(v4.0)

[This is a collection of information on the Occupy Central movement/revolution (also known as the Umbrella movement/revolution) in Hong Kong. This is not comprehensive coverage by any means. Many perspectives are already available in abundance in English (see, for example, Reddit on Umbrella Revolution), so there is no need for me to duplicate them here. Instead, the focus here is on popular Chinese-language materials that are not otherwise available in English. Most of the information is gathered from mainstream media, social media (Facebook, YouTube, discussion forums (mainly Hong Kong Discussion Forum, Hong Kong Golden Forum, HKGalden, Uwants and Baby Kingdom), blogs and polling data). The YouTube/Facebook videos have people speaking in the Cantonese dialect and the discussion forums often use uniquely Hong Kong Internet language that is not even comprehensible to mainland Chinese citizens. My contribution is to compile and translate into English these otherwise unknown materials to provide a fuller view of the Occupy Central movement.]

(SCMP) May 26, 2016.

Pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu has been convicted by the Kowloon City Court of one count of police assault and two of resisting arrest during the Occupy movement in 2014. But he was acquitted of two other charges of resisting arrest.

Principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen said on Thursday that he was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Tsang was the one who poured an unknown liquid over 11 police officers and subsequently resisted arrest by two others who were undoubtedly executing their duties. He explained that the act of splashing liquid no doubt amounted to an assault given the hostility involved, and that Tsang must have known he would be arrested in the aftermath, yet resisted the arrest. But Law accepted that his resistance may in part have been due to a natural reaction towards pepper spray and hence acquitted him on two counts of resisting arrest.

Sentencing is scheduled for Monday afternoon. Three letters have been submitted in mitigation. Tsang previously had a clean criminal record.

The case centred on one of the most controversial nights of the 79-day civil disobedience protests, when thousands of Hongkongers occupied thoroughfares in Admiralty, Central, Causeway Bay, Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui to demand universal suffrage.

The verdict was delivered a week ahead of that for a sister case at the District Court, where seven police officers will stand trial next Wednesday for allegedly assaulting Tsang on the same night.

Eleven police officers had told the court that liquid that smelled like urine was spilled on them as they were clearing protestors from Lung Wo Road underpass in Admiralty on October 15.

A statement from police sergeant Wong Hoi-man said: We were moving forward when I suddenly felt my head was wet ... I looked up to see a man wearing goggles and [a] face mask pouring an unknown liquid. But Wong did not identify his attacker, except to say that it was a man in black wearing goggles and [a] face mask.

The court also heard from sergeant Butt Wang-tat, who testified that he immediately tackled a man in black after seeing him pour liquid from a one-litre bottle onto the underpass below, but said he struggled to bring the man down to the pavement. Sergeant Ching Ying-wai added that he needed to pepper-spray the mans face in order to restrain and handcuff him.

Tsang did not take the stand or call witnesses in his defence after denying one count of police assault and four of resisting arrest.

His identification was a major point of contention during the trial as the defence argued that Tsang was not the man in videos filmed by police which showed a man in black T-shirt, goggles and mask splashing liquid or ATV footage of a man in a black T-shirt being arrested. Also at issue was the authenticity of the ATV videos admitted after a trial within a trial, as the defence contended that the court must be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the footage had not been tampered with.

Police assault and resisting arrest are both punishable by two years imprisonment, under the Offences Against the Person Ordinance.

Tsang was earlier swarmed by a hundred supporters and journalists as he arrived at Kowloon City Court. Sporting his usual navy suit with a bright yellow ribbon pinned to his lapel, the social worker greeted cameramen and photographers while his Civic Party vice-chairwoman Tanya Chan and lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki stood next to him in support.

Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, League of Social Democrats lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung and activist Tsang Kin-shing were also among those who stood by his side. Before he entered the building, Tsang shook hands with his supporters, who raised yellow umbrellas and a banner that read: Plaintiff turned defendant, prosecuted after he was beaten. Some also chanted: Civil disobedience. Shame on political prosecution.

Those who wished to hear the verdict in person were given stickers at 1.30pm to reserve a seat in courtroom number 13, where the press had been allocated 28 spots and the public, 74. Others occupied the benches at the floor lobby to await news of the anticipated court ruling.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 26, 2016.

A court has found Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu guilty of three counts of assaulting police and resisting arrest in relation to events that took place during the pro-democracy Occupy protests in 2014. He has been cleared of the other two counts of resisting arrest.

Tsang, 40, was accused of attacking police officers with liquid from the embankment of the underpass at Lung Wo Road and then resisting arrest during the Umbrella Movement demonstrations. He was charged with one count of police assault and four of resisting arrest. He will be sentenced on May 30.

Tsang arrived at the Kowloon City Magistrates Court on Thursday afternoon to a crowd of supporters holding yellow umbrellas. The courtrooms spectator stand was also filled to the brim with members of the public and journalists.

Magistrate Peter Law ruled that the footage relating to the incident was admissible, stating that it showed a continuous chain of events and was of a clear quality. Law said that each witness, and each time frame during the incident, had to be independently evaluated. He stressed that it was important for testimonies to be based on the witnesses own memories rather than the footage, according to the updates on Tsangs official page.

Law questioned how two police officers could mistake each other for themselves and noted that their signatures appeared on the others witness statements. Law said that the court would not accept their testimony.

However, he said he believed the accounts of police sergeant Ching Ying-wai who earlier testified in court about the process of subduing the suspect and others were based on the witnesses memories as opposed to video evidence.

Law said that the footage and the pictures taken at the police station show that the man who poured the liquid on the night of the incident, and the man who was arrested, shared the same facial features and similar shoes, and was therefore the same person.

Internet comments:

- Do you trust Ken Tsang's lawyer, or your own lying eyes? Here are the videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iNf052V2Og (slow motion)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwPycc3ciRU

- The two policemen who mistook each for the other.

Because these two police officers misidentified themselves, the judge dismissed the two assault charges against them. Two other police officers testified, one having used pepper spray and the other helped Ken Tsang to stand up. The judge found those two credible and found Tsang guilty of the two assault charges against those two.

- In theory, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest are both punishable by two years imprisonment, under the Offences Against the Person Ordinance. In practice, Hong Kong is under common law which is law developed by judges, courts and similar tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future case.

Here is a recent precedent for reference: (SCMP, April 19, 2016) (SCMP, May 3, 2016)

Two men, including a restaurant owner who claimed he hated the Occupy movement because of its effect on his teenage son, face jail time after they were convicted by Eastern Court of throwing animal entrails at media mogul Jimmy Lai Chee-ying at the Admiralty site in November 2014.

Magistrate Lee Siu-ho said it was without question that such behaviour amounted to common assault. This case of common assault is different from simpler cases in which the victim was merely touched once or twice, the magistrate said. The court at this moment believes imprisonment is appropriate and will actively consider imprisoning the defendants.

Sentencing was adjourned until May 3 pending background reports on the defendants.

...

The animal entrails attack on Jimmy Lai Chee-ying during the Occupy movement in November 2014 was a premeditated plan to insult the media mogul, a magistrate said on Tuesday as he blasted three men for potentially destroying public peace.

Eastern magistrate Lee Siu-hos comments came as he sentenced kitchen worker Chan Kwok-hung, 31, restaurant owner Yip Wing-chi, 44, and businessman Li Siu-lung, 46, to jail terms of between nine and 18 weeks each.

The case centred on an attack at about 4.30pm on November 12, 2014 when Yip threw bags of animal entrails at Lai, who owns the Apple Daily newspaper, on Harcourt Road in Admiralty. Li filmed the attack. The magistrate said: The act of throwing the entrails, in courts view, was to insult the victim not only to dirty his clothes but also to leave a psychological impact.

Lee also noted that it was obviously a premeditated plan to assault Lai as Yip delivered the entrails on a cart from the New Territories and was prepared to launch more attacks, had they not been discovered. The [nature of] common assault in this case was serious among its kind, he added.

All except Yip, who admitted throwing animal entrails, were convicted on common assault charges after trial.

- It is not going to help the image of Rule-of-law in Hong Kong if Magistrate Peter Law sentences Ken Tsang to 80 hours of community service.

- The trick here is the attitude of the defendant. If the defendant is adamant that he is completely innocent, then the sentence will be on the high side. If the defendant expresses regret (and thus implicitly acknowledges guilty), the sentence will be on the lenient side. What is Ken Tsang's position then?

- Is Ken Tsang being too complacent here when because he thought that Yellow Ribbons will be treated leniently? Is that why he didn't even bother to testify himself?

- The judge cannot hold the failure of the defendant to testify in person against him. That is a technicality inside the courtroom. Outside the courtroom, the public is skeptical -- if Ken Tsang was not the man who tossed the smelly liquid, he should have just gotten on the witness stand and say so.

- If Ken Tsang gets a $100 fine for throwing smelly liquid at people, what should the Mong Kok Sai Yeung Choi Street South acid thrower get under this precedent?

- If Ken Tsang is sentenced to more than three months, he will lose the social worker license as well as eligibility to run for elections. What will he do then? Ah, I know -- some Civic Party legislator can hire him as an aide.

- The defense pleaded that the defendant is an experienced social worker who has worked in various government jobs as well as performing volunteer work. After this case, the defendant had stay home to nurse his injuries. Since April 1st this year, he is working as a research director on social welfare policies with a monthly salary of $3,000.

I had to read this again to make sure that the $3,000 figure is not an error.

Why did he start working only on April 1 this year? Because he was concerned about being characterized as a shiftless bum by the probation officer.

- And what was Ken Tsang doing before April 1 this year? For about 18 months, he must be living off social welfare checks. He is a social worker and he surely knows how to navigate the system.

- On one hand, if you can get fined $2,000 for jaywalking, assaulting a police officer should clearly draw a more severe penalty. On the other hand, Tsang makes only $3,000 a month. So a fine of $3,000 would equal his whole month's salary.

- At least Ken Tsang didn't follow the other Umbrella Revolutionaries (such as Andy Yung, Eric Poon, Amy But, etc) to use mental retardation as the excuse.

- The strong piece of evidence was the ATV video showing Ken Tsang being arrested by several police officers. The defense said that the video might have been tampered with. They forgot to add that ATV has previously false stories such as the death of Jiang Zemin, etc.

- (Apple Daily)

The defense said that 40-year-old Ken Tsang is a social worker. In 2014, he traveled to South America by himself. After hearing about the Occupy movement, he returned to Hong Kong in October and wanted to help those who are fighting for social justice. On that evening, Tsang saw on one side were peaceful demonstrators who only wanted to use umbrellas to block the pepper spray applied by the police. On the other side, the police used batons, pepper spray and excessive force to disperse citizens who are fighting for their rights.

Peaceful? Defensive? Who should I believe? Ken Tsang's lawyer or my own lying eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gisNixIsJZk

- By contrast, here are the international standards as set by the French police against protestors on May 17, 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwA3pRArFkg

- Ken Tsang's lawyer also said that the act of tossing liquid was to relieve stress and express discontent. This statement is an admission to having committed the act. If Ken Tsang wants to file an appeal on the verdict/sentence, he would have to argue on technical grounds instead of claiming total innocence (e.g. wrong identity).

- There does not appear to be much public outcry against this verdict. The first line of defense would be that Ken Tsang was completely innocent and did not commit the act. To do this, you will have to concoct some fantastically fantastic story to negate what your lying eyes saw. The second line of defense is that even if Ken Tsang committed the act, he should be freed because he is doing it for freedom/democracy/human rights/rule-of-law/universal suffrage. But Ken Tsang hasn't personally resorted to this tactic, so why are you doing it for him against his wishes?

(EJ Insight) May 24, 2016.

Hong Kong democracy activists trying to keep the June 4 vigil alive are pressing on with their campaign to vindicate the failed Beijing student movement despite their thinning ranks. This years theme will also feature calls for an end to arbitrary arrests and despotism, as well as a renewed fight for democracy, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Albert Ho, chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, said they expect attendance to top 100,000 people. However, they will not include the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), a key participant in past memorials which withdrew from the alliance, citing differences with the latters objectives. Students will take part in a torch relay ceremony as usual but will not be speaking on stage this time, Ho said. He said he regrets HKFSs decision to withdraw from the activities of the alliance but respects it. 

Vice chairman Choi Yiu-cheong said a planned May 29 protest march will follow last years route, starting in Southorn Playground in Wan Chai and ending outside Beijings Liason Office in Western District. Ho said the June 4 memorials are a show of localism that has been taking place for the past 27 years. Candles are our weapons against killings by the communist regime, he said.

The candlelight vigil was launched in 1990 to mark the first anniversary of a bloody crackdown on student protesters in Beijings Tiananmen Square. Organizers put attendance at 150,000 and the police at 80,000. In 2009, it hit a peak of about 200,000 participants after appearing to lose fervor in previous years. An estimated 135,000 turned out last year. 

(HKG Pao) May 25, 2016.

Hong Kong University Students Union president Althea Suen said that there will be an evening meeting at 7pm on June 4th at Sun Yat-sen Place, Hong Kong University. A student representation will read a statement followed by one minute of silence. This is followed by a 90-minute academic discussion on the future of Hong Kong. There won't be any candle lighting or singing. About 1,000 persons are expected to attend.

Althea Suen emphasized that they are not "fighting for the customers." She criticized Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China chairman Albert Ho as "bullying" when he said that young people ought to be going to Victoria Park if they really want to memorialize the dead.

(Oriental Daily) May 24, 2016.

Last year, the Hong Kong Federation of Students withdrew from the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China and held its own evening assembly. But there won't be one this year. Hong Kong University Student Union president Althea Suen announced that they have decided not to participate in any cross-varsity assembly for financial reasons.

Althea Suen said that the cross-varsity assembly was scheduled to be held on the Million Boulevard of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The costs are very high and unequally shared among the 13 institutions of higher learning. In Hong Kong University, the allocated costs exceeded its original budget. Therefore HKU is backing out. Instead, HKU will spend about $16,000 to hold its own evening assembly.

Althea Suen said that she had proposed holding the assembly at Hong Kong University's Sun Yat-sen Place in order to reduce costs, but the other institutions thought that the location was too small. Suen said that Hong Kong students are not necessarily disunited if they hold more than one assembly and that as long as they share the same ideas, having more assemblies will surely provide more perspectives to the students.

However, it is not plausible to say that HKU is not participating for financial reasons. The HKUSU has reserves. Earlier it had allocated $150,000 to develop a mobile phone app but that project was scrapped. So how could they not come up with $100,000 to $200,000 now? Was this just an excuse?

Internet comments:

- No, they are not fighting for bodies. They are fighting for money. If you go to X, then you can't be giving money at Y.

- How much money were raised last year?
$1,700,000 Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in Hong Kong
$370,000 Scholarism
$240,000 League of Social Democrats
$210,000 Civic Party
$60,000 Democratic Party
$45,000 Labour Party

- Famous Chinese saying to describe s chaotic scene: 餓狗搶屎 = hungry dogs fighting over a piece of excrement. In this case, the excrement is the filthy lucre.

- It is a traditional custom  in Southern China to have a big roasted pig during the Ching Ming Festival or the Chung Yeung Festical to be divided among the family clan.

The practice used to be known as 太公分豬肉, meaning that the clan leader makes the allocation according to his preferences. Today, we have rule-of-law in place of rule-of-man, so the rules are made explicit. For example, all males under 60 years old get one share; males aged 60-69 get two shares; males 70 years or older get four shares; women get nothing. Regardless of the variations, it is always true that women get nothing.

So this year the June 4th assembly will adopt some rule changes on how to divide the roasted pig. That's all.

- It is time that some woman lodge a complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission to stop this discriminatory practice!

- There is also a sales/marketing issue here. You keep selling a subscription to a product which hasn't demonstrated any effectiveness. For twenty-six years, the Hong Kong suckers have been pouring money into the coffers of the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. Great. Where are these so-called 'patriotic democratic movements'? What have they achieved on behalf of patriotic democracy?

- These 'patriotic democratic movements' cannot be public identified because they will be oppressed by the Chinese Communists.

- Well, when Lee Cheuk-yan was the Alliance chairman a few years ago, he had the chance to register June 4th 1989 as a trademark. He didn't, otherwise all other evening assemblies would be in violation of his intellectual property rights.

- Notice that Althea Suen is co-branding her actual product with June 4th. She entices 1,000 people to attend the HKU event. There will be a brief statement and one minute of silence. Then there will be 90 minutes of propaganda on Hong Kong self-determination/independence. I am sure that the dead souls of June 4th 1989 will be very pleased to be able to live on in people's memories in this way.

- Music concerts have price tiers. So how much do they charge for front row seats? Handshakes? Etc?

- It's not all about money. The fact is that many Hong Kong students don't think that they are the same race as the Chinese, so commemorating June 4th 1989 is as meaningless to them as Bloomsday.

- June 4th 1989 took place 27 years ago. Most of the current university students were not born yet. (I say "most" because there are still sixth-year students such as Alex Chow and fifth-year students such as Edward Leung).

- Well, if you can get money from them, you call them 'compatriots'. If you can't get money from them, you call them 'locusts.' It is up to the Chinese race to show what value they can offer to the Hong Kong race.

- Please be aware that this is not a static situation. Instead, it is very dynamic. Thus, for 364 days of the year, mainlanders are locusts but on June 4th they are compatriots. After you get your money for the year, they can go to hell ... until next year.

- It really isn't all about money. If it were, the Hong Kong Federation of Students would have demanded warehouse storage fees for the Statue of Liberty from the Alliance.

- Before June 4th 1989, mainland China was very poor. When my mother took me to visit her family in China, we brought a lot of stuff to distribute around. The people of Hong Kong and China were very close to each other. In recent years, our poor relatives have become wealthy. The people of Hong Kong and China are estranged from each other. What happened?

- It's very simple: 憎人富貴厭人貧 (= you hate people when they are wealthy and you despise them when they are poor).

- (The Stand News) The Students Unions of eleven tertiary institutions (including Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Science and Technology, Baptist University) issued a Joint University Declaration on June 4th and advocated that the people of Hong Kong should breed localism and face up to June 4th. However, the declaration included the sentence: "Before the massacre, Deng Xiaoping met with the students." Deng Xiaoping did not meet with the students; Premier Li Peng met with the students.

- This is a well-known fact to all those who were present at the time. But the students who were not even born in 1989 apparently don't know it. The declaration was written by someone and surely the 11 student unions read and approved it, but nobody knew this most basic historical fact.

- The declaration said that June 4th made two points for Hong Kong students today. Firstly, there is no hope for building democracy in China, because the Chinese Communists are too brutal and powerful and the 1.4 billion Chinese citizens are abetting them. Therefore, democracy isn't coming to China even if the people of Hong Kong wants it.

Secondly, the Chinese Communists cannot be trusted. Before the massacre, Deng Xiaoping met with the students; but the dawn of democracy in China turned into a dark night of bloody massacre. Therefore the people of Hong Kong must never believe in anything that Chinese Communists say. We want the people of Hong Kong to absorb the history lessons of June 4th and prepare themselves for the resistance.

- Professional Teachers Union sells gifts designed for June 4th commodity fetishists:


$120 t-shirts to vindicate June 4th


$100 t-shirts for democratic movements


$120 June 4th USB memory device, 16G capacity with 8.9G preloaded information on the democratic movement.

- Lau Siu-wai offered an eyewitness testimony of the June 4th 1989 massacre:

It is almost June 4th and many people are saying that what has something that happened in China decades ago have to with us? I would like to share a story.
Back then I was a young child. I watched television. Every night I saw the students in danger. When the lights went out on Tiananmen Square that night and the gunshots rang out, the images stayed in the bottom of my heart. When I grow up, what can I give to society ...

So there you have it -- Lau Siu-wai saw everything on television. P.S. Lau Siu-wai said that she needed to raise $750,000 before deciding whether to run in the legislative council elections. So send your money (preferably cash) as soon as possible and as often as possible. Thank you.

- Strictly speaking, a young girl watching television in Hong Kong is not a true eyewitness to the June 4th massacre. Chinese University of Hong Kong student Lai Hung was present at the scene, and therefore a true eyewitness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa29HiEn5o

[In 1989, Lai Hung was interviewed by a gathering of the Hong Kong press]

0:14 Lai Hung: At first, the lights came on and the soldiers marched out in unison from the Great Hall. They got closer and closer. It was very ... the scene ... a bus caught fire ... it was to the other side ... I don't know who set off the fire ... I saw ... the soldiers approached. The people got chaotic. I told the people not to move, not to run. I found the tanks coming down the pedestrian path that we were on. They came at us students. About several tens of meters behind me, a dozen or so students were crushed to death. There were brain matters, arms, legs scattered all over ... that is, a lot of blood ...

0:58 Interviewer: According to information from various sides, a lot of people died this time.

1:01 Lai Hung: ... at least ten thousand (dead) ... more than ten thousand. Actually, if you count several tallies ... if you count two tallies, there were already more than five or six thousand. That is, almost three thousand people died in the rear. That is, at Tiananmen Square in the end. The other tally ... that is, the announcement from the Red Cross ... before 2am or 3am before the attack on Tiananmen Square, more than two thousand people were dead. These are conservative estimates. Also some student leaders visited six hospitals and they estimated more than 1,000. Ultimately, if you add everything up, it is more than 10,000.

[In 1994, Lai Hung was interviewed by ATV]

1:32 Lai Hung: Shooting ... not many people ... nobody was shot ... actually, nothing much happened inside ... in the end, after the lights came on, then things happened.

2:24 Lai Hung: I was in the frontline. I was facing north. I saw a group of soldiers in camouflage uniforms coming up ... actually ... I saw them kicking people aside ... using their guns to force people aside ... they came up ... before I even reacted, another team of more than a dozen ... both teams had more than a dozen or so people ... they might have come from the west ... maybe from the east ... they got to the top level ... they got to the top level ... I was at the top level of the monument ... I saw them go to the top level and before I reacted, they were already shooting at the monument and telling people to leave. They stood at the top level of the monument and shot upwards ... above the heads of the people ... they shot upwards ... they fired shots ... nobody should have been ... nobody was shot. They began to chase people off. The people began to leave slowly.

The true eyewitness Lai Hung said 10,000 were murdered. So you better send your money (preferably cash) to the Professional Teachers Union/Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China as soon as possible and as often as possible. Thank you.

(SCMP) May 23, 2016.

Mediatycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-yings Next Magazine was fined HK$3 million by the High Court yesterday for defaming a mainland manufacturer of a herbal shampoo that was once advertised by film star Jackie Chan. The fine was less than 0.5 per cent of the record HK$630 million in damages that BaWang International was seeking.

Judge David Lok Kai-hong reduced the amount, saying the court had to ensure the damages awarded would not be an impediment to freedom of expression. He also said Next Digital, which owns the publication, could not be held responsible according to mainland law for the news spreading across the border, and that BaWang could not sue for losses in the city suffered by its two Hong Kong subsidiaries instead of the parent firm. But Lok criticised the magazine for its naive and unprofessional conduct in publishing the defamatory article, which claimed that BaWangs shampoo could cause cancer.

Next Digital said it would consider filing an appeal.

The article, published on July 14, 2010, claimed BaWangs shampoo contained 1,4-Dioxane, a liquid compound that causes cancer. The shampoo was popular in the city with Jackie Chan promoting its anti-hair-loss qualities in television commercials.

In a 269-page judgment handed down yesterday, Lok noted that BaWangs shampoo, billed as a Chinese herbal product, had been quite successful in the market, although its sales growth had slowed before the publication of the article in question.

The court heard earlier that BaWangs revenues hit 930.8 million yuan (HK$1.17 billion) in the first half of 2010, a year-on-year rise of 36.7 per cent, and its profits were up 47.1 per cent. But its share price slumped 14 per cent within a few hours after the Next Magazine article was published.

Lok said the article had caused serious damage to the reputation of the shampoo manufacturer and made it more difficult for the firm to market its products or to launch new ones. The judge said the report had exaggerated, in a sensational manner, the health risks associated with use of BaWang shampoos. In short, the defendant had adopted a naive and unprofessional approach in reporting the story, he said.

Lok said the defendant should have exercised greater responsibility and care in ensuring the contents of the article were accurate and unbiased. If they perform their work irresponsibly, which seriously affects the reputation of others, they cannot always put forward freedom of speech as an excuse, he said. But the judge did not find any sinister motive behind the report.

Apart from paying HK$3 million in damages, Next Magazine will also have to foot 80 per cent of BaWangs legal bill. Next Digital, which also owns Apple Daily, said the court ruling would not have any material adverse impact on its operations or financial position.

(EJ Insight) May 24, 2016.

Phew. You could almost hear media maverick Jimmy Lai expressing relief, instead of tearing his hair out. The chairman of Next Digital Group (00282.HK) is still out for HK$3 million (US$386,214) but not the HK$630 million a plaintiff had sought in a defamation case against Next Magazine.

A High Court judge handed down a HK$3 million penalty judgment for herbal shampoo maker Bawang International (01338.HK) over a Next Magazine report that its product caused cancer. The judgment, which defied expectations, took Next Digital and Bawang on a roller coaster ride.

Lais flagship went up as much as 7.7 percent after the judgment and closed at 46 HK cents, taking its market capitalization above HK$1.09 billion. Bawang lost a 20 percent gain.

It was a classic case of financial journalism in which an investigative report can make or break a company.

Bawang was an investor darling and a direct play on Chinese consumers because it commanded a market share that dwarfed Rejoice at one time before the Next Magazine report. Bawang lost its halo faster than Cinderellas carriage turned back into a pumpkin after midnight. The stock fell more than 90 percent from about HK$6, losing HK$1.54 billion of its value over the next five years.

Bawang sued Next Magazine six years ago. The trial went on for 39 days until August last year. Apparently, High Court Judge David Lok was not satisfied that Next Magazine produced enough evidence in its own defense.

But before announcing the verdict, Lok cautioned that he would have to take press freedom into account in assessing the award. He said the size of the compensation might deter the media from doing investigative stories.

As it turned out, what he had in mind was a small fraction of the consensus estimate of legal experts. The amount is probably not enough to cover Bawangs costs. It was also a less than the political penalty one might expect for a media group notorious for being a pain on the side of the government.

Before the judgment, there was talk Next Magazine might close its Taiwan business because of deteriorating business environment and the shift to digital publishing. That came with rumors that the 26-year-old magazine could be forced to fold if it lost the case, not that it does not have financial challenges already. Jimmy Lai can thank his lucky stars.

Now that Next Magazine has survived, he needs to find a way to convince readers to continue to pay HK$20 per copy with much weaker content after a round of newsroom firings. Thats nothing compared with Bawangs problem. It still needs to rebuild the brand even after the company was vindicated by no less than the High Court.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) Judge David Lok said that most of the losses incurred by Bawang were in mainland China where the media covered the Next Magazine report. According to mainland law, the originator of the information is not liable. That was why the judge imposed a trivial fine of only $3 million. People think that this is extremely unfair to the plaintiff.

- (Oriental Daily) According to estimates by legal professionals, Next Magazine is expected to have to pay as much as HKD 80 million to cover its own legal fees plus 80% of Bawang's legal fees. Senior counsels charges as much as $300,000 to $400,000 per day. This trial lasted 39 days. Senior counsel David Pilbrow and his team will probably charge between $30 to $40 million for representing Bawang, and therefore Next Magazine's share will be $30 million or so. Senior counsel Benjamin Yu and his team defended Next Magazine, and will charge $40 to $50 million.

- How to cover the $80 million hole? Fire more editors and reporters (preferably those with seniority because their have bigger paychecks). Then Next Weekly will become a $20 16-page advertisement-free pamphlet with these contents: 1 cover page; 2 pages of gourmet/politics from Jimmy Lai; 2 pages of Chip Tso in praise of the United Kingdom; 1 page of freedom/democracy from Martin Lee; 1 page of Cato Institute economics; and the rest being 'investigative reporting' copied from pro-freedom and pro-democracy Facebook pages.

- I did the arithmetic. Bawang was the injured party. Bawang was awarded $3 million. Bawang incurred legal fees of $40 million, for which Next Weekly pays 80%. So Bawang has to pay $8 million out of pocket. This means that Bawang loses $5 million as in the injured party in the whole affair. This is logic-defying!

- (Oriental Daily) Taiwan media are reporting that Next Weekly will cease publication in Taiwan this June. Next Weekly has denied this, but it admitted that they are providing incentives for voluntary resignation. Apple Daily (Taiwan) has also offered the same and 76 employees have applied so far, including three deputy chief-editors.

- Next Magazine (Hong Kong) is delivered as three books in one: Next Magazine, Eat & Travel Weekly and ME!. It is reported that ME! will cease publication as of June.

- This trial lasted 39 days and there were many details about how Next Magazine conducts its journalism.

- (Oriental Daily) The court criticisms of Next Magazine
-- Next Magazine's reportage on safety standards was illogical, arbitrary and unscientific.
-- Next Magazine forgot about the duty to be objective and failed to inform the readers that other expert scientists hold different views about safety standards and they thus forced the readers to accept the only safety standard that was quoted in the report.
-- Next Magazine was suspicious about the complainant Mr. Chen but never verified whether the information provided by the complainant was true.
-- Next Magazine said on one hand that Bawang was irresponsible, evasive and intransigent. On the other hand, it did not inform the readers that Bawang's position was supported by scientific evidence. This was irresponsible reportage.
-- Next Magazine accused Bawang of using poor materials in order to maximize profit. This accusation was speculative, and not in the public interest.
-- The court has reason to believe that no matter how Bawang responded, Next Magazine had made up its mind beforehand that it would call Bawang an irresponsible business organization anyway.
-- Next Magazine's investigation was irresponsible and its conclusions were inaccurate, simple-minded and unprofessional.

- (Oriental Daily) Next Media's senior counsel Benjamin Yu said that there is a great deal of controversy about chemicals in shampoo and therefore the court should protect freedom of expression even if the reporting included elements of exaggeration and inaccuracy. The judge questioned whether the media want the license to make inaccurate reports on matter of public interest.

Bawang's senior counsel David Pilbrow complained that Next Magazine used the terms 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of press' at least 67 times during its summation in order to divert attention. Pilbrow said that Bawang supports the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of press. However, this case is about the irresponsible reporting by Next Magazine that caused Bawang to suffer huge losses.

- (Oriental Daily) According to the testimony of Bawang's Chief Financial Officer Huang Xianrong, he received an email inquiry from a Next Weekly reporter about the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in Bawang shampoo at 11am on the day before the article was published. The reporter gave Bawang 4 hours to respond. Huang provided a written response but Next Weekly went ahead to report selectively anyway. For example, Bawang, Rejoice and Acene all told Next Weekly that different countries have different safety standards for 1,4-Dioxane but the article did not mention this fact. Bawang Chief Executive Officer Wan Yuhua told the reporter that the state had analyzed Bawang products and found them to meet safety standards, but Next Weekly only quoted one sentence from Wan Yuhua followed by a rebuttal citing City University associate professor Lam Hon-wah.

- (Oriental Daily)

Next Magazine report Lam Yu-ting

The court verdict document contained a detailed analysis of every step of the reporting process. Three months before publication, Next Weekly received a tip that Bawang shampoo contained 1,4-Dioxane together with a lab analysis report paid for by the tipster. Although there was evidence afterwards that the tipster was connected to another shampoo manufacturer, Next Weekly did not check this out.

Reporter Lam Yu-ting conducted research on the nature of 1,4-Dioxane. She relied mostly on news reports and not scientific studies. The sole scientific data that she had were the Australian standard of 100ppm. Lam testified that there is no firm conclusion about whether 1,4-Dioxane is carcinogenic and what the safety level is. Lam could not explain why her report stated 10ppm is the safety level.

The judge also criticized Next Magazine for not reporting Bawang's response at short notice. Furthermore, Next Magazine accused Bawang of using 1,4-Dioxane because it wants to use inferior materials in order to maximize profits. This was baseless. Finally, Next Magazine editors changed the report heading from "Bawang contains carcinogenic substances" to "Bawang causes cancer."

In conclusion, Next Magazine's reporting methods were far short of the objectivity and responsibility required under the law.

- (Oriental Daily) During the trial, Next Magazine called on then content advisor Cheung Kim-hung and then chief-editor Lee Chi-ho to testify. These two were the ultimate decision-makers but they held the reporter Lam Yu-ting responsible instead.

Cheung said that he depended to a large extent on the information collected by Lam Yu-ting. Cheng said that he asked Lam to look up the 1,4-Dioxane safety levels in the European Union, United States, mainland China and Hong Kong. However, he only heard a verbal summary from Lam, he did not read the relevant details and he did not see Bawang's response. Cheung said that Lam did not inform him about many things, such as the opposing views within the scientific community about whether 1,4-Dioxane is carcinogenic or not, and the varying safety standards in the European Union, United States and Australia.

Lee Chi-ho wrote in his written testimony that he had "carefully gone over the report and verified that the allegations were based upon facts." In court, he admitted that his 'verification' refers to his having read the final version of the report. Lee said that Lam did not show him the information that she had gathered, or the written response from Bawang, or the written responses of the other shampoo manufacturers or the opinions of the experts. Lee admitted directly that he relied on Lam and Cheung to verify the veracity of the contents in the report.

As to how "Bawang contains carcinogenic substances" became "Bawang causes cancer" after an editorial group meeting, both Cheung and Lee said that they cannot remember who recommended the title be changed that way. Lee said that the two headings are similar and the latter was chosen because it was simpler and "easier to read aloud." Cheung said that "Bawang causes cancer" does not mean that you will get cancer if you use Bawang products or else Next Magazine would have used "Bawang causes cancer with certainty." The plaintiff said that Cheung was engaging in word games in court.

- (Oriental Daily) The tipster Mr. Chan provided Next Weekly with a lab analysis report which showed that Bawang shampoo contained 27ppm 1,4-Dioxane. Next Weekly commissioned its own lab analyses of many samples and found that the maximum level was 10ppm. Lam Yu-ting was suspicious of Mr. Chan at first, but she chose to cite 27ppm in her final report.

According to United States standards, 10ppm or under of 1,4-Dioxane is safe, but an Australian organization NICNAS sets the safety level at 100ppm which is the basis for the European Union, mainland China and Taiwan. However, Next Weekly does not mention the different safety levels and only said that "10ppm is on the brink of danger."

Lam Yu-ting interviewed doctor Lau Fei-lung who told her that "10ppm or less" is definitely not harmful. However, Lam's supervisor thought that Lau's statement was not good enough and directed her to locate other experts to see if someone would say that "10ppm is on the brink of danger." Lau said that danger does not have a border and it is preposterous to speak of "the brink of danger." Lau said that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other that 1,4-Dioxane causes cancer in humans and he can only say that 1,4-Dioxane may (or may not) lead to cancer.

- (Oriental Daily) Hong Kong Poison Information Centre chief executive Lau Fei-lung said that it was dangerous for the media to make partial quotations. Lau said that anything can cause cancer but none can lead to cancer immediately after intake. One can only say that it may increase the likelihood of cancer. Furthermore, the carcinogenic effects of 1,4-Dioxane on humans are unknown at this time. Lau Fei-lung said that he remembered telling the female Next Weekly reporter that 10ppm or less of 1,4-Dioxane is definitely safe, and long-term exposure to 20 to 30ppm should be avoided if possible.

- (Oriental Daily) City University associate professor of biology Lam Hon-wah was reported to have told the Next Weekly reporter that "10ppm is on the brink of danger, and 20ppm or above is excessive." In court, Lam Hon-wah said that he remembered saying that 20ppm or above is high, but he does not recall or not whether he said "10ppm is on the brink of danger." However, he said that he rarely uses the term 'danger' to characterize such circumstances. Lam Hon-wah in previous press interviews had said that 1,4-Dioxane is safe unless ingested into the body (and not about being present in shampoos).

Bawang's response to Next Weekly cites the Australian report which said that any shampoo with less than 100ppm 1,4-Dioxane is safe. Reporter Lam Yu-ting said that she does not believe this and therefore she could not put this into her report. Because space is limited, it would be impractical to put the entire Bawang response into the report. She interpreted that the main point of Bawang's response was that products had passed national safety tests and not about the 100ppm safety level.

Lam Yu-ting said that she did not write the heading of "Bawang causes cancer." When she learned her supervisors chose this title, she checked similar reports from the past and found quite a few which says that certain products cause cancer (e.g. "Johnson's cancer-causing products" and "Brand X cancer-causing luncheon meat"). Therefore she did not object to this heading. She said that she has no dissatisfaction with the published report. She said that the sentence "Bawang used this as a shield and persisted in denying any wrongdoing" has room for improvement in the choice of words.

- (Oriental Daily) Lam Yu-ting said that she thinks less harmful material should be better than more. While she has doubts about the scientific research, the magazine had only limited space and therefore she chose to write what she believed to be more important. Thus, she wrote about the standard that she personally agreed with and did not write about alternate standards.

Bawang asked Lam why she spent 1/3 of her article on this background of Bawang but she wouldn't spend 50 words to give the scientific opinions on the other side. Did Lam not want the readers to know that Bawang had met the safety standards? Was her report biased for failing to provide a fair and balanced picture for the readers to decide for themselves? Lam agreed with this characterization of her report.

Bawang said that Bawang's CEO Wan Yuhua was interviewed by Next Weekly and said that a 1,4-Dioxane level of under 100ppm was safe. But the report said that "Bawang used this as the shield and denied any wrongdoing." Bawang said that the reporter was inaccurate and unfair. Lam said that this was not necessarily inaccurate. However, in retrospect, she agreed that this was unfair. But she was adamant that "refused to admit to any wrongdoing" was not unfair. She said that she cannot remember whether she or some editor wrote those words.

Lam said that she had some doubts when she received the tip from Mr. Chen. However Chen said that a family member had just died from cancer. She thought that no normal person would lie about the lives of family members, so she believed 100% in Chen. Only after it was revealed today in court that Chen was connected to a competitor of Bawang did she realize that she had been used. She said she was very careful. In retrospect, she should have been even more careful.

(Oriental Daily) Two days after the Next Weekly report appeared, Bawang received an email from a "indignant person." This person said the complainant Chen Yukong who first contacted Next Weekly about 1,4-Dioxane in Bawang shampoo is the owner of a company that produces the O'Naomi brand for chain stores Watsons and Mannings. After the Next Weekly article appeared, O'Naomi took out an advertisement in Apple Daily that their products are "manufactured in Hong Kong" and therefore "trustworthy." Furthermore, their products do not contain 1,4-Dioxane.

- Bawang asked for $600 million and got $3 million. This shows that Hong Kong laws will shield libel/defamation. With this precedent, how many companies would want to build products here in Hong Kong?

- Rule-of-law is one of Hong Kong's core values. This case showed that the rule-of-law is worth (3 million) / (600 million) = 1/200 = 0.5%. You destroy someone's business and you only have to pay 0.5% of the destroyed value in compensation.

- Hong Kong's big role in One Belt One Road is in providing professional services, especially in the financial and legal fields. When you have a judge rendering such a verdict, it is not clear that people want Hong Kong-style legal services.

- The judge noted that most of Bawang's sales declines occurred in mainland China. The judge said that he checked mainland law and found out that the originator of inaccurate information is not accountable; only those secondary sources that were directly read by the consumers will be held accountable. Next Weekly is published in Hong Kong. When the article appeared, Next Magazine said that only 24 mainlanders read the article on their website. Therefore the direct damage of Next Magazine on mainland sales is negligible. That is why the judge could not come up with a huge fine.

Meanwhile the hundreds of mainland newspapers and websites that reported on the Next Magazine article cannot be held accountable because they cannot possibly verify every news story that they repost or cite.

All this means that it will be easy to commit libel in mainland China. Just use a Hong Kong media outlet to post a sensationalistic story and then the mainland media outlets will report or cite.

- When the judge said that he checked mainland law before he made his decision, my heart skipped a beat. This is an egregious violation of One Country Two Systems! Hong Kong court decisions should be made based upon Hong Kong law, not mainland Chinese law!

- Look at the key data points here.

With respect to safety standards, one standard says 10ppm and another standard says 100ppm.

With respect to Bawang shampoo's 1,4-Dioxane content, Bawang competitor submitted a lab analysis report of 27ppm while Next Magazine's own lab analysis reports were 10ppm or less.

Decision #1: If Next Magazine chose to use their own lab analysis reports, there is no story. Therefore Next Magazine must chose Mr. Chen's report.

Decision #2: If Next Magazine chose to use the 100pm safety standard, there is no story. Therefore Next Magazine must use the 10ppm safety standard while burying the other inconvenient facts.

That is how those decisions got to be made.

- Why was Next Magazine so keen on going after Bawang? Politics. Really.

On one side, Next Magazine is pro-freedom and pro-democracy.

On the other side, Bawang is a mainland Chinese company which hires actor Jackie Chan as their spokesperson (see Jackie Chan's Bawang television ad).  They hate freedom and democracy, so they must be destroyed.

- (HKG Pao)

Here are some strange things that happened after the verdict was announced:

First of all, Apple Daily announced on its Facebook that Next Weekly chief editor Wong Lai-tong will file an appeal of the verdict.

Several hours later, Apple Daily "revisted" its Facebook to say that Wong Lai-tong will consider filing an appeal.

Did the Facebook editor commit a typographic error at first, or have senior management changed its mind?

Next, we look at Wong Lai-tong's reason for filing an appeal. She thought that even the judge did not believe that Next Weekly maliciously libel Bawang. Later the parent company Next Media Group issued a press release, they said that they may appeal against the assignment of responsibility and the award amount. Next Media did not deny libel, but they thought that $3 million was too high. That was why they are considering an appeal. This is very different from Wong Lai-tong's insistence that they did nothing wrong.

So this leads to some interesting question: Does not even the Next Media Group senior management believe in the nonsense spouted by the chief editor? Even they don't think that Next Weekly was 'innocent'?

Even more interesting is the action over at Yellow Media newspaper Ming Pao. In the past, anything over at Next Media is known quickly over at Ming Pao and vice versa. That was why Apple Daily got live coverage of what was happening over at Ming Pao during the firing of Chief Editor Keung.

After Next Weekly lost the case, Ming Pao immediately estimated that Next Weekly will be paying legal fees close to $100 million. Several hours later, the report was "revised" to say that "the estimated legal fees is close to several tens of thousands of dollars dollars." Please note the erratum: They typed in a corrected version that says "dollars dollars." Why was the editor so careless? Was there total panic at the time?

No outsiders can know what really happened here. But let me present a fictional story for your entertainment.

Once upon a time, a certain media organization was suffering from declining revenues and therefore resorted to austerity measures such as mass firings. Then came this libel lawsuit which could involve hundreds of millions in damages. So the senior management told the chief editor: "If you lose this case, you will have to fire more people. You can do the arithmetic yourself and calculate how many firings are needed to cover the costs."

So after the verdict came out, the chief editor told the public that they intend to file an appeal and also told the ally newspaper: "The legal costs are almost $100 million! How can we not appeal?" She was calculating that it was worth the gamble to save a few jobs.

But when senior management found out, they were shocked and angered: It was clear that the magazine had committed libel and they were very lucky to be fined only $3 million! The legal fees are huge, but they can only be bigger with an appeal. And is there any chance of winning an appeal!? You know very well what you did ...

After having some sense slapped into her, the chief editor told the ally newspaper. And then what happened afterwards happened ...

So do you think that there will be an appeal?

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 26, 2016.

Three million dollars is a lot to an ordinary citizen such as myself. But it is small change to a large corporation. With three million dollars, Next Weekly boss Jimmy Lai can buy a car, or a part of a yacht. With three million dollars, Next Weekly managed to ruin Bawang's business. It is clear who the winner is.

In the verdict, Judge David Lok said that Next Weekly was inaccurate and irresponsible, and the reporter was unprofessional and simple-minded in gathering information and writing the report, even intentionally ignoring data that favored Bawang. However, Judge Lok wrote, the monetary award in this case cannot be set too high because it could affect freedom of speech.

Wow! In the name of freedom of speech, you can destroy someone's wealth and get off lightly. Judge Lok's summation was noteworth: "The law permits journalists to employ a certain degree of exaggeration during the exercise of freedom of speech, but this is not unlimited especially when it comes to investigative reports that involve science and technology."

I have been working in the news industry for quite a while. It was only today that I learned that the law permits reporters to "employ a certain degree of exaggeration" during their reporting.

Given that how precious freedom of expression is, I can surely express my personal views about this verdict in the name of freedom of expression, right?

No. Several months ago, someone at the Hong Kong Bar Association informed the public that anyone who makes inappropriate comments about judges will be guilty of contempt of court. So is this easy going to be considered contempt of court? I am very worried!

An exaggerated exercise of freedom of expression destroyed someone's business. In court, the judge punished the defendant lightly because of freedom of expression. I express my opinions but I do not have freedom of expression ...

This is so confusing. So do we have freedom of expression or not? Or does the freedom belong solely in the hands of certain authorities such as judges and reporters?

(Oriental Daily) May 17, 2016.

League of Social Democrats members hung up a large vertical banner to demand "the end of the dictatorship of the Chinese Communists" on the base of a bridge under construction in north Lantau Island. Four individuals were arrested, including chairman Avery Ng, vice-chairman Chan Tak-cheung and deputy secretary-general Chow Ka-fat and member Ma Won-ki. The police said that they found two vertical banners at around 1215pm. For the sake of public safety, the police removed the vertical banners. Three men interfered with their actions and were arrested for obstructing the police in the line of duty. One male policeman was injured in the elbow and taken to the hopsital.

League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong, members Shi Shing-wai and Chow Kim-ho hung a vertical banner with the words "Rescind the August 31st resolution" on a hill slope near the Tsing Ma Bridge. The police arrested the three persons for obstruction of police business.

League of Social Democrats member Tsang Kin-shing was stopped on the Tsing Yi-Lantau Island expressway and taken to the police station to assist in an investigation. Tsang was released, but his vehicle is being inspected.

League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung called on all those pan-democratic legislators who attend tomorrow night's banquet to wear yellow clothes, bring yellow umbrellas and tie yellow ribbons at their homes in order to express the demand for genuine universal suffrage.

Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong went to demonstrate outside the Hyatt Hotel. He was surrounded by 30 policemen and he was unable to take any action. Afterwards, Wong said that he did not bring any megaphone or banners and he did not intend to dash out onto the road. Therefore, he is not happy with the police action.

Demosisto chairman Nathan Law and two others persons stood outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre and raised three protest banners that said "I want genuine universal suffrage," "I don't want One Road One Belt" and "Self-determination of destiny." The three attempted to charge on the roadway but were quickly subdued by the police. Nathan Law said that the authorities wanted to create a peaceful image of Hong Kong in the name of anti-terrorism, and that was why they intentionally protested against Zhang Dejiang in a non-designated demonstration area to express their demands for democracy.

Former Scholarism member Derek Lam and two other individuals raised banners and chanted slogans outside Shui On Centre which is within the security zone. The police asked them to leave.

(AM 730) May 17, 2016

Demosisto chairman Nathan "Law 37" Law, Lau Siulai and others charged out of the demonstration zone to express their demands. They were subdued by more than a dozen police officers. The police searched some of the demonstrators, recorded their identity information and released them.

(Sing Tao) May 17, 2016.

At around 8am, someone posted on Facebook a photo of a vertical banner with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage" hanging down by Mount Parker inside the Lion Rock Country Park. At 9am, a team of firemen arrived and one fireman climbed down to severe the ropes. By 1035am, the banner was removed. Displaying unauthorized advertisements within country parks is subject to a $2,000 fine and/or a 3 month jail term.

Afterwards, the League of Social Democrats posted on Facebook that their volunteers climbed up Lion Rock this morning and hung down the "I want genuine universal suffrage" in order to express the determination of the people of Hong Kong to get freedom and democracy.

(SCMP) Zhang Dejiang. May 20, 2016.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk from the heart about my views on one country, two systems and issues related to Hong Kong. These could be summarised in three points. The first is: Do not forget the original intent so that we can achieve the ultimate goal. When Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) first proposed the one country, two systems concept as a way to resolve the historic issues related to Hong Kong, what he meant was to resume the power to exercise sovereignty over Hong Kong yet retain its characteristics and advantages as much as possible so as to maintain a sustainable prosperity. Whenever we talk about Hong Kong and one country, two systems, we must adhere to the original intent and cannot go against it.

Here, I would like to talk about a few issues concerning the original intent of one country, two systems, which Hong Kong society is particularly concerned about. One is localism. The moon is bright over my home town; everyone has special homeland feelings. I come from the northeast of China and I love my hometown. I am Chinese, and I love my country. Hong Kong compatriots should be respected for cherishing their characteristic way of life and values. As a matter of fact, some basic principles of one country, two systems include: maintaining Hong Kongs social and economic systems and way of life, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy. These are the best ways to take care of the actual circumstances of Hong Kong.

Today, there is a very tiny minority of people who intend to defy one country and the central government. They even advocate the independence of Hong Kong. This is not localism, but separatism under the camouflage of localism, which is contrary to the original idea of one country, two systems. I believe the majority of Hong Kong people are aware of this and can judge whether this is a blessing or a curse for Hong Kong.

The second is about the rule of law. Rule of law is one of the core values of Hong Kong society, and is the cornerstone of social stability. It is also the bottom line of freedom. When the cornerstone is shaken, the bottom line can be redrawn; if so, then how can we maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong? Everyone is equal before the law, no one can act above the law, and no offenders can evade legal sanctions for any reason. We hope that the SAR government and the judiciary will effectively fulfil the sacred duty of maintaining the rule of law while strictly enforcing laws and ensuring fair administration of justice. We must not make concessions to law-violating behaviour. Society as a whole should also severely condemn such behaviour, which clearly touches on the bottom line of the rule of law.

The third issue is about development, which is Hong Kongs top priority. Hong Kongs international status is determined by its economic status. The peoples quality of life is inseparable from the development of the territory. All walks of life in Hong Kong must have a sense of urgency, and understand that opportunities once lost are lost for good, and that if we stand still, we risk falling behind. Hong Kong people should focus their attention on economic development, on improving livelihoods and on enhancing across-the-board competitiveness. Disputes do Hong Kong no good and only harm the citys efficiency and economy. They waste time and can jeopardise the economy and thus peoples livelihood.

The second point is about patience. The Hong Kong SAR government has been established for less than 19 years. There has been no precedent for the one country, two systems practice. All aspects of the system and institutional mechanisms need to be refined, and some deep-seated contradictions would gradually emerge after some time. There are objective reasons for this. Some problems have surfaced in recent years after remaining somewhat latent. Some problems are new, and can by no means be resolved overnight. We cannot become doubtful about, or lose confidence in or even deny one country, two systems. There are no obstacles that cannot be overcome. We have the wisdom and the abilities to resolve all problems that arise during the implementation of one country, two systems.

Hong Kong is a pluralistic society, and there are different voices in society. This is normal. We respect the one country, two systems principle and the Basic Law, and we are willing to listen to opinions and suggestions from all sides in society as long as they are for the good of Hong Kong. We can also carry out exchanges through different channels. Rational and reasonable communication can reduce or even eliminate differences, and foster consensus.

What is sure is that the three chief executives of the SAR government have done a lot of good work for the development of Hong Kong. Leung Chun-ying, the incumbent chief executive, and the SAR administration led by him have identified the problems. The policies and measures being implemented by them with the aim of promoting the citys economic and social development are taking effect, and have achieved some success. As long as all sectors of Hong Kong have the spirit to set aside disagreements in order to pursue our goals together to realise our dream [Editors note: a line taken from the song Below the Lion Rock], and jointly support the chief executive and the SAR government in their policy implementation according to law, working together, we will gain excellent results and enter a new stage of one country, two systems.

The third point is to have confidence. First, we must have confidence in the undertaking of one country, two systems. There are three reasons for that. First, one country, two systems is the countrys primary national policy, and is a strategic choice rather than a short-term solution. It will not be changed. Second, one country, two systems has a solid public opinion foundation, and is the main common denominator connecting the mainland and Hong Kong, and thus should not be changed. Third, evidence obtained since the 1997 handover has proven that one country, two systems is feasible, and is a proven good system with no need to be changed. In future, we still need to adhere to the principle, so that Hong Kong can continue to play its unique role.

The remarks that the mainland government intends to mainlandise Hong Kong and even turn one country, two systems into one country, one system are completely groundless. The majority of Hong Kong compatriots hope that one country, two system can continue as it is, and this is in the best interest of the nation. The central government will continue to steadfastly implement the system, and the Hong Kong community can rest assured of that.

Videos:

INT News Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwuH0hG-MAI

Resistance Live Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VDQCPlIsP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpNp7LPa8-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InpR-U_WPQg

Epoch Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFeW2vni80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgyFNeAZBaU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muJEMJJY_mg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EmksTcGFwc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ARVPpq0sBQ

Internet comments:

- These fucking incompetent idiots! The regular slogan is "I want genuine universal suffrage" (我要真普選). They managed to write the characters for "I", "want" and "genuine" incorrectly with missing or extra strokes  for the Mount Parker banner.

- After 7 League of Social Democrats members were arrested, the party immediately boasted their actions on their Facebook without omitting to tell people to support their brothers who will be facing prosecution. Immediately, the localists heaped scorn upon the League of Social Democrats. The wife of Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat wrote,, "Money is always very important, but we really couldn't ask for donations as soon as our members are arrested." Localist scholar Wan Chin said: "The reason why the government set up the water barricades is to invite those stupid pan-democratic social activist pigs to cooperate by pushing at those barricades and shout some slogans in order to demonstrate that the police defense was effective and necessary ..."

Wan Chin added that the banner on Lion Rock is a joint project by the government with civilians. Nowadays, the government needs to have a suitable resistance in order to justify their jobs and overtime pay. The permanent pan-democratic social activism supports the soft oppression by the police and both sides get to rake in a lot of money. By contrast, Wan Chin wrote: "We decided to hold no demonstrations whatsoever because the government has locked down the city. We let the government embarrass itself."

The Localists also criticized the League of Social Democrats for putting the initials LSD on their banners in order to gain election publicity. They scorned them for using the incidents to raise money. Meanwhile the League of Social Democrats scorned the Localists for claiming to be valiant compared to the traditional "Peace, reason and non-violence" but always cowering in the rear eating sour grapes.

- Hanging large banners in wilderness parks is the kind of juvenile behavior such as writing bathroom graffiti.

- No, it is not the same. There is no physical danger involved in writing bathroom graffiti, but those large banners pose risks to the people who have to hang them up and those who have to take them down.

- I note that the banner is smaller than those banners that appeared during the Occupy Central period in 2014. The League of Social Democrats said that this banner was homemade and the characters were written by hand. The 2014 banners were professionally printed. The League of Social Democrats said that their volunteers took the banner up to Mount Parker and not Lion Rock which was patrolled by the police. The 2014 banners were hung down from the peak of Lion Rock by expert mountaineers. There must be an austerity issue here.

So why is Big Money missing in action? One factor is that this action only has nostalgia going for it with the effectiveness proven to be non-existent.

- From the League of Social Democrats' Raphael Wong

I can be scolded for acting stupidly, but acting stupidly will always be better than just talking stupidly without acting. Action is always better than sitting still ... What we doing right now is to bring order out of the chaos and stop the Chinese Communists from causing trouble in Hong Kong and thus making all of us pay the bill!

- So by hanging out a banner by the hillside, the League of Social Democrats will realize their stated objectives such as
(1) Stopping the Express Rail Link that will link Hong Kong to the rest of the High Speed Rail in China
(2) Stopping the completion of the Zhuhai-Macau-Hong Kong bridge
(3) Stopping the construction of the third runway at the Hong Kong International Airport
(4) Stopping the One Road One Belt initiative
(5) Implementing a universal retirement protection scheme
(6) The nationalization of Link REIT
(7) Stopping the operation of the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Reactor
etc etc

- What has Zhang Dejiang seen before? He has gone through the Xinjiang riots and the Tibet riots, he has seen self-immolations, he has seen attacks on the police and military, etc. So how is he going to be impressed by a hillside banner saying "Stop One Road One Belt"?

- You don't understand, do you? The target of the demonstrations was never Zhang Dejiang. It is always about getting people to donate more money for the Hong Kong legislative council elections.

- Pounding on your keyboards isn't going to impress Zhang Dejiang either. You aren't going to hurt him a bit with your thousand-word Facebook essays every day. You need to jump off the roof or set yourself on fire to create a stir. But you will have to surpass what has happened in Xinjiang/Tibet.

- There has been a self-immolation in Hong Kong already. This was documented in the movie Ten Years.

- You don't seem to realize that Ten Years is fictional. Nobody can make a real-time documentary about events ten years from now.

- Yellow Ribbon wastrels live in their own fantasy world in which if they can cover the hillsides with banners, they will have won. In the real world, covering the hillsides with banners will only draw criticisms from environmentalists.

- (TVB) The Civil Human Rights Front could not get near the Convention Centre. They met with a Civil Affairs Bureau official who said that she could try to forward their petition letter to Zhang Dejiang, but she cannot guarantee that the letter will reach him. So Civil Human Rights Front decided that they would rather burn the letter and tell Zhang Dejiang to receive the joss paper.

- (Facebook) The Civil Human Rights Front say that they oppose the Chinese Communists, but they want to present a petition letter to a senior Chinese Communist official?

- Even the police officer found the act of League of Social Democrats member Figo Chan to be amusing. But the police officer had better watch out for the kick to the groin?

- How are you going to bring down the Chinese Communists? There are 87 million of them. If your only effort is to hang out banners and shout slogans every time that some Communist bigwig comes to town, you will never pull it off.

- Do not be deceived by the 87 million figure. (Epoch Times) "More than 200 million people have quit the Communist Party," said Zhong Weiguang who is a Chinese dissident and scholar of totalitarianism residing in Germany.

- If you want to go head on against the 87 million Chinese Communists, you can just go across the Shenzhen border post and then you can valiantly resist them. Do not use the fact that you don't have a Home Visit Permit to enter mainland China. Causeway Bay Books' Lee Bo was able to enter China using his own method, and so can you. You are just too comfortable pounding on the keyboard from Hong Kong.

- After watching this type of display for some years, I now find it very boring. I would have loved to see a real battle, with the valiant warriors attempting to breach Zhang Dejiang's defensive cordon by frogmen coming from the harbor, or skydivers jumping off helicopters, or whatever. Instead, I see the same old faces combing their hair first and then make an intentionally futile effort to charge at the largest concentration of police/media cameras.

- (Initium) May 18, 2016. Zhang Dejiang arrived on May 18 and will stay at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Wanchai. Demosisto's Nathan Law, Agnes Chow and another student booked themselves into the Harbour View Hotel which is right across the street  from the Grand Hyatt Hotel. The three followed the television news closely. Agnes Chow told our reporter: "I think that we may not even get to take a look at what Zhang Dejiang ... Faced with the large-scale deployment, some people may think that we shouldn't even bother. But we will persist. We will do it even if we know that it is impossible. We want to let the whole world know that there are still many people fighting/resisting for democracy in Hong Kong.

Zhang Dejiang arrived in Hong Kong at 11:45am on May 17. He was met by China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming, HKSAR Chief Executive CY Leung and others. Meanwhile, Nathan Law, Agnes Chow met up Lau Siu-lai and four other Demisisto members who have checked in separately. At 12:25pm, Zhang Dejiang finished his speech and proceeded by car to the Grand Hyatt Hotel. The intercept action began. Because Nathan Law and Agnes Chow frequently appear in media reports, they assumed disguises this time. Nathan Law took off his glasses and wore a hat; Agnes Chow pulled up her hair, wore glasses and hat. Then they sent out into the lobby to look for opportunities.

At 12:45pm, Zhang Dejiang's car arrived at the Grand Hyatt Hotel with four police motorcycles leading the way and another thirty to forty police vehicles following behind. When the car passed the road across the Harbour View Hotel, Nathan Law and two other male Demosisto squeezed through the police cordon holding banners that said "I want genuine universal suffrage," "I don't want One Road One Belt" and "Self-determination of destiny" and dashed onto the roadway.

In less than 10 seconds, more than a dozen police officers tackled two of the Demosisto members onto the ground. Another Demosisto member was surrounded by more than a dozen police officers. The police pressed the three men against the glass door and searched them for weapons of assault.

At 12:56pm, the motorcade has passed by. The Demosisto people were released after questioning and allowed to return to their hotel rooms. At 2pm, Nathan Law ate a takeout lunch while lifting up his shirt to reveal to our reporter the wounds caused by the police. There were two red marks underneath his chest and his wrists were scratched. Nathan Law said that the action was not a success, but they have successfully communicated a message to the whole world: "Even in the face of such a mass deployment and no matter how difficult it is, we will do everything possible to present a picture for the world to see that some people are still resisting in Hong Kong."

- Nathan Law says that they want to send the message to the whole world that some people in Hong Kong are still resisting the Chinese Communists. How many are these 'some people'? The population of Hong Kong is 7.3 million. According to the Initium report, the resisters who checked into the hotel are Nathan Law, Agnes Chow, Lau Siu-lai and five unnamed Demosisto members. Three male Demosisto members (including Nathan Law) attempted to rush the motorcade. Eight out of 7.3 million people are 'resisting'. So should we listen to what they have to say?

- Actually, the more pertinent question is, "Do we know what we want to say?" What is the substance behind the "Hong Kong doesn't want One Road One Belt" slogan"? Why don't you want it? Do you even know what it is? Have you done an economic analysis that suggests that the benefits are small?

- Did those people who donated money to Demosisto ever thought that their money would be spent on hotel rooms (about $3,000 for May 16-18), food and beverage? And is this effort going to stop One Road One Belt?

- (Apple Daily) Today People Power member Tam Tak-chi drove around Hong Kong in a van with the sticker "The Hearse for Zhang Dejiang." He drove up to Government House to display banners to demand "Human waste Mr. and Mrs. Zhang Dejiang responsible for SARS deaths yo disclose your mistresses and corrupt fortune." Four police officers came and stopped him. Tam said that he decided to go to Government House instead of Wanchai where 10,000 police officers were deployed. "I want to show disrespect to the SARS murderer Zhang Dejiang!"

-  The calligraphy for "Zhang Dejiang's hearse" is worse than what a primary school third-grade student can do.

- Since Zhang Dejiang and CY Leung were both at the Convention Centre, what is the point of going to Government House? If Tam Tak-chi were by himself, he wouldn't have done it. Tam did it only because he got Apple Daily to send reporters to record the incident. Conversely, if Tam did not tell Apple Daily that something was going to take place, Apple Daily would see no need to station a reporter at Government House. So it is a symbiotic relationship between activists and journalists which violates the traditional stricture against journalists creating news themselves.

- Derek Lam (of the defunct Scholarism) said that he petitioned Zhang Dejiang in order to inform him that self-determination of destiny of Hong Kong does not need the approval of China.  If the approval of China is not required, then why are you petitioning Zhang Dejiang?

- Derek Lam is a theology student at Chinese University of Hong Kong, so it makes sense that his thinking should be muddled.

- Actually, Derek Lam's logic is very simple and straightforward -- he is petitioning Zhang Dejiang to approve the fact he doesn't need approval. Or something.

- Here is Apple Daily report on May 18:

Give me back my right to use the road, I oppose blocking people from going to work

Well, well, well. Let me replay an episode from Occupy Central:

(TVB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vxUt5QW-yk )

0:01 (VO)  It's after 7am.  Citizens walk from Admiralty Centre across the pedestrian overpass to go to work at Government Headquarters.  Some demonstrators have used metal barricades and garbage cans to set up a road block to prevent entrance.  This those who have to get to work from there very unhappy.

0:28 (Male)  I want to go to work one day at a time.  Don't talk to me about those things.  I didn't go to work for four days in order to avoid you people.  To avoid you people.

0:38 (VO) A janitor had to go through here to work at Government Headquarters.

0:42 (Elderly woman)  Hey, hey, don't pull.  I have to pass through.
0:43 (Male)  Grandma, are you going to work?
0:45 (Elderly woman)  I have to eat.  Make way. Don't hold.
0:48 (Rico Lo)  Grandma, at this time, everybody ...
0:50 (Elderly woman)  Do not call me Grandma.  Grandma has to eat.  You don't have to eat.  Yes.  You let me through.  I want to go to work.
0:55 (Male)  The decision to let people leave but not to enter was made by everybody.
0:58 (Elderly woman)  A person has to breathe.  A person lives between breaths.  Why don't you spend your time well each day?  Why do you have to cause chaos in Hong Kong?

1:06 (VO) Ultimately, the demonstrators let Grandma go through by herself.  Afterwards someone else wanted to go through.
1:13 (Female)  Everyday, I go down this road to go to work.  I am just going to work as usual.  This is a very small and humble request.  I want to man my job post.

1:25 (VO)  The police showed up and wanted to remove the barricades.
1:29 (Crowd)  Not allowed to remove!  Not allowed to remove!

1:33 (VO)  A group of contract security guards also asked the demonstrators to let them pass through.
1:34 (Male)  You give us a path to go through, alright?  Okay?
1:38 (Rico Lo)  We really cannot do that.
1:39 (Male)  Then there is no way.  We have to go to work.  [The security guards pushed the metal barricades back and forced their way through.]
1:45 (Rico Lo)  Our goal is to paralyze Government Headquarters.  If one person gets in, it means that the Government Headquarters will be back in operation.  Whether we let someone through is another matter.  If you remove these metal barricades, then does it mean that you can also remove all the other metal barricades around Government Headquarters?  This is something that we cannot accept.

Well, did Apple Daily ever report about these other people opposing being blocked from going to work?

- Let me make a comparison. During Occupy Central, bus service was halted and I had to take the subway, which was more crowded than usual. So I had to allocate twenty more minutes each day in order to be on time. Today, I took the bus as usual. The Wanchai pedestrian overpass was blocked for a while, because some people wanted to raise "I want genuine universal suffrage" banners on the overpass between 8am and 10am. I entered the office building through the side entrance and I got to work on time. So there you have it.

- Apple Daily interviewed a restaurant owner who said that his afternoon business had dropped to zero because Zhang Dejiang is in town. He said, "It would be better if Zhang Dejiang didn't come." Other office workers were late for work because the roads were blocked. "Can we sue the police for our lost time and money?" That's interesting, because many more workers were late or lost time/money, and many businesses lost income or went out of business during the 79 days of Occupy Central. "Can the citizens sue the Occupy Central people?"

- When Zhang Dejiang was in town, at least the subway was still running. During Occupy Central, here is what the subway entrance looked like.

- League of Social Democrats posts Apple Daily report that a patient nearly died after the ambulance was stuck in the Eastern Harbour Crossing.  The patient was struggling because his anesthetic was wearing off. Fortunately, the emergency workers brought more anesthetic than normal and was able to inject more. Otherwise if the patient yanks off his breathing tube, he could have died ...

 

- Yet another piece of Apple Daily fiction because there is no WHO WHEN WHERE WHY HOW provided at all.

- If this ambulance was stuck in Admiralty during the Occupy period, the patient would have to wait 79 days before getting to Queen Mary Hospital.

- Apple Daily was reposting from the HA Secrets Facebook. The patient was originally in the Intensive Care Unit of a Hong Kong Island hospital for carbon monoxide poisoning. He was being transferred by ambulance to the decompression chamber at Stonecutters Island.

- Please take out a map of Hong Kong. If you want to go from Hong Kong Island to Stonecutters Island, you would be taking the Western Harbour Crossing and not the Eastern Harbour Crossing. When the ambulance set out, it should have all the information of road closures as provided by the police. For large-scale road closures (such as the watching fireworks show by the harbor front), the police have special car lanes reserved for emergency service vehicles.

- 22 pan-democratic legislators have signed a petition to Zhang Dejiang to demand (1) replace the Chief Executive and (2) restart the constitutional reform process.

The petition to replace the Chief Executive is to ask the System of One Country to intervene and replace the leader of the other System. If the System of One Country can do that once, it will be able to do so again and again in the future. I don't think that this is a good precedent to set under Common Law.

The petition to restart the constitutional reform should begin where it ended. (#269) The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme cooperated with RTHK to interview 1,004 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong adult residents on June 8-9. From the viewpoint of society as a whole, 50% of the respondents said that they support the Legislative Council passing the constitutional reform proposal while 33% opposed. Liberal Party's James Tien commissioned Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview 5,043 persons on June 5-14. When asked "Do you support or oppose the Legislative Council to pass the constitutional reform proposal?", 51% supported and 37% opposed.

The people of Hong Kong (and the United States and the European Union) said "take the deal first because it is an improvement", but the pan-democrats voted against the constitutional reform proposal at the time and that was the end of it. The pan-democrats want to restart the constitutional reform now. What is the point of re-running the same movie? The people of Hong Kong do not want to see Central occupied for 79 days again. If the pan-democrats seriously want to have constitutional reform, they should explain how and why it is different this time. Will they take the original deal? Will they insist that their way is the only way but that this time there is a ray of hope (because Zhang Dejiang looks like a nice guy or a steamed-dumpling-eating surrender monkey or something)?

- When the pan-democrats put the kibosh on the constitutional reform in June 2015, they promised that the five-step process will be re-started immediately. Nothing of the sort ever happened. CY Leung's administration said that they have no interest in so doing for the remainder of their term, and the next Chief Executive (if not the same CY Leung) will take some time to prepare for another constitutional reform proposal. So the optimistic estimate is 2022 or thereafter. When Zhang Dejiang came to town, it is the perfect opportunity for the pan-democrats to make a perfunctory effort against a hopeless situation, as if they have been trying all along but the other side obstructed progress.

- After the constitutional reform proposal was voted down, the pan-democrats promised us that there will be a total non-cooperation campaign in order to force a restart of the five-step constitutional reform process. I am still waiting.

- Only 22 pan-democratic legislators signed the petition? That means the Neo Democrats, the League of Social Democrats, People Power and Raymond Wong Yuk-man refused to join for various reasons (because they are not Chinese, or because they want to overthrow the Chinese Communist regime, or because they say that only armed insurrection will work, etc).

- (Sing Tao) On radio, Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong said that he was uncomfortable with the pan-democrats making a demand to a Central Government official to replace the Hong Kong Chief Executive. He said that such an action would supersede the existing electoral system in Hong Kong.

- Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45: The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The Chief Executive is appointed by the Central People's Government. If the Central People's Government rescinds that appointment, that Chief Executive is 'fired.'

- A sideshow was that Democratic Party chairperson Emily Lau said that she lost her invitation and needed a replacement. She also said it was peculiar for the invitation to be addressed to Ms. Lau instead of Legislative Councilor Lau.

- I find it perplexing too that the invitation was not addressed to "BITCH!".

- Whereas its was unacceptable for CY Leung to tell the mythical Cathay Pacific ground crew member that he should properly be addressed as "Chief Executive Leung", it is unacceptable for Emily Lau to be addressed as anything except "Legislative Councilor Lau."

- P.S. Not to worry, because Emily Lau has retrieved the lost invitation from the trash bin.

- (TVB) May 18, 2016. Civic Human Rights Front and many pan-democratic parties set off from Shelter Sports Ground in Wanchai to demand a meeting with Zhang Dejiang. They said that the government arrangements have shut down the voices of the people. They demand that the Central Government form an independent commission to investigate the June 4th incident and offer apologies/compensation to the families of the victims. They also demanded to remove the Chief Executive and re-start the constitutional reform process. When the demonstrators reached the Fleming Road overpass to go to the Immigration Department building, the police warned them that demonstrations have to take place at the designated areas. The two sides faced off for about 30 minutes, because the demonstrators proceeded to Fleming Road Park to continue their assembly.

- (Oriental Daily) May 18, 2016. Remember that the Civil Human Rights Front refused to provide a crowd estimate beforehand? This news report said that there were about 30 demonstrators who were accompanied by 30 police officers. Both sides added together would be outnumbered by the journalists.

Lui Yuk-lin ("Female Long Hair") showed up in a shirt with the snow mountain lion emblem of Tibetan independence and carried a snow mountain lion flag for Tibetan independence and attempted to race towards the Convention Centre. About 20 police officers surrounded her and took her back to the demonstration area. The police warned her that she would be charged with obstruction of police business if she didn't cooperate with them, but they did not take away her flag.

The Civil Rights Human Front demonstration was outnumbered by 40 Pearl Horizon (Macau) property owners because their land lease is not being renewed by the Macau SAR government and therefore they have come to petition Zhang Dejiang to pay attention to their plight.

- (HKG Pao) If you pay attention to China news, you will note that radical Xinjiang/Tibet independence persons often take action in crowded places to use knives, guns and bombs to inflict mass casualties so as to express their political demands and gain foreign media coverage. But in Hong Kong, the Demosisto members could only tried to rush the roadway holding banners in their hands and be subdued by the police within seconds. They did manage to let their cooperating media (Initium) take an iconic photograph of the Hong Kong police suppressing freedom of speech/assembly. But the subject in the photo is Nathan Law who managed to let the Hong Kong Federation of Students collapse under his leadership. How can Nathan Law be said to represent the people of Hong Kong to present their demands to Zhang Dejiang?

The political parties were able to gain publicity by all sorts of methods. First of all, League of Social Democrats' Tsang Kin-shing managed to capture the headlines when he tried to get a mainlander criminal friend to buy an aerial drone in Shenzhen. Then other League of Social Democrats hung up banners around Hong Kong. Then Demosisto members tried to rush Zhang Dejiang's motorcade. Then People Power's Tam Tak-chi raised banners outside Government House ...

- (HKG Pao) Ming Pao ran a story with the heading: "Wanchai: a policeman every few steps, businesses and workers complain about the disruption: Can we get compensated?" The accompanying video showed a woman who spent almost a minute complaining about "the interests of the residents should be considered" and "what has mainland China contributed to Hong Kong?" as if she was reading an Apple Daily column. If you look at the details of the video, it turned out the road was blocked for only a few minutes. More interesting is the photo illustration. Ming Pao chose a photo of the pedestrian overpass between World-wide House and Exchange Square on Pedder Street, Central District to show that there is one policeman every few steps in the Wanchai District. Central District is separated from Wanchai District by the Admiralty District. How can this be mixed up? What won't Ming Pao do to smear the Central Government?

- Chris Wat Wing-yin on the causes and effects of a barricaded city.

I went past the Convention Centre a few days ago and I already saw the water barricades surrounding the place. I went by Wanchai North and I saw the police standing on guard. Some people say that the police are carrying their anti-terrorism act too far. Internet users said that "the security for the Queen of England is more lax than for Zhang Dejiang." The most often conclusion is that "only dictators are afraid of the people" and therefore they used "5,000 police officers to build a high wall to defend against the eggs."

Since when have Hongkongers become so unreasonable so as to invert cause with effect?

For example, if thieves come into your shop every day to steal, will you enhance your security measures by installing more closed-circuit television cameras and introduce anti-theft electronic systems? Will your customer tell you that you are alienating them with these security measures? No. If the customer is not a thief, why would he mind those cameras?

For the same reason, if the opposition camp does not use violence all the time to smash glass doors, set trash bins on fire, occupy roads, dig up bricks, seize iron barricades, surround police vehicles, assault policemen, throw spears, blockade roads, imprison people ... why would the police need to mobilize several thousand officers in defense? Over the past several years, how often have government officials not run into noisy fights? How often have they not run into people upturning the table and howling? How often have meetings ended calmly? Most recently, Carrie Lam could not even finish her summation at a hearing on the retirement scheme.

When the opposition camp is increasingly out of control and they come not to express their views but to be destructive in order to gain media exposure, they have become political terrorists against whom the maximum security level is appropriate. Before you criticize the police for disturbing the people, you should ask what is the "cause" for this "effect."

As for saying the Queen of England did not require this level of security when she came, you are being ignorant. Do you know why the British royalty didn't need water barricades? The colonial administration's Political Department had already arrested or disappeared all the dissidents already. However, the Hong Kong Police today do not have the ability to do that, so they have to erect water barricades instead.

- (Wen Wei Po) May 19, 2016.

For his meeting with Zhang Dejiang, Alan Leong (Civic Party) told everybody to check out his yellow tie.

- Oh, Alan Leong, you are so brave and courageous for daring to wear a yellow tie!

- Pardon me, but I think that this is too radical for me. When I saw the photo, I almost wet my pants because you really scared me. If it weren't for my superior bowel control, I would have lost it. You are truly powerful and you should start worrying about injuring someone with the sight of your yellow time.

- Dear Senior Counsel, can you please explain what your yellow tie is going to accomplish for us? Universal suffrage with civil nomination? Halting One Road One Belt? Dismissal of CY Leung as HKSAR Chief Executive and appointing you as his replacement?

- Can you stop being so fucking stupid?

- Is it mental impairment a requirement to become a Senior Counsel? The whole Civic Party is like this!

- If you want to go Yellow, then why not go all the way? Get yourself a yellow suit, yellow shirt, yellow belt, yellow handkerchief, yellow socks, yellow shoes and yellow underpants. P.S. Don't forget to dye your hair yellow, so you will look like a yellow banana (yellow outside, white inside).

- (Oriental Daily) Former Chief Secretary Anson Fong showed up to meet with Zhang Dejiang wearing a yellow jacket. During the whole 20 minutes of Zhang's speech, she did not applaud.

- Cyd Ho (Labour Party) wore a gold umbrella pendant to meet with Zhang Dejiang.

- (Apple Daily) Actor Shiu Chung-han has been making Facebook posts to express his outrage at Zhang Dejiang. Yesterday Shiu told our reporter: "On the first day of his trip, my wife was going to work at Harbour Road. Even the parking space was inaccessible so she had to pay for day parking elsewhere. It is not a matter of money. This is about inconveniencing people. Actually Zhang Dejiang may not be the problem, because they are not against inconveniencing people on the mainland too. But I don't understand what Hong Kong is worried about? The person who made this decision was narrow-minded and shortsighted. He fawned on on the wrong person and showed poor leadership to stage this show for the mainland to watch. The international media can see this, and this is an embarrassment for all of Hong Kong. As a Hongkonger, I am embarrassed. I am old enough not to be afraid of saying this." Shiu said that he loves Hong Kong and he loves China. But after these few days, he is thinking about leaving Hong Kong with his wife. "I like the Hong Kong of he past. I am a Hongkonger. That is, my name is Shiu and not Chen or Wang. After the past few days, I am thinking about immigrating after speaking to my wife."

- During Occupy Central, people couldn't park in Admiralty for 79 days in a row. According to Shiu's standards, anyone who gets 'inconvenienced' for three days is going to immigrate. Then there shouldn't be too many people left in Hong Kong by now.

- (Bastille Post) At the meeting with Zhang Dejiang, the pan-democrats kept saying that CY Leung should not be re-elected. A pro-establishment legislator said that he is appalled by this kind of talk because they really should not be stopping someone from entering an election. Supposedly Zhang Dejiang enjoyed this riposte.

After listening to Zhang Dejiang's speech, Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau said: "You say that you are satisfied with the performance of CY Leung and the Hong Kong SAR government, but many people outside are unhappy." Zhang Dejiang replied: "I am not here to debate you today. I am not interested in a war of saliva with you. I am not here to convince you. I will listen to what you say, and I will say something for you to listen to. Hong Kong is a diverse society." Zhang Dejiang added: "If there anything wrong in what I just said? Can you please tell me?" Lau did not respond.

- (Wen Wei Po) May 19, 2016.

When National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang came to Hong Kong, the various radical localists were busy criticizing the traditional pan-democrats as well as attacking each other. After all, this is a good time to get media attention.

So the Localists attacked the traditional social activists of League of Social Democrats for "stupid" activities such as hanging out banners while the League of Social Democrats accused the radicals for being missing in action.

Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson said on his Internet program that because he does not want One Country Two Systems to work or to accept any Basic Law framework, his group will ignore the presence of Zhang Dejiang and hold no protests during this period.

Meanwhile, Passion Times (the party organ for the Civic Passion party), posted: "According to secret information, Civic Passion stalwart Wong Yeung-tat is actively contacting people to form an Iron Blood team of 30 people to cause a bloody clash at the Convention Centre on May 18. Wong said that 'I will do this even if I get arrested.'"

After the report appeared, the traditional social activists heaped scoren upon Civic Passion. They said that the presence of 'I will do this even if I get arrested' is proof that this was another piece of fake news because Wong Yeung-tat has always let others get arrested. They accused Civic Passion of 'leaking' a fake story and then announcing that the action was canceled due to the leak.

Civic Passion attempted to divert attention by showing up in Sheung Shui to set up a street booth on Sun Kong Street. They claimed that the parallel traders disappeared when Civic Passion came. But Internet users thought that this was hilarious. They said that it was reported early in the morning that the authorities were conducting a massive sweep of parallel trading activities in Sheung Shui and so the usual parallel traders were absent already. So Civic Passion merely showed up in empty space and claimed credit. At the same time, Wan Chin (part of the Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State group) had earlier said that the anti-parallel trade protests were a plot that their supporters should not take part in. So it is hilarious that Civic Passion would be doing just that.

- (Passion Times) https://www.facebook.com/passiontimes/videos/1114397705290062/ Valiant resistance campaign in Sheung Shui

- 'I will do this even if I get arrested' isn't Civic Passion practice. They've always told people (1) not to get injured and (2) not to get arrested.

- They typed up a Word document of the confidential report and posted a screen capture of that document. How did Passion Times ever got a copy of a confidential report?

- If Civic Passion thinks that the League of Social Democrats is stupid, then why don't they come out and show us how to do it correctly? Instead, they stay inside their air-conditioned homes and pound on the keyboard to carry out their resistance campaign.

- When the North District Parallel Imports Concern Group called their demonstration, Civic Passion was missing in action because they knew that 500 police officers were assigned. When Zhang Dejiang came, 6,000 police officers were assigned to the Wanchai area, so this was the moment for Civic Passion to protest in Sheung Shui because the police presence must be reduced there.

- On Lunar New Year's Day, the localists came out to support the fish ball vendors and chanted "Down with the Communists!" So now the number 3 ranked Chinese Communists is in town, what do they do? They go and fight the non-existent parallel traders in Sheung Shui.

- After the Lunar New Year riot, the radical localists say that they always stand on the side of the resisters. After the League of Social Democrats protested against Zhang Dejiang, all the radical localists did was to heap scorn and abuse upon LSD.

- (NOW TV) A dozen of so Civic Passion members assembed on Sun Kong Street in Sheung Shui. They raised banners and demanded a crackdown on parallel traders. Before the demonstration started, the police stopped them because no application was made beforehand. There were quarrels and physical contacts. More police reinforcement arrived. The demonstrators were allowed to proceed after mediation. Some stores lowered their gates while the demonstration was in progress.

- Here is a quiz: Which situation is likely to deter potential customers from entering your store? A policeman standing outside? Or Civic Passion members congregating outside?

- (RTHK) Demosisto members Joshua Wong, Oscar Lai and two others were arrested for attempting to stop Zhang Dejiang's motorcade. They charged onto the roadway coming out of the Eastern Harbour Crossing, but they were immediately stopped by policemen at the scene.

(SCMP)

Five young activists, including Joshua Wong Chi-fung, were released on bail late Thursday night after getting arrested as they attempted to get close to state leader Zhang Dejiangs motorcade on Thursday, the last day of the state leaders visit to Hong Kong. The five Demosisto members said the arrests were clearly politically motivated, criticising also that the force had raided their homes to collect evidence.

We think the arrests are political arrests. The police have abused their power, said Wong after his release outside Kwun Tong police station. The [police] did that when Zhang Dejiang was in Hong Kong because the government is afraid of the peoples voices. Demosisto will not give up and will continue to fight together with everyone.

Wong and his fellow Demosisto members, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Oscar Lai Man-lok, Benny Ng and Chow Cheuk-kiu, attempted to get near to Zhangs motorcade as the vehicles were exiting the Eastern Harbour Crossing on the way to an elderly centre in Tseung Kwan O. They were quickly subdued by police officers while chanting End one-party dictatorship and Self-determination for Hong Kong people

The five were arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct in a public place and obstructing police officers in execution of their duty. They were released late Thursday night about 12 hours after the arrests.

Law said their actions were too minor to warrant being detained for so long. He said police had subdued the five in order to create an illusion to Zhang that the people of Hong Kong were satisfied with the performance of the citys government. Our powers are small. But we have done our best to try to stand in front of Zhang Dejiang to tell him [about] Hong Kong peoples pursuit of democracy, Law added.

- Today the Kwun Tong Bypass was completely frozen because of one person. Here is the video of the congestion: https://www.facebook.com/ArmChannelTV/videos/871411186321623/

- The video always tell the truth. But that one person is not Zhang Dejiang as you supposed. The congestion was caused by Demosisto people running onto the roadway outside the Eastern Harbour Crossing! Now that would be completely consistent with their socio-pathological view of Occupy Central.

- Best news photo of the year:

- Joshua Wong objected to being accused of stopping traffic because he said that he was on the pedestrian walkway and never stepped on the roadway. Here are the photographs from the photographers that he invited to record his actions.

P.S. Joshua Wong also said that the police is holding his mobile phone as evidence, and it will be months before he can get it back. So you better donate even more money to him to buy another mobile phone.

- Over the past week, there were many news reports about increased enforcement of traffic rules (such as walking against the pedestrian light, not using the zebra crossing, etc). People reminded each other to follow the rules, because we can be fined $2,000 for violating the rules. These photos are ironclad evidence that these people have violated the traffic rules and they should be fined $2,000 immediately, apart from any other charges to be investigated?

- Hong Kong Police Force pedestrian traffic offenses that the police will strictly enforce: climbing over fence and jay walking; disobeying pedestrian red light signal and traffic signs; crossing without 15m of pedestrian crossing facilities. In 2015, there were 81 pedestrians killed, 790 serious injuries, 2642 slight injuries.

- Apple Daily posted this video at first but deleted it later because it was politically inconvenient: https://www.facebook.com/csking.chan/videos/1078093992256634/ and https://www.facebook.com/HKYDS/videos/624420721059164/ . What happened was that an innocent citizen happened to walk by as the Demosisto folks tried to rush on the roadway.  This bystander was arrested and he made a phone call to explain why he would be late for work.

- Another video https://www.facebook.com/NathanLawKC/videos/675406685944001/ by a shaky amateur cameraman.

- (HKG Pao) The police took Joshua Wong back to his Ap Lei Chau home to gather evidence. In one photo, two policemen escorted Wong who has his hands behind his back. You would think that Wong was handcuffed behind his back. But the TVB camera followed the three and also showed the view from the back. Joshua Wong's hands were free. He was just posing as if he were handcuffed!

- On this 50th anniversary of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the proper way is this:

Marshal Peng Dehuai

- (SpeakoutHK)

Joshua Wong: "Why are you still demonstrating?" I think that we want Zhang Dejiang to realize one thing: what he needs to listen to is not just the demands from the legislators, but the demands of the people of Hong Kong.

Female radio host: If you were invited, what would you say?

Joshua Wong: If there were such an invitation, I think that as far as I am concerned, I won't choose to attend.

[You want Zhang Dejiang to listen to you, but you refuse to go and see him?]

Joshua Wong: Demosisto is a political group that is more focused on street resistance. In the end, we were able to be very successful.

Female listener: I want to ask the young people. When  you charged onto the roadway that day, what was it for? You want to meet with Zhang Dejiang and express your opinions. Therefore I don't think that there is any problem with the pan-democrats going to see Zhang Dejiang to express their opinions.

- (Bastille Post) Summation of how the Central Government succeeded:

(1) The Central Government established the practice of "inspection." Zhang Dejiang declared that he was here on an inspection tour. He went to Government Headquarters to listen to the reports by senior HKSAR government officials on the implementation of One Country Two Systems and he issued directives.

(2) The Central Government held the power. A senior Central Government official came to Hong Kong to communicate with Hongkongers using an acceptable format. Zhang Dejiang articulated the warning against wrong ideas such as Hong Kong independence, self-determination, etc.

(3) The Central Government reminded the people of Hong Kong that the economy is like padding a boat up the river. If you don't advance, you will retrogress. Zhang Dejiang called for Hongkongers to unite, or else they will pay the bill together.

These are the three main points, and not the meeting with pan-democrats. In that meeting, the pan-democrats could not grasp the circumstances and started to file complaints about CY Leung with Zhang Dejiang. Democratic Party's Emily Lau tried. Zhang Dejiang replied. Lau persisted. Zhang lost his patience and told her, "I did not come to Hong Kong to have a war of saliva with you" and asked "Is there anything wrong with what I said? Please point it out to me?" Lau did not say anything more.

Civic Party's Alan Leong was even worse. He said that nothing positive at all came out of the 18 years after the handover, and One Country Two Systems was not implemented. In so saying, he has completely negated all the policies of the Central Government with respect to Hong Kong.

The pan-democrats have made a misjudgment. In their meeting with Zhang Dejiang, they only know how to repeat their slogans. The meeting should have been held at a different level.

(SCMP) Drone plot foiled ahead of Zhang Dejiangs Hong Kong visit. May 16, 2016.

A man arrested over an alleged plot to use a drone to disrupt a state leaders Hong Kong visit was asked to buy the device by veteran local activist Tsang Kin-shing.

Shenzhen police on Sunday said they had arrested five people two of them from Hong Kong and the others from the mainland over the alleged plot, just two days before Hong Kong hosts state leader Zhang Dejiang under the highest security alert.

One of the Hongkongers, identified as a 56-year-old man surnamed Guo, was said to be helping a member of Hong Kongs opposition to cause a nuisance. He was described as a long-time sponsor of the opposition camp and had procured a drone for the opposition figure, only named as Tsang.

Last night, Tsang Kin-shing confirmed he had asked some friends, including Guo, to buy a drone from the mainland a month ago. Tsang, a former lawmaker and now a member of the League of Social Democrats who is known as The Bull, said he had thought of using a drone for protests, not just for Zhangs visit.

(Oriental Daily) May 15, 2016.

The Shenzhen Public Security Bureau notified the Hong Kong Police this morning about the arrest of an crime organization led by a 56-year-old Hongkonger named Guo Huachang. Guo was alleged to be buying/selling Hong Kong ID cards for use in credit card fraud, telecommunications fraud, money laundering and unlicensed business operations.

Guo also confessed that he has been supporting Hong Kong opposition figures, including being asked by Hong Kong opposition member Tsang Kin-sing to purchase an aerial drone to disrupt the Hong Kong visit of Central Government representatives.

In the afternoon, League of Social Democrats member Tsang Kin-shing told the press that he is not connected to the case, that he does not know anyone by the name of Guo Huachang and that he has not asked anyone to purchase an aerial drone in Shenzhen. Tsang said: "Why would I have to buy it in Shenzhen when it is available in Hong Kong." Tsang said that he had no plans to buy an aerial drone while National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang is in Hong Kong. Tsang said: "I don't know how to operate an aerial drone."

In the evening, Tsang Kin-shing revised his statement. He said that he did ask Guo Huachang to purchase an aerial drone for him. Tsang said that at first he was unaware that Guo Huachang is the real name of Kwok Tinloy whom he met first during the 1989 activities of the Alliance To Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China and met up again during Occupy Central. Early this year, Guo donated several thousand dollars to Tsang's district office. Tsang said that he always wanted to use an aerial drone to demonstrate and not just specifically against Zhang Dejiang. Earlier this year, he asked friends (including Kwok Tinloy) to locate an aerial drone for him. He wanted to maintain secrecy on the operation, and so he issued a denial when he was first asked in the afternoon. Later he realized that this was a serious matter because the mainland authorities want to link the aerial drone with the other illegal activities of Guo. Therefore Tsang decided to come out with a clarification.

Meanwhile League of Social Democrats member Tam Takchi posted on Facebook on May 9 that he was looking for remotely controlled helicopter plus a pilot but he did not state the purpose. Tam said that he wanted to use a drone to carry banners to demand universal suffrage for Zhang Dejiang to see. Tam said that he did not ask anyone to purchase an aerial drone for him in Shenzhen.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) May 15, 2016.

In 1994, Guo Huachang ran unsuccessfully for District Councilor under his original name of Kwok Tin-loy. From 1994 to 1997, he set up a shell company and used the information from his wife, friends and collaborators to purchase insurance. These insured persons would run into work-related injuries while on company business in mainland China. In total, he defrauded 8 insurance companies of $340,000 in false insurance claims. His cohorts later denounced him to the ICAC. In 2000, Guo was sentenced to 2 years in jail.

After Guo got out of jail, he joined up with his elder brother to look for candidates who filed insurance claims of work-related eye injuries. Some of these candidates were suffering from problems such as glaucoma already, but two had perfect vision. Guo convinced the two to undertake minor surgeries by mainland doctors in order to sustain injuries. Those two would lose vision in one eye permanently afterwards.

The second case was tried in 2007. The judge said that Guo Huachang was involved in 14 separate cases with the same modus operandi. "You are smart and you have good organizational skills, but you are using it for criminal purposes" to lure economically disadvantaged mainlanders to injure their bodies in order to commit fraud. The judge sentenced Guo Huachang to 4 years 3 months in prison because he pleaded guilty and testified against the others.

- In the prior cases, Guo Huachang has always turned state witness in exchange for leniency. I wonder what he is going to spill this time?

- Guo Huachang is 56 years old. If he gets sentenced to 10 years in a mainland jail, his life is effectively over and done with. At this time, he needs to hire a fiction writer to write a confession to all manners of crimes by the Hong Kong opposition.

- The Localists say that everything in China is fake and/or rubbish. But when the time comes to buy an aerial drone, they find that the market is dominated by Shenzhen-based DJI. The body is more honest than the heart.

- Why buy an aerial drone that is MADE IN CHINA? Because we know that you don't have to build a bomb with it! The thing will explode on its own!

- Tsang Kin-shing said that he needed to maintain secrecy and therefore his immediate response was to deny everything. Who is the bigger liar? CY Leung or Tsang Kin-shing?

- The initial press report gave the name of the opposition figure as Tsang X Sing. Immediately HK01 began to speculate whether this was Legislative Council chairman Tsang Yok-sing or his brother Tsang Tak-sing. Hey, wake up! The Tsang brothers are in the pro-establishment camp and not the opposition camp.

- The Shenzhen Public Security Bureau displayed 815 Hong Kong ID cards as part of the evidence collected for the case. What are the cards used for? To register voters in Hong Kong, of course!

- (HKG Pao) According to reliable information from Shenzhen, Tsang Kin-shing told potential suppliers about the requirement that the drone should be able to carry three bottles of 1250 ml Coca Cola (which weighs 4.075 kilograms by our measurement). One source said: "Tsang's requirement was not easy to meet. We obtained a drone. It can carry 1 bottle of Coca Cola. It began to wobble with two bottles. It wasn't able to take off with three bottles." This explained why Tsang had to go outside of Hong Kong to because those drones available in Hong Kong could not meet the requirement.

Tsang obviously has no intention of using a drone to transport Coca Cola. We asked Tsang and he said: "If I am going to buy a drone, it obviously must carry a payload!" He explained that he wanted the drone to carry a vertical banner and that no violence is involved.

- Other 'drone attacks':

(USA TODAY) October 9, 2015.

U.S. Park Police confiscated a drone that crashed on the Ellipse near the White House on Friday and issued a citation to the operator involved.

Howard Solomon III of Washington, D.C., was cited with launching, landing or operating an unmanned aircraft in a restricted area, park police said. The citation carries an $85 fine, police said. Reached by phone Friday, Solomon told The Associated Press that he had been trying to take pictures of the monument and that the wind blew the drone across a street that divides the Ellipse from the grounds of the Washington Monument. I was just flying trying to take pictures of the monument, he said of the aircraft that officials said could be bought for about $65.

Drones are prohibited in Washington, D.C., because of security around federal buildings and safety concerns about flying over people and around other planes.

The Federal Aviation Administration announced a 'no-drone zone' campaign in June to reinforce the prohibition. People who violate the ban could be fined up to $25,000. The ban covers everywhere within a 15-mile radius of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Another drone crashed in January on the White House grounds. No charges were filed in that case, which was considered accidental by an operator who lost control of a drone from a nearby apartment building. But the incident raised security concerns about how to protect the White House, Congress and other important buildings from the threat of a drone carrying weapons.

(The Guardian) April 22, 2015.

Japanese authorities have launched an investigation after a small drone reportedly containing traces of radiation was found on the roof of the prime ministers office, sparking concerns about drones and their possible use for terrorist attacks.

No injuries or damage was reported from the incident on Wednesday. The prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who is at present in Indonesia, works at the building during the day and commutes from his own private home roughly 15 minutes away. Police said it was not immediately known who was responsible for the drone.

The chief cabinet secretary, Yoshihide Suga, said the incident was a wakeup call to the potential dangers of drones, including possible terror attacks when Japan hosts the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo.

- (EJ Insight) May 16, 2016.

Police said they will be taking counterterrorism security measures to ensure the safety of Zhang Dejiang, chairman of the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee, during his three-day visit to Hong Kong starting Tuesday.

Zhang, who will deliver a keynote address at the Belt and Road Summit Wednesday at the invitation of Chief Executive Leung Chung-ying, is the first top Beijing leader to visit Hong Kong since 2012, when former president Hu Jintao took part in the 15th-anniversary celebrations of the citys handover to China.

Police said Sunday that appropriate counterterrorism security measures, including personal and traffic escorts, will be provided throughout Zhangs stay in Hong Kong.

Inconvenience to the public and road users might be unavoidable, such as temporary diversion of traffic and pedestrian access and temporary closure of flyovers and footbridges during the passage of the motorcade, police said.

Special traffic arrangements on Hong Kong Island from May 17 to 19 will include the rerouting of Harbour Road between Fenwick Pier Street and Fleming Road to one-way eastbound and to one-way westbound from 7 a.m. on Tuesday to noon on Thursday.

This section of the road will be intermittently closed if necessary, police said.

Expo Drive, Expo Drive Central and Expo Drive East will be closed from midnight Wednesday to midnight Thursday.

Construction work near the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, where the summit is being held, will be suspended for four days.

The arrangements are expected to cause serious traffic congestion in Admiralty and Wan Chai, the Hong Kong Economic Journal said Monday.

Nelson Cheng Yiu-mo, assistant commissioner of police (operations), stressed that the priority of police work is to make sure nothing will jeopardize safety of Zhang and other participants in the summit, and police will take decisive action to prevent any potential threats.

He did not confirm whether the police have received any terrorism-related information, nor did he disclose which places around the venue of the summit are part of security zones.

Sham Yee-lan, chairwoman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, quoted police as saying that, after negotiations, people from the media are allowed to move and take pictures freely in the security zones.

While police apparently want to avoid the raising of controversial issues, as occurred during a 2011 visit paid by then vice premier Li Keqiang, using tight security measures, some critics questioned the necessity of doing so.

Political commentator Johnny Lau Yui-siu told Ming Pao Daily it is unwise for the police to implement high-level security arrangements for Zhangs visit, as that could only make the situation in Hong Kong more tense.

Law Yuk-kai, director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, said police should set security zones with clear boundaries, based on the Public Order Ordinance, as they did during the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference back in 2005.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a senior lecturer in the department of government and public administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said police are trying to use the potential threat of terrorism merely as a justification for heightened security.

-  Only dictators need to have a high level of security because they know that they are so unpopular. In a democratic society, a leader elected by universal suffrage with civil nomination has nothing to fear. See, for example, President Barack Obama of the United States of America.

(Times of India) December 4, 2014.

Security agencies of the US and India are bracing for one of their biggest challenges when US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi share the dais this Republic Day.

Sources said security on the ground and in the air this January 26 will be of a kind "never seen before". The US Secret Service, CIA, Navy Seals and India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Intelligence Bureau, paramilitary forces and Army will be working together round-the-clock to ensure the safety of the two leaders of the two largest democracies who face a high order of threat from global terrorist groups.

A senior officer said security at this year's Republic Day would be "unmatchable". Without going into details, the officer said, "Usually, around 25,000 police, paramilitary and other officers work alone in Delhi to make Republic Day safe. But this time, the number of security, Army officers may touch 40,000 to 45,000 with Secret Service and SPG closely monitoring every security detail."

Sources said when Obama came to India in November 2010, more than 500 personnel including almost all White House security and staff arrived here in advance to make foolproof security arrangements for him. This time, the US may send a much larger contingent as Obama is attending a ceremony in the open.

Sources said several contingency routes and exits were likely to be worked out for Republic Day. From 7, RCR to the entire India Gate lawns, Maurya Sheraton and Taj hotel (where Obama's entourage stayed last time), every route will be monitored through CCTV cameras, surveillance equipment and satellites. Those who take part in the parade tableau are likely to undergo double security check and verification as they pass close to the dais where the leaders will sit.

An officer added that spectators may face more difficulty this year as almost all Metro stations within a radius of six to seven kilometers may be closed. People may also have to undergo extra security checks and watching the parade from close quarters may not be allowed.

Anti-sabotage checks, security drills and surveillance of India Gate will begin much earlier this time and air traffic over Delhi NCR is likely to be halted on January 26 till the end of the parade.

(Tuoitrenews.vn) May 17, 2016.

More than 1,000 people are expected to accompany United States President Barrack Obama during his visit to Vietnam from May 23 to 25, according to a Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper source. The delegation includes officials and employees of the U.S. government, the presidents entourage, representatives of businesses, security officers, and secret service agents, the source added. About six hotels in Vietnam are anticipated to be rented in order to accommodate the large group of visitors.

According to the Tuoi Tre source, U.S. teams in charge of security and preparations for the upcoming trip of President Obama have arrived in the country to work with their Vietnamese counterparts. This includes discussing proper ways to welcome the head of state, and transport him during his visit.

Three Boeing C-17 Globemaster III military transport aircraft have landed at Noi Bai International Airport in Hanoi so far, carrying tens of metric tons of equipment set to assist the arrival of the U.S. president. The most recent plane brought some 53 metric tons of such equipment to the capitals airport, the source said. At least four more aircraft of the same type are scheduled to arrive at the international airport prior to the presidents visit to transfer all necessary items for his entire trip, it added. They will also carry the helicopter Marine One, the presidential state car, automobiles of other key officials of the delegation, special vehicles, ambulances, weapons for security and protection, and devices for communication.

- Demosisto's Joshua Wong posted a photo of Obama in a Vietnamese restaurant to demonstrate that the American president did not need a large contingent of security agents. Internet users posted other photos from the scene that showed the security agents.

P.S. Why are the restaurant patrons completely indifferent to the presence of Obama? How unrealistic can this get? These are obviously actors/actresses and the real people are outside behind the metal barriers.
P.S. Notice that all the shops that are next to this restaurant were shuttered!

Video: https://www.facebook.com/silentmajorityhk/videos/1059847434104362/ inside the Vietnamese restaurant
SpeakoutHK: https://youtu.be/jIPPXoVQJkI

P.P.S. Zhang Dejiang's motorcade went the wrong way on a road in Science Park. which shows that Communist dictators make up their own laws. This was immediately turned into a headline story by Apple Daily:

By comparison, President Obama's motorcade adhered strictly to traffic laws because they respect the people of Vietnam and their democratically elected government.

(Armenpress) May 25, 2016.

Japan's Mie prefecture is scheduled to hold the Thursday-Friday G7 summit in the city of Ise-Shima, report Sputnik News. A record-setting 100,000 police officers will maintain security at the G7, Japanese television reported Wednesday. The summit venue and the airport where world leaders are expected to arrive will be secured by nearly 23,000 police, the NHK broadcaster said. Another 70,000 law enforcement officials will guard 3,500 major stations, shopping districts, and other so-called soft targets of less secure sites where people converge, the channel added.

Up to 4,500 will be on duty during US President Barack Obama's visit to Hiroshiam, the city the United States dropped an atomic bomb on to force Japan's surrender in World War II.

(Associated Press via The Standard) May 10, 2016.

Lawmakers from three pan-democratic parties say they will not attend a banquet with the chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, Zhang Dejiang, next Wednesday.

Civic Party leader Alan Leong said there was no point in going, since legislators will not have a chance to discuss Hong Kong's social problems and political development during the meal.

People Power lawmaker Albert Chan, meanwhile, said it was not appropriate for the banquet to be held on Wednesday, when the Legislative Council should meet.

Labour Party lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan said her colleagues would not attend either, saying they would rather spend the time preparing for the Legco meeting the next day.

Ho also criticized the government for asking those who wanted to attend to fill out a form. This procedure is very much the same as applying for a visa in a foreign country," she said.

(SCMP) May 13, 2016.

Four pan-democrat legislators, along with six from pro-Beijing parties, have been invited to a short meeting with state leader Zhang Dejiang next Wednesday. It would be the first meeting between the pan-democrats and Beijing officials since the sides met in Shenzhen on political reform in May last year. The meeting is scheduled before a banquet with Zhang on May 18 at the Convention and Exhibition Centre in Wan Chai.

According to invited lawmakers, it would be a pre-dinner cocktail reception lasting around 40 minutes. The invitation was made by Edward Yau Tang-wah, director of the Chief Executives Office.

The invited pan-democrats were Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing, Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit, Labour Partys Cyd Ho Sau-lan, and health services lawmaker Joseph Lee Kok-long.

Zhang, who chairs the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee and oversees Hong Kong affairs, will arrive in the city on May 17 for a three-day visit. He will become the first mainland state leader to visit Hong Kong since 2012. The invitation for lawmakers to meet Zhang came after at least 18 lawmakers from the pan-democratic camp said they would not attend the banquet.

Lau said she would be attending the meeting with Zhang after consulting with her party. Hong Kong people are now angry and jittery as Beijing is stepping up interference in Hong Kongs internal affairs, she said. Lau said she would highlight the importance of introducing universal suffrage as soon as possible and raise the issue of the bookseller disappearances.

Leong said even though pre-dinner cocktails was not the best arrangement it was still better than a banquet where you cannot even see Mr Zhang with a telescope. He agreed the meeting would be a good chance for a state leader to directly hear the views of pro-democracy lawmakers who represented the majority of Hong Kong voters.

But Ho said she would not attend the meeting. We hope to have a proper work meeting with Zhang Dejiang on the pressing issues facing Hong Kong, she said. We dont want to just exchange pleasantries at a cocktail party.

Lee said he would most likely attend the meeting with the hopes of discussing problems in the citys governance, though had yet to make a final decision.

Across the political divide, the six pro-establishment lawmakers invited to the meeting included Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kongs Starry Lee Wai-king. Lee said it was a positive signal that Zhang wanted to meet with different lawmakers even though his schedule is very tight. I hope this will build a good basis for communications in the future, she said.

New Peoples Party lawmaker Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, another invitee to the meeting, said she would go as an executive councillor and intended to give more chance for pan-democrats to express their views. But Liberal Party lawmaker Felix Chung Kwok-pan, who was also invited, said the pro-establishment legislators should have the same amount of time.

The other pro-establishment lawmakers invited include Legislative Council President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, Federation of Trade Unions Chan Yuen-han, Business and Professionals Alliances Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen and commercial sector lawmaker Martin Liao Cheung-kong.

(EJ Insight) May 13, 2016.

At least 5,000 police officers will be mobilized for the visit next week of Zhang Dejiang, chairman of the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported, citing unnamed persons with knowledge of the matter. Police have refused to reveal the number of officers to be deployed for the senior Chinese officials visit, but said a press briefing will be held on Sunday on the security arrangements.

The sources said the polices Tactical Unit, VIP Protection Unit and Special Duties Unit will be on standby when the national leader arrives in Hong Kong on May 18. The Search Unit will ensure that all of the places Zhang is set to visit, including the hotel where he would be staying and other speaking venues, will be secure. All people entering the restricted areas would have to undergo security check and identity verification. The arrangements for the visit will also serve as a rehearsal for the security measures to be implemented during the 20th anniversary of the handover next year.

According to Apple Daily, the construction work for the Central-Wan Chai Bypass would have to be suspended during Zhangs three-day visit.

The Chinese official will attend the Belt and Road summit on Wednesday morning at the Hong Kong Convention & Exhibition Center and meet with members of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council in the evening. Zhang will also visit two places on Wednesday afternoon, including the Science Park in Sha Tin.

Meanwhile, the construction sites at the Wan Chai Bypass and the MTRs Shatin to Central Link would be suspended for four days starting next Monday, at least three workers told Ming Pao Daily.

Both the Highways Department and MTR Corporation confirmed on Thursday night that they were asked by the police to halt operations at the construction sites near the HKCEC from next Monday to Thursday. Many construction workers were displeased with the announcement, which means they would not get any wages during the period, while surveyors said the suspension of work would mean millions of dollars in losses for the affected contractors.

Legislator Claudia Mo, a member of the Legco panel on security, said the arrangements were unreasonable. She said the work at the two construction sites should not be suspended unless there is reliable intelligence of any potential risks to Zhang and his entourage. Mo criticized the government for disregarding the impact of the work suspension on the livelihood of the workers and the financial losses to the contractors.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Shock and awe police deployment protects unaccountable official from the public. By Richard Scotford. May 14, 2016.

It looks very much like Hong Kong is about to be given a lesson in Chinese style subjugation with a healthy dollop of shock and awe next week. Early reports are that an army of 5,000 police officers will be deployed to protect the personal safety of Zhang Dejiang, who will be in town to promote the baffling One Road One Belt initiative. Government sycophants are increasingly trying to big-up Mr. Zhangs visit as though he were the Emperor of China himself.

But the reality is much more underwhelming. Zhang Dejiang, even though hes the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress, and the head honcho in looking after Hong Kong and Macau affairs, in global terms is a non-descript, altogether forgettable Marxist small potato, with a patchy career in governing and a penchant for quashing civil liberties wherever he is posted. And please, dont mention SARS.

Some commentators even offer credible evidence that a purge of Zhang could eventually be on the cards. But lets not focus on such minor details; for CY Leungs government, Zhang is the man that Hong Kongers need to bow down before to ensure that the kind benevolence keeps flowing south from the Party.

For all the parroting about how the Basic Law is sacred and protects Hong Kongs freedoms and makes it prosperous, we can forget all that come next week when Zhang is in town. The local police are already hinting at a good dose of civil liberties suppression, Beijing-Style. His hotel will be guarded by no less than one thousand police officers. Everywhere he goes will be off-limits to people like you or me.

To boot, if your signs, flags, banners or T-shirts could upset the sensibilities of the man himself, or get even slightly close to his gilded, sanitized world, then you will be carted away too. Good luck trying to argue your right to freedom of expression and movement, as protected by the Basic Law next week. There will be an army of black-vested cops to tell you otherwise.

The reality is that his visit is an altogether unnecessary political and financial burden on Hong Kong right now. Flooding the streets of Hong Kong with thousands of jack-boot paramilitary police and restricting peoples liberties, so that just one man can walk around unfettered in his Marxist-fantasy is exactly the kind of system Hong Kongers are prepared to throw bricks at.

The trip has the potential to be a complete non-event because most people in Hong Kong care nothing about what Zhang Dejiang has to say about One Belt One Road. Conversely, it could turn into another seminal moment of Hong Kongs rejection of the Communist Party of China. Only time will tell.

Internet comments:

-  (Ming Pao)

According to information, more than 500 persons received invitations to attend the banquet with Zhang Dejiang. the invitation letter stated many restrictions, including providing information on date of birth, Hong Kong ID number, telephone, address, photographs, etc.

People Power said that the requirements are an insult to the invitees and therefore will not attend.

Labour Party's Cy Ho said that asking so much information is no way to treat a guest and there won't be any chance to communicate with Zhang Dejiang. Therefore the four Labour Party members will nottend.

Neo Democrats' Gary Fan said that there were too many requirements which means that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government does not respect the guests. Therefore, he has decided not to attend.

League of Social Democrats' Leung Kwok-hung was not invited. He believes that this was retaliation by Chief Executive CY Leung. Leung Kwok-hung said that he went to Guangdong with the Legislative Council group in 2004 and met with Zhang Dejiang. He said that he posed no security threat and he has no prior record of disrupting any banquets. Therefore it was unreasonable not to invite him and he will protest outside that evening.

Path to Democracy convener Ronny Tong Ka-wah said that he will attend. He recalled that he was always required to provide identification information and photographs during previous visits by state leaders. He said that his secretary was "completely used to doing it."

- (Speakout HK)

Cyd Ho: The meeting format is not clear yet. Even if it is clear, it can only be a very simple shaking-of-hands and small-talk. So we feel that unless we can meet face-to-face, there is really not much usefulness otherwise.

Cyd Ho: We asked the Special Administrative Region government to organize a work meeting with the chairman of the NPC Standing Committee so that we can all sit down.

Commercial Radio host Chan Chung: In an evening banquet with several hundred people,  you say that there is no possible way of close contact. So I can understand why you won't go. But if the pre-banquet meeting has only 10 to 20 people and there is a chance for close contact and then you won't attend, what signal does that send? How are you going to communicate? Can communicate only take place during a work meeting? How are you going to sit down and talk? What do you want Zhang Dejiang to say to you during such a meeting?

- What do the pan-democrats really want? On one hand, they demand the Central Government must not interfere with Hong Kong affairs. On the other hand, they demand the Central Government remove CY Leung as Chief Executive. This act of removal would have been the maximum interference!

- (Wen Wei Po) At first, Civic Party chief Alan Leong took exception to the fact that Zhang Dejiang is 'inspecting' Hong Kong. He said that this was demeaning to Hong Kong because the term 'inspect' is only used by emperors. Apple Daily promptly quoted Leong and said that the use of 'inspecting' belittles Hong Kong.

Now it is common practice for mainland media to describe all visits by Central Government leaders to local provinces and cities as 'inspections'. Hong Kong is a special administrative region, so it is normal to describe the visit as an 'inspection.'

Well, well, well, well, well. Internet users promptly went to Alan Leong Kah-kit and the Civic Party's Facebook pages and showed that Legislative Councilor Alan Leong reported himself as 'inspecting' conditions inside the Wang Tau Hom area of his Kowloon East district. So does that make Alan Leong an emperor? Furthermore, Leong also said that he "inspected" hospitals, markets, etc along with government officials.

- (NOW TV) Civic Party chief Alan Leong said that the majority of this party agreed that he should meet with Zhang Dejiang. He said that he will take the opportunity to explain to Zhang Dejiang that self-determination/autonomy does not equate separatism and also demand that CY Leung resign.

- (Kinliu) The Modern Day Mr. Ip. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 14, 2016.

There once lived a nobleman named Ip in the nation of Chu. He loved dragons. His clothes were emblazoned with dragons, his cups were carved with dragons, his home was decorated with dragons, for such is the love of Lord Ip for dragons. When the Sacred Dragon in Heaven learned about Ip, it decided to visit Lord Ip at home. The Sacred Dragon flew into the Ip home, stuck its head through the window and stretched its tail through the courtyard. Lord Ip was scared out of his wits when he saw the dragon and fled uncontrollably. The Sacred Dragon was disappointed and flew away, sighing that Lord Ip did not really love dragons but he only loved things appear to be dragons.

This story has been read by every elementary school student, referring to those who say that they love something but actually don't (or are even afraid of it).

I remembered this story because of what I read about the pan-democratic legislators' coyish behavior with respect to whether they will meet with Zhang Dejiang (or maybe not). They said that they wouldn't and then they said that they would.

For the longest time, the pan-democrats have said that they needed to communicate with the Central Government but the latter won't listen to them. They complained that they have no direct channel to the Central Government because the Chief Executive CY Leung is blocking your signals ... yet when Xi Jinping's emissary comes to Hong Kong in the person of Zhang Dejiang, who is ranked number three on the Politburo to gather information, the pan-democrats scatter like Lord Ip in the presence of the Sacred Dragon.

Alan Leong said that the evening banquet was a group show and therefore it was pointless to attend. The pan-democrats have always thought of democracy as a show and they won't bother if they have to sit in the back far away from the camera. No wonder many veteran police officers say that Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung always pose for the camera. He appeared to be charging the police line and once the camera crews are done, he became normal again and told the police officers "Thanks. I apologize for what happened just then. Sorry about that." For them, this is all just a show.

Apart from the group show, Zhang Dejiang also issued an invitation for a small group. Emily Lau, Alan Leong, Cyd Ho and Joseph Lee are invited. So can Lord Ip avoid this? Even so, they played around and finally agreed to attend because they really could not come up with any reason not to.

This is perplexing. They are always saying that there is no communication and that the Central Government does not understand the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. So now the Central Government shows up in front of them in the form of Zhang Dejiang and they dodge left and right. "I don't like having too many people around." "I can't sit at the main table ... I am suddenly inspired to think that the pan-democrats are just like Lord Ip. They won't want to communication. They are in fact most afraid of communication, because the opposition camp's existential value lies in the fact that there is no communication.

- (Bastille Post) May 13, 2016.

The Civil Human Rights Front plans to march on Wednesday morning from Shelton Sports Ground to the Wanchai Convention and Exhibition Centre to submit a letter of petition to Zhang Dejiang. They want the Chinese Communists to stop interfering with Hong Kong affairs, to oppose One Belt One Road, to release the arrested human rights defenders in mainland China and so on.

The Civil Human Rights Front, the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, the League of Social Democrats, Civic Party, Labour Party and the Federation of Trade Unions held a press conference. According to the Civil Human Rights Front convener Jimmy Sham, One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong Ruled by Hongkongers and A High Degree of Autonomy has been gradually eroded since the handover. Earlier this year, the five Causeway Bay booksellers were disappeared directly destroyed the Basic Law and One Country Two Systems. Furthermore, the Hong Kong-mainland China economic cooperation plans from the Central Government have all proven to be "more thunder than rain." Therefore, the One Belt One Road project must not be followed blindly.

The Civil Human Rights Front said that they have notified the police about their arrangements by telephone. They said that they have no intention to apply for a "non-objection letter" from the Hong Kong Police and they will not provide an estimated size of the demonstration march.

- This is all for show. If the Central Government really wants to find about what is going on in Hong Kong, they can just get on the Internet and check out Facebook. Facebook may not be accessible to mainland Internet users, but Central Government workers are exempt. Conversely, if you hand a petition letter to a representative of the Central Government, it does not mean that it will be treated seriously. Therefore, the sole purpose of the presentation of the letter of petition is a photo opportunity to show that you are doing something and therefore everybody must continue to contribute more money to the Civil Human Rights Front, the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, etc in order to continue their good work of soliciting more money in order to solicit more money ad infinitum.

- The Civil Human Rights Front want the Central Government to stop interfering with Hong Kong affairs. Well, according to the Basic Law, Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. The State Council of the People's Republic of China has a Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office that is specially responsible for Hong Kong and Macau. Why are you telling them not to do their jobs?

(Wen Wei Po) May 14, 2016.

Pokmon is a series of best-selling electronic games published by Nintendo. Recently, Nintendo announced that the new Chinese translation of the game shall be 精靈寶可夢 and that all its 151 original characters will also unified Chinese names. For example, Pikachu will be known hereafter as 皮卡丘 instead of 比卡超.

Hong Kong Indigenous posted "Nintendo surrenders openly to the Communists, the Hong Kong translation of Pikachu as 比卡超 is now gone."

Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong also posted: "I want 比卡超, I don't want 皮卡丘, I demand Nintendo change the name." Wong wrote that the unified Chinese names are "unseemly translations of the sound into putonghua" and he wanted Nintendo to reverse its decision.

Many radical localists commented on Facebook that Nintendo's use of putonghua is "disrespectful to Hong Kong" and that even "cartoons are being turn Red." Someone said that Nintendo is joining in the
"conspiracy to destroy the unique language and culture of Hong Kong." They also said that after the Hong Kong Nation is built, there will be laws enacted to restrict "actions that disrespect the people of Hong Kong such as these."

However, many genuine electronic game fans said that the reality is that 70% of the translated names (including the popular Pikachu) are based upon the pre-existing names used in Taiwan and the remaining 30% (such as 大比鳥 for Pidgeot) are based upon the pre-existing names used in Hong Kong. So when Nintendo unifies its Chinese translations, it is based upon consideration of a commercial strategy directed at Greater China (Hong Kong/Macau, Taiwan and mainland China) and not related to politics.

Internet comments:

Yellow Ribbons

- I detest mainlandization of everything! They completely don't care about how the people of Hong Kong feel!

- I demand Nintendo release a Hong Kong edition. When even Hongkongers don't respect their own local culture, how do you expect other people to respect Hong Kong culture?

- They are slowly carrying out cultural genocide.

- Half the comments are approving. Nobody is supporting Cantonese. Such is the quality of the people of Hong Kong. It is a fucking wonder if the Hong Kong race is not exterminated!

- It is fucking over when you fucking give up yourself. You are a fucking pig if you just take whatever they fucking give you.

- This is fucking embarrassing when Hong Kong uses mainland Chinese transcriptions. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt!

- That is why Hong Kong must build its own nation. After the Hong Kong Nation is built, we can enact laws to ban actions that disrespect Hong Kong people such as this.

Blue Ribbons

- Don't be fucking stupid! How can you say that this is surrendering to the Chinese Communists? Please check before you comment. The translated names sometimes follow Taiwan practice and sometimes Hong Kong practice. Even 皮卡丘 comes from Taiwan.

- I read the comments, and clearly none of the commentators are familiar with the game itself. All they fucking talk about is how to defend the Cantonese language of Hong Kong (which comes from the city of Canton (Guangzhou) located in Guangdong province, mainland China)! Do they know that the Cantonese language does not have an accurate transcription of Pikachu, and that 比卡超 is inaccurate?

- Hong Kong people have fragile glass hearts and require special handling. We are special because we always want something or the other ...

- Does the whole world have to abide by what a few Hongkongers want? ... I would like to think that Hongkongers do not have glass hearts and they have good quality. People with good quality are not intolerant and they won't continuously whine so that the whole world has to stoop down to please them.

- Nintendo wants to hold a competition in Greater China, so the first thing that they have to do is to make sure that the game and its characters have one set of names instead of separate ones by region. However, these Localists are saying that this shows that Nintendo is surrendering to the Chinese Communists, that they disrespect Hong Kong and therefore we must defend our own language and culture. What the fuck? This is fucking asinine!

- How much do you want to politicize a game? If you want to divide Hong Kong from China, why don't you just do it directly instead of dragging an electronic game into this!

- Reference: Quartz, January 8, 2014. Why Nintendo doesn't stand a chance in China. In summary, Nintendo Pokmon isn't even a factor in the Chinese market, so what do they care about how to appease the Chinese Communists?

Q1. Who do you think bears the greatest responsibility for the failure of the 2015 constitutional reform?
27.0%: Hong Kong Chief Executive and other government officials
10.6%: Central government
5.3%: Pan-democrats
4.4%: Occupy Central trio
2.5%: Foreign forces
1.9%: Pro-establishment camp
1.5%: Students/young people
0.2%: Business community
39.4%: Don't know/no opinion
7.2%: Refused to answer
0.0%: Others

Q2. Do you think that the Central Government should restart the debate on constitutional reform in Hong Kong?
56.0%: Yes
10.6%: No
30.8%: Don't know/no opinion
2.6%: Refused to answer

Q3. When should the debate be re-started?
74.5%: As soon as possible
8.5%: During the term of the current government (that is, before July 2017)
11.2%: After the term of the current government (that is, after July 2017)
5.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q4. How important is communication with the Central Government to solve the issue of democratization in Hong Kong?
26.2%: Very important
52.6%: Important
3.8%: Unimportant
0.4%: Very unimportant
1.1%: Refused to answer

Q5. If the Central Government invites the pan-democrats to discuss constitutional reform in Hong Kong, do you think they should go?
63.2%: They should
5.2%: They shouldn't
6.3%: They should consult the opinions of civil groups
1.7%: Refused to answer
23.6%: Don't know/no opinion

Q6. Do you think Hong Kong needs political moderate groups to push constitutional reform?
58.5%: Yes
13.8%: No
26.1%: Don't know/no opinion

Q7. Do you accept the following methods of resisitance?

Attend assemblies, demonstrations, marches and protests without police permits
4.4%: Very acceptable
28.6%: Acceptable

Occupy public places
1.9%: Very acceptable
17.5%: Acceptable

Occupy government buildings
1.9%: Very acceptable
14.2%: Acceptable

Throw objects at government officials or persons in the opposing camp
2.7%: Very acceptable
11.4%: Acceptable

Charge at government buildings
1.2%: Very acceptable
7.4%: Acceptable

Call for others to charge
1.2%: Very acceptable
6.7%: Acceptable

Charge at the police
0.8%: Very acceptable
6.2%: Acceptable

Use force
0.9%: Very acceptable
6.0%: Acceptable

Q8. During the past 3 years, have you taken part in clashes for political reasons?
6.9%: I haven't tried, but I will if necessary
88.9%: I haven't tried and I won't

Q9. What does Localism mean to you?

60.8%: Protect Hong Kong's lifestyle, culture and history
53.4%: Hong Kong resources given with priority to Hong Kong people
46.7%: Implementation of Basic Law in order to ensure a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong
43.0%: Protect Hong Kong core values
39.6%: Protect Hong Kong's autonomy and self-rule
19.8%: Attack parallel traders and decrease individual travelers
16.1%: Placing Hong Kong's interests over and above national interests
10.2%: Hong Kong independence
4.6%: Slow down the convergence of the Hong Kong and mainland Chinese economies
0.2%: Other

Q1. Compared to before the handover, do you think that the overall development in Hong Kong has been forwards, backwards or the same?
22%: Forwards
57%: Backwards
16%: The same
5%: No opinion

Q2. Are you pessimistic or optimistic about the future of Hong Kong?
21%: Pessimistic
64%: Optimistic
14%: Hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q3. Do you think that 50 years after the handover, Hong Kong's future should be One Country One System, One Country Two Systems or Independent/Self-Rule?
10%: One Country One System
71%: One Country Two Systems
14%: Independent/self-rule
2%: Other
3%: No opinion

Q4. As for the groups who are recently formed to advocate Hong Kong independence, do you think that their main motivation is to defend the interests of Hong Kong or to obtain personal benefits?
24%: Defend the interests of Hong Kong
50%: Obtain personal benefits
21%: Hard to say
5%: No opinion

(Wen Wei Po) May 8, 2016.

Yesterday, Civic Passion opened up their leader Wong Yeung-tat's Kowloon East election campaign office. In attendance were "Four Eyed Brother" Cheung Kam-mun, Cheng Chung-tai, Raymond Wong Yuk-man and Wan Chin who are likely candidates in the other four districts. As usual, the superstars Raymond Wong and Wan Chin were late while the plebes had to wait under the sun.

There was a sales booth at the scene, selling souvenirs including a set of five two-inch-tall figures of the five candidates with the asking price of $1,000.

As they waited, five independent online media reporters showed up to gather news. These reporters wore press badges on their chests. One of the reporter tried to approach Wong Yeung-tat, but the Civic Passion members rushed over to separate the reporter from Wong Yeung-tat. They surrounded the reporter and pressed him back to the railing. Plainclothes policemen at the scene interceded to separate the two sides, and then the uniformed police also came in. Afterwards a female reporter claimed to be injured and was taken to the hospital for a medical exam.

After the disturbance, the ceremony began as the five principals cut the ribbon and burned joss sticks just like they do for triad societies. Wong Yeung-tat prayed to Heaven and Earth, while Wan Chin asked the Yellow Emperor to offer blessings.

(HKG Pao) May 8, 2016.

During the ceremony, Loyal Militia founder "Ah Man" Shek Fong-yau showed up with 7 online media reporters. The scene got chaotic and the ceremony was interrupted. A large number of Civic Passion members surrounded, pushed and shoved the online media reporters. One reporter claimed to be injured. In the end, the principals were taken down to the police station to assist in the investigation. In previous actions, Civic Passion always led the charge. They have never been counter-attacked. On this occasion, they got a taste of their own medicine. Civic Passion could not react properly and the ceremony was disrupted.

There were not many citizens at the scene. Wong Yeung-tat tried to sell his peanut-shaped doll listed for $88,888, but nobody bid for it. There were many Occupy Central souvenirs for sale, but the response was tepid. So it is not certain that they raised enough for their campaign.

Video links:

Soaphk.hk
https://www.facebook.com/775416222580183/videos/880152002106604/
https://www.facebook.com/775416222580183/videos/879729812148823/

Soaphk.hk
https://www.facebook.com/775416222580183/videos/880860678702403/
In clear detail, Lee Ching-hei (Civic Passion) kicked the female reporter C.C. Yun in the leg on the sly. In response, Lee Ching-hei denied that he kicked her. He said that if he really did kick her, then she wouldn't be taken by an ambulance to the hospital -- she would have been taken down to the morgue instead.

HKG Pao
https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/548894158649197/
Cheung Chung-tai (Civic Passion) surreptitiously removes a stack of joss paper from civil reporter Ah Man. Afterwards, Ah Man said: "If Cheng Chung-tai needed money, he needs only ask and I'll burn more for him."

Internet comments:

- If the Proletariat Political Institute/Civic Passion/City-State succeed in building a nation, then your leaders will be: Raymond Wong, president; Wan Chin, Chief Secretary; Cheng Kam-mun, Secretary of Finance; Wong Yeung-tat, Secretary of Security; Cheng Chung-tai, Secretary of Education. Now isn't this scary?

- Earlier Civic Passion members showed up to disrupt the press conference given by the Hong Kong Copyright Alliance. Remember the Civic Passion 'reporters'?

The Hong Kong Copyright Alliance was accused of violating freedom of press when they refused to accept the credentials of the Civic Passion 'reporters'. Well, what happens in today's incident? The seven online media reporters were not masked, they wore badges that identified their media outlets and they were jostled by Civic Passion. Where is the Hong Kong Journalists Association when needed?

- Lee Ching-hei (Civic Passion) raised his hands and then sneakily kicked his opponent. This is Standard Operating Procedure taught for Occupy Central with Love and Peace (see #081 for a demonstration).

- Headcount for Civic Passion: 2012 vs. 2016.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 22, 2016.

A restaurant owner who gives food to low-income citizens in Sham Shui Po has moved into new low-rent premises after being forced out of his original store due to rent hikes, StandNews reported.

Pei Ho Dim Sum Teahouse was previously located on Tai Nan Street, and its owner Brother Ming was well known for giving food to the poor in the area. The restaurant was was due to close at the end of the month after the landlord increased the rent to HK$50,000.

Tse Lam, the owner of the restaurants new location, said that that he is renting out his 1,300 square feet store for HK$36,000 per month. Brother Ming said that the new store is cheaper but also 300 square feet larger. Tse said that he had been with Brother Ming to give food to people living under bridges and Nam Cheong Estate. Seeing his determination, I really admire him, Tse told StandNews. My whole family supports Brother Ming.

Brother Ming said that renovations may cost around HK$1 million but he wanted to avoid taking money from financial groups. If there is someone offering HK$10,000, its easy for some rich people. But this is no comparison to 10,000 people each giving HK$1. There are at least 10,000 people supporting you, said Brother Ming. Food-giving activities will continue, and we will never let it stop, he said.

Also Hong Kong Magazine.

That was then, but this is now ...

(Speakout HK) April 29, 2016.

0:01 Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party): Hong Kong has many objective conditions to become independent.

0:03 Agnes Chow Ting (Demosisto): We are mainly fighting for self-determination and referendum.

0:06 Wong Chun-kit: I will say that I am a Hongkonger.

0:17 Brother Ming: If you are Chinese, you are Chinese. How can you say no? If you are of Chinese extract, you are Chinese. You are living in a Chinese place. A place governed by China. It is not up to you to deny it. What can you do to make the country democratic, progressive and respected? You should try to think how to make China rich and strong, and become strong in the world. You cannot just look at things from Hong Kong. You should stand taller and see the whole world ... all the political struggles and democratic advances ... to come up with a genuine idea to make Hong Kong prosperous and stable. That will make Hong Kong become better.

(Wen Wei Po) May 2, 2016.

Localists heap insults at Brother Ming for his statement at Speakout HK:


Do not patronize this Brother Ming
because he supports the Communist Party

- Brother Ming has lost his reputation in one blow. All his charitable deeds have gone to waste.

- This dickface deserves to be cursed out! He should have known that he is ugly and therefore should not have pretended to be a good guy. Now everybody has lost their appetite.

- All along Brother Ming was giving out meals in order to propagandize for the Hong Kong Communist government.

- Brother Ming should go back to mainland China and distribute food there.

- Brother Ming is merely being ignorant. But ignorance is what is scariest.

- After we build the Hong Kong nation, people like Brother Ming will be screened out and shipped back to China.

- Unless the older generation of Chinese people all drop dead, Hong Kong has no future!

Contrarian opinions abound:

- If these localists successfully build a nation, at least 90% of the people of Hong Kong will have to die!

- Politics is politics. Brother Ming was performing charitable deeds. Frankly he does not mind whether you patronize his restaurant or not on account of your view of his politics. He only cares that he can provide a good meal to needy people. I admire Brother Ming for what he does.

- The extreme form of populism means that you are either my friend or my enemy with nothing in between. At first, nothing is known about Brother Ming's politics, and the whole world applauds him for his charitable deeds. Once his politics is revealed, some people now want his head on a pike.

(SCMP) Why talk of an independent Hong Kong fails the test of reality. By Regina Ip. May 7, 2016.

The idea of Hong Kong independence was first mooted on a website, Hong Konger Front, in 2004. It advocated building an independent Hong Kong nation by referendum. As the relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong was stable at that time, the website drew little public attention.

In 2011, the relationship began to deteriorate, following the influx of mainland women coming here to give birth and the spike in parallel trade in powdered milk and other daily necessities. The resultant disruption and tension spawned a slew of radical localist groups, which staged anti-mainland protests under the banner of protecting local interests. Some even challenged Chinas sovereignty by unfurling the British colonial flag and demonstrating outside the Peoples Liberation Armys barracks in Central.

The Hong Kong independence movement gained traction in the wake of the debate on universal suffrage for the chief executive election. In 2014, the University of Hong Kong student union published a series of articles urging self-determination by the Hong Kong race. In recent months, advocates of independence have stepped up their ideological push by publishing further statements.

In 2011, the relationship began to deteriorate, following the influx of mainland women coming here to give birth and the spike in parallel trade in powdered milk and other daily necessities. The resultant disruption and tension spawned a slew of radical localist groups, which staged anti-mainland protests under the banner of protecting local interests. Some even challenged Chinas sovereignty by unfurling the British colonial flag and demonstrating outside the Peoples Liberation Armys barracks in Central.

The Hong Kong independence movement gained traction in the wake of the debate on universal suffrage for the chief executive election. In 2014, the University of Hong Kong student union published a series of articles urging self-determination by the Hong Kong race. In recent months, advocates of independence have stepped up their ideological push by publishing further statements.

Irrespective of whether the term autonomy, self-determination or independence is used, the thrust of the arguments is the same. The objective is to shake free the shackles of the Basic Law to redefine who qualifies as Hong Kong permanent residents, who has the authority to control the movement of Chinese people into Hong Kong, and to seek a new political status that will enable Hong Kong to determine its own destiny. All of this shows clear signs of influence of political thinkers who advocate defining nationhood on the basis of the common cultural and social identity of the people.

The students show great dissatisfaction with the status quo, and many of their complaints against the social and economic inequities are understandable and justified. They are naturally the boldest in urging negotiation with Beijing to achieve a freer, more independent status. Yet, their vision fails miserably against the test of reality.

The reality is that Hong Kong had never been autonomous or free before the Chinese takeover, as imagined by independence advocates. Hong Kong peoples status and right of abode were defined by British nationality legislation. It was the British authorities which decided, by an act of Parliament in 1981 and an Order in Council in 1986, to take away from British nationals in Hong Kong the right of abode in the UK, and confer on them the residual status of British National (Overseas).

It was also the British Hong Kong government which initiated discussions with the Chinese authorities to control immigration by way of daily quotas, and sought an increase of the quota from 75 a day to 150 in stages, to facilitate family reunions.

All those who have been involved in immigration control would know that, given the vast asymmetry in size, the Hong Kong authorities would not have been able to control the border without Chinese cooperation.

Older Hong Kong permanent residents would know that the British succeeded admirably in governing Hong Kong according to Confucian values. The emphasis on human rights, freedom, democracy, equal opportunity, privacy and access to information were latter-day additions to Hong Kongs gamut of core values in the last 10 years of British rule.

As for the argument that Hong Kongs culture is defined by the centrality of Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters in everyday life, such an emphasis clearly goes against Hong Kongs long-standing commitment to promoting a biliterate and trilingual policy, and the importance of a good command of English to sustaining Hong Kongs position as a premier international financial and business hub.

The various elements of Hong Kongs high level of autonomy enshrined in the Basic Law our status as a separate customs territory, our ability to keep our own currency, shipping register and negotiate civil aviation rights, and so on have been made possible only through the support of the two sovereign powers which controlled our destiny.

The reality is, like or not, China will always control our destiny. Our economic fortunes ebb and flow with those of China. Political separation is not just a matter for the 7.2 million Hongkongers, but also for the 1.4 billion mainland Chinese. Hong Kong could lose all its daily necessities, business and protection if it jumps ship. The students may be naive, but the grown-ups ought to wake up.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily)

The Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong was founded by former League of Social Democrats member Yeung Kecheong. Today at 6pm at the party press conference, Yeung announced that there are many options for self-determination/autonomy, including:

(1) Hong Kong becomes an independent nation

(2) Hong Kong joins the Republic of China in Taiwan as a county/city

(3) Hong Kong becomes a territory of the United States of America, either as a state (such as Hawaii or Alaska), or an unincorporated organized territory (such as Guam, Northern Marianna Islands, Puerto Rico or the United States Virgin Islands), or an unincorporated unorganized territory (such as American Samoa).

(4) Hong Kong forms a federation with the Guangdong and Guangi provinces of China.

All these options will still allow Hong Kong to elect its own leader by universal suffrage. Yeung admitted that he has not discussed these options with the relevant authorities in Taiwan, the United States or Guangdong/Guangxi.

Yeung Kecheong said that when National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang visits Hong Kong next week, he will try to get close to Zhang and express these demands. Yeung said that he was prepared to bear responsibility for his actions. He said that the Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong will participate in the Legislative Council elections in September.

The Democratic Progressive Party of Hong Kong claims to have several dozen members, and they adhere to "peace and rationality," and "localism without valiant force."

- Taiwan (ROC) needs Hong Kong like it needs a blow in the head. Look at the population counts: Hong Kong 7.3 million and Taiwan (ROC) 23.5 million. So Hong Kong will count for 24% of the new entity. This is far from enough to dominate but their choice will determine the election outcome if preferences between the KMT and the DPP are approximately equal in Taiwan.

By city, New Taipei has 4 million, Kaoshiung has 2.8 million, Taichung has 2.7 million, Taipei has 2.7 million, Taoyuan has 2.1 million, Tainain has 1.9 million, ... So Hong Kong will become the largest city in the new entity.

The Hong Kong Localists insist that they will speak only Cantonese and they will not accept any former putonghua (Mandarin) teaching. How are they going to communicate with the Taiwanese? Will they learn Minnan/Hokkien/Fujianese/Hoklo/Hakka?

- Hong Kong's population is 7.3 million; Guangdong's population is 104 million; Guangxi's population is 46 million. In the new Hong Kong/Guangdong/Guangxi entity, Hong Kong will account for less than 5% of the population. Therefore, under universal suffrage, the newly elected leader will be a Guangdong person, such as former Communist Party Secretary of Guangdong Wang Yang.

- Why would be the United States be interested in acquiring Hong Kong? First of all, the majority of the population of Hong Kong are not fluent in the English language. And you can't even teach them, because they want everything in Cantonese only.

Washington DC is located at 77 degrees west in longitude. Hong Kong is located at 114 degrees east in longitude. They are at the opposite ends of the world. When it is noon in Washington DC, it is midnight in Hong Kong.

When a territory of the United States attains statehood, its residents automatically become citizens. That is why the US Congress/Senate seek reassurance that the newcomers are qualified. For example, take a Hongkonger at random and make him take this naturalization test in civics. How is he/she going to pass? It is not a just a matter of willing to learn, but the history, culture and language are alien to Hongkongers, far more so than mainland Chinese history, culture and language. How strange is it to hear a Hongkonger say that the founding fathers of the Hong Kong Nation are George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe and Benjamin Franklin.

(SCMP) May 8, 2016.

The last public hearing session on the governments retirement protection consultation in Tai Po was cut short by a few minutes on Saturday, after the chief secretarys speech was interrupted by protesting calls from the audience.

This session was better than the previous four ... I hope we started well and can end well, said Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor at the last of five public hearing sessions. Unfortunately, her comments were made too early, when protesters rushed towards the stage one with a bubble gun spraying bubbles around which caused Lam to abandon the meeting without finishing her speech. The six-month public consultation over retirement protection slated to end in June had caused controversy, with the public sessions often becoming heated protest sites.

Cheng continued the government rhetoric that a universal pensions scheme is unaffordable and would be a waste of public funds as the money would be spread across all elderly citizens, instead of targeting the poor ones.

Much of the argument comes from groups who advocate for a universal scheme, opposed to the government suggestion of distributing around HK$3,300 a month for elderly Hongkongers who have assets of HK$80,000 or less.  Members of the public in turn criticised the governments harsh criteria, with one saying that HK$80,000 in assets isnt even enough to deal with funeral expenses and expressed disappointment at the governments attitude and suggestions.

Many of those who attended the meeting supported a retirement protection scheme without any asset limit or test, while others complained that the government-suggested asset limit was too low, which would exclude most elderly people.  In the consultation document, a means-tested pension scheme with the asset limit at HK$80,000 was suggested which meant only 23 per cent of all elderly people in the city would qualify.

(Oriental Daily) May 8, 2016.

During the meeting, 19 citizens spoke. Ms. Yu, a night-shift security guard, said that she sees senior citizens rummaging for cardboard paper and soda cans in the trash. She said that she gets paid the minimum wage and she has less than $100,000 in her Mandatory Provident Fund account. She questioned that if the means-tested asset limit is $80,000, then whether that is enough to pay for a coffin.

Housework aide Ms. Bo said, "I am not as luck as Carrie Lam who can retire to England." She wants to live a life with respect under a universal retirement protection scheme.

Mr. Pan said: "Many senior citizens who rummage for cardboard paper and soda cans are actually very wealth." This comment caused an uproar among the audience members. 18-year-old Mr. Mak deplored Mr. Pan: "You are not human. Who rummages for cardboard paper as a hobby?" Mr. Mak said that a universal retirement protection scheme is a basic human right.

Carrie Lam said that the government respects human rights, but League of Social Democrats member Raphael Wong interjected: "Don't lie!" Ultimately, Lam was unable to complete her response and the meeting was called off early.

Video links:

RTHK
http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1258801-20160507.htm

TVB
http://news.tvb.com/local/572df5c56db28c2c16000004/

Current News
https://www.facebook.com/832553626780002/videos/992026234166073/

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) Carrie Lam said that this meeting was better than the previous four because there had not been any physical clashes yet. She wanted the meeting to end well and that people would sit down quietly. But League of Social Democrats member Raphael Wong suddenly started to yell from his seat and said that Lam is "lying." Lam said to Wong: "You are making noise before I finish speaking." This caused other League of Social Democrats to be upset, and one of them took out a bubble gun to shoot out soap bubbles while yelling for a universal retirement protection scheme. Things got out of control. Lam said: "I am not done with speaking." But the security guard could not persuade the League of Social Democrats to stop and so the organizers announced that the meeting was over.

(Oriental Daily) May 5, 2016.

People Power member Tam Tak-chi was manning a street booth at Exit B, Choi Hung MTR Station with four other People Power members when a middle-aged woman approached and cursed him out. The two sides argued. The woman seized Tam's microphone and the two tussled with each other. During the chaos, Tam was pushed to the ground with the back of his head hitting the ground. The other People Power members seized the woman and called the police. The police came and arrested the woman for assault. Tam was taken to the hospital by ambulance. No bone fractures were detected on the X-rays, and Tam was released. However, Tam said that he still felt dizzy and nauseous. The doctor said that further tests may be necessary if the conditions don't improve. Afterwards Tam went down to the police station to assist in the investigation.

Video Links:

NOW TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSXxq2KoCcU

Internet comments:

- People Power member Tam Tak-chi planned to participate in the Legislative Council elections in September. Yesterday, he claimed that he was attacked by a 60-something-year-old woman, who grabbed his microphone first and then pushed him such that he lost his balance and fell down with the back of his head hitting the ground. Afterwards Tam wrote on his Facebook: "The back of my head hit the ground. Swollen. Dizzy. Nauseous." "Medical examination at United Christian Hospital." "When I fell down, there were voices which kept saying: 'Faking it. Taking a dive. Call the morgue.'"

The result of this minor episode ended up being an Internet war of words between supporters of Civic Passion and People Power. On one side, Civic Passion people said that Tam Tak-chi is a weakling who got his butt kicked by a grandma. On the other hand, People Power people said that Civic Passion people are lowlifes who are exploiting an unfortunate situation.

Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat's wife Chan Sau-wai said that Tam is a "stupid cunt" who got pushed around by a 60-something-year-old woman and then took a dive with his body stretched out in the shape of a big X. Another Internet user Poki Chan said that Tam is a weakling: "He is a big fat slob who was knocked out by one punch from a woman." Interestingly, People Power has often denounced police violence in the past but today they called the police for assistance. Isn't this ironic?

- Hong Kong's revolutionaries want nothing to do with their nominal enemies, which are supposed to be the Occupation force known as the People's Liberation Army. Instead, there is a constant stream of stories about them beating up grandmas or being beaten up by grandmas.

- Does Tam Tak-chi stand for People Power? What kind of power is it that can be KO'd by a 60-something-old grandma?

- According to a prior court case, the magistrate released the defendant who was accused to assaulting a police on the grounds that the magistrate cannot believe that the 90-pound defendant could push the policeman to the ground. So do you believe that the 60-something-year-old grandma could push the big fat slob Tam Tak-chi to the ground?

- The media were not present during the incident, so that the photos came from those present. Why is there no photo of the grandma?  There are two descriptions at this time. One description said that she is a 60-something-years-old 90-pound 4'10" white-haired grandma. The other description said that she is a 250-pound 6'3" sumo wrestler.

- (Apple Daily) Tam Tak-chi told the Apple Daily reporter that several women said to him: "We are Chinese. You People Power folks refuse to admit that you are Chinese. Mainland China sends the Dongjiang River water for us to drink." Tam went up to reason with the women, but they took his microphone and pushed him until he lost his balance and fell down.

- (Headline Daily )  Tam Tak-chi said that when that auntie came over to seize the microphone, he was scared because she might scream "Sexual assault!" if they made physical contact. Tsk tsk tsk!

- (Apple Daily) May 18, 2016. Today People Power member Tam Tak-chi drove around Hong Kong in a van with the sticker "The Hearse for Zhang Dejiang." He drove up to Government House to display banners to demand "Human waste Mr. and Mrs. Zhang Dejiang responsible for SARS deaths yo disclose your mistresses and corrupt fortune." Four police officers came and stopped him. Tam said that he decided to go to Government House instead of Wanchai where 10,000 police officers were deployed. "I want to show disrespect to the SARS murderer Zhang Dejiang!"

-  The calligraphy for "Zhang Dejiang's hearse" is worse than what a primary school third-grade student can do.

- Since Zhang Dejiang and CY Leung were both at the Convention Centre, what is the point of going to Government House? If Tam Tak-chi were by himself, he wouldn't have done it. Tam did it only because he got Apple Daily to send reporters to record the incident. Conversely, if Tam did not tell Apple Daily that something was going to take place, Apple Daily would see no need to station a reporter at Government House. So it is a symbiotic relationship between activists and journalists which violates the traditional stricture against journalists creating news themselves.

- Some guys tore the banners off Tam Tak-chi's truck. What did he do? He valiantly called the Hong Kong police dogs for help: https://www.facebook.com/832553626780002/videos/998030860232277/

(EJ Insight) David Chu does some plain-speaking on Leung. By SC Yeung. May 5, 2016.

When a former member of Chinas parliament makes scathing remarks about Hong Kongs patriotic elite and also finds fault with the central governments approach toward the city, its time to sit up and take notice.

On Wednesday, David Chu Yu-lin, an ex-Hong Kong deputy to the National Peoples Congress, spoke some bitter truths about the citys political and business leaders who tend to go overboard in trying to please Beijing on all key issues. Patriotism is seen as a business that one can profit from, Chu said, accusing the elite of acting with selfish motives and ignoring the larger problems confronting the city.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying came in for some particularly sharp criticism, with Chu questioning the leaders unquestioning embrace of Chinas One Belt, One Road initiative, among other things. Blaming young people for the problems in society is not right, Chu said, insisting that it is the adults, especially one of them, who need to shoulder the responsibility.

The barb was directed at Leung, who has been accused of using his official position to dominate the so-called patriotic camp in Hong Kong and forcing all pro-Beijing politicians to be loyal to him. There are people in Hong Kong who do things to please Beijing, Chu said. These people treat patriotism as a business. 

Ahead of the latest outburst, Chu had slammed Leung in recent weeks over an airport baggage controversy. Leung has been accused of pressuring airport staff to have security rules bypassed so that his daughter can have a forgotten bag delivered to her inside the restricted zone in the airport. Abuse of power is something that no Hongkonger will accept, Chu said. 

In a news conference Wednesday, Chu called for a new start in Beijings policy over Hong Kong, saying the one country, two systems can only be implemented by appealing to peoples hearts, and not through show of power. Beijings wrong approach is partly to blame for the problems and divisions in Hong Kong society, Chu said. Top leaders should respect Hong Kong peoples way of living, rather than force the citys residents to follow a particular path, he suggested. In a free society like Hong Kong, it is quite normal for people to have different opinions.

As Beijing has sought to tighten its grip over Hong Kong, the attempts have only bred resentment and fueled the rise of localism and even pro-independence sentiments, especially among the youth. This was among the things that Chu sought to highlight in his news conference. 

According to the veteran politician, Leung bears a lot of responsibility for the divisions in Hong Kong society. While no one knows what Beijing thinks about Leungs performance in the past four years, mainland authorities should allow the pro-establishment camp to at least nominate candidates on their own for the chief executive election next year. Rather than listen to a handful of patriotic politicians and business tycoons, Chinese leaders should heed the voices of ordinary people and make the right decision. Hong Kong deserves a leader who enjoys the trust of locals as well as Beijing. 

Internet comments:

- The EJ Insight report by SC Yeung treated this as a normal press conference. It was anything but normal.

Press conference video segment: https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/547174112154535/

David Chu holds a microphone in his right hand and a fruit knife in his left hand.

David Chu (in Shanghainese accented Cantonese): I ... I ... I ... trouble you, okay? If I cannot persuade everybody, I will ... (makes gesture of slashing his own throat) ... Okay? Is there anyone here who disagrees with what I said? If there is anyone who is not convinced by me ... if anyone has a different opinion, please raise your hand! But you should be careful. The consequence of raising your hand will be very painful. Does anyone raise their hand? Anyone raise their hand? Don't do this for me. Anyone raise their hand? Have you really been convinced by me?

- Reporters are there to report, not to participate in a public opinion poll. Whether the reporters are personally convinced by David Chu is not germane to the purpose of the press conference, just as the BBQ meat treats and red wine that he prepared for the press.

- David Chu needs to take care of his own psychiatric illness first before he holds any more of these press conferences. When you put a knife on your throat and use suicide to coerce others to agree with your view, you are very sick.

- You better be careful about saying David Chu has an psychiatric illness, because columnist Chris Wat Wing-yin is facing complaints at the Equal Opportunities Commission for having written about the Hong Kong National Party as "the rebellion of mental patients." Wat is accused of insulting mental patients. Calling David Chu the same may be insulting mental patients too.

- David Chu was challenged on his statement that he spoke to the Cathay Pacific ground crew member who spoke to Chief Executive CY Leung by telephone. Chu said that the ground crew member broke out in tears. He amended his statement the next day to say that he spoke to someone who is close to the ground crew member but he did not speak to her directly. At the press conference today, he said that he will contact Cathay Pacific and its unions to locate that ground crew member in order to understand what happened that day. Well, Chu should do it and tell us, instead of telling us what he wants to do but never delivering any results.

- If that Cathay Pacific ground crew member saw the video of Chu putting a knife to his neck during the press conference, what are the chances of her willing to meet with Chu?

- (Wen Wei Po) A 21-year-old woman without a boarding pass managed to go though security checks through the e-passage. She is reported to be mentally ill since childhood and wanted to travel to South Korea to start a company and chase after television actors. Her mother apologized for her: "Very sorry" because some security workers may lose their jobs over this incident. However, neither David Chu, nor the pan-democratic legislator councilors, nor the Hong Kong Cabin Crew Federation have indicated any interest in this major breach of security protocol.

- In cooperation with Apple Daily and HK01, David Chu tested the system when he took a flight to the Philippines. After he entered the restricted zone, he said that he left a piece of hand-carry luggage at the Cathay Pacific counter. He demanded that Cathay Pacific workers retrieve the luggage for him. The workers refused. So he left without his luggage.

- (HKG Pao) May 28, 2016. David Chu held another press conference during which he displayed on a placard containing this Whatsapp message to the hotline number 9579-1810 that Chu set up: "CY Leung, liar. He scolded a female Cathay Pacific co-worker until she cried. Our First Class team co-workers handled this case. The big boss treats this seriously and we have all been ordered to shut up."

Who sent this message? David Chu refused to say. He said that it was from a person connected to the case. The person had requested not to have his/her identity disclosed.

Of course, this reproduced Whatsapp message can be faked anytime by anyone. Why should anyone believe this?

(Quartz Facebook) China Really Hates This Guy. April 30, 2016.

Internet comments:

- (Silent Majority HK Facebook) Why Does China Hate This Guy? May 3, 2016.

Reason #1: He paralyzed Hong Kong and inconvenienced citizen in order to realize his own political goals. He even shamelessly said: "Why aren't the people of Hong Kong ready to pay a price? Is traffic really more important than Hong Kong democracy?"

Reason #2: He used illegal methods to occupy the streets. Wong pleaded ignorance and said that assemblies do not need police permission. After Occupy Central was over, he did everything possible to avoid paying for the consequences. In the interview, Wong said that he was prepared to pay the price and that he would willingly accept a jail term in court.

Reason #3: He caused trouble in Hong Kong with western connections. In the interview, Wong seriously said: "Hong Kong is an international city. At the time of the handover, China (asked for) the endorsement of United States. Why can't we seek western support?" The answer is naive and showed ignorance of history.

Reason #4: His study grades are dreadful but he wants to play student representative. Wong was evasive: "A good student does not have to study well" and "the most important thing is that the student must be willing to contribute more to society."

Reason #5: He criticizes others while refusing to criticize himself. For example, he ate publicly inside the MTR subway car. Wong did not respond directly but said: "They need to find a better reason to criticize me."

Reason #6: He opposes China while being a Chinese. On many occasions, Wong has claimed to be Chinese and also patriotic, but he continued to be hated because he opposes China. Wong said that he likes Chinese culture, but he "does not love the People's Republic of China" because of one-party rule. He said: "I'm ethnically Chinese" but "I won't say that I am a citizen of the People's Republic of China. I am Hongkongese."

- In the interview, Wong gave the impression that he started and ran Occupy Central With Love And Peace. Well, the number of times he appeared in the Occupy Mong Kok area can be counted with one finger.

- Joshua Wong said that he is a member of the Chinese race, but he is a "Hongkongese" and not a citizen of the People's Republic of China. Internet users "rewound the tape" and dug out the numerous occasions in which he had previously declared that he is Chinese. So Wong's identity is a function of local politics.

Unfortunately, it does not matter what Wong wants to call himself because foreigners will still say that he is Chinese.

- Wong uses a People's Republic of China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport when he travels around the world. If he is Hongkongese and not a People's Republic of China citizen, he should be using a Hong Kong national passport, right?

But let us grant that Wong is using a British National (Overseas) passport instead of the PROC HKSAR passport, then what business does he have to meddle in the politics of Hong Kong, which is an inalienable region of the People's Republic of China?

- Joshua Wong's Facebook has plenty of fetishist photos:

- (Wen Wei Po) Short after switching race from Chinese to Hongkongese, Joshua Wong posted a complaint against mainland Chinese courier service SF Express. Wong said that he read a Facebook page in which someone said that they ordered something from Taobao but SF Express refused to deliever. Wong wrote: "This is how things are in China. As soon as the mainland courier service spots a sensitive keyword, they won't even deliver a Gundam toy model."

What was the product? It was a Kotobukiya M.S.G. MW 22 Rocket Launcher/Revolver Launcher. When the buyer asked SF Express, the client service representative said: "Are you sending a rocket launcher? Even toy models (of rocket launcher) cannot be delivered."

- Why don't you try to send a 'rocket launcher' from the United States to Hong Kong via DHL/FedEx?

- What exactly did the seller state was in the package? If the description is "rocket launcher", then no courier service will deliver. If the description is "plastic toy", then there shouldn't be any problem.

- Oh, please! Joshua Wong is 19 years old already and should have grown out of playing with Gundam. Furthermore, he wants to become a Legislative Councilor. How about putting the toys aside and start reading a few books on political science, history, economics, etc?

Q1. Do you agree with the following ...?

Teach students in school to speak in putonghua:
12.2%: Only in primary schools
16.0%: Only in secondary schools
56.4%: In both primary and secondary schools
10.4%: Disagree
5.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Teach simplified Chinese characters to students in school:
3.3%: Only in primary schools
19.2%: Only in secondary schools
18.5%: In both primary and secondary schools
50.8%: Disagree
8.2%: Don't know/ahrd to say

Use putonghua to teach Chinese language
7.2%: Only in primary school
13.3%: Only in secondary school
30.9%: In both primary and secondary schools
37.6%: Disagree
11.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. How frequently do you do the following  in your daily life?

Speak or listen to putonghua?
15.5%: Frequently
40.2%: Occasionally
33.1%: Rarely
11.2%: Never
0.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Read/write simplified Chinese characters?
12.0%: Frequently
29.6%: Occasionally
32.4%: Rarely
25.5%: Never
0.4%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. How do you think the following is useful to your daily life and work in Hong Kong?

Putonghua:
11.9%: Very useful
35.3%: Quite useful
36.7%: A little bit useful
14.5%: Not at all useful
1.5%: Don't know/hard to say

Simplified Chinese characters
5.5%: Very useful
20.8%: Quite useful
36.1%: A little bit useful
36.4%: Not at all useful
1.1%: Don't know/hard to say

Q4. In Hong Kong, some people are glad to use putonghua/simplified Chinese characters while others are resistant. Which are you?

Putonghua:
14.3%: Glad to use
70.8%: Indifferent
14.4%: Resistant
0.6%: Don't know/hard to say

Simplified Chinese characters:
10.1%: Glad to use
56.3%: Indifferent
31.6%: Resistant
1.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Q5. Twenty years from now in Hong Kong, will the following happen?

Putonghua replaces Cantonese as the most popular spoken language
6.6%: Yes
27.0%: In-between
55.5%: No
10.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Simplified Chinese characters replace traditional Chinese characters as the most popular written language
5.7%: Yes
21.8%: In-between
61.4%: No
11.1%: Don't know/hard to say

Relevant Link: Burn This Book!

Internet comments:

- This is not a case of taking a public opinion poll and then following the majority opinion to decide that we need to teach or not to teach putonghua/simplified Chinese characters in Hong Kong primary/secondary schools.

You can easily imagine what a public opinion poll about teaching English in Hong Kong primary/secondary schools. A lot fewer Hongkongers will find English relevant to their daily lives and work. But nobody will clamor for English to be dropped from the school curriculum anytime soon. Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city. It cannot be cosmopolitan if the next generation is brought up speaking only Cantonese, which is spoken in Hong Kong plus Guangdong/Guangxi provinces in China and nowhere else.

- The argument for putonghua/simplified Chinese characters education is that Hongkongers are blessed with being educated in two languages (Chinese and English) and three dialects (Cantonese, putonghua and English). Well, do you want to cut off putonghua? I don't think even the Taiwan independence proponents want to go in that direction.

- It is hard for foreigners to learn the written Chinese language. Instead of 26 Roman alphabets, the common vocabulary has 3,000 Chinese characters. But it is much easier for someone who already knows the vocabulary in one writing system to learn the other (e.g. a mainlander who knows the simplified Chinese characters to learn the traditional characters, or a Hongkonger who knows the traditional Chinese characters to learn the simplified characters). Quite often, the computer software takes care of 99% of the translation. For example, a Hongkonger can write a letter in traditional Chinese characters and ask the software to convert into simplified Chinese characters just by clicking a menu item.

(Oriental Daily with video) May 1, 2016.

Five organizations (HK National Front, North District Parallel Imports Concern Group, ProgressUST, Valiant Frontier and Studentlocalism) were scheduled to hold a demonstration march at 3pm at Sun Kung Street. More than 100 police showed up by 2pm to patrol Sun Kung Street and the neighboring area. A number of stores shuttered their store fronts in anticipation of trouble. Localist scholar Wan Chin issued a call on Facebook for his followers not to participate because the Localists will be smeared for destroying the Hong Kong economyjobs.

At 3pm, only a dozen or so demonstrators were present. Captain America Andy Yung was there to wave the British Lion/Dragon flag for Hong Kong independence. There was a clash with counter-demonstrators who tried to seize the flag. The police arrested a demonstrator.

North District Parallel Imports Concern Group convener Leung Kam-shing suddenly announced that he had received reliable information that Wan Chin's followers had infiltrated the demonstrators in order to cause trouble, hoping to turn this event into a re-run of the Mong Kok riot. Therefore Leung decided to call off the demonstration march today. Leung denied that the decision was made because too few people showed up.

Civic Passion member Lee Ching-hei showed up and charged into a number of stores to quarrel with the storekeepers. He also confronted Loyal Militia member Ah Man and exchanged obscenity-laced curses with each other. The police separated the two men and sent in more reinforcement. Lee proceeded to a shuttered dispensary in Metropolis Plaza and pounded on the iron gate to demand service.

At the same time, about 10 members of Hong Kong National Front went from Sun Kung Street to Shueng Shui MTR station and said that they were there to arrest parallel traders who were hauling too much luggage. The police checked ID's and found that some of these people were carrying V masks.

Video links:

Born In A Time of Chaos Facebook https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1721223484756232/ Civic Passion member Lee Ching-hei protected by the police during his shopping trip

SpeakoutHK
https://youtu.be/xGbT6YWHtPM
https://www.facebook.com/speakouthk/videos/650441835103899/ Civic Passion member Lee Ching-hei exhibits his mastery of obscenities to the press

HKG Pao
https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/545574228981190/

Channel 3
https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/545574228981190/
A member of the previous unknown Studentlocalism holds up a piece of A4 paper with something written on it. An old man tries to snatch the paper and the young man fled.
https://www.facebook.com/channel3hk/videos/1585637308413808/

INT News Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kea8YlSdE7M (15:24) Leung Kim-shing explains why action was canceled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeaBQn1yhKk (15:29) Civic Passion member Lee Ching-hei
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eegkKrFVs90 (16:24) Sheung Shui MTR station

SocREC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ztiPJq7vQY Leung Kim-shing explains why action was canceled
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEzDosTP6XI Passengers carrying large luggage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEmaDsdTrkw Sheung Shui Rural Affairs Committee chairman Hau Chi-keung declines to comment on the cancellation of the demonstration march.

HK Epoch Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCxdD3k16aI Civic Passion member Lee Ching-hei
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4J1DUEnydM  Sheung Shui "king" Hau Chi-keung
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWgAUJnyFdY Leung Kim-shing announces cancellation of event

Internet comments:

- The instigator of today's event was Ronald Leung Kim-shing. He used to be a community assistant director for the Neo Democrats and wanted to use this issue to help his chances in the September Legislative Council elections. But why would the other Localists let him get away with it. First, City State's Wan Chin made a public appeal to the Localists not to participate. Wan Chin said that the participates are "even stupider than pigs." Next, Hong Kong independence proponents wearing British Union Jack T-shirts interrupted Leung's speech multiple times. They accused him of showing up late and letting their comrade be provoked and arrested earlier. In the end, Leung was completely defeated as he called off the demonstration march. Clearly, Leung had too few followers as less than 20 people showed up. Instead of a demonstration of force, this became a demonstration of weakness.

- Leung Kim-shing said that he was misinformed by someone that he trusted. Well, please tell us who that might be. There are a multitude of reasons why this is essential. Firstly, the public needs to know that such a person really exists and is not a phantom created by Leung. Secondly, the public should know who can be trusted or not. Thirdly, if the person misled Leung, then Leung is not required to protect his identity. That person betrayed Leung first, so confidentiality is no longer necessary.

- Leung Kim-shing has evaporated himself from Facebook since. By this time, there is no reason why anyone should vote for Leung Kim-shing come September.

- Sheung Shui Rural Affairs Committee chairman Hau Chi-keung was present. Hau had just founded the New Progressive Alliance. However the new party is not doing well, as the Rural Affairs Committee is not supportive and two banquets have already been canceled due to lack of interest. Today Hau Chi-keung showed up by his lonesome self, thus suggesting that his new party's ability to mobilize is suspect.

- Leung Kim-shing organizes a demonstration march to protest against the parallel trade, and then "Captain America" shows up to wave the British Lion/Dragon flag for Hong Kong independence, with the idea being that China will hand Hong Kong back to the United Kingdom which will make Hong Kong independent (if you can figure this out!). Does Leung Kim-shing need "Captain America"? With friends like these, who needs enemies?

- Wan Chin's Facebook

Fortunately, I analyzed the situation last night. I told the supporters not to be conned. Apart from wanting to smear the Recover action for being accused by the Hong Kong Communists as sabotaging the Hong Kong economy during the May 1st Labor Day holiday, they are also targeting me. Leung Kim-shing's logic is intriguing. It is obvious that the Hong Kong Communist CY Leung has sent people ready to produce scenes of fighting and the Police Tactical Unit is ready to suppress with a heavy hand in order to put on a good show in front of Zhang Dejiang so that CY Leung can be re-elected, he says that those lying in ambush are the supporters of Wan Chin.

- Studentlocalism Facebook

(Statement of apology)
Our organization planned to join Valiant Frontier, Hong Kong National Front and ProgessUST to work as "volunteers" at the Sheung Shui MTR station after the demonstration march to help MTR workers "enforce the law". However, we were not able to reach the Sheung Shui MTR station per our agreement.

The reason was that the police was everywhere. When our members arrived in Sheung Shui, they got their ID's checked four times. Each occasion took up a lot of time, so that we could not get to the location to start the demonstration march. Finally, our members and two Hong Kong National Frontier members were surrounded by the police, reporters and citizens during one of those ID checks. We learned that the organizers have canceled the meeting and the police could not disperse the crowd. Therefore, our members could not break free. The National Front could not break free either. In the end, our organization decided to retreat. During the process, the citizens and the reporters continued to follow us. We had to split up and leave separately.

We apologize to the three organizations and the citizens of Hong Kong for the non-appearance of our members.

- Hong Kong National Front Facebook

Unfortunate things kept happening at the May 1st Recover Sheung Shui action. Our organization apologizes to all the justice fighters who were present.

Our organization absolutely disagree with Leung Kim-shing for canceling the event without notifying the other organizations because "the disciples of Wan Chin have infiltrated in order to cause trouble. It is rumored that Leung Kim-shing and Wan Chin are both running for the Legislative Council in New Territories East. If so, it was shameless of Leung Kim-shing to use mobilization and personal safety of the justice warriors as chips to attack his presumptive oppoent.

Fortunately, the newbies who showed up joined our organization to proceed to the Sheung Shui MTR station at the critical moment and successfully conducted a new round of forcing parallel traders to have their wares weighed. This validates the resistance method of "not having a grand stand and never giving up." Our organization pays the highest respect and gratitude to all those who participated in this action. Our organization is honored to have such fellow travelers.

- ProgressUST Facebook

To those warriors who had hopes to recover Sheung Shui:

Our organization apologizes to people who had expectations for the Sheung Shui action on May 1st. We also apologize to those who came in person to participate in the action. the action was intended to chase away parallel traders and restore peace in Sheung Shui. But the action was terminated before it ever got started, so that our organization and other participants could not stop the parallel traders near the Old Sheung Shui Market. With whatever manpower left, we went instead to the Sheung Shui MTR station and supervised the MTR workers to enforce the law. Although a number of Sheung Shui warehouses and dispensaries temporarily halted business so that peace was temporarily restored in Sheung Shui, our organization admits that this action did not achieve the expected results. Once again, we apologize to the public.

A big reason for the failure of the Restore action is because the demonstration was canceled before it started. Any action run by a number of organizations will consist different ideas. This action was supposed to last from 3pm to the evening. Our organization wanted to proceed to demonstrate at the Old Sheung Shui Market and the Sheung Shui MTR station after marching in the demonstration organized by Leung Kim-shing. But Leung Kim-shing did not consult the opinions of the various organizations and went ahead unilaterally to cancel the demonstration march. This surprised those who participated in the action, causing them to lose confidence in the organizers and disrupting the plans of the various other organizations. This was an extremely irresponsible action. If the action did not deal a blow to the parallel trade, it will only encourage the smugglers. Therefore our organization is deploring Leung Kim-shing to the maximum degree.

May 1st is a major holiday on mainland China, so everything possible must be done for maximum publicity to teach the mainlanders never to come to Hong Kong again.

Touring the dispensaries to thank the tourists
Buy infant formula on May 1st
Sun Kung Street, Shek Woo Market, Sheung Shui district, 15:00 Sunday
Jointly organized by:
HK National Front
North District Parallel Imports Concern Group
ProgressUST
Valiant Frontier
Studentlocalism

ProgressUST

We should listen to the instructions of the law enforcement agents
Insist on Peace, Reason and Non-violence

We should not
Treat the Chinese people violently
Destroy the parallel goods warehouses or dispensaries that serve parallel traders
If other resisters commit such actions, we should rush up immediately to provide help

(Oriental Daily) April 28, 2016.

Sheung Shui Rural Affairs Committee chairman Bowie Hau Chi-keung said that he will "take a look" at the demonstration on that day. He said that "it is very normal to be concerned about district matters" since he is a Sheung Shui resident. How many people will he bring to the scene? Hau counter-questioned: "Why do I have to instigate anything?" He said that he is supported by many local residents "anytime that he goes anywhere." He also said that he is not the only person who cares about Sheung Shui. Will he instigate radical action? Hau said that "peace is valuable." He said that their action is simply to make sure that nobody causes trouble in Sheung Shui.

Internet comments:

- (NOW TV) April 27, 2016.

Localist organizers plan to repeat demonstrations directed at mainland Chinese tourists on May 1st. Some mainlanders are worried and are choosing not to come to Hong Kong.

ProgressUST: We have already won a victory before we even took any action!

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2016.

Pan-democratic groups and organisations including the Labour Party and the League of Social Democrats protested at the real estate investment trust Link REITs Kwun Tong headquarters on Tuesday. They demanded that the trust stop raising rents and stop outsourcing market management to other companies. They also urged the company not to sell its property to speculators and asked to see the trusts Chief Executive Officer George Hongchoy.

Today, we occupied Link REIT. For the last month, Link was condescending to residents and did not care about them, this is our resistance against Link, said district councillor Au Nok-hin on Facebook. He also said that the Senior Divisional Relationship Manager So Hong Ling told everyone that he had already received their demands and told them to go to lunch.

Labour Party member Cheng Sze-lut said on Facebook: Link tried to drag things out to make the protesters go away. At first they promised to schedule a time to meet next week, but now it has become next week we will give a reply on when there can be a meeting.'

The investment trust has attracted controversy in recent months after it announced that it was outsourcing Cheung Fat Market management to Uni-China (Market) Management Limited, leading to a week-long strike initiated by stallholders against the prospect of exorbitant rents. The stallholders were then told to vacate the market so that renovation works can be conducted in early April.

However, Link told Ming Pao that it had confidence in the companies that it outsourced market management to and that there was improvement on environment and service, as well as variety of goods and food prices are also very attractive, leading to a rise in degree of satisfaction.

Link has also attracted criticism by changing the monthly rental system of its parking lots from a set number of monthly parking spaces to an altering number of monthly spaces and raising parking rates by 8 per cent. It told Ming Pao the rise was to cover the costs of electricity, staff, as well as maintenance.

(EJ Insight) April 27, 2016.

Dozens of people staged a protest against the Link Real Estate Investment Trust (Link REIT) on Tuesday, decrying what they called the property management firms merciless and profiteering attitude. 

Accusing the firm of causing hardship for small shop operators by selling properties to speculators, outsourcing management of wet markets and demanding higher rents, the demonstrators called on Link REIT to change its ways.

The protesters comprised members from several pan-democratic groups, including Hong Kong Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood, Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre, the League of Social Democrats, and the Democratic Party.

The demonstration began at around 9 am and lasted for nearly 7 hours at Link REITs headquarters in Kwun Tong, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported.

Some protesters barricaded the reception desk and entrances of elevators in the building, chanting slogans and holding banners that read bloodsucker, among other things.

The event saw some scuffles break out. A female employee of Link REIT was sent to hospital after she claimed that she was pushed down to the ground, causing her to faint.

Meanwhile, some protesters took an elevator and went up to the companys office on the 33rd floor, where they demanded a meeting with Link REITs chief executive George Hongchoy Kwok-lung. But they were unable to meet him as the CEO was allegedly on leave.

Protesters left the building only at around 4:30 pm after a company spokesman promised that a meeting will be arranged with Hongchoy no later than May 6. Stall operators who had been affected by Link REITs property renovation work are welcome to attend the meeting, the spokesman said.

Claiming that Hongchoy is open to rational discussions, Lo Bing-chung, Link REITs director of corporate communications and external relations, said the CEO had met members of pan-democratic groups more than 10 times in the past. Lo added that he hopes the protesters misunderstandings can be cleared up through a meeting, Apple Daily reported.Meanwhile, he criticized the protesters for disturbing normal office work at the building. Some groups may be just trying to get media exposure by causing trouble intentionally, the official said.

Au Lok-hin, a Southern District Council member from the Democratic Party who participated in the demonstration, urged Link REIT not to break its promise with regard to a meeting with Hongchoy. Unless the company comes up with an acceptable solution, the groups could escalate their protests, he warned.

(Oriental Daily with video) April 26, 2016.

A dozen or so persons from four pan-democratic political parties (Hong Kong Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood, Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre, the League of Social Democrats, and the Democratic Party.) launched a sudden occupation of the Link REIT headquarters in Kwun Tong at 9am to express their dissatisfaction with Link REIT for selling properties and outsourcing markets and parking garages. They demand that these activities be stopped immediately and that the government should buy back Link REIT.

The demonstrators put up banners such as "Link REIT sucks blood mercilessly" and "A danger to Hong Kong" and pasted slogans in the Link REIT office. They demanded to meet with Link REIT CEO George Hongchoy Kwok-lung. Link REIT said that Hongchoy is on vacation, but the demonstrators continued to occupy the offices. At about 10am, the Link REIT suddenly locked the back stairwell and elevators so that the demonstrators can only leave but nobody else can enter the 33rd floor Link REIT offices. This made some of the occupiers very unhappy and they clashed with the Link REIT employees. During this period, a female Link REIT fainted and had to be taken away to the hospital for treatment.

At around 1pm, the demonstrators expanded their territory. Three demonstrators included Central West district councilor Hui Chi-fung protested against the blocking of the stairwell/elevator to cut off food/water supplies by sitting down on the floor of three elevators in the lobby and ate lunch.

At around 3pm, a Link REIT worker told the demonstrators that Honchoy will meet with them next week to hear their demands. At this time, only a manager can accept their petition and listen to what they have to say. The demonstrators asked two other representatives downstairs be allowed to come up for the meeting, but Link REIT refused. The demonstrators freed two elevators, and Hui Chi-fung tried to come up in one of them. The security guards dragged Hui back out.

Link REIT explained that due to costs increases for electricity, labor, repair and maintenance have caused them to raise monthly/hourly parking prices by 8%. Also, the system of outsourcing the markets has been in use since 1998 while Link REIT was still owned and operated by the government and has proven to be quite effective. Link REIT said that they have already met with these political parties for more than 10 times already, and they hope that they can continue to discuss peacefully and rationally without a recurrence of an incident like this one.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 29, 2016.

Real estate investment trust Link REIT began legal proceedings on Thursday against a group of pan-democratic lawmakers and other activists after they protested at its Kwun Tong headquarters. The company demanded that protesters to be barred from entering the grounds of their headquarters and has asked for compensation after the demonstrators caused a disturbance at Lok Fu Plaza, which they manage.

Among the accused were Democratic Party district councillors Au Nok-hin and Ted Hui Chi-fung, Labour Party district councillor Tam Chun-yin, League of Social Democrats lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung and others who participated in Tuesdays protest against the trusts outsourcing practices and rent hikes.

Internet comments:

- What were the reasons for privatizing Link REIT? Because public management proved to be slow, ineffective, unresponsive and unimaginative. The markets were old and decrepit (e.g. no air conditioning). The privatized Link REIT increased rents and improved the conditions drastically. Everybody knew that was going to happen. What is the point of going back to government-run markets?

- The Democratic Party protesting against Link REIT? Didn't they vote for the privatization of Link REIT? Didn't they know what will happen?

- When the government sold off Link REIT at a fairly cheap price, the pan-democrats approved. After the Link REIT became a public company, they want the government to buy back Link REIT at several times the original sales price. Why, oh why?

- In Hong Kong, there is no longer any rights or wrongs. The power goes to whoever can "resist more valiantly."

- Many citizens went up to the three guys who were stopping the elevators in the lobby and complained about not being able to access the other floors that have Link REIT. But the three guys ignored them. The three guys really needed to be "resisted valiantly."

- I don't understand what happened here. The Link REIT offices are located inside a private commercial building. Couldn't the security director just call the police to remove the demonstrators who are intruding on private property? Can there be any doubt?

- The pan-democrats say that they are pro-democracy, but they believe like Communists ready to confiscate the property of the landlord.

- As a Link REIT (823) shareholder, I hope that they would sell off all the estate markets to others and distribute the proceeds to the shareholders. This way, I won't ever have to listen to these protestors again. P.S. I have no idea why they are protesting.

- It's really very simple. The protestors are socialists in a capitalist society. They think that if the food markets are nationalized and rent-free, food prices will be lower. And where does the government find the money to fund these food markets? Higher personal and corporate taxes, of course!

- (SCMP) Link Reit protests only happened because a Legislative Council election is looming in Hong Kong.  May 7, 2016.

The recent spate of protests by politicians at Link Reits headquarters took place only because the election season is coming, said Link Management chief executive George Hongchoy Kwok-lung yesterday. He made the remarks two days after scuffles broke out at the trusts Kwun Tong headquarters, when more than 30 pan-democrat politicians and community activists clashed with security guards.

Hongchoy, chief executive of the organisation that manages Link Reit, appeared on a TVB talkshow on Saturday and said the series of protests was because the Legislative Council election is taking place later this year. He stressed that the trust is always willing to meet with different political parties, adding they have met different parties about 90 times in the past year.

Link Reit has long been criticised by community activists and politicians of adopting a business practice that resulted in rent hikes since it took over government-owned malls and wet markets in 2005.

The accusations turned even more intense in recent months over the trusts decision to let subcontractors operate its markets. Some tenants claimed it was a move to push the rent of market stalls to an exorbitant level and warned that daily groceries could cost more. Link Reit later said it would slow down the outsourcing.

On Saturday, Hongchoy also said the occupancy rate at the trusts malls had been going up over the years and was now over 95 per cent. Renewal rate was also 70 to 80 per cent. He believed that the tenants are willing to stay because they are making money. To show that he cares about the customers, he said: It is a demand I have for myself every day how to make the customers feel that the money they spend are worth it.

On Thursday, about 30 protesters showed up at Link Reits Kwun Tong headquarters and demanded in vain to meet Hongchoy. Some even urged Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to intervene. At present, besides the markets owned privately by Link Reit, there are 76 public markets managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.

- (EJ Insight) Fight Link REIT with competition law, not publicity stunts. By Wong On-yin. May 11, 2016.

It has been quite eventful recently at the head office of the Link Real Estate Investment Trust.

Protests led by pan-democratic parties against soaring rent and the hegemony of real estate developers at its front door have been occurring almost daily.

As George Kwok-lung Hongchoy, Link REITs chief executive, said earlier, it has become almost a routine for politicians to stage protests in front of his office whenever there are elections coming up.

The fact that the pan-democrats always go after Link REIT only indicates their complete ignorance.

It is a public company, and under the law, only the Security and Futures Commission has the power to oversee its business practices.

As long as Link REIT hasnt committed any crime, such as cooking the books, what it does is perfectly legal including raising the rent for tenants in its shopping malls or evicting those who cant afford to stay no matter how unpopular or unjust such an act might be, because that is exactly how a market economy works.

Protests and empty slogans wont change anything.

In fact, it is absolutely meaningless to hold big businesses to a high moral standard, because in any capitalist society, businesses are born to pursue profits perhaps with the exception of social enterprises.

It is the universal rule of the capitalist game, under which companies only need to make sure they carry out their businesses legally, not morally.

Only nave leftist idealists would believe in the notion that holding big businesses to a high moral standard can make our world a better place.

I bet all the politicians who have staged protests at Link REITs head office are well aware that their actions wont make any difference at all.

The reason they keep doing that is they need this kind of publicity stunt to please their supporters.

As I said, since under capitalism, businesses are subject only to legal regulation, not moral criticism, instead of just shouting empty slogans at its head office, the only way to bring a giant company like Link REIT into line or put it in its place is to bring its business operations under close scrutiny to see if it has violated any law.

If there are signs that it has, then we should immediately raise the red flag and report it to the authorities.

As a matter of fact, I have identified some smoking-gun evidence that may indicate that Link REIT could have violated the Competition Law, which came into effect a little more than a year ago.

It really boggles the mind as to why the pan-democrats, with so many legal experts and prominent barristers on their side, have failed to notice that.

Is it because they have been so busy with their token protests lately to bother to do their homework?

For example, Link REIT recently outsourced the management and maintenance of the public wet market at Cheung Fat Street, Tsing Yi, to a subcontractor and is planning to introduce a vertically integrated business model to vegetable and seafood vending, despite the fierce opposition of the existing tenants.

Based on my observations, there are signs that such a change may involve malpractices such as predetermined sales volume, price fixing, price maintenance and customer allocation, all of which constitute anticompetitive practices under the law.

Another example is that when the Link REIT sells its properties by tender, the process often lacks transparency and oversight, giving rise to possible malpractices such as bid-rigging, predatory pricing or price squeezes.

In fact, given that there is so much potential for breaches of the Competition Law in the various business operations of Link REIT, all the pan-democrats need do is await the slightest slip on its part, then jump in and nail it to the wall.

So why continue to waste time on those meaningless protests?

One explanation may be that the pan-democrats themselves could also have noticed such potential malpractices but just dont have the guts to take on big business.

All they intended to do was pull off some nice publicity stunts to please the grass-roots voters in the upcoming Legislative Council election.

If that is true, then they are just as hypocritical as lawmakers representing the Federation of Trade Unions, who on one hand vow to protect labor rights but on the other eagerly toe the governments pro-business line when it comes to casting their votes on labor rights bills in Legco.

(Wen Wei Po) April 25, 2016.

Civic Passion, Proletariat Political Institute and City-State announced that they will field candidates in the September Legislative Council. If elected, they will immediately resign in order to trigger a de facto referendum. For the Hong Kong Island district, "Four-eyed Brother" Alvin Cheng Kam-mun is their candidate. Yesterday there was an opening ceremony for his campaign office. The other candidates Raymond Wong Yuk-man, Wong Yeung-tat, Cheng Chung-tai and Wan Chin were present.

The opening ceremony was scheduled for 2pm at the Tai Lok Street Sitting-out area, San Wan Ho district. But Raymond Wong, Wan Chin and Cheng Chung-tai were all late. So the Civic Passion devotees had to stand in the rain to wait for their leaders to arrive. The two Wong's lead some chants about "Nation building" and "Down with the Communist Party." Then they waited in the rain for the Lucky Hour to arrive to cut up the roasted piglet. Afterwards they went into Cheng's new office.

Previously, Cheng Kam-mun was arrested for a YouTube video to show how to destroy public library books written in simplified Chinese character. Yesterday Cheng distributed pamphlets that advertising his new fund-raising book-exchange program. He promised that for an initiation fee of $1,000, you can read books for free at his office and also swap any one of your books with one of his. He said: "I'll take any book, except ones that are written in simplified Chinese characters." Cheng also offers a $4,000 "Four-Eyed Brother Club Membership" which entitles you to enjoy having Cheng come in to eat at your home and he'll wash the dishes afterwards.

At 5pm, there was an auction. On the table  were a number of cartoons from private collections with a starting bid of $3,000. But after the bidding period, there were no offers. So the host invited the cartoonists to take a group photo and called an end to the proceedings.

Internet comments

- Wan Chin's Facebook

Hong Kong Island is the site of the city of the Victorian empire. It has a unique aura. Yesterday at 230pm, the Hong Kong Island office of the Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State alliance was opened in heavy rains. During this period, I offered prayers to the Dragon God and the Guanyin Goddess with no effect. Finally I prayed to the Heavenly God for 30 minutes of rain stoppage and that was effective. We were able to light the candles, offer tribute to Heaven and Earth, and prayed for victories in the five district elections.

Hong Kong Island may have the fruits left behind by the wizards of the British colonial government. That is why only praying to the Heavenly God works. In Kowloon and New Territories, it is only necessary to pray to the Dragon God. There is no need to bother the Guanyin Goddess.

- Raymond Wong is a Legislative Councilor, Wan Chin is a university professor and Cheng Chung-tai is a university tutor. If they can each donate one month of their respective salaries, that would be at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3av7OPCodxg Here is a video of the same folks soliciting donations at a dinner banquet. Bonus: "Miss Crooked Teeth" Bonix Chung.

- In mainland China, there is a general lack of trust because you think that everybody is a swindler going after your wallet. By his own admission, Cheng Kam-mun was born in Jiaozhou city, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China. Why would you trust him? Why would you invite him into your home?

- 浦你阿磨("Fuck your mother" in Jiaozhou dialect)!

- $4,000? Well, I would do it as long as Cheng Kam-mun will eat everything that I put on the table. Hehehe. I am going to put out a plate of dog feces and make him finish it. I don't even want him to wash the plate because I'll just throw it out. I'll videotape the whole episode and I will get tens of thousands of LIKES on YouTube/Facebook. It'll be worth $4,000.

- All that action always leads to one thing: $$$.

- What happens if Cheung Kam-mun gets elected? If he stays on the job, he gets paid $93,000 a month. But he says that he'll quit immediately to trigger a de facto referendum, which means that he will solicit donations all over again. So is there more money in election campaigning than actually serving?

- Well, you are paying too much attention to the lack of donations at the event. They are going through the motions as they must. Eventually it will come out that they got millions in donations. How? It all comes from a mysterious "anonymous donor." They have to go through the motions in order to appear that they are getting donations from all over.

[Illustrative case: A couple of years ago, Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme said that they needed to raise $800,000 to a referendum on universal suffrage. As the deadline came, there was only $30,000. Then they announced that they had met their target. What do you think happened?]

(Lingan University Public Governance Programme) 1,003 Hong Kong adults were interviewed March 29-April 5, 2016. Telephone numbers were drawn from the telephone directory and the last two digits were randomized. In homes with multiple adults, one is chosen randomly. The response rate is 34.3%.

Q1. Do you think that the force that the police applied in the clashes of recent years was excessive, appropriate or inadequate?
31.1%: Excessive
35.2%: Appropriate
21.1%: Inadequate
7.7%: Sometimes excessive and sometimes inadequate
4.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused

Q2. Do you think that the force that the participants used against the police in the clashes of recent years was excessive, appropriate or inadequate?
60.3%: Excessive
20.2%: Appropriate
6.7%: Inadequate
7.2%: Sometimes excessive and sometimes inadequate
5.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused

Q3. Some people think that the police can apply force against those present in order to restore order, including force that is excessive given the situation. Other people think that the police cannot use force that is excessive given the situation. What do you think?
30.0%: Agree with the former
54.6%: Agree with the latter
9.4%: Agree with neither
5.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.6%: Refused

Q4. Some people think that the participants must never use force against the police no matter the circumstances. Other people think that when the police use excessive force, the participants can resist with force. What do you think?
46.8%: Agree with the former
30.0%: Agree with the latter
17.5%: Agree with neither
4.4%: Don't know/no opinion
1.2%: Refused

Q5. Some people think that resistance by force will stop the HKSAR government from carrying out certain policies. Other people think that resistance by force will only make the HKSAR government work harder to carry out those policies. What do you think?
28.8%: Agree with the former
45.1%: Agree with the latter
17.6%: Agree with neither
7.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.6%: Refused

Q6. Some people think that political demands can only be obtained through peaceful means and not by force. Other people think that political demands should be obtained through peaceful means but resistance by force should not be counted out. What do you think?
57.8%: Agree with the former
35.6%: Agree with the latter
4.3%: Agree with neither
1.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.5%: Refused

Q7. What do you think is the main reason for the Mong Kok incident?
20.0%: Taking the opportunity to cause trouble
7.2%: Dissatisfied with the government
6.3%: Discontent
5.1%: Incitement by certain persons to blow up the matter
4.8%: Youth problems
4.6%: Governance problems
4.0%: Government problems
3.6%: Police problems
3.0%: Police-civilian clash
2.9%: Social problems
2.3%: Rioting
2.2%: Inappropriate handling by the government
2.1%: Vendor problems
1.9%: The government refuses to heed public opinion
1.6%: The demonstrators over-reacted
1.4%: Everybody was wrong
1.4%: Localists
14.5%: Other answers
14.1%: Don't know/no opinion
0.5%: Refused

Q8. On a scale of 0-10, how would you rate your approval of the force used by the police during the Mong Kok incident? 0 means very unacceptable, 10 means very acceptable.
0 score: 13.7%
5 score: 18.8%
10 score: 22.2%
Average score 5.51

Q9. On a scale of 0-10, how would you rate your approval of the force used by the participants against th epolice during the Mong Kok incident? 0 means very unacceptable, 10 means very acceptable.
0 score: 42.9%
5 score: 13.7%
10 score: 4.5%
Average score = 2.67

Q10. After the Mong Kok incident, will the chances for a similar incident in the next one or two years be more or less?
62.1%: More
11.5%: Less
13.5%: Same as now
12.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused

Q11. After the Mong Kok incident, do you want the HKSAR government to handle such clashes more severely, more lightly, or the same way?
37.6%: More severely
24.8%: More lightly
24.5%: The same way
11.8%: Don't know/no opinion
1.2%: Refused

Q12. After the Mong Kok incident, do you want the Central Government to tighten, loosen or keep the same its Hong Kong policies?
13.1%: Tighten
40.4%: Loosen
36.8%: Keep the same
8.5%: Don't know/no opinion
1.2%: Refused

Q13. Do you think that the HKSAR government should set up an independent commission to conduct a full study of the Mong Kok incident?
64.9%: Yes
26.3%: No
8.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused

Q14. What descriptor would you use for the Mong Kok incident?
8.6%: Riot
5.7%: Disturbance
3.6%: Violence
3.5%: Chaos
3.5%: Riot
3.3%: Misfortune
3.3%: Taking an opportunity to cause trouble
2.8%: Clash
2.0%: Police-civilian clash
1.9%: Government problem
1.9%: Unnecessary
1.7%: Inappropriate
1.5%: The government forced the people to revolt
1.3%: Dissatisfaction with the government
1.3%: Tragedy
1.3%: Hooligans/thugs
1.1%: Inexplicable
1.1%: Everybody was wrong
1.1%: Plot
1.1%: Going too far
1.0%: Trivia
30.8%: Other answers
15.8%: Don't know/no opinion
1.0%: Refused

(Sing Tao) April 24, 2016.

HKUST Business School professor Francis Lui said on radio that if Hong Kong achieves independence, the overall wealth/income of Hong Kong will drop by 90% and it will take more than a decade to rebuild. Lui said that Hong Kong is able to attract foreign investments due to its geographical proximity to mainland China. The foreign investments will flee if Hong Kong achieves independent. The Central Government will regard the episode as a supreme insult and treat Hong Kong as a hostile nation.

Lui said that Hong Kong has no natural resources. About 23% of the Hong Kong GDP depends on import/export trading and logistics, of which half is going from outside through Hong Kong to mainland China, and the other half is coming from mainland China through Hong Kong to the outside. If mainland China breaks of all economic ties with Hong Kong, Hong Kong will immediately take a 20% loss in its GDP. Lui said that the finance industry is also reliant on mainland China.

Lui also pointed out that food and water can be purchased, but "where does Hong Kong come up with the money to pay for them?"

Internet comments:

- (Ming Pao Facebook)

- After many years of high economic growth, China still does not have rule of law. Even Li Ka-shing is moving his assets away. Foreign investors want to make money. As long as China cannot be trusted, they will continue to invest in Hong Kong where there is rule of law. The problem with Hong Kong right now it that CY Leung and his ilk are breaking the rule of law by executive fiat. That is why we must have an independent Hong Kong nation. At the very least, we would save a few hundred billion by scrapping the High Speed Railway, the Zhuhai-Macau-Hong Kong bridge, the Third Runway, etc.

- In the 1960's, Hong Kong underwent an economic transformation from a trading port to a light manufacturing city. In the 1980's, the manufacturing industry went north and Hong Kong underwent an economic transformation to focus on finance and trading. We just need to come up with a new economic model.

- Francis Lui says that Hong Kong has no capital left without Chinese investments. So far in Hong Kong, the Cyberport, the Science/Technology Park, the Chinese Medicine Port, the City of Education, etc have all failed to become new economic sectors. But was this because Hong Kong is incapable? Or because the government policies were poor? When one hears Cyberport, one immediately thinks of hotel/restaurant/movie house instead of high technology. Whose fault is it?

- There are many super-rich people with tons of money in Hong Kong. When the day of independence approaches, they will have acquired foreign passports and taken their money out. Information Technology? How many Hongkongers have the training to work as IT specialists? The IT industry will employ a small number of highly paid people. These people will have to be taxed harshly in order to support the rest of the population. Cultural industry? What culture will Hong Kong have to appeal to the outside world? When that time comes, Hongkongers will be applying to become domestic servants in the Philippines.

- Francis Lui is taking these fools too seriously. Those fools have too much time on hand so they bring up the subject of Hong Kong independence. The people of Tibet and Xinjiang have been talking about independence for decades too, and look how far they have gotten. If Hong Kong independence happens, then the people of Guangdong and Guangxi will be talking about independence too. Hey, Professor Lui, if you have time on hand, why don't you analyze the stock market and make some money instead?

- A small drop in mainland tourists caused 30,000 jobs in the retail, tourism, restaurant, import/export trade and logistics sectors. Together 1.3 million people are employed in these sectors. As Ricky Wong said, the first people to suffer will always be the working class.

 - We have always been complaining that housing prices are too expensive. That was due to mainlanders coming to buy up houses in Hong Kong. If Hong Kong becomes independent, Francis Lui agrees that housing prices will come down by 90%. Isn't that exactly what we want. If even a pro-establishment economics professor agrees that this will happen, we should be ready to go ahead with Hong Kong independence.

- Fool! Francis Lui says that assets and incomes will fall by 90%. You used to make $10,000 a month and the mortgage for an 300-sq-ft apartment is $10,000. That's why you can't afford it. After independence, the mortgage for that apartment will only be $1,000. Great! Except your salary will be $1,000, because assets and wages go in tandem. So you still can't afford it.

- As for food and water, somebody or the other will sell it to you if you pay for it. They can be sent it by ship. Bottled water may not cost $3 anymore, but I am sure that someone will fly it over by air if you pay $100 a bottle. Money may not solve everything, but it solves many things.

- Francis Lui does not understand why people are talking about Hong Kong independence. The reason for Hong Kong independence is that the older generation is monopolizing economic opportunities in Hong Kong. 90% of the wealth is in the hands of the older generation. Li Ka-shing is 88-years-old already, but he refuses to retire and continues to rake in billions each year. The young people have no upward mobility, and the government has done nothing to redress the situation. When the Central Government refuses to take responsibility, the young people will have to take matters into their own hands.

- I have faith in the people of Hong Kong. They will find a way out after independence just like they found a way out in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. If you don't trust the people, you shouldn't bother with independence.

- Hong Kong always counted on doing business with foreign countries (the United States, Europe, etc). It was after the 1997 handover that Hong Kong did more business with the Locusts.

- The American and European economies aren't doing so well.

- But the Chinese economy is about to implode any day now.

- The Chinese Communists are dependent upon Hong Kong, because the foreigners will only do business with the Chinese Communists through Hong Kong. Besides, the dirty money in China needs to be laundered through Hong Kong to overseas destinations. This is how it was and this is how it will be.

- Francis Lui is wasting his time. The pro-independence people are proletariats who have nothing. There is no point in telling them that they will have nothing after independence. It is the same to them. What they want is a society that is transparent, ethical, fair and equitable without special privileges going to people like CY Leung and Li Ka-shing.

- Well, if they don't want to work to begin with, they will always wind up with nothing (except the public welfare payments). That's why they don't care if the Hong Kong economy gets ruined after independence.

- Why not try it? If you are scared, you can always leave.

- If things don't work out, we can always ask China to take us back (but on our own terms). Blood is thicker than water.

- Hey, we Hongkongers are daring, thoughtful and adaptable. I don't believe for one moment that we can't live without China. Please open your eyes, dear Professor. The world consists of more than China.

- And if things turn out badly, it is okay. At least we know that we tried out best.

- Why does China have to treat the Hong Kong Nation as a hostile entity? Isn't blood thicker than blood? How can China refuse to trade with fellow WTO member Hong Kong?

- Right now, the mainlanders come to Hong Kong to buy Hong Kong products because they know that mainland products stink. If Hong Kong becomes an independent international city, there will only be foreign products from America, Europe and Japan and no mainland products. Hurrah! Hurrah!

-

- Yesterday the same radio show was about cutting off food and water. Hong Kong pays HK$5 billion a year for the water from Dongjiang River. Before and after independence, that is still a lot of money. I don't see how the Chinese Communists could afford to give it up. Besides the mainland China depends on Hong Kong for infant formula, medicine, vaccines, etc.

- According to Wikipedia, China's GDP (PPP) is USD 20.854 trillion = USD 20,854,000,000,000 so they can ill afford to forego HKD $5,000,000,000 which is 0.005% of their GDP. If your monthly salary is HKD$10,000, you wouldn't want to lose 50 cents (=0.005%) just because you are angry at someone for an apparent slight, right?

- Hong Kong imports infant formula, medicine, vaccines from foreign countries so that mainlanders can purchase them here. It is economically more efficient for those foreign countries to export directly into the vast mainland Chinese market. Currently, their major problem is that they cannot scale up quickly enough to satisfy that market.

- China does not have to treat Hong Kong as a hostile entity. It can simply treat Hong Kong as a foreign entity and revise existing procedures.

For example, here is the employment picture of the four key industries in Hong Kong (see CENSTATD):

(1) Financial services: 236,600

(2) Tourism: 271,800

(3) Trading and logistics: 765,000

(4) Professional services and other producer services: 506,600

Here are the procedural changes:

- Hongkongers will be asked to choose citizenship/nationality, because dual citizenship won't be allowed.

- Hongkongers traveling to mainland China must apply for a visa on each trip. The procedure will be similar to that used at the American consulate in Hong Kong: submission of application, financial data, police records and $1,000 application fee; a personal interview; visa will be issued or refused without explanation.

- Mainlanders who want to travel to Hong Kong must apply to the Hong Kong consulates in mainland China as well as exit permits from the local public security bureau. They will find the process very burdensome, and the exit permits may be issued or refused without explanation. Therefore they will avoid coming to Hong Kong.

- Hong Kong companies trading in mainland China will now have to deal with Chinese custom rules and regulations. This means that there is no point for foreign companies to use a Hong Kong agent.

For freight and storage services, Hong Kong presently enjoys an advantage over Shenzhen because of their paperwork allows goods to reach China faster by unloading in Hong Kong and trucking it across the border into Shenzhen. This will change when Hong Kong becomes a foreign nation. Trucks will be backing up from the border inspection post all the way into the city, as Chinese customs inspectors check every container from one end to the other. Truckers will be eating/sleeping three days by the roadside waiting for their turn while the goods rot. As a container port, Shenzhen is already ahead of Hong Kong in terms of volume. At present, it is simply not allowed to outperform Hong Kong. After independence, there will be no restraints.

- The professional services and other producer services depend on other industries doing well. Auditors audit companies, and they are stranded when mass numbers of companies go out of business. Ditto management consultancy, information technology related services, advertising and specialised design services, etc.

- Certain Hongkongers have successful businesses in mainland China. They will be asked to choose between Hong Kong and Chinese citizenship. What will they do? For example, during Lunar New Year 2016, three Hong Kong movies racked up more than 90% of the mainland box office receipts. Will Stephen Chow and Wong Jing continue to make billions in mainland, or will they stay to make movies for millions in Hong Kong? It makes no sense either in terms of money or artistic creativity to stay. So there will be a major exodus of creative talents from Hong Kong to mainland China.

- When Francis Lui said that the average salary will fall by 90%, he is not saying that there will be an across-the-board pay cut. What will happen is that certain salaries will not be cut, other salaries will be slashed and many people will be jobless.

If you work for the Water Works Department, you will continue to have a job because somebody has to operate the water treatment plant and repair the broken pipes. You will have the same salary. If they cut your salary, you will file a judicial review which says that your contract must be honored. So you will be one of the few lucky ones.

If you work for a hotel which closes due to lack of business, you will be jobless. Because the unemployment rate may be above 50% by that time, you will have no chance of finding employment any time soon.

If there is a job opening at another hotel, there will be hundreds of applicants. The salary may only be a fraction of what you used to make.

- How can housing prices go down by 90%? Is Francis Lui stupid? The costs of land, building materials and labor must be more than that.

- Nobody is going to build any new housing any time soon. Francis Lui is talking about existing housing stocks. On one hand, many wealthy people want to leave and they are willing to sell at fire sale prices. On the other hand, those who don't have much money and so their offering prices will be low.

- The price for something does not necessarily represent the costs of production. For example, consider a 10-year-old car. Its current market value is much less than the original sales prices or its cost of production. The price is when demand meets supply.

- I can see a currency war coming. When the voice of independence gets louder, the first thing to do is to convert your Hong Kong Dollars into foreign currencies. Better yet, you should heavily sell the Hong Kong Dollar short. When the Hong Kong economy slows, the hedge funds will close in for the kill. The Hong Kong sovereign reserve fund currently used to defend the Hong Kong Dollar will be quickly exhausted by the budget deficits. By that time, your import bottle will cost not HK$5 but HK$100 even as your salary is rapidly decreasing.

- Interesting that nobody has ever talked about what kind of changes will take place after Hong Kong achieves independence. At present, there is only some mumbo-jumbo about an open, diversified, just, fair and equitable society in which no one has special privileges. But what is the point if the system remains the same afterwards? My guess is that Hong Kong will be nominally democratic and substantively communist. Everything will be put to plebiscites/referenda and if you don't like the voting results, you will filibuster/blockade/throw eggs/valiantly resist. For example, the land rent will rise to $100/sqft per month and the housing units of those who are in arrears will be confiscated immediately with no appeal.

- Here is the script after Hong Kong becomes an independent nation.

(1) The politicians will continue to enjoy good lives because they have big salaries and donations;

(2) Most other citizens will be jobless and have to scrape through with social dole;

(3) Government revenues will drop precipitously and the government will be running a huge deficit;

(4) The "democratic" government will be forced to introduce the universal retirement plan which make the deficit even more;

(5) The political instability allowed the hedge funds to make a killing on the financial markets;

(6) The politicians will increase all kinds of taxes on rich people;

(7) But the rich people are smart and most of them have moved their money out already; most large corporations are re-located in Shenzhen and Shanghai already; the domino effect made a 90% drop in wealth/salary possible;

(8) The people of Hong Kong realize that they should not have listened to the politicians. Therefore, they march in the streets and occupy Central to demand the politicians resign.

(9) The police are sent out to suppress the demonstrators. They fire tear gas and they employ water cannons ...

- If people have no money, the government can simply print more money to give away. This is simple economics that Professor Lui does not understand.

- If there are no mainland pork or vegetables, we can eat imported Japanese waygu beef, Russian caviar and American spam. If there is no mainland water, we can drink Fiji water, Asahi beer and French champagne. Money can solve many problems.

- Water is used for many other things other than drinking. According to the Water Supplies Department, the average water consumption per person per day in Hong Kong is 0.13 cubic meter (i.e. 130 liters). At this time, 80 18L bottles of Watsons Bottled Water cost $49 per bottle. Thus, you need to order to 80 18L bottles every 11 days at $49 x 80 = $3,920 for yourself. If you have a family of four, that would be $3,920 x 4 = $15,680 every 11 days.

- Of course, you will learn to be frugal when water is so expensive. Less toilet-flushing, less bathing, less housecleaning, less soup-making and more sandwich-making, more disposable eating utensils, less laundry, criminalizing swimming pools/fountains/horticulture/car washing/gold fish, etc.

- Famous saying by Lau Wing-hong:

Hong Kong is unable to become independent at this time, but that is not the sole factor why we want to think about whether Hong Kong should become independent.

If we think that Hong Kong should be independent but it does not have the ability at this time, we should be thinking about how to make Hong Kong able to become independent.

Those who think that if you should give up doing something because you can't do it now are just guys who don't dare to pick up their female goddesses when they see them.

- (EJ Insight) April 8, 2016.

The past two years have been a time of introspection for Hong Kong. Growing dissatisfaction has turned to cries of independence. Many disagree with more autonomy for Hong Kong and while opinion polls are not always accurate, they show that the majority is against independence.

On the other hand, self-determination is not a popular idea in Taiwan. Opinion polls show that if the Taiwanese were not threatened by Beijing, two-thirds would support nationhood. However, only one-third of the population is willing to stand up to an invasion. Another third is worried about the mainland using mass violence to keep the Taiwanese under control.

In Hong Kong, Beijing is careful not to create such an impression with pro-independence voices on the rise. That said, there are useful lessons from Singapore which separated from the Malaysian Federation in 1963.

For instance, Hong Kong will benefit from being able to generate more of its own water. Singapores water resources enjoy legislative protection. The country aims to be completely self-reliant for water in 2061 when its long-term supply agreement with Malaysia expires.

In most cases, Hong Kong water will be cheaper than imported water from Guangdong. Desalination at HK$12 per cubic meter is cheap compared with the HK$59 per cubic meter for water from Guangdong, especially when 35 percent of it is not even used.

Singapores food security is equally impressive. Since independence, Singapore has managed to become the second most food secure country in the world, according to a recent study by The Diplomat. Of 109 countries surveyed, Singapore ranked No. 1 in affordability, No. 11 in availability and No. 13 in quality and safety.

Singapore achieved this feat through the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority. Its No.2 ranking in food security comes despite heavy imports, mainly from the US. In contrast, Hong Kong is not rated in the study and Taiwan is not even mentioned. Mainland China comes in at No. 42.

In terms of energy independence, Singapore companies are pushing for solar power. Nuclear energy is also being considered despite its bad reputation. Hong Kong buys nuclear power from Guangdong, paying HK$1.50 per kwh compared with about HK$1 for Shenzhen.

While Singapore is cruising toward self-reliance, Hong Kong is being made ever more dependent on the mainland by politicians and business tycoons. Hong Kong people can rely only on themselves to safeguard their own interests.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 20, 2016.

The Ming Pao Staff Association has said it is extremely angered and dissatisfied by the sudden firing of the Chinese newspapers executive chief editor.

The union said that Chief Editor Chong Tien Siong fired executive chief editor Keung Kwok-yuen at midnight Wednesday, with immediate effect to save resources.

The Association thinks that the incident was unclear, [we] question whether the company was using the reason of saving resources on the surface, but actually punishing staff members who have different opinions on editorial issues, a post on the unions Facebook page said.

The union has demanded the management and Chong to speak to staff members and explain the incident directly. It will also hold a staff meeting at 6pm on Wednesday evening.

The operational environment of the newspaper industry is difficult, the company has to actively take on cost-cutting measures. We are left with no alternative but to cut staff this cut involved business and editorial staff, including top-level staff, a statement from Ming Pao said.

The company hopes to get past these difficult times as soon as possible. The editorial policy of Ming Pao remains unchanged.

On Wednesday, the newspaper carried a front page report on the Panama Papers documents it acquired from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Aside from his editorial roles, Keung was known for writing a long-term analysis column in the newspaper every Sunday using his pen name On Yu 安裕. Keung previously worked at TVB and Apple Daily, among others.

When Chong Tien Siong, a Malaysian journalist, took over as the newspapers chief editor in 2014, he was not welcomed in all quarters. Chong was said to be a close ally of the papers boss Tiong Hiew King, a Malaysian Pro-Beijing businessman, and was criticised by the union for allegedly lacking local knowledge.

Chong replaced the popular Kevin Lau Chun-to, the then chief editor. He was first appointed as the executive chief editor in March 2014, and was then appointed as chief editor in October of the same year.

Chongs office was surrounded by Ming Pao reporters on his first day of arrival, asking him to sign a charter of press freedom. When reporters asked him if Ming Pao would become a pro-government newspaper, Chong said I dont know, saying he was still not the chief editor.

In February last year, Chong decided to change the front page of Ming Pao after midnight, from a report on confidential documents related to the 1989 Tiananmen massacre already approved by top-level editors  to a story about Alibaba chief Jack Ma.

He later explained the decision was made according to the logic of news and the report on the Tiananmen documents was unchanged and still published on other pages. He did not explain what was meant by the logic of news.

The decision was criticised by the union, which staged an hour-long pens down protest.

(EJ Insight) April 21, 2016.

Ming Pao Daily journalists say executive chief editor Keung Kwok-yuen was a victim of reprisal after his surprise sacking on Wednesday, along with several other employees. The staff union said it suspects Keung was dismissed because of differences with chief editor Chong Tien-siong over editorial policy, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Ming Pao Group earlier said it was forced to cut Keung and several other staff members because it was experiencing operating difficulties. It said there will be no change in its editorial policy. But newsroom employees said Keung and Chong often clashed over how stories should be edited.

Last night, they held a protest outside the newspapers headquarters in Chai Wan and put up posters with the word unclear, referring to the circumstances behind Wednesdays events. Meanwhile, eight media associations issued a joint statement in which they expressed shock and regret at the decision.

Keung was called to Chongs office at about 12:30 a.m. Wednesday and told that he was being fired as the newspaper was trying to cut costs.

Keung, a 30-year veteran in the Hong Kong media industry, has written articles critical of Beijing and supportive of human rights activists in the mainland. He was invited to continue his Ming Pao column, sources said.

Chong, under pressure from the staff union, told hundreds of protesting employees that the decision was made in order to cut spending by 8 percent. He blamed the situation on worsening conditions in the Hong Kong newspaper industry and the lackluster global economy.

Chong, who was appointed chief editor in 2014, said the choice had come down to between him and Keung. He said he regrets Keung, whom he called his right-hand man, got the ax and that he is also prepared to leave if asked.

Ming Pao Group chief executive Tiong Kiew-chiong said the sackings were not aimed at any particular staff and were left to department heads, confirming Chong did the firings.

Ming Pao Staff Association wrote a letter to the board Wednesday night demanding that the sacked employees be reinstated and that it explain its plans for future cost cutting.

(EJ Insight) April 21, 2016.

The abrupt sacking of a top editor at Ming Pao Daily News, one of Hong Kongs most influential newspapers, will intensify concerns about erosion of press freedoms in the city. The papers management insists that executive chief editor Keung Kwok-yuen was let go for cost-cutting reasons, but most people in the local media community are not buying that explanation.

There is speculation that Keung was fired as he has earned the displeasure of some elite due to his bold editorial decisions. The suspicions are understandable given that the marching orders came Wednesday soon after Ming Pao devoted its front page to a story about the links of the citys wealthy and politically-connected to offshore entities. 

While pro-Beijing mouthpieces have played down the so-called Panama Papers leaks, Ming Pao has carried extensive coverage on the controversial documents that pointed to the dealings of some tycoons, politicians and celebrities in overseas tax havens.

The termination of Keungs employment has come as a shock to Ming Paos editorial staff as well as the Chinese-language newspapers vast army of readers.

Some lawmakers have also expressed concern, given that the paper had over the years carved out an image of being outspoken and daring to question those in power, through in-depth and high-quality articles.

It is believed that Keung had some differences with Ming Paos chief editor Chong Tien-siong over editorial policy, which led to the boss suddenly sacking his deputy.

Chong is seen as someone who is sympathetic to Beijing and its backers in Hong Kong.  When Chong, a Malaysian, took the top job in 2014, there were concerns that he could undermine the papers editorial independence. It was rumored that the groups owner, Malaysian tycoon Tiong Hiew King, wanted the Chinese daily to be more favorably disposed towards the Xi Jinping regime.

Following Keungs dismissal, Ming Pao staff association has asked the management to reconsider its decision, but it appears that the company has made up its mind.

The paper said that it was forced to cut staff due to a difficult business environment, and stressed that its editorial principles remain unchanged. While it is difficult to prove that Keungs removal was due to his tough stance on upholding independent journalism, journalists have several questions for the management.

If cost-cutting was the only reason, why did the company not consider an across-the-board salary cut on employees, instead of eliminating jobs? And, was it right to remove an experienced, outspoken and respected journalist, citing his high salary package?

Simon Fung, a former executive editor-in-chief of Ming Pao, commented: The management underestimates the wisdom of the editorial staff and the readers.

Seen from a wider perspective, Keungs dismissal has fueled worry that Hong Kongs press freedom is coming under increasing threat as Beijing seeks to extend its influence in the territory.

Journalists here can still work on the stories they like, but there is the prospect of top editors or management killing articles they deem politically sensitive or likely to anger the big tycoons.

Incidentally, international press freedom concern group Reporters without Borders unveiled its latest world press freedom index report on Wednesday.

In the report, the group noted that in Hong Kong, the medias independence vis--vis Beijing is the main issue for freedom of information. The media are still able to cover sensitive stories involving the local government and Mainland China, but the need to fight to protect their editorial positions from Beijings influence is increasingly noticeable. The purchase of Hong Kong media by Chinese firms is extremely disturbing, the journalists group added.

Chinas Alibaba Group, led by its chairman Jack Ma, has taken control of Hong Kongs top English language newspaper, the South China Morning Post, a move that observers believe will make the paper steer clear of strong criticism of China or its leaders.

On Thursday, the paper published on its front page an interview with Ma, where the new owner sought to explain his decision to acquire the Hong Kong newspaper. Among other remarks, Ma said readers have the right to know whats happening in China in a factual and objective way. There are a lot of misunderstandings about China, he said, adding that there is a need to address the issue.

While Ma did stress that he wont interfere in the newsroom operation, the tycoons comments on imbalances in China reporting will make people wonder as to what exactly would be deemed fair and objective coverage. Although there may not be explicit instructions, editorial staff will feel the pressure to go easy on stories critical of the central leadership.

Overall, there is no disputing the fact that Beijing is stepping up efforts to control the Hong Kong media and steer the public discourse on pro-establishment path. In this, some media owners are being co-opted, through calls to create a harmonious society.

While newspapers can still enjoy sufficient room to criticize local officials and policies, a red line is sought be drawn to prevent coverage on sensitive topics on China such as human rights, political dissidents, and wrongdoings of top Communist leaders.

A survey conducted recently by the University of Hong Kong has shown that concerns are growing about the shrinking of press freedom in the city. Fifty-two percent of the interviewees said they believe Hong Kongs news media practiced self-censorship to avoid rubbing the central government the wrong way.

The latest news of the sacking of a senior editor, who was known to champion editorial independence, will only add to the prevailing concerns.

(EJ Insight) April 22, 2016.

Members of Ming Pao Staff Association said Thursday they were very disappointed after management rejected their request for a meeting, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports. They said it is possible that they might take some action after discussing the matter with their employers.

Ming Pao Group on Wednesday announced that it was dismissing the executive chief editor of its Chinese newspaper, Keung Kwok-yuen, and several other staff members amid operating difficulties. The move shocked the newspaper staff, with the staff union demanding that management reinstate the sacked employees as well as explain plans for future cost-cutting.

On Thursday, it asked to meet with management to discuss the issues, only to be rejected.

Ming Pao Group chief executive Tiong Kiew-chiong was quoted by the union as saying that he has nothing to add to what he said Wednesday and management has no plans to meet with union members in the near future.

The union turned to Lee Yin-king, Ming Pao Dailys human resources head, to ask if more employees will be sacked, but she said the question should be taken to chief editor Chong Tien-siong, who made the decision to let Keung go.

Kevin Lau, who was replaced by Chong in 2014, posted an article on his Facebook account Thursday, saying Keungs leaving is definitely a loss to both the newspaper and its readers.

(EJ Insight) April 25, 2016.

Readers of Ming Pao Daily on Sunday may have been surprised to see blank spaces where they might have expected the columns of three of the newspapers commentators to be.

Eva Chan Sik-chee, a senior lecturer in the Chinese University of Hong Kongs School of Journalism; Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, the former leader of the Civic Party; and veteran journalist Sam Ng Chi-sum decided to leave their columns blank except for headlines protesting against the decision to fire executive chief editor Keung Kwok-yuen last week.

The Ming Pao Staff Association said the newspapers Malaysian editor-in-chief, Chong Tien Siong, who had the day off on Saturday, returned to the editorial office that night and halted the printing of Sundays paper, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported Monday.

Chong reportedly suggested filling the blanks with other content, but the editorial team balked at the idea.

In the end, Sundays papers could only resume printing after it was agreed that an editors note reiterating the reason for the axing of Keung would be added to each of the three blank columns.

Chong said limited financial resources were the reason the paper dismissed several staff last week.

The staff association said it strongly opposed Chongs interference in halting the presses.

The union demanded that Chong admit his handling of the blank columns was wrong, withdraw the decision to remove Keung from office, with an apology, and consult staff on possible solutions to cut costs.

It said it will initiate industrial action if Chong does not respond by 5 p.m. Monday.

The union observed that no editors note had been added to the blank columns filed by columnists as a protest in 2014 when Chongs predecessor as chief editor, Kevin Lau Chun-to, was removed from his job.

The staff association condemned Chong for obstructing the freedom of expression by columnists and said his actions would cast doubts on whether he would be determined and able to defend the freedoms of the press and speech.

Apple Daily reported that former radio talk show host Li Wei-ling and Martin Lee Chu-ming, founding chairman of the Democratic Party, who are also Ming Pao columnists, will leave their columns blank in the coming days in protest against Keungs termination.

Li said that while many people have been saying that, after all, Ming Pao Daily belongs to its boss, people must not forget that the freedom of the press belongs to all the people of Hong Kong.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2016.

More blank columns appeared in Ming Pao on Wednesday, the fourth consecutive day that writers have been protesting the sacking of a top editor last week.

Brian Fong Chi-hang, assistant professor of politics at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, submitted a column entitled Support On Yu the pen name of Keung with no content.

Dr. Alfred Wong Yam-hong of the medical professional group Mdecins Inspirs also submitted an empty column entitled How sad for Ming Pao. Wong included a footnote saying he planned to submit a 1,000-word article on the sacking of Keung, but he was shocked by Ming Pao chief operation officer Keith Kam Woon-tings assertion that the newspaper was generous in allowing the empty columns. Therefore, he decided not to submit one.

Both columns were accompanied by an editors note justifying the cost cutting measure.

Meanwhile on the same page, veteran commentator Sam Ng Chi-sum submitted a column criticising the editors note, entitled There is no need to add an editors note. Ng submitted an empty column which was printed on Sunday, when the editors note was added for the first time.

Such editors notes appeared frequently everywhere on Ming Paos pages, repeating and repeating, like an annoying buzzing sound near the ears, this is a joke, he said. He added that such arrangements did not respect writers and readers. Ng said that he knew his articles must have angered Ming Paos management and his column may be cut with an excuse. The same editors note appeared at the end of his article.

In the supplement page on Wednesday, three more columns criticised the decision to fire Keung, including another one from Ng.

Ming Paos Eastern Canadian edition covered empty columns with drawings on Tuesday. The edition, mostly the same as Hong Kongs version, did the same for Mondays empty columns.

A Ming Pao staff member coincidentally met with chief editor Chong Tien Siong in Hung Hom on Monday, when he left a direct train from China. Chong was questioned by the staffer as to why he did not meet with Ming Pao employees on that day. Chong said he would meet with them on Wednesday.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 28, 2016.

The Ming Pao Staff Association has said that preparations will be made to escalate their protest following a refusal by newspaper management to reinstate former executive chief editor Keung Kwok-yuen. Association Chairwoman Tsang Kam-man threatened industrial action on Wednesday, a week after the respected editor was suddenly fired following a report on the Panama Papers leaks. Tsang said that, during the latest meeting with company management, the Association requested that the dismissal be overturned but their request fell on deaf ears, RTHK reported.

Tsang also stated that company management promised the Staff Association that budget targets had been met and there would be no further dismissals from the editorial department, but it failed to make specific commitments, Ming Pao reported.

The response we have gotten from the company is that they will improve internal communication but we have not been given tangible promises or commitments. Therefore, the Association has decided that we will make preparations to escalate our protest. We hope that the company can give us a comprehensive and clear response, she said.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) Early this morning Chief Editor Chong Tien-siong let the executive chief editor Keung Kwok-yuen go. In the afternoon, Chong met with union representatives and explained that the layoff was made because an 8% reduction in expenses had to be made in view of the woeful economy.

Chong explained that the layoffs were based upon three principles: job performance; tenure; and salary level. Within the editorial department, either Chong or Keung would have to go in order to meet the target reduction. A worker asked Chong, "You are Mr. Keung's supervisor. Why don't you leave instead"? Chong replied, "I am ready to leave anytime. If the boss tells me to leave, I will leave." But as the person in charge, Chong has certain responsibilities. The workers were apparently unhappy with Chong's explanations. They demanded whether the decision was political and related to the Panama papers report in Ming Pao. After about 30 minutes, Chong wanted to leave the editorial room. But the workers continued to pepper him with questions. In the end, Chung left by the backstairs.

- Yellow Ribbons have prevented legislators from leaving. They have prevented government officials from leaving. They have prevented university council members from leaving. So it is natural that they prevent the chief editor from leaving the editorial room.

- (HKG Pao) ... When Ming Pao Group chief executive Tiong Kiew-chiong appointed Chong Tien-siong as Ming Pao chief editor, the purpose was to introduce reforms and turn Ming Pao back into politically neutral. Two years later, Ming Pao has not corrected its course. Instead, it is following the path of Apple Daily. Today Ming Pao is a newspaper where Tiong Kiew-chiong pays the bills whereas the staff follows Jimmy Lai's ways. Just like Apple Daily, readers and advertisers are leaving in droves.

What should Chong Tien-siong think? It is likely that he is swarmed in helplessness.

Is it easy to reform a media organization? When the chief editor faces resistance by his colleagues and subordinates every day, then what is the point? When you want to change things, your boss verbally supports you in principle but he tells you to maintain amiability in practice. You own all the responsibilities but you don't make any decisions. So what is the point in persisting?

... Why is going to happen to Chong Tien-siong? I think that he is waiting for his boss to say: Come back to Malaysia!

- (HKG Pao) For media organizations, income reporting is done by the four quarters of the year. However, the four quarters are not all equal to each other. Instead, the typical distribution is 15% for Q1, 20% for Q2, 25% for Q3 and 40% for Q4. This happens because that is how the advertising industry allocates their expenditures.

For Q2/Q3 2015, Ming Pao earned $240 million with a net profit of $2.6 million. For Q4 2015, Ming Pao earned $130 million with a net profit of $8.4 million. So for the last three quarters of 2015, Ming Pao only made $11 million in profits. It would not be surprising that Ming Pao is losing money going into 2016 Q1.

In terms of corporate management, Ming Pao should have seen what was coming and started its austerity program. In Hong Kong, Next Media has shut down publications and laid off employees, Sing Tao is reducing/freezing salaries and the Oriental Group has shuttered The Sun. This much is clear.

We don't know whether the Ming Pao management was late to become aware, or if they thought that their Malaysian parent company will cover all losses. But it is astonishing to see that the first layoffs occurred only in April 2016.

How bad will 2016 be? The real estate and retail sectors are in deep trouble. The media industry live off their advertising expenditures. When even "Big Brother" TVB is in trouble, where do you think Ming Pao stands?

You may say that Ming Pao does not seem to lack advertisements recently. Hey, you don't understand that people need to save face. If you go by the book, your advertisements will tank and you will have a very thin newspaper. So the easy solution is to reduce the price in order to keep the quantity. As industry insiders know, the way is to reduce the yield-per-page. If you charged $30,000 per page before, you can close the deal for $20,000 plus a free gift of another full page. Now it appears that you haven't lost any advertisements even thought your income is plunging. But you can save your face before you are forced to disclose your earnings.

In 2016, print media are predicted to make 15% less than they did in 2015. In particular, the Yellow Ribbon media (Next Media and Ming Pao) are expected to do even worse.

So when Ming Pao Group chief executive Tiong Kiew-chiong says that he wants to reduce spending by 8% and then revised this figure to 5%, he is only trying to postpone the inevitable. Instead of decisive surgery, he wants death by one thousand nicks. You can imagine how much more painful this will be.

Keung Kwok-yuen is merely the first victim of the economic downturn and the Yellow Ribbon turn of Ming Pao. Many more will follow.

- (HKG Pao) When any organization needs to impose layoffs, it is best to start from the top. For example, Sing Tao recently announced that all senior managers will be subjected to a 20% pay cut while other workers only have to put up with salary freezes. This was feasible because the damage was limited.

Chong Tien-siong said that Ming Pao needs to reduce expenditures by 8%. Letting Keung Kwok-yuen won't meet that goal, so Keung is merely the first of many more to go. Ming Pao probably spends at least $400 million. So 8% is $32 million or so. This is not going to all come from salaries, but it maybe 50% or 60% should be coming from the workers in this labor-intensive industry. Thus Chong needed to find about about $16 million from the payroll. A reporter/editor makes $300,000 per year (or $25,000 per month). So Chong would have to layoff 53 reporters/editors to reach his target. I don't know how much Keung Kwok-yuen makes, but he is not going to worth $16 million a year. So there will be more layoffs coming up.

- (HKG Pao) What I would I think if I were the chief editor?

Firstly, the important thing is that I will have to do it even if I don't like to. Frankly, who else but the chief editor could do this unpleasant business at Ming Pao? I can refuse to do it personally and let the Human Resources Department do it. But that will merely make it worse.

Secondly, the way to save Ming Pao is to not make it Yellow Ribbon. It has to be turned back into a neutral newspaper. Ever since Ming Pao became a Yellow Ribbon newspapers, advertising revenues have taken a steep drive. Today, the 800+ Ming Pao employees have been hijacked by certain reporters/editors. Everybody is now looking at collective unemployment. This may be the last chance to save Ming Pao and its employees. Do you think that I should do it?

- When Next Media fired dozens of journalists and shut down profitable magazines, the Journalists Association praised the organization for its bold move ("a strong man cuts off his arm in order to free himself"). Now Ming Pao fired a dozen or so journalists (including the executive editor Keung Kwok-yuen), the Journalists Association is expressing its consternation.

Well, the rules here are simple to remember: Everything that Next Media does is okay because they are Yellow Ribbons; anything that anyone else does is wrong because they are not Yellow Ribbons.

- As expected, the Journalists Association have come out to recite the standard script. As expected too, legislator Emily Lau (Democratic Party) has come out to recite the standard script. Less expected is for the Professional Teachers Union to come out to recite the standard script. What business is the personnel decision at a newspaper to the Professional Teachers Union?

- Politicians think that they can meddle in everything. For example, when Disneyland laid off close to one hundred workers because they lost $148 million last year, the politicians demand that the workers be re-hired immediately and Disneyland be made to explain why it was losing money. Of course, the correct answer was that the same politicians supported Occupy Central/Shopping Revolution/Anti-Parallel Trade Actions which chased away tourists. But that answer is not as acceptable as "It is all CY Leung's fault." As another example, when the MTR raised its prices, the politicians want the government to buy back the company and reduce prices.

- (Headline Daily) Why can't this incident be hyped up? First of all, nobody except industry insiders know Keung Kwok-yuen. He is not closely connected to the political parties like Kevin Lau is, and he does not like to face reporters at critical moments. Without a recognizable victim, it is hard to turn this case into a political storm. Keung is well-aware that if he came out and makes a call, the politicians will jump in to exploit his case and the Ming Pao colleagues will rise up in support. In the end, both management and labor will suffer the consequences of the struggle. Given the sour economy, the Ming Pao union has no bargaining chip except the threat to put the newspaper out of business (and themselves out of their jobs). Keung's final words to his colleagues was to tell them to stay at their posts. He knew that the case was irreversible and he wants to protect his colleagues.

- (HKG Pao) My many years of experience as editor tells me that the blank spaces in Ming Pao did not occur just because the writers wanted it that way. If the editors did not want it, there won't be any blank spaces. Even if individual writers failed to provide articles, the editors can always find something to publish or even write something themselves. In this case, the editors worked with the Yellow Ribbon columnists to apply pressure on the Ming Pao senior management.

The two editors who were responsible for the five blank spaces over two days are named: Choi Hui-tong and Lam Yuet-wai. There is no information on the former and the latter is likely to be a lightly experienced young editor. How can they be expected to make the decision on such an important move? So their supervisor must have made that decision.

- (SCMP) Fears for press freedom in Hong Kong are overblown try publishing a Ming Pao-style blank column in a Rupert Murdoch paper. By Michael Chugani. April 26, 2016.

Oh no, there it goes again the death knell being sounded for Hong Kongs media freedom. Time to mourn. But wait. Didnt we hear that same sound in 2013 when the Executive Council refused to give Ricky Wong Wai-kay a television licence, in 2014 when Commercial Radio sacked Li Wei-ling, and when Ming Pao replaced chief editor Kevin Lau Chun-to? Its back again with Ming Paos sacking of executive chief editor Keung Kwok-yuen. If media freedom is dying, its sure taking a long time.

Lets recall what the media was doing while supposedly gasping for life. It gave blanket coverage to Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings alleged pocketing of HK$50 million from an Australian firm, exposed ex-ICAC chief Timothy Tong Hin-mings extravagant lifestyle, ran leaked recordings of University of Hong Kong governing council meetings, revealed Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs Betty Fung Ching Suk-yees alleged flat-swap wrongdoing, and exposed the so-called baggage-gate scandal involving Leungs daughter.

How dead is media freedom when Ming Pao published blank columns from writers protesting against Keungs sacking? Try doing that in a Rupert Murdoch paper. Tune in any weekday morning to Commercial Radios Chinese-language talk show. The three hosts take turns mocking Leung. One had fired Leung-basher Li but now makes a big deal of Ming Pao firing Keung. Ming Pao co-founder and novelist Louis Cha Leung-yung reportedly once said: Press freedom of Ming Pao is the press freedom of the owner. Those who are not happy could set up another paper to pursue their own freedom. The Guardian last year quoted former New York Times editorial board member David Firestone as saying: I dont know of any publisher who pays no attention to the editorial board on the papers they own.

Public Eye doesnt know if Ming Pao fired Keung to muzzle him or to cut costs. If it was to silence him he needs to say it out loud. But Ming Paos owners have every right to their own agenda. The same goes for Apple Dailys Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and the state-owned Ta Kung Pao. Their money bankrolls their papers. If you dont like their agenda, work for someone else. Those who fear media freedom is dying can find like-minded people with the means to start their own paper. Yes, some Hong Kong media self-censor, as happens everywhere. If you feel Ming Pao is self-censoring, dont read it or work for it. But true media freedom means the freedom to decide what to publish. It sure as hell doesnt mean staff can dictate to their bosses what media freedom is.

- Ming Paos Eastern Canadian edition actually inserted quotations underneath their cartoons: "When you are petty-minded, all trivial matters get blow into major incidents"; "let things follow their natural course and keep a calm attitude"; "when someone helps you, you are lucky; when nobody helps you, that it is a fair fate."

- (HK01) Here is a constructive proposal. According to the Ming Pao union, a large number of reporters/editors have volunteered to reduce their resources so that Keung Kwok-yuen's position can be restored. One concrete proposal is that the workers give up their company-provided meal voucher. At present, the 200+ editorial department workers receive about meal vouchers worth about $400 each month. The total amount is approximately $100,000. So if the company can realize this saving, then it should no longer have to let Keung Kwok-yuen go for economic reasons.

- The economic problem that Chong Tien-siong is facing is that he needs to find $16 million in savings for the year. The meal vouchers will save $1.2 million. Where is the rest coming from? The workers want to save everybody's job, they will have to give up considerably more than their meal vouchers.

- (Oriental Daily) Chong Tien-siong told his people that Ming Pao was faring economically worse than the competition. So what kind of newspaper is first in public trust but last in economic performance? In truth, Ming Pao is full of self-contradictions. On one hand, it describes itself as the newspaper for intellectuals. On the other hand, it has more typographic errors than other newspapers. Also the boss cannot fire any employee at will because the opinion of the employees must be consulted first. Columnist can also file blank spaces to protest against the owner although they are only victimizing the readers. The union workers also put up posters about the newspaper being "neither transparent nor white" but they refused to quit all the same.

Hong Kong is a free market. People work for companies by mutual agreement. Recently an internal speech of Ma Yun at Alibaba was reported. He said that he despised those people who gripe all the time about the company but refused to leave. This is applicable to Ming Pao. Each company has its management style and each newspaper has its own ideas about how journalism should be conducted. If the workers think that there is no freedom of press or editorial autonomy, they should quit and form their own news outlet where they can decide how to do things. If the columnists are not happy with the newspaper, they should stop writing for it. As for that dismissed executive chief editor, he should have plenty of job offers if he is as good as the Ming Pao union says he is.

- (HKG Pao) If someone says that a certain person is indispensable to the extent that the newspaper will fold without him, would you believe it? When Keung Kwok-yuen left, a number of Ming Pao workers and columnists and Yellow Ribbon politicians praised him to the high heavens. In truth, they are merely using the case to launch a political attack on Chong Tien-siong and the management. In the history of Ming Pao, the single most important person was the founder Louis Cha  Leung-yung. He was incomparable. After Louis Cha left, Ming Pao did just as fine for many years afterwards. Only when certain reporters/editors turned the newspaper into a Yellow Ribbon rag did the problems emerge. Do you think Keung Kwok-yuen is greater than Louis Cha? More valuable? More important?

Today the Chinese-language newspapers are going downhill. There are two Yellow Ribbon newspapers left: Apple Daily and Ming Pao. A Yellow Ribbon journalist will have to work for one or the other. At Apple Daily, there have been waves and waves of layoffs. One should be glad just to be able to keep one's job, and never mind any raise/promotion. In this world, no one is indispensable. Those who have more experience, management skills and salaries are actually more likely to be discarded, especially when they are regarded as the cause for business deterioration.

Meanwhile at Ming Pao, the union and politicians are praising Keung Kwok-yuen for leading the Yellow Ribbon movement. Is that supposed to help him, or hurt him? And where is Keung Kwok-yuen going to go now? Apple Daily can't afford any new hires. There is no other newspaper in Hong Kong. Taiwan? Singapore? Malaysia? Mainland China? He is basically unemployable given what the Ming Pao union and the Yellow Ribbon politicians have said about him. Good luck to him!

- (SCMP) The Ming Pao Staff Association said on Wednesday night that the managements attitude at the meeting was disappointing, and they had decided to initiate preparation for industrial action. The associations chairwoman Phyllis Tsang said they would study different options before taking action. We hope the company can give a concrete and clear reply to the calls from the colleagues, Tsang said.

- This is all talk and no action. So typical of Yellow Ribbons: they threaten armed revolution but they won't go any farther than passing out leaflets and asking for donations. Perhaps it is time for the Ming Pao Staff Association to ask for alms to support their noble cause.

- What options are there for industrial action? Resignation, strike or work-to-rule slowdown. The last two are dismissable offenses (see Cap 57 Termination of Contracts of Employment): An employer may summarily dismiss an employee without notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice if the employee, in relation to his employment, willfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order. Good luck with finding another job in this economic climate.

(EJ Insight) April 22, 2016.

Its strange to see the traditional democratic camp keeping silent in the recent heated debate over the call by some radical young political groups for independence for Hong Kong.

Some supporters of the democrats are worried that the old-school politicians might be absorbed into the establishment camp as they rely on Beijings commitment to the one country, two systems principle.

But on Thursday, a group of young politicians and academics from the democratic camp issued a Resolution on Hong Kongs Future on social media to present to the public their views on the future of Hong Kong when the commitment to that principle expires in 2047.

The declaration was signed on a personal basis by fewer than 40 people.

They include Civic Party members Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu and Tanya Chan Suk-chong, the Democratic Partys Eric Lam Lap-chi, Institute of Education political science scholar Brian Fong Chi-hang and social commentator Max Wong Wai-lun. Apart from Yeung, no other democratic lawmakers signed the declaration.

So, the declaration represents the views of only a small number of democrats on the topic. In fact, traditional democrats still have different views on the question of Hong Kong independence.

Its still far enough in the future for the democratic camp to work out a unified stance before 2047 on whether to support independence or self-determination for the city.

The declaration demands the right to determine Hong Kongs affairs internally in accordance with self-determination principles under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Hong Kongs political status after 2047 should be decided by the people of Hong Kong through mechanisms which carry a democratic mandate and are binding, the declaration says. Its signatories suggest perpetual self-rule as an option for Hong Kong.

Unlike younger activists, who dont rule out a violent approach to voicing their goal, the declaration states its signatories will stick to non-violent resistance in an effort to gain the approval of most Hongkongers to fight for political reforms and that they are not opposed to negotiating with Beijing on the citys future.

Compared with pro-independence groups such as Hong Kong Indigenous, the Hong Kong National Party and others that clearly state their support for independence or recognition of Hong Kong as an independent political entity, the declaration is quite conservative on the possible status of Hong Kong.

It leaves the options open for public discussion.

The soft stance indicates the signatories are trying to avoid breaching the Basic Law as well as mainland Chinese laws, as it states Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.

Some radical pro-independence columnists responded coolly to the declaration, saying its soft stance on Hong Kong independence and its suggestion of internal self-determination has nothing to offer to break the deadlock between Hong Kong and the mainland.

They argued that the declaration indicates the signatories intention to let Hong Kong stay in China and that they do not dare touch the bottom line of the Communist Party.

So, the opposition camp is now splitting into two streams.

Traditional pan-democrats, including those who signed the declaration, still recognize the statutory relationship between Hong Kong and mainland China, and their aim is to fight for internal self-determination for Hong Kong after 2047.

The other stream is pro-independence groups who say Hong Kong should secede from China to become an independent state.

The traditional democrats are clearly no longer the only opposition camp in Hong Kong political landscape.

The pro-independence camp could play a key role in the Legislative Council election in September as it tests the water to see to what extent Hongkongers support their call for independence.

Meanwhile, pro-Beijing Hongkongers and mainland officials in Hong Kong have displayed a tough stance in front of media cameras, saying its illegal for Hongkongers to discuss independence, saying it violates the laws of Hong Kong and China.

They are trying their best to redefine freedom of expression, saying that it has its limitations.

The tough stance demonstrates that the authorities are taking the calls for independence, as well as the potential support for it in the Legco election, seriously.

Zhang Dejiang, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress, who is visiting Hong Kong next month, is expected to issue a hardline statement on calls for Hong Kong independence, in an attempt to suppress the debate.

But the fact is that the debate over independence is now unavoidable, as more politicians and young Hongkongers discuss the option seriously and present theoretical arguments in favor of it.

All the political pronouncements wont stop the young people of Hong Kong from delving deeply into the issue.

Thursdays declaration may help to narrow the gap, but its conservative approach can only help the pro-independence camp to gain momentum in the Legco election campaign.

More Hongkongers, especially the younger first-time voters, might prefer to offer their support to the pro-independence camp in the election in an effort to balance out the voice of the pro-unification camp, which now includes traditional democrats as well as Beijing loyalists.

Thats the new political landscape in Hong Kong. 

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) After the release of the Resolution, there were Internet reports that the signatories included Hong Kong Indigenous, Demosisto and Youngspiration. These organizations immediately hit back and denied that they support the Resolution. Hong Kong Indigenous went further and said that they are not in the pan-democratic camp and that only a free and independent Hong Kong can become the true home of the people of Hong Kong. They demanded the signatories to issue a clarification immediately.

One commentators said that statements such as Occupy Central is non-violent resistance, Hong Kong should "determine their own fates and continue autonomy in perpetuity" might be considered radical, but today any qualms will only draw in criticisms such as "You are an old fart who had better get out of the way because you are radical enough."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 22, 2016.

A signatory to a declaration calling for internal self-determination and self-rule said on Friday that they were not advocating for Hong Kong independence and that the city does not yet have a legal basis for independence.

Tanya Chan Suk-chongs comments came a day after the release of a declaration entitled Resolution for Hong Kongs Future. It was signed by more than 30 young individuals from various pro-democracy groups and stated that Hongkongers themselves should decide the political status of Hong Kong after 2047.

Chan, a co-founder of the Civic Party and former lawmaker, said: Even though Im in a political party myself, speaking as a signatory to the declaration I can say that were not releasing this for the upcoming Legislative Council elections. Some of the signatories are scholars. Were not targeting just one or two elections, Chan said on RTHK.

Chan also said that in light of the questions Hong Kong is facing regarding its future, it would be irresponsible to look at just these elections and then feel satisfied at having solved the problem.

As a Civic Party member, this is even more so I wont say that [the declaration] will affect the elections. What were talking about here is internal self-determination it does not include [ideas of] Hong Kong independence. We hope that it will determine the political structure for self-rule.

If we cant implement internal self-rule, then maybe we would look at external self-rule such as Hong Kong independence, but I think everyone understands that at this point in time we do not have the conditions to discuss this.

Chan also said that right now, Hong Kong lacked the relevant legal basis for independence.

- (Wen Wei Po) Neo Democrats' legislator Gary Fan posted on his Facebook: "Why Hong Kong independence if we have democracy?" However, the Localists didn't appreciate it and demanded that Fan clarify whether he supports Hong Kong independence or not.

Today Fan continued to waver during a radio interview. He said that "nation building" is not a policy or position of the Neo Democrats, but he does not exclude the possibility of studying/discussing the issue in the future. He also said that he would consider signing the "Resolution for Hong Kong's Future" if he were asked.

With respect to Gary Fan's Facebook statement, former Neo Democrat Ventus Lau posted the Neo Democrats' 2015 party constitution. Article 1 says "We support Hong Kong being an inalienable part of China." Today Gary Fan acknowledged that this article has been included in the party constitution since day one. So the radio asked asked Fan: "Have you started understanding the pain of being criticized by ex-party members?" in reference to the fact that Gary Fan quit the Democratic Party because he said that the latter was enshrouded in a Big Brother culture and not aspiring.

More at Occupy Central Part 6


More at:
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+)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com