Chinese Recreation Club had occasionally opened for lawn bowls, rugby and tennis competitions, so it 'has not invoked the relevant clause in the land lease by writing to the clubs requesting them to open up their lots for sports meetings/activities'.

Calls to the front desks of the clubs to inquire about application procedures for schools and youth groups also found little or no awareness of the clause. The Hong Kong Country Club, Hong Kong Golf Club, Clearwater Bay Golf and Country Club and Craigengower Cricket Club said they strictly served members only. The Hong Kong Cricket Club and Kowloon Cricket Club said they had rented their fields to international schools before and were willing to rent them to kindergartens for about HK$3,000 a day.

The Hong Kong Football Club and Chinese Recreation Club said schools could try their luck to see if their applications were approved.

Queries to the club managements about whether they were aware of the special conditions and whether they had opened their gates to the public before drew a response only from the Hong Kong Golf Club. 'As you know the HKGC is a private members' club and we do not divulge this information that you require,' it said.

Former Town Planning Board member Dr Ng Cho-nam said the government should press the private sports clubs to genuinely open their land to the public. 'Open space is a precious asset in highly populated Hong Kong, and these lands were given to the clubs for free, so it is no more than fair to require them to let the public in on non-peak hours. If those rich tycoons don't want to share their open space with the public, they should buy the land for market price.'

The market price for membership of some clubs is in the millions of dollars - if you can find one.

The 121-year-old Hong Kong Golf Club, where early-bird visitors might see Li Ka-shing and an entourage of bodyguards arrive at the nine-hole golf course at 19 Island Road shortly after 6.30 most mornings, long ago stopped recruiting new members. A transferable corporate membership to use the Deep Water Bay course and three full 18-hole courses in Fan Ling costs more than HK$9.5 million on the second-hand market.

Yet according to the lease for the Island Road site, signed in December 1981, the club is required to open the land 'for sports meetings or other similar activities of schools, youth clubs, welfare organisations' when required to by the 'competent authorities' in charge of education, social welfare, recreation and culture. The former colonial government wrote the condition in when the club was granted the land free of charge in September 1898.

Similar conditions apply to its Fan Ling facilities at 1 Fan Kam Road as they do to the properties of the seven other clubs which paid nothing or a nominal amount, like HK$1,000, for their land.

Social workers and schoolteachers say they wish they had known before that they could apply to use the facilities. 'It's always been a headache in finding venues for sports training and interschool games,' physical education teacher Suen Chung-him said. 'For example the Hong Kong Schools Sports Federation needs a hilly location to organise its annual cross-country tournament. For years, the competition took place at the Fan Ling golf course but no student was allowed to use washrooms inside the golf course and thus the federation had to arrange portable toilets outside the club.'

Suen also did not realise there was a chance for schools to use the outdoor courts and fields of private clubs. 'I mostly take our school teams to government facilities run by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department for regular training, but these venues are usually fully booked three and four months in advance. It is quite difficult to find a place if we want to add a few sessions for next month,' Suen said, adding that finding soccer pitches was a particular problem.

Social worker Sze, a community officer of Society for Community Organisation, has been organising programmes for underprivileged children. 'We have not thought about venues other than the public community centres, which are free but need to be booked five to six months in advance.'

All clubs, private or public, must be registered with Home Affairs Bureau's Licensing Authority, which says it is up to them to ensure they comply with any special conditions. 'It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that his premises do comply with the lease conditions, deed of mutual covenant and other regulations or laws of Hong Kong,' the authority said.

The government can modify the leases in the next two years if it wishes. The Hong Kong Golf Club, Hong Kong Football Club, Craigengower Cricket Club, Kowloon Cricket Club and the Chinese Recreation Club have to renew their land leases by Christmas Day next year.

The leases of the Hong Kong Country Club and Clearwater Bay Golf and Country Club will expire in April and June 2012, respectively. The Hong Kong Cricket Club renewed its land lease in 2008 for 15 years.

The Lands Department confirmed that it had received renewal applications from the Football Club, the two cricket clubs and the Chinese Recreation Club which would be circulated to the Home Affairs Bureau for policy input and 'concerned departments' for suggestions of conditions to be included in the new leases.

'In general, a condition requiring the lessee to permit the lot or any part thereof to be used by schools or welfare organisations or government-run activities for specified periods when required by the competent authority is inserted in the lease,' it said. But it added that whether there was any need to seek use of the land was up to other departments.

Former town planning board member Ng said the government should keep the public informed about the right to access to such privileged turf. An associate professor of geography at the University of Hong Kong, he suggested the Lands Department should renew the leases only for three to five years and keep a close eye on whether the clubs opened to schoolchildren and welfare organisations.

'The government can keep the present written terms unchanged for a few years and tell everyone about his or her rights,' he said. 'If these clubs fail to fulfil their responsibilities, then the Lands Department can further tighten its control by directly specifying particular opening hours for the public each week. If the club operators still refuse to co-operate, the Lands Department can resume the land ownership.'

A member of the Town Planning Board for six years until April, Ng advised lands officials not to sign any more long land leases. 'The last time we renewed these leases was mostly in 1981. If the government continues to grant long leases and the clubs refuse to abide by government conditions, we will have to wait for another three decades until we have a say again.'

Club (Address)
Land size and premium of the eight private clubs
Lease details

HK Golf Club-Deep Water Bay Club House (19 Island Road)
Land size (square metres): 66,500
Land premium (HK$): Nil
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $10.8 million
Lease expiry: Dec 25, 2011

HK Golf Club-Fanling Club House (1 Fan Kam Road)
Land size (square metres): 1,618,742
Land premium (HK$): Nil
Annual land rent (HK$): $1,808
Rateable value* (HK$): $54.2 million
Lease expiry: Aug 31, 2020

HK Country Club (188 Wong Chuk Hang Road)
Land size (square metres): 21,090
Land premium (HK$): Nil
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $10.4 million
Lease expiry: Apr 3, 2012

HK Football Club (3 Sports Road)
Land size (square metres): 29,500
Land premium (HK$): $1,000
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $28.5 million
Lease expiry: Dec 25, 2011

HK Cricket Club (137 Wong Nai Chung Gap Road)
Land size (square metres): 18,448
Land premium (HK$): $1,000
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $11.1 million
Lease expiry: Jul, 2023

Craigengower Cricket Club (188 Wong Lai Chung Road)
Land size (square metres): 12,535
Land premium (HK$): $1,000
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $17.5 million
Lease expiry: Dec 25, 2011

Chinese Recreation Club (123 Tung Lo Wan Road)
Land size (square metres): 16,490
Land premium (HK$): Nil
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $23.3 million
Lease expiry: Dec 25, 2011

Kowloon Cricket Club (10 Cox's Road)
Land size (square metres): 25,100
Land premium (HK$): Nil
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $10.3 million
Lease expiry: Dec 25, 2011

Clearwater Bay Golf & Country Club (139 Tai Au Mun Road)
Land size (square metres): 1,291,600
Land premium (HK$): Nil
Annual land rent (HK$): 3% of rateable value
Rateable value* (HK$): $36.5 million
Lease expiry: Jun 30, 2012

*Latest figures released by Rating and Valuation Department this year

How the clubs responded

We would let schools book our facilities as a favour, but strictly on weekdays and depending on availability.
Kowloon Cricket Club

Lawyers' and doctors' associations have rented our courts. Schools can write to us to see if our bosses say yes, but there's no guarantee.
Chinese Recreation Club

We rented out our lawn bowls green to kindergartens a few years ago. We offered schools a special rate of about HK$3,000 to HK$4,000 for the morning session at the time.
Hong Kong Cricket Club

It depends on the situation.
Hong Kong Football Club

We will not open our limited facilities for school sports activities as we only serve our members.
Hong Kong Golf Club

We can't let everyone in. Our golf course is only open for members or experienced golfers with accredited score cards.
Clearwater Bay Golf and Country Club

First of all, only our members can book our facilities. Besides, we only provide our open space for banquets, not school activities.
Hong Kong Country Club

Our field is merely for lawn bowls, not for other school sports.
Craigengower Cricket Club

(SCMP) Audit Commission wants government to review leases of 17 elite clubs. November 13, 2013.

The future of some of Hong Kong's best-known and most exclusive clubs is under scrutiny after the Audit Commission urged the government to consider taking back private clubhouses and putting the land to better use.

The Home Affairs Bureau asked in June to review 17 clubs whose leases were expiring soon - some next year - but the commission called for a timetable.

"As pointed out in the 2013 policy address, land shortage has seriously stifled social and economic development in Hong Kong," the commission said in its report released yesterday. "It would appear that the Home Affairs Bureau, as the responsible policy bureau for private recreation leases, needs to work collaboratively with the Development Bureau to assess whether the leases due for renewal should be renewed."

Up for renewal next year are the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club's premises in Sai Kung - one of its three clubhouses - and the Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association in Tai Po.

Others facing renewal in the next few years include the Jockey Club Beas River Lodge in Sheung Shui (2015), Mong Kok District Cultural Recreational and Sports Association (2018) and Hong Kong Golf Club in (2020).

The land was granted at a nominal or zero land premium and at low rents to promote sports in the community. But the leases have been under scrutiny since 2010, when their transparency and the clubs' compliance with requirements to admit the public were called into question.

The commission also questioned yesterday whether the "prolonged hold-over arrangement" for the former Post Office and Cable & Wireless Recreation Club in Causeway Bay, now a staff club for PCCW, should continue. The club's lease expired in 1996, but is renewed quarterly.

The clubs, with membership ranging from 147 to 49,600, rarely opened their sports facilities for public use and some ran commercial activities, the commission said.

It blamed the bureau's lack of a clear definition of "recreation" for abuses. The Chinese Recreation Club, for example, has 15 mahjong rooms and a barber shop while the Hong Kong Football Club has massage rooms and eight restaurants.

Land leases of private recreation clubs to be renewed by government:

Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club (Sai Kung) 2014

Hong Kong Youth Hostels Association (Tai Po) 2014

Hong Kong Girl Guides Association (Sheung Shui) 2015

Mong Kok District Cultural Recreational & Sports Association 2018

Hong Kong Golf Club (Fanling) 2020

Aberdeen Boat Club 2021

Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club (Middle Island) 2021

Hong Kong Cricket Club 2023

Scout Association of Hong Kong (Yuen Long) 2024

Hong Kong Model Engineering Club 2024

Scout Association of Hong Kong (Tai Po) 2025

Yuen Long District Sports Association 2031

Hong Kong Jockey Club (Happy Valley) 2034

Directors of the Chinese Young Men’s Christian Association of Hong Kong 2047

Hong Kong Girl Guides Association (Ho Man Tin) 2056

Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club (Kellett Island) 2056

The Post Office and Cable & Wireless Recreation Club renewed quarterly

Internet comments:

- I watched the news videos. A dozen or so people charged onto private property. The security guards let them be. They wandered around for 30 minutes, made speeches for the sake of those media reporters that they called out there and then everybody departed out of sheer ennui. So this is known as "valiant resistance"?

- Building in places like the Fan Ling Golf Course, Clearwater Bay or Deep Water Bay is not optimal, because of transportation issues (unless you want to spend hundreds of billions on MTR expansion to reach those locations). An easier solution is to pave over Victoria Park in Causeway Bay. That site area is 190,000 square meters and therefore can easily accommodate hundreds of thousands of residents. And it is right next to the Causeway Bay MTR station, the tram line, etc.
- The Cheung Sha Wan Sports Ground in Sham Shui Po is also lightly used. It can also be paved over for public housing. It is conveniently located right by the Lai Chi Kok MTR station.

- Why are the SCMP articles leaving out the India Club, the Indian Recreation Club, the Club De Recreio, the Pakistan Club, the Hong Kong Chinese Civil Servant's Association, the Filipino Club, etc? These clubs are also receiving favorable treatment from the government while serving an exclusive minority. Just look at their respective names -- do you even know what the word "recreio" means?

- While we are at it, we shouldn't forget the Po Leung Kuk, Lok Sin Tong, Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation, Hong Kong Buddhist Association, Hong Kong Taoist Association, Caritas Hong Kong, Hong Kong Society for the Protection of Children, Hong Kong Society for the Blind, Hong Kong Society for the Deaf, Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals, etc. These groups are likely to be receiving favorable treatment from the government. Even if we can't boot them out, we should at least be collecting market-value rent from them. It's called Justice For All.

- The reason why is the Fan Ling Golf Course needs to defended to the last man is that it represents COLLECTIVE MEMORY, just as the Queen's Pier was. It is hypocritical to say otherwise.

- The Hong Kong Golf Course has served its historical mission and should now be retired. Who would still go there now, when there is the Mission Hills Shenzhen resort right by the Luowu border crossing? This is a 20-square-kilometer golf complex with seven 18-hole resort and championship courses, plus all manners of other facilities (hotels, conference halls, shopping mall, etc). We should turn all of Hong Kong into public housing estates and move all the luxury resorts north of the border.

[303] Raymond Wong Yuk-man Throws A Fit (Glass) (2015/08/17)

(SCMP) Lawmaker Wong Yuk-man arrested for throwing glass at Chief Executive CY Leung. July 5, 2014.

Independent lawmaker Wong Yuk-man was arrested last night on suspicion of common assault after he hurled a glass in the direction of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying in a Legislative Council meeting on Thursday.

Arriving at the police station in Central by car, Wong flashed a "victory" sign to a group of supporters and reporters who had been waiting for him. He was accompanied by a lawyer. "I got a tip-off that the police want to arrest me. Save the trouble - it's just a glass. I am coming here myself. This is how you act like a hero," he said. "If they really lay a charge against me, I must make 689 appear in court!" he said, in a mocking reference to the number of votes the chief executive received from the 1,193-strong Election Committee to win the election two years ago.

Police said Wong, 62, was arrested for common assault and released on bail pending further investigation. A police source said officers went to Wong's office in the afternoon but could not find him. They waited for Wong outside the building while he was in a Legco finance committee meeting.

The incident took place on Thursday morning when Leung arrived in the Legco chamber for a question-and-answer session. About 20 pan-democrats marched towards him to urge him to take the huge turnout at the democracy rally seriously.

They shouted: "Genuine universal suffrage without screening ... Listen to the people's voice, 689." Wong then hurled documents and a glass in the direction of the chief executive. Leung calmly picked up pieces of the glass and criticised Wong's behaviour. His office later called the police to investigate the matter.

While Wong remained unapologetic, saying he did "not have to be polite to a dictatorship", other pan-democrats condemned Wong's act, saying it was not part of their plan to protest against the chief executive.

Wong's arrest raises the possibility of him losing his seat in Legco. This would happen only if he is convicted and sentenced to one month in jail or more, and if a motion calling on him to step down is passed by two-thirds of his colleagues in Legco, under article 79 of the Basic Law.

Barrister Albert Luk Wai-hung said whether Wong had actually injured anyone would be an important consideration if he is charged and a court must rule on his guilt or innocence. It would also be a factor in sentencing. Luk said it was unlikely a first-time offender would receive a prison sentence.

(SCMP) Wong Yuk-man, accused of throwing glass in Legco chamber, refuses to renew bail. August 12, 2014.

Radical lawmaker Wong Yuk-man, who was arrested for suspected common assault after allegedly throwing a glass at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying last month, refused to renew his bail last night. A police spokesman said the force had decided to release Wong as a result of his refusal to renew his bail, but would retain the right to prosecute while the investigation was continuing.

Wong reported to Central police station last night at around 6pm and is understood to have told them he would no longer be checking in periodically as required under the bail system.

The independent lawmaker, who was arrested on July 4, had been released on July 5 with his bail set at HK$500. "I would be daft if I listened to them," Wong said. "I told them to charge me if they have got enough evidence. If not, release me."

He was arrested for common assault on July 4, a day after he was seen hurling a glass and a sheaf of documents in the direction of Leung, who was attending a question-and-answer session.

His action came as 23 pan-democrat lawmakers demonstrated against Leung as he entered the chamber. They called for "genuine" universal suffrage in the 2017 chief executive election, with direct voting for candidates and no screening by Beijing. The glass missed Leung and shattered on the floor behind him.

The chief executive later said he regarded Wong's action as an escalation of violence in Legco. The incident prompted Leung's office to call the police to the chamber for the first time since the handover in 1997. Officers were later seen collecting evidence in the chamber.

Wong said yesterday he did not know whether police would continue to pursue the case against him. "I'm not playing games with them now. Why waste my time coming to report every month? It's a joke," he said.

A source close to the case said that police were seeking legal advice from the Department of Justice about possible prosecution. Wong said he did not think that the police would find enough evidence to take him to court.

(SCMP) August 20, 2015.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying will be the prosecution’s first witness in the trial of a lawmaker accused of assaulting the city’s leader, according to a legal document.

Pro-democracy legislator Wong Yuk-man today pleaded not guilty at Eastern Court to one count of common assault on Leung in Hong Kong on July 3 last year as he made his first appearance in court since he was arrested on Tuesday.

Wong is the first lawmaker to be charged over an assault on the city’s chief since the handover in 1997.

In court today, Wong said it was “not a crime to protest”, when he was asked to make a plea. “This is not a platform to express your political views,” Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai said, however, before Wong denied the assault charge.

The court did not hear detailed allegations of the charge, including whether it was related to a glass Wong hurled in the Legislative Council chamber on the same day.

A legal document served to Wong by prosecutors shows that one of the exhibit items would be pieces of glass. The document also shows most prosecution witnesses would be from Legco, with Leung the first on the witness list. Also on the witness list were lawmaker Wong Ting-kwong, from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, and Legco staff, including security guards.

A group of supporters yelled slogans with Wong outside the court.

In a hurry, Wong then took a taxi to Kowloon City Court to support pro-democracy activist Cheng Kam-mun, who was today jailed for three weeks for obstructing a police officer in a Christmas stunt last year.

(TVB, with video) July 3, 2014. The incident inside the Legislative Council in which legislator Raymond Wong Yuk-man threw a glass cup of water that missed the Chief Executive CY Leung.

(i-Cable.com) https://youtu.be/e0x6F9KU7wY News report.

Internet comment:

- Look, the glass cup did not hit CY Leung. So how can this be common assault?
- I throw a glass cup containing acid from the 12th floor down onto the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall. The glass broke, the acid spread but miraculously nobody was hurt. So how can this be common assault?

- If I used a sniper's rifle to fire a shot at the President and I missed everything, then this is not murder. It is only attempted murder.
- Under Hong Kong law, using a gun is a serious matter (see Cap 238 Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance). Under Section 22:

Section 22: Dangerous or reckless use of firearm etc.

(1) A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discharges or otherwise deals with any arms or ammunition in a manner likely to injure, or endanger the safety or, any person or property or with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 7 years.

- This is not a case of common assault because Wong Yuk-man was not throwing at CY Leung. Never in the history of pan-democratic politics has a pan-democrat ever attempted to assault a government official. They only put up the posture of doing so for the benefit of the television cameras, but they never ever make actual contact. This is the code of conduct for pan-democratic politicians.
- The point of this prosecution is to make Wong Yuk-man admit that he had no intention of hitting CY Leung. This will put an end to all the talk about "valiant resistance" and "fighting tyranny with force."

- (Wikipedia) Common assault

Common assault ... is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant. It was thought to include battery.

What is the difference between Assault and Battery?

Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault. Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.

- (SCMP) A Mandela lesson for Wong Yuk-man? Alex Lo. December 12, 2013.

"Do you know who I am, little girl? I'm Wong Yuk-man. Would I take it back?"

A hapless female reporter provoked this arrogant response, broadcast on Cable TV, from the boisterous pan-democrat after she asked if he would retract his "petrol bomb" remark against Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. Bully boy Wong has been embroiled in a row with the government ever since he said in the legislature that people would start throwing petrol bombs and not eggs at officials like Lam.

Now he claims he wasn't making a threat, only sounding a warning about the direction the government's "fake consultation" on political reform was going. It was only the news media that were misreporting him and we all know the newspapers in Hong Kong are, to use his own word, "degenerate".

Let's accept Wong's self-justification for a moment despite all his screaming and shouting at Lam in Legco. At the very least, he shows complete contempt for Lam - and absolute moral certainty that he alone is right. A reader asked me to forward to Wong a speech by Ravi Zacharias, the evangelical speaker, on the death of Nelson Mandela. But why bother? Such sentiment is completely alien to someone as full of himself as Wong.

"I mourn the loss of not just a person, but an example for all politicians," Zacharias said. "Where are the leaders like him today? Many of those who are eulogising him have evidently not learned from him. He bore no hatred towards his oppressors. When he acquired freedom he did not ask the oppressed to 'go and vote for revenge'. He did not use the microphone to whip up hostility, division and frenzy or go on diatribes blaming his predecessors for doing everything wrong. He did not use language that some in the media do, verbiage that is too vulgar to even repeat. He wanted to correct society, not penalise or pollute it. He won supporters to his side with grace and dignity, not by bullying."

The greatest strength that Mandela had, in my opinion, was his ability to show respect and courtesy even to his most implacable enemies. Mandela the statesman, according to a recent biographer, always got up when someone entered the room, even if it was just the tea lady. Does Wong shout at his domestic helper?

- There is an adage in Hong Kong: "精人動口﹐蠢人動手 Smart people use their mouth, stupid people use their hands." Raymond Wong Yuk-man is smart, he talks loud but he never does anything. The following case are two stupid people who actually did something and paid for it.

(Oriental Daily) Occupy Mong Kok affected the work of two men who tossed eggs at Joshua Wong. August 19, 2015.

On November 27, 2014, Scholarism convener Joshua Wong attended a hearing at the Kowloon City Court. Two men tossed eggs at him outside the courthouse. The two men were charged with common assault. Both pleaded guilty, and were each fined $3,000.

Defendant Lee Wong is a 27-year-old dim sum chef. At the time of the incident, he was a transportation worker whose livelihood was affected by the Occupy Mong Kok people and therefore he committed the act. Defendant Cheung Ka-shing is a 33-year-old transportation also claimed that he tossed the egg because his work was impacted by Occupy Mong Kok.

(EJinsight) August 20, 2015.

In 2009, celebrated author Haruki Murakami made a controversial trip to Jerusalem to accept a literary award amid calls by rights activists to boycott the event in protest of Israel’s recent bombing of Gaza. He said: “Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg.”

Many critics and fans were puzzled by his words. Murakami later explained that the wall represents the system, while the egg represents the people who stand against it. Apparently, he was assailing the Israeli government for its policies that oppress the Palestinian people.

We recall his words because in Hong Kong, throwing eggs at public figures could result in different court rulings, implying that the workings of our legal system depend on the personalities involved.

On Wednesday, two men who threw eggs at student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung were fined HK$3,000 each by the Kowloon City Court. Transport workers Li Wong and Cheung Ka-shing had pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault, noting that last year’s Occupy protests, of which Wong was a leader, affected their business.

In passing sentence, Magistrate Eric Cheung said the fact that the defendants assaulted Wong right outside the court building had aggravated the gravity of the offense. But it seemed to many that the fines imposed by the magistrate were quite lenient.

In November last year, pro-democracy activist Derek Chan Tak-cheung was sentenced to three weeks in jail for throwing an egg at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah during a political forum in 2013.

In his defense, Chan cited Murakami’s speech, portraying himself as an egg against the high wall of people in power. He said the act of throwing an egg at the financial secretary was an exercise of his freedom of expression against the wall. But Magistrate So Wai-tak of the Eastern Magistry Court was not impressed, and ruled that there was “no room or justification for reduction” of Chan’s sentence.

And so we are faced with the same offense resulting in two sorts of punishments. What could have been the difference between the two cases?

In one case, two workers committed the act to express their anger at a mass action led by a student activist for disrupting their business, and in the other, an activist committed the same act to protest against a top government official?

The only obvious difference is that the lighter punishment went to the case where the victim is a student activist while the jail term was imposed in the case where the victim is a top government official.

An expert in the legal profession said court rulings differ from case to case and depend on the magistrate’s own judgement, in which case it may not appropriate to compare the two cases. However, from the viewpoint of democracy advocates, the judgement on Joshua Wong’s case shows that the justice system in Hong Kong is not treating everyone equally.

It appears that the government is quite keen on using the legal system as a tool to advance its political agenda, the latest example of which is the arrest of several student leaders for their role in the storming of the Civic Square outside the Central Government Offices in September last year.

The government has decided to charge student leaders Alex Chow Yong-kang, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Joshua Wong with inciting other people to join an unlawful assembly, joining an unlawful assembly, or both. They have been invited to report to the police next week.

What the public is concerned about is that the police have been investigating the Occupy Movement for so long, but decided to file charges only now, or almost a year after the protests. That’s why Chow describes the police action as “an act of oppression”.

Chow believes the filing of charges is only the start of the government’s “revenge” against the protesters who challenged what he called “a small circle election” proposed by the central and the Hong Kong governments for 2017. He also expects the police to target more protesters who took part in last year’s Occupy Movement.

Some political analysts noted that the government action came before the protesters could once again gather outside the government headquarters in late September to commemorate the first anniversary of the Occupy Movement, as well as to prevent them from staging mass actions before the District Council elections in November.

It is quite clear that the government is using the charges to limit the student leaders’ freedom in pursuing a new round of protests. The timing is quite suspicious.

However, the Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung dismissed the allegations. He said it was unfair to accuse the authorities of harboring political considerations whenever high-profile student activists or legislators are charged.

“Prosecutions by the Department of Justice are not influenced by the District Council or any other election,” Yuen said. “I can assure you that when my colleagues from the prosecutions division and I make any decision, we do not include any political considerations.”

His response is understandable. But if the government wants to win back the public’s trust, they should show fairness in handling cases involving political personalities.

For example, they should file charges against the seven police officers accused of beating up pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu in Admiralty in October last year. Why can’t they do that immediately? Are they buying time until the case fades away in the public eye? With the government’s questionable handling of cases, the public can’t help getting suspicious.

(SCMP) October 28, 2015.

A man who admitted throwing eggs at student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung outside a court building could be in more trouble after failing to appear before a magistrate for sentencing yesterday. Li Wong, 27, did not turn up at Kowloon City Court, where he was supposed to hear his sentence for flinging eggs at Wong outside the same court in November last year.

His lawyer Paul Kwong Wai-chuen said he had been unable to contact his client for a week and had not received any instruction to the effect that Li wanted to cease his legal representation. Magistrate Dr Eric Cheung Kwan-ming decided not to issue an arrest warrant yet, citing the possibility that the defendant could have been in hospital.

He adjourned the sentencing of Li and his co-accused Cheung Ka-shing, 33, who did attend court yesterday, to November 6. Should Li fail to turn up again, the magistrate said, he would face an arrest warrant.

Li and Cheung Ka-shing pleaded guilty to one count each of common assault at an earlier hearing in August and were fined HK$3,000 each. But prosecutors took their sentence back to court for a review, complaining that the court failed to take into consideration the elements of "premeditation" and "lynching". The prosecutors argued earlier that a person rarely turned up on a street with eggs on them. They cited a case in which activist Derek Chan Tak-cheung, of the League of Social Democrats, was jailed three weeks for throwing an egg at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah.

The case centres on an incident on November 27 last year, at the height of the 79-day Occupy sit-ins for democracy, in which Wong was a key player. The student activist appeared at the same court to face a charge of obstructing a bailiff during the clearance of the Mong Kok protest zone. Wong came under attack when he left the court premises with his lawyer, Michael Vidler.

The court heard earlier that Li and Cheung darted along Argyle Street towards the Hospital Authority building and hurled the eggs, leaving stains on Wong's clothes. They were apprehended near the authority's offices. In mitigation earlier, the pair claimed the Occupy protests had affected their work in the transport industry.

(Apple Daily) November 6, 2015.

The two men who threw eggs at Joshua Wong were fined $3,000 each. Afterwards, the Department of Justice appealed for a heavier sentence.

According to the lawyers for the two defendants, they pleaded guilty under the law but they do not accept that they did anything morally wrong. They pointed out that this was not a personal feud, because Occupy Central affected many people such that perhaps millions of people wanted to throw eggs at Joshua Wong too. Since Wong is a public person who makes public appearance, the magistrate should impose a sentence that acts as a deterrent. The act of throwing an egg was not invented by these two individuals, because they were merely imitating Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung to throw "eggs at the high wall."

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 9, 2015.

Two men who threw eggs at student activist Joshua Wong will each face two weeks in jail after a court review of the sentence on Monday.

Li Wong, 27 and Cheung Ka-shing, 33 were originally fined HK$3000 after being found guilty of common assault in August, a sentence that Wong said did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime. The prosecution then asked the court to review the sentence.

The magistrate sentenced the pair at the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Court on Monday, saying that the crime was premeditated and of a serious nature. He also said that the two men had a high chance of being re-offenders and that the sentence should have a deterrent effect.

The magistrate said that according to the report, community service was not recommended for the pair, because Li had been absent four times for appointments with the probation officer. This showed he did not regret his actions. Cheung had also been uncooperative and unrepentant.

The court also rejected the defence counsel’s argument that a lighter sentence should be handed out because League of Social Democrat lawmaker Derek Chan Tak-cheung had also once thrown eggs at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah.

In addition to the sentence, the pair had to pay HK$120 in cleaning fees to a lawyer who had been accidentally hit by parts of the egg. Li also had to pay an extra fine of HK$1,500 for violating terms of his parole.

Li and Cheung threw eggs at Wong outside the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Court last November. They were said to have committed the crime because their income had been affected by the pro-democracy Occupy protests last year.

[302] The Lead-in-Water Challenge Test (2015/08/16)

(Oriental Daily) August 15, 2015.

Previously, the City University Student Union analyzed water on the 3rd and 7th floors of the Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre, and found lead levels that exceeded acceptable standards. Today, Student Union representatives presented City University president Way Kuo with a bottle of water taken from the Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre and asked the university pay proper attention to the lead-in-water issue.

According to the photo posted at the Facebook of the City University Student Union, a representative of the Student Union invited Way Kuo to bottled water from the Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre. Afterwards, the Student Union said that the security guard cautioned them that they cannot coerce the president to drink the water. The Student Union said said that one should not do unto others what they don't want others to do to them. They wanted the university to provide a water truck as well as bottled water at the Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre.

According to the Student Union, the university insists that the lead-in-water levels were only slightly above the acceptable standard. Therefore they deliberately invited the president to drink water in front of the incoming students, giving the president the opportunity to prove that the water was safe. However, the president was evasive and only took the bottle without drinking from it immediately. The Student Union said that they will test more water samples and, if the university refuses to face up to the issue, they do not exclude the possibility of taking further action.

Internet comments:

- Just because a person who says that she is a student hands you an opened bottle of water, you must drink it? Just because she says that the water came from the Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre, you can trust her? What if this was urine? What if this was spiked with LSD/Ecstasy to make a fool out of you? What if it is Dushuqiang rat poison?
- Even children are told not to accept food/drinks from strangers.
- Even university students should know that when a stranger offers you a drink, you should be wary that this could be laced with date rape drug.

- What kind of university student goes to school carrying a megaphone? Enquiring minds want to know.
- This is the new fashion wear for Hong Kong university students.

- As president of City University, Way Kuo is there to serve the students. So when a student orders him to drink, he must drink. Since he refused on this occasion, he hates freedom, democracy, human rights, rule-of-law, universal suffrage, self-determination/autonomy. Therefore, Way Kuo must go!

- What if Way Kuo says: "If I drink this whole bottle, are you guys going to shut up on this matter?" Of course the students will immediately become non-committal and shifty ("well, it depends ...").

- What if Way Kuo drinks the bottle of water and doesn't drop dead? Are the students going to drink that water too? If they won't, then this proves that the whole issue is a red herring.

- Way Kuo is probably quite willing to drink the water, but on his own conditions. That is to say, he can invited a group of reporters to accompany him to the Run Run Shaw Creative Media Centre and drink the water from there. Then everything will be documented and shown on evening television news. But the Student Union is going to accuse him of staging a media circus and disrespecting the students.

- Just to be clear: the students don't object to a media circus per se; it is just that they have to be ones who stage it with their own scripted outcome. Otherwise they will throw a hissy fit.

- If Way Kuo drank the water this time, the students will come back and force him to drink Dongjiang water, then eat pork, then drink powdered baby milk ... They won't ever stop, because all they want is to humiliate the university president.

- The reason why Way Kuo won't drink the water is that he does not trust anything from any self-proclaimed student. That is the gist of the problem -- you can't trust the so-called students anymore.
- The reason why you won't take tap water at a restaurant and why you only drink from unopened bottles is about trust.

- The Student Union acknowledged that the university president responded that the university has a working group looking into the matter. So it is not as if the university is sitting pat and doing nothing. It is the Student Union which wants to politicize the matter, to create an issue which is already being worked on. They only want a photo of the university president declining to drink from an opened bottle of water, and that proves without a doubt that the water is lethally dangerous.

- This is yet another case of the damage caused by a tofu-dreg project awarded corruptly to Chinese Communists.
- City University of Hong Kong was founded in 1984 under British colonial administration. If you think that the pipes contain too much lead, you should blame the British colonial government and not the Chinese Communists.
- The British colonial government even allowed leaded gasoline, so that lead was everywhere in the air. That only stopped after the Chinese Communists took Hong Kong back.
- Excuse me, but how do the Chinese Communists come into this? I don't see any Chinese Communists, but I do see the hatred in your heart.
- Interesting. Most of Hong Kong's drinking water comes from the Dongjiang River in China. Are you drinking it now? Even if you say that you only drink Evian, Dongjiang River water shows up in your food. Lead-in-water does not go away by boiling.

- The City University administration is much hated by the students because of this: (SCMP) Pro-democracy academic Joseph Cheng Yu-shek demoted by Hong Kong’s City University. May 27, 2015.

A pro-democracy academic at City University has vowed to appeal over the conduct of an investigation by the university that led to his demotion just three months before he was to retire. Professor Joseph Cheng Yu-shek, who is the convenor of the Alliance for True Democracy, said he expected to face pressure because of his political involvement, but he stopped short of accusing the university of punishing him for his activism.

Cheng said yesterday that the decision to demote him from a chair professor to a regular professor was made in March, after several months of investigation into allegations in July that he took the credit for his former research assistant's work in articles published in academic journals more than a decade ago. He was also accused in August of copying an article written by his colleague Dr Jermain Lam Tak-man on the Occupy movement before the protests broke out.

"The [university] did not say I plagiarised, but said I did not use the highest standard" on the work in question, said Cheng, a scholar in the university's department of public policy. "I do not accept this decision as I think I have done nothing wrong."

He insisted he had listed all the sources, and he blamed a university procedure he described as irregular for the decision to demote him. But he did not elaborate because the complaint must be kept confidential. "I have expected this kind of pressure because of my political involvement," Cheng said.

The alliance, an umbrella group of pan-democrats, put forward a three-track proposal to allow the public, political parties and the nominating committee to put forward candidates for the 2017 chief executive election.

A CityU spokeswoman said the two independent committees had completed their investigations and submitted reports to the university's disciplinary committee for follow-up action. "The committee made a decision after a thorough review and informed the provost and Professor Cheng in early March about the decision," she said. "Following established practice, the university will not disclose details to protect individual privacy."

Cheng Man-lung, who worked for Joseph Cheng between September 2002 and January 2003, said in July his former boss inappropriately took lead-author credit on three articles published in 2003 and 2004.

All Joseph Cheng Yu-shek did was commit some run-of-the-mill academic plagiarism and the university went after him. Academic plagiarism is wrong in most cases, but not when the plagiarist is a pro-democracy activist. This was a blatant case of political persecution.

- City University is no longer a member of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (see #237). That referendum was lost thanks to the ham-fisted performance of the Student Union clowns.

[301] Tianjin's Hell on Earth (2015/08/14)

(SCMP) Tianjin's hell on earth as huge chemical blasts decimate Chinese port, killing at least 55. August 14, 2015.

The death toll in Wednesday's huge chemical blast in the Chinese port city of Tianjin has risen to 55, including 17 firefighters, as environmentalists warned that rain forecast to fall today could transfer toxic air-borne chemicals into nearby waterways.

Two massive explosions - one with the force of 21 tonnes of TNT detonating - shortly after 11.30pm on Wednesday in Ruihai International Logistics' hazardous goods warehouse sent huge fireballs into the air.

The city government said 701 people were receiving treatment in hospitals and 71 remained in critical conditions. Four Hongkongers were among the injured and two remained in hospital.

The fire in Tianjin, 140km southeast of Beijing, spread across 20,000 square metres of an industrial park in the city's port. Tall plumes of grey and white smoke and a pungent smell lingered more than a day after the blast, requiring rescue personnel and journalists to wear protective masks. Cargo containers and thousands of vehicles nearby were blown apart, flipped or burnt down. Windows on office and apartment buildings kilometres away were shattered.

The Beijing Times said there were at least 700 tonnes of sodium cyanide, a toxic chemical often used in mining to extract gold, in wooden boxes and metal containers at the blast site. Some of the chemical had been detected in a ditch, suggesting leakage.

Residents said they had difficulty breathing, but authorities said the level of six air pollutants in the city remained acceptable. Authorities predicted the prevailing wind would blow pollutants towards the Bohai Sea, away from Beijing. Witnesses described the blast site as "hell on earth". Some had initially wondered whether the blast was caused by an earthquake or even a nuclear bomb. A 66-year-old man who lives on the 13th floor of a residential building within 1.5km of the site said the blast was worse than an earthquake that killed more than 240,000 people decades ago. "We lived through the Tangshan earthquake in 1976, but last night's explosion was even more horrific. After the deafening sound, the shockwaves came and windows flew out," said the man, who hid in the corner of a room with his wife until firefighters came before 3am to fetch them.

A 55-year-old woman said she was literally blown off her bed by the shockwaves. "Even elevator doors within our building were deformed," she said. Her family escaped from their apartment building and spent the night on the street before being directed to a resettlement camp and barred from returning to their home.

The Beijing News said more than 36 fire fighters were missing; 17 were confirmed dead. More than 6,000 residents were evacuated and half were still waiting to be directed to resettlement spots. More than 1,000 medical staff, including some specialists in burns and orthopaedics from 10 local hospitals had been deployed, according to Tianjin city government officials at a press conference. More than 1,000 officers from the city's fire brigade were dispatched and about 400 members of China's paramilitary forces were helping with the relief and rescue efforts. The head of the Tianjin fire service said they had received alerts from local residents before 11pm.

Photos:

Explosions shock China's Tianjin port The Big Picture, Boston Globe

Videos:

Compilation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBH-S2F6ajY Nighttime videos of explosions

Compilation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJxrhOQzTk From CCTV 13, Sina Weibo, Tencent Video

Weibo Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHQPX2TJPQc Nighttime video of explosions

Youku https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUBmWORajyE Nightime drone video

Youku https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXwhF69rbbg Evacuation after initial explosions

CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-6ZN3FjcIo Reporter being surrounded at hospital

DBC.HK via Tencent (China) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwDyJhydrFc Drone video of scene

DBC.HK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8yMf8uBp8g Highway at dawn

CCTV Channel 13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKR4mf_Una0 Drone video on national television news report

Legal System Evening News (Beijing) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDL9NE-y1A Drone video on news report

Legal System Evening News (Beijing) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQWtgWVDel4 Drone video on news report

(HKG Pao) Tianjin Explosion became the subject of jokes? An apple a day makes you cold-blooded? August 14, 2015.

The Tianjin explosion has led to numerous casualties as the Chinese people mourn. But at Apple Daily (Hong Kong)'s Facebook page for this news story, there was a large number of gloating and celebratory comments. How do people get to think and feel this way? Does reading Apple Daily make them cold-blooded? Here is a sample:

David Li: They got it coming.

Tsui Gallant: We thank God the Father for continuing to punish the evil Chinamen. Those who deserve hell go to hell and do no more evil on earth. The people of Hong Kong thank God for his magnificent miracle, amen.

Franklin Leung: Shouldn't there be 500 dead?

Choi Leung: I don't know what else to say other than "Congratulations"! Let's all drink to it!

Don Tam: The next disaster is likely to be the military parade on September 3rd.

Wong Mingming: Where is the next explosion going to occur? It is a whole month before the military parade. Shijiazhuang? Shenyang? Changchun? Or Taiyuan?

Paulo Chiang: May God let the four Hongkongers recover soon. Let the Chinese government enjoy the ten plagues from God.

Peter Siu: In Tianjin, they have the buns known as "Even dogs won't eat it." Now not even people won't live there.

Keith Li. Although this is in bad taste, I still have to ask Paula Tsui to sing congratulations.

Sauman Lui: What is going on? Tianjin explosions, a sinkhole in Dongguan, another explosion in Liaoning. Is this manmade or natural? Is this the end of the world in China? Are the heavens punishing them?

Dave Wong: Paula Tsui take over please.

Chor Shing Wong: Strong Nation's poison gas is not poisonous.

Don Tam: I am deeply concerned for the foreigners living there!

Pok Saiman: As a young democratic country, it is reasonable to donate money to a neighboring country. Hong Kong should donate quickly for disaster relief in their neighboring country.

Louis Danny: Hongkongers will be dead without Chinese aid. They won't have any food to eat. So don't ask Hongkongers to donate money. The mainland visitors are loaded with cash. They can take care of their own. The Hong Kong government should not offer any money.

Leo Ho: The good gets rewarded and the evil gets punished. The only question is whether this takes place sooner or later.

Chun Fu Lung: When will it be the turn for Zhongnanhai, the National People's Congress or Government House (Hong Kong)?

Chan Dickie: There are no explosions in China! Congratulations!

Michael Choi: No need to be afraid: With the Party around, there will be no casualties.

Andrew Au: Dear God, please kill the Chinamen by exploding them.

CK Ma: They will get used to the explosions as they occur over time.

Travis Barker Chan: China is an advanced country. The Chinese people are wealthy. Anyone who donates money to China is looking down on them. Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau are too poor. They can only send their prayers. Even if the Chinese all die, the Party will still be there.

Jason Tsang: The Chinese people are so proud. When people criticize their country, they retort that they are number one in the world. So now people are dead! They deserve to die! Do you know -- they deserve to die?

Wan Ho Chan: The mainlanders are getting what is due! I hope that you remember how you treat Hong Kong! You invaded and occupied us for 18 years. This is what is due!

Gi Tony: This is just rumors coming from foreign media! They were just setting off fireworks to celebrate the victory in the War of Resistance. They want to destroy our country. We are a strong nation in rising. Our annual GDP has surpassed the sun and chasing down the universe. These foreign imperialists are jealous of our correctness, happiness, joy, equality and wealth under the selfless socialism of Communist paradise!

Chun KA Chan: 700 dead, 50 injured, 4 survivors from Hong Kong

Lam Ka Wai: We the people of Hong Kong don't have much money or many people. Your China has lots of people and lots of money. So the people of Hong Kong aren't needed. You can save yourselves.

Chow Sun-hang: Stop cursing the Chinamen pigs. A happy mushroom festival to them.

Chan Ka Chun: Bomb Beijing as well.

Kin Fai Chap: A nation rises up amidst disasters. It is lucky to be a citizen. Post-disaster reconstruction will raise the GDP even more. We should celebrate this.

(HKG Pao)

Chinamen fucking blew up Tianjin in order to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima atomic bomb

CY Leung welcomes Godzilla to Tianjin

Latest news: Hong Kong Chief Executive 689 dead in Tianjin explosure.
Sad. Let's have three seconds of silence.
Let us set up a memorial by the roadside with his photo.
May the 689 dog never reach the next life.
As the saying goes, dust to dust, ashes to ashes.
We shouldn't be fucking his mother.

Terence Ng: Why didn't they kill all 1.4 billion people in China! Such a shame!

Crystal Yeung: Those locusts have done too many bad things! May the heavens continue to rain disasters on them. The best thing would be to annihilate their country and exterminate their race.

Ken Ken: Such is the state of things. They should feel glorious to sacrifice themselves! They fucking deserve it! This is better than watching fireworks. They fucking deserve it!

Sosad Leung: Only a few locust Chinamen died. Compared to the total, this is not a lot!

Phoenix Lau: I'll laugh aloud ... I'll even sing.

Kui Kwok: I feel particularly good today.

Eric Yung: RIP to a lot of slaves. What is there to be happy about? But if these were Communist Chinamen, we should celebrate.

Internet comments:

- The key to success for a media organization is that it should be an emotional product that the users have a strong emotional bond with. Apple Daily relies on the emotion known as HATE. If you hate China and its people, you will get your daily fix from Apple Daily.
- But when your emotional product is based upon HATE, advertisers will stay away in droves. Who wants to advertise in this editorial environment? Who wants their products associated with HATE.

- Apple Daily logic: With CY Leung in charge, Hong Kong is going to be Tianjin next.
- Indeed, we need to have universal suffrage so that we can have things like the Bhopal disaster in India or the Kaoshiung gas explosions in Taiwan.

- But at least those Indians and Taiwanese died happily knowing that they have FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY/HUMAN RIGHTS/UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE/RULE OF LAW.

- Schadenfreude? This is easy to do. For example, the New York Times reported: Typhoon Soudelor Kills 6 in Taiwan and Leaves Millions Without Power. How hard is it to turn this in yet another Act of God?

- According to Apple Daily, news of the Tianjin explosion was blacked out in the media. They said that the local Tianjian television stations continued to broadcast Korean dramas instead of covering the incident. So who is being cold-blooded here?

- When Apple Daily reports something, you actually believe it!? The reality is this: All those news reports that you see in Hong Kong and Taiwan did not come from those media outlets having reporters at the scene. Those news reports used coverage coming from mainland news organizations, but without acknowledging the sources. See, for example, the photos at CCTV. Also a search of "Tianjin"+"explosion" at Baidu resulted in 5,380,000 results at this time.

- At worst, the pro-China newspapers won't report on the incident. But Apple Daily is worse because they write fictional reports.

- The reason why Chinese newspapers are careful in their reporting is that they don't want to say anything that is untrue. You can imagine an enthusiastic reporter reporting from outside the hospital: "According to the taxi cab driver who took me here, thousands of people have already died but their bodies were immediately incinerated by the authorities ..." However, Apple Daily does not mind these hearsays. In fact, they depend on them. There were also photographs taken from past disaster scenes (such as the Wenchuan earthquake) including bloody gruesome casualties.

- (Xinmin) More than 360 Weibo/WeChat accounts have been eliminated for spreading rumors about the Tianjin explosion. These included rumors such as "the poisonous gas cloud is now moving towards Beijing," "not a single survivor within a one-mile radius" and "supermarkets are being looted." They also included solicitations for sending donations towards disaster relief care of their personal bank accounts.

- Jimmy Lai: Listen you idiots, have you ingested your dose of poisonous fruit today?

- Every time that an incident results in numerous casualties, these Christians praise the Lord for punishing the evil and rewarding the good. On August 6, 1945, the Lord was particularly just for letting 146,000 Japanese citizens perish in Hiroshima. That was not enough for the Lord, because He let another 80,000 Japanese citizens perish in Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

- Praise the Lord! God bless America!

- (Oriental Daily) August 15, 2015. At around 10am, a 46-year-old woman named Yeung was hit by a taxi near the intersection of To Kwa Wan Road and Lok Shan Road. She bounced off the taxi and fell to the ground with her head hitting the ground first. She lost consciousness immediately. Many pedestrians rushed over and held umbrellas to form a ring around her to shield her from the pouring rain. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital. She is in serious condition.

These pedestrians are being praised for being authentic Hongkongers. But if these are Yellow Ribbons, their first action would be to check whether this woman is a mainland middle-aged fenake locust. If she is not, they will offer assistance. If she is, they will ask Paula Tsui to sing congratulations.

- First we got CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-6ZN3FjcIo Reporter being surrounded at hospital.

Now we get: (ECNS)

Quick to blame Chinese officials for forcing its correspondent off air while he reported on the deadly Tianjin blasts, CNN has now retracted its rash comments, but no outright apology has been forthcoming.

The U.S.-based cable news network on Thursday tweeted that its correspondent Will Ripley was interrupted during a live report "by upset friends and relatives of victims killed and injured in the China blasts."

An earlier CNN tweet claiming Ripley was "shut down by officials" while reporting from outside a hospital where many of the survivors of the warehouse blasts are being treated, has been deleted. The incorrect report by one of the world's most powerful media outlets unleashed a torrent of criticism of the Chinese government for its treatment of the foreign press in reporting the tragic events. Reporters from many other international media houses were also reporting in Tianjin.

Local Chinese authorities have confirmed that no government officials had been involved in Thursday morning's scuffle. "We express regrets over this," Gong Jiansheng, a local publicity official, told reporters.

It was not clear why friends and relatives of the victims interrupted Ripley, but in China, the death of a relative is regarded as a deeply personal family matter, and media exposure is seen as intrusive and hugely disrespectful to the dead.

- In America, we are deeply disrespectful of the dead all the time. The Chinese should adopt our universal standards.

- (Sky Post) The Difference Between Man and Beast. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 18, 2015.

... When I read those Internet comments, I felt a chill in my heart.

You have the right to detest CY Leung, you have the right to hate the Communist Party, you have the right to deny that you are Chinese, but you shouldn't let those hatreds turn yourself into a beast.

An Internet user said: "I don't know why, but I couldn't find any sympathy." Let me tell you why: It's because you've lost your humanity. Only beasts remain unmoved by the deaths of their own kind. They even go and feed on the flesh and bones.

Who would hate the ocean just because of the sting of one jellyfish? When you get hurt, you should gain some wisdom as opposed to losing your humanity. When a person no longer has any conscience, why talk about democracy and ideals?

In the previous national disasters, Hongkongers were united. Some donated money, some worked as volunteers and some merely left sympathetic comments for the victims and the rescuers. Today, China is prosperous and its people are strong whereas Hong Kong is in trouble. It's okay if you don't want to offer any money or effort. But you should save your unkind words, because your Schadenfreude can only bounce back to hurt yourself someday.

This affair has let me see that this has gone beyond being patriotic versus unpatriotic. This is about being human versus beast.

- Here is more about cold-hearted Yellow Ribbons: (HKG Pao) August 20, 2015.

19-year-old British law student and Hong Kong resident Vivian Chan Wing-yan was among those killed in the Bangkok bombing. It was disclosed that her mother was a former senior inspector in the Hong Kong Police force.

On Facebook, a user named Karl Hoo wrote on the page "Self-determination of destiny": "The mother was a pok gai, so the daughter suffered.

On Facebook, another user named Cheung Ray wrote: "In order to demonstrate that I am kind-hearted, I hope that she was blown to smithereens when she died. If she were merely burned to death, I would still think that it was terrible. When you are the daughter of a police officer/_\, you know that you are going to have to pay for it sooner or later/_\."

Previously, Cheung Ray had boasted on Facebook about kicking an elderly female beggar.

It turns out according to later information that while the mother was a former policewoman, the daughter was a Yellow Ribbon herself. So was she punished by the Heavens for being a Yellow Ribbon, or for her mother's presumed sins as a policewoman?

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

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

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

District	Area (hectares)	Population	Median HH Income	Total # of councilors	# Pro-establishment	# Pan-democrats	# Independent
Central & Western District	1,252	250,000	$35,000	18	14	4	0
Wan Chai	976	160,000	$34,000	13	11	2	0
Eastern District	1,890	580,000	$27,800	43	37	5	1
Southern District	3,895	280,000	$28,000	20	15	5	0
Yau Tsim Wong	655	300,000	$23,600	20	18	2	0
Sham Shui Po	1,047	380,000	$18,000	24	17	7	0
Kowloon City	997	380,000	$24,600	25	20	5	0
Wong Tai Sin	926	420,000	$20,000	29	20	9	0
Kwun Tong	1,130	640,000	$19,000	39	33	6	0
Tsuen Wan	6,000	300,000	$26,900	21	17	4	0
Tuen Mun	8,445	480,000	$21,000	34	25	9	0
Yuen Long	14,430	570,000	$22,000	42	38	4	0
North District	137	305,000	$22,300	24	23	1	0
Tai Po	14,800	300,000	$26,500	23	19	3	1
Sai Kung	12,680	440,000	$30,800	29	18	9	2
Sha Tin	6,940	630,000	$26,000	43	35	8	0
Kwai Tsing	2,230	520,000	$19,600	35	20	15	0
Islands	17,600	140,000	$25,000	21	19	2	0
TOTAL				503	399	100	4

District	Number of seats	Number of actual pan-democrat seats	Number of pan-democrats according to 2012 Legco votes	Predicted outcome
Central & Western District	15	4	13	Pan-democratic majority
Wan Chai	11	0	10	Pan-democratic majority
Eastern District	37	5	30	Pan-democratic majority
Southern District	17	5	13	Pan-democratic majority
Yau Tsim Wong	17	2	17	Completely pan-democratic
Sham Shui Po	21	7	21	Completely pan-democratic
Kowloon City	22	5	21	Pan-democratic majority
Wong Tai Sin	25	5	21	Pan-democratic majority
Kwun Tong	35	2	26	Pan-democratic majority
Tsuen Wan	17	3	13	Pan-democratic majority
Tuen Mun	29	9	23	Pan-democratic majority
Yuen Long	31	4	15	Pro-establishment majority
North District	17	1	13	Pan-democratic majority
Tai Po	19	4	18	Pan-democratic majority
Sai Kung	24	6	15	Pan-democratic majority
Sha Tin	36	8	36	Completely pan-democratic
Kwai Tsing	29	14	27	Pan-democratic majority
Islands	10	2	6	Pan-democratic majority
TOTAL	408	86	322