(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Lam did not endear herself to RTHK staffers by calling one programme outdated and praising state-owned CCTV programmes carried by the broadcaster.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 She then said one of the stations new channels relied too often on still photos, making it appear substandard and outdated.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?

- 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 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 one day in a leap year?"

(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.

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

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.

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 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 upheld the sentence, I will appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

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.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 28, 2017. Law professor Benny Tai, one of those targeted, said he is willing to plead guilty if the charges against him are factually accurate. He said a guilty plea aligns with the spirit of civil disobedience the central theme of the 79-day Occupy demonstrations.

- Is this a parody? (QuoteInvestigator.com) Here is the old lawyers' adage:

There is an old trial lawyers saying When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table.

Benny Tai is at the preliminary stage of pounding on the facts. That phase should quickly pass due to his voluminous writings and videos. Soon he will be pounding on the law. Ultimately he will be rolling on the floor throwing a tantrum and they will put him in a white straitjacket and bring him to the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital for observation.

- The court ultimately issued clearance orders because minibus operators were suffering economic losses. So there is not much doubt that Occupy Central was a public nuisance for a large number of citizens. So what can't the Occupy Central leaders be prosecuted for inciting and participating in public nuisance? If you answer FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE POLITICAL CLEANSING, then you are proposing rule-of-man instead of rule-of-law.

- Public Nuisance: A Common Law Crime

What is public nuisance?

At common law public nuisance is a crime for which the remedy is criminal proceedings. It is defined as an unlawful act or omission which endangers or interferes with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public. Probably the most well-known example of public nuisance is obstructing the highway.

Who are the public in public nuisance?

Identifying the public affected by a public nuisance is not as simple as might initially be thought. Clearly, unlawful obstruction of the highway in Liverpool does not affect the public of Plymouth. But does it affect all, or only some, of the public of Liverpool? The modern definition is that rights common to all HMs subjects must be affected, in other words, not necessarily all the public, but rather the rights which they enjoy as citizens. A good illustration is found in the Law Reports. A quarry produced noise, dirt and vibrations which affected the neighbourhood. The court had to decide if this was a private nuisance which only affected some residents, or a public nuisance affecting all HMs subjects in the area. An injunction was ultimately granted to stop the quarry from causing a public nuisance. Among other things, the court held that the public means a class of HMs subjects. Not every member of the class need be affected by the nuisance so long as a representative cross-section is. Additionally, if the nuisance is so widespread that the community as a whole must take action, as it would be unreasonable for a single individual to do so, then the nuisance is public. Consequently, the public means a considerable number of persons or a section of the public.

- (SCMP) March 28, 2017.

The charges faced by nine Occupy leaders and protesters due in court tomorrow are rarely sought offences requiring prosecutors to prove the accused obstructed the public in exercising their rights, legal experts said.

Three Occupy Central founders academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Dr Chan Kin-man, and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming were arrested on Monday, each facing one count of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, inciting others to cause public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to cause public nuisance.

University of Hong Kong principal law lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming said public nuisance offences descend from common law and were seldom sought.

Criminal defence lawyer Jonathan Midgley described the charges as not at all common.

Public nuisance is defined in the influential British case R v Rimmington as an act or omission endangering the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or one obstructing the public in the exercise of rights common to everyone.

Cheung said the present case would likely centre on obstruction.

He said blocking major highways could be a classic example, citing British activist Matt Pearce nicknamed Spiderman who was found guilty of public nuisance after climbing a building in Central in his superhero suit in 2005 and clambering the Tsing Ma Bridge in 2008.

Midgley said he did not know what defence would be mounted but thought a possible argument might be that what was done was not contrary to the public interest.

It was rare to see a double incitement charge, the two added.

Cheung explained the charge as akin to a meeting in which one tells attendees what to do and they subsequently instruct others.

- Why was the charge related to "common law public nuisance" instead of the usual "unlawful gathering." Under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 27:

Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

There are restrictions on each of these freedoms. For example, freedom of speech cannot be used to justify libel; freedom of publication cannot be used to publish child pornography; etc. Freedom of assembly means that you are free to assemble -- provided that you are not making a public nuisance of yourselves (as in interfering with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public at large).

- If you hold an assembly in a remote corner somewhere without applying for police permission, then you are in an unlawful assembly but you are not causing public nuisance because the public is not around. But if you assemble in the middle of Connaught Road and block all vehicular traffic for 79 days, you are in an unlawful assembly that is a public nuisance.

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

An international human rights watchdog has accused the government of attacking Hongkongers rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, following a police clampdown on at least nine leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. This vindictiveness shows contempt for well-established freedoms in Hong Kong and will only lead to more political tensions, Amnesty International Hong Kong Director Mabel Au warned on Monday.

Au questioned the timing of the crackdown, which took place just one day after former chief secretary Carrie Lam was elected as the citys next leader. The authorities have had years to consider these cases, she said. [It] raises serious questions as to whether political manoeuvrings were a factor in the decision to bring charges now.

The Civil Human Rights Front will be staging a solidarity protest during that time outside the police station. They have called on the public to join the protest.

- (Hong Kong Basic Law Article 63)

The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.

If anyone has any information of interference by parties outside the Department of Justice (such as Chief Executive CY Leung, Chief-Executive-to-be Carrie Lam, China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming, etc), they should bring it out as quickly as possible. The fate of Hong Kong depends on it.

P.S. Saying that it "raises serious questions as to whether political manoeuvrings were a factor in the decision to bring charges now" is only personal speculation. I also have "serious questions" about the seriousness of Amnesty International Hong Kong to bring this very serious matter up in this very unserious manner.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Tanya Chan, a barrister, said the Department of Justice was part of the government and that Leung Chun-ying must have been involved in the decision to prosecute the Occupy leaders.

- If Tanya Chan produces this sort of thing as court evidence, the judge would have scolded her for wasting everybody's time. Does she not know Basic Law Article 63? Or does she think that Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen and Chief Executive CY Leung not know Basic Law Article 63 and therefore worked together on this?

- The events took place years ago. If it wasn't prosecuted long ago, it shouldn't be prosecuted now. Yes, I am totally in agreement with a statute of limitations. But if you want it, then what is your view of this other prosecution today? Are you going to hold up your usual double standards?

(Hong Kong Free Press) Retired police officer Franklin Chu King-wai has been arrested and charged with assault for allegedly hitting a pedestrian with a baton during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. The offence carries a maximum penalty of three years of imprisonment under the Offences Against The Person Ordinance.

- Why did it take several years after the actual events before the charges were made? It would be very easy under CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance Section 4 Nuisances committed in public places, etc. However, the penalty is light (a fine of $500 or imprisonment for 3 months). Since creating a continuous public nuisance for 79 days is far more serious, the Department of Justice wanted to upgrade the charge to common law public nuisance. Since this is through common law, the Department of Justice sought outside legal advice on the likelihood of success based upon the available evidence on a case-by-case basis. The maximum penalty is 7 years in prison.

- (SCMP) March 28, 2017.

Civic Party chairman Alan Leong Kah-kit, who is a senior counsel, believed that political factors were behind the timing, questioning why police chose to charge the nine on Monday when the force was given advice by the Department of Justice months ago.

When I was still a lawmaker, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung ... said in the Legislative Council that the Department of Justice had already provided legal advice (to police). That was half a year ago, Leong said in a Commercial Radio programme on Tuesday.

It was then up to police to decide when to start the process of arresting and charging [the participants]. He elaborated: The [chief executive] election took place on March 26. Then on March 27 at around 9am, (police) phoned the Occupy Central trio. Why was there such a timing when the files were already passed to police half a year ago? Why did [the force] pick that day? If no political considerations were involved, what considerations were involved?

Why does a Senior Counsel spend so much time on the issue of timing instead of the central issue: Were these nine persons responsible for a public nuisance? Because there is nothing much a Senior Counsel can say?

Was Occupy Central a public nuisance? (Wen Wei Po) During Occupy Central, fire trucks and emergency vehicles had to make detours because the major streets were blocked. The standard of 12 minutes or less response time to Central was attained only 61% of the time compared to the 92.5% previously. Therefore people's lives were placed at risk. Retail sales volume tumbled in Central, Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Therefore people suffered economic losses. There can be no doubt that Occupy Central was a public nuisance.

Did these individuals participate in Occupy Central? There are plenty of videos showing them inciting and participating in this public nuisance.

- There isn't any evidence that Carrie Lam was responsible for the prosecution of the Occupy Central leaders. However, as Chief Executive-to-be, Carrie Lam will have the power under Basic Law Article 48: To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties. However, under Basic Law Article 63, not even the Chief Executive can halt a prosecution and the subsequent trial. If these persons were found guilty and sentenced at trial, the Chief Executive may issue pardons afterwards. Right this moment, there is nothing that Carrie Lam can or should do.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Social welfare sector lawmaker Shiu Ka-chun The prosecution sent a ridiculous but clear message: the government wants political cleansing whilst [Lam] proposed reconciliation with people across the political spectrum.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. I am curious: Why does letting you guys off mean making peace, whereas rigorous enforcement of the law means making war? As Carrie Lam said, I made it very clear that I want to unite society and mend divisions. But it should not compromise the rule of law in Hong Kong. As long as these lawbreakers have not been brought to justice, we law-abiding citizens will not compromise with you.

- Of the nine persons, Shiu Ka-chun's case has an additional feature. (TVB) On October 16, 2014, Shiu Ka-chun got on the Grand Stage at Harcourt Road and used the public announcement system to say: "Tear has just been released over at Lung Wo Road. Tear gas has been fired. A friend has excitedly come over here to tell us. Tear gas has been fired. Therefore everybody should go and support their friends. Bring your towels ... wet towels ... you need to bring your goggles over." No such thing ever happened. But all all-night riot ensued anyway.

- (Ming Pao) Editorial. Many key Occupy Central member said at the time that they will use civil disobedience for the sake of their democratic ideas and accept the legal consequences. Today, they are being arrested and charged. Rather than calling this "political persecution", we should be saying that they got what they asked for.

(Ming Pao) Editorial : Do not politicalise criminal prosecution decisions. March 29, 2017.

BENNY TAI, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-ming, the three founders of the 2014 Occupy movement, and six other individuals including lawmakers Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun have been arrested by the police and charged with crimes such as conspiracy to commit public nuisance and inciting others to commit public nuisance.

Regarding the prosecution of the Occupy movement's three founders and six other individuals, two aspects have attracted particular attention. They are the charges against the defendants and the timing of the prosecution. Chan Kin-man, one of the movement's three founders, said that they had already turned themselves in and admitted to taking part in unlawful assemblies previously to keep their promise of civil disobedience. But they did not expect the government to charge them with public nuisance, arguing that the government had made an all-out effort to charge them with new offences. Lawmaker Tanya Chan said that a criminal charge of public nuisance carries a maximum penalty of seven years in prison under common law. A lawmaker loses his or her seat if sentenced to more than a month's imprisonment. In no way can anyone on the outside know whether the government is employing a craftier strategy by charging the three Occupy movement founders with more serious crimes. However, if the many sensitive cases that have been heard recently are anything to go by, all sides of society should have confidence in the impartiality of the legal system. According to legal precedents, if the Department of Justice (DOJ) believes that the disruptive behaviour involved in a case posed a threat or danger to people's lives and the public interest, it can choose to prosecute the people involved in such a manner. If the prosecution has indeed "cooked up charges" against any people arbitrarily, the court can be trusted to acquit those people citing insufficient evidence.

Who is to blame for Hong Kong's divided society? Different people have different answers. What is undeniable is that the Occupy movement was a watershed moment. After Carrie Lam's election as Chief Executive, she promised to make the effort to heal the divisions in our society. But the very next day, the DOJ pressed criminal charges against nine participants in the Occupy movement. Such an action is no different from pressing one's fingers against the wounds of a divided society, and the timing is not conducive to Carrie Lam's effort to promote an atmosphere of unity. This shows that there is a long way to go before the divisions can be healed.

Some of the defendants have argued that the prosecution was "well-planned" and was "a calculated move to 'celebrate' Carrie Lam's election". By ascribing the decision of the incumbent government to the newly-elected CE but offering no evidence, these people have demonstrated that they have two problems. If the allegation was made deliberately, it can be said to be a classic example of post-truth politics, which is aimed at reinforcing the impression shared by supporters of the pan-democratic camp that Carrie Lam is the symbol of a new phase of social division (the so-called "division 2.0"). If those people have not made the accusation on purpose, it means that their judgement has been completely clouded by a mentality of politicalising everything and treating people who disagree with them as sworn enemies. Neither of these problems is conducive to the healing of wounds in society.

In its response to enquiry by the media, the DOJ said that no one should politicalise criminal prosecution decisions. The DOJ said that allegations that the move had been ordered by Carrie Lam were absolutely untrue, and that the department would not inform the administration let alone Carrie Lam, who is not a public office holder at the moment of its criminal prosecution decisions in advance. Lee Wing-tat, one of the nine defendants, also said candidly that, though the police's move the day after the election would inevitably leave the public with a rather bad impression, he did not think the decision had anything to do with Carrie Lam. And the DOJ has rejected such a claim rather categorically.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 28, 2017.

Hong Kong legislative councilor Nathan Law (Demosisto) said that the political cleansing directed against Umbrella Movement will continue. He predicted that more people will be prosecutred.

Previously, Nathan Law joined with other legislative councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai, Siu Ka-chun and others to declare that they will cast blank ballots at the Chief Executive election. This made them the enemies of the John Tsang fans.

Here are some quotes:

- "If you elected John Tsang, you wouldn't have been arrested. You people deserve what you are getting. Nobody will have any sympathy for you."

- "I told you to vote for John Tsang. But now Carrie Lam wins and she begins with sweeping arrests."

- "I don't regard anyone who cast a blank vote as a pan-democrat. At the next Legco election, I will vote ANYONE BUT NOT (a blank ballot voter)."

- "If you had supported John Tsang, people will help you. But now you have upset all the citizens. Who is there to help you?"

- "It is useless to say anything. The people of Hong Kong are still mad at you. The Blue Ribbons obviously want you all to die. But now even the Yellow Ribbons have abandoned you. You asked for this. Please enjoy this feeling of abandonment."

Here are some reactions:

- Chapman To: "Whether you succeed or fail, you will always be a leftist retard."

- "How come you Yellow Ribbon pigs are not going after 689 (CY Leung)? He was obviously behind this, but you blame it on 777 (Carrie Lam)."

- "Many of you say that Carrie Lam ordered this political cleansing. This proves that you have no brains. You only let your imagination and stance lead you. Carrie Lam resigned as Chief Secretary already. She may be the Chief Executive-elect, but she has no power whatsoever until she takes office. It is none of her business. A large wave of prosecutions was not done haphazardly. It was not decided upon yesterday. No matter who won on Sunday, the prosecutions were scheduled to begin on Monday. If John Tsang won, CY Leung would get the blame. But Carrie Lam won, so she gets the blame. This is the typical Yellow Ribbon school of thinking."

- (SCMP) Charges against Occupy activists is bad timing, not persecution. By Alex Lo. March 29, 2017.

The godfather of Hong Kongs civil disobedience, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, has denounced charges brought against him and eight other leaders or participants of the 2014 Occupy protest movement as persecution. Coming as they did a day after the election of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor as the next chief executive, one has to admit the optics look very bad indeed.

But most of the discussions yesterday, including Tais persecution claims, conflated two very different issues. One has to do with the timing of the charges; the other with whether the charges are legally appropriate. Once we have decided that the charges are appropriate, there is no question of persecution.

Of the charges, the three Occupy leaders the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and academics Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man face three counts each of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, inciting others to commit public nuisance, and inciting people to incite others to commit public nuisance. Six others, including lawmaker Shiu Ka-chun, face one or both of the incitement charges.

Bearing in mind that the three occupy leaders had already turned themselves in to the police more than a year ago, their being charged should not be a surprise, even if the timing was unpredictable.

Tai even said yesterday that he would plead guilty if the facts of the case were in line with what had happened. Shiu has also said he takes responsibility for his actions during the Occupy protests.

Its hard to claim political conspiracy or persecution when some of the key players themselves have admitted guilt or acknowledged responsibility.

I respect Lai and Shius stance. Theirs is the real meaning of civil disobedience, so unlike that of many other Occupy protesters and Mong Kok rioters who have refused to take responsibility on the ground that their cause was just.

That leaves us with the timing. Its possible, though highly unlikely, that Lam, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and government prosecutors conspired together to make sure the charges were laid only after her election.

Or, maybe Lam was in the dark, as she claimed yesterday, but the others were in on it. If so, why not wait a bit longer?

Its also possible, as the Department of Justice claimed yesterday, that the timing was purely coincidental. We will never know for sure. But we do know there is no persecution.

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) March 28, 2017.

0:11 Benny Tai: The timing of our arrest this time ... I think there is reasonable doubt about political considerations ...

0:22 Ronny Tong: I think that to interpret this as political persecution is going too far. Since you said that Occupy Central is civil disobedience and you are willing to accept the legal consequences. But when the legal reckoning arrives, you say that this is political persecution. You say that the timing is politically motivated. It does seem logically plausible.

0:48 Nathan Law: Using the public nuisance charge is meant to have some more serious charge filed against these arrested friends, to apply greater legal pressure.

0:58 Ronny Tong: If the law was not broken, nobody would be arrested. The charge is not determined based upon the maximum sentence. It is based upon whether the charge is consistent with the facts of the case.

(The Stand News) March 26, 2017.

David Beckham came to Hong Kong to attend an event. Afterwards, he posted a video on Facebook/Instagram with the note "Great 48 hours in China." The reference to "China" angered many Hongkongers who left comments: "Hong Kong is not China," "This is Hong Kong not China", "If it's China, you're not able to access Facebook" and "If this Hong Kong, your small pet dog would have been someone's dinner." Meanwhile others responded in simplified character Chinese: "Hong Kong is Hong Kong (China)", "You can ever deny that Hong Kong belongs to China," "Hong Kong independence people get lost!"

Shortly afterwards, David Beckham changed the note to "Great 48 hours in Shanghai and Hong Kong". On this trip, he visited Shanghai first and then China. But Hongkongers still challenge this solution because the video only showed Hong Kong scenes.

Internet comments:

- (Hong Kong Free Press) British ex-footballer David Beckham raised eyebrows on Saturday after he said he had enjoyed a great 48 hours in China in reference to his visit to Hong Kong.

David Beckham wore 115 caps playing for England. He never played for Great Britain, because there is no such thing as the Great Britain team. To describe David Beckham as a British footballer is a bit like ... describing Hong Kong goalie Yapp Hung-fai as a Chinese footballer.

- David Beckham is lucky, because his correction to "Great 48 hours in Shanghai and Hong Kong" did not aggravate anyone. If he changed it to "Great 48 hours in Hong Kong," he would have aggravated the mainland Chinese people. He was lucky that he also visited Shanghai.

 - When the poster for the movie Arrival placed Shanghai's Oriental Pearl Tower in Hong Kong's Victoria Harbor, there was a backlash from pro-independence/self-determination Hongkongers. When the movie company moved the entire background to Shanghai, Hongkongers promised a boycott. Eventually, the movie grossed US$198 million worldwide including US$15 million in China, but a mere US$1.1 million in Hong Kong. This showed the power of "Hong Kong is not China"!

- The impact of the so-called 'boycott' by Hongkongers is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. You have no way of knowing what the box receipts would have been without your 'boycott'.

(Passion Times) March 25, 2017.

At a Legislative Council Children Rights Committee hearing, female citizen Lo Yuen-kit made a statement (see video, video).

Thank you, chairman Cheung Chiu-hung for holding this hearing. First of all, I am somewhat disappointed that you are going to cast a blank ballot (at the Chief Executive election). Last night I went out to show my support for Mr. Tsang. He is a candidate who wants to eliminate the TSA. I hope that you will reconsider.

I am a single mother. My child is in Primary Six this year. He skipped class for two and a half months at one time. The social worker came and asked him why. He just cried loudly. Where does the pressure come from? People ask: "Why isn't your son going to school? Is it your problem?" I have reflected on my problems. But when I go to work, can the government take pity of grassroots like me? I don't want my son to be a flying man (that is, jumping off a building) some day.

Can you tell us that it costs money and resources to do education? Or is a conscience needed? I want to know why an ordinary school can have so many examinations, tests and dictations? So much copy homework. A primary school may have only one full-time social worker, one part-time social worker, no psychological counseling. Do cases have to be immediately followed up?

The reason why my son hasn't jumped off the building is because I have the support of the church. I am a psychosis patient. I have a social worker who is following up on my son's emotional problems. But do you want me to go on social welfare so that I can watch him every day? Have your reflected on what kind of next generation Hong Kong wants? How long will you oppress our young children?

Everybody may not think that Mr. Tsang is our best choice, but right now he is our only choice. I want you to know that it is very tough to be a young child in Hong Kong. I am very sorry that I choose to give birth to him.

I heard that certain elite schools tell their students to speak putonghua in Hong Kong. They will be penalized if they speak Cantonese. What is the matter with you? Are you sick?

Why would young children jump off the building at such a young age? To commit suicide. I have tried to commit suicide, but I really don't have the courage. Why are they so desperate? They would rather commit suicide than commit reality?

So when you say that Mrs. Lam becomes Chief Executive, I am even more worried. The focus should on the education of very young children. Mrs. Lam came out of an elite secondary school. Will brainwashing begin from kindergarten? My son will not be brainwashed by you people.

I am Yellow Ribbon, and he will be Yellow Ribbon. If Mrs. Tsang loses, I will immigrate. I will marry and move to Africa if I have to.

Finally, I must ask you to think through carefully. Actually, the young children are our future. No more mechanical form. Hong Kong does not need mechanical form.

You look at the television dramas. There is no more creativity whatsoever. Taiwan is better than Hong Kong. Really. Why do so many Hongkongers want to immigrate to Taiwan. Why is the quota being exceeded? Why don't you reflect on this? I thought that there was some hope with this Legislative Council.

Finally, I want to offer something from the Bible: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

Thank you.

Internet comments:

- Dear Miss "Psychosis" Lo, you don't have to marry a Kenyan to get out of Hong Kong with your son. You can always go to to the US Consulate General at 26 Garden Road and ask for political asylum. Even Amos Yee can get approved, so must you.

- Dear Miss "Psychosis" Lo, Mr. Tsang has lost the election. Have you decided on which African country to immigrate to yet? Burkina Faso? Eritrea? Libya? Zimbabwe?

- According to Miss "Psychosis", Carrie Lam's original sin was to have attended the elite secondary school St Francis' Canossian College in Wanchai. Her savior is John Tsang, who attended the even more elite La Salle College in Kowloon City. What gives?

(GovHK Press Release) March 26, 2017.

The result of the voting for the Chief Executive Election today (March 26) is as follows:

     Candidate                              Number of valid
                                                 votes obtained
     ---------                                  ---------------
     John Tsang Chun-wah                   365
     Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor         777
     Woo Kwok-hing                               21

Internet comments:

- John Tsang is known to be HEA (lazy). So he gets to be HEA 365 days a year.
- Woo Kwok Hing got 21 votes and thinks that it is BLACK JACK! Unfortunately the actual game is Three Card Baccarat and 2 face cards plus an ace is a 90%-chance losing hand.
- Carrie Lam is playing the slot machine, and three lucky sevens (777) is the casino grand jackpot!

- In Cantonese, '88' is a homonym and short cut for "Bye Bye."
- '689' is the nickname of departing Chief Executive CY Leung because that was the number of votes he received.
- 88 + 689 (Bye bye, CY Leung) = 777 (Carrie Lam)

- In Cantonese, '7' is a homonym for 'dick'. It was on December 2012 that legislative councilor Raymond Wong said that he will refer to CY Leung as '689'. That was the number of votes CY Leung got, but the greater meaning is that '689' means 'no 7' = ('no dick'). But along comes Carrie Lam with '777' (='three dicks').

- Outside the Wanchai Convention Centre at 12:50 March 26, 2017 after Carrie Lam was declared the winner.

 "Don't want Carrie Lam!" 

- Before the counting began, the ballots were randomly shuffled by the election workers so that there won't be clustering. The election workers then proceeded to sort the ballots into bins for the three candidates. Television channels assigned observers to count the number of ballots going into each bin. By the time 100 or so ballots were sorted, it was clear that Carrie Lam was leading John Tsang by a 2-to-1 ratio. The ratio stayed pretty constant. By the time, Carrie Lam passed the magical number of 601, it was over.

Of course, John Tsang fans were angry because their candidate who is the people's choice has lost the election. They were going to march in the streets. Immediately? No. This evening? No. Next Sunday, because people only march on weekends with sufficient notice ahead of time? No. When then? July 1st, 2017. And it is March 26 today.

It is the core value of Hong Kong pigs to be restrained. "I am outraged by what the boss did to me, but I will be back to work tomorrow morning ..."

- Once they saw that their favorite Mr. Pringle won't become Chief Executive, they suddenly woke up to say "I hate fake election" and "I want genuine universal suffrage".

If Mr. Pringle actually won, how would they feel about this fake election? Will they think that the election was actually not fake (in the sense of one-person-one-vote where the only voter is Xi Jinping)?

- Before the results could be announced, a number of problematic ballots have to disposed of. For example, a ballot in which all three candidates were checked was ruled invalid because the intention of the voter was unclear. The biggest buzz on the Internet was this ballot in which a big "FUCK" was written in by hand. This ballot was ruled invalid because no candidates was checked and the intention of the voter was unclear.

- Damn! The voter should have checked one (and only one candidate). Then it becomes ambiguous as to whether the voter is voting for or hates that candidate, which will then lead to a prolonged debate about intention.

- "We want John Tsang!"

Live Apple Daily Facebook voting:
John Tsang: 17,582
Carrie Lam: 410
Woo Kwok Hing: 1,485
Blank ballots: 1,562

- Pre-election advice to all Hong Kong pigs: Wake up tomorrow morning at 9am, bring your Hong Kong ID, proceed to your local polling station and cast your vote for John Tsang, the only hope left for Hong Kong. If you fail to do this, you will have to immigrate to the United States.

- During the nomination phase, John Tsang received 40 pro-establishment nominations and 125 pro-democracy nominations. Woo Kwok Hing received 180 pro-establishment nominations. The total was 345 broken down into 40 pro-establishment and 305 pro-democracy.

During the election phase, John Tsang got 365 votes and Woo Kwok Hing got 21 votes. The total for the two was 386 votes.

Democracy 300+ has 326 votes. This means that Tsang and Woo got about 70 pro-establishment votes out of about 870.

If Tsang and Woo want Carrie Lam to reflect on why she can't get any pro-democracy nominations, then they should reflect on they can't get more pro-establishment votes.

- (Bastille Post) John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing got 345 nominations including some from some pro-establishment electors such as James Tien (Liberal Party). Tsang and Woo then got 386 votes which is 41 more. These include people who didn't want to be known to nominate them, but voted for them with the secret ballots. Some of these may have even nominated Carrie Lam. Two members of the Financial Services sub-sector (Thomas Wu and Ricky Chim) nominated John Tsang but publicly announced that they will vote for Carrie Lam. So the actually number of hidden votes is 41 + 2 = 43. These 43 can be said to be the hardcore Henry Tang voters -- they opposed CY Leung and they continued to oppose Carrie Lam because she is supported by the Central Government.

- (Bastille Post) Carrie Lam had 580 nominations. In truth, another ironclad 200 votes were held back. There would be some pressure on Carrie Lam to be nominated by 780 but received fewer than that in the actual election. Carrie Lam received 777 votes. This was better than the 750 estimated by the Central Government. If you discount Thomas Wu and Ricky Chim, she received 775 out of 780, which means that she only lost 5 votes. That means that she was able to hold on to the votes from the Commercial/Industrial sector.

- What will be the new strategy for the pan-democrats? So far, they have learned:
If they boycott the election, they lose.
If they run a bona fide pro-democracy candidate, they lose.
If they package a pro-establishment figure as a pro-democracy hero, they lose.

- In 2015, the strategy recommended by the United States and the United Kingdom was to accept the August 31st framework which includes nomination by the Election Committee and one-person-one-vote. The present system includes nomination and election by the Election Committee, which means that there are two barriers to overcome. You can get John Tsang nominated and you say that he is more popular than Carrie Lam. Unfortunately, you can't get the Election Committee to vote for him. If they had accepted the August 31st framework, they could have gotten the Election Committee to nominate him and then he wins the popular election.

Instead, the pan-democrats said back then that they wanted civil nomination together with one-person-one-vote. Without that, they would rather have the present system. This is where we are.

- (SCMP) March 27, 2017.

In his concession speech on Sunday, John Tsang Chun-wah quipped that his chief executive election bid could have been another Barcelona a reference to the Spanish teams stunning comeback against Paris St-Germain in a recent Champions League football match (see video).

I once thought perhaps I could turn the tables by the end of the match, just like Barcelona did in that epic game, the former financial secretary said. 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.

Tsangs Barcelona analogy prompted questions on whether he found the game unfair.

I lost because my opponent scored more than me ... There is foul play in every match, he said.

Yet even he found no reason to believe the outcome stemmed from Beijings involvement. Tsangs reticence to lay blame on any hidden hand can only heighten the sense of the risk involved in the undertaking of running for chief executive to anyone contemplating pulling off another Barcelona in the future.

- (Oriental Daily) March 26, 2017. The League of Social Democrats said that their members climbed on top of the Lion Rock peak to hang a yellow "I want genuine universal suffrage" vertical banner.

- When you hang a banner, the Fire Services Department has to send firemen to climb up the mountain to remove it. It is not just a piece of decoration, because the banner may fall down onto busy Loong Cheong Roard below and cause traffic accidents. And the following happened this week on another rainy day:

(EJ Insight) March 23, 2017.

A senior fireman died after falling from a cliff while he and his team were attempting to rescue two stranded hikers in a country park in the New Territories on Wednesday. Principal firefighter Yau Siu-ming, 51, succumbed to his injuries after a fall during a rescue operation in Tiu Shau Ngam (吊手岩) in Ma On Shan Country Park, several newspapers reported. The accident took place at about 5 am as Yau was climbing a hill in a bid to reach two hikers who had apparently lost their way in the mountain ridge. As he was climbing, the firefighter slipped and fell 10 meters down to the bottom of the cliff. As the mountains are very steep, other firemen had to walk four kilometers to find Yau, who was lying unconscious on the ground, according to the reports. After a long struggle, they managed to reach him and move him to the Prince of Wales Hospital. The whole process took more than 10 hours, resulting in Yau making it to the hospital only at about 4 pm. Doctors pronounced him dead due to serious head injuries, causing immense sadness to Laus

- According to The Tai Mo Shan Woman (2016/01/25) theory of freedom, it is the freedom of the people of Hong Kong to hang banners wherever they want, and it is the duty of the firemen (who are very well-paid public servants) to remove the banners no matter the conditions are.

- (Ming Pao) March 26, 2017.

Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Chan Chi-chuen and Leung Kwok-hung announced beforehand that they were casting blank ballots. Leung Kwok-hung said that the fact that Carrie Lam won by the so-called wide margin shows that the Chief Executive election system is "rotten."

Leung admitted that he misjudged the situation. He had worked under the belief that the Central Government secretly supported John Tsang so that he will win with 700+ pro-establishment votes plus 300+ pan-democratic votes to become the indomitable Chief Executive. Leung apologized formally for this misjudgment. He said that the people of Hong Kong has learned a lesson on the perfidiousness of the Chinese Communists. P.S. Leung called on all pro-democracy Hongkongers to show up next Sunday outside the China Liaison Office to protest the election of Carrie Lam.

When asked if there is any room for cooperation with Carrie Lam over the next five years, Leung said that it depends on how Carrie Lam reacts to the demonstration next week.

- Ultimately, there were 23 blank or invalid ballots. What's the difference if Carrie Lam wins by 777 versus either 365 or 388 for John Tsang?

- Zeto Cheng's Facebook

The Chinese Communists had provided a wonderful opening for the radical pan-democrats (People Power, League of Social Democrats/Self-Determination groups) to breach, but they make the following fucking stupid missteps.

1. They misjudged the situation. They thought that John Tsang was surely anointed by the Chinese Communists to turn. As a result, they made a whole string of missteps ...

2. They were unable to block Carrie Lam, who was the candidate actually anointed by the Chinese Communists, on her path to victory. Instead, they made plenty of unnecessary attacks against the straw man known as Mr. Pringle.

3. Leung Kwok-hung even joined the small-circle election, completely ruining his moral aura. If his participation was supposed to be merely strategic, then why can't the pan-democrats' support of John Tsang also be considered strategic?

4. After Leung Kwok-hung failed to gain nomination, Mr. Pringle began his public relations campaign to rally mainstream pan-democratic support. Many citizens wanted to show their opposition to Sai Wan (China Liaison Office) interference through supporting John Tsang. But many radical pan-democratic Key Opinion Leaders heaped scorn on them.

5. In the later stages of the election, everybody knew that John Tsang was doomed. Those dozen or so blank ballots will make no difference. These people did nothing whatsoever to derail Carrie Lam. Instead they acted like wise people who think everybody else is naive. This made everyone else think that they want Carrie Lam to win. In the end, when everybody begged them to give every last vote to John Tsang, they started talking about the importance of sticking to principles. But didn't they ditch their own principles in order to try to enter the small-circle election already?

6. Now that Carrie Lam is elected and she is talking about reconciliation under her, the radicals say that it was the strategic support for John Tsang which pushed the Chinese Communists towards supporting Carrie Lam. Fuck you! At first, you said that John Tsang was the secret Chinese Communist mega-candidate, so how dare you turn around and accuse everybody else? Did you think that you were perfect?

7. During the election, the radicals had lousy judgment and strategies. Apart from going to the China Liaison Office to throw toilet paper, they had no other gimmick. Their action plans conflict within themselves. Worse yet, they have totally refused to accept any responsibility. Instead, they feel that that they are always correct and they are the only ones who can enlighten the ignorant masses. According to the radicals, if the people support Mr. Pringle, then they must be Hong Kong pigs. By comparison, the Democratic Party and the Civic Party were at least willing to put in an effort and share in the glory/shame.

People Power/League of Social Democrats/Self-Determination groups have managed to offend the Yellow Ribbons this time. The payback will occur at the 2020 Legislative Council elections. Meanwhile, they can also forget about the crowdfunding campaign to support the DQ4 and the Legislative Council by-elections.

- Who is even a bigger loser than John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing? It's Ming Pao, the newspaper formerly rated number one in public trust.

In the live coverage of the Chief Executive election, someone posted a comment: ""林鄭柒娥柒少陣 Carrie Lam fuck Ngor should fuck around less!" Use of obscenity is protected under the freedom of speech in Basic Law Article 27. Unfortunately, that person forgot to switch to his/her personal Facebook account, and so the post went out under the account name Ming Pao Real-time News. Do you think that a journalists can be working on fair and balanced news coverage as well as vent personal feelings while on the job to the point that he/she can't even figure out where he/she is at any time?

- What is a rational elector supposed to do? Here are the raw data:

(Top left panel) Which candidates best fits the four critieria of the Central Government?
(Hong Kong Research Association)
38%: John Tsang
45%: Carrie Lam
 4%: Woo Kwok Hing
(New Forum)
31%: John Tsang
46%: Carrie Lam
 7%: Woo Kwok Hing

(Top center panel) Which candidate does the Central Government trust most?
 6%: John Tsang
83%: Carrie Lam
 1%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Sing Tao)
12%: John Tsang
84%: Carrie Lam
 2%: Woo Kwok Hing

(Top right panel) Which candidate does has the best ability for governance
37%: John Tsang
51%: Carrie Lam
  3%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Sing Tao)
39%: John Tsang
58%: Carrie Lam
 3%: Woo Kwok Hing

(Bottom panel) Which candidate do you support?
(Hong Kong Research Association)
36%: John Tsang
41%: Carrie Lam
11%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong Economic Times/Sky Post)
30%: John Tsang
67%: Carrie Lam
  2%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong Women's Association)
35%: John Tsang
43%: Carrie Lam
12%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme)
57%: John Tsang
27%: Carrie Lam
10%: Woo Kwok Hing
(Democratic Party)
50%: John Tsang
24%: Carrie Lam
17%: Woo Kwok Hing

Should you vote for the most popular candidate? That would mean that actor Andy Lau would be a shoo-in if he runs. When asked this hypothetical question, Andy Lau had the patience to point out that the Chief Executive needs to have certain job requirements (such as knowledge, experience and ability) which he does not have.

- If the people want to elect an unqualified person as their leader, they should have the right and freedom to do so.

- Of course, they reap what they sow. Reference: Donald Trump. And when things don't work out so rosily, they will blame evil external forces instead of their own poor judgment.

- (SCMP) To fool others, pan-dems are fooling themselves first. By Alex Lo. March 28, 2017.

Deception is a common survival strategy in nature as well as politics. What is less well-known is that self-deception, according to some sociobiologists, can also have adaptive value. This is especially true among humans living in an intensely competitive environment. We lie to ourselves in order to lie better to others. Its those lies more convincing because we believe them that help achieve our hidden agendas.

Reading some of the websites, blogs and newsprints of anti-government groups on Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngors election victory, you might think its the end of the world, or at least the beginning of the end:

Even the Heavens are cursing with a foul mouth.

Western has its Mrs 777; the destruction continues a reference to the number of votes Lam received to secure her election.

The spread of gonorrhoea has started a play on the Cantonese pronunciation of the sexually transmitted disease (Lam bang) with her Chinese name (Lam Cheng).

There are much more extreme examples, which are unprintable in a family newspaper. My favourite, however, is one by a Methodist preacher, who based a whole opinion piece on 777, in the Chinese-language Stand News. He is, of course, referring to Psalm 77:7, a rather depressing prayer. I will use a modern translation: Will the Lord reject me forever? Will he not grant favours anymore?

Presumably, the me is Hong Kong. The priest does counsel against despair, though, pointing out the Lord will never give up on Hong Kong. Well, I am no believer, but am glad to hear of the Lords good intention.

Lam may turn out to be the anti-Christ or a Mao-like dictator. But given her past career and the law of averages, its far more likely she will do a passable job, delivering mediocre results. That, alas, is the fate of most governments in free or democratic societies, including Hong Kong.

The diehard opposition, though, cant sell that mundane reality about Lam but must prove that without their version of democracy as an unquestioned religion, Hong Kong cannot have a workable leadership or government. They prefer their self-fulfilling prophecy of inevitable doom if we dont get to their democratic promised land any time soon.

And so they must deceive themselves about the worst for Hong Kong to make their case all the more convincing for others.

- There is a lot for the people of Hong Kong to think about as a result of this election. (Oriental Daily) March 27, 2017. At 4am, a 42-year-old man named Lee and his 32-year-old girlfriend named Ngan were seated on a sofa in the roped area of The Landmark, Central District, Hong Kong Island. The security guard told the two to leave because the plaza was closed. They refused. The security guard summoned the police. When the police came to investigate, the two refused to cooperate and they did not produce their Hong Kong ID's when asked. The man struck a policeman, causing an abdominal injury. The two were subdued and arrested on suspicion of obstructing police duty. As he as brought into the police van, Lee was mumbling to himself. He also yelled at the reporter: "They think that I was there to cause trouble in the plaza. I actually went there to help Hong Kong. I hope to help Hong Kong think about all its problems!"

- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 28, 2017.

U.S. congressmen have expressed concern at Beijings interference in Hong Kongs elections and warned that the special status enjoyed by the semi-autonomous city under U.S. law may be reassessed if the situation deteriorates.

Beijings clear interference in these elections is yet another example of a precipitous erosion in Hong Kongs long-cherished autonomy, senator Marco Rubio, who chairs the Chairs of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said in a statement on Monday, a day after the chief executive election.

Rubio criticised Sundays chief executive election, saying it failed to fulfill Hongkongers demands for universal suffrage and a truly representative government.

His co-chair, representative Christopher Smith, said Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam was clearly Beijings favored candidate, just like her predecessors. He warned that Beijings backing enjoyed by Lam would make it exceedingly difficult to tackle the erosions of Hong Kongs autonomy and rule of law.

If Hong Kong is to become just another mainland Chinese city under the new Chief Executives leadership, we will have to reassess whether Hong Kong warrants special status under U.S. law, Smith warned.

He added: It is in everyones interests that Hong Kong remain a free and prosperous bridge between China and the West, but the citys unique vitality and prosperity are rooted in its guaranteed freedoms.

In his statement, Rubio also highlighted the recent police crackdown on leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. He urged Lam to work on political reforms that are consistent with Hongkongers democratic aspirations. [They are] aspirations which animated the 2014 Umbrella Movement and which remain alive and well today, he said.

- Chinese president Xi Jinping clearly and loudly interfered in this CE election. Xi shook hands for three seconds with John Tsang at the G-20 meeting in Hangzhou. John Tsang said that he was great encouraged and decided to run for Chief Executive because Xi Jinping has anointed him. In March, CY Leung was appointed as vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Xi Jinping went over to congratulate him and spoke for about 40 seconds. John Tsang and his fans came back down to earth. It was very wrong and unchivalrous for Xi Jinping to give false hopes to John Tsang and then so cruelly deflate them.

- Zhang Dejiang was widely reported to have traveled to Shenzhen where he summoned electors to meet with him. Because the electors were openly named during the nomination phase, they had to do Zhang's bidding or else face retaliation to their businesses on mainland China. I know that not a single elector who was so pressured by Zhang Dejiang has been named, but that is the whole point: they were so scared that nobody dared to reveal themselves.

- China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming repeatedly met with electors and 'whipped' the Hong Kong delegation of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the Hong Kong delegation of the Chinese People's Congress, the political parties (DAB, FTU, BPA, etc), the pro-establishment Legislative Councilors, the Heung Yee Kuk, the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association, the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce, etc into voting unanimously for Carrie Lam.

I know that it is true that the Democratic Party, the Civic Party, the Professional Teachers Union, etc also 'whipped' their members into voting for John Tsang, but it is different because their members knew that they are doing it for FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, whereas the China Liaison Office was forcing their minions to support COMMUNISM CRONYISM ELITISM EXPLOITATION INJUSTICE ARTICLE 23 SMALL-CIRCLE_ELECTION ONE-COUNTRY-ONE-SYSTEM.

- Why don't the Americans try to stop voter suppression in the United States first before meddling in Hong Kong?

- This is all hot air from Marco Rubio and Christopher Smith. Why don't they get their Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed? That would be a substantive step (to punish the people of Hong Kong for mainland Chinese interference).

(SCMP) March 25, 2017.

Two days before polling day, chief executive underdog John Tsang Chun-wah drew thousands of supporters to his rally in Central, as he battled a fresh round of criticism that he lacked Beijings trust.

Giving an emotional speech on an open-top bus at the end of the hour-long rally at Edinburgh Place on Friday night, Tsang said: Most of you here dont have votes, but still I yearn for your support. Without your support, how would there be any meaning even if I win all Election Committee votes?

Tsang is expected to secure about 300 votes from pan-democrats on the 1,194-member Election Committee, which is dominated by pro-Beijing supporters. A candidate needs 601 votes to win in Sundays poll.

Police estimated the turnout to be 3,500. The live feed of the rally on Tsangs Facebook page drew 449,000 views by midnight and some 18,700 comments.

Tsang was the first pro-establishment chief executive candidate to host an outdoor rally since his former boss, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, held one at Southorn Playground in Wan Chai in 2007.

Excited supporters chanted John Tsang, elected! and Vote for No 1 if Hong Kong is to win!

Internet comments:

- SCMP kept repeating that John Tsang is pro-establishment. But who is showing up at the rallies/ People with Yellow Umbrellas and banners saying "Support John Tsang, I want genuine universal suffrage." So who is the real John Tsang?

- And someone is holding up a red "Father of Democracy" banner!

- Why do democrats want John Tsang as Chief Executive? (YouTube)

0:09 Alan Leong (Civic Party): The March 26 election is a duel between Sai Wan and the people of Hong Kong. It takes John Tsang to knock down Sai Wan.

0:30 John Tsang: August 31st (resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee) is surely our starting point, the foundation of constitutional reform. [But this group of people who say that they will vote for you were completely against the August 31st resolution).

- (Oriental Daily) March 25, 2017

Spoof street banners directed against pan-democratic political parties:
Green: Democratic Party -- give up democracy, enact Article 23
Purple: Civic Party -- kneel down to the establishment, embrace 8.31

- (Cable TV) John Tsang's biggest cheerleader James Tien predicts that Carrie Lam will win. Of the more than 200 nominations for Carrie Lam from the Commerce/Industry sector, Tien estimates that 50 to 100 will vote for John Tsang during the secret balloting. At present, they are not concerned about whether they will win or not. As for the the Liberal Party, ex-chairman James Tien said that they are pro-establishment, and therefore they support a pro-establishment Chief Executive.

- Why would the Commerce/Industry sector voters switch? James Tien said that they don't want a Chief Executive who has a popular mandate. Now I am confused here. Does the business community think that having a weak Chief Executive unable to implement/legislate anything will be good for their business? What kind of business are they in?

- Conscientious objectors?

Nathan Law (Demosisto): Will cast blank ballot
Reason: Support democratic self-determination, will not change his own democratic principles in response to fluctuating public opinions

Chu Hoi Dick: Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I will act in accordance with my beliefs even if nobody supports me ... We are fighting for the democratic powers of the people of Hong Kong. If we compromise even on this, we are democrats -- we are not public opinionists.

Fernando Cheung (Labour Party): Will cast blank ballot
Reason: I act according to my principles ... public opinions should be respected sometimes, but principles are sometimes more important.

Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I will not change my preference in response to public opinion. I will not support small-circle elections.

Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats): Will not vote for any candidate
Reason: I am said it before: I will not vote, I will not nominate, I will not participate in small-circle elections.

P.S. Lau Siu-lai has declared that she will cast a blank ballot to express her opposition to the August 31st framework and Basic Law Article 23 legislation.

P.P.S. Shiu Ka-chun said that he will cast a blank ballot to oppose the August 31st framework, to demand the restart of constitution reform and to establish a fair and just social welfare system. He said that he chose the final moment to make this announcement in order to reduce embarrassment.

- So there you have it -- according to Jimmy Lai, the six Communists moles within the pan-democratic legislative councilors have just outed themselves.

- (SocREC) March 22, 2017. At a press conference, John Tsang predicted that there will be a miracle on election day.

- Here is the scorecard. John Tsang will get about 310 or so of the 326 pan-democratic votes. During the nomination, he obtained 40 pro-establishment nominations and 125 pan-democratic nominations. He would have liked to have as many pro-establishment nominations as possible because he claims to be able to bridge the rift. Therefore 40 is his maximum. There is one known desertion. So he has to depend on secret ballots from hidden supporters. How many? Nobody knows and nobody can know. So don't believe anything out there.

But here are some scenarios:

- John Tsang ends up with 320 votes, which means that the Commerce/Industrial sub-sector has completely given up on him. As the saying goes, Tsang needs to go home and seriously reflect on what has happened.

- John Tsang ends up with 350 votes, which means that Tsang got the pan-dems plus the 40 pro-establishment electors who voted for him.

- John Tsang gets 400 votes, which means that there were 40 more hidden votes within the pro-establishment camp.

- John Tsang get 601 votes to win, which means that there were massive desertions within the pro-establishment camp. As the saying goes, Xi Jinping may fire Zhang Dejiang and put someone else in charge of Hong Kong affairs.

- (Cable TV) There is some suspense as to whether Woo Kwok Hing will get more than 10 votes. Woo was nominated with 180 pan-democratic votes. But most of those voters have announced that they will switch to vote for John Tsang. Woo said that his positions on issues such as constitutional reform, Basic Law Article 23 legislation and universal retirement protection are much closer to traditional pan-democratic positions than any other candidate. Woo said that if he gets fewer than 180 votes, then he will feel that he had been used. He said that politics is dirty. BWAAAAAHHHHHH!

- Woo Kwok Hing has at least one committed vote from social welfare sub-sector elector Chong Chan Yau, whose blindness has been cruelly made fun of by John Tsang's fans with sincere statements of fact.

- You seem to have lots of questions, don't you? That's because they won't let you read the script.

Look at the situation of the pan-democrats in past Chief Executive elections.

In 1996, shipping magnate Tung Chee-wah got 80% of the vote to defeat Chief Justice Yang Ti-liang and businessman Peter Woo.

In 2002, incumbent Tung Chee-wah was re-elected uncontested.

In 2007, pan-democrat Alan Leong (Civic Party) ran against incumbent Donald Tsang. Leong lost by 16%-84%.

In 2012, pan-democrat Albert Ho (Democratic Party) ran against two pro-establishment candidates, former Chief Secretary Henry Tang and former Executive Council convener CY Leung. Ho got only 7% of the votes.

From history, if the pan-democrats field a properly credentialed pro-democracy candidate (as in 2007 and 2012), they will lose badly. It is also more trouble than its worth. First of all, they cannot be seen to concede on their core positions (such as genuine universal suffrage with civil nomination; universal retirement protection; right of local approval of mainland Chinese immigrants; minimum wage; standard working hours; etc). Secondly, they will see their internal contradictions exposed (such as self-determination/independence; land supply/housing; etc).

If the pan-democrats boycott the election, then it will be business as usual (in 1996 and 2002) as the pro-establishment camp proceeds to elect a Chief Executive in accordance with the law. That must not be allowed to happen.

So in 2017, the pan-democrats came up with a new strategy -- they will support a pro-establishment candidate in the form of John Tsang. But John Tsang is not in this to win. That is not likely to happen. Instead, John Tsang is there to inflict maximum damage to the true pro-establishment candidate Carrie Lam. Now John Tsang may or may not realize that this is what he got into. But he willingly went along with it.

Since John Tsang has positioned himself as pro-establishment, how can one deal with all this defects? You simply pretend that you see nothing and you hear nothing.

John Tsang has accomplished nothing in his 30+ years in government service apart from the deeply troubled food truck? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that constitutional reform should start from the basis of the August 31st constitutional reform? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that Hong Kong should enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that he will work to get 60% of the people of Hong Kong into public housing but he has neither plan nor schedule? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang does not support universal retirement protection without asset/income limits? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang underestimated the budget surplus every year during his 9-year tenure as Financial Secretary? NO PROBLEM.

John Tsang says that the Occupy Movement destroyed rule-or-law and affected the economy? NO PROBLEM.

... and the list goes on ...

Do these issues matter to the pan-democrats? Of course, they matter. They matter a lot. They are the core democratic issues. But they do not matter during this election, because there is no expectation that John Tsang will be elected as Chief Executive. So if the guy huffs and puffs, let him do so if he thinks that he can get a few points in public opinion support.

Of course, you may well ask: But what if there was a Black Swan incident and John Tsang actually wins? It does not matter to the pan-democrats -- they will just turn on John Tsang to deliver on all the core democratic issues that John Tsang never agreed to. If John Tsang won't, they will filibuster, protest, Occupy Central, hold up yellow umbrellas, throw eggs, etc.

Does John Tsang know? Does he care? Of course, he knows because why else was the John Tsang for Chief Executive campaign run like this? If you really want to win the Chief Executive election and you know that the election is decided by 1,194 electors, you would be trying to do everything possible to work on those electors. Meet with them, talk to them, ask them what they care about and what they need, make promises to them, etc. Instead, you run a Facebook-based campaign that is designed to show that you are a likeable guy and you make no attempt to find or highlight policies that might appeal to those electors. In fact, you go out your way to insult electors (for example, saying that the 689 electors who voted for CY Leung five years ago should be ashamed). Regardless of the bravado, the John Tsang campaign was never run with the goal of winning the election.

The bonus in this strategy has been Woo Kwok Hing. The pan-democrats gave him enough nominations so that there were two 'pro-democracy' and one 'pro-establishment' nominees. Under the equal time principle, the election forums saw the two 'pro-democracy' guys beating up on the 'pro-establishment' woman. But as soon as the election forums finish, Woo Kwok Hing becomes the proverbial worn-out battery to be discarded.

- (Ming Pao) Alan Leong (Civic Party chairman) said that the Principled Ones who will cast blank ballots and the Strategic Ones who will vote for John Tsang share the same goal. Leong said that he would be heartbroken if schisms occur.

Well, this is a statement that he doesn't give a rat's ass about John Tsang, because the guy is going to lose anyway. However, John Tsang is important to the extent that he serves to make a political point.

- The election was in fact decided by the nomination phase. If John Tsang was able to pull together 75 pro-establishment nominations in addition to 75 pro-democracy nominations, he would be the candidate to bridge the two opposing camps, with Carrie Lam being clearly pro-establishment and Woo Kwok Hing being clearly pro-democracy.

Better yet, if John Tsang can get 150 pro-establishment nominations, then the scent of victory appears. The situation becomes like Henry Tang and CY Leung five years ago, when either one was fine with the pro-establishment camp. So if the pro-establishment votes split 580 for Carrie Lam and 320 for John Tsang, then the final vote will be 320 + 300 = 620 for John Tsang, 580 for Carrie Lam and 10 for Woo Kwok Hing.

Unfortunately, John Tsang maxed out at 40 pro-establishment nominations.

- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook

"The election results are in. The greatest existential value for HEA Tsang was that he served as a tool for the opposition camp against the Central Government. They rallied for him not because they really supported him. They knew that HEA Tsang could not have won. Actually, they didn't want HEA Tsang to win either. Their goal is to oppose. On the last two days, HEA Tsang did not work on the Election Committee members. Instead, he kept building the image that that he had public support to lay down the grounds for further social rifts. On the day when HEA Tsang loses, it is best time and excuse for the opposition to attack the government ...

(HKG Pao) The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, with more than 100 electors said that its Central Executive Committee has agreed to support Carrie Lam for Chief Executive. The DAB believes that its members will vote according to the decision of its Central Executive Committee.

The FTU (Federation of Trade Unions) surveyed its member trade unions and found that more than 90% of them support Carrie Lam. The FTU has about 60 votes including 5 Legislative Councilors in the Election Committee.

Previously, Carrie Lam obtained 580 nominations from the electors without the full endorsement of DAB, FTU, the publication sub-sector (15 votes), the performing arts sub-sector (14 votes) and the Financial Services sub-sector (18 votes including 2 who nominated John Tsang). Unless there are mass desertions, this election is over, as everybody knows many weeks ago. The Hong Kong and Kowloon District Councils which are dominated by pro-establishment district councilors have 57 votes and the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association are also solidly for Carrie Lam. So the suspense is whether Carrie Lam will get more than 800 out of the 1,194 votes.

PolitHK Social Strategic invites you to the Hong Kong Reconnected street carnival 4pm-6pm March 26 to celebrate the election of Carrie Lam as Chief Executive.

Question: If you can vote for Chief Executive tomorrow and you can vote for the following candidates, who would you vote for? (Read randomly rotated list)

Data Period #1 John Tsang #2 Carrie Lam #3 Woo Kwok Hing
March 1-5 46% 34% 12%
March 2-6 47% 33% 12%
March 3-7 45% 35% 14%
March 4-8 46% 35% 12%
March 5-9 48% 34% 11%
March 6-10 49% 34% 11%
March 7-11 48% 34% 11%
March 8-12 50% 31% 10%
March 9-13 51% 32% 9%
March 10-14 51% 33% 9%
March 11-15 52% 33% 8%
March 12-16 51% 34% 8%
March 13-17 53% 34% 8%
March 14-18 51% 34% 9%
March 15-19 52% 33% 9%
March 16-20 53% 32% 10%
March 17-21 56% 30% 9%
March 18-22 57% 27% 10%
March 19-23 56% 28% 9%
March 20-24 56% 29% 9%

Q1. Which candidate is most familiar with how the government is run?
38.5%: John Tsang
57.7%: Carrie Lam
 2.8%: Woo Kwok Hing

Q2. Which candidate is most trusted by the Central Government?
11.8%: John Tsang
83.9%: Carrie Lam
 1.8%: Woo Kwok King

Q3. Which candidate is best able to get things done?
45.7%: John Tsang
45.7%: Carrie Lam
 7.0%: Woo Kwok Hing

Q4. Who do you think will become the next Chief Executive in the end?
27.6%: John Tsang
67.8%: Carrie Lam
 2.5%: Woo Kwok Hing

Q1. Among the three candidates, who has the better governance ability?
37.4%: John Tsang
50.8%: Carrie Lam
  2.6%: Woo Kwok Hing
  9.3%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q2. Among the three candidates, who is better trusted by the Central Government?
 5.9%: John Tsang
83.4%: Carrie Lam
 0.5%: Woo Kwok Hing
10.2%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q3. Among the three candidates, who is able to become the next Chief Executive?
45.3%: John Tsang
44.2%: Carrie Lam
  3.0%: Woo Kwok Hing
  1.2%: All are able
  1.0%: None is able
  5.3%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q4. Who do you guess will become the next Chief Executive
20.6%: John  Tsang
71.7%: Carrie Lam
 0.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
 7.1%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q5. Which issue should the next Chief Executive give priority to?
39.4%: Land/housing
15.6%: Economic development
11.5%: Education
 9.0%: Healthcare
  8.4%: Restart constitutional reform
  6.1%: Relieve poverty
  5.0%: Retirement protection
  2.2%: Labor benefits
  0.6%: Other issues
  2.3%: Don't know/no opinion

Q1. Among the three candidates, who do you support most to become the next Chief Executive?
52.5%: John Tsang
25.1%: Carrie Lam
  8.3%: Woo Kwok Hing
  6.4%: None of the above
  7.5%: Don't know/no opinion
  0.1%: Refused to answer

Q2. Among the three candidates, who is most likely to be elected?
17.6%: John Tsang
68.8%: Carrie Lam
  1.1%: Woo Kwok Hing
12.2%: Don't know/hard to say
  0.3%: Refused to answer

(Bastille Post) By Lo Wing-hung. March 20, 2017.

Last night was the forum organized by the Chief Executive Election Committee. 90% of the questions came from pan-democratic electors and Carrie Lam fought back.

Many of my non-political friends watched briefly and switched channels. One reason was that it was bickering all the way. Furthermore, people were chanting slogans aloud downstage. My non-political thought that it was very rude and uncivilized, and they really disliked what was happening. Another reason was that most people want to listen to ideas and policies, such as how to increase the land supply in the face of high housing prices. But it was political bickering all the way. Nobody gave a damn about livelihood and economic issues. My friends were disappointed and switched channels.

The preponderance of questions come from the pan-democrats. The pro-establishment camp was disorganized, whereupon they don't seem to be able to mobilize unless they feel that their existence is under threat. By contrast, the pan-democrats were enthusiastic, not because they want to have a better Chief Executive but because they want to seize political power.

During the election, the candidates brought up catchy slogans. John Tsang said: "Trust, unity, hope" while Carrie Lam said "We Connect." Unity and Connect have similar means of harmony. But what I saw at the forum yesterday was mutual acrimony, social rifts and disappointment. I didn't see anything like unity or harmony. I don't see the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps willing to tolerate each other.

Perhaps you say that elections are supposed to be this way. Perhaps the pan-democrats will say that they are going after Carrie Lam only because CY Leung attacked them and Carrie Lam is CY 2.0. So as long as Carrie Lam is not elected, then Hong Kong will be united and harmonious. If John Tsang is elected, then Hong Kong will see unity and harmony; if Carrie Lam is elected, then Hong Kong will be disunited and unharmonious. Is that so?

Let me propose the opposite theory. It does not matter whether John Tsang or Carrie Lam gets elected, Hong Kong will be unharmonious. The source is not because of any difference or similarity between these two candidates; it is about the struggle for political power.

Carrie Lam and John Tsang were both Administrative Officers. Maybe one of them had a messy desk; maybe the other has more stuff on the desk. Maybe one of them works long hours; maybe the other prefers to work smart. These are matters of style, not matters of nature. By nature, both of them want to get along with the pan-democrats.

The pan-democrats define unity as friendliness with the pan-democratic political parties. Are Carrie Lam and John Tsang different from each other? At the Democratic Party anniversary party, Carrie Lam, John Tsang and Woo Kwok-hing all showed up. CY Leung would never do that.

Perhaps party attendance is superficial. What about policies? Carrie Lam has greater appeal to the pan-democrats than John Tsang. Carrie Lam wants to allocate an additional $5 billion for education, which is what the Professional Teachers Union has been fighting for over the years. Carrie Lam wants government housing unit owners to be able to rent out their units without penalty. This was proposed by Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai in 2015. If she is so willing to adopt the policies from pan-democratic parties, isn't this the definition of unity and harmony?

But the mainstream pan-democrats refuse to accept Lam's olive branch. The Professional Teachers Union, the Civic Party and the Democratic Party are "all-in" for John Tsang.

The reason why the pan-democrats are adamant on voting for John Tsang is not because Carrie Lam refuses to listen to them or communicate with them. It is because the Central Government supports Carrie Lam. The pan-democrats will vote against anyone that is supported by the Central Government. Had the Central Government come out to support John Tsang, the pan-democrats would be voting for Carrie Lam.

The pan-democrats vote for the Chief Executive not on the basis of capability, ideas or communication. They want to know who the Central Government supports and then they vote the opponent. The pan-democrats and the Central Government are fighting for political power. If the pan-democrats acts this way, how can the Central Government ever talk about unity and harmony with them?

I am pessimistic about the political future of Hong Kong. When the Chief Executive takes over, he/she will be the representative of the Central Government in Hong Kong. It means that he/she will receive a million barbs from the pan-democrats. There will be fights over everything every day in Hong Kong. How can this ever be stopped?

(Bastille Post) Unity? Easier said than done. By Lo Wai-hung. March 22, 2017.

As expected, the pan-democratic electors will cast most of their votes for John Tsang. Irregardless of what their reasons are, the situation is clear: On one side, the pan-democrats support John Tsang; on the other side, the Central Government and the pro-establishment support Carrie Lam.

During the election period, John Tsang's best selling point is that he can increase unity and mend rifts. Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai said that John Tsang is "furthest away from Sai Wan and closest to the people of Hong Kong."

But here is the problem. Suppose that we don't care about capabilities of the candidates and we only care about whether they can mend social rifts. If the candidate supported by the pan-democrats is elected, will there be no more social rifts?

Based upon the various Legislative Council elections in the past, we see that about 55% support the pan-democrats (including both traditional and radical types) and 45% support the pro-establishment camp. In the current Chief Executive election, John Tsang and Carrie Lam are supported by approximately in those proportions. People seem to care less about capabilities than about lining up with their political sides; they care less about unity and healing than about political tendencies.

Logically speaking, social rifts won't decrease no matter who gets elected. If A gets elected, it means that B loses. It won't mend any social rifts. In order to mend social rifts, the pan-democrats and the Central Government which back the respective candidates must yield their rigid positions, make concessions and find a compromise proposal that both sides can accept. Such is the case with constitutional reform as with any other political issue.

I am extremely pessimistic about whether social rifts will be mended after the Chief Executive election. Neither the Central Government nor the pan-democrats are ready to make concessions to reach compromises.

For the pan-democrats, they are internally weak at this time because they have split into the traditional pan-democrats and the radicals. Overall, the pan-democrats have 55% support, but almost 20% have fallen into the hands of the radicals.

The radicals used to account for only a few percentage points. The 2014 Occupy Central movement radicalized many young people, so that the support for the radicals rose sharply at the expense of the traditional pan-democrats. On the eve of the 2014 Occupy Central, the pan-democrats knew that there were problems with the unlawful action but went away anyway. They ended losing a lot of their ground. In the 2016 September Legislative Council elections, many young traditional pan-democrats had to adopt radical positions in order to compete against the radicals.

The traditional pan-democrats are still the majority in the pro-democracy camp, but they do not have leadership position. If Carrie Lam is elected, she will find it ten times harder to reach a deal with them compared to 2010. The pan-democrats have adopted radical tendencies which will make it hard to reach a compromise with the Central Government.

For the Central Government, the Hu Jintao-Wen Jiabao era saw an economic boom. Due to the proliferation of credit and rapid growth, corruption abounded as tycoons colluded with government officials to monopolize the state economy. In 2012, Xi Jinping took over, made structural adjustments to the economy and went after corruption. The situation has improved since.

... In the face of internal and external pressures, the Central Government will take a hard line and continue on what it sees is the right course. The Hong Kong independence movement that arose out of the Occupy Central movement and its separatism theme is in violent clash with the Central Government's governance. It will be a lot harder to ask the Central Government to compromise with the pan-democrats as they did in 2011.

Political compromise means that each side has to take one step back, instead of making one side yield all the way to let the other side gain total victory. Since both sides are unwilling to make large concessions, it does not matter what the next Chief Executive (be it Carrie Lam or John Tsang) does. Unity? Better said than done.

(SCMP) Working against Lam could backfire for pan-dems. By Alex Lo. March 23, 2017.

All the opposition lawmakers who sit on the Election Committee have released a joint statement saying they oppose chief executive front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and that there is no mutual trust between the two sides.

So, assuming Lam wins on Sunday, the localists and pan-democrats have now declared they will not work with her. This is despite her offer of cooperation. Lets say she had no intention to honour her pledge. Shouldnt they at least test her first and expose her bad faith before taking the high road?

Trust is built and peace is made between enemies, not friends. It was the anti-government camp who started the ABC (Anyone but CY) campaign. They won, and Beijing decided not to shove Leung Chun-ying down Hong Kongs throat for a second term. Secretly, most of the opposition members must have felt disappointed to lose such an easy target.

Now they have to work hard to build a case that Lam is another CY. Its a complete mischaracterisation, and most of the old-hand democrats know it. Lam was on good terms with most of them throughout her civil service career especially during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003-04 and when she was head of social welfare. It was only the ill-fated government political reform package that pitted her against them. Even before the central government published the so-called 831 position paper placing restrictions on universal suffrage in 2014, the two sides were on speaking terms.

By their civil service training and temperament, Lam is much closer to election rival John Tsang Chun-wah and former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen than Leung. But the pan-dems want to make her out to be a closet dictator. They clearly plan to stymie Lam at every turn, and from the start, just as they did with Leung.

But if Lam fails over the next five years, she will be the last moderate leader the central government is willing to tolerate in Hong Kong. Beijing will not magically go democratic on us; it will simply take a hardline stance towards a troublesome city that is being overtaken by its mainland rivals and one that can be sacrificed without too high a cost.

Oh, but what if John Tsang wins? Unlikely, but then the opposition will have to turn on him and make him out to be CY3.0.

(The Stand News) 3/25 Dress Rehearsal for Umbrella Revolution 2.0. By Yeung Ke-cheong. March 22, 2017.

Yesterday the news on the Internet was that the gambling odds in mainland China and Macau have changed. In simple terms, the odds of Carrie Lam winning has increased even as John Tsang's odds are improving. I haven't looked at this in detail, because I think Carrie Lam's plans won't be affected even if she were to suddenly demand a vindication of June 4th or Hong Kong independence.

First of all, the opposition camps hopes that the Commercial sector electors will vote for John Tsang in the secret balloting. I don't think that the Commerce sector electors have individual wills. The only to change the election outcome is to have one particular person to declare what that vote should be. But if that person remains silent through election day, the Commerce sector electors will vote for Carrie Lam as ordered by Sai Wan (China Liaison Office).

Another hypothesis is that John Tsang was in fact the anointed candidate who has managed to trick the mainstream pan-democrats to back him. And when John Tsang becomes the Chief Executive to implement all the evil projects of the Chinese Communists, the pan-democrats will have no moral high ground to oppose. If this were true, Beijing should have immediately send signals to support John Tsang after Democracy 33+ said that 98% of them are voting for John Tsang. But so far this has not transpired. So I believe that there is no chance for John Tsang to reverse the odds.

Therefore, the most important thing now is now to debate whether we should support or not support this or that candidate in this small-circle election. Instead, we should think about the people of Hong Kong can resist after Carrie Lam gains control of the government apparatus.


The Civil Human Rights Front intends to hold an "anti-anointment" demonstration march on Saturday. But if only 60,000 persons participated in the Civil Referendum, it would be unrealistic to expect hundreds of thousands of people to participate in this demonstration march. Yet, even if only several thousand participate, as long as 1,000 of them are willing to block the roads and be arrested, it will be a powerful political blow. At present, the people of Hong Kong commonly harbor strong feelings against the election of Carrie Lam. But the post-Umbrella Revolution atmosphere makes it impossible to gather the popular will into large-scale resistance efforts. Yet I believe that it is still possible to find 1,000 persons can be found to block the roads with no fear of being prosecuted for unlawful assembly. If on the day when Carrie Lam is elected Chief Executive, a record 1,000 persons get arrested, it will show that she does not have the ability to unite society.

More importantly, it will be a preparation for the showdown on July 1st. On July 1st, the most senior representative Xi Jinping of the authoritarian regime will come to our city. The people of Hong Kong do not have to hold a long-term Occupy. All they have to do is to occupy all the major roads and highways on this one day, they will deal a huge blow against the authoritarian regime. Therefore if the people of Hong Kong can successfully instigate a 1,000-person Occupy movement this Saturday, it will be a rehearsal for Umbrella Revolution 2.0 on July 1st this year!


Internet comments:

- (TVB) The Civil Human Rights will hold a demonstration march from East Point Road in Causeway to the Wanchai Convention Centre at 5pm on Saturday. They will hold another demonstration march from the Wanchai Family Planning Association to the Wanchai Convention Centre at 930am on Sunday. The Civil Human Rights Front estimates that about 7,000 persons will participate. They said that they will not apply for a no-objection letter from the police, but they have notified the police of their plans.

The Civil Human Rights Front said that the demonstration will not obstruct the pro-democracy electors from voting. The Civil Human Rights Front also believes that voting for John Tsang does not imply supporting small-circle election.

- Bwahhh! My head is spinning -- participation in small-circle election does not imply support of small-circle election, just as getting married does not imply support of marriage, just as working for a company does not imply that I am an employee of that company, etc etc.

- (HKG Pao) The Civil Human Rights Front had estimated 7,000 people will be in attendance. Cable TV News reported that about 800 took part on Saturday. Wen Wei Po reported 400-500 people. Afterwards the Civil Human Rights Front said 2,000 people participated, and that numbers don't matter.

- (Speakout HK) On Sunday morning, about a couple of hundred people showed up for the Civil Human Rights Front march. When they got near the Wanchai Convention Centre, legislators Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Chi-chuen, Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick said that they wanted to enter and cast their votes and tried to lead the rest of the group to breach the police line. There was some jostling around as the police raised the Yellow Flag to warn them.

- Next Weekly has an exclusive story on Wednesday that Li Ka-shing has secretly met with John Tsang to "say that he will support him all the way." So is it entirely possible that John Tsang will in fact win in the first round? If so, will the 1,000 valiant warriors still want to block the roads and get arrested in the rehearsal for Umbrella Revolution 2.0?

- (Bastille Post) On Wednesday afternoon, the same Li Ka-shing met with the press to present the company financial results. In response to a question about the Next Weekly report, Li said: "Many people said that I have met with a certain candidate. Actually, I have been meeting most frequently with the doctor." When the Apple Daily reporter asked a question, Li interupted and said: "You better not make up more rumors. You said that I have been holding meetings with Mr. Tsang. Actually I have been visiting the doctor (for treatment of intestinal flu)."

Later on Li Ka-shing said that although popular opinion is important, the ability to work with the Central Government is also very important. He emphasized repeatedly that he attaches a great deal of importance on the ability to cooperate with the Central Government, and he will vote for the candidate who can communicate with, work with and be trusted by the Central Government.

There should be no doubt given the vehement denial of the Next Weekly report and the repeated emphasis on gaining the trust of the Central Government that Li supports Carrie Lam.

- (SCMP) March 23, 2017. In ancient Chinese mythology, there was a goddess who patched the sky with coloured stones. I believe that many things can be achieved through peoples efforts, Li Ka-shing said, referring to the fable of Nu Wa.

Could John Tsang be the second coming of the female goddess Nu Wa?

- (SCMP) March 23, 2017. Li Ka-shing, who will turn 90 next year, became emotional at the press conference as he talked about the citys waning competitiveness. I love Hong Kong ... We used to be proud of Hong Kong but today our GDP growth has slowed down to around 2 per cent. Why cant we do better? he said. He went on to criticise pan-democrats for blocking the Beijing-decreed political reform proposal in 2015. We could have had one person, one vote offered by the central government ... but that was sabotaged, he said, adding the culprits were seldom blamed for that. Li later denied he had cried, saying he had flu.

- Why run Umbrella Revolution 2.0 if you don't know what went wrong with Umbrella Revolution 1.0? Of course, you can be a denialist and insist that everything went according to plan in Umbrella Revolution 1.0. But did you get your 'original intention' as in 'genuine universal suffrage' (in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination)? Even you have to admit that you didn't because you are still marching against small-circle election by 1,200 electors this weekend.

Why did Umbrella Revolution 1.0 fail? Until you can answer that question, you are going to running Umbrella 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 ad infinitum with the same non-result.

- Why did Umbrella Revolution 1.0 fail? Because it is hostage-taking and therefore lack public support. Rather than challenge the Chief Executive or the Central Government directly, the Umbrella Revolutionaries blocked the streets and inconvenienced regular citizens from going about. This is like the Achille Lauro hijacking. You turn friends into foes.

- Yeung Ke-cheong is addressing his appeal for 1,000 fearless valiant occupiers to the students at the 14 universities and tertiary education institutions. This comes right after Hong Kong Univesity student Hui Ka-ki being sentenced to 3 years for participation in the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day 2016. The criminal record means that she will never be able to work as a lawyer, accountant, teacher, etc or even immigrate to certain countries. So that must be on the minds of any potential participation of the 1,000-mass-arrest project of Yeung Ke-cheong.

- You say that you are only going to take part in a peaceful non-violent civil-disobedience sit-down? Well, if some guy in the rear throws a brick and hits the police superintendent on the head, all hell is going to break loose. You turn around to leave and you get tackled by the police. You are charged with rioting (note: you don't have to throw a brick yourself; you only have to be in a group in which someone breached the peace) and you get sentenced to three years in prison. There goes the entire future of you and your family.

(SCMP) March 20, 2017.

The two front runners in Hong Kongs leadership race shied away from stating their positions over vindication of the Tiananmen Square crackdown of 1989 as they were publicly grilled for the first time by members of the committee that will pick the citys chief executive next Sunday.

Sunday nights 2 hour election debate saw testy exchanges between Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and John Tsang Chun-wah: Lam mocked Tsang for his laid-back working style, while the latter put her in the category of politicians who think saying is achieving.

The showdown at the AsiaWorld-Expo on Lantau Island between the two front runners and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing was organised by a group of Election Committee members from across the political spectrum. Asked about Beijings crackdown on the student-led pro-democracy movement, which remains a highly contentious subject in the city, Tsang gave a meandering answer, saying some time in the future we can see the issue being dealt with [by Beijing]. Lam said the incident was saddening, adding: History will have its judgment.

Lam, the former No 2 official seen as Beijings preferred candidate, appeared to be restrained and respectful at first, but returned to the combative style she displayed in previous debates when she was asked to rate Tsangs performance when they were both serving in the government.

Lam, also a former development minister, was dripping sarcasm as she recalled a meeting with Tsang when he was the financial secretary: When I went to Johns office for a meeting, I saw that there was no file, no paper on his desk. I admired him much. My desk was always full of files and documents.

Tsang retorted: I always believe that, apart from working hard, we need to work smart. If she can take up all the tasks, shes a good employee, not a leader.

When it came to the issue of Hong Kongs stalled political reform process, Lam reiterated that she had been sincere in resolving the deadlock during the Occupy protests of 2014. That was Woos chance to pounce: Lam was the head of the governments task force on political reform but she failed the exercise and that led to the Occupy protests. Restarting the process is not even in her manifesto. Some politicians would think saying is achieving, Tsang added, referring to Lams undelivered promise to set up a multi-side platform for society to discuss democratic development.

Tsang, the popular underdog next to Lam, resorted to humour when taking a question from the floor about Lams refusal to travel to Tin Shui Wai to meet grassroots families because it was too far away. Actually it wasnt that far away, just some 30 minutes by car from Wan Chai, he said. Lam said, I am sorry that I could not go to Tin Shui Wai ... But I have proposals for the lower class.

Tsang was forced to back down on the controversy over his perceived sympathy for those who launched personal attacks against actress Josephine Siao for supporting Lam. Such cyberbullying is not acceptable. We have to respect others and we have to respect ourselves [when expressing views], Tsang conceded.

Lam avoided repeating the gaffes that raised eyebrows in the last election debate, such as her offer to resign if mainstream opinion makes me no longer able to continue as chief executive.

The debate got off to a noisy start with a partisan audience. As Woo was about to make his opening remarks, four pro-democracy activists marched to the front of the stage, chanting,We want genuine universal suffrage and waving placards that read Support civil nomination and We want universal pension. They were quickly ushered away.

Some 507 of the 1,194 election committee members attended the forum. Among them, 189 members filed questions. Most of the 21 questions selected were from pan-democrats. The second part of the debate featured questions from the public. Organisers said they had received 1,326 questions from public.

In her closing remarks, Lam said: Carrie Lam today is still Carrie Lam of yesterday. The difference is that she is now more humble. And she said: If I am elected, I will achieve the vision of the old and the young. Please vote for me next Sunday.

Tsang said: Five years on, the rift in the society has deepened, the government is not supported by the people, and governance is difficult. Hongkongers want to see a bit of change. They yearn for a change in the social atmosphere, which they wont feel tiring or even suffocating, he added.

Woo continued his attack on Lam in his final remarks, he said fake consultation had been Lams strength. And he criticised Tsang and Lam for passing the buck on this issue. HKs problem is not that it doesnt have money, but that the person in charge does not have a heart, he said.

(The Standard) March 19, 2017.

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor pronounced last night "I am ready" to become chief executive - but bitter rival John Tsang Chun-wah mocked her saying she would be a "three-low" CE with low popularity, low energy and low legitimacy.

Lam, Tsang and the third contender in the CE race, Woo Kwok-hing, debated in the last election forum before next Sunday's poll of the 1,194-strong Election Committee in a two-and half- hour event organized by EC members at the AsiaWorld-Expo. But only 507 committee members attended. From the outset, the pan- democrats appeared to outnumber pro- establishment members, which was reflected in the questions fired at Lam.

In her opening speech, Lam said that what she called "malicious criticisms and unreasonable blaming" could not dampen her will in the race. "I am ready," she declared to both boos and applause.

Social welfare subsector elector Pang Lok-yan expressed regret at Lam missing a meeting with grassroot residents in Tin Shui Wai on Saturday. Lam apologized again, blaming "arrangement mistakes" for her absence - and mocked an unnamed former colleague for not visiting the community. "We demanded incumbent officials visit communities, and no police were arranged. However, an unorthodox colleague never participated in the visits or had contact with citizens," Lam said, implying it was former financial secretary Tsang. Woo said he went to Tin Shui Wai once he was invited, and said he never called police to protect him, "but wherever Lam goes, 100 or 200 [officers] surround her." Tsang also said he went to Tin Shui Wai on March 8. "The journey is not that long. It just took me half an hour to go there from Wan Chai." "Every time I visit the community I use the least number of police," Tsang said. "If there are too many officers, you can't listen to citizens."

Chik Nga-yin from the health services subsector interrogated Lam about the promises she made to the Federation of Students during the Occupy movement, especially the "multilateral platform" for different parties. "All of you know what happened to Admiralty after that," Lam said, drawing another round of boos. Woo said, as the leader of the three- person team on political reform, Lam's failure gave rise to Occupy. "Her platform said it would need to wait until the social environment was suitable for political reform. How can she? No one agrees with [Beijing's] August 31 framework." Tsang said : "There are many examples of Mrs Lam's policies that were left unfinished."

As examples, he cited tackling illegal structures on village houses and the reconstruction of the Avenue of Stars, as well as what he called the "black-box operation" of the Palace Museum at West Kowloon.

Elector Ng Kwok-yan from the higher education subsector brought up Lam's comment that she would resign if mainstream opinion was against her. Lam explained: "The chief executive has to listen to public opinion carefully, and turn the opinion into actual work." But Tsang countered: "It's unprecedented that a chief executive has a negative approval rating before she assumes office. We can foresee a CE with low popularity, low energy and low acceptance - three lows - leading a three-low- government. The next five years will be tough." Woo said that Lam's clarification of her "I will resign" the following day should teach her to speak carefully, saying: "If I were the judge, I would consider her a dishonest witness."

Lam used up all her allocated time to talk about how many of her old colleagues had joined her campaign office, but her strategy was criticized by medical subsector elector Kwong Po-yin. "You are just burning up all your time available so that you don't need to answer questions," Kwong said.

Elector Wilfred Wong Ying-wai said 507 people joined the forum but there was no breakdown on which camp they belonged to.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) At the Election Committee forum, the three candidates John Tsang, Carrie Lam and Woo Kwok Hing were to answer questions from the Electors and the general public. Although I hoped that this would be better than the electronic media forum, with many policy issues such as the housing prices, this turned out to be more like a low-quality quarrel.

Most of the Election Committee questions came from pan-democrats that were deliberately politicized and targeted against Carrie Lam. When she answered, John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing took turns to tear at her.

Finally Catering sector elector Wong Kit-lung couldn't stand it and raised his question this way: "The mutual acrimony in this debate was unbearable to watch. Can Carrie Lam and John Tsang tell us how they appreciate and thank each other as former colleagues."

Carrie Lam said that they both came from the same system and this election is a competition between gentleman/gentlewoman. She only wants to do her job and she will not manufactures a lot of rumors. Nevertheless there have been many rumros against her. She said that when she was the Secretary for Development, she reported to Financial Secretary John Tsang. When she went to her room, she found that there was nothing on her his desk. She was jealous because she had to read many documents herself in preparation for her work.

John Tsang responded that, being a colleague of Carrie Lam for many years, he knows how she works. However, Lam does not know him. He wants to work hard and he also wants to work smart. He said that when Carrie Lam resigned, she said that she would apologize to any colleague who was unhappy about what she had done. "I understand why she should complain. Actually many people hold opinions against her. I have more than a dozen colleagues helping me in my election campaign. I don't think that she has any. A person needs to attract others to help you. You cannot do everything yourself. That would not be a leader."

Carrie Lam responded that it was unfair to her election campaign team for John Tsang to say that no government colleague would help her. She listed several former senior government officials who are helping her. She said that there was a dinner group of Administrative Officers at which both she and John Tsang were core members. But she did not want to create schism within this group, so she did not ask any of these people to help her.

John Tsang replied that Carrie Lam were naming retired senior government officials helping her, whereas he was talking about people who actually go into the local communities to help him.

After listening to this for a while, I feel that I really don't care about how who is helping who. Perhaps this is good for the electors who are mostly politician-types, but I would have preferred to hear them talk about things that citizens care about, such as the housing prices.

- RTHK: John Tsang says to not just 'work hard' but to 'work hard.' One should frequently think about the smartest method to do something ... he said that a person who can do everything himself is a good employee, but he is not a good leader.

- Ko Chi-sum: A person who is smart but does not want to work hard is an underachieving 'slacker'; a person who cannot complete his job is not a good employee, much less a good leader.

21 questions were randomly selected from the Election Committee members.
19 came from pan-democratic electors
2 came from pro-establishment electors
This Election Committee members was either A Struggle Session Against Carrie Lam or A Rally Session For John Tsang
There was not even a remote hint of democracy, just the Hegemony of Democracy
The pan-democratic Election Committee members received the order from the boss to launch an all-out attack on Carrie Lam in order to cover up the inadequacies of John Tsang
#The questions were screened
#The questioners were pan-democrats

There were 21 questions, of which 19 came from pan-democratic electors
There are 326 pan-democrats out of 1,194 electors.
According to Vassar Stats, the probability of this happening (binomial model with n-21, k=19, p=326/1194) is 0.000000002232. Although this probability is even less likely than being attacked by a shark; hit by a comet or asteroid; struck by lightning; win a Powerball jackpot; injured by an exploding toilet seat ... it is greater than zero and therefore it still might happen.

- If this is not an accident, then it was by design. How so? (Ming Pao) March 21, 2017.

#1. The host Tse Chi-fung colluded with the pan-democrats to get them to fold the corner of their question forms for him to pick. Afterwards, the papers were checked and 80% of them have folded corners.

#2. Someone tampered with the question forms? The person in charge of collecting and watching over the question forms was pro-establishment Lam Suen-Mo.

#3. The electors didn't know how to fill out a question form? When the electors entered the conference room, they were reminded that they can fill out question forms -- only their names and sub-sectors are required, and the question itself does not have to written down. So they couldn't find it too hard to understand.

#4. The pan-democratic camp mobilized but the pro-establishment camp did not? This is not known.

#5. The pro-establishment camp supported Carrie Lam silently? The more active electors are from the professional and political sub-sectors, whereas Carrie Lam's mainstay is in the Commercial and Industrial sub-sectors where the tycoons don't like filling out forms.

#6. Is it possible to review the question forms later? Yes, they were locked in a safe afterwards. If the organizing committee wishes, they can review the question forms.

- This is the last of the Chief Executive election forums. Woo Kwok Hing has fulfilled his historical mission and can now fade away. The Civic Party, the Democratic Party and the Professional Teachers Union have announced that all their votes will go to John Tsang. Previously the Civic Party had nominated Woo Kwok Hing, but he is now discarded just like the piece of toilet paper that you discard after wiping your arse.

What was his mission? It is counted by the minutes. If John Tsang and Carrie Lam were the only candidates, they would have shared equal time at the forums. With three candidates, they still shared three candidates, except two of the 'pro-democracy' candidates are ganging up on the third candidate. The number of minutes is now divided as 2:1.

The pan-democrats only had 327 votes on the Election Committee with 150 required for nomination. If they had 450 votes on hand, they would have nominated three candidates so that the number of minutes will be split as 3:1.

- (SCMP) Tsangs performance won a clear lead of support over Lam, according to a poll. Some 62 per cent of 717 respondents told HKUs public opinion programme that, if eligible to vote, they would vote for Tsang tomorrow after watching the debate, against 24 per cent for Lam.

- How can they conduct an instant poll so quickly? Let's check their methodology? (HKU POP) March 19, 2017.

There are two types of respondents, type 1 being citizens randomly selected by telephone survey during the forum, type 2 being citizens sampled before the forum and agreed to participate in the survey. Both types of citizens answered exactly the same questions, while the latter could choose to answer multiple times, in order to allow us analyse peoples response over different time periods.

Target population: Hong Kong citizens aged 18 or above who have listened or watched the CE Election forum

Sample size: 717 successful cases (type 1 sub-sample: 353; type 2 sub-sample: 364)

There are too many technical problems to enumerate here. As one example, when you make an appointment with a Type 2 respondent, you have effectively changed that person's behavior. Instead of going out to watch a movie, they stay home and watch the forum broadcast closely. As another example, you start calling Type 1 respondents when the forum starts at 7pm. At 7:01pm, you have reached the first respondent. Are you really going to ask for an opinion? But if you wait until the forum ends after some time after 9pm, it will be too late to call people.

- Here is an online poll at the Hong Kong Discussion Forum for the Electronic Media Forum held last week:

Whose performance were you most satisfied with?
39.8%: Carrie Lam
38.9%: John Tsang
16.9%: Woo Kwok Hing
 4.3%: None of the above
(Based: 5,432 persons)

This is just as useless as the HKU-POP poll. For further discussion of technical issues, see Pew Research Center.

- Here is an even more useless instant poll from pro-establishment HKG Pao. Who do the Leon Lai fans think is the greatest singer on the planet?
Who had the best performance at the Chief Executive election forum?
John Tsang: 247 votes
Carrie Lam: 2351 votes
Woo Kwok Hing: 33 votes

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 10, 2017.

A pro-democracy civil group has launched an unofficial referendum for the chief executive election to encourage electors to vote for candidates backed by the wider public. The public can vote using messaging app Telegram between Friday noon and March 19, or at three polling stations set up at universities on March 12 and 19. The project organised by the Citizens United in Action and led by law professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting aims at attracting over a million participants.

Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. The final result for each candidate will be counted by deducting objection and abstain votes from support votes of each candidate.

There is a reason to look at the net support rate we hope the new chief executive can mend the split in society, said legal sector elector Eric Cheung Tat-ming. If there is a candidate who, from a million voters, got 900,000 objection votes I believe this message may affect the central government or the pro-Beijing camp electors they would have to think about it again.

The poll also asks participants to answer if they support or oppose the existing model of electing the chief executive.

Cheung said if the number of participants was lower than a million, professionals from the University of Hong Kongs Public Opinion Programme and the Polytechnic Universitys Centre for Social Policy Studies will analysis the result to see how representative the poll was.

In 2012, a similar poll attracted 200,000 voters. The most popular option was abstention, which beat all three candidates. In 2014, a poll on political reform proposals had 800,000 participants.

The current project is also seeking to crowdfund HK$1.5 million to cover costs. It had received 32 per cent of the goal as of Friday.

The three polling stations:

University of Hong Kong student union near Haking Wong Building: March 12 and 19 between 10:30am and 10:30pm
Polytechnic University V109-111: March 12 and 19 between 10:30am and 10:30pm
Chinese University Yasumoto International Academic Park: March 12 between 10:30am and 6pm

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 14, 2017.

Frontline Tech Workers, a group of pro-democracy IT professionals, urged users not to use their number if it is used for confidential matters. Even if their number is not being used for confidential matters, the group urged users to temporarily suspend two-step verification when using the platform so that they would not need to give up their password. The group warned that if the system was being attacked, hackers may be able to obtain the verification codes and passwords for the Telegram accounts, and gain access to them. The system also did not automatically log users out of their Telegram sessions after they completed the nomination process. The function was added following criticism.

On Monday, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement saying that there is a lack of transparency in setting out the details and objectives for the collection of personal data. It does not, in particular, state the differences in mechanism and procedures between the activities and what have been stipulated in existing laws, thereby misleading members of the public and prejudicing the public interest, it read. The PCPD strongly requests the relevant organisations to stop collecting personal data unfairly and the use of the related Telegram in the activities. Individuals should fully understand the privacy risks involved and consequences before participating. The PCPD has initiated compliance check for the case.

In response, Citizens United in Action said in a statement: Although we have confidence in the security of our system, to reduce confusion among members of the public, we will suspend the nomination collection on PopVote. It said it will reopen the system only after the group contacts the commissioner to explain how they use collected data and understand the demands of the commissioner. The group apologised for any inconvenience caused.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 13, 2017.

The Polytechnic University has banned the operation of a polling station for the unofficial leadership election civil referendum on its campus. Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a University of Hong Kong law professor and one of the organisers of the poll, said Polytechnic University staff told its student union that they had no right to borrow a venue for other organisations. He said they pressured students, saying that there may be consequences. Tai said the organiser decided to cancel the station in order to avoid more unnecessary pressure upon students.

Tai said the reason for barring the use of the venue was strange considering that the polling stations at the other two universities were booked by their student unions. He said in the past similar civil polls have been conducted at the university in a smooth manner: Why is it problematic this time? The management of the Polytechnic University should explain.

The university said the organisers did not notify the school ahead of the event and stated that the student union and its affiliates can only book venues for events serving the universitys students. It added that it has communicated with the Centre for Social Policy Studies, saying that outside organisations borrowing venues would only be approved if the events were related to teaching and research.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 18, 2017.

Law professor Benny Tai appealed to the public on Friday to participate in the unofficial referendum on the chief executive election, two days before the campaign is scheduled to end. Over 42,000 people have joined the poll so far, according to the campaigns polling website. Tai, one of the poll organisers, said earlier that the project aims at attracting over a million participants.

Tai said at a media session on Friday that the low turnout might be explained by a number of factors, such as the shutting of the polling station at the Polytechnic University. He said people might also be concerned about online security, after some tech experts alleged that the campaigns previous online platform might have security loopholes. But Tai said the polling website is now safe to use.

Another reason for non-participation may be that some people do not support any of the candidates, Tai said. But our poll allows people to indicate opposition against each candidate, he said. If many people oppose a candidate, that would show the candidates lack of a democratic basis. It would help society campaign against that person in the future.

The professor said the polling exercise would also influence the voting decisions of some Election Committee members, who will be casting their ballots next Sunday. Among the 325 pro-democracy electors, 48 have promised to be bound by the unofficial referendum results and vote for the most popular candidate. The results will also serve as key reference to around 200 electors, Tai added.

If a lot of people participate, maybe even pro-establishment electors will reference the figures, he said. The actual election is very competitive and the candidates could be just a dozen votes apart. But no matter what the turnout is, Tai added, we will keep mobilising society and using our collective creativity to promote the democracy movement, until we attain genuine universal suffrage.

(SCMP) March 19, 2017.

Chief executive candidate John Tsang Chun-wah was backed by 91.9 per cent of the votes in a mock ballot for the citys next leader, as those who do not have a say in the coming chief executive election got a last chance to cast their unofficial votes.

About 65,000 people had voted as the mock ballot closed on Sunday night, with 96.1 per cent of respondents also saying they opposed contender Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. The number of votes was far short of the one million target set by organiser Citizens United in Action, led by Occupy Central founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting, since the exercise was launched on March 10.

Dr Chung Kim-wah, a political scientist at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, believed the votes against front runner Carrie Lam would put pressure on the new administration. There would be no honeymoon for the new government, if Lam gets elected.

Meanwhile, Hong Kongs privacy watchdog on Sunday again warned of a security loophole in the mock ballot system. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data said it had preliminarily established that the organiser, when collecting voters personal data, had breached information security practices, after consulting related computer security experts and other professional organisations. [The office] has immediately asked the event organiser for an explanation, the office said. If [personal] information leaks, the organiser needs to be responsible for this.

Internet comments:

- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. According to the Census and Statistics Department, the population of Hong Kong is 7,374,900. The 59,878 persons who voted in the Civil Referendum is 0.81% of the population. The pan-democrats took away the chance for one-person-one-vote, and now they want 0.81% to represent the 7.3 million. What kind of democracy is this? Who do you represent when you so decide?

In 2014, there was a spontaneously organized "Preserve Universal Suffrage, Oppose Occupy Central Grand Alliance" to gather signatures in the street. Over nine days, 1.82 million signatures were collected. This is the largest expression of public opinion in the history of Hong Kong, in which citizens wrote down their Hong Kong ID numbers and signed. The opposition scoffed and said the signatures were faked, unreliable, untrustworthy, and destined for the recycling bin.

By contrast, the 0.81% online voters are faceless entities who are making the Electors cast their votes for John Tsang. The opinion of the other 99.19% is irrelevant.

- (RTHK) 63,076 persons voted at the PopVote website, and another 1,829 voted at the street booths of March 18, 2017. The total number so far is 63,076 + 1,829 = 64,905. Missing is the number of physical notes on March 19, 2017.

Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. There are two summary statistics for the candidates.

(1) Support rate
92% support John Tsang
27% support Woo Kwok Hing
 1.5% support Carrie Lam

(2) Net support rate (= Support rate - Objection rate)
+87% net support John Tsang
-12% net support Woo Kwok Hing
-94% net support Carrie Lam

(HKU POP) Final results of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum:

Off-site voting: 61,268 electronic votes minus 38 eliminated votes

Polling stations: 3,878 electronic votes minus 2 eliminated votes.

Grand total = 65,106 plus 86 paper ballots

(1) Support/oppose/abstention

#1. John Tsang: 91.9% support, 4.2% oppose, 3.9% abstention, net support = 91.8% - 4.2% = 87.7%

#2. Carrie Lam: 1.5% support, 96.4% oppose, 2.2% abstention, net support = 1.5% - 96.4% = -94.5%

#3. Woo Kwok Hing: 27.2% support, 39.9% oppose, 33.0% abstention, net support - 27.1% - 39.4% = 12.3%

(2) Do you support or oppose existing method of electing the Chief Executive?
 2.2% support
94.3% oppose
 3.5% abstain
Net support = 2.3% - 94.1% = -91.8%.

- Question: If you hate it so much, why did you vote to keep it? Why didn't you vote for one-person-one-vote instead when offered to you? Li Ka-shing said that he wants to know who caused this to happen. Well, it's the 28 pan-democratic legislators who vetoed the constitutional reform bill. They are reaping what they sowed.

- Here is the "I am a genius" hindsight:

(#701 March 15, 2017) At this rate, PopVote will probably end up with something less than 100,000 votes with something like 98% approval for John Tsang, 30% approval for Woo Kwok-hing and less than 1% approval for Carrie Lam. Such results won't be accepted as legitimately reflecting the will of the people of Hong Kong.

-  No, buddy,  you were not perfect. You thought that non-Yellow Ribbons would never participate in this, which is why you estimated that Carrie Lam would get less than 1%. The actual number was 1.5%. There are Blue Ribbon fools who actually participated in this exercise because they want to help Carrie Lam!

- (RTHK) Even HKU-POP director Robert Chung agreed: "It is rare to see the net support rates of the two candidates differ by so much. Those who voted in the Civil Referendum were relatively opinionated, and do not necessarily represent the citizens as a whole."

- To show you how hard this was, that sort of consistent agreement don't even exist within many households! For example, the father supports Carrie Lam while the son supports John Tsang. What happened was the son voted for John Tsang at PopVote while the father completely ignored PopVote.

- Well, if Adolf Hitler were to come out to run for election in Germany again, I bet that he will get better than a -94% net support rate!

- This is like holding the best singer voting among Leon Lai fans. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.

- (RTHK) IT sector legislator councilor/elector Charles Mok said that the Civil Referendum has a certain degree of representativeness. He said that if you trust the results and obviously trend and you consult the many other public opinion polls conducted by the universities, there is sufficient information to make a decision.

- Charles Mok is right. The 60,000 voters have a certain degree of representativeness -- namely, they represent themselves.

- (BBC) June 30, 2014.

A total of 792,808 voters took part in an unofficial referendum on universal suffrage in Hong Kong, organisers said. The 10-day poll was held by protest group Occupy Central. Campaigners want the public to be able to elect Hong Kong's leader, the chief executive. The Hong Kong government says the vote has no legal standing.

The voting, in polling stations or on the popvote.hk website, began on 20 June. The deadline was originally set for 22 June, but was later extended after what organisers claimed were several cyber attacks on the website. Popvote.hk was designed by the University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic University to measure support for Occupy Central's campaign.

What did they do to drive the number of participants down from 800,000 to 65,000?

- I know the answer: "It is always somebody else's fault."

- How did Benny Tai come up with a goal of 1,000,000 votes this time? He thought that if he can get 800,000 in June 2014, then he should be able to get 1,000,000 this time. Democracy is on the march, freedom is on the rise, etc. His self-esteem makes him think that Occupy Central is wildly popular. It is not. 79 days of hell of earth and not a single accomplishment to show.

- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. On September 28, 2014, the opposition said that 200,000 persons came out to paralyze admiralty. More than two years later, all they could do was to obtain 60,000+ signatures from faceless entities. What happened to the other 140,000 Yellow Ribbon diehards?

The Civil Referendum project needed to raise $1.5 million through crowdfunding. So far they have raised $600,000. That seems a lot until you realized that $600,000 divided by 60,000 is $10 per person. Brother, can you really not spare a dime?

- You really don't get it, do you? The purpose of this whole exercise was never to run a civil referendum either as a guidance for the Election Committee members or an expression of the popular will of the people of Hong Kong. It was this:

The true purpose is one of two things, or both things. Firstly, it was to get people to part with their money (to the tune of $1.5 million) in order to support getting the 1,000,000 votes. Secondly, it was to use the crowdfunding to launder money from the big-money kind-hearted anonymous donor behind the curtain.

- Either they raised the $1.5 million or they didn't. If they did, how do they account for their inability to deliver anything close to the 1,000,000 votes? If they didn't, how do they explain the deficit gap was closed? Of course, you shouldn't lose any sleep over this, because the answer resides in the same black hole as Benny Tai's Occupy Central accounting ledger.

- If it costs $1.5 million to handle 1,000,000 votes, how much did it cost to handle 65,000 votes? Not as much. What happens to the leftover money? Benny Tai will 'pocket it temporarily' until the next big civil referendum project.

- They are blaming their inability to reach 1,000,000 on the usual suspects:

  • The Central Government/China Liaison Office ordered their minions not to participate;
  • Polytechnic University banned the polling station from campus;
  • DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks on the PopVote server;
  • Political interference by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data;
  • Unfounded rumors about the personal data being publicly available on the Internet;
  • Popular despair at a rigged election;

- In defense of the validity of 65,000+ number of votes, Yellow Ribbons are saying that most public opinion polls have sample sizes of only about 1,000, whether in Hong Kong or the United States (see the Gallup polls). If 1,000 is good enough, then 65,000 must be better. Right?

Wrong! The Gallup samples are drawn from the population in a random manner such that they are representative. The PopVote voters are not a random sample from the population at large, because of self-selection bias:  individuals select themselves into a group, causing a biased sample with nonprobability sampling.

Meanwhile, the PopVote polling stations are subjected to selection bias, because the organizers chose three university campuses: Hong Kong University, Polytechnic University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. When the Polytechnic University station was shut down, they used the Professional Teachers Union office. And on the last day, they used a scattered locations manned by political parties. What sort of person is going to vote there? Why didn't they go to Golden Plaza (Sham Shiu Po) to sample other people?

- I was at Tai Koo Shing on Sunday, and I saw this Civic Party legislator canvassing votes with the chant: "Vote here if you want to stop CY 2.0." What kind of people do you think will vote?

- The oddest part is the role of the Democratic Party/Civic Party. On March 19, they manned a number of polling stations (see PopVote). But before the day was over and the results were published, the Democratic Party, the Civic Party and the Professional Teachers Union had already announced that they would cast all their votes for John Tsang. What was the point? Did they get a private preview of the results beforehand?

- It all loops back to the August 31st framework for constitutional reform.

Why do we have to resort to holding a civil referendum? Why can't we just have one-person-one-vote? Because the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform bill in 2015.

Why do not trust the election results? Because the Election Committee does not fairly and equally represent the people of Hong Kong. Why not? Because the pan-democrats vetoed the constitutional reform bill in 2015.

- If we enacted the August 31st framework, we would have one-person-one-vote. There wouldn't be any need for a civil referendum -- we can just go down to the polling stations and vote on March 26th.

- There are 3.8 million registered voters in Hong Kong. Even if all of them voted in this civil referendum, it would mean nothing because the pan-democrats decided once upon a time that the best thing was to let the 1,200-person Election Committee have the vote.

- "Participants can give a support, objection or abstain vote towards three candidates: Carrie Lam, John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. The final result for each candidate will be counted by deducting objection and abstain votes from support votes of each candidate."

Why did PopVote ask the survey question this way? Because the whole exercise was rigged to inflict maximum damage on Carrie Lam.

Most election-related surveys would ask a question such as: "If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow and you have the right to vote, whom would you vote for? John Tsang, Carrie Lam, Woo Kwok Hing or None-of-the-above (=abstain)? (Choose one answer only)".

The likely answer would be something like: John Tsang 43%, Carrie Lam 37%, Woo Kwok Hing 10%, Abstain 10%. This is not going to give a clear mandate for John Tsang.

However, it was noted that John Tsang supporters really hate Carrie Lam, because the main reasons for supporting John Tsang were not because his policies were aligned with the pan-democrats but because of "John Tsang is the Lesser Evil," "Stop CY 2.0," "Stop Social Rift 2.0," "Slap The Bitch Nurse Amah Down", etc. Meanwhile Carrie Lam supporters don't harbor many personal feelings against John Tsang.

So using "net support rate" as the metric will inflict maximum damage on Carrie Lam. Of course, many people realized this either from the identities of those involved in the operation (Benny Tai, Eric Cheung, etc) or the choice of survey questions, so they refused to participate.

Everything worked in favor of the design, but they were too successful, to the point where the survey has zero credibility now. How can Carrie Lam have a 40% support rate in public opinion polls but end up with a -94% net support rate in PopVote?

- (HKG Pao) March 19, 2017.

The gold standard for examining presidential job approval is (Gallup) "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [president's name] is handling his job as president?' (Gallup) Here are the approval rates from Harry S. Truman all the way through Donald Trump using the same question wording.

Do you think that they would ask the same question in Hong Kong? No. Instead they ask:

Please use a scale of 0-100 to rate your extent of support to the Chief Executive [name], with 0 indicating absolutely not supportive, 100 indicating absolutely supportive and 50 indicating half-half.
How would you rate the Chief Executive Leung Chun-Ying?

Don't know him
Don't know
Refuse to answer

Then the arithmetic average value is reported as the 'rating of the Chief Executive.'

What is the difference? There are very few people who give a rating of 100 to CY Leung but there are many more who give a rating of 0. So using arithmetic mean instead of "Approve/disapprove" will drive the number down to make CY Leung a miserable failure.

In the United States, it would have been the same thing with Barack Obama. Very few people would consider him to be the perfect president with a 100 score. Many more people would give a 0 score to this Black Muslim Kenya-born illegitimate president.

If you take the raw data from HKU-POP and recode the data as "rating of 0-49" = "disapprove" and "rating of 50-100" as "approve", you will find CY Leung has about the same approval levels as Barack Obama.

Using a numerical rating as the approval/disapproval metric is undemocratic. It allows the extremists to have greater impact on the outcome, whereas the simple YES/NO question gives everybody the same weight.

Can you imagine an election in which each person is handed one hundred ballots to cast in any proportion among the candidates? There is a reason why it is not done anywhere in the world -- except Hong Kong.

- Hopefully this Civil Referendum will prove to be the ultimate referendum killer. Who dares to start yet another civil referendum with a multi-million-dollar crowdfunding goal to obtain useless results?

(Oriental Daily) March 17, 2017.

Beginning on Monday, the Hong Kong Police received threatening emails.

On March 13, the message was: I know that  there may be a bomb anytime near a police station. IP host address: Texas, USA

On March 14, the message was: Be careful! There may be a bomb anytime near a police station, because the police are too bad. IP host address: Massachusetts, USA

On March 15, the message was: So the police was so fucking useless. They are turtles hiding inside their shells. Gutless. They are better off dead. They can't even solve one case. IP host address: Singapore

On March 16, the message was: There may be a bomb at some police station on Saturday. Because the police are so bad, they must receive a lesson.

According to an internal police whatsapp message, "Everybody has been notified by email that someone has claimed to place a bomb at a police station. No target was explicitly given. The PSUC members have been told to pay attention to suspicious objects and persons."

(Oriental Daily with video) March 18, 2017.

The Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau (CSTCB) took over the investigation of the email bombs threats. The Hong Kong Police clarified that the perpetrator was not  using email; instead they were leaving messages at the electronic reporting service at the Hong Kong Police website.

Early morning today, the police arrested a 24-year-old woman named Wong at an apartment on Woosung Street, Yau Ma Ti district, Kowloon on suspicion of issuing bomb hoaxes. During the action, the police took away one mobile phone, one computer and one router. The police have not discovered any explosive equipment.

Internet comments:

- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance Section 28 Bomb hoaxes

(1) Any person who

(a) places any article or substance in any place whatever; or
(b )dispatches any article or substance by post, rail, sea, air or any other means whatever of sending things from one place to another,

with the intention of inducing some other person to believe that it is likely to explode or ignite and thereby cause personal injury or damage to property shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing him or any other person to believe that a bomb or other article, substance or thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) For a person to be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) it shall not be necessary for him to have any particular person in mind as the person in whom he intends to induce the belief mentioned in those subsections.

(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of $150,000 and to imprisonment for 5 years.

- Don't count on Ms. Wong being convicted. There was a precedent during Occupy Central -- when two people live in the same apartment, which one sent the email bomb threat? Because the prosecution had no conclusive proof one way or the other, the defendant got the benefit of doubt and was freed. Let us hope that Ms. Wong does not live by herself.

- Ms. Wong must think that she is a computer genius because she can use a proxy service to fake the IP host as Texas, Massachusetts or Singapore at will. Unfortunately, the police can ask the proxy service to provide the real IP address and then ask the Internet Service Provider to provide the exact physical geographical address. Given that the police found only one mobile phone, one computer and one router, Ms. Wong must be the sole user at that address. All in all, she is in deep trouble now.

- A real computer genius would have gone down to Apliu Street, Sham Shiu Po district, Kowloon to buy a second-hand mobile phone and a prepaid phone card to be destroyed/discarded immediately after use in a back alley with no surveillance camera or in the toilet partition of a large shopping mall.

- I suspect that the first line of defense would be that some unknown hacker broke into her computer system and sent all those messages.

- According to Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous), we should not be thinking about Ms. Wong or what she did. Instead, we should be reflecting deeply on the faults of this government that are forcing people like Ms. Wong to take such desperate measures.

- According to unconfirmed rumors, Ms. Wong held a grudge about the police because of how they handled a case in which she was the victim.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 19, 2017. At around 7pm on Mrach 17, the police received information about a claim that bombs have been placed at Government Headquarters in Admiralty and the Sogo Department Store in Causeway Bay to be detonated at 930pm. The police dispatched officers to the locations and conducted searches. In order to avoid public panic, the bomb squads were not immediately dispatched. The police were unable to find anything.

- The police were negligent when they refuse to send in the bomb squads. If the bombs actually exploded, what excuse will they have? They should have shut down Admiralty and Causeway Bay until after 930pm.

- The police should reflect on their regular conduct to see what they done to deserve bomb hoaxes. The intended victims should do so as well. While we know that the Hong Kong Communist Government is the target of valiant resistance, the role of Sogo has been underrates previously and merits re-evaluation. On one hand, Sogo is a magnet for mainland tourist shoppers, and its total destruction could deter mainlanders from coming to Hong Kong. On the other hand, Sogo was a famous Japanese department store. If the independent Hong Kong Nation is going to need Japanese military intervention to defend itself against China, we can't very well blow up their flagship landmark here.

- No, Japan's Sogo went bankrupt and the Sogo Department Store in Hong Kong is owned and operated by Lifestyle International headed by Thomas Lau. Trust me, you don't want to mess with the Lau brothers ...

Which quality is the most essential to the new Chief Executive?
23.7%: Promote social harmony
22.9%: Firmly adhere to One Country Two Systems/Hong Kong people govern Hong Kong/high degree of autonomy
18.3%: Trusted by the Central Government

What should the new Chief Executive focus on?
29.3%: Relieve housing problems
19.0%: Improve relationship between executive and legislative branches
18.7%: Stimulate Hong Kong's economy

What are the women's issues that the Chief Executive should give priority to?
33.8%: Retirement protection
14.4%: Community support
11.3%: Family-friendly policies

What do you support as the next Chief Executive?
43.3%: Carrie Lam
35.2%: John Tsang
12.3%: Woo Kwok Hing

The All-China Women's Federation Hong Kong Delegates Association has 22 electors spread in various sectors. They will wait for the other debates before making their voting decision.

Q1. How much attention have you been paying to the Chief Executive election on March 26, 2017?
44.3%: Very much
37.6%: Somewhat
12.2%: Not much
2.2%: Not at all
3.7%: Not sure/no opinion

Q2a. Right now the nominees are Carrie Lam, Woo Kwok Hing and John Tsang. Who do you support most to become the next Chief Executive?
41.3%: John Tsang
36.7%: Carrie Lam
13.3%: Woo Kwok Hing
4.6%: None of the above
4.1%: Not sure/no opinion

Q2b. Why is the major reason that you support this candidate (see Q2a)?

John Tsang
10.6%: Able to perform
43.2%: Resolve social conflicts
  5.0%: Supported by the Central Government
16.9%: Supported by more citizens
19.5%: Defend Hong Kong core values
  3.2%: Other reasons
  1.6%: Not sure/no opinion

Carrie Lam
67.1%: Able to perform
  6.3%: Resolve social conflicts
11.1%: Supported by the Central Government
  7.2%: Supported by more citizens
  5.8%: Defend Hong Kong core values
  1.1%: Other reasons
  1.5%: Not sure/no opinion

Woo Kwok Hing
11.3%: Able to perform
31.9%: Resolve social conflicts
  2.5%: Supported by the Central Government
  4.6%: Supported by more citizens
44.1%: Defend Hong Kong core values
  4.2%: Other reasons
  1.3%: Not sure/no opinion

Q3. Among the three candidates, who do you think best satisfy the four criteria brought out by the Central Government: "Love China/love Hong Kong; trusted by the Central Government; have ability to govern; supported by the people of Hong Kong"?
31.0%: John Tsang
45.8%: Carrie Lam
  7.0%: Woo Kwok Hing
  6.4%: None of the above
  9.9%: Not sure/no opinion

Q4. By your estimation, who has the best chance to become the next Chief Executive?
28.2%: John Tsang
56.0%: Carrie Lam
  4.3%: Woo Kwok Hing
11.5%: Not sure/no opinion

Q5. What do you think the next Chief Executive should focus on?
27.9%: Deal with land/housing problem
20.9%: Develop economy and innovative industries
16.9%: Improve governance ability
11.4%: Improve social welfare/labor protection
  7.7%: Improve healthcare and education
  6.3%: Restart constitutional reform
  2.3%: None of the above
  6.6%: Not sure/no opinion

John Tsang Chun-wah has widened his lead over arch-rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to more than 17 percentage points in the latest survey commissioned by the South China Morning Post.

Some 63 per cent of the 1,009 respondents interviewed from last Wednesday to Monday believed a less popular chief executive would face problems in governing Hong Kong. But about two-thirds recognised that Lam, the former chief secretary who is seen as Beijings preferred candidate, stood a higher chance of landing the top job in the March 26 election.

Polling in the third such survey by the Post began a week after the nomination period for the chief executive race closed on March 1.

Chinese Universitys Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey found that 67 per cent of respondents regarded the housing affordability problem as the top priority for the citys next leader, followed by 58.8 per cent who picked mending rifts in the community.

Tsang was backed by 46.6 per cent of respondents aged 18 or above, up from 42.5 per cent in the previous survey early last month. Some 29.5 per cent preferred Lam, up from 28.2 per cent. The former financial secretarys lead over Lam widened from 14.3 percentage points last month to 17.1 percentage points. The third candidate, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, was backed by 10.1 per cent, compared with 8.7 per cent last month.

About 63 per cent of respondents believed that the governance of the next chief executive would be affected if he or she trailed another candidate in terms of popularity, while 26.2 per cent disagreed.

[Who do you think has the best chance of winning the election?
20.8%: John Tsang
66.6%: Carrie Lam
 1.9%: Woo Kwok Hing
 0.1%: Election nullified
 9.6%: Don't know
 1.0%: Refused to answer]

Q6. With respect to "promoting mutual understanding and respect between Hong Kong and and mainland China", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 28.7%
Carrie Lam: 46.5%
Woo Kwok Hing: 3.9%
None of the above: 9.7%
Don't know/no opinion: 10.8%
Refused to answer: 0.3%

Q7. With respect to "improving the relationship between the executive and legislative branches", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 42.0%
Carrie Lam: 18.7%
Woo Kwok Hing: 18.5%
None of the above: 9.0%
Don't know/no opinion: 11.4%
Refused to answer: 0.3%

Q8. With respect to "promoting economic prosperity", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 54.5%
Carrie Lam: 24.5%
Woo Kwok Hing: 2.7%
None of the above: 8.4%
Don't know/no opinion: 9.6%
Refused to answer: 0.3%

Q9. With respect to "defending the core values of Hong Kong", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 32.3%
Carrie Lam: 25.8
Woo Kwok Hing: 21.3%
None of the above: 8.8%
Don't know/no opinion: 11.4%
Refused to answer: 0.4%

Q10. With respect to "letting the grassroots share the results of economic progress", who do you think does best?
John Tsang: 39.0%
Carrie Lam: 22.8%
Woo Kwok Hing: 13.2%
None of the above: 12.6%
Don't know/no opinion: 11.9%
Refused to answer: 0.5%

Q11. The Central Government has set four requirements that the Chief Executive candidate should have. Which is the most important one? Or are all four equally important?
  6.2%: Love Hong Kong/China
  1.9%: The Central Government can trust
17.5%: Capable of governing
24.0%: Supported by the people of Hong Kong
46.7%: All four criteria are equally important
  3.4%: Don't know/no opinion
  0.2%: Refused to answer

Q12. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "Love Hong Kong/China"? Average scores:
6.95: John Tsang
7.19: Carrie Lam
6.01: Woo Kwok Hing

Q13. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "The Central Government can trust"? Average scores:
5.92: John Tsang
8.13: Carrie Lam
4.33: Woo Kwok Hing

Q14. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "Capable of governing"? Average scores:
6.61: John Tsang
6.26: Carrie Lam
5.01: Woo Kwok Hing

Q15. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0 means very much absent, 10 means very much present), how would you rate these candidates on "Supported by the people of Hong Kong"? Average scores:
7.04: John Tsang
5.33: Carrie Lam
5.23: Woo Kwok Hing

Q17. If you have the right to vote in this Chief Executive election, who would you vote for?
43.9%: John Tsang
27.6%: Carrie Lam
12.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
 8.6%: None of the above
 5.9%: Don't know/no opinion
 1.3%: Refused to answer

(SCMP) March 15, 2017.

The two front runners in the chief executive race traded blows over their records in office during the first televised debate in the contest on Tuesday night.

Former financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah began by teasing arch-rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor about her nickname CY 2.0 the implication being she will continue in the divisive style of the outgoing chief executive, Leung Chun-ying.

The two-hour debate, hosted by seven electronic media outlets, began at 8pm, with opening remarks on the candidates policy platforms. This was followed by questions from journalists and members of the audience. But the highlight came when the three candidates directed their questions at one another.

Tsang, Lam and retired High Court judge Woo Kwok-hing pulled no punches as they tackled topics like political reform, ways to mend rifts in the community, economic development and soaring house prices.

Do you know why you are called CY 2.0? Tsang asked her. Because CY 1.0 has decided not to run, she replied. Some people need a substitute to vent their grievances.

People do not fear CY 2.0 much, but they do fear society will continue to split 2.0 if you win, Tsang said. He argued that political problems required political solutions such as by relaunching the failed electoral reform process. Lam disagreed that political reform could solve all problems.

She emphasised her regular meetings with members of the public in recent years and queried why Tsang had not done so more often, saying it was probably because he was busy writing things on his keyboard behind closed doors.

She was surprised Tsang had so much time to gather so many likes on his blog during his time in government. You [Tsang] have a good political assistant. If you dont win the election, I welcome your assistant Julian Law Wing-chung into my team, she said.

Responding to a question from the audience on her popularity once in the job, Lam said: If mainstream opinion makes me no longer able to continue the job as chief executive, Ill resign.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) March 14, 2017.

Overall, the debate forum was boring and without any stunning revelations. There were no golden quotes like "You are lying!" during the CY Leung-Henry Tang debate last time. Unless you are a political junkie, it would be hard to watch all two hours of this.

Overall, the sense is that John Tsang and Woo Kwok-hing ganged up on Carrie Lam. By comparison, Carrie Lam was restrained. She attacked John Tsang, but not as vigorously as John Tsang attacked her.

The golden quote from John Tsang were: "Carrie Lam is not CY 2.0; she is Social Rift 2.0." This phrase was clearly designed by the election campaign team beforehand and used by John Tsang according to the script.

During the two-minute "home field" segment in which the candidates ask each other questions, John Tsang lost his composure a little. During this segment, the candidate with the home field advantage has the right to speak first. While holding that advantage, John Tsang said: "I have the home field. Please shut off her microphone" to cut off Carrie Lam. The rules allowed him to do so. When Carrie Lam held the home field advantage, John Tsang replied but Carrie Lam rebutted him. John Tsang was upset and said: "You get to say everything. You are not letting me speak." Actually, Carrie Lam has the home field advantage and she is allowed to interject.

During the interactive segment, the candidates attacked each other's vulnerabilities. Carrie Lam asked John Tsang why he did nothing about a progressive tax structure for nine years but only brought it out when he is running for Chief Executive. John Tsang said that he has proposed it for many years. But due to outside conditions (such as British Prime Minister Theresa May reducing taxes after Brexit ...). At this point, Carrie Lam interjected and told him to return to the main point. She said that small- and middle-sized companies are in dire straits already and looking for tax relief.

Carrie Lam also asked why government departments were ordered to go 0-1-1 on their budgets even though there are huge budget surpluses every year. 0-1-1 means same budget in year 1, 1% reduction in year 2 and another 1% in year 3. John Tsang was almost unable to come up with an answer. He said that many government departments had unspent budgets. Carrie Lam listed the government departments which did not have enough money to spend. For example, the libraries almost had to close earlier in order to save money.

John Tsang counterattacked Carrie Lam by reminding her that she once said that she would resign if public opinion goes against her. He asked if she would withdraw from the Chief Executive race since she trails him in public opinion support. Lam said that different surveys use different methodologies and there is one survey that showed her 3% ahead. Tsang asked her: "Do you believe it?"

John Tsang then said that Carrie Lam gets a lot of ANGRY icons on her Facebook. Lam admitted that she is not as good on Facebook because she got a late start. She said that Tsang worked on getting LIKE's even while he was in government, whereas she didn't even have the time to get on the Internet. Carrie Lam said that she would try to hire John Tsang's administrative assistant if elected away because he is very good with Facebook.

Overall, Carrie Lam was well-composed except about the public opinion polls. Basically she gives the impression of being familiar with the issues. She is excellent in policy discussions. John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing sounded less substantive. But Tsang was definitely not HEA in attacking Lam, even giving the sense of being too angry.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. John Tsang asked Carrie Lam whether she has reflected on why she is being called CY 2.0. Lam laughed and said: "Because CY 1.0 is not running." When she attempted to explain further, John Tsang said that he has the home field and asked the organizers to shut off her microphone and not allow her to explain any further.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Carrie Lam asked John Tsang about the insufficient funding of the Hospital Authority, especially since Tsang had nothing to say about the demands from young doctors. Unfamiliar with the issue, John Tsang began to explain how he prepared his policy platform. "We worked very hard, and we were prepared to deal with healthcare issues ..." Lam asked him to respond directly to the demands of the doctors. John Tsang said grumpily: "Since you have the home field, you should answer that as well."

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. During the media questions section, the question was about the dissatisfaction of parents and students about the education system. Woo Kwok Hing said that he would eliminate the Primary 3 TSA to relieve pressure. John Tsang asked what would be used to gauge the achievement levels of students. Woo Kwok Hing said: "Does everything require testing? ... Do we need to have exams in kindergarten?"

- Indeed. While we are at it, let us get rid of the Barristers Qualification Examination too because it is so stressful to the exam-takers as well as their parents, spouses, siblings, children and domestic helpers.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. The three candidates were asked to speak on "Hong Kong independence." Carrie Lam said that a small number of Hongkongers hold those views for incomprehensible reasons. If elected, she would increase young people's knowledge of the nation. She does not think that Hong Kong independence ideas can spread in Hong Kong. John Tsang said that Hong Kong independence arose because of the poor governance of the current Hong Kong government. Carrie Lam agreed that we should reflect on whether deep structural issues are triggering emotional responses among a small group of people, but since John Tsang was also a member of the current Hong Kong government whose poor governance led to the rise of Hong Kong independence, "we should reflect on this together."

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Woo Kwok Hing brought up the Wang Chau affair. He asked why the number of public housing units was reduced after private consultations, and no records exist about those private consultations. Carrie Lam said that the Steering Committee on Land Supply was chaired by John Tsang at the time. John Tsang said that Chief Executive CY Leung had another special committee to make decisions that did not go through the Steering Committee. Carrie Lam said that the Steering Committee was even holding any meetings, implying that John Tsang was HEA at work.

Woo Kwok Hing pressed on to ask why no records exist about those private consultations. John Tsang said: "I don't know what Carrie has to say." Carrie Lam said that there is division of labor in the government and that she had no part in the matter. Woo said that Carrie Lam was the Chief Secretary, "and more than one person says 'you always agree with your boss'." Carrie Lam clarified that the "Financial Secretary does not report to the Chief Secretary." John Tsang said grumpily: "I am very glad that I did not report to the Chief Secretary."

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Carrie Lam pointed out that people perceived that public service has deteriorated: "The streets are dirtier; waiting times to see specialists at public hospitals are longer." The reason was that all government departments are facing 0-1-1 budget curbs with not adjustment for inflation. John Tsang said that Carrie Lam misleads people all the time. Carrie Lam said: "How am I misleading people? It is all written down in black-and-white." John Tsang said that Carrie Lam concurred with the 0-1-1 proposal. Carrie Lam said that she successfully fought for 0-1-1 because it would have been 1-1-1 (that is, 1% reduction for all three years) if John Tsang got his way.

Woo Kwok Hing said that Hong Kong is in a good financial state, so why cut back on everything? John Tsang said that 0-1-1 is not budget cutback; instead he wanted the government departments to spend their money more efficiently. Besides the government departments have 4% to 5% unspent money anyway. Carrie Lam pointed out that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is spending 99% of its budget and so is the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. "The government is sitting on $900 billion in reserves, but the 170,000 public service workers have to endure such pressure. This is unfair to the public service workers and the citizens."

John Tsang attempted to misdirect by saying that the government is spending more than ever. In 2007 when John Tsang became Financial Secretary, the government spent HKD 200 billion. Today it is HKD 500 billion with double digit increases every year. Carrie Lam made fun of his rounding magic: the HKD 200 billion was actually HKD 230 billion, and the HKD 500 billion was actually HKD 460 billion. The increase was not 150%; it was 99%.

- (Headline Daily) March 15, 2017. John Tsang said that Carrie Lam said she would resign if mainstream public opinion runs against her. A recent study showed that she has 30% support and 45% oppose. "You are in negative territory even before you are elected. Will you consider withdrawing from the election race?"

Carrie Lam replied that she and her team have studied various public opinion polls. She said that one poll shows that she leads John Tsang by 3%. John Tsang said: "Do you believe in that poll?" Carrie Lam says that public opinion fluctuates: "Some people have high public opinion support when elected, but the support falls down quickly afterwards."

John Tsang then criticized Carrie Lam's Facebook performance. He said that "her ANGRY's are up to her nose" and questions if she "connects" with young people. Carrie Lam wondered why John Tsang has so much time on hand to work on getting Facebook LIKE's.

- (TVBS) Public Opinion support for Taiwan ex-president Ma Ying-jeou

(Pink: Dissatisfied; Dark Blue: Satisfied) Horizontal axis: Time

(TVBS) Public opinion support for Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen

06/16/2016: 47% satisfied, 18% dissatisfied
08/25/2016: 39% satisfied, 33% dissatisfied
10/13/2016: 35% satisfied, 39% dissatisfied
11/20/2016: 26% satisfied, 46% dissatisfied
12/22/2016: 27% satisfied, 48% dissatisfied
01/19/2017: 28% satisfied, 47% dissatisfied

(Gallup) Donald Trump Job Approval Rates

 Why didn't these people resign? (The Guardian) South Korean president Park Geun-hye did not resign even at 4% public approval.

- Park Geun-hye's reasoning is similar to that of Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. Even though they screwed up royally with theirs oaths of office, they kept talking about the fact that they were elected by 60,000 voters and their next four years should be decided only by those voters alone. So if Park Geun-hye won 51.6% of the votes in 2012, she is responsible to only those voters and not to the 93% who disapprove of her performance.

- Facebook is first and foremost an echo chamber: An echo chamber is a metaphorical description of a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a defined system. Inside a figurative echo chamber, official sources often go unquestioned and different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented.

You feel good if every one of your posts gets at least 10,000 LIKE's. You begin to think that you are wildly popular when in fact nobody outside the echo chamber pays any attention to you.

The creative part of John Tsang's Facebook-driven election campaign is to mobilize (possibly by paying people/companies one way or the other) a campaign against his rival's Facebook. Thus, there are thousands of ANGRY's on every Carrie Lam post.

But please remember that John Tsang does not have exclusive rights to the tactic. When will Carrie Lam wake up? When will there be a mobilization of anti-Tsang fans (possibly independent of Carrie Lam) that will dump tens of thousands of ANGRY's and nasty comments over at John Tsang's blog/Facebook/Instagram? When that time comes, John Tsang will change metrics and complain about White Terror too.

- Actually, things are very simple nowadays -- you can buy as many LIKE's as you wish over Taobao and eBay (or see Google buy facebook likes). Just state the number that you want, pay your money and it will be there.

- Note: Please make sure that you don't place the order yourself, or else it becomes a campaign expense item. It is a trivial amount, but some investigative journalist may make a news story out of it. Give cash to your sister-in-law to her secretary to her nephew to his secondary school classmate to her gardener to his mahjong friend to place the order.

- (NOW TV News) March 15, 2017. Who won?

NOW TV invited citizens to use their mobile phones to rate the three CE candidates. More than 10,000 citizens responded. More than 80% thought that John Tsang performed best. John Tsang must feel very good about having the support of the citizens of Hong Kong.

- Candidate #1 is ignorant; candidate #2 is devious; candidate #3 is somnambulistic. On the whole, I would like to have "689" CY Leung back.

- Who cares about who won the debate? All I know is that Carrie Lam does not know how to use an Octopus card and she does not know where to buy toilet paper. How can she be a good Chief Executive when she can't even get the simple things in life right?

- Actually you know how to use an Octopus card and you know where to buy toilet paper. You should be the Chief Executive instead of a keyboard warrior.

- Ko Chi Sum's Facebook

In the world of Facebook, feeling good is really awesome! On my birthday, I received a lot of cakes, flowers, kisses and hearts from pretty girls ... unfortunately, all this is virtual.
Reality is a completely different matter!
LIKE's cannot be eaten like food; in the middle of the night, I still have to look at what is inside the refrigerator ...

- In the United States, you watch the presidential debates in order to pick your voting choice. In Hong Kong, you watch the Chief Executive debates in order to get angry at the pan-democrats for vetoing one-person-one-vote.

The pan-democrats succeeded to win for the people of Hong Kong the right to watch without the right to vote.

- The rosy scenario had been that if John Tsang continues with surging public opinion support, the Xi Jinping Core of the Two Centrals will step in and override the Zhang Dejiang/CY Leung/China Liaison Office clique and anoint John Tsang as Chief Executive instead. The pan-democrats can declare a successful revolution through peaceful expression of the public will. That dream has now been dashed with Xi Jinping's 40-second handshake with newly elected Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference vice-chairman CY Leung.

John Tsang will lose the election, but he must do so with high public opinion support such that Carrie Lam will be delegitimized and crippled as Chief Executive. The pan-democrats are urging people to go to PopVote to participate in the Civil Referendum. To legitimize PopVote, the pan-democrats have set themselves two thresholds: (1) more than 1 million votes; (2) John Tsang has to beat Carrie Lam in net approval.

PopVote is supposed to be run from March 10, 2017 12:00 to March 19, 2017 24:00 on the Internet. As of March 15, 2017 12:00, the total number of votes is 33,825. The physical component of PopVote was held on March 12 2017 with a total of 1,094 votes.

At this rate, PopVote will probably end up with something less than 100,000 votes with something like 98% approval for John Tsang, 30% approval for Woo Kwok-hing and less than 1% approval for Carrie Lam. Such results won't be accepted as legitimately reflecting the will of the people of Hong Kong.

Without PopVote, there are only the public opinion polls left. There are several tracking polls, but they are asking different questions and therefore getting different results. Who would you vote for if voting takes place tomorrow? Who do you think will win? Do you approve or disapprove each of the candidates? Which of these candidates are most suitable for Chief Executive? most qualified to become Chief Executive? best able to be Chief Executive? On a scale of 0 to 100, how would you rate each of these candidates? ...

- Why is participation in PopVote faring so poorly? Benny Tai has a litany of reasons:

(1) Polytechnic University banned a voting booth on campus. But if the total number of votes at the other four voting booths was 1,094, Polytechnic University could have brought in a few hundred more at most.

(2) People think that Carrie Lam has the race in the bag already, so they are disheartened. Nothing that people do will make a difference anymore.

(3) People were concerned about the collection/loss of personal data, even though the so-called security holes have been plugged since.


- (HKG Pao) March 18, 2017. According to information, the Hong Kong ID numbers of the first 20 thousand PopVote voters are available for a fee from Pastebin.com. Is PopVote selling the data? Or did somebody hack PopVote for profit? Or did somebody pretend that they hacked PopVote to scare people away?

- (Crumsy News Facebook)

I did not imagine that I could watch the entire two hours of the Chief Executive election debate. It was solely due to the entertainment value of Judge Woo that I made it, because he often drifted away or came up with irrelevant answers.

Frankly, Carrie Lam's thinking is more masculine than the two others who don't seem masculine. The two candidates nominated by the Yellow Ribbons are just filthy mud that can never rise up.

Woo Kwok Hing is unfamiliar with many of the issues. If he were to become Chief Executive, Hong Kong would be truly torn apart. However, the judges and lawyers will find plenty of work.

John Tsang's performance was just as expected: HEA. He was even unfamiliar with the policies which were underneath his purview. When he talked about the 0-1-1 government budget cutbacks, he was really trying to increase government efficiencies! It would be a miracle if he did not provoke public anger if he became Chief Executive; but of course he would be recovering/recuperating/rehabilitating himself and he won't give a damn about the rest of the people.

Carrie Lam was a star, but only because the other two wastrels were waste.

- (Wan Chin Facebook)

John Tsang was asked about he plans to deal with the increasing number of outsiders coming to Hong Kong. John Tsang replied that the total population of Hong Kong has not increased because the local birth rate has not kept up with the replacement for the death rate. Besides, various sectors need to hire suitable workers. That was the answer. John Tsang is a Hong Kong traitor. His support for mainland Chinese immigrants to replenish the Hong Kong population is the same as the pan-democratic leftist retards. And Apple Daily's Jimmy Lai wants the pan-democratic electors to vote for John Tsang.

- Former People Power chairman Christopher Lau Gar-hung's Facebook

Well, everybody can continue to garner public opinion. But hand on my heart, Carrie Lam clearly won. And by a lot. Judge Woo is a joke.
John Tsang's stuttering is not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem was that he couldn't even deliver on substance. What he said was even more unreal than Carrie Lam. You say that your economics is so much better, but you couldn't show anything at all during that section. The important point is that it is not the case that he had plenty of points that he wanted to say but did not have the time due to the stuttering ... rather, he did not have any points to make.

- Through the debate, Woo Kwok Hing seemed as if he just had an outbreak of dementia. He forgot the questions and he tossed out accusations without evidence. However, he insisted that he knows the Law. He addressed Carrie Lam as "Mrs. Cheng" when Cheng is her maiden name. He sounded like a old man who needs to be in bed by 9pm.

- Woo Kwok Hing said that Occupy Central was a lot of fun and he would have joined them if only he were 50 years younger. This is so cute! But why didn't someone ask him that, if elected Chief Executive, what (if anything) would he do about Occupy Central? Let them stay there indefinitely? Even join them to protest against himself? Give in to all their demands (only to be given more demands)?

- Afterwards, Woo Kwok Hing blamed his lousy performance on the air conditioner that kept blowing wind at him. So it was not the flu as some reporters surmised.

- Many people can use Facebook a lot better than John Tsang. Should they become Chief Executive instead? Why do we need to hold any real elections? The $1 billion spent on the Legislative Council elections could be saved if the winners are declared to be those with the highest number of Facebook LIKE's.

- Does the job of Chief Executive consist of making Facebook posts? Is the ultimate purpose in life to get more LIKE's?

- When I was in kindergarten, I remember that I wanted to collect as many "white rabbits" as possible. Once I collect enough, the teacher will give me a prize! After listening to John Tsang expound on Facebook tonight, I realized that running for Chief Executive is no different from collecting "white rabbits" in kindergarten! The only difference is that the "white rabbits" are now "Facebook LIKE's".

- May I summarize on behalf of John Tsang? Everything that happens in Hong Kong depends on what happens outside Hong Kong (US interest rates, Brexit, Marco Rubio, etc). Therefore there is nothing that the Chief Executive can do -- except to get more LIKE's on Facebook.

- (SCMP) Both top contenders in the chief executive race are cut from the same cloth. By Alex Lo. March 16, 2017.

John Tsang Chun-wah made much of his popularity in opinion polls and social media during his first televised debate with his two chief executive election rivals.

In truth, all but one major surveys have found him ahead of Beijings reported favourite, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. He shouldnt let it go to his head, though, even if he wins the race over Lam.

A victory for Tsang is unlikely of course, but not impossible. But just as pan-democrats have put him on a pedestal today, they would round on him the minute he wins. Their support for him is but a ploy: If he wins, they can claim victory over Beijing. If he loses, they will say thats typical of Beijing to defy the wishes of Hong Kong people. If the central government had preferred Tsang, the situation would have been reversed and Lam would have had the pan-dems votes.

Pan-democrats, of course, know that Tsang is not, and will never be, one of them. He is as likely to side with them and defy the central government as Lam or outgoing chief executive Leung Chun-ying, who has been rewarded by being made a state leader. As chief executive, Tsang might even be more subservient knowing he wasnt Beijings choice and would need to prove his loyalty.

But since Beijing has given more than hints as to its favoured candidate, pan-dems are mobilising public opinion, quite successfully, to draw artificial differences between Lam and Tsang.

Tsang is the friendly, responsive mandarin while Lam is the female version of the dictatorial Leung, or what Tsang called during the debate Leung 2.0.

But both candidates are cut from the same cloth, after spending their entire careers in the civil service. They know how to run a civil service, but not necessarily a government or a quasi-city-state. Their idea of governing is to give a bit of resources and benefits to every major constituent, but neither is likely to commit to any long-overdue economic overhauls or political reforms.

Tsang would become less stingy as chief executive than when he was finance secretary especially with spending on livelihood matters. Lam would have to learn about balancing the budget and placating the business elite.

Despite the vilification and caricatures, both are probably decent people. I just dont know whether they make good leaders.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 16, 2017.

Financial Services sector elector Tang Sing-hing asked John Tsang: Since the Financial Sector is overseen by the Financial Secretary, is John Tsang satisfied with developments in the financial industry during his term? Is there any room for improvement? If John Tsang is elected Chief Executive, will he stop collecting taxes temporarily given that the government has reserves of $900 billion?

John Tsang said that there were shocks within his 9-1/2-year tenure, including the 2008 financial crisis. He did plenty of work in order to make the financial industry stable and growing, including accumulating surpluses. "I won't praise myself as such, but I believe that the people of Hong Kong will think that I have done my job. And I have not failed the trust of the Central Government in me."

The forum host asked: "Since you are very satisfied, does that mean that there is no room of improvement for the next five years if you are elected?" At this point, John Tsang became unhappy: "This is what you say. We always have room of improvement. This goes without saying. I don't know why you keep saying this sort of thing."

But he did not say that he will suspend tax collection temporarily. He said that large reserves are needed to maintain good credit agency ratings. Although the reserves are now more than 900 billion, certain sums are set aside for large projects such as 200 billion for the 10-year hospital plan and 100 billion for housing.

- (HKG Pao) March 16, 2017.

Each candidate had 60 seconds for summation. John Tsang's 60-second speech was odd. 20 seconds were in praise of his campaign team. By tradition, such a speech is made after the campaign and not during the campaign. Could it be that John  Tsang has come to accept that he has lost already?

Another 20 seconds was about the discouragement that he has received during the campaign. But who did he have contact apart from his own campaign team and his fans? Those who discouraged him are said to be his buddies. Could he be musing about losing his supporters in the final days of a lost campaign?

The final ten seconds or so were given to "I will not give up", "I will hold on to the end" and "I won't disappoint everybody"? So far, he has had nothing but supporting voices on the media. Who is he trying to say this to?

Does this summation come from a confident candidate? No, it sounded more a wounded fencer trying to finish a match in which he is trailing 0-14.

Why did John Tsang feel that way? Here is a hint. The only way that John Tsang can win is to cobble up an unlikely coalition of pan-democrats and the commercial/industrial sector. The pan-democrats are in his pocket, but the commercial/industrial sector will depend on an open declaration from the 12 votes around Li Ka-shing.

The bad news is that Li Ka-shing's son Richard Li has given interviews to Wen Wei Po, Ming Pao and Hong Kong Economic Journal. The first is pro-China, the second is Yellow Ribbon and the third is owned by Richard Li himself. Richard Li said that he supports Carrie Lam as Chief Executive. Why? "A Chief Executive who is completely trusted by the Central Government will bring greater stability to the people." Is he worried about upsetting people? "In the democratic process, you either choose A or B."

Could Richard Li have given John Tsang a courtesy call before the debate to tell him about what is coming?

More in

Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5 (401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6 (501-600)
Occupy Central Part 7 (601-700)

Occupy Central Part 8 (701-)

Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com