Five men accused of carrying glass bottles and throwing bricks and stones at police during last years Mong Kok riot denied charges of rioting on Friday. The District Court is expected to hear testimony from three senior officers who claimed to have witnessed three of the men throwing bricks, before they chased and arrested them. The two youngest defendants allegedly appear in police footage carrying glass bottles at the front line.

The case centred on clashes between police and 100 protesters most of them wearing face masks at the junction of Soy Street and Fa Yuen Street at about 6.45am on February 9, where the two groups were separated by burning objects.

Assistant director of public prosecutions Derek Lai Kim-wah said some people were seen waving objects like sticks, while others used bricks to hit railings.

Delivery workers Chris Yung Tsz-hin, 18, and Law Ho-yin, 20, and worker Lin Yun-faat, 25, were jointly charged with one count of riot as prosecutors observed they were often seen together on the front line. Leo Chan Siu-kwan, 47, who is unemployed, and travel agent Sung Kwan-wo, 27, each face a separate count of the same charge.

All pleaded not guilty.

Judge Frankie Yiu Fun-che noted that the case rested on three questions: whether there was an unlawful assembly or a riot at the time; whether the defendants were present; and whether they participated.

Prosecutors will summon 15 witnesses. The court heard all five men were arrested in Mong Kok that morning on charges of unlawful assembly and assaulting police. But three of them deny having been at the alleged crime scene, while another defendant demanded prosecutors prove the scene amounted to a riot.

Opening his case, prosecutor Lai took the court through a bundle of stills from police footage to show all five had been present. At the centre of the photo were [Yung and Law], he said as he flipped through the album. We invite the court to compare whether the two men in the photos were the ones sitting in the dock now.

Videos played in court showed police issued repeated warnings for protesters to disperse. On another occasion, protesters were seen hurling objects at police before turning to run, prompting officers to rush forward.

Inspector Wang Lam testified that some of the objects hit his colleagues shields. We had to avoid the flames and flying objects when we advanced, he recalled. I was hit three times, on my left forearm, chest and left thigh.

(Silentmajority.hk) May 12, 2017.

Yesterday the third defendant 47-year-old unemployed man Leo Chan Siu-kwan was late by 10 minutes. Frankie Yiu Fun-che asked Chan's Senior Counsel Randy Shek about it. Shek said that the defendant was held up by traffic problems. The judge said that the case involves several defendants, so that the trial gets held up if one of them is late. If the defendant should be late again, his bail will be revoked in order to guarantee that he will be in court on time in the future.

(Wen Wei Po) May 12, 2017.

In the opening statement, the prosecutor said that there were about 100 persons gathered at the intersection of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street at the time. Most of these people wore surgical masks and held glass bottles and bricks in their hands. There was a pile of garbage on flames which generated a lot of smoke.

Among the five defendants, defendant #1 Yung Tsz-hin and defendant #2 Law Ho-yin stood in the front, holding glass bottles in hand, while defendant #5 Lin Yun-fat held a brick-like object in this hand.

At 710am, the police took action to disperse the crowd. Defendant #5 Lin Yun-fat threw a brick at the police. Senior inspector Li Ka-chim saw it, gave chase and made the arrest. Other police officers saw defendant #3 Chan Shiu-kwan and defendant #4 Sung Kwan-wo threw bricks at them and then fled. The officers subdued and arrested them.

The prosecution showed videos that lasted about 50 minutes, including the videos taken by the police and another video downloaded from the Internet. Chan Siu-kwan and Sung Kwan-wo cannot be seen on the videos, so their case will be based upon the testimonies of the police officers. In these videos, the police repeatedly told the crowd to disperse to no effect.

There was one video in which the man believed to be defendant #4 Sung Kwan-wo being arrested with blood streaming down his face. The police arrested him for throwing rocks at their colleagues. The man believed to be defendant #3 Chan Siu-kwan yelled "I am open and fair. Film me!"

(Oriental Daily) May 15, 2017.

Inspector Wong Lam was cross-examined today. He said that he saw citizens filming alongside the persons in the gathering. Periodically some persons in the gathering also filmed. The Senior Counsel said that when the police dispersed the crowd, there were persons who threw objects as well as persons who were merely filming. Wong said that he couldn't see who was who.

Senior Police Officer Lee Yiu-hung testified that he was on duty at 5am in Mong Kok. He manned the police line near the Bank of China office on Nathan Road. Some rioters threw rocks at the police and set off fires in the streets. Lee and his colleagues used shields to protect themselves and issued verbal warnings. More police reinforcements arrived. Lee and his colleagues pushed the police line to Soy Street near Tung Choi Street. At 8am, Lee and his colleagues intercepted five suspects. Lee arrested defendant #1 Yung Tsz-hin. On Yung's mobile phone, Lee found photos of the unlawful gathering and arson.

Under cross-examination, Lee said that defendant #1 showed him the mobile phone. Lee saw one or two photos showing an unlawful riot. However, Lee does not know whether defendant #1 took those photos or someone else forwarded them. The Senior Counsel for defendant #1 said that defendant #1 told the police that "I just finished eating and I want to take a bus/minibus" and he walked down this street "because there was no other streets opened." Lee said that defendant #1 said that he wanted to find transportation and there was no other way to go, but Lee said that there was no mention of having just eaten.

Another senior police officer Chik Kin-fai said that he manned a police line at Soy Street and Tung Choi Street. Five men looking frightened came at them and tried to sidestep the police line. Chik went up to stop and check them. Defendant #2 told Chik: "Earlier I and my friend were watching people throw rocks and set off fires." Defendant #2 showed two video clips and some photos. One video showed a taxi being destroyed and the other showed several individuals destroying a road sign.

Sergeant Chiu Cheuk-wai testified that at around 7am, he took part to break apart the crowd. Chiu and his colleagues charged from the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street down Soy Street. People threw bricks and glass bottles at them. Chiu saw defendant #3 wearing black cap and grey-colored checkered jacket,  throwing a brick in the direction of a police officer to the right of Chiu and then fleeing into Sai Yee Street. However, defendant #3 was tripped by another person. So Chiu went up to subdue defendant #3. At the time, defendant #3 said: "I have nothing to do with this. I only came here to watch." The defendant's lawyer said that when the  brick-throwing man turned into Sai Yee Street, he would have been out of Chiu's line-of-sight. Chiu disagreed. He said that there was a low concrete curb with a bamboo screen on top at the corner and his line-of-sight was never obstructed.

(Oriental Daily) May 16, 2017.

Sergeant Chan Pak-kan testified that he was on the police line at the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street at around 7am. At the time, 80 to 100 persons were gathered at Fa Yuen Street about 30 to 40 meters away. There was a damaged taxi plus burning fires between the two groups. Some people cursed the police as "Evil Police."

Chan said that he saw defendant #4 Sung Kwun-wo standing on a railing. Sung wore a green jacket, blue jeans, had short hair which was "Gel'd very high." Sung cursed the police: "May the whole families of the Evil Police die!" Then Sung got off the railing and threw a brick at the police. He missed. Chan pointed at Sung and told him not to throw any bricks.

Police officers charged to disperse the crowd. Chan followed them. At the intersection of Sai Yee Street and Soy Street, Sung was subdued by several police officers. He broke free at one point, ran a few steps and was quickly subdued again. Chan went up to offer assistance. At first, Sung was face down on the ground. Then he sat up with blood streaming down his face. Chan believed that Sung was injured in the back of his head. Chan arrested Sung.

On cross-examination, Chan said that the testimony of Chan (namely, shouting "May the whole families of the Evil Police die", Sung throwing a brick when the police advanced and Chan telling Sung not to throw bricks) was not supported by the videos taken by the police. Chan admitted that the videos did not show these details, but he denied that he lied.

The defense said that Chan's notebook, the oral statement and the court testimony contained discrepancies. Chan corrected and said: Before the police pushed forward to disperse the crowd, defendant #4 did throw a brick once. Afterwards defendant #4 was seen carrying a brick in his hand, but Chan did not see him throw it. After the police advanced, the defendant #4 threw another brick.

The defense said that defendant #4 was beaten by 6 to 7 police officers while being subdued. Chan said that his vision angle allowed to see only one police officer hit defendant #4 once. Chan is not sure how many police officers took part.

Internet comments:

- Here is the on.cc video that was submitted into evidence. A screen capture from that video shows some people holding glass bottles in their hands.

- Here are some photos from the on.cc news report. Was there an unlawful gathering or not? Was there a riot or not? What do your lying eyes tell you?

- The argument is not to deny that there was a riot somewhere sometime that night. The argument is whether there was a riot at the precise moment when the defendant was arrested. A short while before that, glass bottles were raining on the police and fires were ablaze in Fa Yuen Street. There was a riot. Then came a short lull. The police organized, charged and arrested certain individuals. Was there a riot anymore?

- (Oriental Daily) Sergeant Chiu Cheuk-wai testified that at around 7am, he took part to break apart the crowd. Chiu and his colleagues charged from the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street down Soy Street. People threw bricks and glass bottles at them. Chiu saw defendant #3 wearing black cap and grey-colored checkered jacket,  throwing a brick in the direction of a police officer to the right of Chiu and then fleeing into Sai Yee Street. However, defendant #3 was tripped by another person. So Chiu went up to subdue defendant #3. At the time, defendant #3 said: "I have nothing to do with this. I only came here to watch." The defendant's lawyer said that when the  brick-throwing man turned into Sai Yee Street, he would have been out of Chiu's line-of-sight. Chiu disagreed. He said that there was a low concrete curb with a bamboo screen on top at the corner and his line-of-sight was never obstructed.

- Unclear? let Google Map help you. You are running down Soy Street chasing after a suspect 30 meters ahead. The suspect reaches the cross street Sai Yee Street and turns left. Do you lose line-of-sight of him?

(SCMP) May 11, 2017.

Hong Kongs annual pro-democracy march on July 1 may be unable to start at Victoria Park because a pro-Beijing group celebrating the 20th anniversary of the citys return to China has been given priority.

Au Nok-hin, convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, queried the decision by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, which is responsible for allocating the venue.

The front applied for use of the six football pitches at the Causeway Park as it has done since 2004.

A department member of staff called us yesterday telling us that they would allocate the football pitches to another group based on an internal guideline, which said if two groups applied for using the same venue at the same time, consideration would be based on the nature of the organisation, Au said on Wednesday. The department had yet to approve the use of the lawn, which would accommodate a much smaller crowd.

It is widely understood that President Xi Jinping will be in Hong Kong that day to mark the anniversary.

Is the government trying to shut out opposing voices when the state leader is in town? Is it only allowing celebrations but no demonstration? I dont rule out political factors are in play, Au said.

The group given use of the parks six football pitches is the Hong Kong Celebrations Association, which is composed of 40 pro-Beijing groups, including business chambers and the Federation of Trade Unions. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Zhang Xiaoming, director of Beijings liaison office in Hong Kong, are the honorary patrons.

The front has used pitches at the park, which can accommodate tens of thousands of people, as the starting point for marches since 2004.

The pro-democracy marches, which have been held since the 1997 handover, became increasingly significant in 2003 after drawing 500,000 protesters against the introduction of a national security law and in the wake of severe acute respiratory syndrome.

The front submitted its application for renting the pitches on the earliest possible date, three months in advance in April. However the department said the association submitted its application to hold a science expo on March 15, before that of the front.

Au said the pro-Beijing association had always leased the pitches in the morning, and the front occupied the area for the march in the afternoon. Now the association has applied to occupy it in the afternoon too obviously they planned to kick us out, Au said.

Tam Yiu-chung, honorary president of the association, said it was reasonable to grant the venue to his group because it was representative. The march can always go elsewhere, he said.

A police insider said the leisure department had sought security advice from the force about the application and there had been no objections. A police spokesman said: Police earlier received a departments request for comments regarding an organisations plan to hold activities at Victoria Park on July 1. Police have already replied to the department.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 11, 2017.

The organisers of Hong Kongs annual July 1 democracy rally have questioned the governments explanation that the protests starting venue Causeway Bays Victoria Park has already been promised to a pro-Beijing group.

The Civil Human Rights Front announced on Wednesday afternoon that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) rejected its application because the Hong Kong Celebrations Association a charity has priority consideration.

Responding to HKFPs enquiries, an LCSD spokesperson told HKFP that it accepted the Associations request in accordance with its published guidelines, since the Association is a registered charity and the Front is not. The department received an application from the Association on March 15 to hold a science and technology exhibition named Innovation Drives the Achievement of Dreams from late June to early July at Victoria Parks six football pitches. 

The spokesperson said the exhibition is part of a series of events celebrating the 20th anniversary of Hong Kongs handover to China. She added that the Front applied for use of the six football pitches, the central lawn and the bandstand under the organisation Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union on April 3 but neither the Front nor the Union are registered charities. If the union chooses to stage an activity at the central lawn and bandstand areas of Victoria Park, the department will reconsider its request, she said. [The department] will take into account factors such as the flow of people, traffic and public order, and consult other government departments for their opinions.

At a press conference on Thursday, Front convener Au Nok-hin agreed that charities have priority over regular organisations, but questioned whether the activities described by the LCSD would be related to charity at all.

The purpose of the Associations activity this time is clear: its to celebrate the handover, said Au. How is celebrating the handover related to charity? Is it donating any money to disadvantaged communities? We dont see that at the moment.

The nature of the activity is an innovation and technology exhibition. How is innovation and technology exhibition related to charity? he asked. There is no way [the Front] can use a registered charity to organise the July 1 rally, because charities cannot organise political rallies.

Au also questioned why the Association was allowed to apply as early as March 15, when the Front was prevented from doing so until April. We told the LCSD before our New Years rally that we wanted to apply for July 1, but officials told us not to talk about it so soon, as the LCSD does not consider applications over three months beforehand.

He asked the LCSD to clarify its claim that the Association had booked the Victoria Park football courts in late June. When we speak about a late period in a month, we usually mean after the 20th day. So when you say the LCSD received an application on March 15 for an event on [June] 20, then this will not have fallen within the three-month timeframe for application.

As the park has been the rallys traditional stating point for many years, Au said there could be factors of uncertainty if people went there and discovered it was holding an exhibition. We dont want to add all this trouble to the police and the public, he said. We dont have a clear Plan B.

Au said the Front applied for the use of Victoria Parks central lawn and bandstand areas again on Wednesday. He said he would also reach out to the Association to try and coordinate their activities together.

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) May 12, 2017.

Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that they have been able to procure the Victoria Park soccer fields as the starting point of their demonstration marches over the years. Thus the rejection of their application this time is unprecedented. He questioned whether the decision was based upon "political considerations" of not wanting citizens to protest against the government. He said: "Only the government officials are allowed to celebrate the handover, but the citizens are not allowed to march."

As long as the Civil Human Rights Front stay within the law, nobody is going to stop them from demonstrating or marching. But the Civil Human Rights Front cannot force the government or other organizations to reserve Victoria Park for their own exclusive use. In this case, the Civil Human Rights Front made procedural mistakes (both in terms of the timing of the application and the identity of the applicant). But they are blaming the government and others for having nefarious purposes.

Actually, why must the Civil Human Rights Front march start off from Victoria Park? Why can't it be Kowloon Park? Tin Shui Wai? Is Victoria Park their exclusive domain? Is the true slogan: "Only the Civil Human Rights Front can march, but nobody else can celebrate the handover"?

The reason why the Civil Human Rights Front seemed so upset is that they want to hype up the July 1st march. At the present time, people are sick of the political fights. Everybody knows that it will be hard to mobilize supporters to come out to march. So instead of reporting five times the number of participants, they might have to report ten times as many. They are using the Victoria Park venue issue to generate the sense of tragedy and mobilize their supporters.

- Demosisto Facebook

First time since the transfer of sovereignty
July 1st march not permitted to assemble in Victoria Park
This year I will definitely march!

- In his press conference, Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that Chief Executive elect Carrie Lam has been talking about a Great Reconciliation on one hand, but she is not letting the Civil Human Rights Front using Victoria Park on the other hand. Therefore Carrie Lam is insincere about the Great Reconciliation.

- Eh, first of all, this supposes that the Chief Executive-elect is already interceding with the Leisure and Cultural Services over the permission to use a sports facility. If so, Carrie Lam must be a very busy beaver with a million things to micro-manage when in fact none of these government departments are reporting to her as yet. She is only the Chief Executive-elect; she is not the Chief Executive.

- If Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam intercedes now and asks Chief Executive CY Leung and the Hong Kong Celebrations Association to let the Civil Human Rights Front use the Victoria Park soccer fields on the afternoon of July 1st, do you think that the Great Reconciliation will be even an inch closer? The nature of the July 1st march is an anti-government demonstration march. Why would Carrie Lam be interested in assisting these people to inflame hate against her incoming administration?

- Why does Au Nok-hin talk as if the Civil Human Rights Front has presumptive rights on the use of a public sports facility? Over the years, the Civil Human Rights Front talk about fighting for democracy, justice and human rights. But it seems that they behave more like a hegemon that everybody else has to bow to.

- Democracy? Cheng Yiu-tong pointed out that more people want to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the handover than march against Carrie Lam. Justice? Please read the guidelines of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department on booking sports/recreational facilities. Human rights? All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.

- (Leisure and Cultural Services Department) Guide to the booking procedure for use of non-fee charging recreation and sports facilities.

Three-month in advance

Recreation and sports facilities may be reserved three months in advance for championships, leagues, and training events promoted or organized in order of priority by

(a) Community Tai Chi Clubs under the LCSD Community Tai Chi Club Scheme at their regular training/practice venues and time.

(b) Subvented non-governmental organisations registered with Social Welfare Department and charitable organisations registered with the Inland Revenue Department.

(c) Affiliated clubs of National Sports Associations, registered with Certificate of Incorporation under the Companies Ordinance; or Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance.

(d) Government departments (including trading fund departments), public/statutory bodies organising departmental/public functions.

(e) Bona fide associations and corporations (including government staff clubs/unions) and offices of District Council members, may also apply for use of recreation and sports facilities. To qualify as bona fide associations and corporations, applicants should be registered with Certificate of Incorporation under the Companies Ordinance; or Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance.

Bookings shall be made three months in advance (e.g. bookings for sessions in May 2015 should reach the booking office between 1 to 31 January 2015).

- The Hong Kong Celebrations Association is in priority category (b) as a charitable organisation registered with the Inland Revenue Department. The Civil Human Rights Front filed under the Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union which is in priority (e) as a bona fide association with a Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance. (b) has higher priority than (e).

If you upset the priority system and take (e) over (b), then you are destroying rule-of-law.

- How would you choose? The Hong Kong Celebrations Association or the Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union?

The only thing that Ap Lei Chau is famous for is Leung Chung-hang's claim that "republic of China" is pronounced as "re-fucking of Chee-na" in Ap Lei Chau.

- "Bookings shall be made three months in advance (e.g. bookings for sessions in May 2015 should reach the booking office between 1 to 31 January 2015)." That means bookings for July 1 2017 should reach the booking office between 1 and 31 March 2017. The Civil Human Rights Front submitted their application on April 3 2017. That is to say, they were late.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Au also questioned why the Association was allowed to apply as early as March 15, when the Front was prevented from doing so until April. We told the LCSD before our New Years rally that we wanted to apply for July 1, but officials told us not to talk about it so soon, as the LCSD does not consider applications over three months beforehand.

The Front was not prevented from applying until April. They were told in January to apply three months beforehand. Unfortunately, the guy can't even count three months.

The Guide gives the example:

Bookings for May 2015 should be made in January 2015

Let me walk you through how to book for July 1st 2017:

Bookings for May 2017 should be made in January 2017
Bookings for June 2017 should be made in February 2017
Bookings for July 2017 should made in March 2017

I think that this question is too easy even for the Primary 3 Basic Competency Assessment (BCA) test. But Au Nok-hin and the rest of the Civil Human Rights Front leaders think that the answer is April 2017.

- Au Nok-hin knows very well that there is no possible judicial review. The Guide by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department clearly states the timing and the priority scheme.

They could have filed their application on March 1, but it would be harder to move up the priority list. Subvented non-government organisations and charitable organisations cannot engage in political activities.

- Why did they use the Ap Lei Chau Community Union to apply? Because Au Nok-hin is a member of that organization and a Southern District Councilor, and he wants to give the organization as well as himself a boost. Yes, it is known as nepotism.

- Here is the weirdest part: Au Nok-hin started off with questioning what kind of charitable organization the Hong Kong Celebrations Association is. Once he realized that he does not have a Plan B for the July 1st march, he proposed that the Hong Kong Celebrations Association yield the soccer fields to the Civil Human Rights Font on July 1st as a gesture of Love and Peace. Bwaaaahhhhh!

- You said that they were Dark and Evil before, so how are they going to find Love and Peace in their hearts? Beyond their essential nature, you have just slapped them a minute ago and now you want them to make you happy? An apology and some nice words would be in order first.

- (Ming Pao) Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that if the Hong Kong Celebrations Association refuse to let them use Victoria Park, their march will have starting points that "bloom like flowers everywhere", including East Point Road, Great George Street and the Central Library.

- Au Nok-hin also urged participants not to clash with other persons. This is saying the opposite -- he wants clashes to show that denying the Civil Human Rights Front has bad consequences, so they will get Victoria Park next year.

- (Sing Tao Daily) May 13, 2017. Hong Kong Celebrations Association executive chairman Cheng Yiu-tong refused to lend space to the Civil Human Rights Front, saying that there could be fights between the two groups. Au Nok-hin re-emphasized that they are not using force to use Victoria Park because the Civil Human Rights Front does not have exclusive rights there. They are presently negotiating with the police to use multiple starting points in Causeway Bay. As for Cheng Yiu-tong saying that the science/technology expo of the Hong Kong Celebrations Association includes exhibits of Chinese space technology and performances by robots, Au Nok-hin said that it is sad that the exhibitors are being used as political pawns.

- I believe that the use of the facilities should be awarded to whoever ranks higher on the priority list and applies on time. The Hong Kong Celebrations Association ranks higher on the priority list and applied on time. The Civil Human Rights Front ranked lower on the priority list and applied late. If the Leisure and Cultural Services Department awarded the use of the soccer fields to the Civil Human Rights Front, it would be a clear political decision in which they contravened all the rules and procedures that they announced beforehand.

- The Civil Human Rights Front is asking the Hong Kong Celebrations Association to lend them parts of the soccer fields for their July 1st march. Suppose Au Nok-hin rents a Leisure and Cultural Services badminton court for 60 minutes next Tuesday, but some guy comes along and said that they want to use half of the court. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES. Would Au Nok-hin agree?

- Au Nok-hin felt that it was a political decision to let the Hong Kong Celebrations Association use the soccer fields. The supposition is that the Civil Human Rights Front has always used the Victoria Park soccer fields on July 1st afternoons and therefore any other decision must be political. But what if they were to hold the Homeless World Cup in Victoria Park? Will the Civil Human Rights Front still insist that this was a political decision? Will these homeless people be called political henchmen?

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 8, 2017.

Independent music venue Hidden Agenda was raided on Tuesday night by police, hygiene and land officials, who demanded it to stop operating as a performance venue.

The raid took place during a concert by Canadian and Hong Kong bands Braids and So It Goes. A Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) official posed as a concert-goer, and purchased a ticket as evidence that the venue held performances without a place of public entertainment licence.

The concert went ahead successfully after the disturbance. Not even the police or the so-called government can ruin tonight for us, said So It Goes on Facebook.

Hidden Agenda has only opened at its current Kwun Tong location the fourth in its history since December, following a HK$500,000 public fundraiser. It returned its previous venue to its landlord after receiving multiple warnings from the Lands Department, which said that it had violated the terms of its land lease.

It now operates officially as a takeaway food stall, after successfully obtaining a food factory licence from the FEHD. It does not have a place of public entertainment licence, as it is located in an industrial building.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 8, 2017.

Hong Kong independent music venue Hidden Agenda was raided on Sunday night, leading to the arrests of a reported seven people including British and American performers and venue founder Hui Chung-wo.

Concert-goers live-streaming the incident said that Immigration Department officials raided the venue after the concert was over under the suspicion that overseas performers did not possess work visas. They demanded to conduct an investigation on the premises. Police later received a report of fighting. Officers with riot shields and police dogs responded.

The evenings concert at the Kwun Tong industrial building venue featured British band This Town Needs Guns and US act Mylets, as well as Hong Kong group Emptybottles.

Hidden Agenda claimed that seven arrests were made: Hui, another venue staffer, a member of the audience, all three members UK outfit This Town Needs Guns, and the sole member of Mylets an American. Police confirmed that Hui and another staffer had been charged with obstructing a police officer, and a third staff member was charged with common assault.

Live-streaming videos showed Hidden Agenda founder Hui dragged out from a crowd of people by several police officers. He later sat down on the floor, demanding to have his injuries examined but was then taken away in a police van.

A police spokesperson told HKFP that they were called to the scene at 11:49pm to attend to a case of fighting involving over 10 people. The spokesperson said that two people were injured, and that there were still some 30 to 40 people at the scene as of 1:00am. Police have the situation under control, she said.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vNI2xMG99c

Internet comments:

- TTNG Facebook

First of all, we would like to thank our fans for their love and support, Hong Kong Legislators and legal team for their assistance and the media for their concern. After being held in custody for a few hours, we have been released on bail. We will head back to the UK and the USA respectively on Tuesday 9th of May and Wednesday 10th of May, and will be returning to Hong Kong to report back to the Immigration Department on 5th of June.

After last nights event, we have learnt that it is extremely difficult for musicians to thrive in Hong Kong. It requires an incredible amount of strength and passion to persevere. Hong Kong as we know as an international city with freedom and diversity, should give greater room for creative works and performance to flourish.

That said, we shall not be discouraged, instead we will continue to travel and share our music with the world. We sincerely hope that we will be welcomed by more fans and music lovers rather than law enforcers at our possible future performances in Hong Kong.

Thank you for your support! We are so grateful for how helpful and supportive everyone has been to us. We are thankful for the kindness and compassion everyone in Hong Kong has shown to us.

- TTNG, Mylets

- (Discuss.com.hk)

Load of shits. 
No one is privileged! 
Abide by the LAW. Get  the proper visa then do whatever LAW allowed!
Fucking lawless POMs go home!

- Hidden Agenda's Facebook

- (Oriental Daily) Here is a photo from inside the "takeaway food stall":

- Did the police overreact with several vanloads of police officers and even a canine?

 (Oriental Daily) At around 11pm, the Immigration Department officers identified themselves and wanted to take the bands and the organizer named Hui away. There was pushing and shoving. More than 100 audience members were in an uproar. An Immigration Department worker was injured in the back and knee. The Immigration Department workers called the police.

Should the police have just sent two patrolmen down to the scene to see what is going on? What kind of force should they send after a report from Immigration Department workers saying that they are being surrounded and assaulted by a mob of over 100 persons?

- (Passion Times) At around midnight, a 22-year-old woman was robbed by a man of her mobile phone and bank cards by a man on the pedestrian overpass on Kwun Tong Road in Ngau Tau Kok district. She was then taken nearby and raped.

Comment: The police were too busy raiding Hidden Agenda. Therefore the robber/rapist was able to work unimpeded. Therefore it was the police's fault.

- I think that you have the story completely wrong. What happened was that the police had full patrol coverage of the Kwun Tong district including Ngau Tau Kok. Suddenly at 11pm, the HA staff began to assault the Immigration Department workers. All police officers on patrol were dispatched to the scene of a potential riot. As a result, the other areas were not patrolled for a brief period of time. The robber/rapist was able to work unimpeded. Therefore it was HA's fault.

-  First, there was a visit from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. Next, there is a visit from the Immigration Department. Who's coming next? My bet is on the Fire Services Department checking for fire code violations.

- On the afternoon on the next day, two Fire Services Department workers and the Kwun Tong Organized Crime Unit showed up at Hidden Agenda. It is not known what, if anything, they found. Of course, once the public suspects that the venue does not meet the fire code for holding an event with hundreds of participants, the fire department would be delinquent if something bad happens later.

- (SCMP) Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has defended the arrest of several foreign musicians and an indie clubs founder, saying the citys rules on immigration and safety at industrial buildings must not be ignored. He said: Our policy of revitalising industrial buildings has been a success, but our policy does not mean that you can use the industrial buildings however you like. We must consider the safety of the buildings users, for example the bands and the audience they attracted.  He added that the government had stopped other unlawful use of industrial spaces in the past, even in buildings under the revitalisation programme. Under our immigration policy, anyone who comes to Hong Kong must obtain a work visa, he said.

- The Immigration Department and the Hong Kong Police Force were very unfair in how they dealt with HA and its guests. They claim that they were enforcing the law. But based upon prior cases in common law, they are selectively lenient here.

(China Post) April 8, 2016.

Hong Kong authorities have sentenced Taiwanese model Cindy (星野優) to two months behind bars for working illegally, Hong Kong's Sing Tao Daily (星島日報) reported on Thursday. Cindy, whose real name is Tang Tzu-han (唐子涵), had appeared in the early episodes of variety show "Blackie's Teenage Club" (我愛黑澀會) and went on to a career in sensual photography.

A court in Hong Kong's Sha Tin District has sentenced Tang to two months in prison for working in Hong Kong without a permit, according to the Sing Tao Daily.

The newspaper reported that Tang, 32, arrived in Hong Kong on April 1 for what she said was a three-day photo shoot. At 7 p.m. the same day, Tang and the Japanese model Tomomi attended an event held by a Hong Kong photography association in a hotel room, the report said. They were apprehended by an undercover border official and sent to authorities for questioning, according to Sing Tao Daily.

According to Hong Kong media, Tang had expected payment of NT$8,000 for participating in the event. Entering Hong Kong to work without a permit is subject to a fine of up to HKD$50,000 (NT$209,000) and up to two years behind bars.

In the case of the three members of TTNG and one member of Mylets, they are clearly illegally working. But they are allowed to continue to travel abroad for their tours while on bail.

- Fact: If these four individuals are mainland Chinese citizens, the standard treatment for working illegally and violating the condition of stay would be two months of jail followed by immediate expulsion with a lifetime ban against re-entry.

- The case has been elevated to government suppression of the culture industry. Let me understand this: when the Immigration Department goes after musicians with no work visas, they are suppressing the culture industry. So when the Immigration Department inspectors go to construction sites to check for illegal workers, they are suppressing the construction industry. When the Immigration Department inspectors go to restaurants to check for illegal dishwashers, they are suppressing the catering industry. When the Immigration Department inspectors go to round up mainland prostitutes, they are suppressing sex.

- (HKG Pao) The Civic Party rushed over to take media attention on this case. First of all, legislator Jeremy Tam showed up at the scene to "provide assistance," made a live broadcast from the scene, questioned whether this was suppression and challenged government policies on industrial building and work visas. Next, legislator and party chief Alvin Yeung wrote on Facebook that the government is suppressing the culture industry. Legislator and barrister Tanya Chan represented some of the arrestees. Tam and Chan also faced the media at the Legislative Council building to challenge what the Immigration Department and Police did.

Based upon what these Civic Party is saying, anyone who is in Hong Kong for cultural reasons does not need to have a work visa. The Immigration Department acted as a result of a tip that HA was hiring musicians without work visas. What the Civic Party is saying that as soon as the Immigration Department realizes that these people are musicians, they should have walked away. Let me put ask another question: The four musicians are British/American; what if they were mainland Chinese musicians? Will the Civic Party be so hot on defending the rights of mainland Chinese musicians coming to play in Hong Kong for pay without work visas?

- According to a Immigration Department investigation director, this was an ordinary law enforcement action. But this one was hijacked by a political party with ulterior motives so that the case is being packaged with politics. The result is the demoralization of the frontline Immigration Department workers, and the destruction of public trust in law enforcement.

This Immigration Department investigation director emphasized that the four foreigners did not have work visas, in clear violation of the Immigration Ordinance. If these foreigners wanted to work, they should apply for work visas from the Immigration Department. The process takes four to six weeks, and there are ways of expediting the process. But in the current case, the arrestees never applied for work visas.

- A question for the Civic Party lawyers. Music has no borders, and therefore musicians should be able to cross borders at will to play their music to audiences in different nations. Does that mean that a Hong Kong band can travel to the United Kingdom or United States and play their music without bothering with things like work visas?

- Here is the UK Border Agency on Entering the UK as an entertainer or an artist. And they haven't even gotten into the small matter of taxes yet.

- On the same day, there was another case of a business being busted by a Customs Department undercover agent. A complaint was lodged against a certain restaurant for false advertising. An agent went and ordered Abalone Fukien Fried Rice and took a sample back for laboratory analysis. There was no abalone in the food. Today, the restaurant manager faced the press and acknowledged that they broke the law in order to increase profits. The restaurant was fined $5,000.

Why doesn't HA have the courage to admit that they broke the law?

- Are you pretending to be stupid here? The answer is so simple. If you engage in false advertising, you will only be fined a few thousand dollars. If you confess and apologize properly, the publicity would be worth a lot more than the fine. But if an employer hire workers with no work visas, the workers go to jail for 2 months and the employer goes to jail for 3 months. These penalties are unbearable. So this is when rule-of-law goes out of the window/down the toilet.

- If you want the Gold Standard of how to apologize if you must, then the unanimous choice is Leon Lai. No amount of money can buy that amount of goodwill.

- The Immigration Department said that HA had previously applied successfully for work visas for their foreign musicians. So it is not as if this was impossible. But in this case they got lazy and decided to take a chance.

- On next Wednesday, Hidden Agenda has scheduled the Finnish band Insomnium to play. According to the organizers, they are undecided as to whether or not to proceed.

- The case of TTNG/Mylets is worse in that HA never even bothered to apply for work visas. A much better defense would be something like: "We applied in November and we haven't received any response one way or the other." HA just doesn't fucking care!

- (Headline Daily) May 11, 2017.

What can HA do? They should not ignore the law and do whatever they want, as in hiring foreign bands without worrying about work visas or holding concerts without worrying about property use restrictions or doing whatever they want because someone is willing to play music and others are willing to pay to listen. What can HA do? Since some legislative councilors support them, they should ask these legislative councilors and other music fans to fight for more public performance space.

As for those legislative councilors who are so sharply critical of the government, they should know the facts first before they speak. How many people were present at the concert? If several hundred people are squeezed into one industrial building unit, are there safety problems? When the government revitalize an industrial buildings, should they ignore all the land use restrictions in the books? Can any and all activities be allowed in these industrial buildings? Legislative councilor Tanya Chan said that "it is hard to say whether the four foreign musicians were working commercially or engaged in cultural exchange", and that the government is trying to eliminate the space of survival for performance arts in industrial buildings. But this concert charges admission fees, so is this still purely cultural exchange?

Today, it is the easiest thing in the word to criticize the government. It is cost-free. But if Tanya Chan and Jeremy Tam really want to help local performance groups and musicians, they should not stop with just voicing some support. They should pressure the government to provide more performance venues for musicians. If HA wants to a space for survival, they should ask these legislators to apply pressure on the government. This is better than hiring illegal workers to hold unlawful concerts.

- Indie music concerts must have low admission prices and therefore not very profitable. The way to make money is to rent improper venues and get expelled. That will allow you to solicit donations in order to locate another (improper) venue and repeat the cycle.

- Well, the Immigration Department is not omnipresent. How would they know that you have foreign visitor-musicians playing for you? Somebody must have lodged a complaint with them. Once the complaint is logged, they must investigate. And if the investigation supports the complaint, they must take action. So who lodged that complaint? People who hate HA? or HA themselves?

- It used to be that an employer hires illegal workers and promises to pay at the end of the month. When the end of the month approaches, the employer gives an anonymous tip to the Immigration Department to arrest the illegal workers and deport them. The now departed workers do not get the money owed them. Employers do so because they are not penalized under the old law. Under the current law, employers face huge penalties. For example, in the case of the Taiwanese/Japanese models, the two girls got 2 months in prison and the two employers got 3 months in prison.

- This event had more than 100 persons in attendance. The entrance fees are $280 (advance booking), $380 (walk-in), $200 (student). This means that Hidden Agenda took in more than $30,000 this night. That may seem a lot to a person, but this is not a lot when divvied up among the organization which has to pay rent, utilities and salaries and the appearance fees for the three bands (TNNG (HK), Mylets (USA), Empty Bottles (HK)).

- Some dudes were playing music at a private concert. What makes you think that they are 'working'?

CAP 115 Immigration Ordinance

Section 17N Presumption

Any person who is found at a place where employees are in the employment of an employer shall, unless evidence is adduced that he is lawfully employable, be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary -

(a) to have entered into a contract of employment to be employed by that employer; and
(b) to be an employee of that employer

Section 41 Breach of condition of stay

Any person who contravenes a condition of stay in force in respect of him shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 2 years.

Under this ordinance, the prosecutor does not need to have the contracts or the payments in evidence. It is up to the defendants to prove the contrary.

- (Hong Kong Immigration Department) Don't Employ Illegal Workers

Q1. What should an employer do before employing a person?
A. The law requires an employer to take all practical steps to ensure that the job seeker is lawfully employable. If the job seeker is not holding a Hong Kong permanent identity card, the law requires an employer to inspect the job seeker's valid travel document.

Q9. Can I employ a visitor?
A: No. You can't.

Q10. How to identify a visitor?
A. They should not have a Hong Kong identity card. The immigration stamp/landing slip on their travel documents has the word 'Visitor'.

Q11. What are the penalties if an employer employs a person not lawfully employable?
A. The employer is liable to a maximum fine of $350,000 and three years' imprisonment.

Q12. What are the penalties if an employer fails to inspect the job seeker's identity card and, if the job seeker does not have a Hong Kong permanent identity card, his/her valid travel document?
A. The employer is liable to a maximum fine of $150,000 and one year imprisonment.

- Of course, nowadays in Hong Kong, the law is optional for pro-democracy activists.

- Time for the United States government, the United Kingdom government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to pay serious attention to the plight of these British and American citizens being politically persecuted in Hong Kong!

- Facebook comments


Huanwai Poon:
  Fuck your mother, government
  You have been busting Hidden Agenda
  as long as the movement to activate industrial buildings has been going on
  You said that they are unlicensed but that was actually a problem with the procedure
  You sent in undercover agents
  Now you want to charge them over working visas
  Fuck, there are plenty of mainlanders in Mong Kok
  They sing with their songs with music systems and they set up a tin cup before them
  Why don't you go arrest them?
  They keep busting HA each time
  Any clear-eyed person would know what this is about

Smart Dum
  Brother you are right.
  The entire Sai Yeung Choi Street is filled with mainlanders making money with song and dance
  They block the street
  I don't see the Immigration Department jews stopping them

Trinity Hui
  Agree!

- This is all talk and no action! Why don't you guys call up the Immigration Department and report that there are persons illegally working on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall? Once the complaint is logged in, the Immigration Department will have to investigate. Perhaps they will arrest all those mainland middle-aged singers and dancers, along with the French jugglers, South American pipe players, American rappers, etc. Then Mong Kok will be the domain of the "Mental Patients" In The Umbrella Revolution.

- It is said that Hidden Agenda's hidden agenda is the renaissance/revival/revitalization of industrial buildings for civic use. Once upon a time, Hong Kong had a manufacturing industry. After the opening of China, all manufacturing activities have move to mainland China due to the significantly lower costs up there. So industrial buildings in Hong Kong are under-used right now. Hidden Agenda is showing us how to use the industrial buildings to promote local art and culture.

- What kind of excuse is this? How are you different from triad gang lords who rent a floor in an industrial building, convert it into a bar, sell liquor and hire mainland girls (on two-way visitor permits) as 'companions'?

There are gray areas as far as zoning and licensing go. Given the history of HA, you have to know that before this. But when the relevant departments come in, you behave just like triad gangsters. This is not the model example to set in the renaissance/revival/revitalizaitonl of industrial buildings in Hong Kong.

- What about the United States? (Musical America)

A lot of artists and their managers balk at the U.S. visa process for artists. I understand. Its illogical, inane, impractical, unpredictable, arbitrary, and expensiveand those are just the high points. Nonetheless, its the one were stuck with.

The easy answer is simply that its illegal. Artists are not permitted to perform in the U.S. without an artist visa (most often, either an O or P), regardless of whether or not tickets are sold, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or who pays the artist, regardless of whether or not the performance is for a 501(c)(3), regardless of whether or not the performance constitutes training or is educational, and regardless of just about any scenario you can conceive of. What you are really asking is: what are the consequences for breaking the law and what are the odds of getting caught?

Both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and United States Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) have been increasingly scrutinizing artists over the last year or so. As a result, artists who have previously managed to perform illegally in the U.S. in the past without the proper artist visa are now being caught with ever greater regularityresulting in significant consequences for both the artists as well as the presenters and venues who allowed them to perform. Last year, a violinist who had been performing in the U.S. for the past five years without a visa was caught and is now banned from the U.S. for three years. I am aware of a conductor who was turned away at the border when the immigration official discovered that he was coming to perform by googling his name. Another artist was advised by his management to enter the U.S. on a visitor visa to perform a promotional tour for a new album, was detained at the airport for 5 hours, and then refused entry. His ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges have been revoked and he must now visit a U.S. Consulate any time he wants to enter the USeven as a visitor. Even more significantly, a management company was caught submitting a fraudulent visa petition to USCIS and is no longer allowed to serve as a petitioner for its own artists visas. Large presenters, venues, and festivals are being audited with increasing regularity to determine whether or not all artists have proper artist visas.

The consequences for employing an artist illegally are the same as for any employer who employs an illegal alien. Theoretically, this can include anything from fines and economic penalties to criminal prosecution. However, from a practical perspective, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice lack the resources to prosecute and investigate every venue or presenter who facilitates an illegal performance. This is why most enforcement tends to be focused on the artist at the time of entry. After the artist has entered the U.S., its much less likely that DHS would discover the performance unless there is an audit or the performance is reported to them. Audits are much more likely to occur either in the case of larger institutions or employers who already employ foreign workers in other capacities or in the case of prominent or significant venues or performances which are more likely to garner media attention.

In short, whenever a venue contemplates employing an artist without a proper visa or an artist contemplates performing with a proper visa, its akin to running a red light. Its illegal under any circumstances. Whether or not you get caught depends on whether or not there is a camera or cop at the intersection. Whether or not its advisable depends on the circumstances and how lucky you feel.

- (Silentmajority.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 10, 2017.

In our times, there is a descriptive term known simply as "MK." When you say that somebody has that "MK" feel, you mean to say that this person wears the cheap, vulgar and tasteless clothes available in the Mong Kok district. Typically that person has dyed blonde hair and speaks vulgarly.

When someone says that you are very "MK", it is not a compliment. It is derogatory.

Recently I watched our legislator Tanya Chan (Civic Party) in action and I cannot help but inject: "You're very MK!" Raymond Wong is no longer at the Legislative Council as gangster godfather, but Tanya Chan has taken his place as gangster Big Sister.

When Chan speaks, she does not sound like the senior barrister that she is. Instead she is aggressive and abrasive like a gangster Big Sister, as if she was ready to pull out a butcher knife to chop you into minced meat.

On this day, our Big Sister showed up with several foreigners in tow.

Earlier the Immigration Department had sent inspectors to the Kwun Tong industrial building to monitor the musical performance organized by Hidden Agenda. An English band was suspected of illegally working and thus violating their condition of stay. The Immigration Department inspectors were assaulted and called the police for assistance. Seven persons were arrested.

As senior barrister, Chan led fellow legislator Jeremy Tam and solicitor Bond Ng to stand before these illegal workers and decry the Immigration Department/Police for unreasonable law enforcement and 'suppression the culture industry.' I am confused! Every day, the Immigration Department is arresting the fake mainland Chinese monks for violating their conditions of stay when they beg in the streets. So why does the Honorable Legislator Chan stand in front of the monks and protest against the Immigration Department for suppressing freedom of religion! Could it be that arresting foreigners means suppression, but arresting mainland Chinese means justice served?

The English band TTNG and the American singer Mylet came to Hong Kong on tourist visas and worked illegally at an unlicensed venue which was charging admission fees. It is evident that these are criminal acts. But our senior barrister legislator called this law enforcement "suppression" by the government. How in the world did senior barrister Tanya Chan ever got her bar license?

When Chan first entered politics, she stood by the roadside on the Peak and bowed to the voters every morning. At the time, she had long hair, wore glasses and looked refined and smart. As a senior barrister, she impressed the elite living on the Peak. So she got elected.

At the time, it was Audrey Eu who discovered Tanya Chan, because she spotted talent in political theatrics. Actually Chan had entered the Miss Hong Kong Pageant in 1992, but she did not qualify. This shows that she has always been looking for her own theater.

On this occasion, our gangster Big Sister led some foreign illegal workers and showed her mantle. She had the form, but she lacked the reasons. Besides Chan has her own problems, as she is being charged with Public Nuisance for the 2014 Occupy Central. Chan's theater moved from the Peak to Mong Kok and may just move to Stanley (prison) soon.

- (Oriental Daily) May 10, 2017.

Legislative councilor Chan Chi-chuen (People Power) denounced the Lands Department for protecting and colluding with rural gangsters. The Audit Commission had also criticized the Lands Department for not effectively dealing with illegal occupied government lands. He said that Hidden Agenda had asked the Lands Department for approval as an entertainment venue many times but were rejected even though they meet the fire code requirements. Therefore Chan Chi-chuen is proposing to cut off the entire funding for the Lands Department.

- Bizarre. HA moved into the present location for just over a month. According to Chan Chi-chuen, HA had applied multiple times for an entertainment venue already. If HA has just high efficient for filing applications, then why didn't they apply for work visas for TTNG/Mylets?

- District Councilor/Umbrella Soldier/Hong Kong Culture Monitor Clarisse Yeung Suet-ying appeared on radio:

Hidden Agenda has elevated cultural exchange with so many different kinds of music, so many different kinds of song types. For example, I have never heard of this group Math Rock from England. When different kinds of music come to Hong Kong, it will stimulate the cultural earth of our Hong Kong.
The government has done so many things. HA moved four times. This time, there were even undercover agents. The ferocity of law enforcement is amazing to behold. They are being heavily oppressed. We have always wanted to engage in cultural activities in an open and proper manner.

- But has HA founder Hui Chung-wo always done things in an open and proper manner? Here is a photo from the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day 2016, showing some masked men threatening a cameraman for television station TVB (attention: Hong Kong Journalists Association.

Can you say "Hui Chung-wo"?

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 6, 2017.

The police have decided to increase the use of body-worn video cameras. By 2021, every frontline uniformed police officer will be equipped with one.

Undersecretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu said the use of body cameras can help with investigations, relevant prosecution work and trials. Last year, in 90 per cent of the cases when the camera was on, the subjects stopped over-reactive behaviour and became calm when being video-filmed it reduced confrontations, Lee said at a Panel on Security session at the Legislative Council on Friday.

The Security Bureau said that by March 31 this year, the police have recorded a total of 724 clips with the cameras in 493 incidents, from which 172 clips were used in investigations or submitted as evidence. It said in a case of assaulting a police officer and a case of obstructing a police officer, relevant footage served as important evidence for convictions.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017.

Pro-Beijing lawmakers have proposed a bill against insulting law enforcement officers in Hong Kong, which if passed would stipulate a maximum penalty of one year in prison.

Legislators Priscilla Leung, Junius Ho and Horace Cheung hope to amend the citys Public Order Ordinance to prohibit insults against officers from five government branches: the Police Force, the Customs and Excise Department, the Correctional Services Department, the Immigration Department, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Announced Friday afternoon, the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017 would criminalise uttering abusive or insulting words, behaving in a disturbing or insulting manner, or exhibiting a disturbing or insulting slogan against law enforcement officers. The trio hope to stipulate two categories of punishment. For regular breaches, offenders could be summarily convicted and handed a maximum monetary penalty of HK$2,000. For repeated and malicious breaches, offenders could be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. They could be handed a maximum monetary penalty of HK$5,000 and spend a year behind bars.

Explaining the background to the proposal, Leung said that the atmosphere of hate towards the police force since the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests necessitated a law against insulting officers. She claimed that hatred of police officers has not only been manifested during large-scale protests, but also in day-to-day incidents such as issuing traffic tickets or enforcement on the MTR. We hope to provide our law enforcement officers with a working environment where they can be respected and have dignity, she said. Our proposal is a response to constant calls [for the law] in society.

Internet comments:

- (eInvestigator) Police Body Cameras: Do They Reduce Complaints of Officer Misconduct?

Pros to Police Body Cameras

Following is a list of the advantages for both cops and citizens:

  • The necessity to record every interaction with residents is bound to minimize complaints about police officer behavior and the unnecessary use of force, because interactions are captured for everyone to see. Both officers and citizens may tend to be more restrained, knowing that their words and actions are being captured.
  • Use of the cam while on-duty provides hard video evidence of decisions made by officers in high intensity situations.
  • Video recorded by body cams protect any false accusations, misconduct, or abuse against officers.
  • Increases transparency and accountability of officers.
  • May help prevent and de-escalate confrontational situations between officers and civilians.
  • May help provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.
  • Video footage captured may help speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of situations. This may lead to a reduction in court expenses due to an increase in pre-trial plea bargains or possibly an increased rate of convictions. Cons or concerns to police body cameras

Following is a partial list of the cons and disadvantages:

  • According to early versions of policies governing their use, law enforcement officers must physically activate the camera when they exit their patrol car. The recording equipment must be manually activated when interacting with civilians or recording statements during investigations. However, officers decide when to activate the camera, and for how long the footage is stored, and if and when should it be made accessible to public. For example, the camera can be deactivated when interviewing a victim of sexual assault, to maintain the victims privacy.
  • Privacy issues are of concern for both cops and civilians. How to deal with those concerns is still being evaluated. Use of body cameras may prevent people from coming forward as credible witnesses to help assist with investigations, due to fear of retaliation or fear of public exposure.
  • Technological issues related to the cameras may prevent proper functioning at times. This could be due to a dead battery, damaged components, obstructed lens, and other problems. This could result in personnel missing important witness statements or crucial behavior by officers or citizens.
  • The equipment is expensive. Potential costs involved in their use include the cost of the device itself, ongoing maintenance, and costs associated with storing and maintain the video footage and recorded data that is collected. In addition, costs would be associated with cataloging and retrieving footage in response to subpoenas, investigations and public information requests.

After looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, it becomes apparent that the pros of using the devices outweigh the cons. Given the recent officer-involved shootings and brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, South Carolina and Baltimore, Maryland, we are likely to see departments quickly begin adopting their use.

 [SPOOF] (The Onion) April 9, 2015.

Following several high-profile civilian deaths at the hands of police officers, many Americans have called for the mandatory use of body cameras by law enforcement as a means of curbing the excessive use of force and providing clear accounts of officers actions. Here are some of the pros and cons of body cameras for police officers:

PROS

  • Provides accurate record of where police were when they turned off their body camera
  • Helps to reinstate trust between Americans and surveillance
  • Unlimited footage of police officers breathing heavily during a foot chase
  • Turning camera askew allows officers to record beatings with stylish Dutch angles
  • More things to watch
  • Finally gives Americans glimpse at what its like to turn on that siren and gun it straight through a red light

CONS

  • Major invasion of privacy for police officer and man he has in chokehold
  • Costs money that could be used on machine guns and armored vehicles
  • Police brutality might lose its mystique
  • Those could be anyones arms bashing citizen with nightstick
  • Distracting to officers who must now shift focus to cinematography and mise en scne
  • Is still only going to be the irrefutable video evidences word against the police officers

- This video was posted today. The background is that somebody reported to the Water Supplies Department about a case of suspected theft of service. WSD workers were sent out to the location to investigate. At this point, an old man came out of the house and stopped the WSD workers, who summoned the police. The video began at this point. Several policemen worked together to subdue the man on suspicion of obstructing public service workers from carrying out their duties. The man rolled on the ground and screamed: "Police assaulting people!" A middle-aged woman interceded and pushed a policeman, who arrested her for assaulting a police officer.

- There were seven to eight police officers in this video taken by a citizen. If the police officers all wore body cameras, there would not be any doubt as to what happened.

- If the man and the woman did not resist violently, there was no reason why the police have to arrest them and file plenty of paperwork afterwards. If the man and the woman never stole water, they should have let the WSD workers do their work and leave after finding nothing.

- (Oriental Daily with video) April 30, 2017.

On April 29, 2017 outside the Sheung Shui MTR station, a private car stopped at a bus stop to let a mother and her son off. Two policemen approached to issue a ticket for this traffic violation. First up, the mother argued with the police. The police told her that she can leave. So she said "That sounds better" and then she left. The police proceeded to write the ticket. The male driver launched an obscenity-laced tirade. The man laughed at the police for having no other skills or knowledge and are destined to walk the beats the rest of their careers. The police said calmly, "Yes, and that is why we are issuing a ticket to you."

This video was taken by a third party. If the two policemen wore body cameras and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017 was passed, would the man still behave that way?

- Here is a classical video from several years ago:

0:01 Unknown male voice: I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. I did not wear a safety belt. Right now I am leaving in my car. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. Right now I am letting you issue a ticket, dickhead!

0:12 Unknown male voice: You issue a ticket to me! I fuck your mother! Do you think that I cannot afford to pay? Your mother's stinking cunt! Huh! You are a beggar! I fuck your mother!

0:22 Unknown male voice: Your mother's stinking cunt! What is your police ID number? I am going to lodge a complaint against your mother's stinking cunt. I fuck your mother! You dickhead!

0:30 Unknown male voice: Are you issuing a ticket to me? Dickhead! Do it!

0:38 Unknown male voice: You are sticking out a beggar's tin cup and hoping to get some food. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt! You do it!

0:48 Unknown male voice: Be fucking quick about it! Right now I am letting you write the ticket! I fuck your mother!

0:55 Policeman: You calm down.

0:55 Unknown male voice: Me calm down? I fuck your mother! I haven't gotten out. You say that you want to issue a ticket to me. I haven't gotten out. You say that you want to issue a ticket to me.

0:57 Policeman: Be more civilized.

0:57 Unknown male voice: hat the fuck is there to be civilized about? I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. I fuck your mother! Dickhead!

1:07 Unknown male voice: Unknown male voice: Go ahead and write up the ticket. Do you think that I can't afford to pay? I can even pay in cash. Your mother! I am giving you cash now. How are you going to take it? Fuck your mother!

1:19 Unknown male voice: Your mother's stinking cunt. What the fuck is the matter with you writing a ticket for $320. Why don't you erase it, dickhead? Fuck your mother! Do you think that I cannot afford to pay it?

1:32 Unknown male voice: Fuck your mother! You four-eyed dog. Fuck you! You are being insulted now and you don't even know what the fucking matter this is. Fuck your mother's stinking cunt.

1:40 Unknown male voice: What is your fucking ID number I fuck your mother! You are rank-and-file. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. You are rank-and-file. ID starts with 5. I fuck your mother. What the fuck do you know? Your mother's stinking cunt. You are a rank-and-file policeman. Remember that.

2:09 Unknown male voice: Fuck you mother! You take such a long time to fucking write a ticket. Fuck your mother's stinking cunt. You don't know even known how to make money when it is there for the making. Your mother's cunt. You are really something. A wastrel. Fuck you mother.

2:29 Unknown male voice: Write faster, dickhead. Fuck your mother. In a hurry, bastard!

2:42 Unknown male voice: Be fucking quicker. I am in a hurry. Hey, four-eyed dog. Be fucking quicker. Fuck your mother.

2:59 Policeman: You are wearing a safety seat belt.

3:00 Unknown male voice: Yes, that's why I am being ticketed. I am getting out right now. I want to take a stroll. You say that I don't wear a seat belt. This is clearly a false accusation. I am lodging a complaint.

3:11 Policeman: Did you move the car?

3:12 Unknown male voice: I did. But I did not turn on the lights and I did not move the car.

3:12 Policeman: The car was moving.

3:12 Unknown male voice: How many such cases will you catch a year? I don't want to fucking waste my time to argue with you. Right now, I am paying the money to you. $320. Do you think that I cannot afford to pay in cash? Fuck your mother!

3:21 Policeman: Okay. It does not matter.

3:22 Unknown male voice: You are a sergeant, sir?

3:23 Policeman: Don't use obscene language, mister.

3:24 Unknown male voice: I am lodging a complaint against him.

3:25 Policeman: Mister, calm down. It does not matter.

3:26 Unknown male voice: What am I calming down for?

3:27 Policeman: Calm down a bit.

3:28 Unknown male voice: I didn't even fucking get out on the road. Fuck you!

3:30 Policeman: Police work in accordance with the law.

3:31 Unknown male voice: I did not even get on the road and you say that I did not wear a safety seat belt.

3:33 Policeman: My colleague saw you. I saw you. Earlier you drove the car out ...

3:35 Unknown male voice: I did not wear a safety seat belt. I did not get out of the roadway, brother! I only drove for five feet.

3:38 Policeman: Your car was in motion. This is not an issue of whether you crossed the street or not.

3:41 Unknown male voice: How many cases each year are there people who drive like this? You start the car and then you move ahead, right? Why arrest only me?

- Is Public Order (Amendment) Bill of 2017 going to pass?

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017.

As a private bill, it must be voted in by over half of the 35 legislators in both the functional constituencies and the geographical constituencies. The pro-democracy opposition camp holds over half of the seats in the geographical constituencies, while the pro-Beijing camp holds most of the seats in the functional constituencies. However, the distribution of seats may change following the governments bid to disqualify pro-democracy lawmakers, and ongoing prosecutions related to the Occupy protests and the desecration of the national flag.

Actually, legislators Priscilla Leung, Junius Ho and Horace Cheung are probably hoping for the pro-democracy legislators to veto the bill. Previously, the Hong Kong Police Rally in support of seven of their colleagues had a turnout of 40,000. So this bill will force the pro-democracy legislators to take sides: Are they for or against the Police? If all 27 pan-democrats vote against the Bill, it means that they support the insulting of police.

- Furthermore, these incidents will continue to take place. Every time that another video shows up, people will be reminded that the pro-democracy legislators think this is okay.

- Already the pro-democracy legislators seemed to be resigned to the reality of police body cameras. If they object, everybody will think that they don't want their own lawbreaking actions be captured irrefutably on video.

- (SCMP) Proposed law to protect police against insults is laughable. By Alex Lo. May 9, 2017.

I have the greatest respect for our police force, especially for their remarkable restraint and overall professionalism during those terrible three months of the Occupy protests in 2014.

Still, its hard not to find the grandstanding by pro-government lawmakers laughable. Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Junius Ho Kwan-yiu and Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan have called for legal amendments to make insulting law enforcement officers punishable by up to three years in jail along with a heavy fine under the Public Order Ordinance.

The Security Bureau has already said there is no plan to introduce any such amendments. As a practical matter, the lawmakers have no hope of passing such an amendment bill as it would require at least half of the members of the Legislative Council in the geographical constituencies to support it. The pan-democrats who are in the majority in the geographical sectors would simply vote it down, and in this case, be perfectly justified to do so.

But perhaps more importantly, there are already laws that provide safeguards such as for police officers to charge those trying to prevent them from discharging their duties. Its already a criminal offence to assault or resist a police officer.

When insults become excessive and prevent police officers from doing their job, they can always make an arrest. The reason why they often dont do it is that they are trained unlike many police departments overseas to de-escalate a confrontation and resolve it peacefully. Thats proof that our officers are generally well-trained and disciplined, not that they are being hampered by a lack of safeguards.

In any case, the issue is not being neglected. The police force will be introducing the use of body cameras in phases. Almost 1,400 such cameras are already in use by officers in the Emergency Units, the Police Tactical Unit and several police districts. About 270 more will become available in the coming months. By 2021, its expected that every frontline officer will be wearing one.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) May 13, 2017.

The Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017, a draft prepared by three pro-government legislators who want to make it illegal to insult a policeman, makes riveting reading. The trio of drafters are all lawyers. One of them, indeed, teaches law in a local university. But the Bill is gibberish.

You do not have to take my word for it. The thing is quite short. Here it is, in its lovely entirety:

Leaving aside the merits, if there are any, of the new offence, what bothers me is that three people licensed to practise law in Hong Kong, one of whom habitually teaches it, could come out with something so nonsensical. They have reportedly submitted it to the Law Draftsman section of the Department of Justice, where it must have occasioned a great deal of mirth. In fact I imagine the professional law draftsmen are rolling on the floor laughing.

The poor drafters couldnt even get past the title without making a mistake. It is not an offence against insulting a law enforcement officer that we are dealing with here. The offence IS insulting a law enforcement officer. The title would make sense if it said Offence of insulting or if it started Prohibition on insulting as it is it is meaningless.

The next subsection is the most important one, because it defines the new offence. Unfortunately this does not make sense either because a vital word has been omitted. That word is who. The standard way of constructing the definition of an offence is to say that a person who does whatever we now wish to criminalise commits an offence. If you miss out the who you finish up with a non-sentence: a person acts commits an offence.

Somebody seems to have fallen asleep between sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), because after our ban on a miscreant who utters, or a miscreant who behaves, we suddenly find a miscreant exhibiting.

Subsection (2) is a standard piece of legislative boilerplate. An unkind observer might speculate that as the vital who is still present here the whole paragraph was lifted from some existing ordinance. Subsection (3) on the other hand was clearly composed without help, and as a result is dangerously ambiguous. I suppose the writers intended it to mean that on a second conviction for the same offence the upper limit on the penalty should be higher. But the repeatedly or in repetition bit could be subject to another interpretation. Saying fuck your mother once qualifies for the fine, twice for the jail sentence.

This brings us to subsection (4) where, once again, the intention is clear but the writing is not. What are we to make of the curious mixture of tenses. The person knows that the victim was a law enforcement officer. Is this supposed to cover retired policemen as well?

In fact if this were passed as it is which mercifully is highly unlikely the question of who is or was a law enforcement officer might well give some difficulty. Policemen, obviously. I suppose this phrase was intended to cover other uniformed guardians of the government, like Immigration and Customs Officers. How far can it stretch, one wonders Environmental Hygiene inspectors, traffic wardens, meter readers, Legco security guards, private security guards employed by the government, park attendants your watchman? But not, presumably, firemen. Connoisseurs will also be surprised by the inclusion of disturbing as a punishable quality of behaviour or slogans. Many of us are no doubt quite happy with the idea that our policemen should not be insulted. But disturbed?

Overall this is such a shoddy piece of work that it would hardly be acceptable coming from a student. The most senior drafter was actually Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG Mei-fun, SBS, JP, as the official Legco guide has it, adding the stunning afterthought that besides representing the fortunate electors of Kowloon West the honourable lady is an Associate Professor in the City University Law School.

In support we have Horace Cheung (DAB: Hong Kong Island) who is a solicitor trained at the City University Law School. Also on my list of lawyers from whom I would not now buy a used draft bill is Junius Ho, another solicitor, trained in England.

But let me make it clear that I am not complaining about the English. It is unfair and inconsiderate to chide local politicians for any deficiency in their English language skills. The language of local politics is Cantonese. Lawyers, though, need to know that law draftsmanship is a specialised skill and if they havent got it they shouldnt fake it. We can perhaps have a useful debate on whether it should be a criminal offence to insult a policeman. This is not the place to start.

Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover
May 3, 2017, 9:30am-11:30am

Opening Statements: Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Christopher Smith

Witnesses:
The Rt. Honorable Lord Patten of Barnes CH: 28th Governor of Hong Kong, 1992-1997
Martin Lee: Barrister, founding Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, former Member of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law and former Member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (1985-2008)
Joshua Wong: "Umbrella Movement' Leader and Secretary-General, Demosisto
Lam Wing Kee: Founder, Causeway Bay Books, one of five victims of the forced disappearance of Hong Kong booksellers
Ellen Bork: Writer

(SCMP) May 4, 2017.

The commissioner for the foreign affairs ministry has accused Hong Kongs most high-profile democracy campaigners of attempting to meddle in Chinas internal affairs at a US congressional panel on Wednesday night.
The campaigners urged the US to take a tougher stance against Beijing in order to protect the citys freedoms.

Student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, one of the leaders of the Occupy protests, attended the session in Washington, along with veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming and Lam Wing-kee, one of the Hong Kong booksellers who went missing and later turned up in the custody of mainland Chinese authorities.

The citys last British governor, Chris Patten, joined them as the Congressional-Executive Commission on China was told that the high degree of autonomy promised to Hong Kong had decayed over two decades of Chinese rule.

The two-hour session was meant to help the commission assess Hong Kongs situation, two decades after its handover to China.

Commission chair Senator Marco Rubio and two of his colleagues are also sponsoring the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which seeks to, among other steps, punish officials in mainland China and Hong Kong whom the US government holds responsible for suppressing the citys basic freedoms. Those officials could have their assets frozen in the United States or be barred from the country.

Wong urged US President Donald Trumps administration to keep an eye on developments in Hong Kong. He cited recent court cases against pro-independence lawmakers as evidence that freedom of expression was under threat. He said US support was important for their fight for full democracy in Hong Kong.

Patten accused Beijing of having failed to honour its promises under the pre-handover agreement it signed with the UK and the citys mini-constitution, the Basic Law, to allow greater democracy in Hong Kong, and warned the US government that this could reflect the way China would deal with its other international obligations.

If China cant even handle the reasonable democratic aspirations as it promised to do for the people in Hong Kong, it doesnt give one a huge amount of confidence about its ability to handle wider issues, Patten said, speaking from London by video link.

Patten urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to take the opportunity of visiting Hong Kong for the 20th anniversary of the handover to reassure Hongkongers that Beijing would still honour its promises. He also cited the citys recent chief executive election as an example of Beijings interference, claiming that popular candidate John Tsang Chun-wah was not favoured by Beijing because he advocated dialogue with the opposition pan-democratic camp.

Lee shared Pattens views and urged the US to raise its concerns about Hong Kongs autonomy with Beijing. President Xi Jinping must be told that the eyes of the world are on China, and on Hong Kong, Lee said.

Referring to his run-in with mainland Chinese authorities over smuggling banned books across the border, Lam also urged the US Congress to keep up its interest in Hong Kong issues through such hearings that would be beneficial to people like me.

Rubios Hong Kong act dates back to late 2015 after the mysterious disappearances of Lam and his fellow booksellers at the Causeway Bay Books store caught international attention. But a subsequent partisan gridlock in Congress saw the bill temporarily taken off the legislative calendar. It is now back on the agenda.

A spokesman for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China said: It is not a hearing to consider legislation, but to consider how best to proceed with legislation the [commission] chairs have already offered the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. For that purpose, we are seeking information about the guaranteed freedoms and high degree of autonomy promised Hong Kong in international agreements.

A spokesman for the foreign affairs ministrys commissioner in Hong Kong expressed strong objection against the panel for what he called a blatant attempt to meddle in the affairs of China and Hong Kong. Hong Kong matters are purely Chinas internal affairs. China opposes any foreign government interfering in Hong Kong affairs in any way, he said. The hearing confused wrong and right and [is a] blatant attempt with ulterior motives to interfere in Hong Kong affairs. The Chinese government is determined to uphold the one country, two systems principle as promised in the Basic Law, the spokesman added.

Veteran China-watcher Johnny Lau Yui-siu said such hearings would not exert any pressure on Beijing. [The congressional hearing] is just a political show for the US congressmen to tell the US voters that they are doing something, Lau said. The Trump administration is unlikely to make a fuss about pressuring Beijing because of Hong Kong affairs. Trump has already said that he wants to maintain a good relationship with Xi Jinping as Xi appears willing to help on North Korea.

Pro-establishment legislator Gary Chan Hak-kan said: From the people the US commission has invited to speak, you can already tell what kind of conclusion the US congressmen would get. [Wong, Lee, and Lam] would like to have the world believe that everything in Hong Kong has deteriorated after the handover no democracy, no human rights, no freedoms. If Hong Kongs situation was that bad, they might not have had the chance to go to the US to speak against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 4, 2017.

Pro-Beijing newspapers have accused Hong Kong democracy activists of betraying the Chinese race by inviting the US government to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.

The attacks came after former colonial governor Chris Patten, pro-democracy figures Martin Lee, Joshua Wong and Lam Wing-kee, and writer Ellen Bork gave testimonies on Wednesday in relation to Hong Kongs political situation at the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

Beijing mouthpiece Ta Kung Pao called Lee and Wong old and young race traitors on Thursdays front page. Various sectors of society restate that the US should not comment on the affairs of other territories, the paper wrote. It also ran an anonymous commentary calling Wong ignorant and ugly. It said: It is obvious that Americans are using Wong to attack the One Country, Two Systems policy and the central government, but he is happy about his role as a political clown manipulated by others.

Meanwhile, the Global Times wrote: Hong Kong independence advocate Joshua Wong has been condemned as a race traitor after defaming the One Country, Two Systems policy in the US and begging for attention from the US government. The two papers, as well as Oriental Daily, all criticised the activists of badmouthing Hong Kong in front of the international community.

Chris Patten hit back at Beijings consistent argument against foreign interference in Hong Kong. He cited the bilateral Sino-British Joint Declaration, which guaranteed semi-autonomy to Hong Kong for 50 years. China is supposed to keep its word to the people of Hong Kong, and Britain has every right to interfere in that, he said during Wednesdays hearing. He also criticised the British government for not being very robust in drawing attention to breaches whether large or small in the undertakings of both the letter and spirit made by China. Ive always felt that we and I blame myself a bit, but I blame [the] British government over a long period of time Ive always felt we let down the generation before Joshua Wong, the former governor said. And I hope we wont let down Joshua Wongs generation as well.

Wong, meanwhile, urged US democrats and republicans to work together to defend human rights in Hong Kong. He vowed that Hongkongers will continue resisting rule by the Chinese Communist Party and fighting for the right of self-determination.

The Father of Hong Kongs democracy, Martin Lee, is turning 79 years old this year, after four decades of struggle, the 20-year-old activist said. I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to see democracy?

(Coconuts Hong Kong) May 4, 2017.

Former governor Chris Patten, democracy activists Joshua Wong and Martin Lee, and Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee called on the United States to safeguard Hong Kongs autonomy yesterday during a US Congressional hearing.

The democracy advocates had been invited to speak to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and assess Hong Kongs development in the 20 years after the handover.

ppearing through video teleconference, Patten criticized China for breaching the Joint Declaration by . Referring to Chinas assertion that what happens in Hong Kong is nobody elses affair, Patten stressed that the Joint Declaration was an international treaty and thus of international interest.

Its perfectly clear that Hong Kong has not been given what it was promised by the new sovereign power. As an international trading and economic hub, Hong Kongs government and balance between its economical and political freedom was plainly a matter of considerable interest to the rest of the international community, Patten said. Britain has every right to interfere.

If China cant even handle the reasonable democratic aspirations it promised to do of people in Hong Kong [in the Joint Declaration], it doesnt give one a huge amount of confidence to its ability to handle wider issues.

He went on to criticize the Hong Kong government for cutting off any dialogue with the pro-democracy movement, using as an example Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam, whom he accused of showing no interest in negotiating with student protest leaders during the mass Occupy rallies of 2014.

Patten called on Chinese president Xi Jinping to put peoples hearts and minds at rest during his anticipated visit for the handover celebrations and reassure Hongkongers that the citys autonomy and way of life would remain unchanged until 2047.

Meanwhile, Wong, one of the leaders at 2014s Occupy movement, said that One Country, Two Systems would be no more if Chinas grip on Hong Kong continues to tighten. Wong spoke of massive political prosecution [sic] to pave the way for the 20th handover anniversary celebrations. The government intends to disqualify democratically-elected lawmakers in the opposition camp []. Unfortunately, Hong Kong remains far from a democracy after the Umbrella Movement.

Wong called for support from the Trump administration, saying that support from the U.S. was crucial to Hong Kongs pro-democracy camp. Some people may think [the movement] is a failure because we cant achieve the goal of universal suffrage, but I am here to tell you today that the spirit of the movement is in the heart of Hong Kong people. Thats why I have been trying to gather more support at the international level by strengthening our collaboration around the world, the student activist said.

I started my fight for democracy six years ago when I was 14. The Father of Hong Kongs Democracy, Martin Lee, is turning 79 years old this year, after four decades of struggle. I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to see democracy? he added.

Lee, a veteran pro-democracy activist, former legislator and esteemed lawyer, said the two systems part of One Country, Two Systems wouldnt be fully realized until Hongkongers become the masters of our own house by winning the right to democratic elections.

The barrister also highlighted a warning made by China Liaison Offices legal chief Wang Zhenmin over the weekend, in which he said further calls for independence would threaten the existing One Country, Two Systems policy, describing the statement was deeply unwise as it would undoubtedly spark further protests.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China monitors Chinas human rights and rule of law developments. The Commission proposed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2015 after the disappearance of Lam and his fellow booksellers.

Beijing mouthpieces Ta Kung Pao and the Global Times, as well as local newspaper Oriental Daily, immediately commented on the hearing, calling Wong and Lee race traitors who had badmouthed Hong Kong and accusing the United States of malice for inviting them to speak at Congress.

Internet comments:

- (Global Times) May 4, 2017.

On May 3, the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China held a hearing in Washington on the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. Martin Lee Chu-ming, founding chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, student activist Joshua Wong and Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee turned up at the hearing. Hong Kong's last British governor, Chris Patten, joined them via video stream.

Wong uttered the attention-grabbing words that the "one country, two systems" model will be turned into "one country, one system" eventually. Mainstream Hong Kong society is furious about these people's attendance at the US hearing.

The issues of Hong Kong and so-called human rights have become marginalized in Sino-US relations. The administration of US President Donald Trump has not even mentioned them when dealing with Beijing.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told State Department employees in a speech on Wednesday that pushing human rights abroad "creates obstacles" to US interests. Sometimes, values have to take a back seat to economic interests or national security, he noted. Apparently, the US is a bit tired of its diplomatic maneuvering on human rights issues.

There are too many committees in the US Congress and lawmakers have to pick something to do their job, with hearings about human rights becoming the easiest ruse as it is considered politically correct.

People like Wong are fanning new flames in the US. But such hearings are politically insignificant. They can neither affect the policies of the US government nor create waves in Hong Kong. Most mainstream US media did not even bother to report it. It is just a fuss made by some local Hong Kong media.

The Hong Kong government is obliged to solve Hong Kong's own issues. When it is out of the local government's reach, the central government will come to help. The West lacks the legality, resources and strength to manage Hong Kong affairs. Some Westerners always make indiscreet remarks or criticisms about Hong Kong, but these only have limited impact. They are reduced to playing dirty ideological tricks.

From the Occupy Central movement to the failure of its political reforms, Hong Kong had experienced the most chaotic times. The central government has also adapted to the changes.

But Hong Kong continues to develop. The extreme opposition forces failed to put pressure on China by messing up Hong Kong. The law will bring them to account, and Hong Kong affairs will develop in a virtuous manner.

Perhaps this is how the "one country, two systems" model functions. Hong Kong needs to develop in a diverse and free environment. The country also needs development. People like Wong will continue to make trouble, but if they bring actual harm to the country, the law will have the final say.

- The title of the hearing was Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover. It was not Will One Country Two Systems Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover. Joshua Wong is with the political party Demosisto, which lists 'self-determination' on its policy platform. But as far as the Central Government, 'self-determination' is just another name for independence. The title was thus chosen because they don't accept One Country Two Systems.

- (Bastille Post) May 4, 2017.

When Chris Patten came to Hong Kong last year, his main theme was Hong Kong independence. He said that Hong Kong independence was impossible, and it was shameful and rash to lump Hong Kong independence with democracy. He criticized the two disqualified legislators Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for turning their oaths of office into child's play.

But at the US Congressional hearing, his emphasis was about the British government's failure to make China implement One Country Two Systems and guarantee freedom, democracy and autonomy in Hong Kong.

- So Chris Patten will tell people whatever he thinks that they want or need to hear.

Donald Trump is now the President of the United States (POTUS). During the campaign period, he criticized China sharply on many fronts. But after meeting with Xi Jinping last month, Trump has decided that Xi is a "good person" who can help with North Korea. Under such circumstances, it seems unlikely that the s.417 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 will go anywhere.

- Predictgov puts the chances of s.417 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 being passed at 16%:

This is better than the 1% that was given to the defunct Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2016.

- The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 is toothless insofar as human rights and democracy in Hong Kong goes. It all depends on what POTUS thinks is in his own best interest. At this point, POTUS needs Xi Jinping to deal with North Korea.

The first part requires some Department of State person to write a report "on conditions in Hong Kong that are of U.S. interest." This person will simply write up whatever the President wants.

The second part requires the Department of State to "certify to Congress annually whether Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify separate treatment different from that accorded to China in any new laws, agreements, treaties, or arrangements entered into between the United States and Hong Kong." The report will be whatever POTUS wants. Congress cannot override the certification.

The third part requires to "the President to identify persons responsible for: (1) the surveillance, abduction, detention, or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong; and (2) other actions suppressing basic freedoms. The President shall freeze the U.S.-based assets of identified individuals." The president will simply state that he hasn't been able to identify any such persons.

The fourth part states that "entry, work, or study visa applicants who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the basis of the applicant's arrest or detention or other adverse government action taken as a result of participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process." This may cover Joshua Wong and Martin Lee, who will eventually stand trial for unlawful gathering and incitement of unlawful gathering during Occupy Central. But it won't cover Lam Wing-kee.

Is the Act going to force Hong Kong to have universal suffrage with civil nomination to elect the Chief Executive and Legislative Councilors? No.

Is the Act going to stop Basic Law Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong? No.

Is the Act going to re-instate Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching as legislative councilors? No.

Is the Act going to stop the judicial review against the oaths of office of the DQ4 legislative councilors? No.

You can cycle through the other important issues and the answer will be NO.

- It would be simple if POTUS is actually worried about the best interests of the United States. But he appears to be more concerned with the best interests of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's business deals in China ...

- The Act is toothless because it punishes Hong Kong for what China does. All those persons in China responsible for oppressing Hong Kong face no repercussions. Bad things will only happen to Hong Kong when preferential economic treatment by the United States are removed.

If such is the line of attack, how about going even further?

- Tourist/business visas from Hong Kong to the United States will be stopped unless there is universal suffrage with civil nomination.

- Travel ban to United States citizens to Hong Kong will be issued if a Basic Law Article 23 (National Security) bill is proposed.

...

- Martin Lee's statement to CECC:

"We are merely asking that China uphold its pledge to let us freely choose our leaders by universal suffrage, and exercise the high degree of autonomy promised in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration as a condition of the handover of Hong Kong."

- Under the August 31st 2014 framework, Hong Kong would have been able to choose the Chief Executive in 2017 via universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote). But the pan-democrats vetoed the bill on the grounds that the candidates were not chosen by the universal standard of civil nomination.

If Senator Rubio and Congressman Smith asked Lee to explain this 'universal standard' that they have never heard of, they will find that the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa and more than 150 other countries around the world are not using this 'universal standard.'

- (Oriental Daily) May 4, 2017.

Americans are like this. They don't want to mind their own business, but they like to mind other people's business. Twenty years after the handover, the US Congress is holding a hearing, with the old Chinese traitor Martin Lee and the young Chinese traitor Joshua Wong being invited to testify. It is easy to predict what the US Congressional leaders want to hear.

If the Americans genuine care about Hong Kong, they would have invited representatives from different sections of the political spectrum. The reality is that they were only interested in what these several guys have to say. This proves that the hearing was malevolent and provocative by design in order to make life awkward for the Hong Kong and Beijing governments. Since the handover, there have been many troubles in Hong Kong. Most of them suggest that Next Media chief Jimmy Lai is behind them, with the money being handled by an American assistant with military intelligence background.

The difference today is that the United States is no longer what it used to be, and neither is China. During the election campaign, Donald Trump talked tough about taking action against China. After the Sino-American summit meeting, Trump heaped praises on Xi Jinping as "a respected leader." This was surely disappointing to those Chinese traitors in Hong Kong.

This is no longer the era when Americans can do whatever they want. Chinese traitors no longer have it easy, because the payout is rapidly diminishing.

- (Ta Kung Pao) May 4, 2017.

At the hearing, congressman Steve Daines (MT) expressed great "concern" over the political future of Chief Executive candidate John Tsang. Chris Patten said that it was hard for him to comment, because as the former leader of the British colonial administration, his endorsement of Tsang would be "the kiss of death."

- (Ta Kung Pao) May 4, 2017.

Lam Wing Kee's testimony was delivered in Cantonese with an interpreter giving a simultaneous interpretation in English. Clearly the audience could not follow his story. A 10-minute break was held so that Lam could regroup. After the break, the interpreter read off the written statement in English. So this was a joke. The session was scheduled to go from 930am to 1130am, but it was over by 1100am.

- (Silentmajority.hk) May 6, 2017. Martin Lee and Joshua Wong took their show to Washington DC to get help from the United States for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Will the United States threaten to impose severe economic sanctions against Hong Kong (yes, against Hong Kong) and thus make the Central Government capitulate and allow the universal standard of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination in Hong Kong?

Rita Fan is the sole Hong Kong representative on the National People's Congress Standing Committee. She said that she has not heard a single suggestion at the National People's Congress, including the Standing Committee as well as the Hong Kong delegation to withdraw the August 31st resolution. Today Rita Fan said that the appearances of Martin Lee and Joshua Wong had consolidated the determination that the August 31st framework must be adhered to. This means that as long as the pan-democrats oppose the August 31st framework, there is no point in discussing constitutional reform. Instead of wasting time on that issue, Hong Kong will be better off dealing with livelihood issues.

- United States: 8,000 families in Flint (MI) still have to pay their water bills even though the water is poisoned. If they don't pay, the banks will repossess their homes. The problem has been going on for three years without any solution.

Hong Kong: The Hong Kong government immediately provided free drinking water as soon as lead was detected in water, and immediately worked on to correct the problem as well as seek responsibility.

What do we want a foreign government that does care about civil rights and people's livelihood to interfere in Hong Kong? Are these people telling lies for the sake of their own political careers, or American dollars, or green cards?

- The testimonies of Martin Lee and Joshua Wong contained numerous falsehoods. They are well-known to be false in Hong Kong, but they may fool a few Congressional representatives.

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) Martin Lee spoke about the Hong Kong Police cracking down on peaceful demonstrators. In Hong Kong, we have seen many, many acts of violence. Should the United States use the threat of economic sanctions against Hong Kong to force the release of all those charged with these types of violent crimes?

- (HKFP @ YouTube) Joshua Wong spoke of the government attempting to disqualify pro-democracy legislative councilors. Here is legislative councilor Lau Siu-lai's oath of office. Should the United States use the threat of economic sanctions against Hong Kong to force the Hong Kong government to accept this type of oath?

- (SCMP) Exercising the very freedoms they say they are losing. By Alex Lo. May 6, 2017.

Imagine a few members of the National Peoples Congress have developed a sudden interest in racial violence and civil right violations in the United States. To get a more accurate and objective picture before calling for laws to punish US officials guilty of such crimes, they invite to a hearing an all-star cast that includes numerous leaders of Black Lives Matter and African-American victims of police brutality. Its a foregone conclusion what they would say.

Well, that was what happened this week, in Washington. It doesnt take much of an imaginative leap to guess the rather transparent agenda of US junior senator Marco Rubio. To get an understanding of the alleged erosion of freedom and autonomy in Hong Kong after the 1997 handover, he and his Capitol Hill friends invited to a congressional hearing the likes of activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming and Lam Wing-kee, one of the once-missing booksellers, and former governor Chris Patten.

They ended up saying exactly what you would expect them to say, which was that our freedoms and autonomy were being flushed down the Chinese toilet. At least our last colonial governor didnt bother to fly to Washington and only talked through a video link, thereby saving himself a plane ticket and, for Planet Earth, a more harmful carbon footprint.

Are Wong and Lee any less free in Hong Kong than they would be if they were living in the US? They can fly in and out of the city, and criticise and agitate against the local and central governments with virtual impunity. And that includes saying they are losing those very freedoms while exercising them unhindered, with their views and their US visit reported freely in major local news outlets. They are denying the very conditions of freedom that make it possible for them to jump in bed with the Americans in the first place.

As for our new chief executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, at least 250,000 Hongkongers voted for members of the Election Committee that chose her. And everyone could have voted for or against her if pan-democratic lawmakers didnt vote down the last universal suffrage package. Now, who voted for Patten to be our governor?

My sympathy is only with Lam Wing-kee. Clearly, his civil and legal rights were violated, and he could not seek redress in Hong Kong or on the mainland. I would not blame him for trying to seek justice for himself and others in the US, the UN, The Hague or anywhere else.

- (SCMP) If Joshua Wong thinks he is the new face of democracy in Hong Kong, he is delusional. By Michael Chugani. May 9, 2017.

Will the true father of Hong Kong democracy please stand up?

Upstart democracy activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung named Martin Lee Chu-ming as the holder of that title during last weeks US Senate hearing on Hong Kong. Lee was the international face of democracy in the city leading up to and after the 1997 handover. But the late Szeto Wah has equal claim to that crown.

The pair, along with Emily Lau Wai-hing, fought a noble fight for democracy without once hurling bananas or behaving like thugs in the Legislative Council. Szeto is no longer with us. Lee has lost credibility by cozying up to media boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying who uses our democracy movement as a cover to oppose Chinas communist system.

If Wong harbours any ambition to assume the mantle from Lee and Szeto, hes delusional. The Western media has made him the new face of Hong Kong democracy. But before he gets carried away he should know it fits the agenda of the Western media to romanticise the so-called fight for democracy in Hong Kong.

Why else would the Western media bestow the title of the conscience of Hong Kong on Anson Chan Fang On-sang? Hongkongers more accurately taunt her as a sudden democrat who never championed democracy until after she quit as chief secretary. She has as much claim to being the conscience of Hong Kong as our property tycoons.

Can you think of anyone among our current self-proclaimed champions of democracy who has the moral stature to be the conscience of Hong Kong? I cant. Myanmars Aung San Suu Kyi has moral stature. Indias Mahatma Gandhi still has it 80 years after his death. These titans never cried white terror, political persecution or political prosecution when the law came down on them.

But our so-called democracy fighters shout persecution every time. Are they saying they should not face the law for storming a Legislative Council conference room that injured security guards or for clashing with the police during an illegal assembly outside Beijings liaison office? Our independent judges are well able to differentiate between trumped-up and credible charges.

If political persecution exists here, they would already be in jail without due process. Those who shout white terror whenever they are held to account for their actions insult our internationally respected legal system. And they insult the good name of democracy.

- (SCMP) Opinion: how Hong Kongs political rot started in the 1990s, and the rise of Joshua Wong and his sort. By Jason Wordie. May 12, 2017.

Monkey see, monkey do, as any schoolteacher knows only too well and Hong Kongs youthful protesters have had plenty of simians-in-office to emulate in recent years.

During the 2016 Legislative Council election, several of the older cohort climbed back into the branches to make way for younger and even more cantankerous political hopefuls.

Saturation media coverage further encourages juvenile antics, which are just one more example of Hong Kongs mindless copying of lamentable overseas trends; in the 1990s, Korea and Taiwan made rowdy transitions to more mature political systems. Now its Hong Kongs turn to yodel tunelessly into the political karaoke machines tinny, feedback-prone microphone.

From early childhood, Hong Kongs millennial legislator-activists have observed some pretty doubtful role models. Foul-mouthed ravers (we know who they are) who fling drinking glasses, bananas, slices of luncheon meat, cardboard microwaves and such like, along with crude epithets and ranted slogans, have dominated local political life and news headlines ever since the handover.

In earlier times, strident public viewpoints were better expressed. Elsie Elliott (later Tu), Brook Bernacchi, A. de O. Sales, and other elected members of the Urban Council (disbanded in 1999) seldom minced their words as verbatim records from council sessions make clear. Nevertheless, they remained polite. The rot began in the early 90s, with legislators such as the shrill-voiced Emily Lau Wai-hing (privately dubbed unbearably loud by the plain-speaking Tu) and Hong Kongs ubiquitous, all-purpose rowdy Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, who was eventually elected in 2004.

Shrewd inside observers have long since noted that this individuals carefully staged Legco disruptions typically take place just before lunchtime, so that the culprit can be melodramatically dragged from the chamber in time to adjourn to the members canteen, there to cackle about his latest aria with his erstwhile political opponents over a taxpayer-subsidised meal.

One young acquaintance, formerly a political assistant to another shall we say, controversial popularly elected legislator, explained to me exactly how this farce on the public purse plays out. He now works in public relations and claims that, compared with Hong Kongs legislature, at least that tawdry profession allows him to maintain some semblance of integrity.

Hong Kongs leading youthful loudmouth, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, evidently learned his oratorical skills at home. His father, Roger Wong Wai-ming, is one of Hong Kongs leading anti-LGBT-rights activists; curiously, connections between the two are seldom made when the froth-flecked ravings of either father or son are reported.

Wong Snr is a member of a well-resourced fundamentalist Christian coalition that campaigns against the provision of scientifically accurate, belief-free information on human sexuality to Hong Kong youth. The intellectual contradiction is obvious; Wong Jnr let us remember spat out his milk teeth in 2011 gibbering against the imposition of national education and its alleged brainwashing effects on Hong Kongs young people. When the government swiftly dropped its (admittedly ill-considered) proposal, this victory gave young Josh a heady sensation of triumph that encouraged even more vocal opposition.

And for all their rejection of the broader culture from which they hail, these mens responses to public challenge lost face, hurt feelings and a desire for revenge when eventually pulled up have an obvious cultural origin. Wong Snr even lodged an official complaint with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office eventually dismissed against a senior British diplomat stationed in Hong Kong who had amusingly disdained his homophobic ranting, eliciting resounding laughter, at a public forum on LGBT rights and inclusion held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2014.

(SCMP) May 4, 2017.

The number of Hongkongers trying to emigrate to other parts of the world reached a three-year high last year, according to the latest government data. Figures released by the Security Bureau show 7,600 Hongkongers applied for a certificate of no criminal conviction (CNCC) for outward immigration purposes 8.6 per cent more than in 2015 and 10 per cent more than in 2014. The last time so many locals applied to leave the city was in 2013.

The United States remained the most popular destination for Hong Kong residents, with 2,800 applying for immigration visas. It was the highest number of US applications in the past five years. Meanwhile, Australia and Canada attracted 2,100 and 1,000 applications respectively.

Although the figures provide a rough estimate of the number of Hongkongers emigrating, the government noted that not all successful CNCC applicants obtained immigration visas.

Goldmax Immigration Consulting director Benny Cheung said social, political and financial pressures had caused an increasing number of locals to seek greener pastures.

There are three catalysts: the national education protest in 2012, the Occupy movement in 2014 and the Mong Kok riots in 2016. We received a surge of inquires soon after the incidents emerged. Cheung said.

He believed skyrocketing property prices and issues surrounding the education system were also key reasons for so many residents choosing to leave.

Cheung said Taiwan had also surfaced as a favoured relocation destination. It is close to Hong Kong, with similar language and culture, and the spending is relatively lower, he said.

Figures released by Taiwans National Immigration Agency, show 1,086 Hong Kong residents were granted residency permits last year

.Internet comments:

- They pick through the data and found something to support an existing prejudice. Here is some more data.

(Oriental Daily) May 4, 2017.

Estimated number of persons who applied to immigrate by year.
Columns:
(1) year
(2) total number
(3) to United States of America
(4) to Australia
(5) to Canada
Source: Security Bureau

Do you think that there has been a huge surge in out-migration?

- Here is the lede from the front page of the SCMP website. This is literally true, of course. But the lede would not work if you show the data for the past 7 years.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017. There are even more years of data here, and the text is: "The Security Bureau has estimated that 7,600 Hong Kong people migrated overseas in 2016. The figure was the highest over the past three years. In 2006, more than 10,000 people moved away from Hong Kong. After that year, the figure remained between around 7,000 and 9,000 each year. In 2011, 4,000 were estimated to have moved to the US, the highest number in more than 12 years."

- Ah, I completely know how to read this table. The lowest figures for the United States column occur between 2012 and 2016 when CY Leung was the Chief Executive. The highest figures occurred between 2005 and 2011 when Donald Tsang was the Chief Executive. This proves that CY Leung has done a great job in Hong Kong, much more so than his predecessor who drove people away. I wonder which newspaper will let me write this data-supported story ...

- I have another story: "Canada no longer favored by Hong Kongers." In 2005, the number of applicants to Canada was 1900; in 2016, the figure fell down to 1000! Wow!

- As for the figures on Taiwan, here are the statistics from the National Immigration Agency (Taiwan):

Hong Kong/Macau residents
Year Residency Permanent
Residency
1991 271 3703
1992 868 820
1993 953 1246
1994 2246 1576
1995 1750 1548
1996 1710 1678
1997 1839 1541
1998 1389 1323
1999 1769 1081
2000 1369 1185
2001 1305 726
2002 1580 535
2003 1694 488
2004 1773 502
2005 1643 592
2006 1682 481
2007 1984 484
2008 2421 519
2009 3109 568
2010 2736 498
2011 2447 504
2012 3169 643
2013 4574 575
2014 7506 697
2015 6339 891
2016 5829 1273

[Note: The data from years 1992-2015 grouped Hong Kong with Macau. The year 2016 separated Hong Kong from Macau, showing that 4,057 Hongkongers got residency and 1,086 got permanent residency.]

So do you think that this is a shock to the population structure of Hong Kong?

- Hong Kong, population 7.3 million, had 4,057 residency permits and 1,086 permanent residency permits in Taiwan for 2016. That is, 68 out of every 100,000 Hongkongers went to reside in Taiwan.

Macau, population 600,000, had 1,772 residency permits and 187 permanent residency permits in Taiwan for 2016.  That is, 327 out of every 100,000 Hongkongers went to reside in Taiwan.

The more interesting demographic question is just what is driving these Macau citizens to flee to Taiwan, more so than Hongkongers?

What are their trauma equivalents of National Education, Occupy Central and Mong Kok riot?

Relevant link: Yellow Journalism.

- The Security Bureau merely publishes the number of those who applied for a certificate of no criminal conviction (CNCC), most probably in order to apply for an immigrant visa to elsewhere. Application does not automatically mean approval. So what is the number of visas?

Here is the number of Immigrant Visas issued by the United States in March 2017 for Hong Kong S.A.R.:

Visa Class Issuances
CR1 7
CR2 1
EW3 1
F11 3
F12 2
F21 1
F24 1
F31 3
F32 2
F33 4
F41 16
F42 13
F43 28
FX1 1
FX2 1
FX3 1
IR1 8
IR2 2
IR5 8

That's a total of 103 for the month of March 2017.

For Fiscal Year 2016, the immigrant visas issued in Hong Kong S.A.R. were:

321 immediate relatives
1 special immigrant
903 family preference
83 employment preference
51 diversity immigrants
1359 TOTAL

At this rate, how quickly will the population of Hong Kong be depleted?

Why is this a news story? Is the news really that slow today?

- Let me see. If you lose 1359 persons each year out of 7,300,000, the population will dwindle to zero in 7,300,000 / 1,359 = 5,372 years. As John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."

- You still haven't figure out why this is a news story? Are you stupid or what? The answer is clearly that the story is being pushed by immigration agencies! Of course, they want to help you to apply to immigrate to the United States. They get paid their fee whether you are approved or not. So the important thing for them is that you should apply!

- (Oriental Daily) May 5, 2017. At the Wanchai Police Headquarters office where the applications for certificates of no criminal conviction are processed, we asked citizens why they came.

Mr. Lee plans to immigrate to Canada next month. He and his wife have been planning this for almost two years, and he has other families over there. He said that housing prices in Hong Kong are too high, "working people cannot afford to make the down payment." He thinks that it is hard to live in Hong Kong. Mr. Lee also said that the political environment in recent years is bad, with the various legislators not looking after the interests of the people. Mr. Lee has lost hope for the political prospects of Hong Kong and therefore he has decided to immigrate.

Mr. Wu works in the healthcare field. Her children are going to study in England, so she has decided to move her entire family over there. She has been planning this for five to six years. She decided to do this after the political chaos in the past several years. She said that she lost confidence in Hong Kong after the failure of the constitutional reform. She said that the fake asylum seekers and new Chinese immigrants are taking away resources from taxpayers like herself. She believes that it will be easy for her to adapt in England.

Mr. Hui works at a hair salon and thinks that he wants to be anywhere except here. "Every Hongkonger is unhappy." He said that the filibustering at the Legislative Council makes people want to leave.

Mr. Kwok works in the human resources field. He has not planned to immigrate and he is trying to develop his career. But if should have children later on, he will consider immigrating, because the education system in Hong Kong is not good for the next generation.

- On one hand, some people say that they are leaving because there is no FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY in Hong Kong, because the new Chinese immigrants are stealing the resources of Hong Kong, because schoolchildren are being brainwashed in school, because Hongkongers risk being kidnapped by Chinese national security agents, etc.

On the other hand, other people say that they are leaving because rule-of-law has been displaced by lawlessness (people can occupy the streets for 79 days and face no charges), because the Legislative Council is only interested in filibustering to sabotage governance, because the radicals want to destroy the Hong Kong economy by occupying/rioting in order to fight for non-issues such as self-determination/independence, because your children raised here may become wastrels and non-competitive, etc.

Background: VOA Prominent Communist Party Critic Guo Speaks With VOA China Service April 20, 2017.

(Apple Daily) May 2, 2017.

Ever since VOA interrupted its special interview with Guo Wengui, Apple Daily has interviewed him Wengui multiple times already. On April 23, Guo told Apple Daily that Chinese Ministry of State Security and the Chinese Public Security Bureau have multiple locations in Hong Kong to conduct surveillance, monitoring and eavesdropping of democrats and anti-China forces in Hong Kong. These locations include the Chinese Resources Building, the China Liaison Office, the former Xinhua News Agency, a club in Causeway Bay as well as other locations in Fotan, Taikoo Shing, etc. Guo said that, if required, he can provide the detailed addresses. He knows because he used to have ties with the Ministry of State Security.

Guo Wengui said that the Ministry of State Security has 200 to 300 plainclothes agent working at these locations. They break Hong Kong laws and violate One Country Two Systems. The mobile telephones of all several million people in Hong Kong are monitored by them.

Guo Wengui said that the former Ministry of State Security deputy minister Ma Jian was in charge of activities in Hong Kong. One of his underlings named Gao was the director in charge of monitoring the anti-Chinese democrats in Hong Kong. After Ma fell, Gao was seized back to China and tortured to death. Guo said that Gao told him privately that they were eavesdropping on the numerous Occupy Central people in Hong Kong.

Today Guo Wengui told Apple Daily that there is a safe house in Causeway Bay which is used to house those who are temporarily seized. "The people of Hong Kong knows nothing about this. Other people have put the knife to your necks and entered your bedroom, but you still want to listen to them talk about One Country Two Systems! The Hong Kong government is pretending that they don't know anything! I used to cooperate with the Ministry of State Security. Therefore I know best. They can seize the Hong Kong assets and properties of the Hong Kong suspects at will. Xiao Jianhua, Che Feng and others were like that. Lawless! Because you Hongkongers are kind, naive and patient, you have been used by these thieves. Hong Kong has become a city in which the Chinese law enforcement agencies can commit crimes at will under the slogan of One Country Two Systems!"

Guo said that he was taken to those locations by car. Therefore he will have to ask the driver about the exact addresses.

Internet comments:

- Next Media has been firing and hiring reporters like crazy? What is the deal?

The job specification for the new hires are: "Familiar with various social media platforms. Enjoys carefree creative writing."
That is to say, they are ditching the eggheads who believe in leftist retardism such as journalistic ethics and they are collecting creative writers with unbridled imagination.

- The reporter who wrote this particular report interviewed Guo Wengui and then failed to ask some very basic questions. But at least the reporter did not fill in the details in creative fashion.

For example, the person is in charge of monitoring anti-China democrats in Hong Kong is named Gao. Gao what? If the guy is so close to Guo that they can freely discuss these national security matters, shouldn't Guo know more than the family name? There is nobody to protect here, because Gao has been tortured to death already. And if Guo provides a full name, then the reporter can check whether a person by that name was ever a director of the Ministry of State Security.

- The "interview" was not conducted by normal telephone service. Instead, it was through voice messages over whatsapp, which gives the interviewee plenty of time to decide what to say and what not to say. The reporter cannot press further on an issue.

- According to Wikipedia, in the late 1960's, the Xinhua News Agency purchased a building on Queens Road East in Happy Valley to serve as its office building. On January 18, 2000, the Xinhua News Agency building was renamed the China Liaison Office. In 2001, the China Liaison Office moved to The Westpoint on Connaught Road West, Sai Wan district. The former location on 387-397 Queens Road East in Happy Valley became the four-star hotel Cosmopolitan Hotel in 2004 and then the Dorsett Wanchai Hong Kong hotel since 2016. So how many rooms in this hotel is the Ministry of State Security renting? Are there cheaper and less conspicuous choices? Do you have to tell all hotel workers and guests that floors 8 through 10 are restricted access areas at which the elevators won't stop?

- A club in Causeway Bay? Can Guo Wengui be a bit more specific? The Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club? The World Trade Centre Club? The Hongkong Japanese Club? But, no, it is just some 'club'.

- A club is going to have all sorts of people coming and going, including club members and their guests, employees and delivery persons. Why would you co-locate this with a surveillance centre with several hundred eavesdroppers? What is the explanation for these suspicious-looking mainlanders with military crew cuts going in and out of the fingerprint-locked door on the side?

- Everybody knows that the surveillance centers are located on top of Mount Parker, Hong Kong Island and Beacon Hill, Kowloon. They have to be located on high points. If you are located in Sai Wan or Causeway Bay, how can you monitor the signals in New Territories or Hong Kong Island south? The white-topped building structures on top of Mount Parker and Beacon Hill are secured facilities with private access roads. The cover is that they are Civil Aviation Department facilities operating Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), but everybody knows that they are eavesdropping centers where the workers live and work.

- The China Resources Building? Wouldn't you want a surveillance/eavesdropping operation be located not in the same building as the Consular Department of the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FMCOPRC)?

- A safe house in Causeway Bay to keep detainees? Why do you want this to be located in the middle of Hong Kong Island? Someone will see you come and go at all times of day. Who are the hooded persons being taken in or out? One telephone call about a suspected kidnapping and the Hong Kong Police come rushing in. Why not Stonecutters Island? Or Shek Kong Airfield? Or Stanley Fort? Even if some Hong Kong citizen is known to be held inside these other facilities, the Hong Kong Police cannot enter and search because they belong to the People's Liberation Army Ground Force.

- If Guo Wengui really knows about the safe house in Causeway Bay, he can tell Apple Daily where it is and they will stake it out, gather sufficient evidence, publish it and then Guo Wengui's credibility will be solid hereafter. But he doesn't.

- In the first paragraph, "Guo said that, if required, he can provide the detailed addresses. He knows because he used to have ties with the Ministry of State Security." In the last paragraph, "Guo said that he was taken to those locations by car. Therefore he will have to ask the driver about the exact addresses." Well, here is a driver who knows much more about Chinese lawbreaking activities in Hong Kong than Guo Wengui. Find him already! He is the bigger story!

- "They can seize the Hong Kong assets and properties of the Hong Kong suspects at will." What? Does this mean that they can modify transaction records/land records at the Housing Department/Land Registry to take over your house at will without needing your agreement? If so, and they are thieves as Guo Wengui called them, then why don't they steal everybody else's houses/lands already?

- Specifically, Guo Wengui spoke of 房產賬號 (account numbers of real estate property). That is to say, Guo believes that as soon they know the 'account number' of someone's apartment, they can take possession. The Apple Daily reporter was uncurious about this extraordinary development in the Hong Kong real estate sector.

- Once they get the account number of your real estate property, they can use the Tianhe 1 supercomputer to crack the password on that account. Once they go in and change the password, you will be locked out of your real estate property forever. If you call the police to say that someone has stolen your real estate property, they will tell you that, as far as they are concerned, the owner of the property is whoever holds the password. This is what I understand Guo to be saying.

- Neither Guo Wengui nor the Apple Daily reporter understand the theory/practice of surveillance.

The analogy is with the surveillance camera systems. There are hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras around Hong Kong. There is no need to hire several hundred thousand workers to monitor these cameras on a real-time basis because nothing interesting is happening more than 99.99% of the time. The recorded videos become of interest only after something has happened (e.g. a robbery committed outside a convenience store, a row of motorcycles being set on fire, etc). Then the recorded videos are retrieved for the relevant time-space coordinates in order to learn what happened.

In like manner, it may be the case the government is siphoning all communications (text messages, whataspp messages, emails, telephone calls, etc) into a huge database. But they are not going to hire several hundreds of thousands of workers to process the data on a real-time basis because nothing interesting is happening more than 99.9999% of the time. The recorded data become of interest only when someone becomes a person of interest. Then that person's data history is retrieved from the database for scrutiny and that person and those whom he/she communicates with are monitored on a real-time basis.

There is no need to scare the population by telling them that the Chinese Communists (or the US National Security Agency) are monitoring everything that everybody says. It is neither feasible nor necessary for the Chinese Communists/NSA to do so.

- In the longer Next Weekly interview, Guo Wengui goes to explain how the corrupt Chinese government officials are implementing a plan to infiltrate Chinese people into Hong Kong. Guo does not seem to have made up his mind as to what conspiracy these corrupt Chinese government officials are running.

On one hand, the theory is that these corrupt Chinese government officials are greedy moneygrubbers who want to steal money from China and Hong Kong.

On the other hand, the theory is that these Chinese government officials want to destroy Hong Kong and therefore they have this whole plan of sending large number of Chinese immigrants into Hong Kong to dilute and divide Hong Kong's population and thus destroy the Hong Kong economy.

So why in the world are people like Ma Jian getting two apartment units in Tai Koo Shing from Guo Wengui as bribe, and then trying to destroy the Hong Kong real estate property market at the same time?

If Ma Jian and his ilk want to destroy Hong Kong, shouldn't he ask Guo Wengui to get him some apartments in Thailand or somewhere else, and anywhere but the doomed Hong Kong?

- (HK01) https://www.hk01.com/01%E5%8D%9A%E8%A9%95-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E5%9C%B0/90291/-%E5%8D%9A%E8%A9%95-%E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%A3%E6%99%AE%E6%9F%A5%E6%95%B8%E6%93%9A%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90-%E5%85%A7%E5%9C%B0%E6%96%B0%E7%A7%BB%E6%B0%91%E6%AF%94%E4%BE%8B%E7%AB%9F%E6%8B%BE%E7%B4%9A%E8%80%8C%E4%B8%8B- 

Here are the Hong Kong Census data by place of birth for the years 2006, 2011 and 2011 (source: Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department Table A106)

2006
Hong Kong-born: 4,138,844 (60.3%)
Mainland/Macao/Taiwan: 2,298,956 (33.5%)
Elsewhere: 426,546 (6.2%)
TOTAL: 6,864,346

2011
Hong Kong-born: 4,278,126 (60.5%)
Mainland/Macao/Taiwan: 2,267,917 (32.1%)
Elsewhere: 525,533 (7.4%)
TOTAL: 7,071,576

2016
Hong Kong-born: 4,452,493 (60.7%)
Mainland/Macao/Taiwan: 2,272,293 (31.0%)
Elsewhere: 612,799 (8.4%)
TOTAL: 7,336,585

Somebody is sending large number of immigrants into Hong Kong to dilute and divide Hong Kong's population and thus destroy the Hong Kong economy. But it isn't only the Chinese Communists. More invaders come from elsewhere other than Mainland/Macau/Taiwan. They are Americans, Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Filipinos, Nigerians, etc.

- The sub-population of mainland-born people in Hong Kong is decreasing because the earlier generation is literally dying off. For example, a person born in Shanghai in 1920, moved to Hong Kong in 1949 and died in 1995 would be make it one person fewer. The replacement rate of 150 per day won't be enough to replace the sub-population.

And here is the Usual Language data (source: Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department Table A107):

2006
Cantonese: 90.8%
Putonghua: 0.9%
Other Chinese dialects: 4.4%
English: 2.8%
Other languages: 1.1%

2011
Cantonese: 89.5%
Putonghua: 1.4%
Other Chinese dialects: 4.0%
English: 3.5%
Other languages: 1.6%

2016
Cantonese: 88.9%
Putonghua: 1.9%
Other Chinese dialects: 3.1%
English: 4.3%
Other languages: 1.9%

The Cantonese language is being threatened with extinction, and the biggest threat is English and Other Languages as opposed to Putonghua.

- (SCMP) May 2, 2017.

A group of journalists at US government-funded broadcaster Voice of America (VOA) had been suspended after they were involved in an interview with Chinese fugitive tycoon Guo Wengui last month, one of the reporters said on Tuesday.

In a written reply to the South China Morning Post, the broadcaster confirmed the suspension of VOA Mandarin service chief Sasha Gong Xiaoxia and four other Mandarin service employees over the interview, but denied it had anything to do with the US or Chinese governments.

It said the decisions were based on the journalistic principles of verification, balance and fairness that are standard industry practice and apply universally to all VOA services. There was no input whatsoever from the US government ... Pressure from the Chinese government played no role in any decision-making.

Here is an example of the problems in that report:

(VOA) April 20, 2017.

What I am going to show you are conversations I had with Mr. Fu Zhenhua, Guo told VOA Mandarin Wednesday, and what did he instruct me to do as the head of the national anti-corruption group.

Fu Zhenhua is a top official of the Ministry of Public Security. He tried to threaten me, to extort $50 million from me and already got $1.5 million U.S. dollars from me, Guo said. As long as I give him $50 million, he would guarantee the safety of my family members, they would release my employees, my family members, my brothers, my wife and my daughter. And also [he] would guarantee the safety of my assets. In addition, I would need to help him access some information.

Chinese officials had expressed concerns to VOA about the interview beforehand, but declined repeated offers to rebut his claims during or after the segment aired. In the past, Guo has made allegations of secret businesses controlled by senior Chinese leaders or their families. He outlined more details in Wednesdays interview, which have not yet been substantiated.

He [Fu Zhenhua] instructed me to look for information on Wang Qishan, Guo said. He [Fu Zhenhua] said he was doing this on behalf of President Xi Jinping. Wang Qishan, known as Chinas anti-corruption tsar, is a senior leader of the Communist Party of China and the secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

He [Fu Zhenhua] asked me to look for [information on] Secretary Wang Qishan and his relationship with Hainan Airlines. Secretary Wang Qishans nephew has stocks in Hainan Airlines, Guo told VOA. Hainan Airlines is one of the largest airlines operating in China. The wealth of Hainan Airlines after mergers and acquisitions, as we see in the past two or three years, involves almost a trillion RMB, Guo said.

VOA cannot verify those accusations made by Guo.

At least VOA was forced to add that last sentence. But Apple Daily has no compunctions about publishing the interview with Guo Wengui in which no verification has been conducted and obvious questions are present but not raised.

When VOA cannot verify those accusations made by Guo, it has to be concerned that VOA are being used as a tool by a known corrupt person Guo Wengui to attack known anti-corruption Chinese fighters such as Wang Qishan.

- The journalistic principles of verification, balance and fairness that are standard industry practice and apply universally to all VOA services" does not just mean letting Guo Wengui have his say and then inviting a Chinese government spokesperson have equal time for a rebuttal. It means that VOA has to do some due diligence to verify Guo's assertions. If and when this is a live broadcast, and Guo seems to be getting unhinged on some of his allegations, what would VOA do?

- Are there Chinese Ministry of State Security agents in Hong Kong? Of course, there are. There has to be. Hong Kong has agents for the CIA (USA), SIS/MI6 (UK), GRU (Russia), BND (Germany), DGSE (France), ASIS (Australia), Mossad (Israel), National Intelligence Service (Republic of Korea), Research and Analysis Wing (India), etc. Why wouldn't there be Chinese Ministry of State Security agents here?

(Oriental Daily with video) May 2, 2017.

The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council met today to discuss the allocation of HK$6 billion from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau to be injected as capital stock in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

A legislator pointed out that there was a mistake in the government's documents. Finance Committee chairman Chan Kin-por ruled that this was merely a typographical error and refused to reject the document. Legislator Leung Kwok-hung said that Chan Kin-por was unfair. He said that legislators are "eggheads" (in English) who are bullied by the "dickhead" (in English) government officials. Pro-establishment legislators said that this was vulgar language. Chan Kin-por demanded that Leung retract what he said. When Leung refused, Chan ejected him from the meeting.

Leung refused to leave. Chan decided to call a 5-minute adjournment. When the meeting was resumed, Chan Kin-por denounced that saying "dickhead" is setting a bad example for children and causing embarrassment among ladies. Chan ejected Leung once more. But the pan-democratic legislators formed a circle around Leung and defended him. In the end, Chan decided to adjourn the meeting for the day.

At the same time, someone thought that Chan Kin-por used vulgar language himself, wherein the sentence directed at legislator Cheng Chung-tai, wherein the sentence "If you speak any further, I will stop you from speaking" came out as "Fuck, you speak any further, I will stop you from speaking."

Afterwards, Leung met with the press. He said that his use of "dickhead" was inoffensive. He said that the chairman could have asked him to retract, or rule that the term should not be used in a Legislative Council meeting. Leung said that "dickhead" corresponds with "egghead" and the chairman should not associate it with other meanings. He said that the ruling was inexplicable. He said that if Chan found it offensive, he should point that out directly. He said that Chan ordered him to leave without explanation. Leung said that when a word has multiple meanings, the chairman should ask the legislator just which was the intended meaning instead of just ejecting him.

Leung said that "Dickhead' refers to a stubborn, unreasonable person, or a fool. He said that a committee chairman should have intelligence and knowledge, and it is important to know about culture, literature and human behavior. He said that Chan is hysterical in his effort to support the government. He called on Chan to take a break, visit a psychiatrist and let the vice-chairman take over meetings.

Chan Kin-por said that he rarely objects to vulgar language. Although his English is not good, the language here was clearly vulgar. Many female government officials told him that they were offended. Therefore Chan had to deplore the behavior.

As for the charge that he also used vulgar language, Chan said that he might have slurred. His situation is different from deliberately saying and repeating vulgar language. He apologized for his pronunciation and promised that he will speak properly in the future. He emphasized that he would never be so shameless as deny that he used vulgar language.

Internet comments:

- Leung Kwok-hung was adamant that "dickhead" is not vulgar language. He also said that "dick" is not vulgar either, and he told people to look up the dictionary.

(Merriam-Webster) Dickhead

usually vulgar
: A stupid or contemptible person.

origin and etymology
: dick (penis) + head

(Wikipedia) Dick

Dick is an English language euphemism used for a variety of slang purposes, some generally considered vulgar. It is used to refer to the penis, and by extension as a verb to describe sexual activity. It is also used as a pejorative term for individuals who are considered to be rude, abrasive, inconsiderate, or otherwise contemptible. In this context, it can be used interchangeably with jerk, and can also be used as a verb to describe rude or deceitful actions. Variants include dickhead, which literally refers to the glans.

- In 2001, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published guidelines that summarized instances in which a number of media outlets had violated indecency laws when using the word "dick" in a sexual context. These included, for example, the State University of New York's WSUC-FM, in Cortland, New York, which in 1993 was fined for broadcasting a rap titled "I'm Not Your Puppet", which referenced "shoving my dick up this bitch's behind" in one lyric, and stated in another, "I pulled out my dick, popped it in her mouth, and she sucked it".

- More English lessons from Leung Kwok-hung:

(HKG Pao) May 6, 2017.

Yesterday morning at the Security Committee meeting, the subject were the legislator councilors who were denied entry into Macau. Leung Kwok Fung talked about Macau Chief Executive Fernando Chui Sai On: "The figurehead of the Macau ... that is, the leader ... he is a shithead ... that is, a foot!" He continued: "Will Chui Sai On be allowed to enter Hong Kong? Of course not! He is a figurehead, he is a shithead! Let me repeat once more. Anyone who won't let people in is a shithead!"

Yesterday after at the Financial Committee meeting, the allocation of funds to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was the subject. Leung Kwok-hung challenged the committee chairman Chan Kin-por: "If you have to apologize for a slip of the tongue, you should not be the chairman, brother. What will happen if you use vulgar language frequently?" Then he rattled off a list of English 'head' nouns: "Dickhead, thickheaded, shithead, warhead." Chan ignored this persistent effort to get ejected, and made Leung Kwok-hung sat through the entire meeting and thus earn his pay.

- (Oriental Daily) May 6, 2017.

At the afternoon meeting of the Finance Committee, Leung Kwok-hung wanted to bring up again his motion on Tuesday to adjourn. He said: "I won't say that you are a dickhead. I will say that you are thickheaded, but I don't know if you can be a shithead or perhaps even a warhead. You cannot be like a dickhead, you must not use a warhead to shoot someone. Listen to this lecture!" On this occasion, Chan Kin-por did not respond at all, and made no ruling on what Leung said. When Leung finished, Chan went on to ask the next legislator to speak.

At the previous meeting, Leung used vulgar language and Chan expelled Leung. In the end, that meeting was called off ahead of schedule. Perhaps Chan got smarted and refused to be baited anymore.

- What 'head' has not been used by Leung Kwok-hung yet?
Airhead
Blockhead
Bonehead

Butthead
Cementhead
Dunderhead
Fathead
Fuckhead
Hammerhead
Knucklehead

Lunkhead
Meathead


Hong Kong Independence
Hong Kong National Party
District Speech
Date: April 30
Outside Serenade Chinese Restaurant, Hong Kong Cultural Centre
Time: 430pm-530pm

(Wen Wei Po) May 1, 2017.

About 20 masked Hong Kong National Party members showed up outside the Serenade Chinese Restaurant outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre to prepare to get the speech going.

Several Leisure and Cultural Services Department workers informed Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin that the location had been rented to other groups already and asked Chan to leave.

Chan Ho-tin said that he will move his event to the harbor front opposite to the Tsim Sha Tsui clock tower. The masked individuals then moved their equipment to Pier 4 and set up again.

The Leisure and Cultural Services Department workers informed Chan that they are in violation of the regulations on venue activities. Chan said: "You must be joking." Then they ignored the LCSD workers and went ahead. The LSCD workers called the police, who came but did not do anything. The speech finally began at 530pm and lasted for about one hour.

In his speech, Chan Ho-tin said that this is the first speech given by the Party. There were many obstacles, but they managed to provide "political enlightenment" for the citizens. The theme of the speech today is that about the housing crisis. Twenty years after the handover, "the Chinese kept coming to rob the resources of Hong Kong so that citizens have no hope of ever owning a house."

Internet comments:

- The Hong Kong National Party said beforehand that they expect less than 50 people to attend. The photos and videos show lots of people, but there seem to be many more HKNP workers (20 of them) and plenty more reporters. However, the event drew lost of media coverage. Unfortunately the media had no interest in what Chan Ho-tin had to say. So how many citizens were "enlightened" today?

- Masks for everybody? Why are you so afraid of advocating Hong Kong independence? The Falun Gong people are much more courageous than you.

- They are suffering from a case of mass infection of "Hong Kong independence poison" and therefore they wear surgical masks to stop the germs from spreading.

- When you take your dog out for a walk in the street, you have to put a muzzle on it. When you take your independence advocate out for a speech in the street, you have to put a mask on him.

- When Hong Kong triad gangsters want to make a show of force, they put on gloves and chew on drinking straws.

- If you mom spots you on television news, she is going to cut off your allowance and then you will have to get a real job.

- The Localists have a favorite saying: "We are born in a time of chaos and the people cannot make a living." That is why We the People have to rise up and overthrow the tyrants! The problem is that they look like well-fed compared to other people in places such as Afghanistan or Syria. In the case, Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin looked pretty well-kept, doesn't he?

- The theme of today's talk was the housing crisis, because citizens despair that they will ever own their own apartment. Chan Ho-tin has his own housing problem.

(Wen Wei Po) April 29, 2017.

The Hong Kong National Party is most active in raising money. Earlier this month, the group tried to get the City University Student Union to sell their pro-independence accessories, but the school's administration and student union council vetoed it. At this time, the Hong Kong National Party rents a 1,000-square-feet unit in a Tuen Mun industrial building for about $150,000 per annum. But recently they have been checking with property agents about switching to a smaller unit. At present, the two Hong Kong National Party leaders Chan Ho-tin and Jason Chow Ho-fair have no steady jobs and are living with their families in public housing units. According to neighbors, Chow does not seem to have to work: "He goes out late in the day as if he had just woken up. He saunters around downstairs while p laying with his mobile phone. He looks 100% like a 'young wastrel'."

Chan and Chow's housing problems are due to their refusal to get proper jobs. They have never worked since graduating from university. They may have figure that advocating independence may be more lucrative than a regular job, but perhaps the election of Donald Trump has stopped the money flow.

- Why do these people seem to have so much in resources without having to work? There are two opposite theories. On one hand, they are getting money from the CIA/National Endowment for Democracy to start a Color Revolution. On the other hand, they are getting money from the China Liaison Office to destroy self-determination/independence through acts of gross incompetence to justify the government crackdown.

- The obstacles that the HKNP encountered during this event were due to the fact that they could not obtain corporate registration. Their application was rejected because the stated purpose of the group contravenes the Basic Law. Without corporate registration, they cannot obtain an event permit from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department.

- Chan Ho-tin said that he was exercising the citizen's freedom of expression. This means that he does not need to apply for any event permits. Do regular citizens need 20 people to carry equipment (backdrops, flags, sound equipment, etc) to exercise their freedom of expression? Is that what they have at the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park (London)?

- The Chinese Communist Party won China by using guns and ammo. If the Hong Kong National Party wants to win Hong Kong, they must use guns and ammo too. But if all they do is deliver speeches to "enlightenment citizens" into donating more money to them, then they are just swindlers.

- On this same day, there is another incident that increases the fear among Hongkongers. But the Hong Kong National Party and other Localists have no intention of doing anything.

(Wen Wei Po) May 1, 2017.

The area around Wong Chuk Street and Maple Street in the Sham Shiu Po district, Kowloon has a lot of recycling centers that hire part-time South Asian workers to move materials. The business is controlled by several Indians with triad backgrounds. Recently some Pakistanis have moved into the area to compete for the business. This has led to conflicts.

At around 7pm on April 16, several South Asians quarreled outside a convenience store on Wong Chu Street. There was a fight and one person was injured by a glass bottle smashed against his head.

At around 10pm on the night before yesterday, the two sides decided to "discuss" at the Maple Street soccer field. More than a dozen Indians showed up first, some of them carrying golf clubs. Shortly afterwards, about 40 Pakistanis showed up in cars and by foot. Without saying anything, they charged onto the soccer field with knives, metal pipes and glass bottles. The Indians fought back with golf clubs. The fight spilled onto Cheung Sha Wan Road and Wong Chuk Street.

The Indians were outnumbered and began to retreat. The Pakistanis pursued and threw objects at them, including handcarts by the roadside. Citizens fled and passing cars braked. The police received multiple emergency calls.

The police showed up in force with batons and shields. The two parties immediately dispersed. A large number of weapons and broken glass shards were left on the soccer field, pavements and roads. The police searched for the combatants. They arrested five injured Indians on Cheung Sha Wan Road and Lai Chee Kok Road. 

- Why won't the Hong Kong National Party do anything about the South Asian fake asylum seekers stealing the resources of the Hong Kong Nation? Because those guys have golf clubs, metal pipes and knives! It is far less risky to beat up Chinese grannies, pregnant women and small children.

- (SCMP) Chinas bewildering focus on a fringe group spooks Hong Kong, deters investors. By Peter Guy. May 1, 2017.

Athenian statesman Themistocles said: I cannot fiddle, but I can make a small town into a great state.

The Hong Kong of the 80s and 90s held out that hope of becoming a great global city state of business, but today it is dragged down by internecine and nonsensical political strife.

Despite victories on the constitutional and judicial fronts over separatists and independence agitators, Wang Zhenmin, legal chief of the central governments liaison office, said the one country, two systems policy under which Hong Kong is guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for half a century might be scrapped if it became a tool to confront Beijing.

Wang warned that autonomy could diminish if Hongkongers continued to challenge national security. The more Hong Kong fails to actively defend the sovereignty, national security and development interests of the country in accordance to the law, the more wary the country might be on Hong Kongs high degree of autonomy and the two systems. There would be less room for its autonomy, he said.

For a city trying to evolve into a new, digital economy, any threats to creative thought are bad for business and for attracting the freest thinkers.

Few dispute that an independent Hong Kong is a wildly impractical idea. But I wonder what would happen if an imaginative writer like myself produced a book, video game and movie version of Tom Clancys Op-Center and replaced the plot with a story about separatist Hong Kong student leaders working with US Navy Seals and CIA operatives to take over the city in an astonishing coup?

Even though America has been destroyed numerous times in box-office hit films, my idea would be so comically and realistically subversive that I might be invited for a booksellers long weekend in China.

My point is that applying the communist dialectic playbook for purges to free civil society like Hong Kong only frightens the local and expatriate populace and foreign businesses for the simple reason that there are so few separatists or independence seekers among us.

Warnings of foreign anti-China forces making use of a post-transition Hong Kong as a subversion base for China-containment purposes are not useful in confronting the most important economic challenges we are facing.

By magnifying the unworkable ideas of a small group seeking something that is impossible, China only stokes doubt in investors. Many foreign and local businesspeople are quite simply bewildered at the amount of unrelenting wailing and frothing over a tiny group of independence seekers.

Throughout its history, Hong Kong has always managed to find its economic balance and usefulness to China and the world. Adaptive, pragmatic and audacious locals and foreigners always doubled down their bets and prospered after the 1967 riots, the 1970s oil crisis, the 1984 Joint Declaration and all the property crashes and bank failures in between. Hong Kong now must find its fulcrum in the 21st-century melee.

So without any constraints, chasing the ghouls of separatism only feeds the propaganda machine that is not looking for the truth, but a story. The central government appears to be pursuing Hong Kong independence insurrectionists with the same religious zeal that the Holy See pursued apparitions of the Virgin Mary during the Renaissance.

Ultimately, Wangs remarks, parroted by local officials, are discouraging and dispiriting for the business community that absolutely, not relatively, depends on the Basic Law. Such threats disenfranchise Hong Kong people by saying they cannot truly be Chinese citizens.

- "For a city trying to evolve into a new, digital economy, any threats to creative thought are bad for business and for attracting the freest thinkers." It is in the interest of Hong Kong to evolve into a new, digital economy with the freest and most creative thinkers. What is the interest of Beijing? Do they need Hong Kong as a new digital economy? No, they don't because the new Silicon Valley is already in Shenzhen. What do they need? Protecting sovereignty, national security and development interests.

- "Few dispute that an independent Hong Kong is a wildly impractical idea." Why don't you tell it to Chan Ho-tin? Maybe the idea is impractical, but he is bent on talking about it (in order to raise more money so that he can talk even more about it).

- "Wangs remarks, parroted by local officials, are discouraging and dispiriting for the business community that absolutely, not relatively, depends on the Basic Law." The Basic Law? Let us start with Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." You are tossing out the Basic Law if you support independence/self-determination.

- When the LCSD worker told Chan to stop, he said: "You are joking." What does that mean? Chan means to say that he is a citizen of the Hong Kong Nation, and therefore the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China are not applicable to him.

- If and when Chan Ho-tin starts something like the Mong Kok riot, it will be much more discouraging and dispiriting for the business community than Wang's remarks.

- (ETnet.com.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 2, 2017.

A few days ago, the pro-Hong Kong independence Hong Kong National Party of 20 masked persons led by Chan Ho-tin held a discussion forum outside Serenade Chinese Restaurant, Hong Kong Cultural Centre with Hong Kong independence banners in front of several dozen reporters.

This is the first time I have ever seen an event in which both speakers and attendees were masked.

It is bad enough to have a public speech on Hong Kong independence. Worse yet, this event holders never applied for a permit to hold a public meeting. Chan Ho-tin said that it was because the Hong Kong National Party had not been able to register as a social group, and therefore cannot applied for a permit from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. According to the news reporters, many LCSD workers and Cultural Centre workers asked the Hong Kong National Party to leave because the location was rented to other parties. However, the individuals in mask paid no attention, and continued to raise their banners and set up their audio system. The workers had to summon the police.

Amazingly, the police were unable to to do anything to them. So the speech took place under the watchful eyes of the police and the LCSD workers. The so-called rule-or-law seemed to have gotten out of hand nowadays.

When a group of lawless people publicly engage in unlawful behavior, the law enforcement agents and property managers can only watch them even though their numbers are several times more.

If the group of people were triad gangsters using megaphones to recruit new members, do you think that they would be arrested immediately?

If the group of people were unlicensed itinerant vendors who say: "Yes, I don't have a license", "No, they wouldn't issue a license to me in this location", "Do you think I want to do this?", "CY Leung has lousy policies" ... do you think that they would be arrested immediately.

Arrest is a certainty in the two examples above. So why are Chan Ho-tin's masked gang allowed to operate freely? Are you afraid that they may get upset? Or are you worried about the several dozen reporters with cameras in hand?

But if those were triad gangsters who brought reporters with them, would you hesitate?

I remember that a frontline police commander telling me during Occupy Admiralty: "The orders from above are that our first commandment no matter what happens is: Don't create scene. Simply put, we have to hold back. As soon as you arrest someone, you create a scene."

We may consider that to be a strategy during the Occupy Central period. But when you are forbidden to "create a scene" in everyday matters, then we will never ever have peace.

Reference: The Revolution Begins Today...


The Nine Heroes/Martyrs

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2017.

Police have arrested up to nine activists on Thursday they are expected to be charged with participating in unlawful assembly and for public disorder following a protest five months ago against an impending Basic Law interpretation by Beijing.

Avery Ng Man-yuen, the chairman of the League of Social Democrats, was charged with two counts of inciting disorderly conduct in a public place, according to a Facebook post by his party.

The others arrested include:

They were unable to contact Victor Wong Hon-leung, a former deputy secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. Reports said he has been arrested as well.

Demosisto and the League of Social Democrats said they expected they would be charged with unlawful assembly and public disorder, among other possible charges.

Internet comments:

- Why elevate to the level of a systematic White Terror political persecution? Go review what happened on that day (see, for example, the 9:28 long summary TVB news report the next day). Was there an unlawful gathering? Yes, there was, by any standard. So can we let the courts decide whether the accused were culpable?

- Was this a breach of peace? Did the passengers in the trams have cause to be afraid? Are they prevented from going home?

- (NOW TV) Legislative Councilor Nathan Law said that these arrests are politically motivated oppression which won't help to mend social divisions.

If you arrest and prosecute the people who breached the peace, it is a political decision that won't help to mend social divisions. But if you won't arrest and prosecute them, it is also a political decision which won't help to mend social divisions.

So what kind of society do you want? A rule-of-law society in which all lawbreakers are arrested and prosecuted irrespective of political beliefs? Or a rule-of-man society in which some lawbreakers cannot be arrested and prosecuted because of their political beliefs?

- Avery Ng: "The police are using anti-triad methods against us."

If three or more triad gang members get together and breach the peace, the police arrest them for unlawful gathering under the Public Order Ordinance.
If three or more pro-democracy activists get together and breach the peace, the police must not arrest them for unlawful gathering under the Public Order Ordinance.
What does this mean? It means that the social group known as "pro-democracy activists" is above and beyond the law. They enjoy special privileges that others don't. Is this democracy?

- The tragedy of Avery Ng is that even the arresting cops think that it is a farce:

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2017.

Beijing mouthpiece Wen Wei Po raised eyebrows after it predicted the arrests of several pro-democracy activists on Thursday. The report was apparently compiled hours before the actual arrests took place. On page A5 of its Thursday edition, Wen Wei Po said it had an exclusive scoop, reporting that as many as ten activists would soon be arrested for their participation in the November protest.

We learned that police will launch a new round of arrests today, at the earliest it wrote. Nearly 10 people will be arrested, including the leader of a political party and active members of new opposition groups. They may face charges such as organising and participating in an unlawful assembly.

- Does this mean police are teaming up with Beijing-backed papers? Dont police owe an explanation to the public? said Tommy Cheung, who is facing prosecution for his leading role in the 2014 pro-democracy movement. Activist Joshua Wong of the Demosisto party also urged police to explain how the pro-Beijing paper obtained the information.

- Well, you cannot go ask Wen Wei Po where they got their information from, because protecting a source is the foundation of freedom of press. Even the Hong Kong Journalists Association/Reporters Without Borders will concur.

- And now we come to this fact of life: Nowadays Wen Wei Po is much more readable and informative than Apple Daily. Most of the time, I skip when I see an Apple Daily story because I think that it is more likely fictional than not. But Wen Wei Po has some interesting exclusive stories that turn out to be accurate afterwards.

- A good starting point is to ask legislators Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong and Lam Cheuk-ting about how they got their information on the ICAC investigations of Chief Executive CY Leung's UGL deal.

- Leaking an arrest ahead of time gives the target persons the chance to run to the foreign consulates to seek political asylum. So the police must plug the leak.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 28, 2017.

Our reporter waited for many days. Finally at 730am yesterday morning, we saw a group of plainclothes policemen arrived downstairs of where Avery Ng lives. About half an hour later, two officers brought down the blue-suit-dress Avery Ng to the gate. At this time, three other officers waiting outside the building went up to Avery Ng, issued the standard caution and checked identification.

This scene drew the attention of security guards and residents who approached to observe. Whereas Avery Ng is known to be the articulate, brilliant and valiant General in front of the media, he now seemed nervous and unresponsive to the questions from the police. He thought for a while before he answered. When he saw people pointing at him and discussion among themselves, he seemed very embarrassed. He lowered his head as if he wanted to evade something. Some residents who did not know him asked: "Who is that?" Other residents who knew about him said: "Hey, General, why do you look so lame?"

Soon, the police officers completed the preliminary procedure and directed Avery Ng to go with them to the parking lot. Ng took out his mobile telephone and seemed to be calling a friend to tell him about the arrest. Finally, the two policemen escorted Ng into the van. At this moment, it began to rain heavily. An old man suddenly said: "Time's up!"

Now this news report seems to imply that Wen Wei Po had patiently staked out Avery Ng's residence for quite some time before detecting signs that an arrest was imminent.

- (Apple Daily) On Facebook, Yau Wai-ching wrote "Even though we may have thousands and thousands of different ideas, we have an even larger common enemy." She wrote that only tyrannical regimes push people to protest in the streets. The ordinances on public order and unlawful gathering refer to "breach of peace." Who is responsible for breaching the peace? "The protestors or Chinese Communist tyranny? The answer is almost self-evident." The essay said that organizations such as Youngspiration, Demosisto and League of Social Democrats will not be spared by the tyrants, and therefore they must all rise up and oppose the tyrannical regime. "Holding illusions about the authoritarian regime will ultimately result in being used up and discarded."

- Photographic evidence in support of Yau Wai-ching's thesis: 'Chinese Communists digging out bricks from the pavement to throw at Hong Kong citizens.'

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Human rights watchdog Amnesty International has urged the Hong Kong government to stop its orchestrated campaign to prosecute dissidents, following Thursdays surprise arrests of nine activists over their participation in a protest last November. The repeated use of vague charges against prominent figures in Hong Kongs pro-democracy movement reeks of an orchestrated and retaliatory campaign by the authorities to punish those that advocate for democracy in Hong Kong, said Mabel Au, director of Amnesty International Hong Kong. She said the government attempted to discourage participation in peaceful protests through the prosecution of activists. The Hong Kong government should be protecting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, she added, but instead it appears intent on intimidating people who are challenging the authorities.

- More photos of pro-democracy activists exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly in Hong Kong that night.

- What is the relationship between lawmakers and law?

25 Hong Kong pan-democratic Legislative Councilors sign a letter
to strongly condemn the CY Leung government for prosecuting in accordance with the law the rioters who have broken Hong Kong laws.

- Hong Kong University Students Union Facebook

Since the winning of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor in the Chief Executive Election, the de facto communist regime of Hong Kong has started persecution against the dissidents of the government. The slaughters of rebels are coming one after another. The crackdown begins with the police launching arrests of the participants of the Umbrella Revolution, including Chan Suk Chong, Lee Wing Tat, Wong Ho Ming, Cheung Sau Yin, Shiu Ka Chun, Chung Yiu Wa, Tai Yiu Ting, Chan Kin Man and Chu Yiu Ming. Elected Legislative Councillors Leung Chung Hang and Yau Wai Ching have also been arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and attempted forced entry into the conference room of the Legislative Council. It is undoubtedly legitimate for Legislative Councillors to enter the conference room and participate in the meetings, and thus, the decision made by the President of the Legislative Council Leung Kwan Yuen that the two could not enter the room was already sheer absurdity in the first place. The government has gone as far as charging the two in order to suppress opposing forces. Participants of the demonstration against the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National Peoples Congress including Lam Shun Hin and Lam Long Yin have also been arrested yesterday morning. The Students Union condemns such attempts by the government to terrorise our people for it is merely creating a reign of terror through the state apparatus in order to subjugate us to the authoritarian rule of the puppet Chief Executive.

It is alarming that the activists facing the suppression all have very different positions in the political spectrum, implying that in the future no one can be promised to be safe and immune. We must now eschew our unrealistic expectation on the government that it genuinely hopes to heal the social divide and communicate constantly. People with various political views, be it supporting independence, self-determination or universal suffrage, will all be labelled as separatists by the government. We must not succumb to the abominable regime, but at the same time, we know our future will be rife with woes and obstacles. To those who simply want to enjoy freedom and rule of law but have yet to take concrete actions to fight for them, remember, no man is an island entire of itself, so do not ask for whom the bell tolls it is now tolling for every one of us.

The Hong Kong University Students Union
28 April 2017

(Schoolmates who will be or who have been arrested please contact the Students Union and we will provide all possible assistance within our capacity.)

- (Ta Kung Pao) April 28, 2017.

What happened on that night in November last year? The Civil Human Rights Front organized a demonstration march to protest the National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law. The demonstrators gathered at Shelton Sports Ground in Wanchai and marched towards the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan. During the march, people can see the pro-Hong Kong independence banners including "Hong Kong is not China." and the British Dragon-Lion flags. Therefore some people considered this demonstration march to be a show of force by the pro-independence people.

When the marchers arrived at the China Liaison Office, some of them deliberately provoked the police by charging at the metal barricades.


[In this photo, the police were content to stay behind two rows of metal barricades to keep the demonstrators on the sidewalk and off the roadway in order to let vehicular/tram traffic continue to run on Connaught Road West. The demonstrators (including at least two of the arrestees) are charging and pushing at the barricades). This is Occupy Sai Wan in which the demonstrators will occupy the roadway, stop all traffic and prevent the police from clearing the road.]

More people arrived and the demonstrators went on the roadway to paralyze traffic on the road. Some policemen were violently attacked and sustained injuries. The demonstrators clearly came prepared because they carried umbrellas and masks. They even began to dig out bricks from the pavement. The Hong Kong University Students Union provided lots of bottled water. So this was a pre-meditated pre-planned violent attack.

... We must be clear on two things.

Firstly, is legal responsibility applicable only on the basis of political position? Citizens are very clear on this. If you break the law, you bear legal responsibility. This is true no matter who you are. If former Chief Executive Donald Tsang has to go to jail for his crime, then why should 'pro-democracy' activists be spared for their misdeeds? If you let the convicted Mong Kok rioters go free, then it implies impunity for all future 'pro-democracy' riots.

Secondly, was this pre-planned political persecution? The basis for this statement is a single newspaper article, which clearly stated that it was "speculation" without any substantive details (no WHO, WHEN, WHAT, WHERE, HOW). Once Franklin Chu and the Nine Men/Women were arrested, speculations were rampant about who's next: the Occupy Central trio? Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for the clash at the Legislative Council? Occupy Sai Wan? etc. They are all likely targets. Even now, speculations are rampant about who's next next: Jimmy Lai for Occupy Central? Joshua Wong and Nathan Law for the Zhang Dejiang visit?

There is a Chinese saying about the rule-of-man: 「只許州官放火,不許百姓點燈」 ("The provincial government officials are allowed to set off fires, but the common folks are not even allowed to light a lantern"). The pan-democrats have updated this saying: 「只許泛民暴力衝擊,不許警方依法拘捕」("The pan-democrats are allowed to charge violently, but the police cannot even arrest them in accordance with the law.").

- (Ta Kung Pao) April 28, 2017.

With respect to being arrested by the police, the arrestees questioned whether this was "politically motivated prosecution." They said that they are being oppressed for trying to defend democracy in Hong Kong blah blah blah.

The police made these arrests in accordance with the law. On that day, what the League of Social Democrats and Demosisto members did outside the China Liaison Office was seen by eyewitnesses and television viewers. The case against them will be based upon videos and testimonies from eyewitnesses. If there was no evidence against them, the police would not have arrested them, the Department of Justice would not have prosecuted them and the court will not rule against them.

It is true that the nine were politically motivated when they violently charged at the China Liaison Office in order to protest the NPCSC interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. But they are being prosecuted for breaking the law, not for their politics. Claiming "political persecution" won't get them off.

- (NOW TV) 1:55 League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen called on the demonstrators to hurdle the metal barricades and get on Connaught Road West. The police raised the red flag again and arrested Ng. Many people tried to prevent that. The police swung batons against those who tussled with them. After a wrestling match, the police took Ng away.

Repeated at at 3:13.

- (Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) May 6, 2017. On November 6, 2016, the Anti-Basic Law Interpretation demonstration march set off at 330pm from Luard Road (Wanchai) to the Court of Final Appeal. Some of the demonstrators continued to march to the China Liaison Office. Since there was no application for this part, the police set up a temporary demonstration area outside the Kwan Yick Building. But some of the demonstrators insisted that they must demonstrate right outside the China Liaison Office.

At this time, Avery Ng suddenly sat on the top of the metal barrier and used a megaphone to say, "We have more numbers than the police. We can just climb over like this. It is blocked ahead." After he said that, defendants Dickson Chau Ka-faat and Sammy Ip ignored the police warnings and climbed over the metal barriers. The police approached Avery Ng and attempted to pull him down to arrest him. Defendants Chau and Ip held onto to Ng from the other side. A police chief inspector swung his baton at the arms of Chau and Ip. The two attempted to seize the baton but failed. It is alleged that Chau hit the police chief inspector twice in the face.

Ng is charged with two counts of incitement of others to create public nuisance. Ip is charged with one count of unlawful gathering and one count of obstruction of police business. Chau is charged with one count of assaulting a police officer and one count of obstruction of police business.

- (Oriental Daily) April 28, 2017.

League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen will be a busy beaver on the next few days. On May 5 at 230am, he will appear in Eastern Court for the Occupy Sai Wan case. On the morning of May 5, he will appear in Eastern Court for a pretrial hearing for common assault because Ng allegedly threw a sandwich at Chief Executive CY Leung on Legislative Council voting day. On May 8, he will appear in court again lodging a complaint at the ICAC and then telling the press afterwards.

Is this political persecution against the chairman of a dissident political party? Take a look at the evidence.

Case #1 Occupy Sai Wan: Videos taken by various news outlets show Avery Ng using a public address system to tell everybody to breach the police barricades and took the leap himself first.

Case #2 Legco election day: Videos taken by various news outlets showed Avery Ng tossing an object in the direction of Chief Executive CY Leung.

Case #3 ICAC investigation: Videos taken by various news outlets of Avery Ng telling everybody about what he did down at the ICAC.

There is reasonable cause in each case. Should these cases be nullified because the defendant happens to be Avery "The General" Ng Man-yuen, chairman of the League of Social Democrats?

- If I brought a bunch of people to crash into the LSD office, Avery Ng would call the police to have me arrested and charged.

- If I tossed a sandwich at Avery Ng, he would call the police to have me arrested and charged.

- If I filed a frivolous complaint at the ICAC against Avery Ng and tell the press about the juicy (and fictive) details of the mix of sex, violence and politics, Avery Ng would expect the ICAC to have me arrested and charged.

- Favorite derivative art on the Internet

 

- (Silentmajority.hk) May 1, 2017.

With respect to the arrests of Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, their former assistants and the nine Occupy Sai Wan men, Joshua Wong (Demosisto) got on radio and declared that the police had "washed the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」) before the new Carrie Lam administration takes over.

Joshua Wong must have watched too many Hong Kong gangster movies, but he never bothered to find out about the true background of the term "wash the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」). He thought that he was making a brilliant criticism on the police, but he ended up becoming a joke.

What is "wash the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」)? Back in 1894, there was a major outbreak of bubonic plague ("Black Death") in Hong Kong. The most seriously hit area was around Tai Ping Shan Road (=Peaceful Mountain Road) in the Sheung Wan district. The government took stern steps to stop this outbreak. They used anti-septic germ-killing liquid to clean the grounds of the Tai Ping Shan Road area, and they fumigated every house with sulfur. The bubonic plague was stopped. Thus, 「洗太平地」refers to a thorough cleaning to eradicate problems. Years later, the term would be used to refer to the police going into an area and sweeping all illegal activities (gambling, prostitution, drug abuse) in order to bring peace back to the neighborhood. The residents love it, but the gangsters hate it because it ruins their livelihoods.

So when Joshua Wong said that the Hong Kong Police is acting to "wash the peaceful ground", he is acknowledging that his political allies are causing trouble in Hong Kong in the same way as "bubonic plague" and "gambling/prostitution/drug abuse." Such being the case, the Hong Kong Police is doing the right thing by getting rid of these vermin.

Reference: "I Have Sworn My Oath" (2016/11/02); Epoch Times news report

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 26, 2017.

Ousted lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang have been arrested for allegedly participating in an unlawful assembly. Police visited them at their residences on Wednesday morning and took them to the Central Police Station at around 7am, their office said. The duo was transferred to the Police Headquarters in Wan Chai and then sent back to the Central Police Station. A legislative aide to the duo was also taken to the Central Police Station, according to their office. Under the Public Order Ordinance, the offence carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison upon conviction on indictment, or a HK$5,000 fine and three years in prison upon summary conviction

Internet comments:

- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance Section 18 Unlawful Assembly

(1)When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(2)It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if being assembled, they conduct themselves in such a manner as aforesaid.

(3)Any person who takes part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of the offence of unlawful assembly and shall be liable  (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

- Youngspiration Facebook

Youngspiration received information from Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching at 7am this morning that the police have come to their homes and arrested them. At this time, they are being detailed at the Wanchai Police Headquarters. We have arranged for lawyers to assist them. We will post any new information as soon as possible.
[9:45 update] The charge is "unlawful gathering." The former legislator aides of the two are being brought to the police station.


We will absolutely not give up - Youngspiration

This morning, Sixtus "Baggio" Leung and Wai-Ching Yau of Youngspiration, their assistants and a few volunteers, were arrested by the Hong Kong Police.

In this grave hour, Youngspiration wishes to send a message to all Hongkongers and all freedom-loving people in this world: Over and over again, Hongkongers have tried to find a peaceful way to achieve what was promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which is to achieve democratic autonomy in Hong Kong, but it has been in vain. If we have to use one word to describe actions of the PRC government and its puppet in Hong Kong, we would say: EVIL. Pure evil of authoritarianism, which persecutes every dissenting voice, is against all values that Hong Kong holds dear.

There maybe dark days ahead, there maybe more arrests and legal challenges, but we shall struggle against evil on the streets, in the courts, within the community, and on every media platform.

With God's help, we shall prevail.

- The unlawful assembly did not refer to the attempt at administering the oath to themselves in the large chamber. That meeting was adjourned and moved into a conference room on the second floor. This is when the incident began:

(Oriental Daily) November 3, 2016. The surveillance videos at the Legislative Council showed Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang leading more than a dozen legislator aides down in two elevators. When they arrived on the second floor, they shouted "One, Two, Three, CHARGE!" and charged towards the conference room. At the time, there were fewer than 10 security guards outside the conference room. They were punched and kicked by these 16 attackers. Most of the injured security guards suffered bruises and sprains.

Justice means that the security guards should not suffer their pains and injuries in vain.

- Tough shit to the security guards! They are being highly paid at $34.50 per hour, and this sort of thing comes with the job. Besides this is a grave matter of right-and-wrong, and little people like them always get crushed along the way. We need Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang to be out in the street leading the Valiant Resistance movement!

- Legislative Councilor Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) said: 「香港是法治之區,任何人都不可以凌駕法律之上,『我哋喺立法會有任何抗爭行動,都應該文明、和平方式去進行。』」"Hong Kong is a place with rule-of-law. Nobody can be above the law. Any resistance action at the Legislative Council should be conducted in a civilized and peaceful manner."

- Why is the SCMP story titled "Disqualified pro-independence Hong Kong lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung arrested"? When elected, Yau and Leung were lawmakers-elect. They do not officially become lawmakers until they take their (properly administered) oaths of office. They never did. They are "disqualified lawmakers-elect."

- Because they never officially became lawmakers, Yau and Leung are not covered by the Basic Law:

Article 77: "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council."

Article 78: "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall not be subjected to arrest when attending or on their way to a meeting of the Council."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Two weeks after the incident, the High Court ruled that the oaths of Yau and Leung were invalid, thereby disqualifying them from the legislature. Baggio Leung argued that they were still lawmakers before the ruling. He described the charge of unlawful assembly as bizarre, unreasonable and unacceptable on the basis that lawmakers are entitled to attend meetings to fulfill their duty.

- Reference: Leung/Yau are Out! (2016/11/15) High Court  statement (HCMP 2819/2016)

11.  The Court agrees with the CE/SJ that the undisputed and unchallenged evidence in the present cases shows that (a) Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau had been requested to take the LegCo Oath on 12 October 2016, (b) the manner and way in which they purported to take the oaths show objectively and clearly that they did not truthfully and faithfully intend to commit themselves to uphold and abide by the two obligations under the LegCo Oath and BL104, as they objectively clearly did not recognize the principle of one country, two systems and the importance of one country under that principle, which (as well recognized by the Court of Final Appeal) is the foundation for the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Peoples Republic of China and of the Hong Kongs constitutional model under the Basic Law.

12.  In the premises, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau therefore objectively manifested a clear conduct to refuse (thus decline) to take the LegCo Oath, whether in form or in substance, as required under BL104 and the ODO.   It is again noted that neither Mr. Leung nor Ms. Yau has suggested otherwise by way of submissions or evidence. 

13.  In such circumstances, s.21 of ODO should apply and operate as a matter of law to disqualify Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau from continuing to be a LegCo member.

...

23.  Upon the Presidents request, the Court further clarifies that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have vacated their office since 12 October 2016.

So what is the status of Yau/Leung before October 15, 2016? Are they Legislative Council members. According to BL104, they aren't until they have taken their oaths. If they take part in meetings, what are the restrictions? It seems clear that they should not be allowed to vote because any bill passed with their votes will easily be nullified. It is less clear whether they should be allowed to speak. If they can't vote and they can't speak, what is the point of their presence?

- Yau/Leung's other argument is that they brought their own megaphone and administered the oaths to themselves in the meeting hall in which the Legco president Andrew Leung was present at the time, so they are officially lawmakers. When they tried to enter the conference room, the security guards blocked their way in violation of Basic Law Article 78. That was why Yau/Leung told the security guards that they are going to sue the security guards who are carrying out an illegal order from their supervisors.

- If they had to bring their own megaphone to administer their own oaths, it means that they agree that they are not officially Legislative Councilors yet. If they believe that they already are, they should just attend the meeting.

- A number of other legislators (Chu Hoi Dick (Land Justice League), Nathan Law (Demosisto), Shiu Ka-chun and Claudia Mo (Civic Party)) tried to lead the way for the DQ2 (Leung/Yau). Under Basic Law Article 78, there official lawmakers cannot be arrested because they were attending a meeting of the Council. But while they cannot be arrested during a meeting, they can be arrested and charged afterwards! An example is the 2-week sentence for Raymond Wong Yuk-man for throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung during a Legislative Council meeting.

- Raymond Wong Yuk-man was once caught traveling in the first-class carriage of the MTR without paying for the surcharge. He explained: "I am on the way to the Legislative Council." This is invoking Article 78.

- Article 77 and 78 does not mean that Legislative Council members can do whatever they want during meetings. For example, if one of them brings in a pound of C4 explosive and set it off to kill half the people in the meeting. Is he protected from prosecution under Article 78 forever afterwards?

- Some are arguing that Leung and Yau are Legislative Council members as soon as the election results were made official. If so, why do you need to have Basic Law Article 104?

When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

Is Donald Trump the American president as soon as the Electoral College electors are done with their voting? Or does he have to be sworn in by the Supreme Court Chief Justice first?

- If the oath is unnecessary, then why is it there?

- The evidence is incontrovertible on unlawful assembly. The only suspense is what kind of sentence will be imposed by the magistrate. If the magistrate says 80 hours of community service, it will be another blow to confidence in the judiciary.

- Time for another round of crowdfunding. Please remember to give more money more frequently to Youngspiration. The future of Hong Kong depends on your doing so.

- On the Internet, people don't give a rat's ass about the finer legal points. The two major issues and one minor issue of interest are:

(1) When Youngspiration reported that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were arrested by the police at 7am, people wanted to know the where and how. The police won't say. The favorite guess is that the two were at their love nest in the Kam Lok Mansion penthouse, Wanchai (see Leung/Yau are Out!). Their own version is that three Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officers went to Leung's residence and four Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officers went to Yau's residence.

- More information! (Oriental Daily) April 27, 2017. Yau Wai-ching reported her residence to be a high-floor apartment unit in Kam Lok Mansion, Wanchai. The OCTB went to the building that morning. Two officers knocked on Yau's apartment door and explained their purpose. Yau said that she needed time to change clothes. The officers waited outside the apartment. Yau came out and left with the officers.

Other officers were posted in the ground-floor lobby and the roof. Half an hour later, Leung Chung-hang was found walking up to the roof in bare feet. His shoes were left in the hallway. He was arrested by the officers. Throughout all this time, the officers waiting down in the lobby did not see Leung entering. So only Leung knows where he was. Leung reported his residence to be in Aberdeen.

- (Ta Kung Pao) May 3, 2017.

Recently, a real estate property posted that the penthouse apartment in Kam Lok Mansion is for sale. The asking price is $6.2 million for this 360-sqft apartment, at $17,000/sqft. Before Leung/Yau rented this apartment, it was already put on the market for either rental or sale. The rental contract for Leung/Yau expires November this year. If the potential buyer finds out that the renter is Leung/Yau, will he/she back off immediately?

(2) When are Leung/Yau going to give back the $1.9 million advance expenses that they received from the Legislative Council? That money belongs to the public and was meant to be given to Legislative Councilors for official business. Since they are not Legislative Councilors, they should give it back to the public.

(3) (Hong Kong Free Press) He added that he and Yau were politically targeted because technically unlawful assembly takes place every day. He gave the example of Tuesdays football match at Mong Kok stadium where Chinese football fans unfurled an anti-Hong Kong independence banner. That was also unlawful assembly, and they harassed a lot of Hong Kong people, Leung said.

- This is called switching subjects to confuse the issues.

- Quiz: In Guangzhou versus Hong Kong, how many security guards were assaulted and taken to the hospital?

- There were 5913 spectators at the match. Guangzhou Evergrande was given 350 tickets in accordance with the standard rules. Why are 5,000+ Hongkongers scared of 350 Guangzhou'ers? How are they going to "valiant resist" the People's Liberation Army and attain nationhood?

- (HKG Pao) April 27, 2017.

Yesterday Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching came out from the police station and met with the press. They did not seem to have received much support afterwards from various sectors in society. The pro-establishment camp were obviously all for law-and-order, rule-of-law, etc. Even the Democratic Party said that legislators should be civilized and non-violent. Raymond Wong Yuk-man was too pre-occupied fighting with Civic Passion and Wan Chin. Demosisto and League of Social Democrats are reluctant to be allied with the pro-independence Leung/Yau. So Leung and Yau had to go to Facebook themselves.

Yau wrote on Facebook to explain that she is not afraid. I have to scratch my head as to what she was saying. Fortunately, everybody knows that what Yau writes is immaterial. The important thing was that she posted a photo of her in shorts. Whereas she previously covered up her short chubby legs, this photographer managed to present her legs in the best possible way. As a result, Yau accomplished her mission.

By comparison, Leung Chung-hang wrote a long-winded essay to get the support of localist/self-determination groups. "Please do not believe that you can stay above the fray. Whether you want democracy, defend rule-of-law, guard freedom, oppose colonization, want self-determination/independence, etc, it is the same to the murderous Chinese Communist tyrannical regime. We all want to limit the powers of the tyrants. We all want to take over the powers of the tyrants. We are all enemies of the tyrants. Unless you plan to surrender and go over to the Communists, we are otherwise the same. We cannot afford disunity ... In the face of darkness, we must be even stronger and more determined. We believe that we will meet again on the day of the final battle."

- The day of the final battle? Here is Leung Chung-hang last seen at the Battle of Sai Wan outsprinting everybody else to grab a taxi and leave. You would be a fool to follow into any battle.


The battle begins ...
Help me get a taxi!

(EJ Insight) April 25, 2015.

The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) has barred hikers and other unauthorized people from entering Por Lo Shan, a hiking trail in Tuen Mun that is under its control, as it undertakes a clearing of illegal farms in the area covered by the Tsing Shan Firing Range.

On Monday morning many hikers who arrived at Por Lor Shan, more popularly known as the Mini Grand Canyon, were turned away by PLA officers stationed at the entrance, Apple Daily reports.

According to hk01.com, the PLA put out notices in the area warning that intruders could face prosecution. Three PLA soldiers guarding the entrance told disappointed hikers that they were clearing out illegal farms inside the Tsing Shan Firing Range. The soldiers made no comments when asked whether people entering the area would be arrested or whether they were reopening the Tsing Shan Firing Range.

A man surnamed Tsang, who had come all the way from Sha Tin, said he comes to Tuen Mun twice a week to take care of his grandchild, and uses the occasion to visit the Mini Grand Canyon for its beautiful scenery. He said the new PLA restriction would not stop him from walking up the mountain, but this time he would use a small trail from Leung King Estate. He said he was not worried about getting caught and arrested.

Another hiker, Mr. Liu, arrived at the area around 6 a.m. on Monday, using his mountain bike. He said he came before the PLA soldiers arrived, and he did not know the range had been closed down until he was leaving the area. Liu said the firing range is suitable for mountain bike training because of its terrain, adding that he once saw the Hong Kong mountain biking team train in the area.

Another hiker surnamed Tung said he was able to hike up the mountain via a small trail at Leung Tin Au, but warned that the trail was slippery and dangerous. He said he had met PLA troops patrolling the area who told him the place was declared off-limits to hikers.

(Oriental Daily) April 25, 2017.

The three People's Liberation Army soldiers posted at the gate said there are almost 30 illegal farms up the hill. These people grow vegetables, peppers, pineapple, papayas, honey and even dogs. One person had even built a wooden shed with all the daily amenities.

A number of citizens learned about the closure only when they arrived at the gate. Some people criticized the People's Liberation Army for preventing them from making their exercises. Other people supported the People's Liberation Army. 72-year-old Mr. Tse criticized the illegal farmers: "Some people take over public land for personal profit. They dig out so much soil that landslides are possible." Mr. Woo said: "They should not be planting. They chopped down all the trees in order to make a clearing to grow their stuff."

Internet comments:

- The Tsing Shan Firing Range is one of 18 sites covered in CAP 245B Military Installations Closed Areas Order.

CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance section 28 Prohibition on entering or leaving closed area without permit.

(1)Subject to subsection (2), any person who

(a) enters or leaves a closed area save under and in accordance with a permit issued under section 37; or

(b) contravenes any condition to which any such permit is subject, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 2 years.

If you like this, get the Legislative Council to amend CAP 245 according to your wishes.

- There is a metal gate on the road with a sign that reads: "Military Closed Area/No Trespassing." Which part don't you understand?

- Why the interest in Por Lo Shan? Thanks to a television program segment: https://youtu.be/syGS1SVVLKY including scenes of military exercises with live rounds. Nobody went there previously, because it is in a remote corner of the region. The television program gave it so much publicity that the place looks like Mong Kok on weekends.

- "Dangerous Road/No Trespassing": Hundreds of people ignoring the danger.

- No, the publicity actually began last September. (HK01) At 2am, the police received reports about a fire at the Tsang Shan Firing Range. When they got there, the found 11 men and women between the ages of 20 and 25 playing with candles.

- (Apple Daily) Our reporter went to observe the small trail from Leung King Estate up to the mountain. There are steps that lead up, but the trail is very steep and requires the use of a hiking pole.

- (Apple Daily) Some citizens asked the PLA soldiers to pose for photos. The soldiers were cooperative. But as the Apple Daily reporter took photos/videos, they also recorded the proceedings.

- Why kind of soldiers are these? They are undisciplined and unarmed. How do they expect to fight the US Marines who will coming to liberate Hong Kong?

- (Apple Daily) Citizen responses:

Citizen Mr. Tsang said that the plants were flowers planted by the hikers away from the trail. "I really enjoy the fragrance of the flowers and the songs of the birds when I like." Mr. Tsang does not think that they should remove the plantings. Mr. Tsang said that he will try to go up will tomorrow through the small trail from Leung King Estate. "I am not afraid of being arrested. Even if I come across the PLA, I will explain why the citizens want to hike this mountain. I hope that they can re-open the place."

Citizen Mr. Liu said that he came at 6am to ride his mountain bike at the Tsing Shan Firing Range. "Few people ride bikes at the Tsing Shan Firing Range. That is why I choose to go there." Mr. Liu does not think that the illegal farming was serious. "Please don't ban people from coming."

Citizen Mr. Chiu said that he wanted to go to the Grand Canyon but the PLA soldiers persuaded him to turn back. He said that he won't hike there for now. "Who knows what happens if they arrest me? It is very dangerous."

- I once tried to talk from Por Lo Shan to Pak Nai. I came up to an illegal farmer, and the guy told me to turn back because it was his farm. This time, I really have to say that I support the People's Liberation Army!

- Under Hong Kong common law, if the owner of a piece of land does not evict an illegal squatter for 12 years, the land becomes the property of the latter. It will then cost you millions to relocate them.

- The issue does not appear to be about illegal farming. This is a firing range carries some danger. What if you come across unexploded ordinance? Or what if you build a secret house in the forest and suddenly live rounds come showering down?

- Don't you remember the famous sayings of the Tai Mo Shan woman? "Our lives belong to ourselves and we are free to do whatever we want" and "It is the job of the Police/Fire Departments to rescue us if we can get into trouble."

- Por Lo Shan literally means "Pineapple Mountain." In Cantonese, "pineapple" is the colloquial term for a "bomb." So there are plenty of bombs to be found on Por Lo Shan. When you go to Pineapple Mountain, you should expect to step on a pineapple.

- Incidentally, your personal injury insurance policy does not cover anything sustained in a restricted military area.

- If a Hongkonger gets injured in this military closed area, he is going to blame the government/PLA for warning him about the dangers.

- And they still want to go hiking there ... (info.gov.hk) March 27, 2017.

Firing practice will take place at the San Wai/Tai Ling Firing Range and the Tsing Shan Firing Range next month (April).
 
For their safety, people are advised to leave the firing area before firing takes place and not to enter the area within the period of firing. Red flags or red lamps will be hoisted at the firing areas before and during firing practice.
 
Following are the dates and times for the firing practice sessions in April 2017: 

Date Time
April 1 (Saturday)
April 3 (Monday)
April 5 (Wednesday)
April 6 (Thursday)
April 7 (Friday)
April 8 (Saturday)
April 10 (Monday)
April 11 (Tuesday)
April 12 (Wednesday)
April 13 (Thursday)
April 18 (Tuesday)
April 19 (Wednesday)
April 20 (Thursday)
April 21 (Friday)
April 22 (Saturday)
April 24 (Monday)
April 25 (Tuesday)
April 26 (Wednesday)
April 27 (Thursday)
April 28 (Friday)
April 29 (Saturday)
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm

- The site was a firing range from the days of the British colonial administration. Here is a 1987 television commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgCSfeGHS8 telling people to stay away from the firing ranges. Here is a video of an October 2016 joint army-navy-air force exercise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpHTcqjLps

- Back in the British colonial days, their barracks have signs in Chinese: "This is a guarded area. You must stop if you are ordered to half, or else you will be shot." (此乃保衛地區,一聞喝令即須停步,否則將受槍擊)

- (Oriental Daily) In fact, the People's Liberation Army is studying whether they should open the Tsing Shan Firing Range to the public. But there are issues such as clean-up.

- Lots of public places are banned to the public. For example, you go to a public restroom and there is a sign: "Closed: Maintenance in progress." Will you exercise your right as a member of the public to charge in and do you business?

- Time for the Localists to organize a 10,000-person march to the Tsing Shan Firing Range and dare the People's Liberation Army to shoot us all!

- Don't be silly! Por Lo Shan has little or no mobile phone coverage, unless you are paying for roaming charges using the Shenzhen signal towers. What is the point of occupying Por Lo Shan if you cannot post photos/videos onto Facebook.

There are also no electricity of any sort on the mountain, so you cannot recharge your mobile phone batteries. There are no 7/11 convenience stores on the mountain either, so food and water have to be brought up. So someone has to haul a diesel-fuel electricity generator plus lots and lots of bottled water and sandwiches.

- Exercise of the sovereignty of the new Hong Kong Nation begins with the reclamation of the 18 military installations currently under the control of the Occupation Army. Actually, Tsing Shan is a bit faraway.  There are other more convenient sites. For example, there is a People's Liberation Army barracks at 1A Cornwall Road, Kowloon Tong right across the Baptist University. Even closer, there is a residential building guarded by PLA soldiers on Bonham Road just around the corner from Hong Kong University. Why don't our Valiant Warriors start with these?

(Wen Wei Po) April 24, 2017.

Two evenings ago, District Councilor Roy Tam Hoi-pong (Greensense) went to attend the Demosisto party anniversary. On the mini-bus, he heard some people speaking in putonghua in the front, middle and back rows. So he immediately posted onto social media to say that he wanted to tell them to go back to mainland China. Quite a number of pro-independence persons checked LIKE, including people like Ronald Leung. Even Hong Kong University Students Union former president Billy Fung Jin-en (whose mother is from mainland China) checked LIKE.

Of course, quite a number of people objected to this sort of hegemony. Leung Kai-chi commented: "Let me interject -- if they were talking among themselves and not forcing you to talk to them, what business is it to you?"

The war of words began.

Contra Leung Kai-chi were comments such as "leftist retard dickhead!" and "only you intellectuals are so fucking stupid!"

Leung Kai-chi pressed on: "If any conversation between two persons in Hong Kong must be conducted in Cantonese because such is local custom, then the statistics show that the Japanese people are the group most unwilling and unable to learn Cantonese."

Roy Tam responded that he did not have a problem with language of speech, but he thought that too many people are speaking putonghua. He told Leung: "You like to change to subject. We don't have 150 Japanese coming here daily, or 50,000 annually. This is not comparable." He demanded Leung Kai-chi to immediately state his position on reducing the number of one-way visas (for mainlanders to immigrate to Hong Kong).

Leung Kai-chi is a professional commentator, so he has no problem hitting back: "Your originally sentence was : 唔講廣東話,不如你哋番大陸啦!做乜落黎 ( "Not speaking Cantonese. Why don't you go back to the mainland! Why come down here?"). You did not say: "Why are there so many mainlanders?" Your emphasis was clearly on language ...  your original sentence was on language, and that is why I want to talk about the language with you. But now you want to talk to me about the number of people. It seems that you are the one who is changing the subject, not me."

Leung Kai-chi also listed some data. There are 104,000 persons who have resided in Hong Kong for more than 10 years but still can't speak Cantonese. Of these, just over 9,000 are putonghua speakers. "In other words, the number of putonghua speakers who refuse to learn Cantonese is the minority."

But of course, it is waste of time to talk reason and data with pro-independence people. Roy Tam insisted: "If we don't have any sense of crisis, Cantonese will disappear sooner or later." KingMing Chan wrote: "It is a waste of time to try to reason with Brotherly Love Leftist Regards (such as Leung Kai-chi)." Yan Chan added: "Leftist retards are trying to confuse the issue. This is not a debate competition. This is the people of Hong Kong complaining about what they come across in their daily lives. What is the problem? Do the Germans have to convince other people first they kick out the refugees?"

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) April 24, 2017

Chan Lokseng: Thank you for the opinion from this leftist retard dickhead. Hong Kong ends up in this state today is due to the irreplaceable contribution from you leftist retards. The Chinese government will thank you deeply.

Yan Chan: Only you intellectuals are so fucking stupid to give the mainlanders the opportunity ... What kind of logic is it to want to become a Hongkonger but refusing to melt into Hong Kong? I know that you intellectuals will ask: How do you know that they don't want to melt into Hong Kong society? The reason why Donald Trump because American president is due to your anti-human-being thinking intellectuals."

Patpat Lau: I always thought that the Hong Kong intellectuals who are biased on behalf of mainlanders should reflect on what they are doing.

Tsui Tingpong: If a Hongkonger immigrates to an English-speaking acount such as Canada and he speaks Cantonese in a pubic space, will the Canadians curse him out?

Natalie Hui: Actually you don't have to see it this way. For example, I live in Canada. When I go out with my family, we speak Cantonese as opposed to English or French. Not many people think that they have the right to demand that I must speak English or French, or tell us to go back to Hong Kong. Diversity and inclusion are important values of democracy.

Helix Ha: If you think that even conversations are restricted in Hong Kong, then you ban all non-Cantonese languages as opposed to just putonghua ... as a political figure, you can have your prejudices. But it is inappropriate to publicly disseminate hate. This is not good for you.

Emma Ho: Americans, Brits, Swedes ... when they come to Hong Kong, will you please tell them to speak Cantonese or else you are going to kick them back where they came from! Bastards!

Ricky Chan: If you see westerners in Hong Kong, you will just roll your tail and speak to them in their foreign tongues. I don't see you telling the westerners to learn to speak Cantonese. These stupid cunts have no idea what a cosmopolitan city is s upposed to me. Why don't you go back to farming in the countryside?

- Here is the screen capture:


Roy Tam
I just finished attending the Demosisto party anniversary. I took the van from Kowloon City to Tsuen Wan. At least three persons on the van spoke putonghua, in the front, middle and back. I really wanted to tell them: "If you don't speak Cantonese, then why don't you go back to mainland! What come down here"
#Repeat once more that they are not tourists

- Here are the data from the 2011 Census on Duration of Residence by Ethnicity by Usual Language for persons aged 5 and over.

- Among the 5722240 persons who have lived in Hong Kong for 10+ years, 5465492 usually speak Cantonese, 49125 putonghua, 216292 other Chinese dialects, 90475 English and 43753 other languages.

- If you want to talk numbers, then the crackdown should start with 216292 who speak other Chinese dialects, and then the 90475 who speak English before you get around to the 49125 putonghua speakers.

- There are 11874 Japanese in Hong Kong. Their Usual Languages are distributed as 9240 Japanese, 2408 English, 123 putonghua and 463 Cantonese.

- Among the 3906 Japanese who have lived in Hong Kong for 10+ years, 2481 usually speak Japanese, 937 English, 390 Cantonese and 98 putonghua.

- There are 51,194 Whites in Hong Kong. Their Usual Langauges are 37119 English, 7620 Cantonese, 202 putonghua, 466 other Chinese dialects, 5787 other languages.

Among the 23934 white who have lived in Hong Kong for 10+ years, 15560 usually speak English, 6787 Cantonese, 15 putonghua and 412 other Chinese dialects.

- There are 6373196 Chinese in Hong Kong. Their Usual Languages are 5957039 Cantonese, 89956 putonghua, 272442 other Chinese dialects, 45859 English and 7900 other languages.

- 272442 other Chinese dialects? For example, this could be New Territories indigenous people who speak the Weitou dialect. What is Roy Tam going to do? Order them to speak the dialect of Canton (=Guangzhou)? Aren't you reversing which one is Local culture and which one is Alien culture?

- If this is a language issue because the use of putonghua offends people such as Roy Tam, then a Language Police can be set up to fine anyone caught speaking putonghua in public.

The MTR by-laws says:

(1) No person shall at any time while upon the railway premises-

(a) use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language, or behave in a riotous, disorderly, indecent or offensive manner;

The maximum penalty is $5000 fine and 6 months imprisonment. We don't even have to modify this law, because putonghua is by definition (per Roy Tam) "offensive." So we only need to enforce in accordance with the law.

(SCMP) April 22, 2017.

More than 300 people took to the streets a month after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was elected Hong Kongs next leader, reiterating their call for genuine universal suffrage and urging Lam to reopen the sealed-off Civic Square in a bid to bridge social divides.

We are here to reiterate the principles we stand for, legislator Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung of the League of Social Democrats said, ahead of the march. In order to achieve so-called reconciliation, Hongkongers should be able to enjoy the right to universal suffrage as enjoyed by people in every democratic country.

Demosisto lawmaker Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who was also an Occupy student activist, blamed the citys social conflicts on the widening wealth gap, political suppression and the government-business-landlord-triad collusion a long-time allegation made by lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick.

Without concrete actions to address these problems, [Lams pledge] to mend the rift would only be empty words, Law said.

The marchers also urged the government to stop what they called political persecution of pan-democrat lawmakers, referring to its attempt to disqualify four more Legislative Council members over improper oath-taking. The protest was led by a number of political and civil rights groups, and was attended by all major pan-democratic parties. Civil Human Rights Front convenor Au Nok-hin yesterday said Lam should reopen the Civic Square the east wing forecourt at the governments Tamar headquarters if she really hoped to mend social rifts. The Front will try to obtain approval to hold a rally on July 1, said Au, referring to the annual pro-democracy march on the anniversary of the citys handover. If Lam refuses to let us hold a rally at Civic Square, then she should stop shedding crocodile tears.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) The police said that 150 persons started the march. The peak number was 320 persons.

- Previously the organizers gave an estimate of 800 marchers. When asked whether the turnout was disappointing, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung said that the number was what he expected. If he thought that there would only be 300 before, then why did he say 800?

- (Cable TV News) The procession included Legislative Councilors Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party), Hui Chi-fung (Democratic Party) Claudia Mo, Leung Kwok-hung, Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai. With such a stellar cast, the total turnout was still 300. Chu Hoi Dick got 84,121 persons to vote for him in the Legislative Council election in September 2016. Where have they gone now?

- (RTHK) Legislator Leung Kwok-hung who called the demonstration march said that he is very satisfied with the number of participants. He said that most people have a wait-and-see attitude towards the Chief Executive-elect. But given the ongoing political persecution now, Leung believes that more people will turn out for the July 1st demonstration.

- (RTHK) Legislator Leung Kwok-hung said that he invited the Democratic Party to march this time, and Democratic Party legislator Hui Chi-fung showed up. He also invited the Civic Party to march this time, and Civic Party legislator Kwok Ka-ki showed up. Therefore Leung does not believe that there are any schisms within the pan-democratic camp.

Ha ha ha! How come the Democratic Party and the Civic Party sent one and only one of their bit players? What happened to the rest of their crews?

- And they won't tell you about the funniest part of the whole event. Here are the pieces that you can put together for yourself.

(Oriental Daily) April 23, 2017. When the demonstration reached the building in which the Chief-Executive-elect's office was housed, the demonstrators wanted to hand over certain materials that were sarcastic about '777' (=number of votes that Carrie Lam received) . However, the worker at the Chief Executive-elect's office refused to accept the material. The demonstrators gradually dispersed peacefully.

[How stupid can you get? The Chief Executive-elect rented an office inside a commercial office building. This is a Sunday. The building and all the offices are closed for business. So if they march down there, there is no one in the Chief Executive-elect's office at all. The demonstrators marched to the building and then the security guard told them that everything is closed on Sunday. That was all.]

(Resistance Live Media @YouTube)

2:28 Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats chairman): There is no need to make an appointment. Is anyone going to accept this '777 Small Circle Election'? Anyone?
2:44 Security guard: You want someone to take this?
2:45 Avery Ng: I can tell you that she is not there. This one, this one, this one, this one. This is a letter.
2:55 Security guard (turns around and leaves because he expected to receive a letter but this prop was just kindergarten games)
2:55 Avery Ng: Why don't you want it? He doesn't want it. (throws the prop on the ground) Leave it there. Everybody, she says "Reconciliation". She ordered ... if Carrie Lam sees a man and a woman, then then it is not acceptable. But everything else is okay. If she says that she will accept it, she will accept it. If she says that she won't accept it, she won't accept it. She is not accepting it, so it will be left here. Everybody can see that this new Chief Executive is so petty-minded. She is so very rude. She won't accept anything ...

[The demonstrators want Carrie Lam to come out on a Sunday outside her office to accept an black cardboard display with the numbers '777', her own photo and the words 'circle'. With due respect, this is a waste of time for Carrie Lam, the demonstrators and the media entourage.

The cardboard prop contains no information whatsoever, nothing about anything substantive such as demands for universal suffrage, maximum working hours, universal retirement protection, etc. It is simply a way to humiliate Carrie Lam.

And when the office turned out to be unmanned on a Sunday, the demonstrators said that this proves Carrie Lam is rude, haughty and petty-minded for not accepting their 'letter.']

[(Oriental Daily) April 23, 2017. On the way, a dissident approached the group and started to scold legislator Leung Kwok-hung who was leading the parade. The group stopped as the two yelled at each other. The police had to mediate.

Of course, what the dissident said is never reported by the media. Wouldn't you like to know sometimes? Isn't this more interesting that the 777 Small Circle prop?

Well, if you must know, the man said that Leung Kwok-hung should hand back his public housing apartment unit for other needy persons since Leung makes $95,000 a month. Leung said that the man was misrepresenting the facts. Now wouldn't you want to know which facts are being misrepresented? That Leung makes $95,000 a month? Or that needy people cannot get public housing?]

Q2. Do you support the construction of an Express Rail Link in Hong Kong?
64.1%: Yes
31.5%: No
  4.4%: No opinion

Q3. What is the main reason why you don't support the construction of an Express Rail Link in Hong Kong? (Base: Those who answered "No" in Q2)
27.1%: No need
39.1%: Too expensive
26.7%: Don't want relationship with mainland China to become too close
 4.2%: Other
 2.8%: No opinion

Q4. The Express Rail Link will become operational in 2018. If you want to go to mainland China then, would you choose to take the Express Rail Link?
56.2%: Yes
28.3%: No
15.5%: Undecided

Q5. Have you ever crossed into mainland China through the Shenzhen Bay border-crossing point?
70.6%: Yes
24.9%: No
 4.5%: Can't remember

Q6. Right now the discussion is about a single immigration checkpoint for passengers. That is to say, immigration procedures for Hong Kong and mainland China will be handled at the same location as it is at Shenzhen Bay. Can you accept this in Hong Kong?
62.5%: Yes
32.4%: No
 5.2%: No opinion

Q7. What is the main reason why you accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link? (Base: Those who answered "Yes" in Q6)
 9.2%: Attracts tourists to come to Hong Kong
85.1%: Speeds up the immigration/customs process
 3.6%: Other reasons
 2.0%: No opinion

Q8. What is the main reason why you won't accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link? (Base: Those who answered "No" in Q6)
 1.4%: No need
 7.2%: Make it easier to come to Hong Kong illegally
49.6%: Don't want mainland Chinese law enforcement personnel in Hong Kong
37.1%: Destroys One Country Two Systems
 3.3%: Other
 1.3%: No opinion

Q9. Did you travel to mainland China within the past year?
79.7%: Yes
18.1%: No
 2.2%: Cannot remember

Internet comments:

- Background (SCMP) May 21, 2015.

Hong Kong and mainland Chinese authorities have yet to agree on allowing mainland immigration officials to work at the cross-border high-speed railway terminus in West Kowloon but believe the matter can be resolved, the city's justice minister said.

The issue of how these officials can enforce mainland laws in the city without breaching the Basic Law arose during talks between Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung and mainland officials in Shenzhen yesterday.

He expressed confidence the matter would be resolved by the end of 2017, when the long- delayed link is scheduled to open.

Speaking after the meeting, Yuen reiterated that both sides had agreed a single immigration checkpoint for passengers should be created, instead of checkpoints at each side of the border.

The two governments do not want checkpoints to be set up on each side of the border, as it would lengthen train journeys and defeat the purpose of building the express railway link to Guangzhou.

- Why don't the opponents want the Express Rail Link?

27.1% "No need"? That's fair enough -- if you don't need it, you don't need it. That's all.

39.1% "Too expensive"? The money has been mostly spent already. It will cost more not to complete the project and start using it (for example, there is a big hole in the ground at West Kowloon and you need to find an alternate designation of usage).

26.7% "Don't want relationship with mainland China to become too close"? Those Chinese Communists can come down by air, sea and land (train, bus, private vehicle and even walking) already. If they want to come, they will come anyway.

Why don't opponents want to accept a single immigration checkpoint for the Hong Kong Express Rail Link?

 1.4% "No need"? If they mean that there is no need for immigration/customs control at all, then it should be eliminated for other entry methods as well. So they mean that there should be separate checkpoints, one at the West Kowloon terminal and another at the Shenzhen border. The result is that it will be faster to reach Guangzhou from Hong Kong through the regular Guangzhou-Kowloon Through Train.

7.2% "Make it easier to come to Hong Kong illegally"? They are using the same procedures as at the other border control checkpoints, so it won't be easier or harder.

49.6% "Don't want mainland Chinese law enforcement personnel in Hong Kong"? What do you think of the presence of the People's Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong? Do their wild beer parties keep you from sleeping at night? Do they molest the local girls? What are you afraid of?

37.1% "Destroys One Country Two Systems"? How so? One Country Two Systems is a constitutional principle that is implemented through the Basic Law. If you think so, then the Shenzhen Bay Control Point is already doing co-location clearance. Has One Country Two Systems been destroyed so far?

(West Kowloon Cultural District Authority) Report on the Key Findings of the Public Consultation Exercise on the Hong Kong Palace Museum Project

An independent consulting firm (the Consumer Search Group, the Consultation Consultant) was commissioned by WKCDA to provide data collection and analysis services for the public consultation process.

The public opinion poll collected and analyzed the opinions from the general public in order to understand the similarities and differences of their views on the HKPM project and provide information for WKCDAs reference in the deliberation of the project development.

The public opinion poll covered the Hong Kong resident population aged 15 or above. Quota sampling was adopted to ensure that the enumerated samples could represent an appropriate composition of the target population. The quota was set with reference to the corresponding population figures as at the third quarter of 2016 provided by the Census and Statistics Department, including (i) age, (ii) gender, (iii) highest educational attainment and (iv) working status.

A total of 1,805 respondents were successfully enumerated in 18 locations with major traffic junctions, transport hubs and landmarks in Hong Kong1 , covering Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, between 28 February and 7 March 2017 via on-street face-to-face interviews.

The fieldwork locations included

i. four (4) sampling points on the Hong Kong Island (Smithfield Market in Sai Wan, Wan Chai MTR station, Tai Koo Shing Aeon, Aberdeen Centre);

ii. five (5) sampling points in Kowloon (Mong Kok Soy Street, Carpenter Road Park in Kowloon City, Kwun Tong Yue Man Square, Sham Shui Po MTR station, Wong Tai Sin MTR station);

iii. four (4) sampling points in New Territories East (Shatin Market, Tai Po Centre, Sheung Shui Shek Wu Hui Market, Po Lam MTR station); and

iv. five (5) sampling points in New Territories West (Tung Chung MTR station, Tsuen Wan Lo Tak Court, Kwai Fong MTR station, Tuen Mun Yan Oi Tong, Kolour Yuen Long).

To correct the potential bias as introduced by the incidence of non-response and non-contact cases, all information collected was properly weighted by age group (15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60 or above), gender (male and female) and highest educational attainment (primary or below, secondary and post-secondary or above) in accordance with the corresponding Hong Kong population figures of persons aged 15 or above as at the third quarter of 20162 (i.e. N = 6 143 600 in total).

Key Analysis and Opinions

General awareness of the proposed HKPM project was high with more than four-fifths of the (81.2%) general public being aware of the proposed HKPM project

Supporting views towards HKPM project exceeded opposing views by a big margin. About 52.0% of the general public were supportive of the development of the HKPM while 14.7% were not supportive. 33.3% had no opinion either way.

The key reasons for those in supporting this project (52.0%) evolved around strengthening the ties between Hong Kong and China; establishment of a new attraction and its impact on the tourism industry; and the macro benefits that it would bring to Hong Kong14 . Specifically,

Nearly a quarter (25.2%) believed the HKPM would offer good educational value and could facilitate the learning and understanding of Hong Kong and China, particularly the history (11.1%), culture (10.5%) and cultural relics (3.3%);

8.2% of them believed that the HKPM would become a new attraction in Hong Kong and a good place to go for leisure; the development of the HKPM would attract more tourists to Hong Kong (7.8%); visitors could conveniently enjoy and see the artefacts from the renowned Palace Museum in Hong Kong (5.1%).

Nearly three-fifths (58.3%) of the general public agreed with the statement that this project would provide the WKCD visitors a more diverse range of cultural facilities and experience.

Almost half (49.9%) of them agreed that this project would be beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole, bringing cultural, social and economic benefits; and

4.7% of them expected the project to bring about social and economic benefits to Hong Kong; and

Additionally, a few (0.1%) had mentioned that this world-class museum would uplift Hong Kongs overall international stature.

However, those general public who opposed the HKPM project (14.7%) were more concerned with the resources spent in building the museum (4.9%), and the lack of public consultation (2.4%) than establishing the HKPM itself15 . Nevertheless, their key opposition against establishing the HKPM could mainly be categorized into three aspects:

The role of the HKPM amongst existing Hong Kong museums 1.6% of the general public stated that there were already a lot of museums in Hong Kong; of which, some were considered to be of similar nature (0.8%);

The appropriateness to build the HKPM in Hong Kong 2.3% of the general public stated that people could simply and easily go to Beijing to visit the Palace Museum if they would like to enjoy the exhibits and artefacts; and

The appropriateness to build the HKPM within WKCD 1.5% of the general public were not supporting building the HKPM within WKCD.

Internet comments:

- The main finding in the WKCD Authority report is this:

About 52.0% of the general public were supportive of the development of the HKPM while 14.7% were not supportive. 33.3% had no opinion either way.

Got it? Here is how it was reported in South China Morning Post:

Overall public opinion is split on the decision to build Hong Kongs version of the Palace Museum in the citys art hub, according to the findings of a consultation released to a panel on Friday.

Overall public opinion is split on the decision to build Hong Kongs version of the Palace Museum in the citys art hub, according to the findings of a consultation released to a panel on Friday.

In the [face-to-face citywide] interviews, 52 per cent of respondents were supportive of the palace project, with 48 per cent either opposed to the plan or having no opinion.

- Why wasn't it written as: Opposition to HKPM is small -- In the interviews, 15% opposed the palace project, with 85 percent either supportive to the plan or having no opinion?

- In December 2015, Public Policy Opinion interviewed 532 Republic primary voters in the United States.

Q38. Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?

30%: Support bombing Agrabah
13%: Oppose bombing Agrabah
57%: Not sure

Will this be reported by SCMP as: "Overwhelming support to bomb Agrabah: only 13% opposed"?

[Note: Agrabah is the fictional nation portrayed in the Disney movie Aladdin.]

- (Reuters) July 25, 2016.

About one in six people in Hong Kong want the special administrative region of China to become independent of the mainland, a university poll has shown, although few think it will ever happen.

According to the poll, released on Sunday, 17.4 percent somewhat supported or strongly supported independence for Hong Kong when its 50-year "one country, two systems" agreement, under which it is governed by Beijing, expires in 2047.

Another 22.9 percent were ambivalent, according to the poll, which was conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong's Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey. Another 57.6 percent were somewhat or strongly against the idea.

Why wasn't this reported as: "17.4% were supportive of Hong Kong independence, with 80.5 per cent either opposed or having no opinion" la SCMP?

- 33.3% have no opinion on the West Kowloon Palace Museum? At least they are honest about not knowing or caring enough. Most people don't know much about the project now, either in terms of culture or economics, although that has not stopped some of them from offering their opinions. And most people are not going to bother to learn about the project either. They are not going to have an informed opinion until years after it is built (if ever). Are you going to let them make the decision now in the name of democracy?

- Here is another controversial issue: Organ donations by Under 18's. Let's conduct yet another poll of the Hong Kong general public to gauge their expert medical opinions on the risk-benefit tradeoffs for donors and recipients. You can argue for either YES or NO just as effectively because you can lump the 80+% "Don't know/Not sure/No opinion" on your side of the argument.

- (SCMP) Tanya Chan Suk-chong, a lawmaker who is in the same subcommittee, said however that she was not convinced by the consultation results. Given that the project seems a foregone conclusion with everything already in place, including Rocco Yim as the architect, the support figure of 52 per cent in the opinion poll is surprisingly low, Chan said. There is also a problem with the consultation: it did not ask the key question of whether the citys version of the Palace Museum should be built at all.

- So the key question is not whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not. It is whether the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ or not?

- (West Kowloon Cultural District Authority) Apart from the face-to-face interviews, data were also collected through three other channels -- 623 paper questionnaires were distributed and completed at the City Gallery exhibition; 905 online questionnaires completed at the WKCDA website; and 54 written submissions. The paper questionnaire only covered those who visited the City Gallery exhibition, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The online questionnaires only covered those who visited the WKCDA website by chance or told by others to visit the WKDCA website, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The written submissions came from a total of 119 individuals/associations/bodies, and therefore cannot be said to be representative of the entire population. The face-to-face interviews come closest to represent the entire population. The other channels are of interest only to the extent that they present certain insights and views.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 21, 2017.

Police have arrested a man on suspicion of making threats towards a football match between the champions of the Hong Kong and the Chinese leagues next Tuesday.

The 31-year-old was arrested on the charge of accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent for comments he made online about the Asian Champions League match between Eastern and Guangzhou Evergrande.

In a press conference on Thursday, chief inspector Paul Wong Tak-choi said the police received a public complaint about online speech that allegedly threatened the game at Mong Kok Stadium. It includes [threats] of violence against people coming to watch the match, and even arson, he added.

The man was arrested in the Jordan area on Thursday morning. His residence in Chai Wan was also searched, reported Apple Daily.

(Oriental Daily) April 20, 2017.

At 8pm next Tuesday, Hong Kong Eastern will host Guangzhou Evergrande at Mong Kok Stadium in an AFC Champions League Group G match. Eastern had previously declared on February 13-14 that all tickets have been sold out. This caused Hong Kong fans to be upset, because they think that the visiting team had bought up all the tickets so that they will have more fans at the stadium than the home team!

One Internet user declared that if the visiting team fans are the majority, "then I will cause trouble outside the stadium, including assaulting the other fans and setting fire to their team uniforms even if I have to go to jail." The Mong Kong Police District Crime Investigation Department has arrested a 31-year-old man named Lee in the Jordan District on the charge of accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent.

According to information, Eastern plays three matches in AFC Champions League matches at home: on March 1 against the Kawasaki Frontale; on March 14 against the Suwon Samsung Bluewings; on April 25 against Guangzhou Evergrande. The tickets are either 3-game sets ($480 regular price; $200 special discounts) or single-game ($180 regular price; $80 special discounts). Sales began at 10am on February 14 via Internet, telephone and box office. Each person can purchase at most 2 single-game tickets or 2 3-game ticket sets.

(Oriental Daily) April 20, 2017.

Eastern general manager Leung Shou-chi said that the Asian Football Confederation stipulates that the tickets be divided in the ratio of 94% for the home team and 6% for the visiting team. For next Tuesday team, the visiting team Guangzhou Evergrande has asked for about 350 tickets. The Hong Kong Football Association asked for about 1,000 tickets. The home team players and other insiders asked for about 1,000 tickets. The remaining 3,000 tickets were sold to the general public.

The visiting team's fans will have the words "visitor" stamped on their tickets, and they will enter the stadium through a special entrance. The home team fans must show their Hong Kong ID's in order to be admitted to the home team fans' area in the stadium.

Leung Shou-chi pointed out that a typical Hong Kong professional soccer game is watched by a few hundred spectators. At their best, Eastern can draw only 1,000 players. This year, Eastern is playing in the AFC Champions League and their three home games are all sold out. In February this year, Eastern was the visiting team in Guangzhou. The stadium had a capacity of 60,000. But not many Hong Kong fans wanted to go to Guangzhou, so Eastern asked only for about 400 tickets.

Why didn't Eastern use the larger Hong Kong Stadium instead? Leung Shou-chi explained that they would have to play in that stadium for all three matches under Asian Football Confederation rules. Last month, the Hong Kong Stadium hosted the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens, which could not be stopped to make way for these soccer games.

As for the fan who was arrested for threatening physical violence and arson, Leung Shou-chi said: "If some people couldn't get tickets for the Mayday concert, do you think that they should go and burn the Hung Hom Coliseum down?"

(SCMP) April 25, 2017.

Hong Kong officials will implement additional security measures for Easterns Asian Champions League meeting with Guangzhou Evergrande on Tuesday evening amid concerns Chinese fans have purchased tickets for areas restricted for home supporters.

The Hong Kong champions take on the Chinese Super League winners, who are coached by Fifa World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolari, at Mongkok Stadium. Local supporters are being asked to produce identity cards before being admitted.

Organisers are concerned that supporters from China have purchased tickets outside the area designated for Guangzhous travelling support. They issued a statement on Monday evening advising home fans that a valid Hong Kong identity card was required along with their tickets to gain access to seating.

All 5,800 tickets for the game have been sold, with Guangzhou allocated just 350 in accordance with tournament regulations. Hong Kong officials have been sensitive to any prospect of trouble at sporting events featuring Chinese teams since street protests brought parts of the city to a halt in late 2014.

Similar restrictions were put in place when Chinas national team played against Hong Kong at the same stadium in a World Cup qualifier in November 2015.

(SCMP) April 24, 2017.

Eastern are confident of avoiding another humiliating defeat when they meet Guangzhou Evergrande in the AFC Champions League group stage at Mong Kok Stadium on Tuesday.

The two-time AFC Champions League winners inflicted a stunning 7-0 defeat on the Hong Kong champions in the opening group match in Guangzhou two months ago. We are confident of securing some points from the match, said Eastern coach Chan Yuen-ting at the pre-match press conference. We come back to our familiar pitch and the compact venue will also give our defensive play advantages. More importantly, we have gained a lot of experience at this level after the Guangzhou game and are now in a much better preparation for the Champions League, both mentally and physically.

Internet comments:

- Round 1 result: (SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Chan Yuen-ting said she was hoping to learn a lot as she became the first woman to manage a team in the AFC Champions League quite what she and her Eastern team took away from a brutal 7-0 humbling across the Pearl River Delta in Guangzhou only they will know.

If dont concede a penalty and have a man sent off in the first three minutes when youre playing a team worth at least 10 times yours was lesson one, lesson two might have been furthermore, dont have another man sent off with almost an hour still to play.

Chan and Eastern and likely the majority of Hong Kong football fans given that the opposition was from the mainland had been hoping for a similar brave, backs-to-the-wall performance as that delivered by the Hong Kong national team in their two World Cup qualifiers against China in 2015.

On those nights, almost everything went right for Hong Kong. In Tianhe Stadium, in front of 38,000 and against Brazilian World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolaris expensively-assembled six-times-in-succession Chinese champions, everything went wrong, immediately.

We have learned a very valuable lesson today, insisted Chan, just 28 and the first woman ever to coach a team to a title in a mens professional league.

Of course losing the game is a very big disappointment, but we learned we need to adjust our mentality as soon as possible [to compete in the Champions League].

After the red card everything changed, all our tactics and plans had to be changed. And in a competition like this the pace is quite different from that we encounter in Hong Kong its our debut and naturally well make mistakes.

Ricardo Goulart got Guangzhou off the mark after Wong Tsz-ho was sent off from one of Guangzhous first attacks, Australian referee Christopher Beath judging he had used his hand rather than his head in clearing a goal-bound shot off the line.

Chans plan to frustrate Guangzhou and their 40 million-worth of Brazlian talent was thus torn up and out the window with her players barely warmed up. To their credit, they held out for nearly another 20 minutes despite incessant pressure.

Wang Shangyuan added the second from close-range after Eastern goalkeeper Yapp Hung-fai failed to divert a corner to safety, and moments later, Guangzhou won another penalty; Goulart surprisingly let compatriot Alan take this one, and Yapp saved.

Liao Lisheng did make it 3-0 just after the half-hour, tapping in after Goulart waltzed through Easterns defence and squared the ball across the six-yard box for him, and with Eastern praying for half-time it got even worse.

Wong Chi-chung brought down Alan on the edge of the box and if that looked harsh, the referees decision to show him a second yellow was even tougher but Eastern were down to nine.

With Guangzhou on a 3 million yuan bonus for every goal scored there was no danger of them letting up.

The second half was little more than a nice extension to Guangzhous pre-season in this their first competitive match, an interesting training exercise with Scolaris side essentially playing 2-4-4 and Eastern desperately trying to keep them at bay.

Liao added another immediately after the restart, Alan made it five with a stunning long-range strike, Wang too got a second, and former Tottenham midfielder Paulinho ensured all the Brazilians got on the scoresheet with another fine strike for the seventh.

"Hero" Yapp Hung-fai's game statistics: 29 shots at goal, 7 goals allowed.


Payback

Round 2 Result: (SCMP) April 26, 2017.

Guangzhou Evergrande of China face punishment from the Asian Football Confederation after their fans displayed a provocative political banner during their 6-0 AFC Champions League win against Hong Kongs Eastern.

In the closing stages at Mong Kok Stadium, Evergrande fans showed a banner in the away end saying annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong independence poison.

Angry Eastern fans from the nearby stand ran over and tried to confront the visiting supporters but were stopped by security.

We informed the match commissioner of the banner content, and he has put it in his report to the AFC, said a Hong Kong Football Association source. This banner is not allowed as they never applied to display it, but we dont know how they got away with the bag search. We will have to investigate.

AFC rules ban displays of political slogans in any form, with the Chinese Super League club likely set to face a charge of improper conduct.

Nervous Eastern officials had already doubled the number of seats allocated to mainland fans from 350 to 700 just hours before the match in a bid to segregate them and avoid crowd trouble, amid fears tickets for home fans may have fallen into the hands of away supporters.

Heavy security was deployed in front of the away end, with both sets of supporters verbally abusing each other throughout the match.

Eastern head coach Chan Yuen-ting and her Evergrande counterpart, Luiz Felipe Scolari, said they did not see the banner.

It was a disappointing result as we expected more from the home game, said Chan, whose side prop up group G with one point from five matches having lost their opening encounter 7-0 to Scolaris men. Guangzhou are in a class of their own and had some classy goals which our defence found difficult to handle. But we still have made progress from the first match.

Despite the slippery surface following a non-stop downpour all afternoon, Evergrande went into the break with a 2-0 lead thanks to Brazilian midfielder Paulinhos strike and an own goal from Eastern defender Josh Mitchell.

After the restart, Evergrande extended their lead with a double from Brazilian Alan Douglas. Paulinho then added his second before substitute Yu Hanchao fired in a free kick.

Videos: The game itself and the other politics (0:01 Viking rally call; 0:20 "Team Guangzhou!" chant; 0:41 Chinese national anthem; 1:30 "Fuck your mother" chant; 2:24 "Guangzhou" chant).

- AFC Champions League Group G results

22-02-2017: Kawasaki Frontale 1, Suwon Samsung Bluewings 1
22-02-2017: Guangzhou Evergrande FC 7, Eastern SC 0

01-03-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 2, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 2
01-03-2017: Eastern SC 1, Kawasaki Frontale 1

14-03-2017: Eastern SC 0, Suwon Samsung Bluewings 1
14-03-2017: Guangzhou FC 1, Kawasaki Frontale 1

12-04-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 5, Eastern SC 0
12-04-2017: Kawasaki Frontale 0, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 0

25-04-2017: Suwon Samsung Bluewings 0, Kawasaki Frontale 1
25-04-2017: Eastern SC 0, Guangzhou Evergrande FC 6

09-05-2017: Guangzhou Evergrande FC, Suwon Samsung Bluewings
09-05-2017: Kawasaki Frontale, Eastern SC

- Why the emphasis on the freedom of speech issue or why criminalizing "accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent" is bad? Why not ask what is wrong with Mr. Lee? Where did he get the information that Evergrande bought up most of the tickets for its fans to take away Eastern's home field advantage? Did he hear it from voices inside his head? Did he read it in Apple Daily? Did he get it from an Internet discussion forum? Did it get it from Facebook?

- In Hong Kong, the Guangzhou Evergrande fans displayed a banner with a political message? So what! Look what happened previously when Hong Kong fans displayed "Hong Kong is not China" or booed the Chinese national anthem (which is also their own national anthem). Using that as a precedent, what can the Asian Football Confederation penalize a Chinese team when China is paying their bills?

- If you object to the politically charged banner saying annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong independence poison, then what do you say to the British dragon/lion flag for Hong Kong independence in the audience? Political message or not?

The Asian Football Confederation is in no position to go after individual fans. However, they can penalize the organizers (the Hong Kong Football Association and Eastern FC) for failure to inspect the belongings of the audience members and seize those which break the rules. That is the responsible of the Hong Kong side, not the Guangzhou side.

And that business about chanting "Fuck your mother" occurred both ways (see the Hong Kong side of "Fuck your mother").

- (Line Post) April 28, 2017.

... I personally believe that it is hard for political factors not to be added into large sports events. When I watched China play Japan in volleyball, every point won by the Chinese team pleases me. However, such feelings should be used to support my team as opposed to insulting the opponent. No matter how I hate a country, I will rise to attention at their national anthem. This is respect for myself.

I remember that the habit of insulting of the national anthem began with Scholarism members showing up at the flag-raising ceremony, turning their backs and crossing their arms over their heads. This opened Pandora's box and escalated such that ripping and setting fire to the national flag became commonplace. The soccer match between Hong Kong and China was the apex, wherein many Chinese citizens felt the insults hurled at them by Hongkongers by the first time.

Fortunately, the Chinese fans directed their invective only at the British dogs and Hong Kong independence poison. Frankly, when I saw the banner, I did not feel offended in the least, because I am not an English dog and I don't support Hong Kong independence. Afterwards many people said angrily that they are insulted etc. Even the Brits are not complaining about the insult to their dogs, so why are you so upset? Are you indeed the Brits' dogs? Or do you support Hong Kong independence and that is why you are offended?

Before the 1997 handover, a group of Hong Kong legislative councilors went to London to beg for right of abode for Hongkongers. In the end, approval was granted to about 1% of Hongkongers to become second-class citizens of the United Kingdom. The remaining 99% of Hongkongers could not even become British dogs. They didn't qualify before, and they certain don't now. Today those who wave the British Union Jack for independence/self-determination are merely nostalgic. It is their personal choice to be nostalgic about British colonialism, and that is okay. But the Brits have told you many times that they don't want you, and you still want to stick your hot face up against their cold arse. In my view, this is pretty pathetic.

The racist statement by the Evergrande fans is directed towards the wrong targets. I believe that they should be serious and severely punished. They need to apologize to the very innocent British people and their dogs. As for those guys who screamed "Chee-na dogs," they will end the same way as the final score of this home-and-away series (13:0 Guangzhou Evergrande to Eastern SC). You can create even more myths about Yapp "Hero" Hung-fai, but reality is cold and brutal.

The Flood has arrived, and there is no Ark. You should wake from your dream of British colonial nostalgia.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) According to the disciplinary and ethics code of the Asian Football Confederation, a club whose spectators display insulting, religious, or political slogans can be punished with a fine of US$2,000 (HK$15,500) per banner.

Duh, the Guangzhou Evergrande team reportedly received a bonus of 21 million RMB for winning this match. Can they afford to pay US$2,000?

- It takes two to have a shouting match. These photos of Hong Kong fans are from Weibo: "These Hong Kong fans jumped down onto the field and raised their middle fingers when the Guangzhou Evergrande fans sang their national anthem. Let us take at look at these serfs who are still living in the British colonial era."

(HK01)

Facebook: Middle-finger exercise https://www.facebook.com/chuckyboyboy009/videos/1943639365883642/

- In Hong Kong, the local Hong Kong fans chanted "Chee-na dogs" at the Guangzhou Evergrande fans. In reply, the Guangzhou Evergrande fans, sang the national anthem (video), chanted "Fuck your mother!" (see video, video) and "Stupid cunt, fuck stupid cunt" (see video, video). But this is very dumb, because these Hongkongers are of Chinese descent, so when they are also "Chee-na dogs" themselves.

- Bonus video: A white woman chanting "6-0" in Cantonese in the visitors' section.

- The difference between the two teams is $MONEY$: Five of the six goals were scored by foreign-born players (Paulinho 2, Alan 2, Josh Mitchell 1). So if we exclude the contributions of the foreign-born players, the final score was just 1-0, with the one goal coming from a free kick awarded by the bribed referee.

- Josh Mitchell's goal? He is an Eastern SC player who yielded an own goal. Are you suggesting that he was paid to do so?

- And when the foreigners MSN (Lionel Messi (Argentina), Luis Suarez (Uruguay) and Neymar (Brazil)) score for Barcelona FC, it should not be counted?

- Several hundred courageous Guangzhou Evergrande fans traveled to Hong Kong into the lions' den to support their team. Meanwhile back in Round 1, the Hong Kong Eastern SC fans were nowhere to be seen or heard in Guangzhou, because the club had security concerns. What does this tell you?

- (Ming Pao) Yesterday, there were about 5,000 home fans and 600 Guangzhou Evergrande fans. The Evergrande fans were singing because their team was leading. The home fans were as quiet as a library except for some who cursed back with foul language. The 50 Eastern SC cheerleading team could not create any atmosphere. Mr. Leung sat in Section 16 and kept chanting for Eastern SC goalie Yapp Hung-fai. He said: "I am not a diehard Eastern fan. But we should be united against outside teams. Win or lose, the players need our support. But I don't see the audience around me cheer. Instead, the Evergrande fans sang the whole way. This does not look like a home field. I am somewhat unhappy." Ms. Ho said that the Evergrande fans appear to have received training in singing before, whereas the Hong Kong fans are relatively disorganized.

- (HK01) It stands to reason that the newcomer Eastern SC would lose badly to former champion Evergrande. But when the 5,000 home fans went up against the several hundred Evergrande fans, it was not match at all. Mr. Wong said that the home fans were not as vocal as the visitors. When another goal was scored, the home fans only knew to chant obscenities instead of encouraging the home team to fight back. If Hong Kong wants to do better in this, they will need to invest money and organize cheerleading like Evergrande does. In this game, some Evergrande fan brought 4,000 red t-shirts down from Guangzhou and gave them away to all comers, so that there was a sea of red in the visitors' area (sections 19, 20 and 21) as well as elsewhere in the stadium. It is alright to lose a match according to the scoreboard; but if we also lose on impetus and spirit, we will have nothing left.

- Here is the video of the Guangzhou Evergrande team doing the Viking rally call with their fans after the match. The team players knew how to lead, and the fans knew how to respond.

- Postscript:

After the match, the visiting team's fans were not allowed to leave until after the home team fans have completely left. Several cleaning ladies were waiting to clean up. But they won't have much to do, because the visiting team's fans came with their own garbage bags and picked up most of the litter already. Some of the security guards applauded the visiting team's fans.

Postscript: As a Hongkonger, I am moved by the sight of the Guangzhou team fans cleaning up their section and then thanking the security guards for their efforts tonight. I have watched soccer in Hong Kong for thirty years, and I never see our fans do anything like this. The conflict between mainland China and Hong Kong is complicated and will not be resolved overnight. But prejudices and labeling are no doubt the causes of the heightened hostility. The behavior of the visiting team's fans after the match subverts the belief by common Hongkongers about mainlanders being uncivilized. Unfortunately, most Hongkongers will have only see that one particular banner and not find about this post-match happening. So I have posted this for you to forward.

- (Asian Football Confederation) April 27, 2017.

The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) has charged Guangzhou Evergrande (China PR) under Article 58 for discrimination and Article 65 relating spectator misconduct at their match against Eastern SC in Hong Kong on Tuesday evening.

- (SCMP) April 28, 2017.

Chinese netizens reacted furiously to the news that Guangzhou Evergrande face sanctions for an offensive banner displayed in the stands in a match in Hong Kong this week. The Chinese champions could face a fine and have to play matches behind closed doors after the Asian Football Confederation charged the team with discrimination and spectator misconduct.

Fans unfurled a banner reading Annihilate British dogs, Extinguish Hong Kong independence poison in the Champions League match against Hong Kong champions Eastern on Tuesday, the latest incident of political tensions between the mainland and its special administrative region being expressed in the football stands.

And judging by online reaction in China, few had a problem with the banner.

A poll on Sina, one of the countrys largest web portals, asked readers if they felt Guangzhou fans had done anything wrong. Less than 20 per cent of the 3,000-plus respondees said yes. The poll attracted 5,000-odd comments, with the most popular overwhelmingly in favour of the fans action.

First, the home fans displaying the former colonial flag is not a political symbol? read the top-rated comment, from a reader in Fujian province.

Second, the home team fans booing the national anthem is not wrong?

Third, giving visiting fans the middle finger during the national anthem is not insulting?

Please answer AFC! Lets also hear from Chinese Football Association chairman Cai Zhenhua!!!

A Hong Kong colonial-era flag was hoisted by an Eastern fan during the game, while the national anthem of China has regularly been booed at recent international games in Mong Kok Stadium.

Many said the AFC should not interfere in Chinas affairs, a common line wheeled out by Chinas government when accused of human rights violations and the like by foreign powers.

Get out of China you brutes, said another acclaimed comment. Hong Kong chop suey boo the national anthem, are you so righteous? ... [when] you are insulting the dignity of the country, whats wrong with fighting back?

A popular opinion was that Evergrande fans were being good patriots.

The Constitution of the Peoples Republic of China states that every Chinese citizen has the right and obligation to safeguard the dignity and interests of the State, said one commenter.

The AFCs official Sina Weibo account was besieged with angry messages in the same vein. Its post announcing the investigation had attracted more than 11,000 comments on Weibo on Friday morning. By contrast, its English-language post on Twitter received 16 replies.

AFC suspected of supporting Hong Kong independence and not recognising the one-China principle! blasted one Weibo commenter.

Another popular argument is that the Guangzhou fans could not be guilty of discrimination since the Hong Kong fans are Chinese too.

Chinas media initially did not mention the banner, but the AFCs announcement that Guangzhou were facing punishment forced them to acknowledge that something happened, without providing details or pictures.

Due to well-known reasons in recent years, individual Guangzhou Evergrande fans displayed a political slogan, is an example of the fashion in which the incident has been reported.

Sinas story mentioning possible sanctions has attracted nearly 60,000 comments, the most popular of which express the same kind of outrage.

Hong Kong is China! This is beyond doubt! If you dont like to be Chinese people you can leave any time! Support Evergrande fans, you speak the hearts of the people of the country! was one example.

Tobias Zuser, a researcher on sports culture and policy currently based at Hong Kong Baptist University and founder of local football blog offside.hk, pointed out some ironies of Evergrande fans new-found nationalism.

I think the incident shows once more that fan behaviour and attitudes are always flexible and contextual. Guangzhou supporters are famous for taking pride in their regional identity on a regular basis in the Chinese Super League, with some fancying the idea of an autonomous Republic of Cantonia.

However, for occasions like the Asian Champions League, the patriotic and nationalist agenda always dominates. Evergrande fans also sing the national anthem during away games in South Korea and Japan.

Given the way it was executed, the banner was certainly a well-planned provocation. However, it also carries a subtle tone of irony, as this very behaviour would never be tolerated in a Chinese stadium even within the CSL, where there are strict limitations on banners and flags.

Eastern fans were reportedly not allowed to travel to the corresponding group stage match in nearby Guangzhou in February because of security fears. But Guangzhou fans travelled en masse to Hong Kong this week after snapping up tickets meant for home fans online.

High-profile football games at Mong Kok Stadium have in recent years become a popular outlet for pro-independence, anti-China sentiment among Hong Kong fans, with the national anthem regularly booed and We are Hong Kong! (in English to underline the point) one of the most popular chants.

Guangzhou fans had the last laugh in both games, as their big-spending team hammered minnows Eastern 7-0 and 6-0.

- (SCMP) April 28, 2017.

Guangzhou Evergrande fans insisted on Friday that they had nothing to do with the offensive banner displayed at Hong Kongs Mong Kok Stadium in a match last Tuesday, blaming people with ulterior motives and pleading with football authorities not to hurt the feelings of genuine fans.

The Chinese champions face a fine and having to play matches behind closed doors after the Asian Football Confederation charged the club with discriminatory behaviour and spectator misconduct for the banner, which read Annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong [independence] poison.

Twenty Guangzhou fan clubs issued a joint statement on Weibo claiming that after an investigation they had determined that the four men who displayed the banner were not genuine fans, and asked that the AFC therefore not punish their team.

Photos of the banner appear to show it being held up by at least 20 people, not four, and the fans plea seems certain to fall on deaf ears.

All 325 Guangzhou fans that night ... went through the strict security of Mong Kok stadium, read the statement. During the match, all Guangzhou fans were in strict accordance with the security requirements ...

After the incident, we quickly launched an investigation. Four men raised a banner suspected of having political content. We further verified that the four are not our registered fan members. As for their true identity, and how they carried such a clear banner through the strict stadium security, we have no knowledge.

Over the years, whether in the Chinese Super League or AFC competitions, home or away, we have followed Guangzhou north and south as civilised spectators at hundreds of games, [and] never have displayed illegal banners.

We love football, enjoy the fun of football, and dont want to involve politics but we dont want people with ulterior motives people to discredit the image of Guangzhou fans, and destroy the relationship between Guangzhou and Hong Kong fans.

It is known that the behaviour of non-Guangzhou fans may cause the AFC to punish our beloved team. We earnestly hope that the AFC can conduct an in-depth investigation of the incident, conducted impartially and not make a perfunctory or hasty decision, and do not hurt the feelings of the majority of Chinese fans.

- (SCMP) May 4, 2017.

Guangzhou Evergrande have escaped with a slap on the wrist after their fans displayed an offensive banner in a match in Hong Kong last month.

The Chinese champions received a fine of US$22,500 and a suspended two-match stadium ban after their supporters unfurled a banner reading Annihilate British dogs, extinguish Hong Kong [independence] poison at Mong Kok Stadium against HK champions Eastern last month.

The club was found guilty of discrimination and spectator misconduct under the Asian Football Confederations rules.

In the AFC Champions League, Guangzhou Evergrande were found to have violated Article 58 and Article 65 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code relating to the actions of away supporters at the match Eastern SC (HKG) vs Guangzhou Evergrande on April 25, said an AFC statement.

Away supporters displayed a banner depicting a discriminatory message relating to national origin and political opinion.

Guangzhou Evergrande were ordered to play two future matches in AFC club competitions which they host in China PR without spectators, with both matches suspended for a probationary period of two years. They were also fined USD22,500.

If there is a further breach of the rules within the probationary period, the stadium ban comes into effect. Guangzhou were warned that a repeat violation will lead to more severe punishment.

(Ming Pao) April 18, 2017.

Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposes that the new Chief Executive Carrie Lam used her powers to grant a special amnesty to all participants in Occupy Central as well as the Seven Policemen and retired police superintendent Franklin Chu.

In a special Ming Pao interview, Wu Chi-wai said that Carrie Lam must take concrete actions to mend social divisions. He recommends that Lam establishes a special group to conduct an in-depth investigation into the causes of Occupy Central and then take measures to mend the social divisions accordingly. Wu recommended Lam to exercise her powers under Basic Law Article 38 to grant amnesty to all persons convicted during Occupy Central, including the seven policemen, Franklin Chu and the Occupy Central participants. He said: "The social conflicts in Hong Kong were caused by the political system. Therefore it will take political action to mend the social divisions."

Wu Chi-wai emphasized that this recommendation falls with the realm of Hong Kong autonomous rule, and therefore the Central Government does not have to be consulted. "These recommendations will let Mrs. Lam show her ideas of governance. For her, it means that the social divisions can be healed and the citizens can rebuilt their confidence for her. The social atmosphere will improve when that time comes."

(TVB) April 18, 2017.

In the evening, the Democratic Party met. Afterwards Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai said: "It was clearly an idea that was not well thought through, because I did not speak to my Democratic Party colleagues in detail. I did not anticipate the reaction in society about the proposal. Here I have to apologize deeply over this affair. I will now take this opportunity to formally retract my statement about how the Chief Executive can exercise the power of Basic Law Article 48 to pardon all those who participated in Occupy Central."

Internet comments:

- Basic Law Article 48

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:

(12) To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties

Please read this carefully. The persons have to be first convicted of criminal offences and given penalties before they can be pardoned. They cannot be pardoned before they stand trial.

- At this time, nine persons have been charged for participation in and/or incitement of unlawful gathering during Occupy Central (Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution - Part 11). This is out of 48 who were previously arrested by the police. These nine cannot be pardoned until as such time when they are tried in court, convicted and given penalties. The remaining 39 will have to be charged first and go through the same process. Police superintendent Franklin Chu is in a similar situation as the 39.

- By contrast, the Seven Evil Policemen were charged, convicted, sentenced to two years in prison and serving their terms now. They can be released immediately. [Note: They have appealed their sentences, so their cases are not done yet unless they stop their appeals.] I would like to see how pan-democrats react when Carrie Lam announced that she accepts this solution and immediately orders the release of the Seven Evil Policemen while the cases of the Occupy Central participants wind through the courts over the years with immense legal costs.

- Wu Chi-wai was an Occupy Central participant himself. He was the lone pan-democratic legislator who surrendered to the police together with the Occupy Central trio. Isn't it a conflict of interest to push for a general amnesty that covers oneself?

- (SCMP) April 22, 2017. CY Leung, who was on an RTHK radio programme on Saturday morning, said he had considered his power to call for an amnesty amid public debate on the issue. He did not refer to specific cases but said: They are still under legal proceedings, which could not be intervened by the chief executive and the administration.

- (Oriental Daily) How often has the Chief Executive exercised his powers under Basic Law Article 48 in the past? According to information provided by the Department of Security to the Legislative Council, there were 98 instances during 2012-2016 in which Chief Executive CY Leung pardoned prisoners who had been convicted and serving

Of these 98 instances, 58 were sentence reductions based upon recommendations by the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board for persons who were sentenced to more than 10 years in jail or were under age 21 at the time of committing their crimes.

Another 31 cases were based upon recommendations of medical experts that the prisoner's life is at risk in jail or that the prisoner has a terminal ailment such that his life expectation is less than his jail term.

Another 9 cases were based upon the commendations of the Department of Justice that the prisoners had been helpful to the prosecution of certain cases.

However, the Chief Executive will not exercise the pardon power until as such time as the judicial process is complete.

- (SCMP) "Robber King" Yip Ki-foon was serving his sentence of 41 years when he died from cancer at the hospital. He did not receive a pardon in consideration of his medical condition.

- (Basic Law Article 63) The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.

This means that the Chief Executive cannot order the Department of Justice to either commence or stop the prosecution of the Occupy Central participants or police superintendent Franklin Chu. This is key to an independent judiciary as opposed to a political tool for the executive branch.

- (Ming Pao) also quotes an unnamed pan-democratic legislator. This person supports an amnesty for those persons who were charged with crimes during the 79 days of Occupy Central, including the participants as well as police officers. However, this should not include those who were arrested during the Mong Kok riot because violent acts such as throwing bricks should be opposed.

- Bwaaahhh! Very simply put, this is a case of the traditional pan-democrats trying to cut a deal with Carrie Lam while cutting loose the Localists.

- Hey, during Occupy Central, they refused to talk to Chief Executive CY Leung because they said that the man was not elected democratically. Now they want to cut a deal with CY Leung's successor Carrie Lam who was elected under the same system? If you refuse to acknowledge her authority, then you reject her ability to exercise pardons under Basic Law Article 48.

- All persons convicted in actions related to Occupy Central? I am afraid that the pan-democrats don't want to include Ng "Capone" Ting-pong, who was convicted of assaulting three off-duty police officers in Admiralty Centre and sentenced to 10 months in jail.

- The pan-democrats want amnesty for a select group of people -- the past and present pan-democratic legislators, the members of the Democratic Party and the Civic Party, mega-donor Jimmy Lai, the Occupy Central trio and certain celebrities (such as Joseph Zen, Denise Ho, etc).

- (Lo Wai-hung's blog) In the case of Yeung Ka-lun, district judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on said that the sentence needed to remind young people that they will pay a heavy price if they break the law. But immediately afterwards, we find out that the court verdict can be overturned by an amnesty! How are teachers and parents ever going to convince young people not to riot? Whatever you tell them, they are simply going to say: "There will be an amnesty even if I am convicted in court!"

- (Lo Wai-hung's blog) The idea of an amnesty should be put away. Political parties should not be interfering with court cases that are already in court. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

- The pan-democrats can't say that violent crimes cannot be pardoned, because the seven policemen were convicted of common assault. There is no deal if the pan-democrats say that all non-violent criminals (namely, themselves) should be pardoned whereas all violent criminals won't be.

- Do Chan's Facebook

I have to ask myself: What would if I do if the deal is about the release of Chan Pak-yeung, Yeung Ka-lun, Cheng Kam-mun and others?

What I want is justice. Cheng Kam-mun, Chan Pak-yeung and Yeung Ka-lun should be declared innocent and released. The Seven Policemen and Franklin Chu should be going to jail. Therefore what I want is not a swap and not any special amnesty. I want a fair and just society. I know what I say is quite cruel. But if I don't have any principles, then why do I have left?

- The pan-democrats have no intention of including Chan Pak-yeung (convicted of assaulting a police officer) and Yeung Ka-lun (convicted of rioting and arson) in their deal.

The case of Cheng Kam-mun is arguably part of Occupy Central, because he was convicted of contempt of court when he refused to leave during the clearance of Occupy Mong Kok. Vacating a contempt of court conviction by executive fiat is just about the most blatant attack on rule-of-law.

- Leung Yat-long's Facebook


The Civic Party was known to have voted three different candidates in the Chief Executive election. Now a Civic Party member (Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu) is voting two different ways at the same time.

On one hand, Alvin Yeung says: "The special amnesty is not a political swap. It should not turn rule-of-law into rule-of-man. The Great Reconciliation cannot be accomplished just by the government not seeking further criminal responsibility."

On the other hand, Alvin Yeung says: "If the new administration offers an unconditional amnesty, it will mean that greatest sincerity on the part of the new administration towards Hong Kong, with the hope that the divisions over the past two years can be let go."

So Alvin Yeung is placing bets on both sides. Mr. Yeung, do you support or not support a special amnesty?

- (SCMP) April 18, 2017. Civic Party leader, Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, initially backed Wus suggestion when he was asked by Ming Pao. But facing pressure from party colleagues, including Tanya Chan, he backtracked, saying Wus remarks were rushed. I am sorry if my words have caused any misunderstanding. I disagree that the rule of law could be used for any political exchange. Yeung told the Post. He said the best way for the government to achieve reconciliation was by launching a political reform consultation without any conditions.

- (HKG Pao) April 18, 2017.

When the original Ming Pao report came out at 8am, it drew about 196 ANGRY's, 20 LIKE's, 18 SMILE's and 8 WOW's. All 58 comments were critical of Wu Chi-wai and the pan-democrats.

Two hours later, Ming Pao published Wu Chi-wai's explanation of his proposal. Within 2 hours, there were 250 ANGRY's. The 91 comments were all against Wu Chi-wai and his proposal.

Clearly this proposal to swap hostages was not even supported by Ming Pao's Yellow Ribbon readers.

Here are some of those comments:

- How did the Democratic Party get to represent the pan-democrats? You should tell Wu Chi-wai to go and eat shit!

- Everybody should accept responsibility for what they did under the law. This is rule-of-law. When it's right, it's right; when it's wrong, it's wrong.

- Participating in a riot, throwing glass bottles and bricks at people and setting fire to a taxi are criminal acts that should be punished. So is assaulting a handcuffed person in a dark corner. Saying the crimes can nullify each other in an amnesty is reckless disregard of the rule-of-law.

- Has the Democratic Party gone Blue Ribbon? So stupid! They don't even understand the spirit of rule-of-law.

- Previously so many valiant warriors were sent to jail. Nobody talked about an amnesty. Now that Benny Tai and Tanya Chan are on trial, they suddenly want to have an amnesty in which even the Seven Policemen can be freed. The pan-democrats are shameless!

- The pan-democratic Occupy Central political hacks are scared of going to jail. So they proposed swapping the Seven Policemen/Franklin Chu for themselves. If you guys are so scared of going to jail, you should not have joined in the rioting. You Yellow Ribbon thugs should get ready to go to jail. The people of Hong Kong will not let any one of you thugs go free. Not a single one of you! See you in court, thugs! The people of Hong Kong will not let you get off!

- As you might expect, one commentator said that Wu Chi-wai and Alvin Yeung accomplished the impossible by making the Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons and the neutral camp unanimously join in the single project of criticizing the proposed special amnesty. Unfortunately, the commentator is one of two persons in the world who should not be saying this.

This commentator is Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration). Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who managed to unify all persons of Chinese descent in the whole wide world to denounce their anti-Chinese Oaths of Office. This was a far greater accomplishment than Wu-Yeung could ever aspire to.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 18, 2017.

Pro-democracy lawmaker Nathan Law has criticised the suggestion by one lawmaker that all participants in the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests should be pardoned, saying that a reconciliation in the absence of the government fixing its mistakes would just be begging for mercy. Law said a reconciliation is not possible before the government tells the truth and confesses its crimes.

Will the government explain who was responsible for the tear gas? Who was responsible for the dozens, hundreds of injured protesters? Who will be responsible for postponing democracy? he asked, referring to the 87 tear gas canisters used on protesters on September 28, 2014. He added that it was never an imperative for the pro-democracy movement to fix splits in society: If fighting for basic human rights is to blame for the social divide, then what is the point of a harmonious society?

Law said it was the international norm for amnesty and reconciliation to take place after democratic transitions. This is the most basic way for a democratic country to reflect on its tyrannical past. Reconciliation without the truth, without justice, without discussing right and wrong, only by pragmatically asking for a ceasefire, is to beg for mercy by abandoning our moral power it is drilling blood from a stone, it is suicide for civil disobedience, he said.

- (SCMP) April 18, 2017.

Wus idea failed to garner much support from his own party and the wider pro-democracy alliance. Democratic Party colleague, lawmaker Hui Chi-fung, disagreed with the call for amnesty, saying it contradicted the rule of law. The origins of the social rift is not the Occupy movement, but the publics distrust of the undemocratic government. Hui said.

- (SCMP) April 18, 2017.

Police Inspectors Association chairman Jimes Lee Jim-on described the idea as deplorable. It would be a fatal blow to the citys judicial independence and system, he said. No matter it is about the seven policemen or any other Occupy participants, we should let the judges decide if their acts are right or wrong. We should respect the court.

- (Robert Chow's blog) April 18, 2017.

Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposed a full amnesty for Occupy Central participants (and he had to withdraw his proposal on the very same day due to criticisms from across the entire political spectrum). Chairman Wu wants to save the Occupy Central masterminds, but he ended up putting himself and his party in deep shit. Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung agreed with Wu at first, and also put himself in deep shit.

Why did the Democratic Party do this?

Simply put, this proved that it was wrong for the Hong Kong SAR government to try to appease the opposition over the twenty years since the handover. The government retreated again and again. They think that by saying that we are all Hongkongers, the opposition will relent and let them breathe. Instead, what they got was an escalation of struggles until we reached the full Hong Kong Independence/Color Revolution situation.

What was the most important condition that Wu stipulated? Do you realize? It is this: Wu said that Carrie Lam will be exercising the powers given to her under Basic Law Article 48; "this being within the scope of Hong Kong autonomous rule, the Central Government does not have to be consulted."

Clearly the opposition wants Carrie Lam to give up rule-of-law and take it easy on the lawbreakers. That's what this is about. Do we have a case of enemies being at the gate, and the HK SAR/Beijing governments having no choice but to sign a treaty against public opinion?

Why did the opposition support John Tsang and oppose Carrie Lam? While there is no evidence that there was a secret pact on amnesty between Tsang and the opposition, it goes without say that elected politicians will act favorably towards their supporters.

Wu Chi-wai and the Democratic Party want an amnesty for the Occupy Central trio and other principals, including their financier Jimmy Lai and members of the Democratic Party. So far Lee Wing-tat (Democratic Party) is among the nine men/women who are charged in the initial wave. More Democratic Party members are expected to be included in the upcoming waves.

The Civic Party also has to defend its financier Jimmy Lai. Alvin Yeung was elevated to party leader and got the chance to meet with the financier recently. Of course, he responded to Wu's call.

The Central Government has clearly stated its opposition to Hong Kong independence, and the Occupy Central masterminds are classified as the promoters of Color Revolution. The drive against the Occupy Central movement is thus motivated.

By making the proposal and then withdrawing it on the same day, Wu Chi-wai has showed that he holds a very weak hand. What are the Democratic Party, the Civic Party and their financier afraid of? According to their original expectations, they would only be given probation (not even community service) for their participation in Occupy Central. If so, they would still be talking big and loud now. As things turn out right now, they are facing up to seven years in jail under the common law charges against participation in and incitement of unlawful gathering. So there is a palpable sense of panic.

This also showed that the only proper thing for the HK SAR government to do is to enforce the law. This will make potential lawbreakers reconsider thrice before they break the law.

When I saw how the Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons and neutral Hongkongers decried Wu Chi-wai's proposal in a completely one-sided manner, I have to wonder how many votes the Democratic Party/Civic Party will get for looking only after their bosses and party members?

- DAB's Facebook


Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai proposed that the Chief Executive use her powers to pardon all Occupy Central participants. Civic Party chief Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu concurred with this proposal. After the news got out, the Democratic Party and Civic Party members criticized the proposal severely. The two changed their tune and said that they were expressing personal opinions that do not represent the positions of their respective political parties.

Mom! I am very confused!
The Democratic Party chairman does not represent the Democratic Party.
The Civic Party chief does not represent the Civic Party.

- Notwithstanding your confusion, the Democratic Party and the Civic Party both insist that they represent the People of Hong Kong, and that Occupy Central is supported by the People of Hong Kong. You should have no confusion about this.

- If you don't understand that, then you hate FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE JUSTICE RULE-OF-LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES.

- Wan Chin's Facebook

The pan-democrats want to swap hostages with the government. This is somewhat odd. The so-called Great Reconciliation of the pan-democrats proposed to have the seven policemen who were convicted of abusing their power to assault a citizen being swapped with the nine pan-democratic leaders who are being prosecuted by the government. They are not swapping for those demonstrators who have been convicted of rioting. This is because those demonstrators in jail are not pan-democrats; they are merely citizens who decided to take a stand for justice at the spur of the moment.

The seven policemen do not need the pan-democrats to get a special amnesty for them. They were prosecuted by the Hong Kong Communist government and they deserved what they got. Meanwhile the pan-democrats do not believe that they deserve to go to jail; instead they are being politically persecuted. There is no reason why they have to discuss terms under which the government will let them off.

The pan-democrats and their supporters are actually an in-group working for their self-interests. They are a selfish group of middle-class bourgeoisie who are detached from the masses. They only care for themselves, and they don't care about justice or appearances. In the future, the pan-democrats and their supporters should not pretend to represent Hong Kong and call for people to support them. We will ignore them hereafter. They can play their own game of politicking. They have the United States behind them; they don't need any Hongkongers to support them.

- Li Yi

The political swap proposed by Wu Chi-wai ignores the righteousness of the Occupy Movement and confounds the political acts of the Umbrella Movement with the crimes committed by the seven policemen and Franklin Chu. As such, it damages the core value of rule-of-law and procedural justice. Ignoring these ill-conceived ideas, there were several cases of young people being given heavy jail sentences for their involvement in resistance, but Wu and others did not offer them any support. This special amnesty does not cover these young political prisoners either. Is it quite clear whether this proposal of a special amnesty intended to obtain a genuine reconciliation, or was it a plea on behalf of someone's pals who are scared of being found guilty? [Sigh] Please do not talk anymore about democracy and civil disobedience. You have blasphemed against those terms.

-

Who should be proposing the Great Reconciliation?

Talk of the Great Reconciliation has been circulating within the political circle for two months already
But things are different now than previously
Beijing has just ignored public opinion
and refused to let the highly popular Mr. Pringle become Chief Executive
And now we humbly offer to reconcile?
That's is too silly, too naive
Beijing should be proposing a reconciliation, not the democrats.

- And if Beijing stubbornly refuses to reconcile, will you all keep you pride, line up and willingly head to jail? Or will you rush over to the American Consulate and ask for political asylum?

- (EJ Insight) Why the Occupy universal pardon idea was a non-starter. By SC Yeung. April 19, 2017.

Its no surprise that Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai has drawn widespread criticism and ridicule for offering an unsolicited suggestion to chief executive-elect Carrie Lam.

In an interview published in a Chinese-language newspaper on Tuesday, Wu suggested that Hong Kongs incoming leader should consider pardoning all those convicted or awaiting trial for offenses related to the 2014 Occupy Central protests.

Pardoning the civil disobedience activists as well as seven policemen who were jailed for committing excesses during law enforcement operations during that period can heal the divisions in society and help restore trust between the government and the public, Wu told Ming Pao Daily News.

Meanwhile, the government can form a special committee to look into the reasons behind the 2014 mass protests, Wu added.

But in less than 24 hours after the interview was published, Wu retracted his comments and offered an apology, saying the issue had not been thought out properly.

The U-turn came as the universal pardon idea attracted a storm of criticism from all sides, including the pro-Beijing camp as well as Wus own comrades from the opposition.

In the interview, Wu suggested that Lam can exercise powers under Article 48 of the Basic Law to pardon those in the dock over Occupy incidents, saying the move can bring reconciliation in society.

Asked to respond to Wus suggestion, Lams office said it was inappropriate for her to comment on ongoing legal cases.

From Lams perspective, universal pardon is a no-go unless Beijing changes its stance on the Occupy campaign, which came after mainland authorities nixed electoral reforms in relation to Hong Kongs 2017 chief executive contest.

Beijing keeps insisting to this day that the street protests were illegal and that the key people behind the movement must be brought to book.

According to some pro-Beijing observers, China has set three conditions for any discussion with Hong Kongs opposition camp, namely acknowledgment of Beijings sovereignty over Hong Kong, recognizing a National Peoples Congress decision made on Aug. 31, 2014 in relation to the Hong Kong CE election framework, and lastly, admitting that Occupy was an illegal event.

Against this backdrop, Wus universal pardon suggestion was a non-starter.

With some Occupy activists already sent to jail and some others awaiting trial, legal amnesty for political reasons will also raise worries about the sanctity of rule of law in Hong Kong.

Bending the rules and granting universal pardon will amount to mockery of the local justice system, a fact that even many opposition members acknowledge.

Some activists, meanwhile, have bristled at Wus suggestion that Occupy leaders and the policemen who were jailed for beating up a pro-democracy protester in 2014 be put in the same league and pardoned together.

Facing a series of questions from the public as well as his own party members, Wu has walked back his idea of universal pardon.

He said that it was just his personal idea, and that he had merely sought a solution to heal the wounds in society and bring about a more harmonious political environment.

But the argument failed to convince even those who would like to see authorities be more tolerant of democracy activists.

Civic Party leader Alvin Yeung is among those who poured cold water on Wus suggestion, after initially seeming to back the amnesty idea.

To achieve reconciliation, the right way forward is for the government to restart political reform consultations without any preconditions, he said.

Demosisto also opposed the proposal, saying it would shake the foundation of the pro-democracy movement.

Following the latest developments, Beijing and its loyalists in Hong Kong may be feeling happy in one way.

Wus comments and the ensuing debate could deepen divisions in the already fragmented pan-democratic camp. That could help pro-Beijing groups gain support from the so-called silent majority in Hong Kong.

As most people are interested in preserving the sanctity of rule of law and the justice system, any move that can undermine established procedures will cause unease.

Even those who sympathize with democracy activists and favor reforms dont want rules bent to achieve a political purpose.

Now, we come to this question: what prompted Wu to go public with his suggestion, before walking back the comments?

According to some critics, democrats had been working on a similar proposal early this year, especially after police groups held a meeting to show their support to seven officers who were jailed for attacking democracy activist Ken Tsang during an Occupy event in October 2014.

The jail terms for the policemen triggered intense debate in society, with opinion split as to whether the punishment was justified.

Some veteran democrats felt the court judgment would only widen the rifts within the community, prompting them to think about some remedial action.

Wus suggestion of a pardon for the jailed activists as well as policemen came against this backdrop.

But what he perhaps didnt imagine is that his idea would be met with scorn even from those whom he had sought to help.

Occupy leaders had known very well that they might face legal risks, and were prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions.

They want their cause to be recognized as just, lending validity to their efforts, rather than being handed a show of compassion by authorities.

In any case, how can those fighting for democracy and the policemen who broke the law be put on a par when it comes to legal amnesty?

Given such feelings and criticism from almost all quarters, is it any wonder that Wu had to beat a hasty retreat?

- (EJ Insight) April 20, 2017.

Democratic Party chairman Wu Chi-wai made a suggestion to Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor during a media interview a couple of days ago that she should seriously consider pardoning those who were either convicted or are still awaiting trial for criminal charges related to the Occupy Movement after she assumes office as a gesture of goodwill to facilitate reconciliation in society.

According to Wu, the acute social tension and divisions in the city largely have their roots in our unjust political system.

As such, only by resorting to political means can the incoming administration truly mend fences and heal the wounds in our politically torn society.

And by political means, Wu is referring to the act of pardoning all those who were found guilty or are facing charges linked to the Occupy Movement.

All offenders, both pro-democracy and pro-establishment alike, should be given the same treatment, he said.

Among those he believed should be granted pardon are the Occupy participants who have been arrested on public nuisance charges, the seven police officers found guilty of assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, as well as retired police superintendent Franklin Chu King-wai who is awaiting trial on charges of assaulting pedestrians during an Occupy protest.

Wu also urged Lam to order an independent inquiry to find the root causes of the Occupy Movement and to make recommendations on how to address those issues.

Under Article 48 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong chief executive can exercise discretion and either pardon convicted criminals or reduce their sentences.

However, the law does not specify the exact circumstances under which the chief executive can exercise this special executive power.

Almost immediately after making his suggestions, Wu came under fire not only from the pro-establishment camp but also from pan-democrats, including some of his own partymates.

As it turned out, his proposal was so disfavored that even Civic Party whip Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, who had earlier echoed Wus suggestion, decided to make a sudden U-turn by retracting what he had said and making an apology to the public for having failed to think it through before openly supporting the idea.

Wus suggestion is so badly received because if the next chief executive did accept his proposal and pardon Occupy activists and the police officers in question when court proceedings on their cases were still underway, that would constitute an outright violation of the rule of law and judicial independence.

For example, some of the seven police officers who were convicted of assaulting Ken Tsang have already filed appeals against their conviction and the sentences they received, and are awaiting court hearings.

If Carrie Lam bypasses the court and pardons them before the entire appeal process is completed, that will certainly amount to a gross interference in the judiciary by the executive branch.

Likewise, it will also constitute a breach of our rule of law if she pardons the principal organizers and participants of the Occupy Movement while they are still awaiting trial.

We firmly believe there is no room for compromise when it comes to our rule of law, and that no cause, no matter how good and noble it might seem, can justify violating proper legal procedures.

The rule of law and judicial independence are the cornerstone of the stability and prosperity of our society, and they must be upheld at all costs and under all circumstances.

Wus suggestion also constitutes an apparent conflict of interest because many of his pan-democratic colleagues are awaiting trial in connection with the Occupy Movement.

Even Wu himself might also face criminal prosecution for the part he played in the 2014 protests.

How could Wu convince the public that he was putting forward that idea out of entirely selfless and genuine concern for society when the pan-democrats, including himself, would be the biggest beneficiaries of the very suggestion he made?

Facing strong criticism from all sides, Wu admitted that he did not make a careful consideration of his suggestions before making them, apologized to the public and retracted his proposals.

If Wu and his party are sincere in their intentions to facilitate reconciliation in society in the aftermath of the Occupy Movement, perhaps they should come up with some other ideas that are more sensible and practical.

- (SCMP) Democrats leader Wu Chi-wai is digging partys own grave. By Alex Lo. April 20, 2017.

The Democratic Party is not what it once was. And under Wu Chi-wai, its in danger of fading into irrelevance. The Democrats chairman seems to have an uncanny ability to inflict self-harm on his own party and the larger pan-democratic cause.

His latest hare-brained idea was to call on chief executive-elect Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to use her powers under the Basic Law to pardon Occupy participants who have been charged or jailed, including the seven police officers imprisoned for assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu and former superintendent Chu King-wai, who is facing trial for assault.

Wu had to retract his proposal and apologised in less than a day. His motive, he said, was to help with reconciliation between the opposing camps. What he did manage was to upset everyone from across the political spectrum. The blue- and yellow-ribbon factions would rather see punishment for those from the other side than pardon for their own.

Its also clear there is not an overwhelming public interest to be served in interfering with the work of the courts by granting a general amnesty quite the contrary.

It is no less embarrassing for Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu of the Civic Party, who initially supported Wu until he found that practically everyone was against it. This is the same person who helped Legco rejects Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching fight their way into the chamber and disrupt meetings last October. It seems Yeung is good for anything anti-government or against Beijing, however mindless or counterproductive.

While saying he wants to help ease tensions and reconcile the two camps, Wu has banned party members from joining Lams new government. He is now helping to rally pan-democratic lawmakers against the latest government budget, saying it doesnt spend enough to improve peoples livelihoods.

Its the same Wu who helped make sure every pan-democrat voted in the chief executive race for John Tsang Chun-wah, surely one of the most miserly finance ministers in recent times. In any case, blocking the budget wont get more money for the poor and grass roots; it will delay the underprivileged from receiving allowances that have been budgeted, such as HK$30 billion earmarked for the elderly and disabled.

The Democratic Party has always been among the more reasonable and moderate of the pan-democrats. It would be a shame to see it fade away under poor leadership.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 14, 2017.

Localist leader and ex-lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man said Friday that he will be withdrawing from politics. I am saying goodbye to politics, meaning I am quitting. I will not join or lead any political group, nor will I stand as a candidate in any election, Wong said in a statement. Baby boomers like me should not stand in the way of young people.

The 65-year-old veteran politician was a lawmaker between 2008 and 2016, but he failed to be re-elected during the 2016 Legislative Council elections. His retreat may affect the upcoming Legislative Council by-election which will likely take place to fill two seats left by Youngspiration politicians Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang. The localist duo were ousted from the legislature last year. Wong decided not to run in any by-election, as he believes the pair will contest the seats.

He said another reason was that an alliance of localist groups his Proletariat Political Institute, the Civic Passion party, and the camp led by scholar Chin Wan were greatly defeated in the legislative elections. Running for elections is just a means, the end is to achieve self-autonomy, he said. We shouldnt join the race just to fight for a seat.

Wong promised to continue caring about politics despite his withdrawal. I will keep doing what I have been doing for the past 40 years: host internet talk shows and pen commentaries, he said.

He said he wrote the statement to show his concern for localist youth who are going through the toughest of times as they face political prosecution, oppression and isolation. All I can do is write articles denouncing [the government]. I feel very heavy that I cant do more, he said.

Wong added that attacks from various political camps and police roundup of protesters in last years Mong Kok unrest marked the intensification of oppression in the city. He said Hong Kong has seen a growth of young political prisoners under the reign of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

Having been in existence for less than three years, the budding localist movement has already been eradicated, Wong said. But the politician urged young supporters not to give up or make unnecessary sacrifices. Instead, he asked them to stay low for the time being, as time is on their side.

Wong has formed and then quit two political parties the League of Social Democrats and People Power citing differences with other leaders. Since becoming an icon of the localist movement, Wong has been dubbed godfather by supporters.

Internet Comments:

- (Merriam-Webster) Internecine

Internecine comes from the Latin internecinus ("fought to the death" or "destructive"), which traces to the verb "necare" ("to kill") and the prefix inter-. ("Inter-" usually means "between" or "mutual" in Latin, but it can also indicate the completion of an action.) 

Internecine meant "deadly" when it appeared in English in 1663, but when Samuel Johnson entered it in his dictionary almost a century later, he was apparently misled by "inter-" and defined the word as "endeavouring mutual destruction." Johnson's definition was carried into later dictionaries, and before long his sense was the dominant meaning of the word.

"Internecine" developed the association with internal group conflict in the 20th century, and that's the most common sense today.

- (Wikipedia) Purge

In history, religion, and political science, a purge is the removal of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government, another organization, their team owners, or from society as a whole.

The Shanghai massacre of 1927 and the Night of the Long Knives of 1934, in which the leader of a political party turned against and killed a particular section or group within the party, are commonly called "purges"

The term "purge" is often associated with the Stalinist and Maoist regimes. While leading the USSR, Joseph Stalin imprisoned in Gulag-labor camps and executed, i.e. purged, "wreckers", or citizens accused of plotting against communism.[1] Stalin initiated the most notorious of the CPSU purges, the Great Purge, during the 1930s. Mao Zedong and his associates purged much of the Communist Party of China leadership, including the head of state President Liu Shaoqi and then-General Secretary Deng Xiaoping, beginning in 1966 as part of the Cultural Revolution.

- So they formed a revolutionary group with the explicit purpose of carrying out a revolution. Things are fine when you think that you are making progress. But when the revolution is stalled due to exterior factors (such as an overwhelming counter-revolutionary oppression or the waning of public interest), you turn inwards and blame everything on the fifth column inside your organization. Purging this fifth column will keep you very busy for a long time without having to attend to the original purpose of starting a revolution.

- How do you pull off a Revolution to build the Hong Kong Nation? At this point, the consensus among all the leading theoreticians is that this will not come from an uprising of the people of Hong Kong, because they are no match for the People's Liberation Army. Instead, all the leading theoreticians are counting on the upcoming China Meltdown. If China melts down, the Chinese Communist Party melts down, the People's Liberation Army melts down and the Hong Kong people will seize the opportunity to declare independence. Until China melts down, we'll just have to wait. While we wait, we spend our time eating each other.

- Raymond Wong said that the localist movement has already been eradicated and therefore young people should not be making unnecessary sacrifices. Instead they should stay low for the time being, as time is on their side. How did this happen? "Political prosecution, oppression and isolation" was Wong's explanation.

That can't be true, because the Localists always insist that they are valiant, they are strong, they are firm and they will never yield.

How did an ascendant Localist movement come to be "eradicated"? Raymond Wong won't say, but everybody else is pointing fingers at Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration for equating Localism with foolishness and sinophobia, as well as Edward Leung and Ray Wong of Hong Kong Indigenous for telling other people to attack the police and suffer the consequences while the two are furthering their studies at Harvard University and Oxford University respectively. With such precedents, why would young people still come forth and fight for Localism? Whatever you gain, Leung-Yau are going to blow it up for you. And if you heed Leung-Wong's call to blow up a trash bin, you will be spending three years in jail.

- Nevertheless, Raymond Wong continues to insist that he is required by political ethics not to compete against Leung-Yau for their vacated Legislative Council seats? The reasoning is unfathomable.

- Political ethics requires Raymond Wong to run against Leung-Yau and stop them from inflicting even greater harm to Localism.

- Leung-Yau's behavior suggests that they must be Chinese Communist moles. So if Raymond Wong wants Leung-Yau to continue their wrecking trail, he must also be a Chinese Communist mole.

- Raymond Wong talks about "unnecessary sacrifices". What does he mean? Throw a water bottle at a policeman => 3 years in prison. Blow up a trash bin outside the Legislative Council building => 2 years in prison. Join in a riot and tried to set a taxi on fire without success => 4 years 9 months in prison. These were sacrifices that led to absolutely no gain. That is why they are unnecessary.

- (Bastille Post) What does Raymond Wong really want? Some people read his essay and concluded that he intends to engage in politics once more. Other people read his essay and concluded that he is leaving politics for good and his followers had better look out for themselves afterwards.

- (Bastille Post) Here is the key part in Raymond Wong's long-winded diatribe: Certain people are conducting purging irrationally because of personal grudges and party affiliations. "Can people like that still be trusted?" Raymond Wong did not name names, but is it so hard to guess?

- Wan Chin's Facebook

According to the so-called political ethics, the New Territories East Legco by-election seat belongs to Gary Fan Kwok-wai. After all, he is a semi-localist who had certain known accomplishments while he was a legislator. Therefore the pseudo-Hong Kong Independence Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration) should not contest.
According to the so-called political ethics, the leadership post of Hong Kong belongs to Chris Patten because he left before completing his term. Therefore Carrie Lam should not contest.
My political ethics is even more awesome -- China belongs to the Manchurian dynasty. The Kuomintang, Wang Jingwei, the last emperor Chongzhen of the Ming dynasty should not contest. Hong Kong will follow the decision of the Manchurian royalty and be given to the British Empire for custody.

- Wan Chin's Facebook

Withdrawal from social activism caused those people with nothing to do to start quarreling among themselves and thus reveal their true natures. The party needs to purge itself in order to forestall future problems.

In revolution, the most important thing is propaganda. Next comes purging the party. Those who don't agree with me on the need to purge the party are simply not interested in having a revolution. They should go back to the side of Leung ("Long Hair") Kwok-hung and the pan-democrats to make their trips to China to watch the five-star national flag rise. Those people are doing fine. Even Hong Kong Independence proponent Edward Leung is with the Democratic China school. There is no need to stay on this side and starve.

- (HKG Pao) Raymond Wong said that he is retiring from politics in order to make way for young people. He said that since Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang will surely enter the Legco by-election. "Based on political ethics, I cannot contest a Legislative Council seat that belongs to them originally." The immediate consequences is a dogs-bite-dog show wherein the followers of Civic Passion (known colloquially as "Hot Dogs") went after Raymond "Mad Dog" Wong Yuk-man.

- The One Drawing Narrative Facebook

"We are nothing without Raymond Wong Yuk-man."

I agree with this statement.

The contribution of Raymond Wong in the Localist Resistance Movement is undeniable. The radicals and the localists arose because of him. Not only did he provided the narrative and opinion support for resistance, he also proposed the idea of a new popular constitution as a new direction in Hong Kong politics.

But does that mean that Raymond Wong is sacrosanct?

Raymond Wong's subordinate MyRadio's technical general manager Marco has repeatedly smeared Passion Times and the supporters of Wan Chin. He has damaged the Constitution camp. However, Raymond Wong has continued to support Marco. He said that everything that Marco does has his tacit approval. He openly decried Yip Ching-shun who was smeared by Marco as having called on people to stop paying their monthly subscriptions. At the time, many listeners (including Yip Ching-shun) did not pursue the matter in the interest of peacefulness and only stayed silently disappointed.

Recently Marco went even further by assassinating the characters of Wong Yeung-tat and his wife and denying the contribution of Civic Passion. He insulted the martyr who had just been sentenced to 4 years 9 months in prison. This is intolerable.

Raymond Wong did not comment on this at all. But on the same day he denounced the ongoing purges. Since he had previously said that everything that Marco does is in accordance with Wong's wishes, I cannot help but think that all this had Wong's tacit approval.

In this incident, many listeners including myself chose not to keep silent anymore. This drew a crowd of Raymond Wong-ism followers who support Wong blindly and classified all criticisms as smears with ulterior motives. Their speeches are contrary to what Raymond Wong usually preaches, but these are now supported by the other followers including Marco.

I have to think, Did Raymond Wong's political enlightenment actually enlightened the masses? Or did it merely breed politician groupies who are no different from Yellow Ribbon fools?

- Chiu The Dragon Facebook

Reviewing all matters small and large that took place over the past half-year, I conclude today that I had misjudged.

When the Eunuch caused trouble, I thought that the Godfather was misled by evil people
When Brother Kidney made false accusations, I thought that the Godfather let up because he appreciated a talent.
When the Godfather said: "Whatever Marco says is the same as what I say," I thought that he was too busy and had to rely on a "spokesperson."
But six months later after repeated problems, this turned out to be my misjudgment due to wishful thinking. This is not a matter of how to define "purging" or "consorting with the enemy." This is about where we stand with respect to justice and righteousness. It is one thing for certain foxes to act on the tiger's authority, but the tiger is protecting the foxes each and every time. Afterwards, anyone critical of them are said to be moles who want to destroy the entire radio station.

At this moment the Eunuch is insulting the political prisoner that you say that you want to protect. I want to know whether you are going to defend him again?

- Chiu The Dragon Facebook

Do I want to "purge" the villains around the Godfather? No.
I have never wanted to purge the villains around the Godfather. If someone to trust villains, there has to be reasons. I criticize these villains for the purpose of showing the villainy to others. As to when these villains will lose power and vanish from sight ... well, do you think anyone cares? Those who choose to take the wrong path must bear responsibility for themselves.
The Eunuchs want to tell us about how they are being persecuted. But they need to rise to the level of being 'purged'. Unfortunately, they don't quality.

- Restore Hong Kong Facebook

List of Civic Passion people to be purged:

- In his statement, Raymond Wong said that he will not enter the Legco by-election, because Leung-Yau are likely to try to take back their seats. Raymond Wong said that political ethics would make it wrong for a big person to bully a smaller person. The true meaning is this: If the Godfather wants the seat, he can take it with no effort whatsoever. But he believes that Leung-Yau will lose badly so as to put the last nail in the coffin for Hong Kong independence. That will show Leung-Yau to be even lesser persons than just losing to Wong.

(Ming Pao) Private car got on pedestrian sidewalk in order to go through the traffic light and get ahead; car owner is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun (DAB). April 15, 2017.

Earlier this week a citizen uploaded a video (copy) time/date-stamped as 730am, August 24, 2016. In the video, a private vehicle came to a stop outside Victoria Court, Hing Fat Road, Tin Hau District. A foreign domestic helper came out with a small child in school uniform. The child entered the car, which then got on the pedestrian sideway and proceeded several dozen meters ahead to Tsing Fung Street where it turned left in the direction of Causeway Bay against the traffic light signal.

According to the information in the video, the registered car owner is former DAB district councilor Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun. Our reporter called Kwok yesterday. Before we even got to ask our question, Kwok said that he was away from Hong Kong and hung up immediately.


Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun (DAB)

Now isn't this a classical piece of investigative reporting? Citizens posted the incontrovertible video of unlawful, reckless behavior. The license number of the vehicle can be seen clearly to be SP-4450. The reporter made the inquiry at the Department of Transportation and found out that the owner of vehicle SP-4450 is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun, who has the same name and address as the former DAB district councilor. Kwok refused to answer questions from the reporter on telephone. Case closed. Time for an Internet persecution campaign!

Duh ...

(Speakout HK) April 15, 2017.

Based upon Ming Pao's report, the DAB contacted Benjamin Kwok, who provided a copy of the vehicle sales contract. Benjamin Kwok purchased the car on February 3, 2017 from used car dealer DCH. In other words, the owner of SP-4450 on August 24, 2016 was not Benjamin Kwok. The DAB urges Ming Pao to make this clarification as quickly as possible. They also urge the media to obtain the facts first before they report.

Internet comments:

- The DAB urges the media to find out the facts before reporting? This is a blatant interference with freedom of press as well as the public's right to know in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Journalists must come out immediately to condemn this White Terror political persecution.

- The facts do not matter here. What matters here is that the people of Hong Kong have the right to know that their lives are at risk from the lawless and reckless activities of the pro-establishment politicians and their families. Hong Kong will never be safe unless they are all expelled to mainland China.

- As usual, when the initial Ming Pao story came out, the Yellow Ribbons immediately dumped on the DAB. In so doing, they have violated the first rule of the Internet: Do not stay too close to the preceding car or you may end up in a multiple-vehicle collision. Right now they have completely gone underground after the new relevations.

- Actually Rule #1 is "Do Not Believe Anything in Apple Daily/Ming Pao/RTHK" because the past experience is:

- Here is the non-correction by Ming Pao.

The title of the story is: [Video] Private vehicle got on pedestrian sidewalk to get ahead and go through the traffic light last year; Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun: Just bought the vehicle in this case in February this year; the owner of the vehicle which got on the pedestrian sidewalk is somebody else.

The report went on to say: This morning, former DAB district councilor Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun told Ming Pao this morning that he purchased the vehicle in February this year, so that the owner of the car at the time of the incident was someone else.

- There is nothing to correct or apologize about. The video proved that SP-4450 went onto the pedestrian sidewalk and ran against the traffic light. The registered owner of SP-4450 is Benjamin Kwok Bit-chun. Everything above is truthful. I am sorry if you think that the car which went onto the pedestrian sidewalk was owned by Benjamin Kwok. It is just sad that there is no medicine that can cure your stupidity.

- Should Ming Pao do a bit further investigation to find out who owned the car in August 2016? They probably did but found out that the story has no news value because the owner was not a pro-establishment political figure.

- This is such an elementary mistake, but neither the reporter nor the gate-keeping editor saw the missing gap. It is no wonder that Ming Pao lost the crown of Number 1 In Public Trust.

- When the Ming Pao reporter checked for the ownership of SP-4450, there is a date of purchase listed. The newspaper knew exactly what was going on. They knew that they would get many more LIKE's if they reported it like they did. If they had listed the date of purchase, there would be nothing to report. The only news value here is the 'fact' that the owner is a DAB member.

(Hong Kong Indigenous) April 12, 2017

On 31/3, our spokesmen Ray Wong Toi-yeung and Edward Leung Tin-kei arrived at Washington D.C. to attend a conference held by Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, an international organisation that promotes better human rights protection around the world, has spoken up for Hong Kongs human rights issues for a number of times, such as criticising Hong Kong's Chief Executive election last month and keeping a close eye on the Causeway Bay Books disappearances last year.

At the conference, Wong and Leung talked about the current state of the protesters arrested in Fishball Revolution, and also explained the causes of the civil unrest. As there has been a deadlock over Hong Kong's democratic development in the recent years, and the Hong Kong government is getting more oppressive and becoming a police state, Hongkongers are extremely discontent with the government. In our opinion, such resentment eventually led to the outbreak of the conflict.

However, the communist government has a propaganda to name the demonstration as a 'riot' and the protesters as 'rioters' who were making troubles. We cannot agree with this viewpoint at all. From our point of view, the protesters targeted at the government only, it was apparently a protest against the corruptive government. When we look at the history of 1967 Leftists Riots, there were bomb attacks, police officers killed and curfew imposed. On the contrary, during Fishball Revolution, there were no acts of vandalism directed at shops and the protesters even queued orderly when buying things in a convenience store, which is unlikely to be what 'rioters' would do.

Still, the police were in hot pursuit and recently, there have been protesters sentenced to imprisonment for 3 to 5 years, becoming political prisoners. In view of this, Wong and Leung called for international concern at the conference, and also discussed this issue with the US congressmen and government officials. Hong Kong Indigenous shall continue to find allies who are willing to offer help to the arrested protesters in order to provide suitable assistance to them.

On the other hand, Radio Free Asia conducted an interview with Wong and Leung after the conference and it will be aired soon. Please stay tuned.

Internet comments:

- Here are several video compilations of what happened that night in Mong Kok:

ABC Hongkong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnjWxP93i-A

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTda-evMO6A

Various TV news reports https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Upte16Af4

You can let your own lying eyes help you to decide whether this was a 'riot' and whether the participants were 'rioters'.

- Hong Kong Indigenous said: "During Fishball Revolution, there were no acts of vandalism directed at shops and the protesters even queued in an orderly manner when buying things in a convenience store, which is unlikely to be what 'rioters' would do." Yeah? What was this then?

Not vandalism? Not wanton destruction of private property? Were they queuing up in an orderly manner to try to set fire to the liquid gas tank in the parked taxi? Were they competing to see who would be the first to blow the taxi up along with everybody else within a 10 meter radius?

- The scene shown in this photo is an isolated incident which does not represent the event as a whole. More generally speaking, all the hundreds of other photos and videos showing riotous behaviors are isolated incidents and do not represent the event as a whole.

So what was the event as a whole? There were two major features. Firstly, the police brutally attacked the small vendors with pepper spray and batons in order to shut down the traditional Lunar New Year night market. Secondly, the police prevented Hong Kong Indigenous from holding an election rally which was allowed under the law. When citizens objected to these police actions, the police turned and attacked all the citizens found in Mong Kok that night. A policeman fired two shots to kill but fortunately his aim was poor and nobody was killed.

- Why are Ray Wong and Edward Leung so anxious? Because they can sense the momentum in the court cases.

The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 1
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 2
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 3
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 4
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 5
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 6

The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 7

The trials began with the simple cases of peripheral players. The first major figure was Chan Pak-yeung who got 9 months in jail for assaulting a police officer. Then three more individuals received 3 years each for rioting. Most recently, Yeung Ka-lun received 4 years 9 months for rioting and arson. Ray Wong and Edward Leung are scheduled to stand trial in January 2018 along with 8 others for rioting and incitement to riot. The video evidence against the two is incontrovertible. Given the jail sentences handed out so far, the two should be looking at 7 years or more in jail as the instigators. The best strategy is to raise as much money as possible for legal defense and then seek political asylum when the trial comes up. A 7-year jail term is a very long time to serve. Both Wong and Leung have previously said that their paramount objective is not to go to jail.

- (TVB) News report on the cause of the Mong Kong riot

8:32 The cause of the riot was Hong Kong Indigenous said that they wanted to support unlicensed cooked food vendors to sell their products. Then they said they wanted to hold an election march for their candidate in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election.

8:42 The Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook page called on citizens to come on the night of Lunar New Year's Day to Mong Kok to defend unlicensed vendors' night market. They said that they wanted to valiant defend a unique local feature.

8:54 When the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors tried to enforce the law, they were surrounded. "Go away, go away." The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department workers called the police for assistance.

9:08 Some people pushed the handcarts onto the road to block vehicular traffic.

9:12 After the police came, Hong Kong Indigenous called at the scene and on Facebook for more people to come.

9:16 Ray Wong speaking by megaphone on top of a van: "I hope that you will use every means possible to tell everybody else to come down to Mong Kok to support us citizens."

9:28 At around midnight, the police set up a tall stand in order to impose pedestrian traffic control. A clash took place. There were quarrels and jostling.

10:04 It was observed that certain people came prepared and wore protective gear. They also held home-made shields and forced human chains to face off against the police.

9:45 Afterwards, the violence escalated. Someone threw objects at the police. The police used pepper spray and wielded police batons to disperse the crowd. Flower pots and shards were scattered all over the ground.

10:14 During this time, Hong Kong Indigenous posted on its Facebook:
[The flames of revolution]
Not suitable for filming
The people of Hong Kong already know to tear up bricks from the ground in order to counterattack

10:23 At midnight, they announced that they will use the election campaign rights of candidate Edward Leung to hold an election campaign march. They said that they numbered fewer than 30, so that they do not need to notify or obtain approval from the police beforehand.

10:34 Ray Wong speaking by megaphone: "All those in blue clothing are members of the election campaign march."

10:39 Ray Wong: "If you want to play, we the people of Hong Kong, we Hong Kong Indigenous, will go big-time with you!"

10:46 At 2:00am, the police warned the demonstrators to disperse.

10:52 The demonstrators suddenly charged ahead. Ray Wong: "Three, two, one." The demonstrators charged.

- Hong Kong Indigenous said that protestors have been sentenced to 3 to 5 years in jail, "becoming political prisoners." I wonder which of (1) Amnesty International; (2) the Dalai Lama; (3) the Japanese government; (4) the Taiwan government; (5) the US State Department; (6) US Senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton; (7) Noble Peace Prize Committee; etc ... are willing to demand the immediate release of the political prisoner of conscience Yeung Ka-lun pictured here:


According to Hong Kong Indigenous, Mr. Yeung was unjustly sentenced to 4 years 9 months in jail by a Hong Kong Communist judge for the peaceful activity recorded by these and other photos/videos taken by citizens and reporters.

- If Yeung Ka-lun was sentenced to 4 years 9 months in jail, then how can Ray Wong and Edward Leung who instigated people like Yeung to riot get less jail time?

- Notice that Ray Wong and Edward Leung will only say: "Still, the police were in hot pursuit and recently, there have been protesters sentenced to imprisonment for 3 to 5 years, becoming political prisoners" without ever naming Yeung Ka-lun (4 years 9 months) or Chan Pak-yeung (9 months). Why? They haven't provided any help to Yeung or Chan so far, so it would be untoward to invoke their cases to raise money for themselves. Why not? Because Yeung and Chan are with rival localist organization Civic Passion.

This is the reason why Hong Kong Indigenous spent more time on the anonymous martyr arrested in Tai Lok House, Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Po District on April 11, 2017 by the police for participation in the Mong Kok riot. They wanted information in order to do everything possible to help.

... unless, of course, this person is Civic Passion too.

- While the Civic Passion foot soldiers stew in prison, the Hong Kong Indigenous leaders conduct their 2017 World Tour attending conferences, giving media interviews, meeting with government bigwigs, etc. What a contrast!

- Hong Kong Indigenous claimed that the Fishball Revolution was started to stop the corruptive government from oppressing unlicensed small vendors. If Amnesty International agrees, then they should begin by looking into the plight of small vendors in New York City. (New York Times) June 14, 2014.

There are 853 general vending licenses available to nonveterans. The number has not changed since 1979. The waiting list for a license, with more than 1,800 names, has been closed since 1993.

Selling goods without a license is a misdemeanor; officers have discretion to merely issue a summons or to make an arrest. In recent months, vendors in Chinatown selling items like 1.2 ounce bottles of liquid plant food, plastic lotus flowers, ceramic bobble-headed turtles, tube socks and red envelopes used for offerings during the celebration of the Lunar New Year, have been handcuffed, fingerprinted and taken to jail.

A police spokesperson said that 7,230 summonses were issued for unlicensed vendors in 2013. In the same year, the criminal courts processed arraignments for 1,905 arrests for selling goods without a license, according to the courts' administrative office.

- Finally, please remember to send more money more frequently to Hong Kong Indigenous in order to help the political prisoners of conscience and to fight against the 'corruptive government.'

- Put your money where your mouth is, and make sure that Ray Wong can travel all over the world to tell people about our story of suffering.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 23, 2017.

Last evening, Ray Wong attended a forum organized by the Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre on the Democracy Movement, on the choice of Peace-Reason-Non-violence versus Valiant Resistance.

Wong said that more and more young people are being arrested for the Mong Kok riot. Personally Wong said that he is "unable to assess" whether it was worth it, or whether the action that night was appropriate. He said that a number of citizens agreed with the action for a brief period after the riot. "If you want democracy and you want to fight against the Hong Kong SAR government, you have to break out of the existing framework."

After the Legislative Council elections last year, the Resistance Movement has ebbed. Wong does not believe that this will continue. He said that that urgent task at this time is to educate the masses and re-gather the "Forces of Resistance". He said that the masses will come back together again for Valiant Resistance as the oppression by the government increases. More and more citizens will be willing to pay higher costs in order to resist the existing authorities.

Wong said that the Valiant Resisters will avoid direct conflicts with the police. They will not throw bricks "openly and fairly" against the police in front of the media. Instead they will go underground.

During the Q&A session, a member of the audience pilloried Wong. He said that the blue-jacket Hong Kong Indigenous members were nowhere to be seen during the brick-throwing incidents in Mong Kok. "I resent most of all the fact that Hong Kong Indigenous is all talk but they never accept any responsibility." Wong put propped his jaw up with his hand and said contemptuously that he merely called on the participants of the Mong Kok riot to "use their own methods" to express their discontent. Wong asked: "What do you want me to accept responsibility for?"

Ray Wong said that Hong Kong Indigenous is not advocating civil disobedience in the manner of the Occupy Central participants who are willing to be arrested. Hong Kong Indigenous will do everything possible to keep the demonstrators from being arrested. Therefore he recommends that all demonstrators wear Black Bloc clothing plus face masks.

Will the Hong Kong Indigenous leaders accept responsibility for incitement of riot? Wong said that if the courts are acting as the henchmen for the authorities and the demonstrators believe that Valiant Resistance is unavoidable, then their actions cannot be Civil Disobedience and therefore there is no issue of accepting responsibility and so on.

- (Wen Wei Po) Internet comments. April 23, 2017.

- He means to say that it is none of his business that people went out to throw bricks or set off fires.

- Piece of trash! He doesn't dare to admit what he did. How is he qualified to issue orders as the commander-in-chief.

- He says that it is none of his business. Is he being fucking scared now? Right now, people are receiving three to four years in prison. As the mastermind, he is looking at five to seven years. He needs to take more Viagra pills to get courage.

- What even happened to his Big Brother poise?

- He urged others to charge and turned an assembly into a riot. As the inciter, how can he say that he accepts no responsibility? When bricks were flying and fires were being set off, did he ever tell people to stop!? When he says that he didn't know, he is refusing to accept responsibility.

- Now you really know what this guy is made of. Now that the police are after the perpetrators, he immediately severs all ties. This is a lesson to all fellow travelers.

- Here is another novel interpretation of how laws work. When you believe that you are engaged in civil disobedience, you know that you are breaking the law and therefore you accept whatever judicial sanctions that are delivered against you. But when you are engaged in Valiant Resistance, the law is a tool for the Oppressors and therefore the law is no longer applicable to anything that you do. If you blow up the entire block in Mong Kok and kill 800 people, you will have no responsibility under the law.

- That's swell, but I would like to see what his lawyer is going to say when Ray Wong is found guilty under the law. What will be said in mitigation? This fine young man has no prior criminal conviction; he has low IQ/mental retardation; he came under bad influence (Edward Leung, Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching); he feels remorse and promises never to relapse; he has plans to study at Oxford University; etc.

Or will Ray Wong follow Martin Luther: "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 10, 2017.

Localist lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai of Civic Passion is to face prosecution for allegedly desecrating the national and regional flags after he was seen flipping the flags in protest during a legislative session last October.

Cheng said his office received a phone call from police on Monday asking the lawmaker to pick up a prosecution notice at the Central Police Station. Police said his conduct violated the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, as well as the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance.

Cheng was filmed apparently flipping the Chinese and Hong Kong flags inside the LegCo chamber last October. Shortly following the incident, pro-Beijing lawmaker Edward Lau Kwok-fan reported the case to police and urged them to prosecute Cheng. Lau said there are things Chinese people and and lawmakers of Hong Kong SAR, Peoples Republic of China that cannot be tolerated.

Pro-Beijing lawmakers displayed the flags during the session as a political gesture. Cheng said at the time that he flipped them upside down because he considered the display to be cheap patriotic acts, as pro-Beijing lawmakers ignored livelihood issues and the nationality controversy that the legislatures president Andrew Leung was embroiled in. I flipped the Hong Kong flags upside down on behalf of Hong Kong people to show my discontent, he said at the time.

(Oriental Daily) April 11, 2017.

Cheng Chung-tai posted on his Facebook that he was invited by the police to go down to the Central Police Station to complete the arrest process.

(SCMP) April 18, 2017.

An angry crowd of pro-establishment protesters greeted a localist lawmaker with a dozen red flags as he made his first court appearance on Tuesday to face charges of desecrating the Hong Kong and Chinese flags in the Legislative Council last year. But Civic Passion leader Cheng Chung-tai avoided confrontation by walking from another side of Eastern Court and turning his back to the sea of red caps and flags, ignoring protesters who shouted: Cheng Chung-tai does not deserve to be a lawmaker. There were about 30 protesters from a pro-establishment group, waving both Hong Kong and China flags.

Cheng, 33, was charged with one count of desecration of the national flag and another over the regional flag. Both crimes carry a HK$50,000 fine and three years imprisonment. Prosecutors alleged that Cheng publicly and wilfully defiled the flags inside the Legco chamber on October 19, 2016. They were small flags, one local and one national, placed side by side at each legislators seat. The case was set for plea on Tuesday afternoon, but Cheng asked that it be adjourned to May 16 so he could find a lawyer. Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai agreed.

At issue was whether Cheng repeatedly turning the flags upside down amounted to defiling, which is not explicitly defined in law. When asked if Cheng had to rely on the dictionary definition to prepare his defence, prosecutor Derek Lai said a Court of Final Appeal judgment had defined it as dishonouring. That judgment upheld the convictions of Ng Kung-siu and Lee Kin-yun for carrying defaced national and regional flags during a rally in January 1998. The pair were bound over for HK$2,000 and ordered to keep the peace for 12 months.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 17, 2017.

Localist lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai has pleaded not guilty to two counts of desecrating the Chinese and Hong Kong flags after he was seen flipping them in protest during a legislative session last October.

Prosecutors told the Eastern Magistrates Court that they would submit video recordings totalling 40 minutes as evidence, reported local paper Ming Pao. But Cheng did not provide them with a statement under police caution. The prosecution said it would also call on 12 witnesses to testify at the trial.

It is an offence to desecrate the national or regional flags by methods such as burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling. It carries a maximum penalty of a HK$50,000 fine and three years behind bars.

Cheng, Civic Passions sole legislator, was not represented by a lawyer on Tuesday afternoon as his case was mentioned in court. He told magistrate Bina Chainrai that he only received documents provided by the prosecution two weeks ago. He said he was considering what type of lawyer to hire because the charges he faced were unusual. After seeking legal advice, I will hire a lawyer to represent me in my defence, Cheng wrote on Facebook after leaving the court.

Magistrate Chainrai set the date of his pre-trial review for June 27.

Related Link: How To Burn Your National Flag (If You Must)

Internet comments:

- (CAP A401 National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance)

Section 7. Protection of national flag and national emblem

A person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

(CAP A602 Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance)

Section 7. Protection of the regional flag and regional emblem

A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and

(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

- (Wikipedia) Flag Desecration

Hong Kong:

In 1999, two individuals were convicted for desecration of the Regional Flag of Hong Kong and the Chinese flag. They were found guilty by a magistrate, had the conviction overturned in the High Court but the convictions were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. They were bound over to keep the peace on their own recognisance of $2,000 for 12 months for each of the two charges. In the judgement, Chief Justice Andrew Li said although the Basic Law of Hong Kong guarantees freedom of speech, flag desecration is not legal because there are other protest methods.

Social activist Koo Sze-yiu has been convicted twice of flag desecration. He was sentenced to a nine-month prison term in 2013 for the offence. However, the sentence was reduced to four months and two weeks after an appeal. In March 2016, he was sentenced to a six-week prison term for burning the regional flag in Wanchai on HKSAR Establishment Day in 2015. Koo responded that "he is happy to be punished as being jailed is part of the life of an activist, and he would continue to protest against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments and fight for democracy."

Selected situations in countries around the world:

Algeria: In Algeria, flag desecration is a crime. According to article 160bis of the Algerian penal code, the intentional and public shredding, distortion, or desecration of the national flag is punishable by 5 to 10 years of imprisonment.

Argentina: The Penal Code (Cdigo Penal) on its Article 222 criminalizes the public desecration of the national flag, coat of arms, national anthem, or any provincial symbol, imposing from 1 to 4 years of imprisonment.

Australia: Flag desecration is not, in itself, illegal in Australia.

Austria: In Austria flag desecration is illegal under 248 Strafgesetzbuch. Offenders can be fined or punished with up to 6 months of imprisonment.

China: Flag desecration is prohibited in China. The penal code provides for an imprisonment up to three years, criminal detention, public surveillance, or deprivation of political rights for anyone who "desecrate[s] the National Flag or the National Emblem of the People's Republic of China by intentionally burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling upon it in public".

France: According to French law, outraging the French national anthem or the French flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities is liable for a fine of 7,500 (and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering).

Germany: Under German criminal code (90a Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)) it is illegal to revile or damage the German federal flag as well as any flags of its states in public. Offenders can be fined or sentenced to a maximum of three years in prison, or fined or sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison if the act was intentionally used to support the eradication of the Federal Republic of Germany or to violate constitutional rights.

Italy: In Italy, desecration of any Italian or foreign nation's national flag (vilipendio alla bandiera) is prohibited by law (Article 292 of the Italian Penal Code) and punished with fines (between 1,000 and 10,000 euros) for verbal desecration and with reclusion (up to two years) for physical damage or destruction.

Philippines: Section 34a the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines declares that it is a prohibited act "[t]o mutilate, deface, defile, trample on or cast contempt or commit any act or omission casting dishonor or ridicule upon the flag or over its surface; Section 50 Any person or judicial entity which violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (5,000.00) not more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), or by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

Portugal: According to article 332 of the Penal Code,[80] "Who publicly, by means of words, gestures or print publication, or by other means of public communication, insults the Republic, the Flag or the National Anthem, the coats of arms or the symbols of Portuguese sovereignty, or fails to show the respect they are entitled to, shall be punished with up to two years imprisonment or a fine of up to 240 days". In the case of the regional symbols, the person shall be punished with up to one year imprisonment or a fine of up to 120 days (fines are calculated based on the defendant's income).

Saudi Arabia: The flag of Saudi Arabia bears the shahada or Islamic declaration of faith. Because the shahada is considered holy, Saudi Arabia's flag code is extremely strict and even the slightest violation amounts to desecration not only of the flag but is also blasphemous to Islam.

United Kingdom: Neither the law of England and Wales nor the law of Scotland has a concept of "flag desecration".

United States: The flag of the United States is sometimes burned in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech."

- What, if anything, did the Honorable Cheung Chung-tai do? Here it is on YouTube, YouTube.

- There can be no doubt that Cheng Chung-tai flipped the flags. But the ordinance says:

A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence ...

Cheung did not burn the flags, he did not mutilate them, he did not scrawl on them and he did not trample on them. At issue is whether "flipping the flag" is "defiling it." According to Dictionary.com: 'to defile' is to make foul, dirty, or unclean; pollute; taint; debase; violate the chastity of; to make impure for ceremonial use; desecrate; to sully, as a person's reputation. So it can be argued that "flipping the flag" is not "defiling it." Perhaps this was the reason why the the Hong Kong Police had to ask the Department of Justice for legal advice. It seemed that the received opinion was "green light to proceed."

Even if found guilty, the precedents seem to imply that Cheng will only have have to pay a small fine (say, $500) while getting a chance to expound on his political views outside the courtroom. So it is definitely a worthy investment.

- (Basic Law Article 77) Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.

The desecration of a flag is arguably "symbolic speech." However, the Legislative Council meeting was adjourned and the hall was largely empty of Legislative Councilors at the time when Cheng Chung-tai moved in to flip the flags. Therefore, Article 77 cannot be invoked in defense.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) The 10 lawmakers facing disqualification: Post-Occupy payback in slow motion. By Suzanne Pepper. April 22, 2017.

No one knew exactly what to expect from central government officials in Beijing when Hong Kongs Occupy protest movement erupted on September 28, 2014 and went on to blockade major city thoroughfares for 79 days. The last of the encampments were not cleared until mid-December.

Since Hong Kongs pro-Beijing media remained in full fighting mode throughout the 2013-14 preparations, during the 79 days, and ever since, it can be safely assumed that Beijing officials were not pleased.

But by and large, Hong Kongs one-country, two-systems way of life was allowed to play itself out without any direct observable Beijing intervention.

The Hong Kong government ignored protesters demands for a re-think of Beijings restrictive August 31, 2014 electoral reform mandate that triggered Occupy; Hong Kongs police force handled all the provocations on its own; and the protest eventually wound down. A series of high-profile arrests were made but mostly not followed up with court action. No one seemed in any great hurry to exact retribution.

In this way, after Hong Kong legislators vetoed the offending electoral reform proposal in June 2015, political life returned more or less to normal.

A series of local elections followed. They began in late 2015, with three in 2016, and the last in March this year. Throughout all that time, the Hong Kong government, conservatives, pro-Beijing loyalists, and the pro-Beijing media did everything they possibly could to discredit everything and everyone associated with the Occupy protest movement.

In 2015, Zhang Dejiang, who is currently the top-ranking Beijing official responsible for overseeing Hong Kong affairs, enjoined loyalist politicians to be sure and win five more seats in the next Legislative Council election. The extra seats would secure the super-majority needed to pass the electoral reform proposal that Occupy supporters were able to veto and block with their slim one-third minority.

But such soft-power ordinary Hong Kong-style politicking didnt work. Zhang Dejiangs wish did not materialise.

Conventional conservative wisdom had it that the voters would punish Occupy sympathisers and pan-democratic politicians for all the disruption they had caused. All including both moderates and radicals were represented in the June 2015 Legislative Council vote to veto Beijings electoral reform mandate.

Yet voters rewarded them all, including many young Occupy generation candidates. In all the post-Occupy elections, pro-democracy candidates did better than anyone expected.

Whether the official laid-back approach would have continued indefinitely in the absence of what happened next will doubtless never be known. Probably it would not have continued indefinitely, because the resolve of all pro-democracy candidates seemed to have been strengthened by arguments the younger generation brought with them from the barricades and the whole Occupy experience.

Many had concluded that no matter how reasonable, righteous, and self-evident Hong Kongs demands might be, Beijing officialdom was not listening and would never listen. The next step then was to demand autonomy, the genuine kind that Hongkongers thought they had been promised by all the handover guarantees Beijing had offered before 1997.

People were beginning to think maybe the promises had not been made in good faith after all, but only to ease the transition from British to Chinese rule.

In any case, scattered among this angrier disillusioned younger generations arguments are some now demanding not just genuine autonomy, but self-determination, and even independence. Probably it was the link between such newly defiant ideas and the voters who repeatedly rewarded them in 2015, 2016, and 2017 that set alarm bells ringing in Beijing.

Because that link points directly to Beijings instinctive fear of popular elections.

To grant power to elected politicians is to acknowledge popular sovereignty, and in Beijings eyes there can be no greater heresy. Sovereignty resides in Beijing in the central government and the Chinese Communist Party as representative of all the people not in any popular mandate bestowed by ordinary voters on elected politicians and their representative assemblies.

Hence Beijings decision to try and disqualify Hong Kong voters by overturning their choices and asking them to try again.

If all goes according to current official plans, a total of 10 legislators elected in September 2016 will lose their seats. That will give Zhang Dejiang more than enough leeway to try and win those five extra votes he needs to pass Beijings August 31, 2014 electoral reform mandate.

The excuses whereby the 10 might lose their seats: oath-taking indiscretions plus disruptions during Occupy with Hong Kong courts serving as the means of finessing this intricate manoeuvre. The implications are serious because they mean further erosion of Hong Kongs political autonomy and judicial independence despite all the incantations to the contrary.

Oath-taking and disqualification

Several Occupy generation candidates won seats in the September 2016 Legislative Council election. So did some like-minded pre-Occupy democrats. A total of 15 by Beijing reckoning used the occasion of their swearing-in on October 12 to demonstrate disloyalty by improvising their oaths.

Beijing officials moved with more speed than usual in such matters and issued, on November 7, an Interpretation of the Basic Laws Article 104. This concerns the matter of oath-taking.

Beijings interpretation was wide-ranging. It said the oath must be taken word for word, solemnly and sincerely, and followed up ever after by like-minded behaviour under pain of mortal sin meaning in this case disqualification as Legislative Councillors.

The swearing-in ceremony itself had occurred on October 12. Two new legislators were especially offensive in their choice of words. But following customary procedures, the two were told they could retake their oaths, which they planned to do.

It was not to be. By the next council sitting on October 19, conservative forces had been mobilised. Their legislators left the chamber. Without a quorum the session could not continue so the oaths could not be retaken.

Hong Kongs Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying meanwhile applied for a judicial review asking the Hong Kong court to decide if the two could be disqualified under Hong Kong law for the manner in which they had improvised their oaths.

A Hong Kong judge ruled their behaviour warranted disqualification. But before he could issue his judgement, Beijing preempted the Hong Kong court by issuing a judgement of its own. This came in the form of an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress (SCNPC) on November 7.

Beijing thus added, via its interpretation, the new conditions that inspired official reconsideration, retroactively, of all that had been said by all legislators during the October 12 swearing-in ceremony.

Eager to fulfil its duty, the Hong Kong government then asked the Hong Kong court for permission to disqualify four more new legislators. The request was for separate judicial rulings to be based retroactively on Beijings November 7 interpretation. These judgements have yet to be issued.

As for the first two legislators, they are currently awaiting their day before Hong Kongs Court of Final Appeal.

But that court only agreed to give them one last hearing on special public interest grounds. The two had already been told, on appeal, by a three-judge panel that their cases were without merit because the Hong Kong courts are powerless to defy a ruling from Beijing that comes down via the SCNPC. In fact, the appeal judges seemed quite irritated that the defence counsel should have presumed to suggest otherwise.

Veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming is now helping with the defence. But given the judgements to date, there seems little reason to think the four legislators will fare any better than the first two, or that the latter will receive an answer from the Court of Final Appeal any different from all those they have received so far.

The arguments from the three-judge appeal panel suggest that Hong Kong courts have no desire to assert any independence on this matter.

Not satisfied, however, the Hong Kong government is still searching for more offending post-Occupy legislators to disqualify and has just found a seventh. He is university lecturer Cheng Chung-tai, who received his summons on April 10.

As a Beijing University graduate, Cheng is a rarity among Hong Kong legislators. Ironically, he is also among the most radical. Officials are constantly exhorting Hong Kong young people to visit their Motherland but in his case it didnt have the hoped-for effect.

He took his oath on October 12, and may still have a case to answer on that score because of some extra words he added. But government lawyers have found additional grounds that seem more likely to produce the desired result.

At the subsequent council sitting on October 19, when the pro-establishment councillors vacated their seats to prevent a quorum, Cheng used the empty time to move about the chamber where he proceeded to dishonour the Chinese national and Hong Kong regional flags.

This he did by turning upside down the miniature replicas that some pro-Beijing legislators had placed in holders on their desks to demonstrate their patriotism.

For this act of disrespect, Hong Kongs Justice Department is asking the court to rule on whether Cheng has violated Hong Kongs law against flag desecration. He was summoned by phone informing him of the pending prosecution but refused to turn himself in voluntarily.

Thats why he was visited by 14 Criminal Investigation Division officers who escorted him to Hong Kongs central police station for a late night check-in where he was formally charged and released on bail. Under Hong Kong law, flag desecration is punishable by a fine and prison sentence of up to three years.

Aside from his October 12 verbal indiscretion, Cheng Chung-tai is actually now in double jeopardy due to another aspect of the oath-taking saga. Under Hong Kong law, individual voters can challenge the qualifications of legislators representing their constituencies.

In this case, one voter is asking for a judicial review based on Beijings November 7 oath-taking interpretation that the government is using to try and unseat the others.

This voter lives in the New Territories West constituency and is asking the court to disqualify two of its legislators. One is Cheng, the other is King of Votes Eddie Chu Hoi-dick who received more votes than any other candidate in the September 2016 election. He read out his oath properly, but used the occasion to shout out democratic self-determination and tyranny must die.

Altogether eight Legislative Councillors elected in September 2016 are now in danger of disqualification over their oaths. The government has already budgeted HK$320 million to cover costs for the coming by-elections that will be called to fill the anticipated vacancies. The eight are:

  • Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, New Territories East
  • Yau Wai-ching, Kowloon West Lau Siu-lai, Kowloon West
  • Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Hong Kong Island Edward
  • Yiu Chung-yim, functional constituency, architecture, surveying sector
  • Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, New Territories East
  • Cheng Chung-tai, New Territories West Eddie
  • Chu Hoi-dick, New Territories West

Alleged crimes and possible punishments

And there are more. Cheng Chung-tai is the only legislator who has actually been charged with an offence that carries a possible prison sentence. But two other legislators have just been charged with such offences stemming from actions two years ago during Occupy.

Hence these two are also now at risk of losing their Legislative Council seats, making for a grand total of 10. The two latest possibilities:

  • Tanya Chan, Hong Kong Island
  • Shiu Ka-chun, functional constituency, social welfare sector

These two are part of the other official shoe to drop in the governments slow-motion tidying-up exercise designed to do as much damage as possible to what Beijing calls Hong Kongs new separatist tendencies.

The Occupy arrests were timed for obvious political effect coming as they did just one day after Hong Kongs long post-Occupy 2015-17 election cycle finally came to an end. The Election Committee formalities whereby Carrie Lam secured her endorsement as Chief Executive were concluded on March 26. She was Beijings preferred candidate to replace the much disliked loyalist Leung Chun-ying.

The very next day, nine Occupy leaders and activists were formally charged.

About a thousand people were arrested for various infractions during the 79-days of Occupy and some 200 of those cases have already proceeded through the courts. But the nine dramatically charged on March 27, were among the 30+ leaders and activists who were arrested at the end, either just before or just after the last of the barricades came down in December 2014.

These nine include the three original founders of Occupy Central: University academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man, and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. Besides the two legislators, the others are two former student leaders, and two politicians.

At the time of their arrest two years ago, they were all told to expect charges associated with unauthorised assemblies: participating in, organising, inciting, and police obstruction. They were also told that formal charges would not be announced for at least three months.

Government prosecutors obviously needed more time, which they used to search the archives for other ordinances that might carry more weight than those the defendants had been led to expect.

The three co-founders are each being charged with three public nuisance offences: conspiring to commit, inciting others to commit, and inciting others to incite others. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The other seven defendants are being charged with one or two of the public nuisance incitement offences.

Nor is that all. Soon after Beijing issued its November 7 interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 on oath-taking, a political study session was held across the border in Shenzhen to help generate more publicity for all these unfamiliar mainland-style procedures. Among the speakers was retired Beijing official Chen Zuoer, a hardliner long associated with Beijings Hong Kong portfolio.

Chen used the occasion to blast Hong Kongs judiciary for using the law as a political tool and also for the soft wrist-tapping sentences judges were handing out to political activists. He said there had been many such cases. They carried national security implications because they challenged Beijings authority.

Yet Hong Kongs judges seemed still not to have grasped that point. Perhaps now they have because sentences have grown noticeably stiffer since then.

A few months before Chens tirade, the three student leaders who actually precipitated Occupy walked away with the mildest of sentences. The three were Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Alex Chow. They had led students in an attempt to storm a recently restricted public area at the Legislative Council complex on the night of September 26.

All were convicted of unlawful assembly offences. But the judge cited their youthful idealism in mitigation and let them off with community service and a suspended sentence.

Now, in the wake of the oath-taking saga and all the tough official Beijing talk, Occupy leaders find themselves unexpectedly charged with offences that carry seven-year prison terms.

Meanwhile, trials resulting from the February 2016 Lunar New Year violence are concluding.

The violence was provoked by post-Occupy Hong Kong autonomy protesters or separatists as Beijing calls them. It was only a one-night affair on February 8-9, with little property damage but there were many arrests and many police injuries.

One rioter has just begun his nine-month sentence for throwing water bottles at the police and resisting arrest. Three rioters including two university students have received three-year prison sentences.

The harshest sentence so far has been given to a university computer technician found guilty of setting fire to a taxi. He has just been jailed for four years and nine months all delivered with stern homilies from the bench and triumphant editorials in the pro-Beijing press.

- First, the oaths of DQ2 Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang were not recognized and their offices were vacated. Next the Chief Executive filed a judicial review against the DQ4 (Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Edward Yiu Chung-ym) for their oaths of office. The case is winding through the judicial process. Now a seventh legislator Cheng Chung-tai is being charged.

In all seven cases, one has to ask: What for? Why did they engage in these inconsequential trick plays? The answer is always: "Well, they will be coming after us anyway. If not for these things, it will be for something else. Therefore we don't believe that we caused our own problems." That is neither verifiable nor testable.

- When 'they' came after these legislators, it was not an executive action. This was not the Chinese Communist Party secretary handling down an order. Rather, the case was initiated by the Department of Justice (which acts independently of the executive branch) and will be tried in an independent court of law. If the charges are nonsensical, they will be dismissed in court soon enough. If the charges are substantiated, who is to say that they should not be filed? Unless of course you think that the executive and judicial branches are all Commie tools.

- Two more legislators (Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun) will go on trial for activities related to the unlawful Occupy Central. Out of 27 pan-democratic legislators, 9 are under a cloud of uncertainty.

- (Basic Law Article 79) The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall declare that a member of the Council is no longer qualified for the office under any of the following circumstances:

(2) When he or she, with no valid reason, is absent from meetings for three consecutive months without the consent of the President of the Legislative Council;

...

(6) When he or she is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one month or more for a criminal offence committed within or outside the Region and is relieved of his or her duties by a motion passed by two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Council present;

(Legislative Council Rules of Procedure Section 49B. Disqualification of Member from Office)

(1) A motion to relieve a Member of his duties as a Member under Article 79(6) of the Basic Law shall be moved in the following form: "That whereas (name of Member) was convicted on (date) in (court) in (place) of a criminal offence(s) and was sentenced on (date) by (court) to imprisonment for one month or more (as particularized in the Schedule to this motion), this Council relieves (name of Member) of his/her duties as a Member of the Legislative Council.".

- Cheng Chung-tai posted on Facebook that the police told him to pick up a letter that informs him that he is formally being charged with "insulting the national flag" and "insulting the regional flag." Cheng replied that he is busily serving the People of Hong Kong and has no time to go down to the police station. He told the police to mail the letter to either the Legislative Council chairman or the Legislative Council Secretariat but not directly to himself. The news report said that if Cheng Chung-tai won't go down to the station, then the police will show up, arrest him, take him down to the police station and notify him there.

- (TVB) Cheung Chung-tai said: "The incident took place during a Legislative Council meeting. So they cannot just hand a letter to a democratically elected parliamentarian to charge him for activities related to his speech and action during a parliamentary meeting. The most basic process is that I do not believe that I need to go down to the police station to pick up the letter. Clearly this was a big political persecution that is happening before Carrie Lam takes over."

Legislative Council president Andrew Leung said: "I remind my colleagues at the Legislative Council that the speeches of the Legislative Councilors are indeed protected under special privileges guaranteed by the law. But they must be responsible for all activities to themselves and to the public.

- The freedom of speech of a legislator is protected, but actions are not. For example, former legislator Raymond Wong was sentenced to two weeks in jail for throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung. Raymond Wong could have screamed obscenities and he will be protected. If you think that throwing a glass cup is protected, where does your slippery slope stop?

Throwing a paper airplane? Okay ... (but $1,500 fine for littering)
Throwing a pile of dog dung? Eh ... okay ...  (but $1,500 for fouling the street or public place with dung)
Throwing a glass cup that missed? 2 weeks in jail.
Throwing a javelin? Eh ... 2+ weeks in jail (much more if the javelin actually hits a person)
Throwing a handful of pig intestines? 18 weeks in jail according to a previous case.
Throwing a Molotov cocktail? Eh ... not so okay (unless it can be proven that the device was designed to look scary but cannot actually catch fire).

- Cheng Chung-tai's various attempts to explain were incoherent. He said that the Hong Kong Police should be arresting the pro-establishment legislators for bringing in national/regional flags into the meeting hall because that is defiling the flags for political purposes. Alternately he said that the dimensions of their flags do not match official specifications, so they are desecrating the flags. Then Cheng said that the items that he flipped were display objects and not national/regional flags. If so, why does he want the police to arrest the pro-establishment legislators? Does he admit that those objects are indeed national/regional flags or not?

- Selective prosecution! Why wasn't this man arrested and charged?

- Cheng Chung-tai is a political opportunist. We can review his record in politics. He studied sociology at the University of Peking and graduated with a PhD in 2010. He returned to Hong Kong and became the assistant of former Democratic Party district councilor Lee Kai-hung. He could have joined the traditional Democratic Party. In 2012, Cheng joined Civic Passion, and became one of their valiant warriors. Not only did he support democracy, he also supported Hong Kong independence.

The fact is that if Cheng had joined either the Democratic Party or Civic party, he would be very low in the hierarchy. He would not have risen through the ranks even if he waited until his hair turns white. But at the time, Hong Kong independence was a hot issue and more and more young people were supporting the notion. These young people don't even think that the League of Social Democrats/People Power are radical enough. So there was a market for even more radical groups.

Once Cheng joined Civic Passion, he was looked upon favorably by Raymond Wong. One reason was his education level. Wong supported him to run for the Legislative Council. This proved that Cheng had made the right decision.

After being voted into the Legislative Council, Cheng was about to continue to use Hong Kong independence. Unfortunately, the two fools Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching insulted China during their attempted oaths and drew the Basic Law Article 104 interpretation by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. At first, Cheng supported Leung and Yau. But after seeing that the Central Government was serious, Cheng switched his position and deplored what the two did. Cheng said that he had no foreknowledge about what the two planned, and he does not approve.

Next, as the sole elected legislator, Cheng ascended to become Civic Passion chairman. His first declaration was that Civic Passion will switch from street protests to parliamentarian protests, because valiant resistance is futile. The truth was that Hong Kong independence had no future after the NPCSC interpretation and those who advocate such may lose their legislator posts. So Civic Passion is now interested in a permanent extension of the Basic Law with democratic self-determination.

Everything about Cheng Chung-tai is naked opportunism. The pathetic thing is that his idea of parliamentarian protest turned out to be flipping national/regional flags on the desks of pro-establishment legislators. What is the difference between this and elementary school students hiding the pencils and erasers of other students?

In Hong Kong today, there are plenty of political opportunists. Twenty years ago when Hong Kong was handed back to China, a bunch of politicians suddenly became patriotic. They proclaimed themselves to be more Chinese than the Chinese and they are moved to tears at the sound of the national anthem. In recent years, a bunch of politicians suddenly support democracy, universal values and localism! These two types of opportunists simply want to feed off politics. The only difference is that their food comes from different kitchens.

- (Oriental Daily) April 12, 2017.


RTHK: Legislative Councilor Cheng Feces (Civic Passion) announced on social media that he is being charged with the crimes of insulting the national and regional flags. The case will be heard next Tuesday. Last evening Cheng Chung-tai said on social media that he was invited by the police to go down to the Central Police Station to complete the arrest procedure. At around 2am, he posted again to say that he has left the police station and will appear in Eastern District Court at 2pm next Tuesday.

Sharp-eyed Internet users noticed the name "Cheng Feces." In response to our inquiry, RTHK said that the text was scrambled when their News Department uploaded the story onto the website. They have made the correction and apologized to Cheng Chung-tai. Cheng has accepted their apology. RTHK said that they remind their colleagues to be careful in the future.

- Occasionally words get scrambled during data transmission, so that "hello goodbye" comes out to be "@#*$(#_@(". But what kind of random scrambling will result in "Cheng Chung-tai" becoming "Cheng Feces"? It could not be random. RTHK is lying about what really happened!

- (EJ Insight) Who is really desecrating the flag? By SC Yeung. April 13, 2017.

Since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on July 1, 1997, the national flag of the Peoples Republic of China has been flying proudly in the city, a symbol of Beijings sovereignty over the territory after more than 150 years of British colonial rule.

The flag should remind Hong Kong people of their national identity as Chinese, but it shouldnt be used by Beijing loyalists as a tool to attack the opposition.

On Tuesday, Civic Passion lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai was formally arrested by the police and charged with desecrating the national and SAR flags.

The case pertains to an incident at the Legislative Council last October when Cheng turned several small flags upside down as an act of protest against his pro-Beijing colleagues.

Cheng, who represents the New Territories geographical constituency, was arrested by no less than 14 police officers in Kowloon on Tuesday night while he was on his way to an online radio station to host a program.

He was then taken to the Cheung Sha Wan police station to complete the arrest procedure. Cheng criticized the police for lacking respect in dealing with him as a lawmaker.

He said the arresting officers apparently took a hostile attitude toward him, when compared with the arrangements for the arrest of pan-democrat lawmakers involved in the 2014 Occupy Movement.

Chengs arrest itself was controversial since the incident that prompted it took place at Legco and not in public.

Legco had also formed a committee to investigate Chengs alleged misbehavior, following a motion by pro-establishment lawmaker Paul Tse Wai-chun, who said Chengs action constituted mischief.

Cheng may lose his Legco seat if he is censured for misbehavior or breach of oath by a vote of two-thirds of the legislators present upon completion of the probe.

As to the charge filed by the police, Cheng, if he is found guilty by the court, could face a jail sentence of one month or more and lose his Legco seat as well.

Cheng stressed that a lawmaker cannot be punished for words and actions during council meetings because of parliamentary protection under Legcos Powers and Privileges Ordinance.

It seems the Beijing camp is intent on attacking enemies at Legco, including Cheng, who has been labeled as a radical and pro-independence localist.

According to some legal experts, it could be quite difficult to prove in court that Cheng had desecrated the Chinese and SAR flags. He had only turned the flags upside down without any insult or action to disrespect them.

The law that may be invoked in the case is the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, particularly the section called Protection of national flag and national emblem.

It says a person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for three years.

The law does not have any provision that considers it an offense to turn the flag upside down.

On the other hand, the question arises: Might Beijing loyalists have committed an offense when they threw the national and SAR flags into rubbish bins after attending a demonstration to show their support to the authorities?

Some legal professionals also said arguments could be made on whether or not it was improper for the pro-Beijing lawmakers to put the flags on their desks.

According to established rules and protocols, there are specific ways to display the national and SAR flags. Inside a building, for example, the national flag should be on the left side while the SAR flag should be on the right side.

With only a couple of months left in office, the Leung Chun-ying administration is pursuing its crackdown on localists who had won in the Legco elections last year, citing all sorts of offenses and violations to kick them out of the government.

Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were the first to suffer this political vendetta as they were ousted for their improper oath-taking.

Nathan Law, Lau Siu Lai, Edward Yiu and Leung Kwok-hung are also facing similar cases. Late last month Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun were charged with committing public nuisance for kicking off the Occupy protests in September 2014.

Together with Cheng, there are seven lawmakers from the opposition camp who may lose their seats as the government stepped up its campaign against the opposition.

From Beijings perspective, Chengs action was an insult not only to Chinas sovereignty but also to the Communist Party and its top leaders.

But for many people, it was just a naive, spur-of-the-moment act by a young legislator who found it hard to tolerate the patriotic antics of his pro-Beijing colleagues.

What is truly a desecration of the national flag is when it is used by the establishment camp as a weapon against the opposition, as a tool to widen divisions in society, instead of a symbol to unite us all.

(Sing Pao) February 20, 2016.

Sing Pao front page on February 20, 2016.
The man in the photo is suspected of setting a taxi on fire.
Do you recognize him?

Facebook tip on February 20 1:13pm:


His name is Yeung Ka-lun. He lives at Fung Ting Court, Yuen Long district. Please forward (this information) like crazy!

According to information, the name of the arrested man is Yeung Ka-lun. He was suspected of setting fire to a taxi on the night of the riot. The key breakthrough was that a citizen called up the Hong Kong Police Organized Crime Division's hotline and provided the telephone number and address of Yeung. Based upon the information, the police checked surveillance videos in the area as well as the videos taken by the media, citizens and the police that day. They determined that this was their man and made the arrest. The police said that they are grateful for the many useful tips coming from citizens.

(Oriental Daily) February 26, 2016.

A police arrested a 31-year-old man named Yeung on suspicion of setting a taxi on fire during the Mong Kok riot. The police took the man back to his home in Fung Ting Court, Fung Cheung Road, Yuen Long district. The police removed a mobile phone, clothing and an Octopus card as evidence.

(SCMP) February 29, 2017.

Yeung Ka-lun, 31, faces the one charge of rioting over his alleged involvement on February 9 along with an additional charge of arson for allegedly burning a taxi at the junction of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street on the same day. Yeung was granted a cash bail of HK$30,000 with the condition that he lives in his reported address, surrender his travel documents, remain in Hong Kong, obey a curfew from midnight to 5am each day and refrain from entering parts of Mong Kok except on transport.

(HK ET) October 11, 2016.

Today Yeung Ka-lun pleaded not guilty against the charges of rioting and attempted arson. The trial will be held on March 13, 2017 and is estimated to last five days. The prosecution intends to summon six civilians and twelve police officers as witness. The defense will plead not guilty and argue that Yeung was not present at the scene and did not participate in the incident. The judge reminded that the defense should offer evidence of not being present as soon as possible (so that the trial does not even need to be held). The defendant posted bail of $30,000 while awaiting trial. He also has to observe a curfew and a ban from setting foot in the Mong Kok area.

(Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017.

In the opening statement, the prosecution said that at around 5am on February 9, 2016, the defendant participated in the riot on Soy Street, including throwing burning objects at a parked taxi and caused damage. The process was filmed by a NOW TV News camera crew and a foreigner. The action caused $4,600 damage to the left rear door of the said taxi.

The prosecution said that photos taken by the foreigner Mein Smith showed that defendant placed the inflammable objects next to the taxi. The defendant's ex-employer was able to identify the defendant through those photos.

Seventeen days later on February 26, 2016, the police intercepted the defendant at the lobby of his housing estate and arrested him for alleged participation in a riot. Later the police found an Octopus card issued on February 10, 2016 and four photo albums.

The prosecution said that defendant wore a beanie and eyeglasses at the time of the incident. When arrested, the defendant did not wear eyeglasses. When taken to court, the defendant wore eyeglasses at one point. The prosecution said that if the defendant wants to testify on his own behalf, they will ask him to wear the beanie and let the judge make a comparison between himself and the person in the photos.

In the opening statement, the defense said that they will provide evidence to prove that the person in the photos is not the defendant.

The first witness was PTU sergeant Shi Cheuk-yin. He testified that proceeded to clear Nathan Road at around 5:55am on the day of the incident. When they got to Sai Yeung Choi Street South, he saw 50 to 60 persons screaming and yelling. When they got to the intersection of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street, he observed somebody setting off a fire next to a taxi. Some people were throwing bricks and garbage. The police issues warnings and applied pepper spray. During the chaos, Shi was hit in his upper left arm by a flying brick.

(Oriental Daily) March 14, 2017.

According to foreign language teacher Mein Smith, he came to live and work in Hong Kong since 2014. At the time of the incident, he was living on Fa Yuen Street. At around 5am, he was awakened by a commotion. He looked outside the window and he saw some people tearing up the sidewalk. He called the police and went downstairs with his camera. When he arrived at Soy Street, he observed some people throwing bricks at the police who used pepper spray. The two sides seesawed back and forth. He saw a red taxi parked on the roadside. Its windshield was damage. There were burnt cardboard paper near its left rear wheel. So Smith used his $40,000 Nikon D4s camera to film using medium-long lends. In some of the photos, there was a man wearing eyeglasses and dark-colored hooded sweatshirt. The man placed the cardboard underneath the taxi door. He also saw people throwing bricks at the heads of other people. He also heard that they will throw bricks at photographers. So he sensed danger and went home.

(Oriental Daily) March 15, 2017.

Open University Human Resources Department director Sin Suk-man testified that Yeung Ka-lun worked at the Education and Science/Technology Publishing Department. Sin said that she had seen Yeung two to four times, and that Yeung wore black-rimmed glasses like the judge was wearing today. Sin identified Yeung in court. The defense challenged whether this was because Yeung was sitting in the defendant's box today. Sin said that she can identify Yeung independent of the environment.

The prosecution said that they had a former employer of Yeung who was able to identify Yeung in the photos taken on the day of the incident. However, the prosecution has learned that the man had left Hong Kong for mainland China last year and was arrested there. Therefore the prosecution will not summon this man to testify.

Today, the judge ruled that the evidence exists for the case. The defendant will decide whether he testifies on his own behalf tomorrow.

(Oriental Daily) March 16, 2017.

Today defendant Yeung Ka-lun decided not to testify on his own behalf. Previously the defense said that they have evidence that the defendant was elsewhere at the time. However, no such evidence was introduced. Summations will be made on March 22.

(Oriental Daily) March 22, 2017.

The prosecution said that the defendant bought a new Octopus card and stopped wearing glasses in order to prevent identification. The defense said that this inference is baseless. Furthermore, it is not 100% certain that the individual in the photos/videos has dyed hair, or any hair, or even male. The individual in the photos/videos was visible only from the eyebrows downwards. The judge agreed that this was just like himself and the senior counsels wearing wigs in court. The defense said: "That is why nobody can identify me." The defense continued that the angles and facial expressions can also affect the exterior appearances of the individual. Since none of the witnesses have known the defendant for an extensive period of time, they can't identify them confidently just as we cannot identify strangers confidently based upon some photos/videos.

(Oriental Daily) April 3, 2017.

Previously, the prosecution had presented videos and photos that Yeung Ka-lun was the individual who participated in the riot on Soy Street and set fire to a red taxi. Today, the judge ruled that Yeung Ka-lun was the individual in the videos/photos. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant had protruded upper teeth like the individual in the videos/photos. The only difference was that the defendant is not wearing glasses today. The judge found the defendant guilty on both counts (participation in a riot and arson).

After the verdict will come the sentencing on next Monday. In mitigation, the defense pleaded that the defendant did not throw any objects at the police or said anything disrespectful to the police. The defense admitted that his participation encouraged other participants. The defense said that the defendant was not a bad and ruthless person, and all he did was to place a burning piece of cardboard next to a taxi and the fire did not spread. The judge pointed out that a spark can start a conflagration as in the case of the people who were burned to death in a car recently. The defense did not object to Yeung being remanded to custody. The defense wanted the two sentences to be served concurrently.

(Sing Tao) April 3, 2017.

The judge said that the two main issues were: Was there a riot that night wherein a rioter set fire to a taxi? and whether the defendant took part in the riot and set fire to the taxi?

The judge ruled that there was a riot of three or more persons, and that someone set a fire next to the taxi in a breach of peace. So the first issue was answered in the affirmative.

The judge compared multiple photos between 2006 and 2016, and he also carefully observed the defendant. There were some minor differences, such as the defendant used to wear glasses but not at this time. But in the wedding photos of the second elder sister, the defendant showed protruded front teeth just as the judge observed in court. The defendant's eyes, nose, side profile, height and body shape were identical to the perpetrator in the photos/videos. Just because the defendant no longer wears glasses does not mean that everything else is different. The judge ruled that the defendant was the perpetrator in the photos/videos.

After the day of the incident, the defendant purchased a new Octopus card, changed his habit of wearing glasses and had no computer at home even though there is a computer desk. These three amazing situations could not all be coincidental. The defense said that the Crime Investigation Department made a surprise arrest that the defendant could not foresee. The judge disagreed. He said that the act of arson was filmed and publicly aired so that the defendant must know what everybody else in the world (including the police) knows. This three occurrences have a cumulative effect, such that the only conclusion is that they cannot possibly be coincidental. Therefore the judge found Yeung Ka-lun guilty on both counts.

(SCMP) April 3, 2017.

A technician was found guilty on Monday of taking part in last years Mong Kok riot  Hong Kongs worst unrest in years and setting a taxi on fire. The conviction of Yeung Ka-lun, 32, marked the first arson charge over the Lunar New Year clashes, which led to more than 80 protesters arrested and seven convicted so far. Yeung has been remanded and will be sentenced next Monday.

District judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on ruled that the scene at Soy Street in the early hours of February 9 last year amounted to a riot, and that participants had committed arson by setting a taxi on fire.

The case centred on whether Yeung was the bespectacled man filmed committing the crimes as his face was partially obscured by a black cap. Yeung had pleaded not guilty to one count of riot and another of arson.

The District Court heard that Yeung, who had no alibi, was arrested on February 26, more than two weeks after the riot.

Prosecutors relied on Now TV news footage and high-resolution photographs taken by a Mong Kok resident to identify Yeung at the scene. They also seized his sisters wedding and family photos as well as Yeungs job application forms for the courts reference all of which showed his habit of wearing a pair of glasses that closely resembled those of the pictured bespectacled man. Yeung appeared in court for the trial last month without glasses.

While the defence argued that Yeungs appearance was extremely ordinary with no striking features, the court noted that he had slightly protruding front teeth similar to the man in the photos.

The defendant is the man pictured, the judge concluded. The court also noted there were odd coincidences, such as Yeung obtaining a new Octopus card a day after the riot, and the absence of glasses and a computer in his home. The judge said the coincidences led to only one conclusion Yeung was attempting to cover his tracks.

Yeung had no prior criminal record and did not testify or call witnesses in his favour.

A police officer had testified that the damage to the taxi was very serious. Photos of the vehicle showed burn marks on the left glass door. Towing and repairing the taxi cost HK$6,400.

Rioting is a criminal offence punishable by a HK$5,000 fine and five years imprisonment on summary conviction; and 10 years upon conviction on indictment. Arson is punishable by life imprisonment. But the District Court can only hand down a maximum sentence of seven years.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 10, 2017.

The District Court sentenced an activist on Monday to four years and nine months in jail for rioting and arson during protests that erupted in Mong Kok last February.

Handing down the sentence, Judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on said that the level of violence during the protests was so serious that a deterrent sentence was necessary in order to maintain peace and order in the city.

Technician Yeung Ka-lun, 32, was convicted last week of participating in a riot and setting fire to a taxi in Mong Kok on February 9 last year. He was handed a jail term of four years and nine months for rioting, and four years and three months for arson both served concurrently.

The defendant is unfortunate he might have been aware of the legal consequences before committing the crime, but he might not have known that the consequences would be so heavy, Judge Kwok said, according to Apple Daily.

Yeung was sent to prison after the sentencing hearing.

Internet comments:

- Here are the photos of the perpetrator alleged to be 'Yeung Ka-lun'. Who do you trust, his defense lawyer or your own lying eyes? This man tried to set the liquid gas tank in a taxi on fire. The explosion would have put everybody (especially himself) in a diameter of 22 meters in harm's way.

- For the trial, Yeung Ka-lun had a different look, with no black-rimmed glasses and a new haircut. This is the reason why the prosecutor wants the testimonies of ex-employer/co-workers and to ask him to don a beanie in court for the magistrate to look at.

Yeung Ka-lun was not arrested at the scene. Instead, the police began to look for him afterwards and arrested him at home. During this time, the police must have wondered whether this was the right person given the changed appearance. When the arrest was made, the police took four photo albums from his home. Why? Because the photo albums have photos of what he looked like before the recent change in appearance. The judge noted that Yeung had protruded upper front teeth in the 2009 wedding photos of his second elder sister, as well observed by the judge personally during the trial. The judge also noted Yeung's 2007 Hong Kong ID photo as well the photo in Yeung's application for a job at Open University all showed him wearing glasses.

The police also took his Octopus card. Notice that this Octopus card was issued on February 10, 2016, which was the day after the riot. Yeung threw out his old Octopus card immediately after the riot in order to prevent the police from tracking him.

This Yeung person had followed all the standard tips for 'civil disobedience', including discarding any Octopus cards, discarding the clothing worn at the time, discarding his home computer but keeping the desk even though he is a computer technician by profession, changing the exterior appearance (glasses, haircut, etc), etc. He had to do all this because his photo appeared on the front page of Sing Pao. Yeung did not have time to visit a dental surgeon to fix his protruded front teeth.

- (SCMP) Defense counsel Paul Wu said that the defendant "is not a violent person." Bwahhhhhh! Setting fire to a taxi is not a violent act!? Because Paul Wu said that the vehicle was quickly towed away and repaired with damages amounting to only $6,400!? It was only sheer luck that the defendant could not pry over the gas tank which would have caused an explosion with 20-meter blast radius to kill all 20 to 30 rioters.

- Common law is based upon precedents. If the Seven Evil Cops got 2 years for assaulting Ken Tsang, and university student Hui Ka-ki got 3 years for throwing bottled water at the police, then technician Yeung Ka-lun is going to be facing 4 years or more for rioting and arson with total lack of remorse.

- The verdict is out! Four years nine months for rioting, and four years three months for arson, to be served concurrently.

- Why concurrently? Because the arson was a part of or an extension of the rioting.

- The starting point was five years. Because the defendant had no prior criminal record, a three month reduction was given.

- If Yeung Ka-lun had pleaded guilty, he would have had another 1/3 reduction, but he took his chances and lost. I wonder why he decided not to plead guilty. Did he insist himself? Or did his lawyer tell him that he has a good chance to get off? Of course, when a lawyer gives bad advice, the client goes to jail and the lawyer gets paid one way or the other.

- The opening statement by the defense includes a promise to produce evidence that this was a case of misidentification and Yeung was in fact elsewhere at the time. No such evidence was produced. Even in the absence of evidence (such as the testimonies of friends/relatives that Yeung was sleeping in his bed, or surveillance videos around wherever he was), Yeung could have taken the witness stand and said "I slept through the night" or something. He did not. Refusal to testify cannot be used against the defendant, but it does make you wonder.

- You wouldn't want an additional perjury charge, right?

- Hong Kong Free Press began with "The District Court sentenced an activist on Monday to four years and nine months in jail for rioting and arson during protests that erupted in Mong Kok last February." This is giving "activism" a bad name.

(Dictionary.com) "Activism" is the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc. Setting fire is not normally considered "activism." Alternately, most activists would not consider criminal damage of private property as part and parcel of their activism. Social activism should be directed against the System, not against the private properties of regular citizens.

Besides, has Yeung Ka-lun ever said anything about being an activist? His original defense was that it was a case of misidentification and that he would prove that he was not present at the scene at the time. After being found guilty, the defense pleaded in mitigation that Yeung is not a bad person, that he has no prior criminal record and that the repair cost for the taxi was only $6,400.

At no point has Yeung Ka-lun ever said that he was any kind of activist, or what he was protesting/demonstrating/rioting about. No activist group ever came out to say that he is their member or even a friend. The 'activist" label (or, worse yet, 'justice fighter' and 'freedom warrior') was thrust upon him by outside forces with ulterior motives.

- (HKG Pao) Hours shortly after Yeung Ka-lun was sentenced and taken directly to jail, Civic Passion former leader Wong Yueng-tat disclosed that Yeung was a Passion Times editor. Wong said that the relationship was not disclosed before because it may affect the outcome of the case. Later that evening, Wong posted a link for people to donate money to help Yeung. Wong did not highlight the fact that 30% of the donations is earmarked for "administrative/production costs" at Civic Passion.

- SCMP has the story title of "Hong Kong man jailed four years, nine months for rioting and setting taxi on fire in Mong Kok unrest." After all this time, they still want to call it the "Mong Kok unrest." Let's revisit what the judge said last week as reported by the same newspaper:

(SCMP) April 3, 2017. District judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on ruled that the scene at Soy Street in the early hours of February 9 last year amounted to a riot, and that participants had committed arson by setting a taxi on fire.

A riot is a riot is a riot. It is not "unrest."

- Adof Lau's Facebook


Righteousness comes first. Nothing needs to be said. Please donate money to Civic Passion to overturn the verdict! Afterwards we will withdraw completely!

- Chiu the Dragon's Facebook


Please put aside your prejudices and grudges. Do not listen to those bastards saying that "political asylum is useless."
Today's 4-years-9-month sentence is the final call.

- Political asylum? Easier said than done. How many nations would offer political asylum to the man in this photo:

- (Apple Daily) The judge pronounced the sentence and exited. Afterwards, some spectators pounded on their seats to express their dissatisfaction. They used foul language to curse out the judge. The security guards told them to stop. The spectators said: "Does the court forbid people to speak?"

- The case of Yeung Ka-lun is being compared to the case of Shi Junlong.

(Wikipedia) Around the turn of the millennium, the Immigration Tower was the site of continual occupation by Mainland Chinese activists demanding right of abode in Hong Kong. At 2:00 pm on 2 August 2000, visa overstayers petitioned immigration officers to issue them Hong Kong Identity Cards on the spot. The officers refused on the basis of the law, and told them to apply in writing. They refused to leave, staging a sit-in until closing time at 6:00 pm when staff attempted to evict the protesters, who responded by splashing highly flammable paint thinner around the 13th storey and setting it ablaze with cigarette lighters. A massive fireball engulfed the crowded room 1301 and shot into the corridor where others were standing. Some 50 people, immigration officers and protesters alike, were injured in the resultant conflagration before it was extinguished by the building sprinkler system.

Two people died in the following days. Senior Immigration Officer Leung Kam-kwong, after being set on fire and sustaining burns to 65 percent of his body, died in hospital. A 26-year-old protester also died on 11 August.

Seven of the Mainland arsonists were sentenced to prison in 2002. The so-called ringleader, Shi Junlong (Chinese: 施君龙), was sentenced to life in prison for two offences of murder and one count of arson, while six accomplices were jailed for 12 to 13 years for two counts of manslaughter and one arson offence each. Following sentencing, Shi Junlong showed no remorse and stated in Chinese that the crime was "a tragedy created by the Immigration Department". After appealing, the arsonists were granted a retrial, at which they won sharply reduced sentences for pleading guilty to the lesser crime of two counts of manslaughter by gross negligence. A third count of arson was dropped in exchange for the guilty pleas. Shi Junlong was released from prison in 2005 and extradited to Mainland China. In 2013, he acquired right of abode in Hong Kong through legal channels to much media attention and public outcry.

If all Shi Junlong got was 8 years in prison for killing 2 persons and injuring 50 others, then isn't Yeung Ka-lun's 4 year 9 months without killing or injuring anybody somewhat harsh?

- The cases are not similar. In the case of Yeung Ka-lun, the main charge was rioting which led to 4 years 9 months of imprisonment. The arson charge is part of or an extension of rioting, and its 4 years 3 months of imprisonment was allowed to be served concurrently. How do you compare a rioting charge against a manslaughter by gross negligence charge? They are apples and oranges.

- Baggio Leung Chung-heng's Facebook


Certain matters are common knowledge.
Suppose these are the truths. Which is more serious: burning a person to death or burning a taxi?
Only fools believe that burning a taxi is more serious, okay?


What if the law says that burning a taxi is more serious?
Then there is a problem with the law itself.

- (Wikipedia) The 1996 Pat Sin Leng Wildfire killed three students and two teachers and injured a further 13 students of HKCWC Fung Yiu King Memorial Secondary School. The coroner believed that the fire was caused by students smoking.

As Baggio Leung would say, it is commonsense that the more people you kill, the more serious is your crime. So why wasn't the student smoker sentenced to the death penalty?

- (Coconuts.co) Some people believe that the student smoker was Stanley Cheung. He suffered burns to more than 60 percent of his body in the fire. There is no case for either premeditated murder or manslaughter through gross negligence. Cheung would survive and eventually received the Top Young Person Award for his work with the Hong Kong Burns Association.

- If Yeung Ka-lun gets 4 years 9 months for participation in a riot, then those who incited/participated in the riot will be facing six or more years. The two instigators Ray Wong and Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous must be sleepless from the fear and trembling.

- If Ray Wong and Edward Leung are smart, they can ask their contacts at the US Consulate General to explore the possibility of political asylum/exile.

- Yeung Ka-lun was not the only one to attempt to vandalize or set fire to the taxi. He was the one who was unfortunately identified and caught.

- This festive occasion calls for the standard film screen capture with actor Eric Tsang: "I don't know what fucking else to say except: Congratulations! Bottoms up!"

- (Wen Wei Po) What is this to him?

"Elder Brother Edward Leung, where are you?"
"Someone is being sent to jail for supporting you! What is to be done?"

- (HKG Pao)

Here are the Facebook reactions to the news stories of Yeung Ka-lun's 4 years 9 months prison sentence. At Apple Daily, there were 1,901 Facebook responses, including 1,047 LIKE's, 299 ANGRY's and 419 SAD's. At Ming Pao, there were 373 Facebook responses, including 186 LIKE's, 74 ANGRY's and 90 SAD's.

Yeung Ka-lun's martyrdom for the cause of Hong Kong independence brought him 373 ANGRY's and 509 SAD's at the two major Yellow Ribbon newspapers. Any other news story about animal cruelty would have garnered many more votes.

So what is the point of Yeung Ka-lun's martyrdom? Unlike Yeung, the instigators of the Mong Kok riot Edward Leung and Ray Wong are living in America with several hundred thousand dollars in their pockets. Meanwhile Yeung can look forward to staring at the prison walls for more than three years.

It is said that men and beasts are different to the extent that men learn more readily from previous experiences. Given what happened to Yeung Ka-lun, how many valiant warriors will answer the call to riot next time?

(SCMP) April 6, 2017.

Students who were involved in an indecent video that went viral have been suspended from their residential hall until an investigation is complete.

Simon KY Lee Hall, a dorm at the University of Hong Kong, confirmed in a statement that the students who were current residents were involved in inappropriate conduct as depicted in a video that went viral on Wednesday.

The statement came as the police stepped in, saying they were looking into the incident as they received a report on the case from two people through an online reporting room.

The 19-second clip showed a man, wearing a maroon hoodie with the words Chemistry and HKU printed on it, using his genitals to hit the back of another mans head. The victim was pinned on a bed by two others, while another person filmed the incident.

Upon discovery of the incident, the warden, hall tutors and the Executive Committee immediately conducted an investigation with the hallmates involved. It confirmed that the relevant conduct raised no concern about bullying, the statement from the halls student association executive committee said.

In response to a Post inquiry, a committee representative had no further explanation or clarification of why the incident was not regarded as bullying. The case was handed over to the university for an investigation. The association called it a one-off incident that had no association whatsoever with hall culture and education.

Students and alumni from 13 dorms at the century-old university consider hall education a key component of university life outside of academic learning.

HKU has set up a committee, which will be chaired by a university vice-president, to look into the incident.

A police spokesman said that two people made reports on Thursday after seeing a clip online and suspected a student had been inappropriately treated. The Western district crime squad have been investigating but no arrests were made.

A source close to the matter said the district crime squad had admitted \difficulties in the probe. We have to figure out who reported the case the victim, witnesses or just netizens, the source said. The university so far did not report the case. It would be difficult for us to enter the school campus to collect evidence.

(SCMP) April 5, 2017.

The incident came a few days after a candidate in the election for the council of St Johns College, another HKU residence, quit the race amid claims that he was being bullied and personally attacked and intimidated.

He said in a Facebook post which has now been deleted that one election candidate had wax poured over his lower body by over 20 people.

The HKU spokeswoman had previously said St Johns College was conducting a comprehensive investigation into the suspected bullying. She added that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken if students were found to have been involved in improper behaviour.

Media reports say the practice was a tradition at the residential hall. Ed Wong Ching-tak, the president of HKU Students Union, rejected such claims, saying that according to the unions understanding, there were no such traditions. He also said both bullying incidents, if proven to be true, were unacceptable.

(SCMP) Our immature university students need counselling ... and punishment. By Alex Lo. April 7, 2017.

The University of Hong Kong is constantly in the news these days, but usually for the wrong reasons. The latest has to do with a possible sexual assault and bullying after a video clip was released showing a young man being held down while another one slapped his head with his private parts.

This followed allegations made by a student that some 20 people had stormed into a dormitory room of a student resident and took turns dripping hot wax on his nether regions.

While these events at the citys oldest and most prestigious university are disturbing enough by themselves, they may not be isolated incidents. In some student online forums, there have been claims that such practices are hall tradition. Wax-dripping and organ-slapping are campus tradition? I seriously hope not. Some parents may now have second thoughts about sending their children to study there.

For the sake of simple decency, such behaviour must be condemned. Sadly, some online commentaries from HKU students seem to be unusually accepting. If you can play along then youll treat it as a game, but if you cant play along youll accuse people of bullying, one post said.

I dont know about you, but those acts go beyond mere bullying.

Education sector lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen said he believed this kind of behaviour among students could be the result of the general mood in society, as well as what they were exposed to on the internet.

What, the state of Hong Kong society made them do it? Pray tell how.

Ip is probably right, though, about the internet. Immaturity, sexual frustration, watching too much online pornography and having little to no sex education all these make for a dangerous combination.

We are still a deeply conservative Chinese society, where parents are not very helpful when it comes to the birds and the bees. Its probably the first time for those youngsters to be away from home, free of parental restraints. And given the anything goes mentality of some students and lecturers at HKU these days, perhaps such incidents are not surprising at all.

The university administration says it is investigating. Those found responsible should be disciplined. But the culprits also need help, althoughtheir actions must never be tolerated. Such behaviour is not about wild partying or youthful excesses; its potentially criminal.

Internet comments:

- Famous Hong Kong adage: "Whose fault is it? It is society's fault." This is just a way of saying that nobody has to take responsibility for what happened. I am happy, you are happy, we are all happy.

- (HKG Pao) On radio, Education sector legislator Ip Kin-yuen said that students may have seemed similar acts on the Internet and went ahead themselves while forgetting any legal or moral constraints. Ip said that the incident must not be glossed over lightly, because the students must be made to realize that such acts have consequences. He said that the university should tell the students about the red lines beyond which are criminal sanctions that will ruin their futures.

Ip cited scholars who said that one reason was that sex education in Hong Kong schools is inadequate. "When the schools fail to teach well, the students will learn from elsewhere." An audience member phoned in and said: "This has nothing whatsoever to do with sex education. The problem is that students do not have any bottom lines and therefore they think that they can do whatever they want." The man said that this has to do with respect for other individuals. He added: "I am more than 40 years old and I have not received much by way of sex education during my schooling. But I am not doing this sort of thing!"

In Hong Kong today, young people think that the law and morality are worthless. That is why they can occupy the streets or lay siege to their University Council with total disregard of the law. Such being their state of mind, what is the big deal about a little sexual molestation?

- (Silentmajority.hk) Today a magistrate found a police sergeant guilty of three counts of common assault. The magistrate said that the police sergeant pinched the female police officer on the hand and ear lobes on three different occasions. These actions are not normal between male and female co-workers.

Fine. If pinching the hand and/or earlobe is common assault, then how about slapping someone's face with a penis? Or is that normal between fellow male students?

- (Wen Wei Po) April 7, 2017. The Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee announced after one day that this case did not involve bullying and that there is no relation whatsoever with hall culture and education. At the same time, it was reported that residents received text messages telling them not to wear hall clothing outside and to refuse media interviews. It was even said that the baseball team is not allowed to wear uniforms in today's game; ditto no identifiable clothes at the Joint Hall Mass Dance.

- If this is not bullying, then what does it take before you see it as such?

- If you mess up, you should 'fess up. This is just making it look so much worse.

- Friends cover up for each other. Of course.

- Not bullying? Was this an adult video shoot?

- Not bullying? How about sexual assault?

- Not bullying? Of course not. Instead there are at least three criminal counts: unlawful imprisonment; sexual harassment; common assault.

- In addition, whoever posted this video onto the Internet is guilty of distributing obscene/indecent materials.

- In addition, the Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee, the Hong Kong University Students Union and the university administration may be guilty of obstruction/perversion of justice through failure to report a crime to the police.

- No wonder students break the law all the time. There are no consequences even after doing this. The perpetrator wasn't even expelled from the dormitory, much less from the university, because those in authority (namely, the Executive Committee and the Hall Warden) will always protect the students.

- Protect the students? The person who was assaulted is also a bona fide student. You can't protect both the victim and the perpetrators. Of course, you could mean that if the three perpetrators are expelled, then the victim will be bullied again by the other students who regard the behavior as normal. Therefore you think that you are protecting the victim by leaving the perpetrators alone.

- Who is the real victim here? I go through the discussion forums and there are hundreds and hundreds of jokes about the hoodie guy's small dick. How is he going to live through the psychological trauma?

- (Headline Daily) In the video, it was clearly seen that the male student was held down by others and the guy in the maroon hoodie took out his penis and slapped it on the face of the male student. The Simon KY Lee Hall Executive Committee said that no bullying was involved. So I take it that male student must have enjoyed the special attention from his hall mates?

- No, the whole point is that this is part of the maturation process. When a male student starts dating a female student, he has to make an open declaration to the POOL. By tradition, the male student has to go through this particular rite of baptism. So if the male student and the others willingly went through the rite, there is nothing that the administration, the public or the police can or should do. In this case, someone took a video and posted it onto the Internet. Once the public sees it, they get upset about what they see as immoral. The public is filled with moral pricks.

- S&M is not a crime between consenting adults.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 7, 2017.

With respect to this incident, HKU alumnus Alan Leong (Civic Party chairman) denounced it as sexual perversion. HKU alumnus Tanya Party (Civic Party legislator) said that she had seen the screen captures but she cannot bear watching the video. "I don't what to tell these students. I can't bear to watch it."

In recent years, there have been a number of violent incidents on the HKU campus.

On July 28, 2015, the students and others prevented University Council member Ayesha MacPherson from leaving. They also blocked the ambulance carrying injured University Council member Dr. Lo Chung Mo from leaving. At the time, Alan Leong and other Civic Party core members were present. They did not help the University Council members. Instead, they chanted slogans from the sidelines in support of the students.

On January 26, 2016, students laid siege to the University Council members again. They threw objects at the police who were summoned to maintain order. University Council president Arthur Li accused Alan Leong and the Civic Party of inciting the students. There is no doubt that the campus violence has plenty to do with the pan-democratic politicians telling the students that their actions were justified in defense of freedom of academic research and the autonomy of the university.

- In order to continue to defend the freedom of academic research and the autonomy of the university, the administration will not report this occurrence of a crime to the police. Without a complaint, the police will have no reason to come on campus to gather evidence. Thus, the university continues its autonomous self-rule which frees the professors and students to continue with their academic research of the effects of slapping penises on other people's faces.

- You can't blame Alan Leong and Tanya Chan for everything. (The Standard) April 3, 2017. Seven male students of St Stephen's College in Stanley, who are aged between 15 and 16 were arrested today on suspicion of access to a computer with criminal or dishonest intent. They have been released on bail. Teachers have found secret cameras installed in the changing rooms in the sports ground, swimming pool and various classrooms. The incident was reported to the police on March 24. So far Alan Leong and Tanya Chan have not been implicated.

-Facebook


How can slapping your head with my penis be bullying? This is literally a blow in the head to wake a fellow student up to the realities of our society. This is a strong reminder that life isn't going to be smooth sailing just because you managed to get into Hong Kong University. There is a very long road ahead of you, and an endless number of things will let you feel as if you were getting slapped in the head with a penis.
You will slowly get used to being slapped in the head with a penis. Sometimes, before you fall asleep, you will secretly remember that male student who slapped your head with his penis. As you toss and turn in bed, you travel backwards through the time tunnel. You keep asking yourself why you didn't let him slap you more with his penis?
You will shed some tears, because you remember that his penis was really so much more gentle than this society.

- Chiu the Dragon Facebook


The Hong Kong University Students Union says that hitting the head with my penis is not bullying. Hey, maybe the student volunteered for it. Or else the HKUSU is saying that even if the student was not willing, it is a trivial matter to have one's head slapped by a penis?
Will the Hong Kong University KOL's (Key Opinion Leaders) please comment?

- Chiu The Dragon Facebook


The positions of the various Hong Kong University KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) on these incidents are very risible. Most of them pretended that they see and hear nothing. Some of them avoided posting anything at all. A very few went out to spin as follows:
1. You people should not be surprised over nothing.
2. So what? Does a single incident represent all of Hong Kong University?
3. The important point is that the public does not understand hall culture.
Logically speaking, this is plausible. But this narrative is like the one about mainlanders defecating in Hong Kong streets:
1. Have the people of Hong Kong never seen anyone defecate before?
2. So what if the person did defecate? Does a single incident represent all 1.4 billion Chinese people?
3. The important point is that the people of Hong Kong do not understand the situation in China today.
If you have to resort to these types of arguments as soon as your own case comes up, please do a bit better, okay?

- More fun stuff from the Simon KY Lee Hall at Hong Kong University


Applying spray paint to the abdomen


Dripping hot wax from a lit candle


Grand parade in a shopping cart -- with a helmet to protect against the balls thrown by the hall mates.

- Next thing we request is a video of "happy corner" at Hong Kong University. (Urban Dictionary) A form of ritual corporal punishment enacted usually in Hong Kong among male university students. 3 to 4 "executioners" carry their victim by their arms and legs; then split the victim's legs; and swing them so their groin area is subjected to bumping against a pole or corner (not violently). This is not meant to hurt the victim, but can be used maliciously by friends or enemies alike. It may take more than 5 minutes occasionally, until the executioners are satisfied. Sometimes it is called "to Bring Joy" and can be used for a victim's birthday, with "Happy Birthday" being sung to the individual while it being inflicted upon them. While some may be flattered or honoured for this to happen, many others find it humiliating or a form of sexual harassment.

- The two SKY.Lee cases came into light because a mainland Chinese student made the videos/photos public because he found the behavior totally unacceptable. This is the reason why mainland Chinese students should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong to study. They are culturally inferior and completely misconstrue the superior hall cultures in Hong Kong. They are simply not ready to join the global community and adopt universal values and practices.

- If you want to argue that the SKY.Lee Hall cases are not sexual assault, then nothing in the world ever is, including this case: (Hong Kong Free Press) April 7, 2017.

A former welder pleaded guilty to one count of bestiality at the West Kowloon Magistrates Courts on Friday. Chung Lin-fai, 58, was accused of having sex with a stray dog in Tung Chung on February 1. His lawyer pleaded in mitigation that Chung was caught in a moment of confusion and that the dog did not resist at the time. He also said Chung suffered from alcoholism and had lost his job since the incident attracted media attention.

Acting Principal Magistrate So Wai-tak said Chungs conduct was very disgusting and had hurt the feelings of his wife and three children, HK01 reported. So said imprisonment was inevitable, as he remanded Chung in custody pending a sentencing hearing on April 21. The magistrate accepted the prosecutors request to transfer the dog to the animal welfare group SPCA.

The court heard that Chung led a 2-year-old stray dog to near a stream on Wong Lung Hang Road, Lantau, where he assaulted the animal. The incident came to light after a villager spotted a suspicious figure apparently luring a canine with food into the woods. Several hours later, the dog appearing in distress emerged with injuries to its lower body. An examination by a vet detected suspected human semen. Chung admitted when arrested to having sexual intercourse with the dog. He said he occasionally fed the dog over the past two years and took her to a nearby stream to give her a shower. He said he had never had sex with the canine before that.

The magistrate will hand down a sentence on April 21 after obtaining a psychiatric report and a background report. It is an offence to have sexual intercourse with any animal under the Crimes Ordinance. The offence carries a maximum penalty of a HK$50,000 fine and 10 years of imprisonment.

- Here is how the St. John's College case was settled.

- "I want genuine justice" -- We demand St. John's College refer the case to the Hong Kong Police for a range of potential charges such as common assault, sexual assault, etc.

- The St. John's College can only take measures that relate to the College itself. The maximum penalty is expulsion from the College permanently. The issue is whether they refer the case to the University administration. The maximum penalty within the university is expulsion. The University administration can also make a crime report to the Hong Kong Police at which point the Hong Kong crime ordinances apply.

- How about CAP 212 Offences Against the Person Ordinance Section 29 Causing gunpowder to explode, etc., or throwing corrosive fluid, with intent to do grievous bodily harm

Any person who unlawfully and maliciously ... puts or lays at any place, or casts or throws at or upon or otherwise applies to any person, any corrosive fluid or any destructive or explosive substance, with intent in any of such cases to burn, maim, disfigure, or disable any person or to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, shall, whether any bodily injury is effected or not, be guilty of an offence triable upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for life.

This covers the situation of dripping hot wax onto the body of a person.

- HKU Student Union ex-president Althea Suen Hiu-nam's Facebook

Everybody feels helpless and despondent over the Internet speculations and the lop-sided negative public opinion. How are the halls going to continue to function?

People put their 3-seconds worth of attention on juicy images and single-sentence taglines that don't require much brainpower to process. The story and the truth underneath are unimportant to them. They only want something that suits their tastes and agenda. (I must admit that #too_long_didnt_read is a common habit.)

Last year, I also experienced the communicative power of these matters. Since I was the student representative, I accepted 200% of the responsibility. I had to be cautious about what I said in order to avoid mistakes that might cause misunderstanding.

These cruel ruthless social mores should not be borne by you alone. It is hard for us to stop these criticisms, but at least we can remind ourselves that we don't want to be people like these. We should not get lazy and fan certain accusations that are not based on truths.

I want us to seek the the truth with a certain sympathetic understanding and give us a chance to make this place perfect. I hope that people can give the university investigative team some room to find the facts and give an account. We want those cyber bullies who claim to be serving justice when they run their public trials and make baseless accusations stop.

- What kind of democracy is this? When public opinion goes overwhelmingly against you, you call the public a bunch of fools? Whatever happened to your claims of trusting in the wisdom of the people? Are you students the sole purveyor of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUE? So it was with Occupy Central and now with these hall ragging incidents.

- What is this profound mistrust of the hoi polloi outside of the Hong Kong University student body? How are they wrong?

1. Did ragging occur? We have photos and we have videos. Should we not trust our own lying eyes and take your word instead?

2. Is such behavior wrong? Well, I can't imagine this being normal in an office or factory. Someday Althea Suen is going to get a job in the outside world. After her probation period, she is officially welcomed into the corporate family by behind held down while her male co-workers slap her face with their penises? When that time comes, the justification shall be: Corporate culture.

The public is reacting the way that they should be. It is Althea Suen and the rest of the HKU KOL's who should be reflecting on why they are trying to rationalizing the egregious behavior. Why are they weaving and dodging to avoid the objective facts, the relevant laws and the public opinion?

- Somebody passed this uncredited screed for me to read. I read through it, and I swore that this must have been written by a CY Leung supporter who is once again complaining about the fact-free unjust pan-politicization of everything under the sun against Leung.

It began when friends of Yau Wai-ching began posting photos of her and a friend dressed in tight body-hugging cheongsam.

Wan Chin's Facebook


Wan Chin: The independence sect has its unique aesthetics. To thank you for your support at the voting booths, they will come back in the by-elections. Right now, they are starting their election campaign promotion of their cultural tastes. The young men and women who support Youngspiration will find this easy to accept, because they are of the same type as Ms. Yau.

Yau Wai-ching's Facebook

Cultural differences arise due to differences in geographical, political and economic conditions. Clothing, cuisine, habitation and mobility are all affected in addition to aesthetics.

The Cheongsam was popular in Hong Kong during the 1950's and 1960's. At the same time, the Chinese Communist founded their nation in which Cheongsam (and qibao which came from the same origins) began to disappear only to revive in recent years. In Hong Kong, the cheongsam is still the formal dress for many young ladies on formal occasions. Its design reflects historical factors in Hong Kong, and integrates the special features of various cultures. Apart from clothing, the popular music and movies of Hong Kong in the 1980's went into the just opening China and affected that generation of Chinese people. During this period, Hong Kong terminologies such as "taxi", "steak" and "bus" became popular there. Therefore, Hong Kong has always had the responsibility of fusing, preserving and inherting Chinese culture, eventually evolving into a unique Hong Kong-style culture. By comparison, China went through various political transformations as well as the Cultural Revolution. At first, it was influenced by Soviet Russia (especially in terms of official propaganda) and then it purged itself of all civilization. Today it has rebuilt into something completely different. This showed that China has discarded its own culture many times over history, but Hong Kong has managed to combine the best of various culture to form its own style.

We used to be formidable. The movie stars, clothing, cuisine and even transportation vehicles were renowned around the world. If we want to create another acme, we must value the culture that we have inherited and not demean ourselves. If during the process of severing from certain political powers we deliberate cleanse our unique culture, we will have fallen into the trap set by those political powers and become no different from the Chinese Red Guards.

#By-election campaign
#It's gotta be this way

Wan Chin's Facebook

Wan Chin: "Production base for the Hong Kong Independence Movement"

Photo: This cheongsam/qibao is available on Taobao for 228 RMB, 48-hour delivery.

(YouTube) Apple Daily

Internet comments:

- The traditional cheongsam is not available in Hong Kong department stores, whether the Japanese Sogo, or the Hong Kong Sincere/Wing On, or the Chinese Yue Wah Emporium. The whole point is that it must be body hugging. Since women come in all sizes and shapes, the cheongsam is traditionally custom-tailored by the Shanghai tailors with several fittings during the process.

- Well, people are surely going to say that you can't find a cheongsam tailor in Hong Kong anymore. This explains why Yau Wai-ching paid 228 RMB to buy her cheongsam on Taobao.

But let me tell you: Taobao is the first place in which Hong Kong independence from China has been physically realized. If you make a purchase from anywhere in mainland China, the postage is included in the price. If you make the same purchase from Hong Kong, you will be charged postage/handling. This proves that Hong Kong is not China.

- You take a look at Yau BB's photo taken from the rear. Her body is shaped like a barrel. With a body like that, the cheongsam is a death knell. If she wore a big and fluffy dress (maternity/pregnancy dress), nobody would know for sure. Once she put on this cheongsam, it becomes very apparent that the fat, short and round-faced Yau Wai-ching had none of the attributes of Chinese beauties.

- If you saw those two women in a dark alley, you will probably become scared as hell.

- When a Facebook commentator complained about Yau wearing a traditional Chinese qibao, she countered that "This is a Hong Kong-style cheongsam." Do you know the difference between a Chinese-style qibao and a Hong Kong-style cheongsam? Let's see what Wikipedia has to say:

(Cheongsam) The cheongsam (from Cantonese Chinese: 長衫) is a body-hugging one-piece Chinese dress for women, also known as qipao (from Mandarin Chinese: 旗袍), and was ROC's mandarin gown. The stylish and often tight-fitting cheongsam or qipao (chipao) that is best known today was created in the 1920s in Shanghai and made fashionable by socialites and upper class women.

And if you check for Qipao in Wikipedia, it redirects to Cheongsam. So Wikipedia thinks that they are the one and the same thing.

- So this is the same issue as Freedom fries not being french fries. Any difference between cheongsam and qipao is only clear in the pea-sized brain of Yau Wai-ching.

- Yau Wai-ching explained that she rented the clothes from Yan Shang Kee Qipao Rental. In other words, she rented a Chinese-style qipao and not a Hong Kong-style cheongsam.

- That's even more pathetic -- she paid expensively to rent something that costs 228 RMB on Taobao.

- Now that you mention money, what about the $950,000 in taxpayer money that she owes the Legislative Council? She's got money to buy qipao, but not to pay her debts.

- People still don't understand the issue with the cheongsam/qipao. The Manchurians were defeated by an uprising of the Hans. As the victorious majority, the Hans preached Racial Harmony and thus appropriated the Manchu's qipao as the Chinese national dress. In the early Republican days, the qipao became very popular in Shanghai among the nouveau riche who liked to imagine that they are a class of nobility in the new China. When the Communists took over, they banned the qipao because it was the symbol of western capitalist compradores/running dogs. The wealthy folks of Shanghai who had the means fled to Hong Kong and brought the qipao fashion there.

In summary, the qipao represents the cultural invasion of Hong Kong by the northern Chinese bitches. When Yau Wai-ching said that "Hong Kong absorbed outside cultural influences and merged the qipao into their own culture," she is spouting nonsense. The true Hong Kong-style women's clothes are those of the Tanka people:

If Yau Wai-ching were an authentic Hong Kong Localist, she would be dressed like this! Instead her standard dress code is a calf-length skirt with calf-high boots because she needs to hide her barrel body and short fat legs.

- On Facebook, Yau Wai-ching left a comment: 「我東星耀揚今日黎(嚟)collect your skin」. Literally, this translates to "I, Yiu-yeung from the Tung Sing Gang, will kill you today." This is what the gangster character Cheung Yiu-yeung said in the movie Teddy Boys. But the battle so far seems to have ended with Wan Chin scoring a knockout with his Taobao pictures.

- If this is an advertisement for a Japanese adult video, then the Japanese words should be added:

- A short history of the Live and Death of Localism in Hong Kong:

... In retrospect, the so-called Localism began at first with giving "priority" to Hongkongers in the allocation of resources. And they also thought of themselves as the authentic inheritors of traditional Chinese culture which will be the basis for a new nation. Youngspiration went further by advocating de-Sinofication. They ended up blowing away all other Localists first and then they killed themselves along with their modus operandi. Thinking back about the case of Siu Yau-wai, the Localists focused on "Hong Kong Priority" in resource allocation and even the Blue Ribbons stood on our side!

If Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration were really sent by the Chinese Communists, then they are truly brilliant.
First of all, they leaped to the extreme end of the political spectrum and denounced all other Localists as pro-unification with China. Localism became their exclusive terminology and everybody else is a phoney. Then they proceeded with a string of stupid asinine actions. Then they used the "Re-fucking of Sheena" oath ceremony to blow themselves along with Localism. The entire movement is now back to before the anti-High Speed Rail protests of 2009.

Ten years of time was wasted. Worse yet, the Chinese Communists are beginning to learn to use the Internet. We have not only gone back to Level 1 in the game, but the Boss has upgraded himself by ten levels now.

- (HKG Pao) It is the sense of Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgent that Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang are Chinese Communist moles who destroyed the Localism movement. "You can't sell anything unless someone is willing to buy it. So some dickheads must buy it first before they have a market. Many people buy Localism because the term is so cool. Not many people really care what Localism is supposed to mean. When Hong Kong Independence appeared, it was even more cool than Localism and so many were attracted to it. For such people, Localism and Hong Kong Independence are just sound bites. They will go over to whichever sound bite seems more attractive at the moment. Hong Kong politics is the politics of sound bites. It is unimportant how stupid the inside contents are. If you have good sound bites, you will attract votes at elections."

Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang were able to use slogans to attract voters to get them into the Legislative Council. But they were too stupid and destroyed their own careers. Today, Yau-Leung are like rats-in-the-streets being chased by the Localist, Pan-democratic and Pro-Establishment camps alike.

- Thanks to Yau-Leung, Localism and Hong Kong Independence have lost their luster. Blowing up a rubbish bin seems to be a lot of fun, but people don't want to spend three years in jail for doing so. They want risk-free fun. But incitement to riot carries a ten-year jail sentence.

Here is a spoof of Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok, former Hong Kong University Student Union president.

Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok's Facebook (March 31, 2017): I am no longer Yellow. I have been approved for a scholarship to do further studies in the United States. Farewell to the people of Hong Kong.

Anthony Fung's Facebook: I am the father of Billy Fung. May I ask what arrangements can be made when he goes to jail and comes out afterwards?

Yvonne Leung Lai Kwok:

How are you, Mr. Fung? I believe that you must have discussed these matters with Billy. I am an outsider. I have nothing to do with his arrest. I am his predecessor (as the Hong Kong University Students Union president) and it is my fault not to let him safely serve through his term and share his worries. Therefore no matter what the outcome of Billy's sentencing, I will do my best to pray for him.

Everybody has parents. Mr. Fung, your concerns are the same as the concerns my own parents have for me. Bu when we became union presidents, we were twenty-something-years-old already. Ultimately Billy has to be responsible for his future. We all know that what we did may have certain consequences, but we were not going to stop because of these unknown problems. When some things have to be done, they will have to done. This is in accordance with what my mentor Alan Leong taught me.

It is still not unknown whether Billy has to plan for "going to jail" and "coming out afterwards." Your worries are reasonable, but they really have nothing to do with me. Perhaps Billy does not mind going to jail.

Best wishes.

Internet comments:

- (Speakout.hk) On her Facebook, Yvonne Leung said: "The bill? I did not intend to run away. If you want, you come. I am waiting."

0:30 Yvonne Leung: "I am carrying out civil disobedience. Afterwards I will turn myself in."

What happened to that bit about turning herself in? It is more than two years later now (more than nine hundred days later). She has not yet gone to the police station to turn herself in.

And speaking about paying the debt, she has a prior record -- on the day of the clearance of Admiralty, Yvonne Leung was nowhere to be seen.

0:54 (TVB) Why did I not remain until the last moment at Admiralty? That's because we had to take class exams that day.

- What are Yvonne Leung's priorities in life? FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE for Hong Kong? Or her Hong Kong University law school class exam?

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 3, 2017.

Hong Kongs anti-corruption watchdog arrested activist Avery Ng on Monday for allegedly disclosing the identity of a person that it is investigating.

Ng, chair of the pro-democracy League of Social Democrats, was accused of violating a law that prohibits anyone from disclosing to the public the identity of people being investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

Last April, local media alleged that Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs Betty Fung Ching Suk-yee had a conflict of interest when exchanging properties with a tycoon and benefiting from the price difference.

Ng reported to the ICAC following news reports and was later invited to the ICAC offices to give a testimony. He told the press at the time that he could not disclose anything, except that he hoped Fung would give a public explanation, Oriental Daily reported.

The 40-year-old activist was arrested on Monday morning for his remarks and taken to the the Eastern Magistrates Courts in the afternoon. Ngs party colleagues including lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung turned up in support of the embattled activist.

Since the Legislative Council elections last September, it is the third time law enforcement agents have searched my home and arrested me. They keep coming up with charges that are just excuses, Ng said following his arrest. The Chinese Communist Party will not allow Hong Kong to have a breathing space. But sorry, Im not easily defeated. The more oppressive you are, the more determined I am, and the more resistance I will commit myself to, he added.

The ICAC confirmed on Monday that Ng was arrested and charged with three counts of disclosing to the public the identity of persons under investigation, an offence under section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of a HK$20,000 fine and a year behind bars.

(SCMP) April 3, 2017.

The chairman of Hong Kongs League of Social Democrats was charged on Monday for allegedly disclosing details of a probe by the citys graft buster based on a complaint he lodged last year.

The prosecution of Avery Ng Man-yuen came on the day before the one-year time limit for initiating a prosecution was to expire, with senior public prosecutor Samantha Chiu Ping-yan apologising at the afternoon hearing for the urgent manner in which the case was brought to court.

The urgency was also recognised by principal magistrate Bina Chainrai, who noted that prosecutors had miscalculated the timing and the cut-off point would have passed if the case had been brought to court later than Monday.

Ng, 40, faces three counts of disclosing the identity of persons being investigated. He was not required to take a plea on his first appearance in Eastern Court.

Prosecutors alleged the business consultant had without lawful authority or reasonable excuse disclosed to the public the identity of a person facing an Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation through Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, as well as broadcaster RTHK.

He was also accused of disclosing details of the investigation in revealing that he had been invited to give and was in the course of giving a witness statement as a complainant. The alleged offences spanned April 5 to May 24 last year. A statement from the ICAC revealed that Ng had earlier lodged a complaint against the subject on April 2 of the same year.

The case was adjourned for five weeks to May 8 for Ng, who was not legally represented, to seek legal advice. He was released on cash bail of HK$1,000, with the condition that he live at his reported address and alert the ICAC 24 hours ahead of any change.

Prosecutors also asked for an additional condition that he refrain from having contact with any of the witnesses, but that was turned down by the magistrate. The witnesses listed are ICAC officers, Chainrai said. I dont think thats a reasonable condition.

The offence is punishable by a HK$20,000 fine and one year in prison.

Internet comments:

- CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30

(1) Any person who knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to

(a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the subject person ) the fact that he is so subject or any details of such investigation; or

(b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is so subject or any details of such investigation,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year. (Replaced 48 of 1996 s. 15)

- (Oriental Daily) April 3, 2017. Outside the courthouse, Avery Ng told the press that this was a political persecution of the League of Social Democrats. He said that he was merely the complainant, but he is being arrested one year later. He emphasized that he never disclosed any details of the investigation, nor was he in any position to know what was happening. He said that he needed to seek legal advice to see whether he was breaking the law. Ng said that the people have the right to know that senior government officials are corrupt, as in the Donald Tsang case. In this case, a citizen filed a complaint against a senior government official. One year later, the citizen is arrested but nothing has happened to the senior government official.

- Hey, buddy, according to CAP 201 Section 30(1)(b), you are breaking the law if you disclose that a subject person is the subject of an investigation. Further details may or may not be provided.

- At 2:55pm, League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng, vice-chairman Raphael Wong and two other members presented themselves at the Eastern District Court. They raised banners and chanted slogans such as "It is no crime to lodge a complaint" and "It is just to fight back."

Eh, this case is not about the right to lodge a complaint with the ICAC. This case is about the perversion of the course of justice by publicly disclosing information about an ongoing investigation against CAP 201 Section 30(1)(b). If Avery Ng did not know what it is, he knows now.

- (Bastille Post) April 3, 2017.

The three charges against Avery Ng pertain to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30(1)(b) on the disclosure of the identity of the subject person in an investigation.

This piece of legislation exists for two reasons.

Firstly, it is to ensure that the investigation does not get interfered with. The disclosure of the investigation may allow the subject person to flee, or to destroy evidence, or tamper with the witnesses, or otherwise pervert the course of justice.

Secondly, it is to protect the reputation of the subject person. Eventually even if the publicized investigation did not result in prosecution by the ICAC, the public will retain the impression that the subject person had been under a cloud of suspicion for probable cause.

In recent years, the pan-democrats have routinely lodged complaints at the ICAC and then tell the world about it afterwards. The action against Avery Ng shows that the ICAC intends to put a stop to the practice in order to defend the reputations of the subject persons of their potential investigations. If Avery Ng is prosecuted, so will a number of other pan-democrats for doing similar things in the past. These people have plenty to worry about.

- Let me give you an example. Suppose I go down to the ICAC this afternoon and I tell them that there is a report that Jimmy Lai gave a dog biscuit to Avery Ng in return for not running in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. The ICAC is required by law to open a file for an investigation.

I come out of the ICAC meeting and declare on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, RTHK, Commercial Radio, Apple Daily and Ming Pao that Avery Ng is under investigation by the ICAC for accepting a dog biscuit from Jimmy Lai in return for not running in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. The ICAC will neither acknowledge nor deny this. So everyone will go away thinking that Avery Ng must be a dog, and the only debate left is whether he is Japanese Akita, British Bulldog, German shepherd, French Poodle, Chinese Shih Tzu, or whatever. Eventually the ICAC will close the file on this nothing case. But the world will remember Avery Ng as a dog.

Is that fair to Avery Ng?

Of course not.

By prosecuting Avery Ng, ICAC is trying to defend Avery Ng against the same thing happening to him.

- When Avery Ng says that this was one of many political persecution, he is misleading people. By definition, the Independent Commission Against Corruption is independent -- the Chief Executive, the Secretary of Justice, the Secretary of Security and others have no say in what the ICAC does. If Avery Ng thinks that the ICAC is CY Leung's lapdog, then why is the point of asking the ICAC to investigate CY Leung's UGL dealings?

(SCMP) March 10, 2017.

A pledge by chief executive race front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to help the citys public broadcaster expand its reach without a firm promise on securing extra resources or clearing political obstacles has left the RTHK union more miffed than mollified.

Her qualified offer of help came with a dash of criticism of the station, which disappointed programming staff, RTHK insiders said after she spoke at a Journalists Association forum attended by the three leadership candidates.

Lam did not endear herself to RTHK staffers by calling one programme outdated and praising state-owned CCTV programmes carried by the broadcaster.

While she vowed to embrace media diversity if elected on March 26 and promised to see whether policy support is lacking or that resources are mismatched at RTHK, her comments attracted criticism.

The public broadcaster has faced constant manpower and resource shortages, due in part to strong opposition from pro-establishment lawmakers who accused the station of producing anti-government content. Its plan for a new broadcasting house came to a halt after lawmakers refused to approve funding in 2014.

But as she vowed to expand RTHK, Lam said she could not imagine that those lawmakers, most of whom were her supporters, would all back her plan. It is never my opinion that the broadcasting policies in this administration are good policies, Lam said. She then said one of the stations new channels relied too often on still photos, making it appear substandard and outdated.

Instead, she suggested the station loop funny remarks from officials, such as her often-cited comment that an official has more guts when she has no more desire. She made the remark in 2015 when defending her decision to order government officials not to be pressured to drink possibly lead-contaminated water during the citys tainted water scare.

Hitting back, Gladys Chiu Sin-yan, chairwoman of RTHKs programme staff union, said: We wish to emphasise that we are not the governments mouthpiece and should not be instructed to loop what officials say. We appreciate her high hopes for RTHK, but we also need the next chief executive to help secure funding for our development into a professional TV station.

On Lams claim that she had little knowledge of the problems facing RTHK, the union said in a statement it was deeply disappointed that she was blaming others when she ought to be clear about all policy areas as a candidate.

(RTHK) March 28, 2017.

Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam appeared on our programme this morning. The RTHK Programme Staff Union presented her with an open letter which urged her to show responsibility for public broadcasting policies, to increase resource allocation and to meet with RTHK management as soon as possible to firm up the plans for the new building.

Internet comments:

- As noted, RTHK "faced constant manpower and resource shortages, due in part to strong opposition from pro-establishment lawmakers who accused the station of producing anti-government content."

Why do these pro-establishment lawmakers feel so strong? What are they upset about? Is it because they hate freedom of press? Do they just want RTHK to become a government mouthpiece.

To help you understand, here is a recent sample of RTHK work.

- (HKG Pao) At the post-election conference, RTHK reporter Chan Miu-ling posed separate questions to Carrie Lam and John Tsang. Is she fair and balanced? Are her questions politically and personally motivated? Do you trust her reporting?

To Carrie Lam: "I want to ask again. Earlier many other colleagues have asked a question: That is, Will you go to the China Liaison Office to thank them for their support? Can you answer clearly? That is, in the upcoming period of time, will you or will you not? Will you promise the people of Hong Kong that you will not go to the China Liaison Office to thank them for their support? Instead, you will do as John Tsang did to attend gatherings without bringing bodyguards and police officers in order to be in contact with citizens? In addition, I want to ask with what kind of feelings do you welcome or otherwise be psychologically prepared that over the next five years, the people at the Legislative Council and those who oppose you will call you 777 7 9 (dog)? Thank you!"

To John Tsang: "RTHK Chan Miu-ling. I want to the same thing. You could not replicate Barcelona because at this match, the organizers, the sideline judges and the referee all come from the other side. That is why you lost. Or do you accept that you lost fairly and squarely? I also want to ask: Although you said that you are going to sleep for a few days, there is going to be a Legislative Council by-election coming up really soon. New Territories East and Kowloon West. Will you take real action to thank your supporters? Or will you have another dream with us five years from now?

- Chan Miu-ling (RTHK) did not even bother to observe the most basic manners. Her question on visiting the China Liaison Office was posed in the form of the proverbial: "Have you stopped beating your wife? Just answer YES or NO."

If Carrie Lam refuses to make that promise, it means that she is admitting that she had China Liaison Office support in violation of Basic Law Article 22. If she makes that promise, it means that she can never ever visit the China Liaison Office for any reason. Alternately, every time that Lam visits the China Liaison Office, she must state the nature of her business.

- This is also supremely stupid. Why do they have to meet at the China Liaison Office for Carrie Lam to express her overflowing gratitude? Why can't they just meet in a private room at the exclusive members-only China Club. Who is going to know?

- (RTHK) March 29, 2017. Carrie Lam visited the China Liaison Office. She was greeted by China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming. The two shook hands and posed for the media. Her next stop is to visit the Chinese Foreign Ministry office in Hong Kong and then the People's Liberation Army garrison. I hope Chan Miu-ling has a fit.

P.S. John Tsang would have followed the same protocol were he elected. But Chan Miu-ling would have spun it as a FUCK-U victory parade.

- Chan Miu-ling suggested that Carrie Lam has to be protected by a phalanx of secret service agents because regular people hate her everywhere, whereas John Tsang walks around with no police protection. (YouTube) Well, who might the guy in the khaki jacket be then?

- John Tsang said I once thought perhaps I could turn the tables by the end of the match, just like Barcelona did in that epic game. But the fact is, you might not be able to win for sure no matter how good your team played, even when you have support from fans and keep scoring. So Chan Miu-ling added her own interpretation: "At this match, the organizers, the sideline judges and the referee all come from the other side. That is why you lost." Then she asked for John Tsang whether he agreed or not. Regardless of Tsang's answer, Chan had sneaked her message through. Is this how they teach journalism nowadays?

- The second part of Chan Miu-ling's question to John Tsang sounded like the trumpet call to John Tsang's Legislative Council election campaign. For fairness, shouldn't she be asking: "You got 365 votes. Are you worried that it will stick to you that you HEA 365 days a year? Do you work hard only on February 29th (in a leap year with 366 days)?"

- (Variety) March 15, 2017. President Trump is proposing to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides federal support for public broadcasting, as part of a budget package that makes massive cuts across government agencies while increasing defense spending by $54 billion. Trumps proposed cuts also include eliminating funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

- Wherever the United States go, so goes the rest of the world.

- Hong Kong does not have an army, so there is no defense expenditure. Is it time to build its own army?  After all, the People's Liberation Army cannot be relied upon after the forthcoming China Meltdown.

(SCMP) March 28, 2017.

Nine leaders and key participants of Hong Kongs Occupy movement were arrested and charged on Monday night over their roles in the 2014 pro-democracy street protests a day after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor pledged to unite a divided society as the citys newly elected chief executive. In a move considered long overdue by critics of the protests, authorities ordered the three Occupy Central founders, along with six lawmakers and activists, to report to the Wan Chai police headquarters.

The three leaders of the protests, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Chan Kin-man, face three counts each conspiracy to commit public nuisance, inciting others to commit public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to commit public nuisance. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.

The trio will be prosecuted over offences allegedly committed between March 27, 2013 when they first published in newspapers their Occupy manifesto and December 2014, when they turned themselves in to police.

One or both of the incitement charges were laid against the remaining six lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun, Tommy Cheung Sau-yin and Eason Chung Yiu-wah, two former leaders of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming, and former legislator Lee Wing-tat.

They will be prosecuted for offences allegedly committed from September 27 to September 28, 2014. All nine were released on bail last night and will appear at Eastern Court on Thursday. They said police had phoned them in the morning to tell them of their arrest by appointment.

While some questioned whether Lam was involved, others accused Leung of deliberately timing the crackdown to follow the election. Lam was quick to distance herself from the arrests, stressing that she had no prior knowledge. This is the action of the current administration, she said. [While] I want to unite society and bridge the divide that has been causing us concern, any such action should not compromise the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The Department of Justice issued a statement denying any political consideration and dismissing suggestions about Lams involvement as baseless and utterly untrue. When handling prosecution work, the department does not give prior notice to the executive branch, nor did [it] give prior warning to the chief executive-elect, Mrs Carrie Lam, as suggested by certain rumours, the department said.

(SCMP) March 30, 2017.

Nine leaders and key protesters of the 2014 Occupy movement charged for their roles in the 79-day demonstration made their first court appearance on Thursday morning, flanked by more than 100 supporters holding yellow umbrellas and banners reminiscent of the sit-in.

The nine comprising mostly scholars, lawmakers, and former student leaders heard a variation of public nuisance charges at Eastern Court.

Among them, three Occupy Central founders academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Dr Chan Kin-man, and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming each face three charges: conspiracy to cause public nuisance, inciting others to cause public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to cause public nuisance.

Lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun as well as former student leaders Tommy Cheung Sau-yin and Eason Chung Yiu-wah each face the two incitement charges, as does League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming.

Former lawmaker Lee Wing-tat faces one charge of inciting others to cause public nuisance.

Each charge carries a maximum sentence of seven years in jail.

Prosecutors alleged that the founding trio conspired with other persons to cause a nuisance to the public through the unlawful obstruction of public places and roads within or around Central.

They further accused the three and other defendants with the exception of Wong and Lee of unlawfully inciting crowds present at Tim Mei Avenue in Admiralty to cause a nuisance to the public by unlawfully obstructing public places and roads, as well as inciting others to incite people to do the same.

Meanwhile, Wong was similarly accused of both incitement charges, but with the site of the alleged offence at Fenwick Pier Street in Admiralty.

Lee was accused of having incited others present at Harcourt Road and Tim Mei Avenue to cause a nuisance to the public by unlawfully obstructing the carriageway of Harcourt Road.

The period of the alleged offences spanned from March 2013 to the time when some participants turned themselves in to police on December 2, 2014 for the charge of conspiracy to commit public nuisance.

The incitement charges covered the period in 2014 from September 27 to 28, the day when the 79-day movement officially began.

In court, the nine replied: We understand, when asked to acknowledged the charges they faced.

None were required to enter a plea.

Deputy director of public prosecutions David Leung Cheuk-yin SC said they needed six weeks to prepare transfer papers and bundles to move the case to the higher District Court, which can impose longer sentences of up to seven years.

But Martin Lee Chu-ming SC, representing five of the defendants, indicated that they might ask for the trial to be heard at the Court of First Instance in High Court.

My clients would like their case to be tried at the High Court where there is a jury, he said. After all this is a case of public interest.

Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai replied that prosecutors would decide on this matter.

She adjourned the case to May 25 after the defence for the founding trio requested an additional two weeks.

All nine were released on bail and reminded to adhere to their existing bail conditions.

They were legally represented at the brief hearing by barristers Nisha Mohamed, Emma Tsang, Kim McCoy, Wong Ching-yue SC, Martin Lee SC and Joe Chan.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 1, 2017.

Over 200 scholars from local and overseas universities have signed a joint statement criticising the prosecution of Hong Kong activists for their leadership role in the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests.

We are alarmed and outraged, the statement read. We strongly oppose the Hong Kong governments decision to charge these scholars and activists for their non-violent fight to realize Hong Kong peoples right to universal suffrage.

These criminal prosecutions against peaceful academics and citizens have immense chilling effects on the international and local academia, students and the youth, in addition to inflicting permanent damage to Hong Kongs reputation as a free and open society.

The statement was signed by more than 90 scholars from overseas institutions in countries such as the USA, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Spain. The president of the Hertie School of Governance in Germany, Professor Helmut Anheier, was among those who spoke up. At the time of publication, 100 scholars from local universities have also signed the document.

(SCMP) A crime is a crime, whoever commits it. By Alex Lo. April 3, 2017.

So much for their professed respect for the rule of law. More than 200 local and overseas academics have expressed outrage and alarm at the prosecution of nine Occupy leaders for their alleged roles at inciting others in the pro-democracy protests in 2014.

Shouldnt our independent courts decide whether or not those charged are guilty? Why do scholars, local or otherwise, think they have any special insight or authority to judge the decisions of local prosecutors and courts? I have found taxi drivers, whose livelihoods were undermined by the protests, have had far more common sense, real-life experience and trustworthy judgment about the unrest.

There seems to be at least some evidence that the nine charged had helped organise and incite people to protest. It was all captured on TV. Maybe they did it for what they considered a noble cause. But encouraging people to block three major arteries of a big city in a protest that lasted for months would, I think, have broken a few laws under any jurisdiction.

We are alarmed and outraged, the joint statement by the academics said.

These criminal prosecutions against peaceful academics and citizens have immense chilling effects on the international and local academia, students and the youth, in addition to inflicting permanent damage to Hong Kongs reputation as a free and open society.

Permanent damage to our citys reputation? I know of no Western democracy that would allow protesters to occupy a key city location for months, let alone three major traffic arteries; and many of those arrested would have been charged.

And chilling effects? What they mean is that if you think your cause is just or if it is one that they approve of, you ought to be able to do anything without suffering the consequences.

Chan Kin-man certainly thinks so.

The Occupy co-founder has reportedly said he and his alleged partners-in-crime fellow academic Benny Tai Yiu-ting and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming would not plead guilty, after all.

Didnt these guys write in their Occupy pledge: To carry out acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defence in the trial?

Chan, a sociology lecturer, was quoted as saying the charges against them couldnt be true because they were based on the backward assumption that those incited do not have a free will.

Surely you must be joking, Professor Chan?

Internet comments:

- (Occupy Central With Love And Peace) Manual of Civil Disobedience.

1. Philosophy
1. Civil disobedience refers to acts of opposing injustice through refusing to comply with a law, decree or order. The participants will not resort to violence. Rather, they will proactively accept the due legal consequences. The acts have to display not only civility but also a disobedient attitude in refusing to cooperate with the unjust authorities, and to strive for societal changes through continuous protest. Genuine pacifism does not mean not to resist against evils, but to fight against evils squarely with non-violent means.

2. Rules for Non-Violent Protest

1. Insist on the use of non-violence means. In the face of law enforcers and anti-Occupy Central demonstrators, never hurt anyone physically or mentally, or damage any properties.

2. Be brave in facing the authorities and accept the responsibilities of civil disobedience. Do not use any masks to cover faces.

3. Do not bring any weapons or anything that can be used as weapons.

4. When facing arrest, form a human chain and lie down to show our non-cooperation. Do not struggle hard so as to avoid injury.

5. Be bold in the face of violence. Do not try to hit back. Move to a safe place and ask for the help from the picket or medical team.

6. For the sake of consistent crowd control information, no one except designated personnel should use any loudspeakers. Do not put up any long flags or large posters that will block the views.

7. Leaders of the operation could be arrested anytime. Be prepared for changes in leadership and try to maintain good order all along.

8. Respect the decisions of OCLP. Any disagreements should only be reviewed after the operation. Avoid any action that may disrupt the operation.

1. Guidance Note on Legal Matters OCLP is a peaceful movement of civil disobedience, the purpose of which is to inspire other people in the society, to let them see some of the injustices in the law or the current system, and to motivate them to support correcting all the injustices. Those participating in civil disobedience are going to challenge the injustices in the law or the system by means of a restricted scope of unlawful conducts and will bear the legal consequences of their unlawful conducts. This is to demonstrate the commitment of Hong Kong citizens to fight for universal suffrage even in the face of bearing legal liabilities, as well as to galvanize the rest of the society. Although we are willing to bear the legal consequences of our conduct, we must also understand the relevant sections of the law, protect individual as well as collective rights, and be cautious in our actions, so as to prevent unnecessary liabilities and conflicts.

1.1 Sections the Prosecution may use against the Rally

1) Obstruction of public places: Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 of the Laws of Hong Kong

2) Unauthorized assembly: Section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

3)* Unlawful assembly: Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

4)* Disorder in public places: Section 17B of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

*: Participants will not contravene these sections if they are able to uphold OCLPs conviction of non-violence

1.1.1
Obstruction of public places Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 of the Laws of Hong Kong:

Any person who without lawful authority or excuse sets out or leaves, or causes to be set out or left, any matter or thing which obstructs, inconveniences or endangers, or may obstruct, inconvenience or endanger, any person or vehicle in a public place shall be liable to a fine of $5000 or to imprisonment for 3 months.

There will be a criminal record in the event of being prosecuted and convicted of the offence. Most first time offenders will only be fined.

1.1.2 |nauthorized assembly Section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong

Section 7 of the Public Order Ordinance provides that a meeting of more than 50 persons may take place only if an application for a Letter of No Objection is made to the Commissioner of Police under section 8 of the Public Order Ordinance. Section 9 of the Public Order Ordinance gives the Commissioner of Police the power to prohibit the holding of any public meeting notified under section 8 in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

According to Section 17A(3)(a) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245 of the Laws of Hong Kong, Occupy Central is an unauthorized assembly and every person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, knowingly takes or continues to take part in or forms or continues to form part of any such unauthorized assembly shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable (i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and (ii) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

There will be a criminal record in the event of being prosecuted and convicted of the offence. Most first time offenders will be fined, or may be imprisoned for several weeks, but the sentence may also be suspended.

1.1.3 Unlawful assembly
According to Section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and (b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

If participants of OCLP only stand or sit on the road without doing anything and uphold the spirit of non-violence, calmness and peace, then the chances of committing the offence of unlawful assembly due to participating in OCLP should not be high.

1.1.4
Disorder in public places Section 17B of the Public Order Ordinance provides, (1) Any person who at any public gathering acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the public gathering was called together or incites others so to act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months or (2) Any person who in any public place behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

As with the offence of unlawful assembly, if we can uphold the OCLP spirit of non-violence, the chance of committing this offence is not high.

- They went in knowing full well that they are violating various laws and that there are legal consequences. Now they are screaming that they cannot be prosecuted? Whatever happened to rule-of-law?

- They went in saying that they will engage in an act of civil disobedience that is breaking certain laws. They said that they will accept the legal consequences. They will go to jail proudly knowing that they are morally superior.

But now the day of reckoning is here. What do they do?

I should not be prosecuted, even though I broke the law.

Even though I am prosecuted, there is no evidence that I was at the scene.

Even if you can prove with videos that I was there, there is no evidence, that I took part in creating a public nuisance.

Even if you can prove with videos that I took part in creating a public nuisance, I was temporarily insane and/or permanently mentally retarded, and therefore not accountable for my actions.

Even if you can prove with videos that I was of sound mind all the time, my motives were noble.

Even if noble motives cannot be an excuse to vacate the 2 year jail sentence, I will appeal to the High Court of Appeal.

Even if the High Court of Appeal upholds the sentence, I will appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

Even if the Court of Final Appeal upholds the sentence, I will seek political asylum with the German Consulate General.

What happened to the original intentions? Why go through all this? Because for me to go through the entire appeal process, I will need lots of money to pay for the legal fees. So please send you money to my crowdfunding PayPal account. Thank you. It is very important for you to do that, because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE UNIVERSAL VALUES in Hong Kong depend on it.

- (