(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 place. 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 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?

(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?

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, etc."

(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 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.

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.

- 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?

(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.

(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 if 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.

(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 . Centuries later in the Manchurian Dynasty, it is written as . 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.

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

(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!

(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.

- 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.

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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 ..."

(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.

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?

(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.”

(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:

(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.

(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.

1985: 37.5%
1988: 30.3%
1991: 32.5%
1994: 33.1%
1999: 35.82%
2003: 44.06%
2007: 38.83%
2011: 41.49%
2015: 47.01%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Do you support Occupy Central?

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

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

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

5. Do you support filibustering in the Legislative Council?

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

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

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


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

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

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

(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.

(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.

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 viice 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 is born in China.

- The situation is that Hong Kong has one away game left at Qatar on March 24, 2015. Meanwhile China has two home games with Maldives on March 24, 2016 and Qatar on March 29, 2016. So far China and Hong Kong have been defeating the minnow (Bhutan and Maldives), they lose to Qatar and they tie each other. If at the end of the qualifying round, Hong Kong and China are tied on points, the tie breaker will be on goals scored. China has 21 goals and Hong Kong 13. To advance as second-place finisher, Hong Kong must get some points from Qatar. Meanwhile China should beat Maldives easily and they must get the same or more points from Qatar.

- As Group C leader, undefeated Qatar has already qualified. How do you fix the game with them? You can't offer them money because they are flushed with oil cash.

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

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

(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 an