(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.]

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 22, 2016.

Two Democratic Party district councillors have criticised the governments statement that they were involved in a soft lobbying session an informal meeting over the controversial Yuen Long housing plan. The governments statement is smearing, they claimed.

The housing minister claimed on Wednesday that Zachary Wong Wai-yin and Roy Kwong Chun-yu, both Yuen Long district councillors, were involved in the fourth and final informal meeting on the Wang Chau public housing plan held on March 17, 2014. They agreed with the plan of building 4,000 units on a piece of greenbelt land inhabited by more than 100 villagers, the minister said.

But both Wong and Kwong said that it was a briefing session on the plan, rather than an informal consultation, as they were never asked about the original plan to build 17,000 units.

Of the 17,000 units, 13,000 units set on a piece of ruined land which was turned into a car park operated by Ping Shan Rural Committee chairman Tsang Shu-wo was delayed after strong opposition from two informal meetings with Tsang and rural leaders, months before the governments meeting with Wong and Kwong.

On a Commercial Radio programme on Thursday, Wong said that the March 2014 meeting occurred in a meeting room of the Yuen Long district office of the Home Affairs Department and that he was invited by an assistant district officer.  He said it was mostly attended by technical staff from the Housing Department, who introduced them to the 4,000-unit plan. They were consulted as a foot bridge of the project will pass through their constituencies, according to Wong.

My first opinion was that it was not good to use greenbelt land it should not be used to build flats, and I have reservations, he said. I am sure we never supported the plan on March 17 [2014]. He said he only supported the 4,000-unit plan when it was submitted to the Yuen Long district council on June 24, 2014, as the district councillors agreed there was an urgent need to build public housing. But at the end of the meeting I said this would be the one and only occasion where we would support building flats on greenbelt land there will not be a second time, he said.

Wong cited a Sing Tao Daily report on Thursday, which cited a government source as saying that he and Kwong were never informed of the original 17,000-unit plan.  [The housing minister] was not only framing us it was smearing, Wong said.

Internet comments:

- Here is Roy Kwong's statement:

CY Leung, I am telling you not to misrepresent me. Other people think that you are the Chief Executive and you can misrepresent people at will. After misrepresenting John Tsang, you are now misrepresenting Roy Kwong? I am not afraid of you, I will not back off ...

Democracy Party district councilor in the Yuen Long District Councilor Zachary Wong Wai-yin and Legislative Councilor and Yuen Long District Councilor Roy Kwong Chun-yu state

 (1) Kwong Chun Yu and Wong Wai Yin have never ever heard the government proposed 17,000 units in Wang Chau, and they never knew that the project would be done in stages.

(2) Kwong Chun Yu and Wong Wai Yin was invited on March 17, 2014 to a meeting in the Yuen Long district office of the Home Affairs Department. He only met a manager from the Housing Department with no senior government workers present. Kwong and Wong emphasized that this meeting was not about "lobbying" or "consultation." The manager only informed Kwong and Wong that there will be project to build 4,000 public housing units. Because a pedestrian bridge will go through Long Ping Village in Yuen Long, the two district councilors were consulted. The meeting agenda consisted of only a map of the planned housing location ...

- Here are the newspaper clippings:


Hong Kong Commercial Daily, September 26, 2013:  17,000 public housing units planned for Yuen Long brownfield land ... But Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu thinks that traffic is overloaded in the district already, and he asked the government to consult the residents about the plan as soon as possible. He said that the residents may not object if the authorities are more transparent. He also said that the proposal is better than using country park land.


Oriental Daily, September 26, 2013: 17,000 public housing units planned for Wang Chau ... Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu said that while he understands that the government wants to find land to build public housing units, the Long Ping residents are worried about traffic congestion, school slots and medical care facilities.


Ming Pao, January 24, 2014. "Revision of plans for residential land, Yuen Long gets the most: 42,000 units within five years; district councilors worried about congestion." Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu pointed out that they Housing Department told the District Council last September that they are studying the feasibility of developing Wang Chau (north of Long Ping Estate in Yuen Long). The initial idea was to build about 17,000 public housing units to accommodate 52,000 person in 34 hectares of land. The number of units is about 40% of what the government announced yesterday for Yuen Long. He expects that the area north of Wang Chau will become an important development point in the district."


Ming Pao, June 20, 2014. Yuen Long (Wang Chau) public housing project scaled down ...

Late last year, the Housing Department studied the construction of 17,000 public housing units in Wang Chau (Yuen Long) to accommodate 52,000 persons. The latest proposal submitted to the Yuen Long District Council showed that the Housing Department proposes to build 4,000 units in 5.6 hectares of land north of Long Ping Estate. This is only 1/4 of he original plan. It is estimated that 12,3000 persons will be accommodated when the project is completed in 2025.

Yuen Long district councilor Roy Kwong Chun Yu said that there is not much opposition within the community to the proposal initially. But even if the Housing Department scales down the project, they still need to solve the problems of shortages in the infrastructure for traffic and social services, so that the new residents will not overload the community even more ...

- (Hong Kong Free Press) September 22, 2016.

Past clippings shared on the internet since Wednesday quoted Kwong responding to media enquiries over the Housing Departments plan to build 17,000 flats. Meanwhile, some questioned that Kwong had knowledge of the original number of flats. I believe those were figures intentionally leaked by the Housing Department, journalists should know very well that they received the leaked figures from sources how would I have the figures in my mind? said Kwong, who was recently elected as a lawmaker, told reporters on Thursday. The figures were leaked to reporters, and then reporters asked me the informal meeting did not mention 17,000 [units], it was not mentioned at the district council, there were no top government officials who were in touch with me, Kwong added.

- When Roy Kwong picked up the newspapers circa September 26, 2013, he would see them report that the Wang Chau project involved 17,000 units. The newspapers asked him (in his capacity as the Long Ping district councilor) for reaction, and he was quoted.

He is saying that he he was never given the 17,000 figure by any government person. The journalists got the figure from someone (possibly with the government) and asked him (in his capacity as District Councilor) for reaction. So what he said might be literally true.

But the biggest question is what the total lack of curiosity about such a massive project in his district? No memory?  If he wasn't aware before the media called, he knew afterwards and he should be getting on the phone with the authorities to get the details.

- If a constituent showed up and asked Roy Kwong, "I read in the newspaper today that 17,000 public housing units are coming here. What's the deal?" What is Kwong going to say? "Nobody told me. I don't know anything and I don't intend to find out either."

- Roy Kwong took twelve years and six attempts before passing five courses for the Diploma of Secondary Education. So it is understandable that he cannot read newspaper reports.

- Roy Kwong took twelve years to pass English for the Diploma of Secondary Education. But these newspaper reports are in Chinese, so that cannot be an excuse.

- Roy Kwong the writer published a book titled: There Is A Kind Of Happiness Known As Forgetting.

Roy Kwong is very happy when he forgot all about the 17,000 housing units for Wang Chau.

- Roy Kwong fancies himself to be a novelist writing for young people. So it is understandable that he can only read/write in Internet lingo (known colloquially as 'Martian language'). He needed the newspaper reports to be written thus:

-  (Oriental Daily) September 22, 2016. Kwong and Wong said that the March 2014 meetingt was mostly attended by technical staff from the Housing Department. The Housing Department said that eight people from their side attended the meeting: (Housing Department) Assistant Director Chung Kam-wing, a Chief Civil Engineer, a Senior Civic Engineer, a Senior Planner and a Civic Engineer, and (Yuen Long Home Affairs Department) Commissioner Mak Chun-yu, a deputy commissioner and a Senior Liaison Officer.

- (Wen Wei Po) September 22, 2016. At the March 27, 2014 meeting, Kwong Chun-yu and Wong Wai-yin agreed that the Wang Chau project should be scaled back to 4,000 units. At the June 2014 Yuen Long District Council meeting, Kwong and other pan-democrats said that the infrastructure will be stressed even for 4,000 units and demanded a further scale-back. In so doing, Kwong is thinking that nobody wants to see a big influx of residents into their districts. Of course, lots of people need housing but that was not Kwong's concern at that time. More recently, Kwong has turned around and criticized the government for scaling back the Wang Chau project because it is unfair to people who need housing.

- The Wang Chau story is very confusing, because the same set of people go around saying at various times:

- "No relocation, no demolition." Not a single family will be moved away from where they live now. Not a single business will be moved from where they operate now.

- The Fanling Golf Club is public land leased very cheaply to the for-profit organization. The government can take back the land and build public housing estates.

- No,  the Fanling Gold Clug cannot be touched. It is part of our collective memory like Queen's Pier, Star Ferry, Murray House, etc.

- Not a single housing unit will be allowed on greenland. New housing units can only be build on brownfield land.

- Building on greenland is okay only this once. There will never be a second time.

- Brownfield land is not fit for human habitation due to the extensive soil contamination from industrial usage.

- Certain businesses squatting on brownfield land should not be allowed to operate in Hong Kong. For example, used car parking lots and electronic waste dumps.

- Where should the used car parts and electronic waste products go? To China, of course. We'll just pay high enough so that they take in all our toxic stuff. Chinese lives are cheap where as Hong Kong lives are precious.

- 17,000 units are too much for Wang Chau to handle. It must be scaled back.

- 17,000 units cannot even remotely satisfy the existing demand. It must not be allowed scaled back. We need to see how to cram even more units in.

- 17,000 units is the minimum goal. Any attempt to scale back is evidence for government-business-rural affairs-triad collusion.

- 17,000 units can be done in stages with 4,000 units first because the land usage issues are less difficult.

- 17,000 units cannot be done in stages. It is all or nothing, because any compromise is evidence for government-business-rural affairs people-triad collusion.

- The most astonishing statement award goes to:

(Wen Wei Po) Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) said he refused to sign the demand with other non-establishment legislators because he opposes the Wang Chau project. "From the viewpoint of future planning for Hong Kong, it is clear that the Wang Chau project should be shelved. This is the best solution because the various government officials and politicians (collectively known as Hong Kong traitors won't gain anything. After today's press conference, people finally realize that there is a Localist representative in the Legislative Council." He noted: "The courage of being 1-versus-69 needs the support of everybody."

What does Cheng mean? Tommy Wong commented: "The problem is that we have not yet dealt with the waste at the source. We must stop accepting new immigrants first. Otherwise we can never build enough housing units for people to build. We have to take over the right to approve new immigrants."

- If you want to suspend housing until you have to right to approve immigration, you should also suspend expanding other services (such as healthcare, education, etc).

...

- Cartoon of Roy Kwong Chun Yu

Three years ago: The government should not build so many housing units in Wang Chau!
Today: So few housing units will be built in Wang Chau -- government-business-politicians-triad collusion!

- Goldfish memory

"You clearly knew that there were 17,000 housing units for Wang Chau!"
"I don't remember whether I saw it."
RTHK video of Kwong Chun-yu's denial at the press conference

- Photographic evidence of government-business-rural affairs-triad collusion:

Top left panel: Anson Chan (ex-Chief Secretary) and Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party)
Top right panel: Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) and Jimmy Lai (Next Media)
Bottom left panel: Heung Yee Kuk's Tang Ho-nin, Leung Fuk-yuen etc with Wong Wai-yin (Democratic Party) and Chow Wing-kan (Liberal Party)
Bottom right panel: Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) with "Scarface" Kong and his aide (Wo Hop To triad)

- The Chu Hoi Dick phenomenon

...
On March 6 this year, RTHK aired a program which quotes the government as saying that the first stage of the Wang Chau project has 4,000 public housing units. Chu Hoi Dick was interviewed on that program, so he must have seen and known about the saying about the "first stage."

But the politicos and media were focused on government-business-rural affairs people-triad collusion, so this type of information will be intentionally concealed.

In that RTHK interview, Chu Hoi Dick played the role of the defender of the earth. As was his wont, it was "no relocation, no demolition." According to his thinking, not even the land for the 4,000 units should be reclaimed by the government.

But as soon as Chu Hoi Dick was elected, he immediately demanded to know where the 17,000 units were? So what do you want? "No relocation, no demolition"? or "Relocation/demolition ASAP"?

The Chu Hoi Dick phenomenon is a microcosm of the people of Hong Kong today. On one hand, they want to defend the land and resurrect agriculture/fishery. On the other hand, they want get public housing instantaneously. The same thing happened when they wanted to retain Queen's Pier while solving the traffic problems in Central. This is filled with romanticism as well as self-contradictions.

Among all the newly elected legislators, I admire Chu Hoi Dick the most. He works hard, he is firm, he is persistent and, most importantly, he understands. Since he understands, he should not gave to run with the other politicians who know nothing. As he said before, he does not belong in Central. But now that he is in Central, I hope that he won't be contaminated into one of those politicians who are trying to steal his show.

- Chu Hoi Dick's positions are not necessarily self-contradictory.

Previously, Chu ran unsuccessfully for District Councilor in Pat Heung South. His interest was in his district. If he opposes public housing there, he is listening to the voice of his constituents. If they are for NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) or even BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), so be it.

Once elected to the Legislative Council, his interest is in Hong Kong as a whole. People want public housing PERIOD. The housing units have to be placed somewhere. No matter where it is placed, there will be NIMBY-like complaints. So you will just have to make the best of the situation.

In like manner, he may have opposed the Third Runway at the Hong Kong International Airport. But he may change his mind now because he is responsible to citizens and businesses and not just a few dolphins.

This does not mean that he gets free of the NIMBY mindset. It only means that it is elevated to a different level. For example, he may still oppose garbage incinerators. But garbage has to be incinerated or otherwise disposed of. Well, it can be incinerated as long as it is not in Hong Kong. That means Hong Kong will pay some poor Chinese county to take in their garbage.  That's the essence of NIMBY.

- If you pay someone to take over your problems, then it is probably SOBBY ("Some Other Bugger's Back Yard"): a particular project may be desirable and perhaps necessary, but only if is place somewhere else.

- (Oriental Daily) September 23, 2016.

On September 22, Wong Wai-yin and Kwong Chun-yu told the press that the authorities lobbied the rural affairs people secretly and then suddenly changed the Wang Chau plan on the grounds of rural objections over feng shui.

According to the transcripts of the Yuen Long District Council meetings, a number of rural councilors in the June and December 2014 meetings spoke about ancestral graves and feng shui.

According to the records, on June 24, 2014, Shap Pat Heung Rural Committee chairman Leung Fuk-yuen said: "This development is using the burial grounds in nearby Kai Shan. I hope the relevant departments will try not to affect the feng shui of nearby villages." On December 16, 2014, Leung said: "There are a number of historical grave sites in A Kai Shan and Fung Chi Village. I recommend that the government handle the issue of grave sites carefully. The planning of housing development should pay attention to the impact on the feng shui of graves."

Two other rural camp councilors Tsang Shu-wo and Tang Hing-yip also spoke about the feng shui issue in the second meeting. The records also showed that both Wong Wai-yin and Kwong Chun-yu attended the meetings and spoke. They did not object to the statements from the rural councilors.

When told, Wong Wai-yin said that he remembered that the Wang Chau was discussed in June 2014. But he has "no recollection" that anyone spoke about the feng shui issue. He said that he might have stepped away when they spoke up. As for the December 2014 meeting, he has no recollection that the Wang Chau project was discussed at all.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 24, 2016.

A friend of mine routinely sends me the full transcript of the Chief Executive weekly Tuesday press conference. At first I wondered what was so good about these official statements. Eventually, I realized that the Chief Executive's statements are often deliberately misquoted and distorted by the various media organizations. Therefore I am glad that I get to see the original source.

With respect to the Wang Chau incident, I decided to toss aside the conspiracy theories and I watched the entire broadcast of the press conference by the Chief Executive and other ministers. I heard what they said, what they were asked and what they responded without any editing. The next day, the various media reports took whatever suited their purposes again. So if you want to know the truth, you should watch the full broadcast and then you can compare the various news reports.

I would like to say something more about the Wang Chau affair:

Firstly, Chu Hoi Dick said that he "discovered" that the Wang Chau project was suddenly reduced from 17,000 units to 4,000. But this was not "sudden" at all. Hong Kong Economic Journal and Hong Kong Econmic Times reported on October 17, 2014 that Wang Chau will be developed in stages, with the first stage being 4,000 nits. Perhaps Mr. Chu reads only Apple Daily and never Hong Kong Economic Journal/Hong Kong Economic Times. Speaking of "suddenness," I think that Mr. Chu's flip-flop from the romantic "No Relocation, No Demolition" to "Development is the only right reason" is most "sudden" of all.

Secondly, what do politicians like to use the term "feeling for the bottomline" instead of the regular phrases of "consultation" and "lobbying." "Feeling for the bottomline" carries the feel of secretiveness under the table. It does not matter how you explain it, the use of the term in the headline is the death sentence for you already.

As for Roy Kwong Chun-yu, he did not expect to be named as the star by Secretary Cheung Bing-leung. When Kwong said that he was "not aware of the Wang Chau project" and "he only met with a Housing Department manager", Secretary Cheung said: "Eight persons met with Kwong Chun-yu in 2014, including a Housing Department vice-minister, the Chief Civil Engineer, a senior planner, a Home Affairs Bureau commissioner ..."

Actually in 2013 Kwong told seven local media outlets that he was paying attention to the development of 17,000 public housing units in Wang Chau. In April 2014, he told the Ming Pao report that he does not oppose the Housing Department for building 4,000 housing units first.

Everybody said that Kwong's amnesia means that his trustworthiness is bankrupt. But I want to defend Kwong, for he is the miracle week who tried six times over eleven years before he got a Diploma of Secondary Education with five passed subjects. This showed that Kwong is persistent as well as suffering from learning disabilities (such as memory lapses and cognitive disability). Therefore we don't have to be too harsh. In the next four years, we look forward to more episodes of memory loss, mishearing, misunderstanding, unawareness, etc from Kwong.

CAP A401 National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance

Section 7. Protection of national flag and national emblem

A person who desecrates the national flag or national emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

CAP A602 Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance

Section 7. Protection of regional flag and regional emblem

A person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years; and

(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

(Wikipedia) History of Flag Desecration in Hong Kong

In 1999, two individuals were convicted for desecration of the Regional Flag of Hong Kong and the Chinese flag. They were found guilty by a magistrate, had the conviction overturned in the High Court but the convictions were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. They were bound over to keep the peace on their own recognisance of $2,000 for 12 months for each of the two charges. In the judgement, Chief Justice Andrew Li said although the Basic Law of Hong Kong guarantees freedom of speech, flag desecration is not legal because there are other protest methods.

Social activist Koo Sze-yiu has been convicted twice of flag desecration. He was sentenced to a nine-month prison term in 2013 for the offence. However, the sentence was reduced to four months and two weeks after an appeal. In March 2016 he was sentenced to a six-week prison term for burning the regional flag in Wanchai on HKSAR Establishment Day in 2015. Koo responded that "he is happy to be punished as being jailed is part of the life of an activist, and he would continue to protest against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments and fight for democracy."

CAP 542 Legislative Council Ordinance

Section 39 When person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate and from being elected as a Member

(1) A person is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate at an election, and from being elected as a Member, if the person

(a) is

(i) a judicial officer; or
(ii) a prescribed public officer; or
(iii) an officer of the Legislative Council or a member of staff of The Legislative Council Commission; or (Amended 48 of 1999 s. 24)

(b) has, in Hong Kong or any other place, been sentenced to death or imprisonment (by whatever name called) and has not either

(i) served the sentence or undergone such other punishment as a competent authority may have been substituted for the sentence; or
(ii) received a free pardon; or

(c) has been convicted of treason; or

(d) on the date of nomination, or of the election, is serving a sentence of imprisonment; or

(e) without limiting paragraph (b), where the election is to be held or is held within 5 years after the date of the person's conviction, is or has been convicted

(i) in Hong Kong or any other place, of an offence for which the person has been sentenced to imprisonment, whether suspended or not, for a term exceeding 3 months without the option of a fine; or
(ii) of having engaged in corrupt or illegal conduct in contravention of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap 554); or
(iii) of an offence against Part II of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201); or
(iv) of any offence prescribed by regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (Cap 541); or (Replaced 10 of 2000 s. 47)

So if you burn the national flag in Hong Kong, you may be found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 3 months, and then you are not eligible to be nominated for the Legislative Council election. And there goes your $93,000 per month job.

What is a valiant resister to do?

(Wen Wei Po) September 21, 2016.

Civic Passion ex-leader Wong Yeung Tat (nickname His Royal Highness) lost his bid for Legislative Council and resigned his leadership post. Afterwards he went with his wife Chan Sau Wai (nickname Her Royal Highness) to travel in Taiwan. During the trip, he set the People's Republic of China national flag on fire.

Because the incident took place in Taiwan, the Hong Kong government cannot charge Wong Yeung Tat with an offence under Hong Kong law. So once again, Wong Yeung Tat has shown us us how to "valiantly resist the Commies" under perfectly safe conditions.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/terry.wong.568294/videos/1735285676737237/

(Wen Wei Po) September 21, 2016.

Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order have also tell their demonstrators to be 'valiant', but their leaders are accused of always telling others to charge while they skedaddle themselves. In an Ming Pao interview, Civic Passion leader Cheng Chung Chait said that he "won't be able to stand in the front of the battleline anymore." "Everybody has his costs ... I have shown what my costs are. During the Restore Movement, I merely stood there and I was surrounded by more than 20 cops. Was I supposed to attack them? Such are the limitations."

Meanwhile Wan Chin went down to Occupy Mong Kok to demonstrate how to use a luggage case as a shield. But once the action began, he disappeared from view. When questioned, Wan Chin responded on Facebook: "Do you want me to personally go down to Mong Kok, throw the first brick or the first petrol bomb? If you really want me to do this, I can only say: 'I fuck your mother's stinking cunt'.

On the night of the Mong Kok riot, Wong Yeung Tat was down at the scene and posted on Facebook: "Let the bricks fly!" But nothing happened with him. During a Legco election forum this year, Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) asked why Wong Yueng Tat was always present at the scenes of clashes but seldom arrested. Wong said that different people have different responsibilities. As a leader, Wong has to "educate and protect the masses." Therefore his job is to "lead the resisters" and then "suddenly leave the scene. "Of course I will leave, brother! Why should I be arrested by the cops?" Wu said: "Your idea of leadership is to stand behind the crowd ... by education, you mean that you tell them to throw bricks and get arrested. If that is the case, then you don't even have the most fundamental character as a political leader!"

(Wen Wei Po) September 21, 2016.

For the 2016 Legislative Council elections, Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order fielded candidates in each of the five geographical constituencies. Their slogan was to be elected, resign and use the by-election as a "five district de facto referendum for a new constitution." Of the five candidates, only Cheng Chung Tai was elected.

In a Ming Pao interview, Cheng said that the Legco election results were less than ideal, and this shows that their policy platform had failed. As a result, their biggest promise (the "five district referendum) of the election is no longer operable. Cheng said that he will keep an eye on Youngspiration and Demosisto and remind them that they promised to introduce a referendum law.

Immediately their critics rose up. Raphael Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats quoted Wan Chin: "Does what you say count afterwards?"

Roundtable Community ex-director Lam Fai said: "The entire Ming Pao interview was about reneging on their previous promises. How can the Hot Dogs (Civic Passion members) live with this?"

Netizen William Ngan wrote: "As soon as you sworn into the Legislative Council this coming October, you must resign immediately in order to fulfill your election promise over these past 6 months. You should let 1/5 of the voters have a chance to have a de facto referendum and lay the groundwork for a new constitution by the people. Raymond Wong Yuk-man will also win the by-election and return to the Legislative Council. You guys are worthless without his presence in the Legislative Council."

Auyueng Ying-kit (People Power) wrote: "I knew all along that you are a snake oil salesman ... When this question was raised during the election campaign, the response was that you will persuade someone else from the other districts to join you ... But now you say that the option no longer exists! This is shameless! You clearly lied before in order to garner votes. Once you are elected, the hell with them!"

Cheng Chung Tai responded: "Getting someone in the other districts to join in a five district referendum? I tell you that for the political parties, the most important thing is not concepts, it is not political gaming, it is not operability, it is 'resources.' That means money! Give up a job that pays almost $100,000 per month? Plus paid expenses, subsidies and pension? How can these Legislative Councilors who said that they are in this for the money give up? Money! It's all about money!"

Netizen Lee Ka Fai Hilton said: "So is Cheng Chung Tai (Supersonic Mouse) in this for the money?" Cheng Chung Tai did not answer this question. Instead he wrote: "If so many people want a five district referendum ... this is very simple ... The Civic Party and the Democratic Party each have legislative councilors elected in all five districts. They don't lack resources either. So everybody should pressure them."

Chan Sau Wai (Her Royal Highness) wrote: "If only one of Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order candidates lost, the other four can lobby for a fifth person. But now you are asking four others to join you? Three million voters have voted down the five district de facto referendum. They want to look for natural gas instead (Youngspiration) ... you should be going after those who were elected because they variously claim to be for "Hong Kong independence" or "self-determination"."

(Wen Wei Po) September 20, 2016.

In January this year, someone fired air-gun pellets to break a window at the People's Liberation Army quarters in Bonham Court, Bonham Road, Sai Wan district, Hong Kong Island. In February this year, someone fired air-gun pellets to break a window at the People's Liberation Army barracks in Cornwall Road, Kowloon Tong district, Kowloon. The police reviewed the surveillance videos in these areas and determined that the same man committed both acts. Early last month, the police arrested Gordon Fong Ka Keung for those actions. They found the air gun, pellets and sling shot used at his home.

The police laboratory determined that the muzzle energy of the air gun exceeded the legal limit of 2 joules. Therefore Fong is being charged with two counts of criminal destruction of property and one count of possessing an unlicensed firearm. Fong faces a maximum sentence of 10 years for criminal destruction of property and 14 years for possession of an unlicensed firearm.

39-year-old Gordon Fong was a member of a pro-Republic of China organization China Youth Service and Recreation Center. In 2011, he ran for district councilor in Nan Cheong South district, Sham Shui Po and lost to a pro-establishment candidate. Fong is the general manager of a technology company. He has a son and a daughter. He graduated from the School of Business at Western Sydney University, Australia.


Broken window


Photos of the air gun and pellets  on Gordon Fong's Facebook

(Oriental Daily) September 20, 2016.

In court, the defense pointed out that Gordon Fong is a resident of Australia. In June this year, Fong broke a knee bone while playing ball. Therefore he needed to undergo an operation in Australia soon. The defense applied to be in Australia between October 16 and November 7. Previously Fong posted bail of $20,000. The defense proposed to increase the bail to $50,000 while Fong is away in Australia. The magistrate approved his application.

- I can write the script for the magistrate: "Gordon Fong is a leader in the democratic movement in Hong Kong. His conduct was impeccable when he studied in Australia and he has never been accused of any criminal activity. He has shown concern about social issues and enthusiasm about politics. This case is completely different from other ordinary crimes. While considering the seriousness of the crime, the court must also weight the motives and purposes of the defendant. Since the defendant has expressed regret, the court will impose 80 hours of community service."

- If Gordon Fong fired shots at military bases in the United States of America, he would have been shot dead already. Nobody would care because this is what he deserves.

- For many years, the Yellow Ribbons make fun of the Hong Kong independence people about if and when they will ever 'liberate' the People's Liberation Army barracks in Hong Kong. Everybody knows that this is an essential step but nobody even want to talk about it. But now Gordon Fong has actually done it! So how come he is not being hailed as a hero/martyr of the Hong Kong independence/self-determination movement?

(Wen Wei Po) September 20, 2016.

On February 9, 2016, 30-year-old Chu Hang Chi posted on his Facebook: "When your seven policemen made the assault, it took one full year for them to be prosecuted on a light charge. Police superintendent Franklin Chu hung around until he retired and he still wants to interfere with the Police Public Relations Branch. The people will find their own way of sanctioning you. You chose to be running dogs of the authorities and you deserve to die. Let it be stated here that I will donate $10,000 to any organization which beats a police officer to death."

On February 13, Chu went to the Yuen Long Police Station and filed a report that a hacker broke into his Facebook account to post those comments. After Chu finished stating his case, he was asked to sign the statement. At that moment, Chu admitted that he fabricated the case. Under caution, Chu admitted that he was angry and unhappy with the police and made the Facebook post. He filed the false report because he was worried that the backlash would affect his family and his job.

In mitigation, the defense pleaded that Chu was a senior Immigration Department immigration assistant who has been suspended at this time. Chu expects to be dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. Chu made the Facebook comment because he held "dissident views" but he never expected that society would react to this degree. Even after the Facebook post was removed by Chu, certain Internet users published Chu's personal information and mobilized the public to complain to the Immigration Department. Chu's wife wrote to the court to say that people have threatened to kill Chu and therefore the family was very upset. The defense said that Chu filed the false police report on February 13 because he was worried about the personal safety of his son.

- (Oriental Daily) September 19, 2016. The defendant was earning $25,000 per month at the time that he was suspended. He believes that he will be dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. Serves him right!

- This is classical political oppression. What a person does outside his job is his own business. The fact that he works for the Immigration Department is not relevant to his exercise of his freedom of expression. This is naked terrorism by the Hong Kong communist government.

(Wen Wei Po) September 20, 2016.

On September 1, 2016, Chau Wing-lok wore a vest with the name of Civic Party legislative council candidate Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) and campaigned outside Tsui Ping Estate, Kwun Tong district. Outside a restaurant in Tsui Tung House, he tried to explain Wong's ideas to a middle-aged couple who were drinking beer. There was a difference of opinion, and Chau argued with a 42-year-old woman. Suddenly Chau picked up a beer bottle and hit the woman over the head. Fortunately the bottle did not splinter into pieces.

In court yesterday, Chau Wing-lok pleaded guilty to one count of assault that caused bodily harm. Sentencing is scheduled for October 26, 2016 pending probation report.

The defense pleaded that Chau was "crying" when he met with the other party. This proves that he knew that he was wrong and regretted doing it. The defense said that Chau should be allowed to go on on bail and continue his studies.

At court today, Civic Passion vice-chairman Cheng Chung-tai refused to either confirm or deny that Chau is a Civic Passion member. However, Chau said in an interview last year that he is a Civic Passion member and he had obtained the permission of Civic Passion chairman Wong Yeung-tat  to state his political party membership.

(SCMP) September 19, 2016.

A mainland housewife has been jailed for five months and one week for assaulting a local grandmother at the Sha Tin MTR station, in what has been a high-profile case underscoring Hongkongers ongoing conflict with mainlanders.

The Sha Tin Court on Monday convicted Huang Yufeng, 28, of inflicting grievous bodily harm on Lam Yuet-fan, 55, outside the Maxims cake shop on May 9.

Lam suffered from temporary loss of speech and unstable emotions and had difficulty walking as a result of the attack.

Principal Magistrate Andrew Ma Hon-cheung also found the mainlander guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on Lams daughter Bryony Lau Kwan-mei, 28, in the same incident.

Lau was left with cuts on her face and upper arm.

The defendant fought back tears as she heard the hour-long verdict. Her lawyer begged for leniency, saying that the defendant was four months pregnant and would like to give birth back home rather than in Hong Kong. She applied for bail pending appeal, but was rejected.

The court ruled that Huang rushed towards the pair, causing Lam to fall backwards and hit the back of her head. The fall resulted in intense pain and a lump which Lam said was as big as a pineapple bun. Huang then went on to pull Laus hair and assault her.

Coming to her own defence in an earlier session, Huang, a Guangdong native, said she rushed towards the two in an effort to snatch Laus phone. Huang said the daughter had tailed and filmed her family after two earlier confrontations and threatened to upload the video to the internet.

Huang denied causing Lams injuries, saying it was Lau who knocked her own mother down. But the magistrate refused to accept her claims, and said video footage of the incident did not corroborate her account.

Ma said footage showed Huang had no intention of slowing down when she approached the pair, and that Lam had fallen immediately after the accused rushed at them with both arms stretched out. The most probable scenario is that out of anger, [the defendant] slightly lost control and used full speed to charge, in a bid [for revenge] as well as to stop the filming, he said.

There was also no need for Huang to launch the subsequent assault on Lau, Ma added, as the defendants daughter was protected by her husband at the time. But the magistrate also criticised Laus filming as unwise and unnecessary.

Ma called the attack serious and said it had left an unerasable impression on Lam, before convicting Huang.

During sentencing, Ma noted that Lam now walks with a crutch and suffers from speech problems, anxiety and a string of psychological symptoms that she had not recovered from.

The case highlighted the ongoing conflict between Hongkongers and mainlanders, with the court hearing previously that Huang, moments before the assault that stemmed from a dispute over her child and Lams grandson, had asked the local pair why Hongkongers thought they were so superior.

The incident was widely circulated on the internet in May when Lams other daughter made a post on Facebook in search of witnesses.

Huang faced abuse from people both inside and outside the courtroom, and on the internet during the trial. But the magistrate said the case should not be viewed as an incident that escalated from any Hong Kong-mainland conflict. He warned the public that all defendants, be they locals, mainlanders or foreign nationals, should be treated equally, and urged the police to take action against acts that could amount to criminal intimidation.

In mitigation, Huangs lawyer insisted the case arose from her worry for her family.

Videos:

Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHwDrgJE2Hg
Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZO6yeAybJg
Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acl_iNtxRW4

Internet comments:

- This case is one of a mainland woman assaulting a Hong Kong mother-daughter couple. It does not fit in the Umbrella Revolution category. However, Principal Magistrate Andrew Ma Hon-cheung said that "all defendants, be they locals, mainlanders or foreign nationals, should be treated equally." That has to be tested against reality. What do you think will happen in the preceding cases about Umbrella Revolutionaries?

Why does Gordon Fong get to go to Australia for his knee operation while Huang Yufeng goes to jail to deliver her baby? Why can't Gordon Fong get his operation in jail while Huang Yufeng get to go home to deliver her baby?

What do you think Chau Wai Lok will get for smashing a beer bottle on the head of a woman? 80 hours of community service? No, because that would interfere with his studies. A better solution is one week in jail suspended for one year.

- (Oriental Daily) The defense said that the Huang Yufeng is a devout Buddhist and four months pregnant. If sentenced to five months and one week in jail, she may have to deliver her baby in Hong Kong.

By virtue of being born in Hong Kong, the baby is automatically a Hong Kong citizen with right of abode, and the mother can be brought eventually to Hong Kong for family unification. That is the immediate consequence of this verdict. The sentence begins immediately without bail pending appeal.

- Your calculation is wrong. The magistrate calculated exactly to the time just before the baby was due so that Huang Yufeng can serve the maximum jail time and be released and expelled just before the baby is due. The true calculation is that you may be served to 5 months and 1 week, but you actually serve about two-thirds of the total time because Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays do not have to be served.

(The Standard) September 2, 2016.

Activist Sally Tang Mei-ching from Socialist Action who brought three banner poles into an MTR station told the court yesterday that at Stockholm Metro, which is operated by MTR Corp Limited, luggage of up to two meters is allowed.

Tang, 26, faced two summons for bringing prohibited items of luggage and failure to give particulars of name, address or telephone number or to produce proof of identity when she appeared at Tuen Mun Magistrates' Court.

She was accused of bringing poles of about 160 centimeters long, violating the 130cm restriction at Kowloon Tong station and refusing to show her identity card despite a request by MTR staff on September 25 last year. Defending herself, Tang submitted a document in Swedish to the court without translation on Wednesday, but did not submit it to the prosecutor.

Yesterday Tang told deputy magistrate Joseph Lee Jo-ey the document was about the standard of luggage of Stockholm Metro, which is operated by the MTR Corp, and stated that the restriction is two meters. The poles according to Socialist Action's Facebook were for promoting the concept of the Occupy movement.

An officer from the MTR's rapid response unit, Ho Yan-yee, yesterday testified that she approached Tang and said she would like to measure the poles as she saw Tang carrying the three white plastic poles taller than her. But Tang did not cooperate. Ho said: "Miss please cooperate or else I will prosecute you."

A man with Tang took the poles from her and said: "No need to pay attention to these staff."

The staff members eventually got a measurement of 160 cm and requested them to show their identity cards.

Tang was heard saying: "I won't give it to you, let's wait until the police arrive," and she kept on saying: "Shame on MTR bullying small citizens" with a loudspeaker until the arrival of police before she showed them her identity card.

A MTR legal staff member, Wong Wing-fai, told the court notices on carriage of luggage were posted near the ticket vending places, it was stated in the notices MTR urban line passengers can only carry luggage of which the total dimensions, the length, width and height do not exceed 170cm and the length of any one side of the luggage does not exceed 130cm. Wong said even though the MTRC relaxed the restriction to 145cm in August, it only applies to musical instruments or sports equipment and application is required. Wong said normal objects including the sticks in the case are subject to the 130cm restriction.

(SCMP) September 21, 2016.

A lawmaker-elect said the Legislative Council should find time to review MTR by-laws, after a social activist was fined HK$2,000 on Friday for refusing to produce proof of her identity to staff who stopped her as she carried three 160cm plastic sticks into a station. The two offences were contrary to MTR by-laws, which Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung said need reviewing. There is no reason to violate rights of the public, he said in support of Sally Tang Mei-ching, chairwoman of Socialist Action.

Tuen Mun Court was previously told that the MTR Corp had imposed luggage height restrictions capped at 130cm to minimise passengers risk of electrocution. But Tang, 26, argued it was ridiculous to consider the three sticks she carried into Kowloon Tong Station on September 25 last year would pose such a danger. She also argued that MTR staff should not be allowed to check passengers personal information.

But deputy magistrate Joseph Lee Jo-ey sided with prosecutors in finding her guilty of carrying prohibited items of baggage and of failing to produce proof of identity for inspection. He fined her HK$1,000 on each count. Lee said the sticks posed a risk of injury or damage to railway property as they towered over children and even some adults. They would be even higher above the ground when carried during travelling, he said.

The court heard that Tang had shouted, Shame to MTR, bully small citizens, after her confrontation with staff. I believe Im innocent, she said in mitigation. MTR is a profit-making organisation that is restricting citizens space in order to pack more people into its trains thats why they wont relax the luggage restrictions. This is obvious.

Under the by-laws, carrying prohibited items of luggage is punishable by a maximum penalty of a HK$2,000 fine. Failure to provide name, address or telephone number or to produce proof of identity carries a higher maximum penalty a HK$5,000 fine and six months imprisonment.

(China Worker) August 12, 2016.

CWI member Sally Tang Mei-ching will appear in court on 1 September in a case brought by the MTR, Hong Kongs seventh largest corporation by market value. She is charged with two offences that carry the maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and a HK$7,000 (800 euro equivalent) fine. This is clearly a case of political persecution against a spokeswoman for a well-known anti-big business and anti-establishment political organisation. Many similar incidents are overlooked by the MTR but in this case it is taking a hard line and is determined to bring the issue to court.

MTR is Hong Kongs rail and metro corporation and also one of the biggest property developers. Its allegations against Sally are that she 1) brought oversized luggage onto the metro system, and 2) failed to show ID and personal information to MTR company staff. The case has aroused considerable publicity in Hong Kong due to Sallys relatively high profile as an anti-government activist and because MTR is heavily criticised on a range of issues from excessive fare increases to its involvement in billion dollar white elephant projects.

Sally entered a not guilty plea and is determined to fight the case to challenge the MTRs high-handed policies. The ban on oversize luggage is a highly controversial policy in Hong Kong, especially when the company launched a crackdown on the issue, which provoked protests by musicians and other groups. This rule especially hits working class families who dont own a car and need to move large but not dangerous articles by metro.

Sally was stopped by MTR staff inside Kowloon Tong station in September 2015 for carrying a banner pole, made of lightweight plastic and under 160 cm in length. The Hong Kong MTR imposed a ban on objects over 130 cm in length, while more generous rules apply on other train systems operated by the company internationally (in Stockholm, for example, the MTR-run metro system permits items up to 200 cm in length). Therefore, from a safety perspective, these rules do not make much sense. Furthermore, under the pressure of public criticism, MTR recently modified its rules in Hong Kong allowing some items of luggage up to 145 cm in length.

When asked by MTR staff to produce her ID, Sally insisted that she would show her ID only to a police officer and asked for the police to be called. There is a reaction in Hong Kong among young people especially to the power of big corporations and concerns over individual privacy, against a background of more repressive government policies and attacks on democratic rights. Because MTR also has extensive financial interests through its electronic card system Octopus, it has been widely criticised over cases where travellers personal information has been sold to other businesses.

MTR is a big multinational corporation, which was privatised in 2000. It is a major property developer and landlord in Hong Kong. It also invests in railways in different parts in the world, and has obtained contracts to operate rapid transit systems in London, Stockholm, Melbourne, and Sydney. The companys CEO Lincoln Leong Kwok-kuen takes HK$14 million a year in salary! While making huge profits (over HK$10 billion every year or 1.15 billion euro), it has still increased train fares every year, with a trend of increasing accidents and worsening maintenance standards, which has made it extremely unpopular within society.

Sally Tang Mei-ching is defending herself in court, while the MTR has hired a team of barristers and lawyers against her, again raising questions about how they use public money.

This case is a bit like David versus Goliath! says Sally. But I have got a lot of support from youth and grassroots working people who are really angry about the way MTR is run today. This case is about challenging the unchecked power of big corporations.

Socialist Action are demanding:
Drop the charges against Sally Tang Mei-ching!
Defend personal privacy rights!
For a public and fully transparent review of MTRs oversized luggage policy, open to representatives of the public, unions and passengers to create fairer rules.
For democratic public control and ownership of public transport kick out the profiteers!

Now for the Chinese press:

(Oriental Daily) September 2, 2016.

The prosecution summoned engineering manager Chan Kwok-sun to testify, for he had previously participated in defining the standards on luggage size. Chan said that a long object may inadvertently touch upon the overhead electric cables and cause electrocution, as well as damage the ceilings of the stations and cars. Furthermore, it may interfere with other passengers.

During cross-examination, the defense asked Chan whether the platform barriers would prevent long objects from touching the overhead electric cables. Chan said that the main purpose of the platform barriers was to prevent people from falling onto the tracks. The defense told Chan that the London and Stockholm subway systems have different luggage size standards, and the Hong Kong MTR Corp operates those two systems as well. Chan said that the London and Stockholm subway systems were joint ventures with different designs for stations and cars. Therefore, "I am completely not surprised that they should have different standards."

The defense pointed out to Chan that there were 826 incidents in the MTR in 2006 compared to 1246 incidents in 2015 for a huge increase of 51% over ten years. Chan said that the 2006 figure was for the MTR, whereas the 2015 was for the combined post-merger MTR/KCR. If the comparison was made with the sum of MRT plus KCR in 2006 versus 2015, the number of incidents would have decreased instead.

(Oriental Daily) September 7, 2016.

According to police officer Choi, the defendant declined to show her ID to the two MTR workers who wore uniforms and carried MTR ID badges. She was only willing to show her ID to the police officer. Choi said that he explained to the defendant that refusal may result in her being ticketed. Choi said that if the defendant gave her ID information only to the police officer, the MTR may demand that information from the police in order to issue a ticket anyway. The defendant said that she understood.

In summation, the defendant said that the situation was chaotic at the time. Since the witnesses summoned by the prosecution all worked for the MTR, there is a conflict of interest and therefore they cannot be trusted. The defendant said that since the poles that she carried were used for a political activity, she believes that the MTR tightened the regulations in order to deprive the citizens of the right to carry materials on public transportation. The magistrate said that no such evidence was offered to support the contention.

The defendant said that the MTR continues to raise prices even as their profits are growing. Therefore it is unjust for the MTR to spend so much time and money to prosecute a citizen. The magistrate said that MTR prices are not germane to this case.

(Oriental Daily) September 23, 2016.

The magistrate said that the defendant claimed that many other subway systems around the world allow luggage of greater sizes without posing any danger to passengers and therefore she cannot be prosecuted. The magistrate said that this is not the same thing.

The magistrate said that the defendant claimed that she was not sure that those people who intercepted her were MTR employees. But the two MTR employees wore uniforms with name badges. Furthermore, the defendant then used her megaphone to chant "Shame to MTR, bully small citizens" which showed that she was fully aware that the two persons were MTR employees.

The magistrate said that the defendant claimed that MTR employees have no right to demand to see the ID's of citizens. However, this right is conferred according to CAP 556B Mass Transit Railways By-laws: Part IX Article 24 Remove of persons from railway premises:

(1) Any person who is reasonably suspected by an official of committing or attempting to commit any breach of these by-laws, while in or upon any part of the railway premises shall, when required to do so by such official-

(a) give to that official true and correct particulars of his name and address and of his telephone number, if any, and produce proof to that effect for inspection; and

(b) produce to that official proof of his identity for inspection. (L.N. 8 of 1998)

The magistrate concluded that the defendant either does not understand the law or else knowingly disregarded the law. Therefore the magistrate found the defendant guilty on both counts.

Internet comments:

- The best bit that they won't tell you in English is this:

(Oriental Daily) Afterwards, the defendant insisted that she was innocent and that the case was unfair against poor people who could not obtain free legal aid and are therefore forced to plead guilty. Therefore she went to trial in order to protest. Tang said that "法律面前,窮人含忍" (in front of the law, the poor people have to swallow and endure." The magistrate admonished her with "Be careful of your language!" The magistrate said that the defendant showed no remorse and therefore fined her a total of $2,000.

Why was the magistrate so upset? Tang's phrase is a homonym of "in front of the law, the poor people have to suck cock."

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 14, 2016.

Television channel TVB is to stop airing the political debate programme City Forum, a weekly mainstay that has been broadcast live on the channel for 36 years. The programme is produced by RTHK and is known for inviting prominent figures, lawmakers, and academics from different sides to discuss contemporary issues. It takes place at at a public venue, usually Causeway Bays Victoria Park, every Sunday.

City Forum will still be broadcast on RTHK digital and analogue channels 31 and 31A. TVB and RTHK have been broadcasting the show after RTHK took over ATVs analogue channels in April after the beleaguered broadcasting companys license expired.

Amen Ng Man-yee, head of RTHKs Corporate Communications Unit, told Ming Pao that the new arrangements were made as RTHK now has its own channels and broadcasting laws did not stipulate that TVB must give RTHK broadcasting time on Sundays.

Other programmes from RTHK, such as LegCo Review and the political satire programme Headliner will also be broadcast one hour earlier at 6pm. Ng told Ming Pao that as said that as TVBs prime time begins at 6pm, the new arrangements also follow broadcasting rules.

(HKG Pao) September 19, 2016.

RTHK's City Forum has always had poor audience ratings, but it has always been haughty. For many years, it had held the Sunday noontime broadcast on TVB when families are eating lunch. TVB wants to move it to Channel J5, but RTHK says no and prefers to broadcast on their own.

Just when everybody thinks that City Forum is bidding farewell to the public, Apple Daily held a live broadcast of City Forum on Facebook.

In the past, RTHK has always denied that they are biased. As a government outlet funded by taxpayers' money, they couldn't admit it. Now that they join up with Apple Daily, how can they deny that "they took the government's money to operate as the opposition's mouthpiece"? Will they ever be able to reverse course and become an independent, neutral media outlet?

Now that Apple Daily has aired a complete live broadcast, their relationship with RTHK is very clear. What will RTHK do? Will they respect the taxpayers, or will they be directed by Next Media (Next Magazine/Apple Daily)? Will they continue to spend the taxpayers' money so as to make sure that Next Media will earn ad dollars through their live broadcasts of City Forum?

Before the Legislative Council elections, we listed the policies of the various television channels:

RTHK: Do not download videos and re-air unedited or edited. Even if you list the source, it is unacceptable. RTHK reserves the right to seek legal redress. Even if you record yourself at the scene, you cannot air it.

TVB: You can record your own video, or use the YouTube videos, but you have to acknowledge the source.

Cable TV: You can record your own video, or use the YouTube videos, but you have to acknowledge the source.

NOW TV: You can record your own video, or use the YouTube videos, but you have to acknowledge the source.

As can be seen, RTHK is the most rigorous and unfriendly towards other media in citing their videos. The other television channels merely ask for sourcing and respect. RTHK forbids re-transmission and even derivative art and live coverage.

Interestingly, this copyright-sensitive government media outlet has turned a blind eye to what Next media is doing while shouting at all others to stop and desist. Did RTHK give permission to Apple Daily to make live broadcasts of their programmes? Or did Apple Daily violate the copyright of RTHK without permission? Will RTHK pursue the issue?

So everybody wants to know whether a government department can hold double standards? On one hand, they will generously let Apple Daily make the live broadcast for free, while on the other hand they continue to refuse all else.

In the past, RTHK has threatened HKG Pao with legal action for using screen captures. We have now decided that we will continue to use photos, sounds and videos from RTHK where appropriate and we will see how RTHK responds.

If Apple Daily can get benefits and accommodation from RTHK, we should be able to do so in like manner. Let us wait and see if RTHK really has a One Channel Two Systems in place.

- Internet comments:

- Most people will watch the TVB channels 81-85, so will watch VIU-TV channel 99 and practically nobody watches RTHK channels 31-33. The RTHK City Forum will get near zero ratings at channel 31 only.

- Most of time, channels 31-33 are showing old low-definition videos. Who would want to watch them?

- The interest in the RTHK City Forum is that this is a clown show. You watch it to see innovative ways of insulting people. Otherwise there is no substantive content to speak of.

- Don't forget the boxing matches with the Victoria Park uncles!

- Those faked boxing matches are nothing much to watch, because the flying punches always miss the purported targets.

- Unlike the Miss Hong Kong pageant, the RTHK City Forum does not allow discussants to use foul language on air.

- ATV went out of business due to lousy television audience ratings. RTHK has worse ratings than ATV. The reason why RTHK is still in business is because it is funded by taxpayers' money.

- (Apple Daily) According to Apple Daily, 210,000 persons watched their live broadcast of City Forum. Many Internet users demand that Apple Daily continue their live broadcast each week.

- By comparison, TVB just finished broadcasting the serial drama A Fist Within Four Walls. On the final episode, they had an audience of 2.38 million viewers.

Furthermore, these numbers are measured by an independent research company and cannot be manipulated by either TVB or outsiders. Website hit rates can be easily manipulated by either the operator or outsiders.

P.S. This audience does not count the Internet audience at the official or unauthorized websites.

- The 210,000 (if true) is a cumulative audience -- those who click through and may have watched anywhere from zero second to the entire program.

- If Apple Daily were to write the headline for this news story, it would have been: "Apple Daily in deep shit! Initial broadcast drew only a ratings of 3; Internet users cursed: 'Dump the fucking program!'"

- This particular post at Discuss.com.hk has drawn 38,000 hits in under two hours already. How hard is it to get 210,000 hits?

- RTHK acknowledged that Apple Daily filmed and aired without their permission, but they declined to take further action against Apple Daily. Therefore HKG Pao and other media can do likewise.

Apple Daily is a business. By airing the RTHK City Forum, they garnered 210,000 hits for which they derive direct and indirect ad revenues. So why are the taxpayers subsidizing RTHK so that Apple Daily can make money?

- Amen Ng Man-yee, head of RTHKs Corporate Communications Unit, said that RTHK will refer HKG Pao to the Department of Justice if they should publish anything without prior approval. However, Ng did not say whether Apple Daily will be referred to the Department of Justice, and that is the main point.

- (HKG Pao) HKG Pao will not be accused of "All Talk and No Action." Therefore, they have posted a Vimeo video and invite the RTHK authorities to bring in the Department of Justice.

This video contains segments of the September 18, 2016 RTHK City Forum which was broadcast live by Apple Daily. The edited video is intended to address the very serious issue of whether the RTHK City Forum host was being fair and balanced.

- (HKG Pao) HKG Pao has posted a second Vimeo video. This video contains segments of the RTHK program Pentaprism II. The Chinese program title is literally "Left Right Red Blue Green" and purports to allow voices across the political spectrum be heard. Each episode is hosted by a different person invited by RTHK. HKG Pao checked the 164 episodes of Pentaprism II aired in 2016. They found 8 government officials, 59 persons with no clear political positions, 4 unclassifiable, 26 pro-establishment persons and 67 pan-democratic persons. Is this a fair and balanced presentation of the political spectrum.

Like the first video, this edited video is intended to address the very serious issue of whether the RTHK program Pentaprism II is being fair and balanced. HKG Pao invites everybody to share these videos. Of course, your sharing may cause you to be prosecuted by the Department of Justice as RTHK threatened to do so.

(IB Times) Miss Hong Kong 2016: Here's everything we know about Crystal Fung. August 9, 2016.

The Miss Hong Kong beauty pageant is just a month away, and 20 contestants have already proceeded to the next round. Crystal Fung, a 22-year-old who majored in food and nutrition at the University of Hong Kong, has already attracted a lot of media attention after she arrived at TVB city driving a million dollar Tesla electric car.

It remains to be seen if she'll make it to the final rounds of the beauty pageant, but Crystal is a promising candidate to win the title this year. She has been a popular figure on social media even before entering the Miss Hong Kong 2016 competition, and her Instagram followers have only increased in these recent months. At present, Crystal has more than 23,000 followers on the photo-sharing medium.

According to Hong Kong entertainment news portal AH Mike, Crystal was once voted the most beautiful girl at the University of Hong Kong, and this has resulted in her gaining a number of modeling assignments as well. Earlier this year, she also represented Hong Kong at the Mary Kay Beauty Contest in Shanghai. Although she did not win the competition, Crystal said she was happy to have performed in front of a large audience.

This was a great experience for me. I've never walked on such a beautiful stage. I am happy I was able to successfully perform in front of over 10,000 people," she was quoted as saying by AH Mike.

On the romantic front, Crystal seems to dating a doctor and the gentleman in the picture below seems to be the one who stole her heart.

A quick scan of her Instagram page also reveals that Crystal is committed to living a healthy lifestyle. But she seems to have a weakness for birthday cakes.


Miss Hong Kong 2016, Crystal Fung Ying-ying

Much more interesting is this piece of Crystal Fung presence on social media. Here is one of the many quotable examples:

Facebook repost of Passion Times's video about an incident in Occupy Mongkok (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBWyBNwwfSc).

In the video, an anti-Occupy Communist uncle kept using his hands to grope the breasts of a female Occupy participant. The Police came and removed the uncle away from the scene.

I am not going to stand for this!!! Pok gai, fuck your mother, may your own family be wiped out!!

The dirty old man used his hands to squeeze her, the girl kept screaming "Sexual molestation" but he wouldn't stop!
If someone else didn't intervene and grabbed his hands, the girl would not be able to break away!!
Everybody saw it. He was clearly filmed and aired on NOW TV
What happened to the bastard? The Police patted him on the shoulder and let him go!!!!!
Huh!??? Is there still rule of law!!!
If I get molested on the street, with eyewitnesses present, videos taken and the suspect arrested, I still won't be able to fucking tet him prosecuted!!
In the end, he is going to be released easily!
Right now, this is no longer about seeking democracy and justice
This is about the basic issue of personal safety
If you let them continue, how can anyone dare to walk in the streets!!!!

Video: https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/603066293231983/

Internet comments:

- In 2015, Louisa Mak was questioned if she was  The (Yellow Ribbon?) Miss Hong Kong. This year, Crystal Fung left no doubt that she is the (Yellow Ribbon) Miss Hong Kong. This is going to mean that she will run into protests with endorsements, appearances, etc.

- And Crystal Fung had better worry about whether her Home Visit Permit is still valid for traveling to mainland China.


- Can mainland China invalidate Yellow Zombie Slut Crystal Fung's Home Visit Permit as soon as possible!

- It is time to trot out the famous quotation from the movie Infernal Affairs: 出得來行,就預左要還 (Once you enter the triad world, you should be prepared to pay the price). When Crystal Fung posted those kinds obscenities on social media, she should be prepared for them to haunt her some day.

- Crystal Fung was elected by the people through universal suffrage. She received more than 30,000 votes. So even if she turned out to be foul-mouthed, she will continue to represent Hong Kong to the international community. This is the essence of genuine democracy.

- The Internet has more than a collection of the sayings of Crystal Fung. Since Fung was voted Miss Photogenic, here is the photo of her sans make-up. She looks like a country hick from the Chinese hinterlands.

- Here is her Form 6 (Secondary School) photo:

- Already Crystal Fung has now an Internet moniker: 馮柒柒. Because she liked to use the obscene word (expletive) so much, she is to be addressed as Fung Expletive Expletive in future.

- The word sounds like the word for the number '7'. So Crystal Fung Ying-ying is also addressed as "Fung 7 7".

- As James Wong once explained, the words 𨳍 ('7') and 𨳊 ('9') are not used interchangeably.

Both words refer to male erection. 「應硬而不硬者是戇𨳊,不應硬而硬者是笨𨳍」

𨳍 ('7') refers to the situation in which you want an erection but your member isn't cooperating. So you are fucking losing your big chance.

𨳊 ('9') '9' refers to the situation in which you don't want an erection but your member has a will of its own. So you are wasting the occasion and embarrassing yourself.

Yellow Ribbons such as Crystal Fung use these words arbitrarily without understanding their differences. As such, they are more 𨳊 ('9') than 𨳍 ('7').

- Derivative art on the Internet, still permitted even if the Copyright (Amendment) Bill was passed.

- The Yellow Ribbons say that TVB is a Chinese Communist media outlet which they have re-named CCTVB. They say that they will only watch HKTV. So why is Crystal Fung participating in TVB's Miss Hong Kong pageant? And now she is going to sign a contract with all sorts of restrictions on her speech and action rights.

- Here is Crystal Chow's post on the seven evil cops assaulting Ken Tsang. She refers to the television network as CCTVB!!!

- Crystal Fung might have been immature when she made those posts more than a year ago. But she should have purged everything once she entered the Miss Hong Kong pageant. If she doesn't realize that, then her brain is the size of a pea.

- If you try to access Crystal Fung's Facebook now, you will get "This Facebook post is no longer available. It may have been removed or the privacy settings of the post may have changed." Too late, though.

- Crystal Fung has just set up a new Facebook and she is deleting unfavorable comments. Long live Freedom of Speech!

- Can Crystal Fung claim that all those purported Facebook posts of hers were forgeries? Like this one about bestiality?

- Louisa Mak must be celebrating wildly. After putting up with the barbs for one year, she finally has a successor to her crown and her troubles.

- She studied at Hong Kong University, so it is expected that she would be foul-mouthed. Why do you act surprised?

- If she attended school with people like ex-president of the HKU Student Union president Billy Fung, it is the norm to be foul-mouthed, especially for the women.

- Of course, a female Hong Kong University can be foul-mouthed if she so chooses. It is just that I don't want a Miss Hong Kong for whom I have to worry about if and when she will let out a "Fuck your mother's stinking cunt!"

- "In Hong Kong, every person from the richest to the poorest has freedom of speech. People can say whatever they want. It is nobody else's business. So who do they think they are to criticize our Goddess of Democracy?"

Eh, a beauty pageant is not just about finding a beauty. If so, this becomes a contest among cosmetic surgeons. Miss Hong Kong is chosen for other attributes as well, such as cultivation, character and intelligence. You can barrel your way through based upon "freedom of expression." If you think saying Pok gai, fuck your mother, may your own family be wiped out!! is okay, then you are uncultivated and unrefined; you have no character or integrity; and you have no intelligence.

- If you want to defend Crystal Fung's freedom of expression, then why don't you defend the Hong Kong Youth Development Society's freedom of expression as well? For calling a Crystal Fung a "foul-mouthed woman worse than a prostitute" and calling for a boycott, Facebook has banned the HKYDS account.

- When Hong Kong University is seeing its rankings tumbling everywhere, it is expected that Miss Hong Kong should go from Loretta Chu (the first Miss Hong Kong in 1977) to Crystal Fung.

- Crystal Fung is actually following the footsteps of Michele Monique Reis, the 1988 Miss Hong Kong. Reis is famous for a foul-mouthed telephone conversation with tycoon Joseph Lau: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRdR91JzGE0

- The Miss Hong Kong pageant is an opportunity for pretty girls to showcase themselves to marry a rich scion. What matriarch would allow her son to marry a foul-mouthed woman? This is a stigma that will stick to Crystal Fung for the rest of her life.

- (The Stand)

At the noontime TVB press conference on the day after Crystal Fung became Miss Hong Kong, she replied to press inquiries about her past social media comments by saying that "she was young and didn't know better" in using overly excited language to express her opinions. She said that she was affected by the "passionate atmosphere" among university students at the time and she only did so because she loves Hong Kong. She emphasized that she does not use foul language in private. She said that those things took place two years ago, but she has now matured and entered society. "The same thing will look different when viewed from a different angle." She said that things should be handled with tolerance and positive attitudes.

- Crystal Fung is 23-year-old today. Is she so mature? Two years ago in October 2014, she was 21-years-old. Was she so immature and ignorant? Nothing much can change in two years. The difference is that there is a pile of money to be made here, and so she has to discard the inconvenient baggage.

- The discussion forums are also reporting that she is a Civic Passion member. This puts her into a dilemma whether she confirms or disavows, she is going to alienate some easily excitable people.

- Crystal Fung's tactic is to plead youthful ignorance and to say that she is not normally foul-mouthed. This is unconvincing. A better tactic would be to admit that she was foul-mouthed before because most people around her at the time spoke that way. Since she is now Miss Hong Kong, she promises not to be foul-mouthed because the public has certain expectations for Miss Hong Kong.

- Even if Crystal Fung never entered the Miss Hong Kong pageant, she would have to face the same issue. When she was still in school, many of her friends may be foul-mouthed and so was she. But once she graduated and got a job, she couldn't expect to behave in the same manner towards her supervisors, colleagues, clients and elders. And if you use obscene language on radio/television, it will be beeped out. These are the social norms today. That is why Crystal Fung has to bail out.

- Cheese-eating surrender monkey

- Yellow Ribbon double standards: If someone else committed a youthful error, they must resign immediately. If a Yellow Ribbon does the same thing, she must be forgiven.

- The students say that they are born in a time of chaos and therefore have certain kinds of responsibilities. Does this include a responsibility of kowtowing to TVB for a job?

- On TVB, Crystal Fung was asked about the issue of the students' views on the automatic appointment of the HKSAR Chief Executive as the Chancellor of the universities. Fung said that the students are the foundation of the universities, and therefore the university administration should listen to their demands. That is going to please the students. But in the same interview, she can say that the students commit youthful errors. So why should the university administration commit the youthful errors as demanded by the students?

- If TVB is really functioning as CCTVB on behalf of the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist government, then Crystal Fung would be the best choice of Miss Hong Kong. Her recantation is worth as much as the photos of Edward Leung and Ray Wong meeting with US Consulate employees.

- When the Facebook sayings of Crystal Fung first surfaced, the Yellow Ribbons rose up in unison to praise her character and courage. In a matter of hours, Fung recanted her  youthful mistakes. The Yellow Ribbons collapse into despair first, then turned around to attack her as a hypocrite who sold out the cause for the sake of fame and fortune. Yesterday's Yellow Ribbon Goddess is now the rat scurrying across the street.

- The fact that Crystal Fung was foul-mouthed was a personal issue. The people of Hong Kong have the right to like or dislike a Miss Hong Kong, and such opinions have been regularly expressed over time. So this should have been a non-issue ... except when the hordes of Yellow Ribbon celebrities rise up to defend Crystal Fung and her foul-mouthed tirades and condemn her critics for being uncultured or suppressing freedom of expression. For example, the past Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak said that there are words that are even more obscene than expletives (??). This is what makes it an issue. Why are we being told that we can think for ourselves and express our own opinions? Why are we forced to automatically a position based upon the apparent political position of the person? Will future Miss Hong Kong pageants include a section on showing how foul-mouthed the contestants can be?

- (Kinliu) The foul-mouthed Miss Hong Kong. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. September 17, 2016.

Pity TVB.

Their normal Miss Hong Kong pageant became a series of public relations disaster. The friendly ambassador for Hong Kong turned out to be a foul-mouthed spokesperson. Most ironically, the preceding Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak jumped out to defend foul-mouthed language. In so doing, these two highly educated Miss Hong Kong's have destroyed the myth of beauty and brains.

When her foul-mouthed language on Facebook were posted, Ms. Fung said: "I was young and ignorant, and I wrote in anger. I don't normally speak it." So the next day someone found a video of Ms. Fung using foul language: "My lord, I don't want it ... the foreigners down there are fucking stunned to see us!" This was suggestive and vulgar. Such is our pretty ambassador.

A public relations disaster is then once a bomb explodes, you pour boiling oil to put out that fire and you end up with a worse disaster.

Are you entitled to use foul language just because you are young and ignorant? Ms. Fung made those Facebook posts two years ago, when she was twenty years old. How are still young and ignorant at 20? At 20, you can vote. No wonder these young and ignorant people have elected those young and ignorant legislators.

I remember that the prettiest Miss Hong Kong Loretta Chu was only 19 years old when she was crowned. She was younger than Ms. Fung. She had just graduated from secondary school. She did not attend Hong Kong University or Cambridge University. But she was always well-mannered and comely. She is a grandmother now, but there has never been any scandals around her.

The healthiest Miss Hong Kong Olivia Cheng was also crowned when she was 19 years old. She had tanned skin and was the holder of the Hong Kong women's high jump record. She picked up gold and was voted the best female golf player in Hong Kong five years in a row. She was also the first Chinese female golf coach. She showed her body in a photo album, but no one considered it to be obscene.

By comparison, our foul-mouthed Miss Hong Kong said that she was young and ignorant? Sorry, many women were young once, they were ignorant but they never used foul language in public. I have many friends who have never once used foul language in their entire lives.

The former Miss Hong Kong Louisa Mak said: "Actually there are many things that sound worse than foul language ..." This means that if there are worse things out there, then foul language is okay? According to this logic, there are worse crimes than robbery out there, then it is okay to commit robbery? There are worse acts than sexual molestation, then it is okay to commit sexual molestation? ... I finally understood that since there are worse things than throwing bricks, then everybody thinks that it is acceptable to throw bricks.

It is not a crime to use foul language. But it is a problem for Miss Hong Kong to be foul-mouthed. To put out the fire, it is as simple as making a sincere apology like Leon Lai did. The people of Hong Kong won't blame you for being foul-mouthed; they are blaming you and your supporters for using various excuses to rationalize foul language. It is true that foul language is part of Cantonese culture, but it is the lowest level of Cantonese culture. It is a problem when the educated intelligentsia use the language of the lowest level.

In a few years time, nobody will remember the name of the 2016 Miss Hong Kong. But Crystal Fung will be known forever as the "foul-mouthed Miss Hong Kong." Will the Wai Yin Association invite Fung to join them? The name Wai Yin refers to intelligence, beauty and propriety. Which standard does Fung meet?

- For the edification of Louisa Mak, here are the various fines for using obscene language in various public locations:

Tram: $100
MTR: $5,000
Bus, mini-bus, taxi: $3,000/6 months in jail
Airplane: $50,000/2 years in jail
Hospital: $1,000 ($2,000/1 month in jail for recidivists)
Sports arena: $2,000/14 days in jail)

- Louisa Mak may have studied law, but she clearly doesn't think that the law needs to be observed.

- Why do such ordinances exist? While you have freedom of speech, the others stuck in the bus with you do not have to listen to your obscenities. You are verbally harassing this captive audience, which has the right to complain.

- Why do such ordinances exist? While you have freedom of speech, the others stuck in the bus with you do not have to listen to your obscenities. You are verbally harassing this captive audience, which has the right to complain. In the case of your Facebook posts, other people at least have the ability not to read your invectives.

    HKU POP poll 9.3.2016 Predicted # HKRA poll 8.29-9.1.2016 Predicted # Official Official Official
  Name (Party) % of Seats % of Seats # of votes % of votes # elected
District Council (Second) James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) 23.0% 1 22.3% 1 243930 12.8% 1
 Functional Constituency Starry Lee (DAB) 24.0% 1 29.4% 2 304222 15.9% 1
 (5 seats) Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) 10.0%   7.0%   491667 25.7% 1
  Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) 2.0%   4.0%   17175 0.9%  
  Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) 5.0%   6.7%   28311 1.5%  
  Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) 12.0% 1 8.7% 1 233236 12.2%  
  Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) 1.0%   4.3%   23631 1.2%  
  Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 12.0% 1 10.0% 1 303457 15.9% 1
  Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) 11.0% 1 7.4%   264339 13.8% 1
                 
                 
Hong Kong Island Gary Wong Chi Him (Path for Democracy) 3.0%   1.4%   10028 2.7%  
 (6 seats) Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) 3.0%   2.0%   7276 1.9%  
  Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) 19.0% 1 20.5% 1 60760 16.1% 1
  Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) 6.0%   9.0% 1 19376 5.1%  
  Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) 12.0% 1 9.9% 1 41152 10.9% 1
  Chim Pui Chung (independent) 3.0%   1.0%   2587 0.7%  
  Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) 4.0%   4.4%   22555 6.0%  
  Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) 8.0% 1 4.4%   50818 13.5% 1
  Shum Chee Chiu (independent) 0.0%   0.8%   1654 0.4%  
  Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) 11.0% 1 16.1% 1 33323 8.8%  
  Chui Chi Kin (independent) 1.0%   0.8%   670 0.2%  
  Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) 0.0%   3.3%   2550 0.7%  
  Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) 7.0%   6.4%   42499 11.3% 1
  Tanya Chan (Civic Party) 14.0% 1 12.8% 1 35404 9.4% 1
  Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) 9.0% 1 7.2% 1 45925 12.2% 1
                 
                 
Kowloon West Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) 4.0%   2.6%   6811 2.4%  
 (6 seats) Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) 0.0%   0.7%   399 0.1%  
  Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) 8.0% 1 17.2% 1 32323 11.6% 1
  Leung Mei Fun (BPA) 24.0% 1 12.8% 1 49745 17.8% 1
  Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) 3.0%   4.0%   15383 5.5%  
  Chu Siu Hung (independent) 1.0%   1.1%   680 0.2%  
  Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) 8.0% 1 7.7%   20219 7.3%  
  Helena Wong Pik Wan (Democratic Party) 9.0% 1 13.4% 1 26037 9.3% 1
  Lam Yi Lai (independent) 1.0%   0.7%   634 0.2%  
  Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) 17.0% 1 16.6% 1 52541 18.8% 1
  Kwan San Wai (independent) 0.0%   0.0%   938 0.3%  
  Lau Siu Lai (independent) 11.0% 1 8.1% 1 38183 13.7% 1
  Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) 7.0%   8.8% 1 20643 7.4% 1
  Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) 1.0%   0.8%   874 0.3%  
  Tik Chi Yuen (The Thid Side) 5.0%   5.4%   13461 4.8%  
                 
                 
Kowloon East Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) 19.0% 1 15.0% 1 47318 14.4% 1
 (5 seats) Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) 2.0%   1.5%   2535 0.8%  
  Patrick Ko Tat Pun (independent) 1.0%   1.5%   2444 0.7%  
  Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) 2.0%   2.9%   2603 0.8%  
  Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) 18.0% 1 10.2% 1 47527 14.4% 1
  Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) 11.0% 1 15.9% 1 51516 15.7% 1
  Lui Wing Kei (independent) 1.0%   0.6%   1393 0.4%  
  Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) 13.0% 1 18.1% 1 50309 15.3% 1
  Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) 14.0% 1 18.4% 1 45408 13.8% 1
  Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) 10.0%   7.2%   33271 10.1%  
  Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) 4.0%   2.6%   12854 3.9%  
  Tam Tak Chi (People Power) 5.0%   6.1%   31815 9.7%  
                 
                 
New Territories West Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 5.0%   3.2%   20974 3.5%  
 (9 seats) Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 10.0% 1 8.5% 1 41704 6.9% 1
  Ko Chi Fai (independent) 0.0%   0.0%   604 0.1%  
  Chow Wing Kan (Liberal Party) 1.0%   1.7%   1469 0.2%  
  Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 8.0% 1 6.4% 1 54496 9.0% 1
  Kwong Koon Wan (independent) 0.0%   0.0%   810 0.1%  
  Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 17.0% 1 16.2% 1 70646 11.7% 1
  Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 7.0% 1 5.4% 1 35658 5.9% 1
  Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 7.0% 1 9.3% 1 50190 8.3% 1
  Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 6.0% 1 7.0% 1 42334 7.0% 1
  Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 4.0%   4.4%   28529 4.7%  
  Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) 4.0%   5.9% 1 30149 5.0%  
  Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 2.0%   3.9%   9928 1.6%  
  Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 6.0% 1 7.9% 1 49680 8.2% 1
  Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 3.0%   5.2%   17872 3.0%  
  Chan Han Pan (DAB) 8.0% 1 10.0% 1 58673 9.7% 1
  Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) 1.0%   0.0%   2390 0.4%  
  Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) 1.0%   0.7%   812 0.1%  
  Tong Wing Chi (independent) 0.0%   0.1%   2408 0.4%  
  Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 12.0% 1 4.2%   84121 13.9% 1
                 
                 
New Territories East Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) 6.0% 1 5.1% 1 34544 6.0%  
 (9 seats) Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) 8.0% 1 5.8% 1 39327 6.8% 1
  Liu Tin Shing (independent) 0.0%   0.7%   850 0.1%  
  Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) 3.0%   3.7%   23635 4.1%  
  Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) 6.0% 1 4.6%   35595 6.1% 1
  Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) 6.0% 1 3.2%   49800 8.6% 1
  Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) 13.0% 1 14.1% 1 52461 9.0% 1
  Raymond Mak Ka Chun (Path for Democracy) 2.0%   1.2%   8084 1.4%  
  Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) 3.0%   4.2%   17892 3.1%  
  Elizabeth Quat (DAB) 12.0% 1 12.9% 1 58825 10.1% 1
  Hau Chi Keung (independent) 2.0%   0.7%   6720 1.2%  
  Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) 5.0%   5.7% 1 20031 3.5%  
  Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) 2.0%   5.5% 1 26931 4.6%  
  Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) 5.0%   4.6%   31595 5.4%  
  Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) 0.0%   0.1%   486 0.1%  
  Wong Sum Yu (independent) 1.0%   0.0%   1657 0.3%  
  Leticia Lee See Yin 1.0%   1.5%   2938 0.5%  
  Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) 6.0% 1 1.8%   45993 7.9% 1
  Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) 7.0% 1 6.1% 1 37997 6.5% 1
  Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) 0.0%   0.4%   305 0.1%  
  Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) 4.0%   6.0% 1 36183 6.2% 1
  Chan Hak Kan (DAB) 9.0% 1 11.9% 1 48720 8.4% 1

Internet comments:

- Pre-election public opinion polls were not always useful, because voters switched their votes strategically. For example, in the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency, the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme said:

#1 James To (23%)
#2 Starry Lee (24%)
#3 Kwong Chun Yu (10%)
#4 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (2%)
#5 Sumly Chan (5%)
#6 Wong Kwok Hing (12%)
#7 Kwan Wing Yip (1%)
#8 Leung Yiu Chung (12%)
#9 Holden Chow Ho Ding (11%)

The final results were:

#1 James To (12.8%)
#2 Starry Lee (15.9%)
#3 Kwong Chun Yu (25.7%)
#4 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (0.9%)
#5 Sumly Chan (1.5%)
#6 Wong Kwok Hing (12.2%)
#7 Kwan Wing Yip (1.2%)
#8 Leung Yiu Chung (15.9%)
#9 Holden Chow Ho Ding (13.8%)

This happened because Kalvin Ho, Sumly Chan and Kwan Wing Yip suspended their campaigns in order to transfer their votes to Kwong Chun Yu who was sixth in the poll. Also the Democratic Party called for their voters in certain geographies to switch from the better known James To to the newcomer Kwong Chun Yu. As a result, Kwong Chun became the top vote-getter and almost endangered James To.

- The pre-election public opinion polls were more useful than you think. The HKRA poll reported the number of undecided's to be above 20% in all geographical constituencies. The media reports on the HKU-POP poll did not report the number of undecided's, but that is also believed to be above 20%. Why are so many people still undecided? Because they want to wait for a reason to vote for someone. None came. In the end, the undecided's came out to vote for anyone who is a fresh face.

The five big-name traditional pan-democrats (Lee Cheuk Yan, Cyd Ho Sau-lan, Frederick Fung Kin-kee, Gary Fan Kwok-wai and Raymond Wong Yuk-man) lost because whatever they had been been doing for the past decade or more does not work. PERIOD. It is time to do something else.

- After cleaning out the old farts, we have a bunch of new faces who will help us to realize our long-awaited dreams:

Praise to the election of Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) as the top vote-getter for a Super Seat!
We realized the dream that it is possible for someone who took 12 years and 6 attempts to get a passing grade in English in the Diploma of Secondary Education to become a Legislative Councilor!

Praise to the election of Nathan Law (Demosisto) in Hong Kong Island!
We realized the dream that it is possible for someone who has failed to complete schooling at the worst university in Hong Kong (Lingnan) and regularly criticized for illiteracy for his Facebook posts (often deleted afterwards) to become a Legislative Councilor!

Praise to the election of Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) in Kowloon West!
We realized the dream that it is possible for a 23-year-old female airhead whose patented response to tough questions is automatically: "I am not going to answer this. I am candidate number 13, Yau Wai Ching. Vote for me on September 3rd" to become a Legislative Councilor!

Praise to the election of Lau Siu Wai in Kowloon West!
We realized the dream that the Hong Kong streets will be filled with roaming unlicensed carts carrying boiling oil to cook stinky tofu!

Praise to the election of Eddie Chu Hoi Dick in New Territories West!
We realized the dream that the apartment that we bought in Yuen Long at the exorbitant price of $9,000 per sqft three years ago will soon fetch us $30,000 per sqft because Mr. Chu and his Land Justice League has promised to block all new construction anywhere anytime by anyone.

Praise to the election of Cheng Chung Tai in New Territories West!
We realized the dream that we can freely sever relationships with our parents due to political differences because the Honorable Cheng Chung Tai said that we can, we should and we must. Bonus: The Honorable Cheng Chung Tai also promised us that his first order to business is to destroy Jimmy Lai/Next Media! We can't wait ...

Praise to the election of Sixtus "Baggio" Leung Chung Hung in New Territories East!
We realized the dream that we will be able to throw bricks (literally) anywhere anytime at anyone in Hong Kong from now.

- (Oriental Daily) September 18, 2016.

Before even being sworn in, the newbies are making fools of themselves.

First, Youngspiration said that they support either Roy Kwong (top vote-getter in District Council (Second) Functional Constituency or Chu Hoi Dick (top vote-getter in geographical constituency to become the president of the Legislative Council. Clearly, Youngspiration was not familiar with Basic Law Article 71:

Article 71
The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be elected by and from among the members of the Legislative Council.

The President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a Chinese citizen of not less than 40 years of age, who is a permanent resident of the Region with no right of abode in any foreign country and has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 20 years.

Both Roy Kwong and Chu Hoi Dick are in their 30's. Never mind ...

Next Roy Kwong (Democratic Party) declared that it is inappropriate for someone from the Functional Constituency to become the president of the Legislative Council, because this person was not elected by the entire voter population. Kwong said: "I recommend James To (Democratic Party)."

It would seem that James To is in the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency, and Kwong has no idea what it is. Never mind ...

District Council (Second) Functional Constituency (5 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

Chances

801 James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) Extremely high
802 Starry Lee (DAB) Extremely high
803 Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) Extremely high
804 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) Very slim
805 Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) Very slim
806 Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) Fair
807 Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) Very slim
808 Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) Fair
809 Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) Fair

Hong Kong Island (6 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

Chances

1 Gary Wong Chi Him (independent) Somewhat low
2 Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) Somewhat low
3 Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) Extremely high
4 Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) Fair
5 Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) Fair
6 Chim Pui Chung (independent) Very slim
7 Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) Fair
8 Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) Extremely high
9 Shum Chee Chiu (independent) Very slim
10 Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) Somewhat high
11 Chui Chi Kin (independent) Very slim
12 Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) Very slim
13 Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) Somewhat high
14 Tanya Chan (Civic Party) Somewhat high
15 Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) Fair

Kowloon West (6 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

Chances

1 Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) Somewhat low
2 Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) Very slim
3 Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) Extremely high
4 Leung Mei Fun (BPA) Extremely high
5 Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) Somewhat low
6 Chu Siu Hung (independent) Very slim
7 Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) Fair
8 Helena Wong Pik Wan (Democratic Party) Fair
9 Lam Yi Lai (independent) Very slim
10 Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) Extremely high
11 Kwan San Wai (independent) Very slim
12 Lau Siu Lai (independent) Extremely high
13 Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) Fair
14 Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) Very slim
15 Tik Chi Yuen (independent) Fair

Kowloon East (5 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

Chances

1 Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) Extremely high
2 Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) Very slim
3 Patrict Ko Tat Pun (independent) Very slim
4 Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) Very slim
5 Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) Fair
6 Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) Somewhat high
7 Lui Wing Kei (independent) Very slim
8 Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) Extremely high
9 Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) Somewhat high
10 Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) Fair
11 Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) Somewhat low
12 Tam Tak Chi (People Power) Somewhat low

New Territories West (9 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

Chances

1 Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) Fair
2 Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) Fair
3 Ko Chi Fai (independent) Very slim
4 Chow Wing Kan (Liberal) Very slim
5 Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) Somewhat high
6 Kwong Koon Wan (independent) Very slim
7 Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) Extremely high
8 Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) Fair
9 Leung Che Cheung (DAB) Somewhat high
10 Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) Somewhat high
11 Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) Somewhat low
12 Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) Fair
13 Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) Very slim
14 Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) Fair
15 Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) Somewhat low
16 Chan Han Pan (DAB) Somewhat high
17 Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) Very slim
18 Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) Very slim
19 Tong Wing Chi (independent) Very slim
20 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) Extremely high

New Territories East (9 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

Chances

1 Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) Fair
2 Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) Fair
3 Liu Tin Shing (independent) Very slim
4 Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) Fair
5 Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) Somewhat high
6 Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) Somewhat high
7 Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) Extremely high
8 Raymond Mak Ka Chun (independent) Very slim
9 Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) Fair
10 Elizabeth Quat (DAB) Extremely high
11 Hau Chi Keung (independent)  
12 Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) Somewhat low
13 Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) Somewhat low
14 Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) Fair
15 Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) Very slim
16 Wong Sum Yu (independent) Very slim
17 Leticia Lee See Yin Very slim
18 Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) Fair
19 Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) Fair
20 Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) Very slim
21 Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) Fair
22 Chan Hak Kan (DAB) Somewhat high

(Suzanne Pepper) June 17, 2016.

Professor Joseph Cheng Yu-shek, pan-dems candidate coordinator for over a decade, carries on with his mission but says this year is especially difficult. Professor Benny Tai decided to try and do something more. He introduced his idea early this year, perhaps remembering how he launched the Occupy movement with a single dramatically-worded article three years ago, in early 2013. He calls his latest plan Thunderbolt 【雷動計劃】.

Tai has committed himself to the cause of self-determination for Hong Kong and was targeting especially its new-wave post-Occupy advocates who were not impressed with his good intentions. Someone said his plan would be a nightmare to implement. Someone else said it would be unfair to smaller parties. Prof. Tai means well but doesnt understand anything about electioneering, and so on. He has now revised his plan several times.

The thunderbolt he proposed was a 50% pro-democracy presence in the Legislative Council come September: 35 of the 70 seats. This would give them stronger bargaining power in future political reform negotiations with Beijing.  Pan-dem legislators had barely managed to hold together their one-third veto-power strength last year in order to defeat Beijings electoral reform mandate. The pressures had been intense. There was little margin for error.

Tai proposed to accomplish the goal with a logical do-able mix of seats. Democrats should be able to retain their three super seats, and win three more Functional Constituency seats to make nine instead of only six.  The directly-elected Geographic Constituency seats were something else again. They should actually be easy since pro-democracy candidates are still taking 55+% share of the direct popular vote. But they would have to win 23 of the 35 seats instead of only 18 as in 2012: 23 + 3 + 9 = 35.

To achieve his ideal 23-seat goal, however, Tai said the safest way to avoid splitting the pro-democracy vote would be to limit the number of lists fielded to the number of seats needed: 23 (Apple, Feb. 2).

At the time, activists were just beginning to make their election plans. But they were all thinking in terms of more, not less. The preliminary hopefuls noted above would add up to close to 40 lists. And that roster is far from complete.

With Benny Tais plan, not only would pro-democracy parties and candidates have to coordinate and sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but voters would also have to do their part by casting ballots for candidates they probably didnt like.

So Tai revised his plan. He suggested that in each of the five election districts, idealistic contingents of 10-20,000 voters could be mobilized to vote for candidates that polls identified as being in trouble (Ming Pao, Mar. 3, 23). This version didnt go down very well either.

One snag was that Tai seemed to be talking about exit polls on Election Day itself, with voters being alerted to come out late in the day. The art of the late afternoon phone call a tactic that the DAB has long been rumored to rely on even though it violates Hong Kong election rules. Still, the pro-Beijing press couldnt resist expressing shock at a law professor making such a proposal (Ta Kung Pao, June 7).

Undeterred, Tai amended his plan again and gave it a new name: ThunderGo. Several activist groups have also finally rallied to help him out. Theyve formed a new alliance called Citizens United in Action and are designing a new instant messaging app. Their program, called Votsonar, should be able to share data about voters preferences and like-minded candidates, plus their poll ratings as Election Day nears all without actually telling anyone how to vote (Apple, June 14).

(HK01) September 3, 2016. The Votsonar recommendations:

Category Name (Party) HKU POP poll %

Recommended Action for Strategic Voters

District Council (Second) James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) 25% Recommendation: Continue support
Functional Constituency Starry Lee (DAB) 24% Pro-establishment
 (5 seats) Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) 12% Pro-establishment
  Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 12% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) 9% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) 9% Pro-establishment
  Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) 5% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
  Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) 2% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
  Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) 1% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
       
       
Hong Kong Island Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) 22% Pro-establishment
 (6 seats) Tanya Chan (Civic Party) 15% Recommendation: Continue support
  Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) 12% Pro-establishment
  Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) 12% Independent
  Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) 9% Pro-establishment
  Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) 6% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) 6% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) 4% Recommendation: Switch away
  Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) 4% Recommendation: Switch away
  Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) 3% Recommendation: Switch away
  Chim Pui Chung (independent) 2% Pro-establishment
  Gary Wong Chi Him (independent) 1%  
  Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) 1% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
  Shum Chee Chiu (independent) 1%  
  Chui Chi Kin (independent) 1% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
       
       
Kowloon West Leung Mei Fun (BPA) 22% Pro-establishment
 (6 seats) Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) 18% Pro-establishment
  Helena Wong Pik Wan (Democratic Party) 12% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) 10% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Lau Siu Lai (independent) 9% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) 8% Recommendation: Switch away
  Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) 6% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Tik Chi Yuen (independent) 5% Recommendation: Switch away
  Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) 4% Recommendation: Switch away
  Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) 3% Recommendation: Switch away
  Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) 1% Recommendation: Switch away
  Chu Siu Hung (independent) 1%  
  Lam Yi Lai (independent) 1%  
  Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) 1%  
  Kwan San Wai (independent) 1%  
       
       
Kowloon East Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) 18% Pro-establishment
 (5 seats) Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) 16% Recommendation: Continue support
  Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) 15% Pro-establishment
  Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) 14% Pro-establishment
  Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) 14% Recommendation: Continue support
  Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) 9% Recommendation: Switch away
  Tam Tak Chi (People Power) 6% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) 3% Recommendation: Switch away
  Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) 2% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
  Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) 2% Recommendation: Switch away
  Patrict Ko Tat Pun (independent) 1%  
  Lui Wing Kei (independent) 1%  
       
       
New Territories West Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 16% Pro-establishment
 (9 seats) Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 9% Recommendation: Continue support
  Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 9% Recommendation: Continue support
  Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 8% Recommendation: Continue support
  Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 8% Pro-establishment
  Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 8% Pro-establishment
  Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 7% Pro-establishment
  Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 7% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Chan Han Pan (DAB) 7% Pro-establishment
  Lee Cheuk Yan (Labour Party) 5% Recommendation: Switch away
  Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 4% Recommendation: Switch away
  Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 4% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 3% Recommendation: Switch away
  Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 3% Recommendation: Switch away
  Chow Wing Kan (Liberal Party) 1% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
  Ko Chi Fai (independent) 1%  
  Kwong Koon Wan (independent) 1%  
  Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) 1% Recommendation: Suspended campaign, switch away
  Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) 1%  
  Tong Wing Chi (independent) 1%  
       
       
New Territories East Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) 15% Recommendation: Steady situation, continue to support
 (9 seats) Elizabeth Quat (DAB) 10% Pro-establishment
  Chan Hak Kan (DAB) 9% Pro-establishment
  Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) 7% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) 7% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) 7% Recommendation: Switch away
  Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) 6% Independent
  Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) 6% Recommendation: Switch away
  Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) 5% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) 5% Pro-establishment
  Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) 5% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) 5% Recommendation: Switch to vote for
  Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) 4% Pro-establishment
  Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) 3% Recommendation: Switch away
  Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) 3% Pro-establishment
  Hau Chi Keung (independent) 2% Pro-establishment
  Raymond Mak Ka Chun (independent) 1% Recommendation: Switch away
  Wong Sum Yu (independent) 1%  
  Leticia Lee See Yin 1%  
  Liu Tin Shing (independent) 1%  
  Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) 1%  
  Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) 1% Recommendation: Switch away

(SCMP)  September 7, 2016.

Strategic voting was in great play in the Legislative Council elections last Sunday, but pro-democracy candidates still had a lower success rate in winning seats due to severe infighting and a lack of accurate information flow within the camp.

Under the system of proportional representation adopted by Hong Kong, votes do not equal seats and parties try hard to maximise their votes strategically sometimes to the extent of voting for candidates other than their first choice because their first choice already has enough votes. Alternatively, they may give their votes to someone else to thwart a popular candidate they dislike.

Last Sunday, the traditional pan-democrats and localists secured 54.8 per cent of total votes in the elections and won 19 directly elected seats, while the pro-establishment camp bagged 40.3 per cent of votes and took 16 seats.

Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai Yiu-ting advocated what he called the Thunder Go plan ahead of the citywide polls, calling on the public to vote strategically.  His team launched a smartphone program to collect voters preferences for the candidates. It also came up with a list of recommended candidates hours before the polls closed on Sunday, advising voters to back those who they said were likely to be in the fight for the last seat.

Yet the election results suggest that the strategic voting did not work out well for the pan-democrats and localists in New Territories West and Kowloon East, where they failed to win the majority of seats despite bagging 54.8 per cent and 57.5 per cent of total votes respectively.

In one extreme case in New Territories West, four pro-democracy candidates the Labour Partys Lee Cheuk-yan, Wong Yun-tat of the Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre, the League of Social Democrats Raphael Wong Ho-ming and Frederick Fung Kin-kee of the Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood together garnered 97,524 votes, but none was returned.

Beijing-friendly Junius Ho Kwan-yiu received 35,657 votes and unseated Lee by 5,508 votes.

Apart from the New Peoples Partys Michael Tien Puk-sun, who received 70,646 votes, the other three elected Beijing-friendly lawmakers from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and Federation of Trade Unions garnered votes ranging from 49,680 to 58,673.

A study by the Post found that 59 per cent of 27 candidates leaning towards the establishment won the race in the five geographical constituencies, compared to 43 per cent of the 44 pan-democrat and localist candidates.

Adding to the problem was the Thunder Go scheme, which Ma criticised as unscientific.

The data they got was drawn from voters who joined the scheme on their own initiative, so it was not a random sample, he said.

But the scheme organisers treated the data as if it was randomly sampled, then recommended certain candidates and called on voters across the city to vote for them, which ended up twisting the election results, he said.

For New Territories West, why did Thunder Go suggest people vote for the Civic Partys Kwok Ka-ki but not Labours Lee Cheuk-yan? Whats the basis? Its not clear, he said. Some politicians I talked to tend to think the scheme has its political agenda.

The pro-Beijing camp managed to distribute the votes more evenly among its candidates because they had many supportive organisations catering to the likes of women, youth and the elderly. They urged members to vote for them, Ma added.

Democratic Party veteran Sin Chung-kai, who was in charge of the partys election strategy, stopped short of saying they were the victims of Thunder Go, but just a party affected by it.

Several Democrat candidates, including party vice-chairman Andrew Wan Siu-kin running in New Territories West, were forced to make an emergency appeal on Sunday as Thunder Go recommended people to vote for other aspirants who were less safe. They had good will in helping the pan-democrats gain more seats ... but on what basis did they come up with the list of recommended candidates [to vote for]? Did they ensure their program would not be hacked? Sin said. He called on Tai to come forward and offer the public an explanation.

(SCMP) September 7, 2016.

Occupy Central co-founder Benny Tai on Wednesday stopped short of apologising for the Thunder Go plan, a strategic voting scheme which is regarded as a factor leading to the defeat of several veteran pan-democrats in the Legislative Council elections.

But Tai, a legal scholar at University of Hong Kong, admitted there were deficiencies in the operation of the scheme, which he agreed should be thoroughly evaluated.

I think it is not about apology. I am sad to see some of my old friends losing their seats but some decisions still needed to be made, he told RTHK on Wednesday.

I totally accepted the criticisms and I hope people would offer counter suggestions so we could achieve a better effect next time should we advocate a strategic voting again.

Tai floated his Thunder Go plan in February, calling on pan-democrats and localists to minimise their candidate lists in the Legco elections in a bid to grab more than half the seats in the legislature without much infighting.

He then changed his focus to advocate strategic voting instead, after those parties failed to coordinate fielding less candidates.

His team subsequently launched a smartphone app VotSonar ahead of the polls to collect voters preferences on the candidates.

Those who joined the scheme also deliberated ahead of the polling day and came up with a list of recommended candidates. These candidates were regarded as having a chance of grabbing the last seat in direct elections, based on the latest public opinion polls and participants preference.

Labour Party veterans Lee Cheuk-yan and Cyd Ho Sau-lan, both not being chosen by the scheme, had lost the seats they held for years, with the former losing to Beijing-friendly solicitor Junius Ho Kwan-yiu by a 5,000 vote margin in New Territories West.

Critics had questioned the rationale of the schemes decision to recommend the League of Social Democrats Raphael Wong Ho-ming, who had been recording lower popularity ratings, and the Civic Partys Kwok Ka-ki instead of Lee. Wong eventually garnered only 28,529 votes, fewer than Lees 30,149.

Tai argued that the popularity ranking of the four relatively unsafe pro-democracy candidates in New Territories West was not as important after taking the margin of error into account.

The [pro-democracy] vote share shows that we could only save two candidates, he said. The scheme participants have decided to back [Kwok and Wong] after four hours of deliberation.

Tai said the plan had sent out an alert hours ahead of the polls deadline to urge voters to back Lee also, after finding the unprecedentedly high turnout rate could help send one more pan-democrat to the legislature. But the message was delayed because the system was hacked.

When asked if it was fair to spread the recommended lists to the public when it was only a result of the deliberation by a small group of some 1,000 people per constituency, Tai said: Everyone could start a group [to discuss strategic voting] and the Thunder Go plan is just one of them.

He said the number of people who were willing to engage in strategic voting was beyond his expectation.

Tai also dismissed the accusation that his plan had a political agenda to make him the leader of the camp.

From the very beginning, all I want to do is to help Hong Kongs democratic movement break through the stalemate, he said. I have no way to stop you if you insist on misunderstanding me I do not have a big team and money all I have is only a pen. I cannot see how I could play the role which people suggested.

The Occupy leader, who had been working closely with pan-democrats, admitted it might take some time to mend the rift with them after the setback.

My team joked last night that perhaps I am now the most criticised person after [Chief Executive] Leung Chun-ying, said Tai, adding he had not been in touch with any parties since the election so far. We could come together and discuss how to work it out in future.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 7, 2016.

The convenor of strategic voting plan ThunderGo has admitted to underestimating the entire situation on Wednesday after being criticised for causing the pan-democrats to lose the last seats in Sundays LegCo election.

The ThunderGo plan was announced in early February by law academic and Occupy co-founder Benny Tai. It originally called for pan-democrats to cooperate to obtain more than half the seats in the Legislative Council elections. Information on strategic voting was released to voters who wanted to participate through a messaging app.

Speaking to the press after appearing on a Commercial Radio programme, he said we definitely underestimated that the effect of strategic voting would be so strong.

According to an infographic created by commenters on an online forum, the last available seats were won by the pro-establishment camps Paul Tse Wai-chun in Kowloon East and Junius Ho Kwan-yiu in New Territories West. However, just behind Tse and Ho in votes were the opposition camps Wong Yeung-tat of Civic Passion and People Powers Tam Tak Chi in Kowloon East, as well as the Labour Partys Lee Cheuk-yan and the League of Social Democrats Raphael Wong Ho-ming in New Territories West.

Tam and Wong, who the ThunderGo plan supported, performed worse than the other candidates Wong and Lee, who ThunderGo advised voters to drop. Commenters said that the plan had screwed people over with its missteps. Had it advised voters to support Wong and Lee, the opposition would have won the final seats, said critics.

However, when asked whether ThunderGo led to veteran lawmakers losing their seats, Tai said he did not believe that ThunderGo was responsible for strategic voting. I believe that Hong Kong vot
ers did engage in strategic voting, but it was not ThunderGo rather it was what the voter believed they needed to do under such circumstances.

And the other problem is the fragmenting of the opposition camp, leading to many candidate lists. In this election, even though there is a high turnout, we can see that there has not been great change in the proportion of votes between the pro-establishment and opposition, he said, but there are new forces coming up in the opposition. And I think this is the root of the matter

Because the system was attacked, he said, information on strategic voting was delayed, and some strategic voters may have followed earlier advice instead. He also said that he could do a study to see if people participated in strategic voting and whether they participated in ThunderGo.

He told RTHK radio on the same day that he realised Hong Kong voters tend to participate late into social movements. They may not participate in a social movement in the very early stages, [and] strategic voting is a type of social movement, a political movement. But the interesting thing is that in the very last stages, their reactions will be far more than you expect, Tai said, so this definitely poses great difficulties for organisers of movements, which is how to achieve resonance [with the people]. This is something that the ThunderGo plan must reflect on.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) Pan-democratic critics of the Thunderbolt recommendations said that the list was biased for the large political parties (Civic Party and Democratic Party) and against the small political parties (Labour Party, the various localists, etc).

In the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency, the goal is to obtain 3 out of 5 seats and the recommendations fits conventional wisdom. James To is safe, and the other two pan-democrats (Kwong Chun Yu and Leung Yiu Chung) need help. Three other pan-democrats have suspended their campaigns in order to help Kwong and Leung too.

In Hong Kong Island, the goal is to obtain 3 out of 6 seats and the recommendations fit what the HKU POP poll says. Tanya Chan is safe, but the next two Nathan Law and Hui Chi Fung need help. All those behind are to be abandoned. This is the right decision if you believe the poll results.

In Kowloon West, the goal is to obtain 4 out of 6 seats and the recommendations are to vote for either #3 Helena Wong, #4 Claudia Mo, #5 Lau Siu Lai or #7 Yau Wai Ching. All others are to be abandoned. Well, why is #7 Yau Wai Ching at 6% selected ahead of #6 Raymond Wong Yuk Man at 8%? Thunderbolt said that the decision was made after discussions among the "smart voters" of Thunderbolt. Why? The only explanation is that they want to spite Raymond Wong for some reason.

In Kowloon East, the goal is to obtain 3 out of 5 seats. Jeremy Tam and Wu Chi Wai are safe. All else should vote for #7 Tam Tak Chi. Well, why is #7 Tam Tak Chi at 6% selected ahead of #6 Wong Yeung Tat at 9%? The only explanation is that the "smart voters" at Thunderbolt want to spite Wong Yeung Tat.

In New Territories West, the goal is to obtain 5 out of 9 seats. Andrew Wan, Eddie Chu and Cheng Chung Tai are safe. The recommendations are for all else to vote for Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) and Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats). Well, why is #11 Wong Ho Ming at 4% ahead of #10 Lee Cheuk Yan at 5%? Also this poll has been questioned, because nobody thinks that #3 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick or #4 Cheng Chung Tai should be ranked so highly. Why is incumbent Lee Cheuk Yan ranked so low?

[Update: 90 minutes before the polls close, Operation Thunderbolt announced that voter turnout is high in New Territories West and so the strategic voters should vote now for Lee Cheuk Yan.]

In New Territories East, the goal is to obtain 6 out of 9 seats. #1 Alvin Yeung is safe. The recommendations are for #4 Lam Cheuk Ting, #5 Leung Kwok Hung, #9 Cheung Chiu Hung, #11 Gary Fan Kwok Wai and #12 Raymond Chan Chi Chuen. The "smart voters" at Thunderbolt decided to abandon the #6 Sixtus "Baggio" Leung and #8 Chin Wan Kan. Why? The only explanation is that the "smart voters" at Thunderbold want to spite Edward Leung (whose puppet is "Baggio" Leung) and Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order (namely, Raymond Wong Yuk Man in Kowloon West, Wong Yeung Tat in Kowloon East and Chin Wan Kan in New Territories East). The only Civic Passion member to scrape through was Cheng Chung Tai, who was ranked too highly at #4 to be abandoned.

- Operation Thunderbolt is an excuse for a small number of people (billed as "25,000") to play God and exact vengeance on their real/imaginary enemies.

- Oy vey iz mir! Here are some of the noteworthy accomplishments of Operation Thunderbolt.

Kowloon East: Operation Thunderbolt recommends abandoning #6 Wong Yeung Tat and voting for #7 Tam Tak Chi in order to grab the fifth and last place from China Liaison Office's favorite son Paul Tse.
Outcome: Paul Tse 47527 votes; Wong Yeung Tat 33271 votes; Tam Tak Chi 31815 votes.
Question: Are we better off with abandoning #7 Tam Tak Chi and voting for #6 Wong Yeung Tat?

New Territories West: Operation Thunderbolt recommends abandoning #10 Lee Cheuk Yan and voting for #11 Wong Ho Ming in order to grab the ninth and last place from China Liaison Office's other favorite son Junius Ho.
Outcome: Lee Cheuk Yan 30149 votes; Wong Ho Ming 28529 votes; Junius Ho 35657 votes.
Question: Are we better off with abandoning #11 Wong Ho Ming and voting for #10 Lee Cheuk Yan?

New Territories East: Operating Thunderbolt recommends abandoning Baggio Leung in order to save Gary Fan Kwok Wai.
Outcome: Baggio Leung 35969 votes (elected); Gary Fan Kwok Wai 30662 votes (not elected).

Smart voters, smart Hong Kongers.

(HKG Pao)

Yesterday someone put up posters in Tai Hang saying "The Federation of Trade Unions has enough votes already; vote for the DAB instead." The Federation of Trade Unions said that the information is wrong and they did not put up those posters. They believe that someone is trying to influence the vote results. They plan to lodge complaints with the Hong Kong Police and the Electoral Affairs Commission.

(Headline Daily) September 1, 2016.

On the eve of the election, a FactWire reporter successfully entered the room where the election materials are being distributed. The reporters were registering and taking out these election materials (including vote registries and ballots). These people were given black suitcases with the words Registration and Electoral Office, and ballots in plastic bags were put into the suitcases. Downstairs more than 10 persons hauling REO suitcases were seen queuing for taxis.

The Registration and Electoral Affairs Office said that the same procedure has been used for many years and there has never been any problems. On this particular day, when the workers found this reporter entering the facility without authorization and taking photos, they stopped him and summoned the police.

(NOW TV) September 1, 2016.

TV Most posted a video in which someone portraying a member of the campaign team of Holden Chow (DAB) said that Chow's prospects in the District Council are very promising and that there is no need to vote for him. The video went on to mention that voting day is September 4.

Holden Chow and his team believes that this video is misleading and has lodged a complaint with the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

- Everything that TV Most said is true. Holden Chow's prospects just before the November 22, 2015 Tung Chung South district council election were very good indeed, and he went on to win. The Legislative Council elections will be held on September 4, 2016. It is you who over-reach if you think that Holden Chow's prospects for this Legislative Council election are very good, because TV Most never said it.

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1063924346976261/

- CAP 554 Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance

Section: 26 Illegal conduct to publish false or misleading statements about a candidate

(1) A person engages in illegal conduct at an election if the person publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about a particular candidate or particular candidates for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of the candidate or candidates.

(2) A candidate engages in illegal conduct at an election if the candidate publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about the candidate or candidates with whom the candidate is associated, or about another candidate or other candidates, for the purpose of-

(a) promoting the election of the candidate or candidates with whom the candidate is associated; or
(b) prejudicing the election of the other candidate or candidates.

(3) For the purposes of this section, statements about a candidate or candidates include (but are not limited to) statements concerning the character, qualifications or previous conduct of the candidate or candidates.

(4) In a prosecution for an offence of having engaged in illegal conduct under subsection (1) or (2), it is a defence to prove that the defendant believed on reasonable grounds that the statement was true at the time when it was made.

- When Ta Kung Pao tried to report on the peculiarities of Edward Leung's finances and the inconsistencies in his depiction of family situation, the Journalists Association condemned the newspaper.
When Sing Tao reported on the allegations of sexual harassment by Ricky Wong, the Journalists Association condemned the newspaper too.
Therefore, when TV Most made up an intentionally misleading story about candidate Holden Chow, the Journalists Association will say nothing.

Why?

Because freedom/democracy/human rights/universal values/rule of law/professional ethics.

The following nominees have suspended their campaigns for the Legislative Council elections:

- Tsui Chi Kin (independent), Hong Kong Island
- Paul Zimmerman (independent), Hong Kong Island
- Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party), Kowloon West
- Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party), District Council (Second) Functional Constituency
- Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL), District Council (Second) Functional Constituency

(SCMP) September 2, 2016.

Commentators said it was unclear whether the last-minute pullouts would work out in the pan-democrats favour. Under electoral rules, verified candidates cannot abandon the race at this stage, but can stop campaigning.

Professor Lau Siu-kai, former head of government think tank the Central Policy Unit, said time was limited for voters to fully understand their intentions and reconsider their choices. But the five could set the example for more underperforming pan-democrats, he said. In the best-case scenario, they could gain a few more seats if more withdrawals consolidated votes for stronger candidates.

Chinese University political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung could not recall something like this ever happening in the past. This could boost the pan-democrats image and morale but not necessarily the results, he said.

The chain of unexpected events was sparked by Suzanne Wu Sui-shan, the Labour Party chairwoman contesting in Kowloon East constituency, who said she wanted to set an example for her pan-democratic allies to focus on the whole picture.

Zimmerman and fellow Hong Kong Island contender Chui Chi-kin, who beat DAB lawmaker Christopher Chung Shu-kun in last years district council polls, have stopped electioneering. I hope you will all consider casting your vote for democrats who are almost in, Zimmerman said in a statement, suggesting his supporters switch to Demosisto candidate Nathan Law Kwun-chung.

The biggest surprise, however, was the pullout of the pair running for super seats, a functional constituency sector that provides a second vote for 3.5 million registered voters in the geographical constituencies.

The Civic Partys Sumly Chan Yuen-sum, who funded his own campaign as the party initially opposed his electioneering, made the announcement five hours after last appearing in Central to canvass votes. [We] urge voters to utilise their wisdom and ensure that the pan-democrats retain three super seats, party chairman Alan Leong Kah-kit said. Also giving up campaigning for a super seat was Kalvin Ho Kai-ming, of the Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood.

Internet comments:

- Thus spake the US Consulate General ...

- Thus spake Ken Chow Wing-kan: "An evil force far more powerful than the triad gangs or the China Liaison Office is involved ..." What else can that force be except the US Consulate General/CIA/NED?

- Here is a question about English grammar: Did the five suspend their campaigns? Or were their campaigns suspended for them by the party honchos?

- Deep behind is the assumption that Hong Kong voters are just pigs to be herded to feed in the troughs and fill in the ballots accordingly.

- The Magnificent Five are doing this in order to help the non-establishment camp continue to hold more than half of the geographical constituencies/District Council (Second) Functional Constituency as well as veto power (=two-thirds of the full Legislative Council).

- I salute the five! These courageous bailed out of the fight because they want to give the people more choice. Kudos to them!

- Only the fools from the pro-establishment camp would stay on all the way. They don't have the courage to quit.

- Absolutely no money was offered for them to quit. How do I know? Because we know pro-democracy people have integrity.

- (Wikipedia) "Each list of candidates is subject to a deposit of $50,000 for a geographical constituency, and $25,000 for a functional constituency. Deposits are forfeited if the list fails to receive at least 3% of the valid votes cast in the constituency." Don't worry -- the party bosses will reimburse our five heroes for the forfeited deposits.

- Everything that the five said about their original intention to come out to serve the people and fight for freedom and democracy means nothing when the Black Hand behind the curtain says NO!

- Here are the two opposing summaries:
(1) We salute you give for valuing the overall good.
(2) You said that you entered the election because the people need you and now you abandon them in the moment of greatest need.

- The China Liaison Office is unable to get the DAB, FTU, BPA, Liberal Party, Heung Yee Kuk and others to coordinate their efforts. However, Jimmy Lai, Anson Chan and other pan-democratic honchos can get Civic Party, Democratic Party, ADPL and others to do their bidding. This shows that Hong Kong will function more smoothly and efficiently under pan-democratic rule.

- There is another possible outcome than Roy Kwong (Democratic Party) eking out a victory over Holden Chow (DAB) for the fifth and final place. It is possible that the pan-democratic supporters of Sumly Chan and Kalvin Ho find Roy Kwong insufferable (and he is indeed just that) and stay home in droves. The result may be that the Starry Lee (DAB) list will gain two Legco seats!

- Eh, who were the people who say that the universal values are for "anyone who wants to stand for election should be allowed to, and anyone who wants to vote can vote for whoever they want." You know, no 篩選 (screening). But these five people have just screened themselves out.

- No, their names remain on the ballots and therefore you can still vote for them.

- In fact, I recommend that we vote for Sumly Chan. It would be delicious payback and an exercise of people power if Sumly Chan ends up with more votes than Roy Kwong.

- If Sumly Chan is actually elected, will he take up the position after he abandoned his effort and let his supporters down?

- And what is wrong with this Sumly Chan guy? He is a District Councilor for the Lei Muk Shue East district. When he said that he wanted to run for Legislative Councilor, the Civic Party said no. But ultimately the Civic Party relented and let him run. But when the going gets tough, the Civic Party made him suspend his campaign.  STOP WASTING OUR TIME!

- When Ken Tsang wanted to run in the Social Welfare sector of the Legislative Council, the Civic Party kicked him out. They would have done that to Sumly Chan but not the fact that he was untouchable in Lei Muk Shue East district.

- Disposable diapers are always discarded after being used.

- Here I am reminded of the words on the bandana of Johanne Liu, better known as Taiwan's Sunflower Queen: "Democracy cannot be swapped/traded/bartered/exchanged."

- The whole city is angry!
On the evening of September 2, numerous candidates in the opposition camp gave up their campaign.
They toyed with the voters, they toyed with the election.
This is the darkest night in the history of democracy in Hong Kong
We will not tolerate this!
All those voters who don't like being toyed around should come out on September 4th
to punish the pan-democrats with their votes.

- (Bastille Post) September 2, 2016. For days, rumors swelled that the pan-democrats intend to abandon some of their candidates with lesser chances in order to secure the seats for other candidates with better chances. Finally, it has happened with five pan-democratic candidates declaring openly that they are abandoning their quests.

According to pan-democratic insiders, the pan-democratic bosses were behind the scenes holding many negotiations. The main purpose is to trade interests: If you give up in this district, I will make for you in that other district, etc. Even if the candidates don't agree, they can't ward off the pressure from the party bosses. The supporters may be disappointed and the candidates may find it hard to run for elections again, but that is another story sometime in the future.

In this round of abandonment, Sumly Chan (Civic Party) has 5% support and Ho Kai-ming (ADPL) has 2% support in the race for the five District Council (Second) Functional Constituency seats. Together they have 7%. If 2% of that goes to James To (Democratic Party), 2% to Roy Kwong (Democratic Party) and 1% goes to Leung Yiu Chung (Neighbourhold and Worker's Service Centre), it may be enough to elect all three.

According to an informed source, this deal is the biggest political deal in the history of Hong Kong democracy. It should increase the number of seats for the pan-democrats. But the legacy is that the voters are being denied their right to choose. The Civic Party once fielded a candidate in the Chief Executive election with the slogan "You are the boss only if you can choose." But this won't happen for their supporters this time in the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency.

The second problem is that the whole affair was manipulated behind the curtain by the pan-democratic party bosses. This is completely in violation of the principles of openness and transparency. The pan-democrats always criticize the government of lacking openness and transparency, but that is exactly what they are doing now.

The third problem is that this is a case of the larger parties bullying the smaller parties. This round of action was decided by the Civic Party, Democratic Party, Labour Party plus the pan-democratic big bosses. Those who stand to gain will be the larger parties. Those who stand to lose are the smaller parties who were in the deal (e.g. Youngspiration).

After this episode, the pan-democrats may win their coveted Legco seats but they have lost the moral high ground. When they criticize the government for black-box operations and bartering favors/interests, the government will have plenty of ammunition to hit back.

- (Ta Kung Pao) September 2, 2016.

Outside Elizabeth House (Wanchai), there is a 315 square meter billboard for Sumly Chan (Civic Party), who is Audrey's choice for Super Seat. According to information, this billboard should cost $400,000 in rental fee. But according to the Buildings Ordinance, this is a large billboard that requires an architectural plan approved by the Buildings Department. In response to our inquiry, the Buildings Department confirmed that the Civic Party billboard is an illegal structure that should be dismantled immediately. When we called candidate Sumly Chan for comment, we were forwarded to the call center.

- If Sumly Chan knew what his chances were and never entered, the Civic Party would have saved a few hundred thousand dollars renting that billboard.

- The nerve of them!

The Civic Party is asking everybody to donate money to pay for the vast expenditure incurred by Sumly Chan in his Super Seat campaign.

- Why bother? Just send the bill to the Democratic Party c/o Roy Kwong Chun Yu.

- This is just a smoke screen. The bill is more than covered by Jimmy Lai. But the Civic Party has to go through the pretense of raising money.

- Was the deal in the making a long ago already? Here are the economic incentives.

In the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency, each candidate can spend up to a maximum amount of $6,936,000. If you are by yourself, that's all you can spend. But if you can get a couple of other people to run as well, they each can spend $6,936,000. Two days before the election, those two people say that they are suspending their campaign and asking everybody to vote for 'like-minded' people (namely, you because their messages had been crafted as a perfect fit with yours). That is to say, you will harvest the fruits of $6,936,000 x 3 = $20,808,000 in campaign spending.

So did Sumly Chan and Kalvin Ho enter the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency election in order to build a base of supporters to be handed over to Roy Kwong?

- It's not only about the money. It's also about air time. For voters, the primary source of information is the electronic forums on television and radio. At these forums, the candidates get equal time. The pro-establishment camp is targeting with precision (for example, three candidates for three of the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency seats). If the pan-democrats also field three candidates, then the battle will be for the fifth and last spot given the 55%/45% split among all voters.

However, the pan-democrats fielded 6 candidates. So if each candidate gets 10 minutes of air time, the pro-establishment camp gets 30 minutes in total while the pro-democracy camp gets 60 minutes. That is twice as much time to make negative criticisms of the opposing side.

- Sorry, the money guy has just decided that the five of you have just been 'screened' out of the Legco elections.

- A trip down memory lane with these candidates talking about democracy ideals beliefs principles dedication trust honesty integrity commitment confidence blah blah blah
https://www.facebook.com/434483659936746/videos/1240952462623191/
https://www.facebook.com/1818980738333851/videos/1842906092607982/

- A sixth candidate Clarice Cheung (independent) announced late in the night that she has suspended her campaign as well.

- Because of the timing, Clarice Cheung was probably not invited to the party by the pan-democratic honchos. She just threw in the towel by following the lead of the Five Martyrs of the Democratic Revolution.

- Clarice Cheung is a copy cat. Her case isn't even reported in the media.

- And now we have a seventh pan-democratic candidate throwing in the towel.

(The Stand News) Last night five pan-democratic candidates suspended their respective campaigns. In the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency, Sumly Chan (Civic Party) and Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) did so.
 
ID# Name (Party)
801 James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party)
802 Starry Lee (DAB)
803 Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party)
804 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL)
805 Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party)
806 Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions)
807 Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats)
808 Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre)
809 Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB)

Of the remaining 7, James To, Starry Lee, Wong Kwok Hing and Leung Yiu Chung are considered safe bets. This leaves the two pan-democratic candidates Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) and Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) fighting the pro-establishment Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) for the fifth and final spot. Last night, Kwan Wing Yip said that he will continue his campaign.

This morning at 11am, Kwan Wing Yip and the Neo Democrats announced that Kwan is suspending his campaign as well. At the press conference, Kwan said that his team came under a great deal of pressure. So his decision was a difficult one on the darkest day of his political career. It is also a blight on the Neo Democrats and all those who are fighting for democracy.

Kwan said that someone spout democracy talk when they are actually destroying Hong Kong core values. Other Neo Democrats present implied that the pressure came from the Democratic Party.

Kwan apologized to the voters. He said that he entered the election in order to give voters more choices, but in the end he let them down.

- Of all people, Kwan Wing Yip deserves the least respect. The Neo Democrats used to be part of the Democratic Party. They broke away in 2010 because the Democratic Party entered a deal to establish the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency. In the 2012 Legislative Council elections, they refused to enter a candidate for the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency as a matter of principle. In the 2015 District Council elections, they won 15 seats, enough to secure a nomination for the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency election in 2016. So they tossed their principle aside and fielded Kwan Wing Yip. Now Kwan and the Neo Democrats have just given up the campaign in order to preserve the seat for the Democratic Party candidate. Shameless!

- The Neo Democrats said that they will now focus on preserving Gary Fan Kwok Wai's seat in New Territories East. They urged the other New Territories East candidate Andrew Cheng Kar Foo to consider suspending his campaign in order to make sure that the pan-democrats keep six seats.

Ha ha ha. As soon as the Neo Democrats finished whining about the Democratic Party applying pressure on them, they turned around to apply pressure on an independent candidate.

Definition of Bully: A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

- Well, how are some words left on a Facebook going to intimidate Kwan Wing Yip? The only logical explanation is that certain dark secrets known to the Democratic Party will be published tomorrow if Kwan Wing Yip does not quit.

- It is a sad sight to see that on a day when 7 candidates were forced to quit, the pan-democrats failed to notice the terror of the Black Hand behind the scene and cheered their Seven Martyrs of the Democracy Movement in Hong Kong for their courage. This is truly pathetic.

- CAP 619 Competition Ordinance

Bid-rigging (圍標) means

(a) an agreement

(i) that is made between or among 2 or more undertakings whereby one or more of those undertakings agrees or undertakes not to submit a bid or tender in response to a call or request for bids or tenders, or agrees or undertakes to withdraw a bid or tender submitted in response to such a call or request; and

(ii) that is not made known to the person calling for or requesting bids or tenders at or before the time when a bid or tender is submitted or withdrawn by a party to the agreement or by an entity controlled by any one or more of the parties to the agreement; or

(b) a submission, in response to a call or request for bids or tenders, of bids or tenders that are arrived at by an agreement

(i) that is made between or among 2 or more undertakings; and

(ii) that is not made known to the person calling for or requesting bids or tenders at or before the time when a bid or tender is submitted or withdrawn by a party to the agreement or by an entity controlled by any one or more of the parties to the agreement;

- The whole affair is a classical case of 'bid-rigging.' The process begins by fielding many puppet 'pro-democracy' candidates to dilute the message from the pro-establishment candidates. At the election forums, they take up the majority of speaking time. Two days before the election, the masterminds order the puppet candidates to quit in a high-profiled manner, leaving only the candidates that the bosses want to see elected.

Will those puppet candidates have to sacrifice a lot, given that they have spent millions on advertising? The answer is clearly NO. The bosses will see to it that these puppets will make much more than their expenses, one way or the other. Nobody gets into business in order to lose money, especially those calculating political hacks.

- A "Deep Throat" has published this chronology of events:

August 31. Martin Lee and Albert Ho of the Democratic Party asked Jimmy Lai (Next Media) to urge the Civic Party to make Sumly Chan quit so that his votes can be passed on to Roy Kwong (Democratic Party).

September 1 morning. Jimmy Lai met wit Albert Ho and Lee Wing Tat of the Democratic Party for lunch and promised to compensate all those who abandon their campaigns. The money will be funneled through Ho and the amount will be at least double what was spent so far.

Audrey Eu met with Paul Zimmerman and Chui Chi-kin to persuade them to abandon their campaigns and pass on their votes to Cyd Ho (Labour Party).

September 2 morning. Joseph Cheng held a box lunch in Tamar to discuss the strategy for campaign suspensions. Martin Lee, Alan Leong (Civic Party), Emily Lau (Democratic Party), Lee Cheuk Yan (Labour Party) and Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) were spotted.

Martin Lee said that anyone who refuses to quit will be a sinner to be persecuted with every means possible.

Sumly Chan, Kalvin Ho Kai-ming, Kwan Wing Yip, Paul Zimmerman and Chui Chi-kin were forced to abandon their campaigns.

September 2 afternoon. Jimmy Lai met with Lee Cheuk Yan and Lam Cheuk Ting for afternoon tea, and promised once more to compensate those who abandon their campaigns.

September 2 evening. Sumly Chan, Kalvin Ho Kai-ming, Kwan Wing Yip, Paul Zimmerman and Chui Chi-kin announced that they are abandoning their campaigns.

September 2 late night. Anson Chan and Martin Lee met to discuss strategies in the geographical constituencies. They want to save Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) and abandon Cyd Ho (Labour Party) in Hong Kong Island; save Lau Siu Lai and abandon Raymond Wong and Yau Wai-ching in Kowloon West; save Wong Yeung Tat and abandon Jeremy Tam in Kowloon East; save Lam Cheuk Ting and abandon Cheung Chiu Hung in New Territories East; save Kwok Ka-ki and Lee Cheuk Yan and abandon Frederick Fung Kin-kee in New Territories West.

September 2 late night. Gary Fan called a meeting of Neo Democrats and demanded Kwan Wing Yip to quit, because the choice was either to betray the voters or the pan-democrats. He said that Jimmy Lai will compensate Kwan generously. Kwan tried to fight for his own case, but he was forced to accept with tears in his eyes.

September 3. Kwan Wing Yip announced that he was abandoning his campaign and considered this to be darkest day in his political life. Jimmy Lai met with Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) and Roy Kwong. Leung Kwok Hung agreed to meet with Chan Chi-chuen (People Power) to persuade Chan to abandon his campaign.

Internet comments:

- Mom, I am going to stand here, hold my breath and stop breathing until you buy me that Barbie doll!!! I mean it!!!

- Hmm, you can hold your breath until you pass out. But once you pass out, your body will start breathing again. So this is a waste of time. But if you can die if you try this standing on the ledge of the roof or sitting in a filled bathtub. The coroner will write down the cause of death as: Expired due to gross stupidity.

- This kid needs to study more. For example, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are located in Central Asia, and Central Asia is not the Middle East.

- As another example, there is something known as "fiscal multiplier of infrastructure spending." For example, each dollar of infrastructure spending increases the GDP by two dollars. Without building the roads, railways, port terminals and airport, Hong Kong would not have a logistics industry at all.

- Wow! I just checked the map of the One Belt One Road countries. The "Middle East" is a very big place, running from Italy to Russia to India to Singapore. I didn't know that before, but now I have learned something new from this 15-year-old.

- There are good reasons why 15-year-olds are not allowed to vote. You have just seen them.

(Hong Kong Research Association) 2,188 persons aged 18 or over were interviewed between August 29 and September 1, 2016.

Q1. What is the issue that you are most concerned about?
27.8%: Political system/governance
24,2%: Land/housing
13,3%: Economic development
10.6%: Medical/healthcare
6.1%: Education
5.4%: Labor/employment
1.9%: Environmental protection
4.9%: Others
5.8%: No opinion

Q2. What is the main reason for deciding on whom to vote for?
25.1%: Policy platform
22.8%: Past job performance
19.5%: Political party background
18.4%: Political beliefs
6.3: Candidate's image
2.8%: Strategic voting
2.1%: Others
3.2%: No opinion

Q3. How likely are you to vote?
55.8%: Definitely
21.3%: Most likely
3.9%: Most likely not
4.7%: Definitely not
11.2%: Undecided
1.1%: No opinion

District Council (Second) Functional Constituency (5 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

%

801 James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) 15.6%
802 Starry Lee (DAB) 20.5%
803 Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) 4.9%
804 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) 2.8%
805 Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) 4.7%
806 Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) 6.1%
807 Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) 3.0%
808 Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 7.0%
809 Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) 5.2%
  Undecided 21.4%
  No opinion 8.8%

Hong Kong Island (6 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Gary Wong Chi Him (independent) 1.1%
2 Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) 1.5%
3 Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) 15.7%
4 Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) 6.9%
5 Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) 7.6%
6 Chim Pui Chung (independent) 0.8%
7 Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) 3.4%
8 Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) 3.4%
9 Shum Chee Chiu (independent) 0.6%
10 Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) 12.3%
11 Chui Chi Kin (independent) 0.6%
12 Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) 2.5%
13 Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) 4.9%
14 Tanya Chan (Civic Party) 9.8%
15 Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) 5.5%
  Undecided 16.7%
  No opinion 6.7%

Kowloon West (6 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) 1.9%
2 Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) 0.5%
3 Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) 12.3%
4 Leung Mei Fun (BPA) 9.2%
5 Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) 2.9%
6 Chu Siu Hung (independent) 0.8%
7 Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) 5.5%
8 Helena Wong Pik Wan (Democratic Party) 9.6%
9 Lam Yi Lai (independent) 0.5%
10 Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) 11.9%
11 Kwan San Wai (independent) 0.0%
12 Lau Siu Lai (independent) 5.8%
13 Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) 6.3%
14 Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) 0.6%
15 Tik Chi Yuen (independent) 3.9%
  Undecided 20.6%
  No opinion 7.7%

Kowloon East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) 10.3%
2 Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) 1.0%
3 Patrict Ko Tat Pun (independent) 1.0%
4 Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) 2.0%
5 Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) 7.0%
6 Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) 10.9%
7 Lui Wing Kei (independent) 0.4%
8 Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) 12.4%
9 Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) 12.6%
10 Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) 4.9%
11 Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) 1.8%
12 Tam Tak Chi (People Power) 4.2%
  Undecided 20.7%
  No opinion 10.8%

New Territories West
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 2.2%
2 Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 5.9%
3 Ko Chi Fai (independent) 0.0%
4 Chow Wing Kan (Liberal) 1.2%
5 Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 4.5%
6 Kwong Koon Wan (independent) 0.0%
7 Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 11.3%
8 Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 3.8%
9 Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 6.5%
10 Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 4.9%
11 Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 3.1%
12 Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) 4.1%
13 Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 2.7%
14 Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 5.5%
15 Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 3.6%
16 Chan Han Pan (DAB) 7.0%
17 Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) 0.0%
18 Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) 0.5%
19 Tong Wing Chi (independent) 0.1%
20 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 2.9%
  Undecided 22.2%
  No opinion 8.0%

New Territories East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) 3.7%
2 Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) 4.2%
3 Liu Tin Shing (independent) 0.5%
4 Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) 2.7%
5 Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) 3.3%
6 Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) 2.3%
7 Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) 10.2%
8 Raymond Mak Ka Chun (independent) 0.9%
9 Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) 3.0%
10 Elizabeth Quat (DAB) 9.3%
11 Hau Chi Keung (independent) 0.5%
12 Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) 4.1%
13 Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) 4.0%
14 Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) 3.3%
15 Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) 0.1%
16 Wong Sum Yu (independent) 0.0%
17 Leticia Lee See Yin 1.1%
18 Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) 1.3%
19 Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) 4.4%
20 Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) 0.3%
21 Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) 4.3%
22 Chan Hak Kan (DAB) 8.6%
  Undecided 20.4%
  No opinion 7.5%

(Hong Kong Research Association) 5,016 persons aged 18 or over were interviewed between August 20 and August 29, 2016.

Q1. What is the issue that you are most concerned about?
26.2%: Political system/governance
23.1%: Land/housing
12.9%: Economic development
11.2%: Medical/healthcare
6.3%: Labor/employment
5.8%: Education
2.2%: Environmental protection
5.5%: Others
6.8%: No opinion

Q2. What is the main reason for deciding on whom to vote for?
25.3%: Past job performance
21.5%: Policy platform
18.2%: Political party background
17.5%: Political beliefs
7.2%: Candidate's image
2.3%: Strategic voting
3.6%: Others
4.5%: No opinion

Q3. How likely are you to vote?
58.2%: Definitely
18.5%: Most likely
4.2%: Most likely not
3.8%: Definitely not
23.7%: Undecided
1.6%: No opinion

District Council (Second) Functional Constituency (5 seats)
ID# Name (Party)

%

801 James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) 17.5%
802 Starry Lee (DAB) 20.4%
803 Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) 4.1%
804 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) 2.7%
805 Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) 3.9%
806 Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) 7.0%
807 Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) 3.2%
808 Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 8.6%
809 Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) 4.4%
  Undecided 21.3%
  No opinion 6.9%

Hong Kong Island
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Gary Wong Chi Him (independent) 0.4%
2 Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) 2.5%
3 Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) 18.5%
4 Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) 6.2%
5 Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) 8.0%
6 Chim Pui Chung (independent) 0.6%
7 Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) 3.4%
8 Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) 1.6%
9 Shum Chee Chiu (independent) 0.4%
10 Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) 10.3%
11 Chui Chi Kin (independent) 0.2%
12 Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) 1.6%
13 Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) 5.4%
14 Tanya Chan (Civic Party) 12.7%
15 Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) 5.1%
  Undecided 18.7%
  No opinion 4.4%

Kowloon West
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) 3.5%
2 Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) 0.1%
3 Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) 13.8%
4 Leung Mei Fun (BPA) 11.4%
5 Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) 3.8%
6 Chu Siu Hung (independent) 0.0%
7 Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) 4.6%
8 Helena Wong  Pik Wan (Democratic Party) 8.2%
9 Lam Yi Lai (independent) 0.1%
10 Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) 12.1%
11 Kwan San Wai (independent) 0.1%
12 Lau Siu Lai (independent) 4.5%
13 Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) 6.5%
14 Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) 1.3%
15 Tik Chi Yuen (independent) 4.0%
  Undecided 18.5%
  No opinion 7.6%

Kowloon East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) 11.2%
2 Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) 0.8%
3 Patrict Ko Tat Pun (independent) 0.6%
4 Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) 2.5%
5 Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) 7.1%
6 Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) 10.9%
7 Lui Wing Kei (independent) 0.2%
8 Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) 12.2%
9 Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) 18.9%
10 Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) 4.4%
11 Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) 1.1%
12 Tam Tak Chi (People Power) 3.1%
  Undecided 20.5%
  No opinion 6.5%

New Territories Wst
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & `Worker's Service Centre) 2.6%
2 Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 6.2%
3 Ko Chi Fai (independent) 0.1%
4 Chow Wing Kan (Liberal) 0.7%
5 Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 2.5%
6 Kwong Koon Wan (independent) 0.1%
7 Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 12.4%
8 Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 3.4%
9 Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 5.4%
10 Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 5.5%
11 Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 3.5%
12 Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) 7.0%
13 Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 5.0%
14 Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 4.6%
15 Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 4.1%
16 Chan Han Pan (DAB) 5.7%
17 Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) 0.3%
18 Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) 0.0%
19 Tong Wing Chi (independent) 0.1%
20 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 1.5%
  Undecided 23.3%
  No opinion 6.1%

New Territories East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) 4.3%
2 Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) 5.0%
3 Liu Tin Shing (independent) 0.5%
4 Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) 2.7%
5 Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) 3.0%
6 Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) 4.0%
7 Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) 10.0%
8 Raymond Mak Ka Chun (independent) 0.7%
9 Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) 4.6%
10 Elizabeth Quat (DAB) 8.7%
11 Hau Chi Keung (independent) 0.7%
12 Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) 6.0%
13 Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) 2.4%
14 Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) 3.9%
15 Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) 0.1%
16 Wong Sum Yu (independent) 0.0%
17 Leticia Lee See Yin 0.8%
18 Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) 2.2%
19 Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) 2.8%
20 Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) 0.5%
21 Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) 4.0%
22 Chan Hak Kan (DAB) 6.4%
  Undecided 19.8%
  No opinion 7.0%

(The Stand News) August 24, 2016.

Cable TV sponsored an election forum last night for the Kowloon West district. Afterwards, the supporters of Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) and CK Ho (Hong Kong Localism Power) quarreled outside the venue. After Wong left in a car, the scene got chaotic with clashes. The police used pepper spray and police batons to maintain order.

According to Passion Times (Civic Passion), abut 10 or so HK Peanut members led by former League of Social Democrats chairman Andrew as well other League of Social Democrats/People Power supporters harassed Raymond Wong. When the information got out, more than one hundred Civic Passion, Proletariat Political Institute and City-State supporters rushed over to help Wong.

Meanwhile Andrew To said that they were surrounded and shouted at by almost 100 Civic Passion members. CK Ho's car was vandalized with many scratch marks. CK Ho's campaign manager Yeung Kai-cheung said: "There was no incident of surrounding Wong that Civic Passion described. As for what happens afterwards, you can watch the video for yourselves. In the end, the car of CK Ho's friend was scratched. Such are the accomplishments of the Valiant Ones. Civic Passion always provoke others first and then play victims afterwards."

The Hong Kong Police said that one police was injured during a melee. He sustained injuries to the neck and eye and taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for treatment. In addition, a car was prevented from leaving at the scene. After issuing verbal warnings, the police applied pepper spray. Two police officers sustained injuries to the hand and chest, and taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for treatment.

Videos:

https://youtu.be/6gw4ur9ToSw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGW8iwlSGi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySMEXmtItw

https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1762743997270847/

https://www.facebook.com/passiontimes/videos/1185175438212288/
https://www.facebook.com/passiontimes/videos/1185145024881996/

Internet comments:

- Being the crafty Supreme Leader, Raymond Wong was the first to leave the scene. As usual.

- When they heard that there were only 10 LSD/PP people there, more than 100 Civic Passion rushed over to display their valor. But where were they when Zhang Dejiang came to town? What happened to all the talk about valiant conquering the People's Liberation Army?

- Who are the League of Social Democrats and People Power anyway? At one time or the other, Raymond Wong was the Supreme Leader of the League of Social Democrats and People Power too. His discarded followers is a list of who's who in social activism: Edward Yum Liang-hsien, Andrew To Kwan-hang, Avery Ng Man-yuen, Raphael Wong Ho-ming, Leung Kwok-hung, Albert Chan Wai-yip, etc. His political career is a series of setting up political organizations and blowing them up when they go beyond his control. In practical terms, he must be seen as a tool for the Chinese Liaison Office to destroy the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.

- Apple Daily has even made a documentary of Raymond Wong and the various generations of favorite sons.

- https://www.facebook.com/passiontimes/videos/1185145024881996/ The highly popular Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) being welcomed by citizens at the Tsuen Wan MTR station.

- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9eAaYmezqw Civic Passion or triad thugs?

- https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1057614217607274/ Another day, another non-contact boxing match. Wong Yeung Tat vs. Tam Tak Chi at a Kowloon East forum.

- What valor? They clashed for several hours but not a single drop of blood could be found. Why bother?

- Here is the League of Social Democrats on October 9, 2014. They are arguing with other citizens whether they can eat hot pot dinner and play mahjong in the middle of Nathan Road (Mong Kok) in the name of the Revolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFr9OWNVqOk After 30 minutes of discussion, nothing was settled.

Meanwhile Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) made an emergency appeal to Occupy Central participants not to cook with open stoves or drink alcohol in the middle of Nathan Road. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vjeb3qgC8Y

- The alternate model is to hire actors to play villagers to lay siege to a pro-establishment incumbent Legislative Councilor: https://www.facebook.com/434483659936746/videos/1231080153610422/

- Or if you prefer something nonviolent and light-hearted, here is Alvin Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) smugly accusing Christopher Lau (People Power) of characterizing the Hong Kong government as a democratic government. What Christopher Lau said (in English) is: "This is NOT a democratic government. This is NOT a democratic parliament. They don't have to listen to you. They don't have the election pressure." How can Cheng who claims to have studied in Queensland (Australia) not understand this very simple English? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Ws_RgQj_w

Later, Paul Zimmerman (independent) asked Alvin Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) about the solution to land supply. Begin at 7:34 in  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdJZMa-SJiA. Cheng bailed and let Bonix Chung handled it by saying that they advocate constitutional reform to monitor the government blah blah blah ... That is obviously not answering the question, so Zimmerman rephrased the question as: "What land do we use? ... Are you in support of the small house policy or not?" Chung continued to mumble about there being plenty of land still in government hands blah blah blah. Zimmerman pressed on: "One of your colleagues in New Territories East supports the small house policy. Is that correct?" Finally Alvin Cheng takes over the microphone: "Actually the problem goes back to the population policy because if we cannot estimate the number of people who will be in Hong Kong ... for example, 150 one-way visa holders per day right now ... we cannot formulate our land policy." Zimmerman asked about the 'brown fields' which pollute the land, and Cheung/Chung said that land use is not transparent and that is why it is important to have a constitutional reform in order to monitor the government. Zimmerman said that land use data can be found by accessing a government website ...

- https://www.facebook.com/1818980738333851/videos/1839155459649712/ Video of Civic Passion volunteers covering up the banners of rival candidates.

- (Headline Daily) August 24, 2016. CK Ho has filed a police report that a Raymond Wong supporter has threatened on Facebook to kill him and Edward Yum. The person threatened to kill, burn his body and use it as a Buddhist talisman.

- Here is another adventure for Civic Passion. (Wen Wei Po) August 28, 2016.

Last night a citizen found Civic Passion members Alvin Cheng Kam-mun, Bonix Chung and others taking down the banners for DAB candidates Alvin Cheng Kam-mun and Cheung Kwok-kwan in Wah Kwai Estate, Pok Fu Lam district, Hong Kong Island. So the citizen took out his camera to film.

A female Civic Passion member spotted him and yelled, "Mister, do these banners belong to you? If so, will you please acknowledge?"

Cheng Kam-mun also came up to this citizen in an intimidating manner: "Are they yours? Did you file an application?" The citizen asked them to identify themselves and explain why they are taking down other people's banners. Cheng said that they are not taking down those banners. Rather, these banners were "unsupervised" and "can fall down upon pedestrians if there is rain and wind." Therefore, Civic Passion is taking the action "in order to protect the citizens of Hong Kong." As such, they do not need any authorization.

A large number of Civic Passion members rushed up to surround this citizen. Some of them blocked the camera, other used foul language to curse him and still others charged up, screamed and threatened to attack him. When Cheng realized that the Civic Passion people were out of control, he separated them from the citizen and left. Cheng has a number of court cases still pending and cannot afford to violate the terms of probation.

(SCMP) August 21, 2016.

Hundreds of people took to the streets on Sunday in a protest march against the disqualification of six pro-independence Legislative Council candidates, as marchers said they were there to defend Hong Kongs political rights and freedom of speech not to support independence.

Organisers estimated that 1,300 protesters took part, while a police spokeswoman said the marchs turnout peaked at 760.

The rally drew lukewarm response from localist groups. Among the six banned aspirants, only Alice Lai Yi-man, Nakade Hitsujiko and Yeung Ke-cheong showed up, while independent candidate James Chan Kwok-keung, Hong Kong National Partys Chan Ho-tin, and Hong Kong Indigenous Edward Leung Tin-kei did not attend.

March organiser Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit, convenor of Civil Human Rights Front an alliance of pan-democratic groups had estimated that up to 2,000 people would gather in Causeway Bay when the march kicked off at 3pm.

After the protest ended outside Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings office in Admiralty at 4.30pm, Sham said he was neither satisfied nor disappointed with the turnout. Many people came out to express their discontent, so how can we be happy when people are angry? he explained.

One of the participants, Chily Chau, a second-year social work student at Baptist University, said: I have reservations about independence as a way out for Hong Kong... and I might not vote for a pro-independence candidate if I were given the choice. But Hongkongers should at least be allowed to vote in a fair election.

Alan Wong, a 62-year-old retiree, said: Independence is next to impossible at this stage... but free-thinking voters should be making the decision if they support it, not the government.

March organiser Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit, convenor of Civil Human Rights Front an alliance of pan-democratic groups had estimated that up to 2,000 people would gather in Causeway Bay when the march kicked off at 3pm.

After the protest ended outside Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings office in Admiralty at 4.30pm, Sham said he was neither satisfied nor disappointed with the turnout. Many people came out to express their discontent, so how can we be happy when people are angry? he explained.

One of the participants, Chily Chau, a second-year social work student at Baptist University, said: I have reservations about independence as a way out for Hong Kong... and I might not vote for a pro-independence candidate if I were given the choice. But Hongkongers should at least be allowed to vote in a fair election.

Alan Wong, a 62-year-old retiree, said: Independence is next to impossible at this stage... but free-thinking voters should be making the decision if they support it, not the government.

The snub by localists highlighted the gap between them and the pan-democrats. Some localists had questioned if the event was a pan-democratic tool. Both camps had clashed on whether marches were effective in fighting for democracy, and whether independence was a way out for Hong Kongs problems.

Internet comments:

- Public pressure eventually forced you to invite someone but then he brings a message that carries considerable embarrassment for you. Quiz: Which banner did Nakade Hitsujiko actually carry?


"If the Americans aren't here yet, I will invite them.
If the Americans arrive, I will guide their way."


"If the American soldiers want ass, I will offer mine.
If the American soldiers take out their dicks, I will suck them."

(SCMP) August 25, 2016.

Liberal Party aspirant Ken Chow Wing-kan, who is running for a Legislative Council seat in New Territories West, dropped a bombshell on Thursday night by announcing he would stop his electioneering for fear of people close to him paying a heavy price.

Chows abrupt move has sparked speculation on whether the Yuen Long district councillor is being pressured by Beijings liaison office, which is allegedly coordinating the election campaign of the pro-establishment camp.

In an interview with magazine E-Weekly last week, Chow admitted that he was earlier approached by a middleman to quit the race for a hefty sum of money double the amount of his election expenses. Chow claimed he had told the middleman that such deals were illegal and that he still believed he was free to contest in a democratic society like Hong Kong.

During the New Territories West election forum organised by Cable TV on Thursday night, Chow dressed all in black was the only candidate who brought no banners or other publicity materials with him.

In a dramatic twist, he told the crowd in his introductory remarks: I now announce a very heavy decision to all of you. As I do not want supporters around me caught in any high level troubles or paying a price, I will stop all my electioneering to gain voters support starting from tonight. This forum will be the last one I will attend.

I bow and apologise to all my volunteers, family members, citizens and supporters I have let you down because I am not strong enough, an emotional Chow said. The Liberal aspirant gave up the chance to debate with opponents, but made a brief speech before the forum ended. The scariest factor was not death, he said, but the failure to protect the people around him.

Chows remarks left all the other contenders shocked, with a number of pan-democratic candidates questioning Beijing-loyalist Junius Ho Kwan-yiu during the forum, as he was likely to benefit from the Liberal candidates departure.

The Democrat Partys Andrew Wan Siu-kin said no political power should intervene in the citys election and urged Ho to join him in filing a claim to the police regarding the threats Chow had faced.

But Ho dismissed it as a political smear campaign, saying he did not know what the accusation was and that he had a lot more meaningful things to do.

Liberal Party leader Felix Chung Kwok-pan told the Post he was shocked by Chows announcement and that he needed more time to know the story first. Chow is the first candidate to quit the race over alleged threats. Under electoral rules, no verified candidate can withdraw from the election once the nomination period has ended. Liberal Party honorary chairman James Tien Pei-chun said he and other core members of the party did not know of Chows decision beforehand. We are trying to reach Ken, Tien said.

(SCMP) August 26, 2016.

A Liberal Party candidate who gave up his Legislative Council bid citing high-level threats should explain his case to the public because the rule of law and peoples right to stand for elections could be at stake, the partys leaders urged yesterday.

The election watchdog said it was alarmed at Ken Chow Wing-kans abrupt departure from the race for a seat in the New Territories West constituency, stressing it would not tolerate any threats or violence in the polls and would deal with complaints strictly. It also warned candidates against spreading false information about other contenders.

Chow, a long-time Yuen Long district councillor, yesterday remained tight-lipped after tearfully announcing his decision at an election forum on Thursday night, saying only that he would be leaving town and would return to speak about the threats the day after the September 4 elections, according to party leaders.

His rival and pro-Beijing lawyer Junius Ho Kwan-yiu denied having any plans to intimidate Chow. But Ho admitted one of his supporters had proposed to him that he pursue Chow to hit his morale, an idea he claimed he had rejected.

The incident has highlighted the power struggle among rural forces within the citys pro-establishment camp.

Speaking to the press after filing a report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Liberal Partys three honorary chairmen said they were shocked at Chows decision.

James Tien Pei-chun, who spoke to Chow on the phone after the forum, said Chow appeared very scared but refused to tell him who had made threats against him, only revealing they involved the personal safety of his campaign team.

I asked him what he meant by the tall wall and the higher-level troubles he had mentioned at the forum whether it is the Hong Kong government or [mainland officials] in Shenzhen but he wouldnt tell, Tien said.

Tien urged Chow to come forward to explain the episode to the public as soon as possible.

This is because the rule of law is important to Hong Kong, he said. This is not just your own problem, but one about peoples right to stand for election.

At the Thursday forum on Cable TV, Chow, running for a seat in New Territories West, shocked his competition by announcing he would stop his electioneering for fear that people close to him would be caught in higher-level troubles and pay a heavy price.

However, under the law, a candidate cannot officially quit an election.

Chow passed to the media a voice clip in which Hos volunteer said he would bring 20 to 30 men to pursue Chow before and after the forum.

Ho yesterday said the clip was part of an internal discussion among his campaign team in a WhatsApp group, and he had rejected the idea from his volunteer, who owns real estate and catering businesses.

I have reasons to suspect [Chows] actions were intentional and orchestrated by himself to target me, Ho said, stressing he did not know why Chow went after him.

Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, said while Chows claims remained untested, they would, if proven, severely shake peoples confidence in the integrity of the LegCo elections, which has already been called into question over the disqualification of six candidates deemed to have been advocating Hong Kong independence from the rest of China.

As to whether the incident would hurt Hos campaign, it depended on how it would play out over the next few days, Choy said.

Regardless of Hos role, the incident has also shed light on the tension between different rural forces, according to Chu Hoi-dick, an activist running in the same constituency who is a vocal critic of the powerful rural body, the Heung Yee Kuk. Chu claimed that the liaison office had an interest in the kuks campaign.

Opinion polls have placed Ho on the cusp of winning a seat.

He is thought to be one of the major players scrambling for power within the kuk at a time when competing factions vie for influence as the kuks long-time kingpin Lau Wong-fat is ailing.

The kuk is powerful because it has 26 members on the election committee that picks Hong Kongs leader and one in the legislature, and is linked to many development interests across vast areas of rural land.

Ho, who steered an anti-Occupy campaign in 2014, is also seen to have close ties with pro-Beijing forces.

Last month, just a few days after he declared his plan to run in the polls, he was appointed by the government as a New Territories Justice of Peace, a position that enables him to be an ex officio member of the kuk. In 2011, he angered Lau by unseating him from the chairmanship of the kuks Tuen Mun Rural Committee.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 26, 2016.

Pro-Beijing Legislative Council election candidate Junius Ho Kwan-yiu has accused a rival candidate of conducting a conspiracy to smear him, after the election hopeful made a surprise announcement to drop out of the race on Thursday night.

Hos statements came after recordings by one of his volunteers were revealed by his opponent Ken Chow Wing-kan of the Liberal Party. The tape made reference to deploying 20 to 30 people to pressure Chow during a televised election forum on Thursday, although the action did not occur.

Chow said during the forum that he will halt his election campaign in order to avoid greater trouble for people around him. But Chow did not clarify as to what the threats entailed. Ho, in response, held a press conference on Friday questioning Chows actions.

If Mr Chow felt such recordings put himself and his family in danger, why did he not report to the police in the first place? He gave the recordings to media and other parties he said. Under what circumstances did he get the recordings?

Ho refused to reveal the identity of the volunteer in the recording. I have a responsibility to protect his privacy, not everyone can stand the medias questions, he said.

Ho said the recordings were internal discussions by his volunteers on election strategies, but he ultimately rejected the plan after he learnt of it. He also denied the proposed pressuring action involved any criminal acts.

Chow did not clearly say what he was accusing him of doing, Ho said. But he was targeting me  such accusations, if it was not a planned conspiracy, what was it? he said.

Ho accused Chow of acting when he cried in front of cameras. If you really felt pressure, you wouldnt be so unclear he cant even tell the half of it wasting the time and energy of many people. Such bad acting made people sad and cry, he said.

Chow previously accused Ho of lying to the indigenous people community, claiming that Ho was not an indigenous person himself. Ho was the former chairman of the Tuen Mun Rural Committee.

Ho denied the claims, and accused Chow of failing to produce the document that can prove his claim. Ho said that he filed a complaint with the Electoral Affairs Commission on August 24. I didnt know my complaint would make him [Chow] so horrified maybe he couldnt stand the trial of the law.

Chow told E Weekly magazine last week that a middleman offered him cash amounting to double his election spending in return for him to halt his campaign.

For such a serious accusation, why did he not report it to the ICAC [anti-graft agency]? This is very different from common practice, and Chow was a district councillor for a long time, he said. It was only him accusing other people this is the most dishonourable, the accused should have a right of reply.

Asked about whether there was a mole who leaked the recordings, Ho said: Every volunteer is a good friend, I wont say they are moles. Everyone who helps me is an angel. Ming Pao then reported that the volunteer in the recording was named Wong Si-chuang.

Wong is the president of the Great Union Food & Drinks Co. Ltd. and the H.K.N.T. Estate Agents & Merchants Association, matching the description given by Ho about him on a radio programme on Friday, which stated he was in the catering and property business. Wong had led a group of people in 2014 promoting their opposition to the pro-democracy occupy protests. Wong confirmed to Ming Pao that it was him in the recording, and said he did not threaten Chow.

In a statement, the Electoral Affairs Commission said that it does not tolerate any defrauding, threatening or violent acts in elections. It said that it is a criminal offence if violence or threats were used to cause anyone joining or not joining the election. It also said that it is a criminal offence to publish false statements about candidates themselves or other candidates in order to make themselves elected or block other candidates from being elected.

(The Standard) September 7, 2016.

The Liberal Party's Ken Chow who abruptly ended his campaign in the New Territories West constituency last month said today he was threatened and told to end his election campaign by "three people from Beijing". 

He left Hong Kong last month after announcing his shock decision at an election forum. He had blamed threats by "high level forces" then but refused to elaborate then. 

The District Councillor's decision sent shockwaves and led to concerns over the fairness of local elections, when even a candidate seen as a government ally could be told to quit. 

He then went abroad and returned to Hong Kong on Monday, a day after the Legislative Council election. 

Speaking at a news conference, Chow said that a longtime friend told him to go to a hotel in Shenzhen to discuss his campaign. There, he met three men he didn't know. He said they came from Beijing.

Chow said he was told to stop attending election forums, end all campaign promotions, and stay away from Hong Kong until after the election. Chow said the men had detailed knowledge about his family and supporters and that scared him. 

The next day, he announced end to his campaign and left Hong Kong. Chow also claimed he was followed while he was in Britain, but felt safe enough because there were surveillance cameras on the streets. 

He said he never discussed any of this with anyone, as he didn't want his family to worry. He refused to comment on whether the matter had anything to do with pro-government lawmaker-elect Junius Ho, who took the last seat in New Territories West. 

Chow had released an audio recording when he ended his campaign, of apparently a group discussing tactics against his campaign. Ho later admitted the voice belonged to his supporters but said that was an internal discussion about election strategies. 

Chow said before the Shenzhen encounter, he was discouraged against running on three occasions and on another occasion offered huge amount of money. 

Chow said he didnt report it to the anti-corruption agency as the man was just speaking hypothetically. Upon his return to Hong Kong on Monday, Chow did report to the The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). 
The Liberal Party, the New People's Party and the Labour Party had already urged the ICAC to investigate.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 7, 2016.

The outgoing Legislative Council president has questioned the reasoning behind alleged threats made to Liberal Party election dropout Ken Chow Wing-kan.

Jasper Tsang Yok-sing commented on the incident after Chows explosive claims on Wednesday, when he revealed that he was forced by three people from Beijing to drop out of the Legislative Council race, as his candidacy could harm the chances of fellow pro-Beijing candidate Junius Ho Kwan-yiu from securing the final seat in New Territories West.

I find it very very weird, Tsang said, according to Commercial Radio. If there was really someone who threatened Mr Chow from running in the election, threatened him to suspend his campaign, I would ask why: what is the logic behind persuading a candidate with almost zero per cent support?

Chow was receiving very low levels of support in the polls before the election.

But Chow claimed he was approached by middlemen on three occasions asking him to stop running, before he was asked to go to a hotel room in Shenzhen. It was there that he was introduced to the three people who, he said, held important information of people close to him.

Chow then decided to suspend his campaign out of fear.

I cant understand it if some people wanted another candidate to have a chance to win, they should choose to persuade someone with a similar [voter base] who is able to get a lot of votes, right? Tsang said. I find it weird if it was me, I would not choose to spend so much effort on someone who has almost no votes, asking him to drop out.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 7, 2016.

In a new revelation, pro-Beijing Liberal Party election candidate Ken Chow Wing-kan said it was three people from Beijing who forced him to drop out of the Legislative Council race on August 25. Before that, he was urged on multiple occasions not to run, as his candidacy could harm the chances of a fellow pro-Beijing candidate securing the final seat in New Territories West.

He said at a press conference on Wednesday that a day before he decided to make the surprise announcement to suspend his campaign, he was invited by a friend whom he had known for over a decade to meet in Shenzhen where the friend lived. The friend wanted to discuss important issues related to his campaign.

But when he arrived at a hotel in Shenzhen, he was introduced to the three people, who asked him to halt his campaign. According to Chow, the trio were holding important information of people close to him.

I dont know how they knew, including people very close to my family circle, important friends who support me, their backgrounds, income sources, habits they read them out one by one, I started to feel afraid, he said.

You realise this information is beyond the reach of all private investigators. Then they said if you dont follow our orders, they will take action immediately, that those who support me will pay a heavy price.

He said he was asked to do three things: stop attending all election debates; suspend all election campaigns; and leave Hong Kong as soon as possible until the final vote count was complete.

So the second day, I bought a ticket in a hurry to go, he said. I am sorry I could not say anything back then.

Chow flew to the UK, where he remained until his return on Monday: There is CCTV everywhere [in the UK] I feel much safer.

However, Chow said he was being followed in Britain.

He said that the three who threatened him were above the China Liaison Office in Hong Kong. But he refused to reveal their identities, concerned that he may get into bigger trouble.

Asked as to why he did not report the case to the police, he said: You know this is outside their jurisdiction, no matter if its the Electoral Affairs Commission, the police, or the Independent Commission Against Corruption, they cannot handle things that happen outside of Hong Kong, and the people involved were not from Hong Kong.

The Shenzhen meeting came after three meetings between him and two different groups of friends, who asked him to drop out.

Chow said two friends from authorities stationed in Hong Kong suggesting Chinese ones invited him to meet at a restaurant in Sha Tin on July 13, saying that you were not blessed to take a seat in the New Territories West area.

In response, Chow said he did not require blessings. The pair then said they may be able to help as there are a lot of positions in government, but Chow refused.

On July 17, two days before he submitted his nomination to run, he met with a friend from Yuen Long and in the catering business, who he had known for more than 20 years. Chow described the person as someone who was working on many things for the country in private.

The friend offered him a monetary amount equal to double his election spending: HK$5 million at a cafe in Gold Coast, Tuen Mun. The sum would be in return of him not running in the election. Chow also refused.

On July 19, the day he submitted his nomination, Chow said the two friends who met him in Sha Tin asked him once again not to run.

They said it will cause the pro-Beijing camp to lose altogether, including Leung Che-cheung and Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, he said.

Chow said the two friends told him that Ho had secured 17,000 votes from the indigenous peoples community those from the rural politician Chan Keung. Ho could garner another 10,000 votes, according to their results in the 2012 Legislative Council election, so Ho would likely win a seat.

I told them those 17,000 votes [from Chan] will not switch to Ho, he said, adding that Ho had irreconcilable differences with the indigenous people community.

Many indigenous people told me if there was not another person from the community running in the election, they would support me, he added. But after [the July 19 meeting], the indigenous leaders suddenly told me sorry Ken, we are in not a convenient position to support you anymore.

What happened before [the switch]? You can guess the reason, Chow said.

On Monday, Ho won the last seat of nine-seat New Territories West constituency with only 5,000 votes more than the tenth-placed Lee Cheuk-yan of the Labour Party.

Its a manipulated election, he said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 8, 2016.

The Liberal Partys Ken Chow Wing-kan has given further details about the three people from Beijing who threatened him in order to make him drop out of the Legislative Council election. Chow had hinted that the moves were intended to make him give way to pro-Beijing lawmaker-elect Junius Ho Kwan-yiu.

Chow made explosive claims on Wednesday that he was invited to a hotel restaurant in Shenzhen to meet with a friend on August 24, the day before he suspended his campaign, but was instead introduced to the three, who he said had just flown in from Beijing.

They were from a secret department that they could not disclose, he said on a RTHK programme on Thursday. They flew in especially to handle the matter of my election campaign. They asked me to suspend my campaign.

The three were middle-aged men, Chow said, and they told him not to ask which department they were from.

They spoke Cantonese, not with [a Hong Kong accent], it sounded like the Guangzhou accent, he said, adding that they looked like mainland officials based on how they spoke, acted, and the cigarettes they smoked.

He was asked to stop going to election debates, suspend his campaign and leave Hong Kong. According to Chow, they held important information about people close to him and threatened to take action if he did not drop out. The information could only have been collected by government agencies, he said.

I had no choice they needed me to make a decision that night, he said.

Chow also criticised LegCo president Jasper Tsang for questioning his version of the story. Tsang has said that he did not understand why anyone would threaten Chow, since he had very low support in the polls.

Is he trying to help some people whitewash this? he said. It is a matter of debate whether or not I had voter support.

He said that he won 1,900 votes in the district council election, and he had a team of over 100 campaigning for him in Tin Shui Wai. He added that many people were ordered to attack him after he gave up his campaign.

Chow has said there were three occasions on which he was urged not to run before the Shenzhen meeting.

These included two meetings with two mainland people from authorities stationed in Hong Kong Chow declined to answer if the agency was the China Liaison Office.

They suggested to him in the first meeting that he was not blessed to win and that they may be able to help him with a government position if he gave up the race. He refused.

The second meeting with the two was in a sound-proofed room in their office to which he was not allowed to bring his phone. Chow also refused to stop his campaign on that occasion.

Another meeting was with a long-term friend of his, who has ties with the rural leaders in Hong Kong and with people in Beijing. Chow refused a suggestion from the friend that a monetary amount equal to double his election spending HK$5 million would be given to him in return for not running in the election.

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=nEvjLFvP-4M Chow Wing-kan's statement (with English sub-titles)

Internet comments:

- On one hand, the person(s) who forced Chow Wing-kan to quit comes under CAP 554 Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance

Part: 2 Corrupt Conduct

Section: 6 What penalties can be imposed for corrupt conduct at elections?

(1) A person who engages in corrupt conduct at an election commits an offence and is-

(a) if tried summarily, liable on conviction to a fine of $200000 and to imprisonment for 3 years; or
(b) if tried on indictment, liable on conviction to a fine of $500000 and to imprisonment for 7 years.

(2) A person may be convicted of an offence of having engaged in corrupt conduct at an election if the person is found to have engaged in the conduct before, during or after the election period.

(3) A court that convicts a person of having engaged in corrupt conduct must order the person to pay to the court-

(a) the amount or value of any valuable consideration received by the person or the person's agents in connection with the conduct; or
(b) such part of the amount or value as that court specifies in the order.

Section: 7 Corrupt conduct to bribe candidates or prospective candidates

(1) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person corruptly-

(a) offers an advantage to another person as an inducement for the other person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person; or

(b) offers an advantage to another person as a reward-

(i) for having stood, or not stood, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person was nominated as a candidate at the election, for having withdrawn the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, for not having used the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person; or

(c) offers an advantage to another person as an inducement for the other person to get, or try to get, a third person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the third person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the third person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the third person's best endeavours to promote the election of the third person; or

(d) offers an advantage to another person as a reward for having got, or having tried to get, a third person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the third person was nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the third person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the third person's best endeavours to promote the election of the third person; or

(e) solicits or accepts an advantage as an inducement-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the person's best endeavours to promote the election of the person; or

(f) solicits or accepts an advantage as a reward-

(i) for having stood, or not stood, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the person was nominated as a candidate at the election, for having withdrawn the nomination; or
(iii) if the person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, for not having used the person's best endeavours to promote the election of the person; or

(g) solicits or accepts an advantage as an inducement to get, or try to get, another person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person; or

(h) solicits or accepts an advantage as a reward for having got, or having tried to get, another person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person was nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person.

(2) For the purposes of this section-

(a) a person offers an advantage if the person confers, undertakes to confer or shows a willingness to confer, an advantage on another person; and
(b) a person solicits an advantage if the person asks for, or shows a willingness to receive, an advantage, either for the person's own benefit or for the benefit of another person; and
(c) a person accepts an advantage if the person receives or obtains an advantage, or agrees to receive or obtain an advantage, either for the person's own benefit or for the benefit of another person.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person is taken to have offered an advantage even though the offer was made by another person, but only if the other person was acting with the person's authority. That authority may be conferred expressly or by implication.

Section: 8 Corrupt conduct to use or threaten to use force or duress against candidates or prospective candidates

(1) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person-

(a) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person to induce the other person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or

(b) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person to induce the other person to get a third person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the third person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or

(c) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person because the other person or a third person-

(i) stood, or did not stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person or the third person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, withdrew the nomination.

(2) A person is taken to have engaged in corrupt conduct of a kind referred to in subsection (1) even though the conduct was engaged in by another person, but only if the other person was acting with the person's authority. That authority may be conferred expressly or by implication.

Section: 9 Corrupt conduct to engage in certain deceptive behaviour in relation to candidates and prospective candidates

(1) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person-

(a) by a deception, induces another person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or

(b) by a deception, induces another person to get a third person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the third person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination.

(2) A person is taken to have engaged in corrupt conduct of a kind referred to in subsection (1) even though the conduct was engaged in by another person, but only if the other person was acting with the person's authority. That authority may be conferred expressly or by implication.

On the other hand, if Chow Wing-kan or any other candidates accuse another candidate and no supporting evidence is provided, a different section of CAP 554 applies:

Section: 22 What penalties can be imposed for illegal conduct at elections?

(1) Any person who engages in illegal conduct at an election commits an offence and is-

(a) if tried summarily, liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 1 year; or
(b) if tried on indictment, liable on conviction to a fine of $200000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

(2) A person may be convicted of an offence of having engaged in illegal conduct at an election if the person is found to have engaged in the conduct before, during or after the election period.

Section: 26 Illegal conduct to publish false or misleading statements about a candidate

(1) A person engages in illegal conduct at an election if the person publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about a particular candidate or particular candidates for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of the candidate or candidates.

(2) A candidate engages in illegal conduct at an election if the candidate publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about the candidate or candidates with whom the candidate is associated, or about another candidate or other candidates, for the purpose of-

(a) promoting the election of the candidate or candidates with whom the candidate is associated; or
(b) prejudicing the election of the other candidate or candidates.

(3) For the purposes of this section, statements about a candidate or candidates include (but are not limited to) statements concerning the character, qualifications or previous conduct of the candidate or candidates.

(4) In a prosecution for an offence of having engaged in illegal conduct under subsection (1) or (2), it is a defence to prove that the defendant believed on reasonable grounds that the statement was true at the time when it was made.

- I have three conjectures on Chow Wing-kan:

(1) He wanted to avoid losing badly. Various public opinion polls showed that his support rate is less than 1%. So this is quick exit without losing face.

(2) He wanted to attack Junius Ho. Previously he had challenged Ho's claim to be an aboriginal, but that went nowhere due to lack of substantive evidence. Chow's abandonment of his campaign casts suspicions on Ho.

(3) He must be thinking that by fabricating such a story, he would get the sympathy vote. Chen Shui Bian did it in Taiwan, so can Chow Wing-kan do it in Hong Kong. (Note: The election by-laws state that a nominee cannot drop out, Chow's name will appear on the ballot even if he stops campaigning.)

- If I have time on hand, I am sure that I can come up with (4), (5), etc. But how about (0)? Namely, Chow is telling the truth? How come nobody is interested in this possibility?

- Here is (4): Chow Wing-kan is using his case to generate a sympathy vote for Liberal Party's Dominic Lee in New Territories East. As it stands, Chow has no chance New Territories West but Lee may have a slight chance in New Territories East. If both Chow and Lee fails, the Liberal Party will have no representation in the geographical constituencies. So Chow sacrificed himself to save Lee.

- Here is (5): Chow Wing-kan may say that he is not campaigning any more, but his name will remain on the ballot. If his tragic story gets played up, he will win a Legco seat without even being in Hong Kong for the final week! In the famous words of Raymond Wong, he could win lying down! So from no chance he becomes a sure win!

- Chow has gone overseas and won't be back until September 5, the day after the election. What has his Liberal Party got to say about the case?

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 26, 2016.

A honorary president of the Liberal Party said the partys election candidate Ken Chow Wing-kan told her that the pressure which forced him to make a sudden decision to drop out of the race came from a higher level than his rival in the election.

Honorary president Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee said Ken Chow hardly mentioned any conflict with candidates in the election.  He said, I cannot talk about many things I cannot tell you, I cannot tell the media, but he added that the recording was only a lower level matter, an election matter. For that, I feel that his decision to drop out was not because of the recording, she said.

Ken Chow, running in the New Territories West constituency, told E Weekly magazine last week that a middleman offered him cash amounting to double his election spending in return for halting his campaign. Chow refused the payment. Selina Chow said the topic of money did not come up at all during a discussion with Chow about the pressure.

James Tien Pei-chun, also honorary president, said Ken Chow did not mention Junius Ho at all during a conversation with him. Tien said he asked Chow if the pressure was from the recording, some indigenous communities in Tuen Mun or Yuen Long, the Hong Kong government, or even Shenzhen suggesting influence from China, But he told me, Mr Tien, to protect my family and friends I cannot say anything. But Tien said he felt that Chow did not stop his election campaign due to the recording. Chow did not mention the China Liaison Office when speaking to him either, he said. When Tien asked Chow as to why he did not contact the police, Chow told him: If I am able to report it to the police, then I would be able to speak publicly [about the source of pressure], but you see I cant. Tien said he could not agree with such a statement but respected his choice.

According to Tien, Chow is to leave Hong Kong and return on September 5, a day after the election, to provide answers to the public.

The Liberal Party is in disarray. There are two honorary presidents making public statements that only adds more confusion. The party president Felix Chung Kwok-pan is nowhere to be found. None of this is going to help them in the New Territories East election.

- (HKG Pao) James Tien and Selina Chow both said that Ken Chow Wing-kan told them that the recording has nothing to do with his decision. That seemed to have absolved Junius Ho of any culpability on this score. But Chow Wing-kan will have to face the Independence Commission Against Corruption when he returns on September 5.

- The Liberal Party fielded only two lists this time, one in New Territories West and the other in New Territories East. The two lists were headed by young unknowns and not by their celebrities (such as James Tien or Selina Chow). So far we have Chow Wing-kan dropping out in New Territories West, leaving the party leaders clueless as to the actual reason. How can this not hurt the Liberal Party overall, and hence the New Territories East list?

- If the Central Government wanted Chow to disappear, they would not need to talk to him. Chow is a nobody. They would have hauled the Liberal Party head honchos down to the China Liaison Office and told them to make Chow drop the campaign in order to spend more time with his family. If Chow refuses, he will be expelled from the Liberal Party.

- I can continue with writing the rest of the script: A few days later, Chow Wing-kan walks down the street and is physically assaulted by two South Asians who screamed: "The DAB paid us to do this!" Then all the reporters will rush over to a very surprised DAB chairwoman Starry Lee.

- This whole case makes zero sense. On one hand, the guy is so scared that he is stopping his campaign. On the other hand, the guy gets on television to tell the public that he was forced to stop his campaign. Is he afraid? Is he not afraid? I am very confused.

- (HKG Pao) Junius Ho accused Chow Wing-pan of lousy acting because he couldn't squeeze a single tear out while supposedly crying. Ho said: "Either you don't tell anything or else you tell it all. If you were genuinely pressured, you would not be making a squeak. Now you tell half the story and waste the time and energy of so many people. I find this very regrettable."


"I don't want to say"

The next morning Chow Wing-pan answered questions from the press. He said, "Junius Ho can say whatever he wants." Does that mean that Junius Ho is credible? Chow said that the public can decide for themselves. Chow declined to say what his troubles were. Chow said that he plans to leave Hong Kong.

- (HK01) August 25, 2016. Last week, Chow Wing-kan was interviewed by e-Weekly and said that he was contacted by someone who offered double his campaign budget to drop out. Chow said that he told the person that it is against the law to persuade someone to drop out of an election. Chow said: "I believe that some people don't want me in the election, and they didn't think that I would run. But Hong Kong is a democratic society. I believe that I am free to participate in elections."

- So Chow Wing-kan has some specific knowledge. How about going to the Election Affairs Commission/Independent Commission Against Corruption/Hong Kong Police? If not for himself, how about doing this for freedom/democracy/human rights/universal values/universal suffrage/rule of law in Hong Kong?

- After Chow Wing-kan read his statement and broke out in tears, a number of other candidates rushed and condemned the Chinese Communists. As an act of solidarity, they publicly appealed to all their supporters to cast their votes for Chow Wing-kan. And when Chow Wing-kan comes in with 55% of the votes, that will tell the Chinese Communists what the true feelings of the people are. It will be a great victory for freedom/democracy/human rights/universal values/universal suffrage/rule of law in Hong Kong.

Of course, this never happened. Every other candidate rushed in to condemn the Chinese Communists. But they will never ever tell their supporters to vote for someone else. They all have to protect their personal interests.

- (HK01) August 26, 2016. Yesterday Chow Wing-kan contacted <HK01> and said that a citizen recorded two conversations between two men in a Butterfly Estate (Tuen Mun District) restaurant.

Conversation 1: ... Today we have two identities. First of all, we are citizens who spontaneously organized because we are upset with Chow Wing-kan, and also Cheng Chung Tai for his smearing tactics. The three student leaders also too leniently sentenced. Lawyer Ho has demanded an appeal but the Department of Justice thinks that it was none of Ho's business. Therefore we are the voice for justice. Tonight we will assemble 20 to 30 persons to ambush Chow Wing-kan at the forum, so that he won't even want to participate in this forum. So this is what we will do tonight. We will figure out what to write on the placards. Le me see ... er, we won't do it. We can't do it. Let the office people help to produce the placards. Also, you and I will coordinate with XXX (name of volunteer worker).

Conversation 2: After ambushing Chow Wing-kan, we will come back wearing Lawyer Ho's vests to support Lawyer Ho. We will cheer him. That's all. After the forum, we will ambush Chow Wing-kan. This is what is to to be done. Thanks.

Nothing in there hasn't been happening many times already from both camps. There is nothing about threats to Chow's family. So these two recordings between unidentified persons don't mean anything.

Example: Candidate Leung Che Cheung (DAB) surrounded by paid actors and actresses playing villagers, while his smirking opponents Chu Hoi Dick (Land Justice League), Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party), Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) and Lee Cheuk Yan (Labour Party) lurk in the background: https://www.facebook.com/434483659936746/videos/1231080153610422/ Sample Q&A: Leung asked, "How come you never come to my office for help until election time?" Answer from male villager: "What other time besides election time would I come to you?"

- (The Stand News) August 26, 2016. Junius Ho told Commercial Radio that the voice on the top belongs to a volunteer of his. Ho said that the ambush did not involve any criminal activity. Based upon Ho's understanding, there was a discussion within the Whatsapp group. "I just heard it on the Internet last night." Around noon, the volunteer proposal about the action discussed. But Ho said that this type of thing was unnecessary. "If it is right, I do it; if it is not right, I won't do it ... when the preliminary discussion reached me, I said not to do it ... I personally think that it was enough to lodge a complaint with the Electoral Affairs Commission."

- (HKG Pao) Junius Ho asked just how Chow Wing-kan got those two recordings. Chow's explanation to the website HK01 was that a citizen recorded the two conversations over at the next table in a Butterfly Estate (Tuen Mun) restaurant. Junius Ho said that these were in fact Whatsapp voice messages. That was why Chow Wing-kan's 'citizen' did not have a complete recording with no breaks.

- If recorded in an estate restaurant around lunch, the background noise should be very high. There is no background noise in the two recordings.

- Ambush politicians? Why don't you Google the term "Legislative Council"+"ambush"? This is so commonplace in Hong Kong today. Why act surprised and shocked?

- If the Chinese Communists want to assassinate their enemies, Chow Wing-kan would not even make the top 100 on the list. Before his announcement, nobody knows who he is. The enemy list should be topped by people like Lee Cheuk-yan and Leung Kwok-hung who list the end of one-party rule and the overthrowing of the Chinese Communist Party in their party platform.

- "Any number of public opinion polls have shown that most of Chow Wing-kan's supporters are in the Tin Shui Wai district, which is also where Junius Ho gets his support. Therefore Ho stands to gain most with Chow's exit and is therefore the leading suspect behind this nefarious plot."

Eh, the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme rollings polls are based upon average sample sizes of 1,000. Of these, about 300 are located in New Territories West. Chow Wing-kan's support level is around 1%. 1% out of 300 is 3. "Most of his supporters are from Tin Shui Wai." That means 2 out of 3 of those supporters are from Tin Shui Wai. Don't you think that your analysis is based upon unreliable data with too much sampling error?

- HKU POP feels uncomfortable enough about publishing supporting levels even for New Territories West as a whole due to the small sample size of 300. They definitely do not publish it at the level of the sub-district Tin Shui Wai within New Territories West.

- "Junius Ho is intimately tied with the triad gangs of New Territories, so the Chow Wing-kan affair is not surprising."

Eh, it is against the law to publish false or misleading statements about a candidate under CAP 554 Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. I have made a screen capture of your comment above and forwarded it by email to the Hong Kong Police, Independent Commission Against Corruption and Election Affairs Commission. So get ready for the knock on the door at 6am.

- (Bastille Post) Chow Wing-kan and Junius Ho are supported by different Rural Affairs factions. In the case of Chow, he emerged in 1994 by winning a Yuen Long district council. In 2004, he became the assistant to Heung Yee Kuk chairman and Liberal Party member Lau Wong Fat and became a Liberal Party member. Meanwhile, Junius Ho earned Lau Wong Fat's enmity when he fought to become the Tuen Mun District Council chairman. At this time, Chow Wing-kan's support is low whereas Junius Ho is fighting for the last Legco seat against Frederick Fung (ADPL) and Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion). So by dropping out, Chow hopes to hurt Junius Ho and his Rural Affairs faction and help the Liberal Party list in New Territories East.

- Are you confused about who's who in the Chow Wing-kan story? Here is the all-inclusive relational diagram:

1. Chow Wing-kan is a chess piece put into place by James Tien (Liberal Party), with no chance of winning a Legco seat in New Territories West but capable of being a time bomb to help fellow Liberal Party member Dominic Lee in New Territories East.

2. James Tien (Liberal Party) did this with Hau Chi-keung (New Progressive Alliance) to eliminate their common enemy, Junius Ho.

3. James Tien is going five things at the same time (1) set up the explosive Chow Wing-kan situation; (2) increase Dominic Lee's chances of winning; (3) gaining the support of the New Progressive Alliance; (4) making Junius Ho crash; (5) take revenge against the China Liaison Office for stripping him of his position on the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Standing Committee.

- (Ming Pao) August 31, 2016.

Next Magazine interviewed Chow Wing-kan at the airport before he left. When asked whether he was scared of "triad gangs" or "the China Liaison Office," he said: "Far more powerful than what you say."

Did the China Liaison Office apply pressure on him? Chow said: "I don't want to respond." Is he concerned about being 'disappeared'? Chow said: "Therefore right now I ... I am going back to mainland China."

Can the Hong Kong Police help? Chow said: "If the forces are not based in Hong Kong, how can you enforce the law? How do you investigate?" Are "foreign forces" involved? Chow reiterated: "Beyond the scope of law enforcement."

- Look at the HKRA poll of 5,016 persons:
Rank Name (Party) %
1 Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 12.4%
2 Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) 7.0%
3 Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 6.2%
4 Chan Han Pan (DAB) 5.7%
5 Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 5.5%
6 Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 5.4%
7 Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 5.0%
8 Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 4.6%
9 Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 4.1%
10 Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 3.5%
11 Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 3.4%
12 Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 2.6%
13 Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 2.5%
14 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 1.5%
15 Chow Wing Kan (Liberal) 0.7%
16 Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) 0.3%
17 Ko Chi Fai (independent) 0.1%
18 Kwong Koon Wan (independent) 0.1%
19 Tong Wing Chi (independent) 0.1%
20 Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) 0.00%

Chow Wing Kan (Liberal) is number 15 out of a field of 20 competing for 9 seats. Why would forces greater than the triad gangs and the China Liaison Office be bearing down on Chow? What is the possible Return On Investment for $5 million for Chow?

- It should be clear that if the 0.7% of Chow Wing Kan is transferred over to Ho Kwan-yiu, the latter would get 3.4% + 0.7% = 4.1% to fight for the ninth and final place.

- Even as a paper exercise, this is silly. How do you convince the 0.7% to transfer their votes in this manner? Why couldn't they transfer the votes to Michael Tien or whoever else?

- Nobody else can find Chow Wing Kan except Next Magazine!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yftjcj26VuI

- (SCMP) Legco candidate Ken Chow needs help in more ways than one. By Alex Lo. September 2, 2016.

The Electoral Affairs Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption are jumping into the case of Ken Chow Wing-Kan. Thats all very well. I hope they get to the bottom of Chows allegations, which if proven true, pose a direct threat to our electoral system.

But, to paraphrase an old saying, extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof. So far, the Liberal Partys candidate for New Territories West in Sundays Legislative Council elections has offered little to substantiate his sensational claims. Instead, he has fled to Britain. Unfortunately, in the paranoid and fact-free politics of Hong Kong today, his allegations have taken on a life of their own.

In a dramatic appearance, Chow dressed all in black announced at an election debate forum on television last week that he was quitting the race because of threats not only against him but those close to him who might be caught in higher-level troubles and pay a heavy price.

He has provided various media outlets with a recording in which the assistant of an election rival apparently threatened to bring dozens of men to clash with him.

That could be a criminal threat, but it would fall well within local jurisdiction. Later, however, Chow offered a different story, saying the unnamed source of the threats was outside Hong Kong jurisdiction and that it was more powerful than the triads or the central governments liaison office in Hong Kong.

He also claimed someone offered him money twice as much as his HK$2.5 million election expenses to quit the race.

A rational even if scared individual might consult with his party colleagues, the police or any law enforcement agency and regulators before going public. He apparently consulted no one, and even surprised his own campaign workers.

To be credible, he might, for example, explain why such a powerful force would target a minor political player such as himself. Furthermore, the Liberal Party is generally considered a pro-establishment group.

Campaigning is stressful even in normal circumstances. In todays highly divisive political climate, the pressure is especially high on election candidates. Anyone can crack under such intense stress.

Chow has made sensational allegations about a powerful force, yet rules out the usual suspects. Instead, he conjures up a hidden conspiracy coming from outside Hong Kong. The ICAC should investigate. But in the meantime, his loved ones may consider seeking professional help for him.

- Chow Wing-kan posted photos of himself in Europe. Chow said that he wanted to protect those around him. But he flees to Europe by himself. How is that going to protect those around him?

- After Chow Wing-kan came back, he gave a series of self-contradictory radio interviews ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYDurVXUQ2o ).

Q: Did these three persons identify themselves? Government personnel? Public service workers?

A: Eh. No.

Q: But they have to be introduced somehow. It can't just be: This is Mr. Chen, and this is Mr. Li. There needs to be some kind of introduction, such as the department.

A: But this department is a secretive  ... hmm ... a somewhat secretive department ... it is not convenient to say.

Q: I mean to say, Do you actually know yourself? Or do you feel inconvenient to say it?

A: Eh, at the time, they did not say which department they came from.

Are you totally flummoxed as well? They did not say which department they came from, but it is a secretive department which is inconvenient to identify at this time.

- (The Stand) September 5, 2016. Next Magazine reports exclusively that Chow Wing-kan arrived in Hong Kong at 3pm this afternoon. Chow explained that he was threatened and told to leave Hong Kong until after the vote counting was over. "I have kept my promise. I returned after the dust has settled from the elections. He will not harass me anymore." Chow disclosed that while he was in England, he was photographed by someone who appeared to be a Chinese woman. Someone also took photos of him for publication in the media. He said that he does not know the photographer.

- The Liberal Party has done this sort of thing before.

(AFP/Reuters) May 28, 2004.

An outspoken radio talkshow host told Hong Kong legislators yesterday that he quit his show because Chinese officials told him he would be in danger if he did not stop airing anti-Beijing comments. Allen Lee (李鵬飛), also a veteran politician, said he refused to give in to the threats.

"A lot of people, including mainland officials, pressured me to keep quiet," Lee told a specially convened legislative panel meeting. "I refused to soften my views ... so I quit."

Lee resigned from his Teacup in a Storm radio show soon after two other high-profile talkshow hosts stepped down saying they had received threats of violence because of their anti-Beijing views.

The resignations sparked fears in the largely-autonomous former British colony, which was handed over to China in 1997, that Beijing had launched a crackdown on subversive media figures.

Lee said a "retired Chinese official" and other people including a friend had tried to persuade him to tone down his comments. "This mainland friend wanted to see me but I refused ... because he wanted to speak to me about the matters about my show," Lee said. "I felt that there was no need to talk about it because ... there was nothing more to talk about."

Lee, the former leader of the business-backed Liberal Party and a leading Cabinet member during British rule, is the only one of the three hosts to speak to legislators. The other two, Albert Cheng (鄭經翰) and Wong Yuk-man (黃毓民), refused, saying they feared for their safety.

Lee said China's motive behind the intimidation was September's legislative elections, which democrats critical of China are tipped to win. "No one in this room would know how nervous they [China] are about this year's election," Lee said. "This nervousness is unprecedented."

A pro-Beijing legislator, however, poured scorn on Lee's comments, saying there was no proof China was behind the threats. "We shouldn't make any conclusions until the police have finished their investigation," said Wong Yung-kan (黃容根) of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong party. He also scoffed at suggestions freedom of speech had been harmed. "No one has told any editors not to publish any stories, even on Teacup in a Storm they still criticize the government," Wong said.

Pro-democracy legislator Margaret Ng (吳靄儀) said Lee's revelations were "frightening." "Freedom of speech means freedom from fear," she told reporters after the hearing. "If you have to be defiant and think that you must risk your life to speak out on perfectly normal political views, it is frightening."

(Global Times) June 4, 2004.

On May 27, Allen Lee showed up at the Legislative Council with a 3,000-word statement to detail why he quit his radio show. Lee said that he received a telephone call from a mysterious caller after 10pm on May 18. The person identified himself as "Chen" and is a former Central Government official. This person asked Lee about the wife and daughter: "Your wife is gentle and your daughter is pretty." As a result, Lee "felt threatened." He could not sleep that night, and after some thought, he announced the next day that he would quit the radio program.

A few days later, the mysterious caller surfaced. He is Cheng Shousan, who used to be deputy director at the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council. Cheng said that he and Lee served on the Preparatory Committee for the Handover for 18 months in 1996-1997. On May 18, he called Lee to say hello and hoped to meet. The reason why Cheng mentioned Lee's wife and daughter was that he once attended the Asia-Pacific Regional Young Designers Competition and sat next to Mr. and Mrs. Lee. He mentioned casually to Mrs. Lee that the female master of ceremony was pretty and spoke very good English. Mrs. Lee was delighted and told him that this was their daughter. When Cheng mentioned that to Lee on the telephone, he said that Lee remembered the occasion.

As to the so-called threat, Cheng said that he is a retiree who is currently working on the compilation of a dictionary. As such, he has no power to issue any threats to Lee or freedom of press in Hong Kong.

After Cheng surfaced, Lee said: "It does not matter whether his name if Chen or Cheng. He called me to threaten me!"

- (SCMP) September 14, 2016.

Liberal Party heavyweight James Tien Pei-chun has said Beijings liaison office told him to discourage party colleague Ken Chow Wing-kan from running in the Legislative Council elections, and called on the central government to investigate if the office had overstepped its role.

Tien said he did not follow the instruction, and quoted the unnamed liaison office representatives as saying Chows bid could affect Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, who ended up winning the ninth and final seat in New Territories West.

Tiens revelation on Wednesday morning came a week after Chow said he dropped out of the polls last month after three people from Beijing threatened him in Shenzhen. They allegedly told him to withdraw to improve the chances of other pro-Beijing candidates.

Chow also said he was asked to quit the race three other times, two of them involving two friends working for a mainland organisation in Hong Kong.

Asked if he was referring to the liaison office, Chow had said he did not want to name any organisation.

But a source close to Chow told the Post on Wednesday that two junior officials from the liaison office were present at one of the three meetings.

Tien, the partys honorary chairman and former leader who retired from Legco this year, did not say whether the liaison office approached Chow, but talked about his personal experience on a Commercial Radio programme.

Officials from the liaison office talked to me in July, he said. They said I should ask Chow to quit because he could not win, but I said: How do you know?

The official said Chows bid would affect Hos chance of winning ... But I refused the suggestion because Chow wanted to give it a try, and we also believed that he could win the [final seat].

Tien said that, at the Liberal Partys standing committee meeting on Tuesday night, Chow revealed that the liaison office also tried to discourage his volunteers from helping him.

The Liberal Partys Miriam Lau Kin-yee, a local deputy to the National Peoples Congress, and Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, a local deputy to the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, had written to Zhang Dejiang and Yu Zhengsheng, the state leaders in charge of the two national bodies respectively, urging them to look into Chows case.

Tien said: Beijing needs to find out if the office has gone beyond its liaison role and become an executive department in Hong Kong ... The credibility of Hong Kong elections is at stake.

- Negative reactions from high places:

- None of the Liberal Party current or honorary chairpersons were present for Chow Wing Kan's press conference on September 5th. The only thing that they did was to suspend Chow's membership pending the ICAC investigation.

Why the skepticism? Liberal Party honorary chairpersons James Tien and Selina Chow and others have run in New Territories for many years, and never had they been threatened before. Furthermore, they had the voter base which could make a difference to someone else, unlike Chow Wing Kan's negligible chances.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) September 10, 2016. Speaking to RTHK, Liberal Party chairman Felix Chung Kwok-pan said that the party would invite Chow to speak with the disciplinary committee to hear and investigate his case before deciding on whether disciplinary action would be taken. Of course, we understand that he is under threat, but the point is he is representing the Liberal Party to run the campaign, he should [be] responsible to us too, he said. If he had told us earlier before he made the decision, certainly we would support him. But now, the thing is, he just left without any notice, this is something that might not be acceptable. When asked whether Chow may be asked to repay the money used in the campaign, Chung said that really depends on his financial situation. We dont want to push him too much because he is already under huge pressure right now. He said that about HK$1.5 million was spent on Chows campaign, and that it would be up to the party to decide on whether repayment was necessary.

- Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Standing Committee member Rita Fan said that she does not believe in Chow's allegations. Chow said that the three men came from an authoritative higher than the China Liaison Office. Rita Fan said that such an order has to come from someone who is either a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Standing Committee vice-chairman, or a State Council vice-chairman. She finds it incredible that such a person would bother with Chow Wing Kan and his negligible number of votes.

- (SCMP) September 9, 2016. Chief executive CY Leung rejected another candidates claim that he had to pull out of the elections under a threat coming from Beijing. Leung said he regretted the allegations made by the Liberal Partys Ken Chow Wing-kan, dismissing them as surmise and innuendo.

- (Headline Daily) Chow Wing-kan's story is full of holes. By Michael Chugani. September 13, 2016.

        Is Ken Chow Wing-kan telling a tall tale, telling the truth or embellishing the truth? The expression tall tale means a story that is difficult to believe. To embellish the truth means to make the truth more interesting by adding untrue details. The word exaggerate has a similar meaning. I do not know if Liberal Party member Chow Wing-kan is telling a tall tale, telling the truth, or exaggerating when he claimed three people from Beijing warned him at a meeting in Shenzhen to withdraw as a candidate in last weeks Legislative Council election. He said they spoke in Cantonese and knew every detail about his family and close friends, hinting they would attack them if he did not withdraw from the election.

  I cannot convince myself to believe Chow Wing-kan. His claim of being forced to withdraw from the election is full of holes. If a claim is full of holes, it means it has too many unbelievable or weak points. The words far-fetched and dubious have similar meanings. Chow Wing-kans story is full of holes because he refused to provide details of which hotel in Shenzhen he met the three men, what they looked like, and why he believed they were somehow connected to the central government. He said he was so scared he escaped to London.

  But if he was really so scared, why did he put his family and close friends in danger by announcing during a TV debate the day after meeting the three men that he had been threatened? A scared person would have kept his mouth shut, withdrawn from the election and escaped to London. When he returned to Hong Kong after the election he told the ICAC not to investigate because they could do nothing. It is easy to make a claim without proof and then ask the ICAC not to investigate. Chow Wing-kan had no chance of winning the election, so why would Beijing even care about him? I dont believe him but I believe Chu Hoi-dicks claim that bad people in the New Territories had threatened to kill him and his family after he won the election. His story is not full of holes because he provided details to the police.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 26, 2016.

The incumbent pro-democracy camp IT sector lawmaker has slammed smearing reports by pro-Beijing media that claimed a teachers union transferred voters from the education sector to his sector in order to help secure his seat.

Similar front page reports carried by the Headline Daily and The Standard both under the pro-Beijing Sing Tao News Corporation on Thursday claimed that some 1,500 members of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union (HKPTU), who worked in IT in tertiary education institutes, applied to be members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in order to become IT sector voters.

But Ming Pao published a report on Friday stating that it found only 19 voters in the education sector made the alleged switch, out of the IT sectors 12,000-strong members.

Let the data speak for itself. When the pro-establishment media could write their headline story based on lies, how far can the smearing go? said Charles Mok, the sitting IT sector lawmaker running for re-election in the functional constituency of the upcoming Legislative Council election.

One new IT sector voter told Ming Pao that he switched jobs from an educational institute to a tech company, and that he obtained the new status from a related society unrelated to IEEE, or the pro-Beijing industry association iProA.

Another new voter told the newspaper that he expected the election result of the education sector would not be very different from the past, and he heard that the pro-Beijing camp was doing something in the IT sector, therefore he wanted to make the switch and vote for the pan-democratic candidate. He said he has been a member of the Hong Kong Association for Computer Education for more than ten years.

President of Baptist University Roland Chin also made the switch, but the newspaper said he was not reachable.

The HKPTU has denied any discussion over transferring voters to other sectors and any involvement in vote-rigging activities. It said that the union in fact urged eligible members to apply as education sector voters in April, during the registration period. We recognise and respect press freedom, but we are deeply disappointed by false allegations, a statement read.

Overall, including the 19, 42 people switched to the IT sector from other functional constituencies since the last election in 2012, according to Ming Pao.

Eric Yeung Chuen-sing, Moks opponent in the election, told Ming Pao that he was surprised by the result. If it was only 40 people, it was nothing special, he said.

In a statement, Mok demanded Headline Daily issue a public statement to clarify the false allegations.

Internet comments:

- On the question of who do you believe, here is IEEE:

- Will the person who created this material stand up and apologize sincerely? If this person is actually an election candidate, then the right thing to do is to apologize and drop out; even if elected, to not assume the office so that a by-election will be held.

- (Headline Daily) In December 2015, the IEEE had about 2700 members in its Hong Kong branch. By June 2016, the number of members had increased rapidly to 8,830.

- Something is rotten in the state of Denmark ...

- How to become an IT sector voter (from the Frontline Tech Wokers Concern Group's Facebook) to easy steps:

- "Ming Pao published a report on Friday stating that it found only 19 voters in the education sector made the alleged switch, out of the IT sectors 12,000-strong members. Let the data speak for itself. When the pro-establishment media could write their headline story based on lies, how far can the smearing go? said Charles Mok, the sitting IT sector lawmaker running for re-election in the functional constituency of the upcoming Legislative Council election."

This is a misdirection play. Nobody is saying that the problem is only with voters in the education sector making the switch to the IT sector. The education sector is totally dominated by Professional Teachers Union member so that the election winner will surely be the person designated by the Professional Teachers Union. Some teachers don't even bother to register as voters. The call is for those people to register as IT sector voters so that they can dominate the IT sector as well. Someone figured out that an easy path to become an IT sector voter is to register as a member of the apolitical IEEE.

Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme five-day rolling poll (as of August 23, 2016).

District Council (Second) Functional Constituency
ID# Name (Party)

%

801 James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) 16%
802 Starry Lee (DAB) 17%
803 Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) 5%
804 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) <0.5%
805 Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) 2%
806 Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) 6%
807 Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) 1%
808 Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 8%
809 Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) 5%

Hong Kong Island
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Gary Wong Chi Him (independent) 1%
2 Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) 1%
3 Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) 21%
4 Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) 2%
5 Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) 5%
6 Chim Pui Chung (independent) 1%
7 Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) 1%
8 Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) 4%
9 Shum Chee Chiu (independent) <0.5%
10 Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) 10%
11 Chui Chi Kin (independent) <0.5%
12 Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) 3%
13 Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) 4%
14 Tanya Chan (Civic Party) 10%
15 Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) 5%

Kowloon West
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) 3%
2 Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) <0.5%
3 Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) 8%
4 Leung Mei Fun (BPA) 14%
5 Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) 3%
6 Chu Siu Hung (independent) <0.5%
7 Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) 5%
8 Helena Wong  Pik Wan (Democratic Party) 8%
9 Lam Yi Lai (independent) <0.5%
10 Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) 10%
11 Kwan San Wai (independent) <0.5%
12 Lau Siu Lai (independent) 7%
13 Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) 3%
14 Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) 1%
15 Tik Chi Yuen (independent) 3%

Kowloon East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) 9%
2 Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) 10%
3 Patrict Ko Tat Pun (independent) <0.5%
4 Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) 1%
5 Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) 8%
6 Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) 12%
7 Lui Wing Kei (independent) <1%
8 Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) 10%
9 Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) 11%
10 Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) 5%
11 Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) 3%
12 Tam Tak Chi (People Power) 4%

New Territories West
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 1%
2 Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 5%
3 Ko Chi Fai (independent) <0.5%
4 Chow Wing Kan (Liberal Party) 1%
5 Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 5%
6 Kwong Koon Wan (independent) <0.5%
7 Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 12%
8 Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 4%
9 Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 7%
10 Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 6%
11 Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 3%
12 Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) 5%
13 Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 2%
14 Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 5%
15 Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 2%
16 Chan Han Pan (DAB) 5%
17 Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) <0.5%
18 Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) <0.5%
19 Tong Wing Chi (independent) 1%
20 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 2%

New Territories East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) 5%
2 Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) 4%
3 Liu Tin Shing (independent) <0.5%
4 Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) 4%
5 Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) 3%
6 Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) 3%
7 Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) 12%
8 Raymond Mak Ka Chun (independent) <0.5%
9 Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) 4%
10 Elizabeth Quat (DAB) 7%
11 Hau Chi Keung (independent) <0.5%
12 Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) 4%
13 Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) 2%
14 Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) 3%
15 Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) <0.5%
16 Wong Sum Yu (independent) <0.5%
17 Leticia Lee See Yin <0.5%
18 Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) 2%
19 Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) 5%
20 Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) <0.5%
21 Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) 3%
22 Chan Hak Kan (DAB) 5%

(HKG Pao) August 23, 2016.

With respect to the rolling polls conducted by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, two political parties held a press conference to lodge complaints. The first political party People Power said that the rolling polls are based upon small samples with large sampling errors. Furthermore, the interviews read only the first candidate on the list. The second political party said that their incumbent legislator Chan Wai Yip was second on the list and therefore this presentation puts them into a disadvantage.

In 2008 and 2012, the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme read out the first three names on a list, because many political parties put their better known members in second place. As a result, Chan Wai Yip estimated that he has to spend 80% of his time trying to tell people not to trust the polls instead of expounding on his own policy platform. Chan Wai Yip also said that his list had been 5% at one point, but is now less than 0.5%. He asked: "Is someone paying you to do this?" He said that if he loses, then the blame will be on the polling.

On August 19, Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme responded: "Due to limited resources, the rolling polls had a smaller sample at first. The sample sizes will be increased in the latter stages and the sampling errors will decrease in a corresponding manner." So HKU POP is admitting that their sample sizes are small and that the accuracy has room for improvement. No wonder the political parties are critical.

(SCMP) August 22, 2016.

Pollsters at the University of Hong Kong made a U-turn on Monday and changed the methodology of a rolling poll on the Legislative Council elections after political parties across the spectrum cast doubts on its reliability.

Angry parties, including the Democrats, People Power and the Liberal Party, had pointed to the small sample size of the poll 100 to 300 people in each of the five geographical constituencies and the pollsters failure to mention aspirants placed second on a slate when questioning respondents.

Several outgoing lawmakers are running second on tickets in an attempt to secure seats for their protgs. Under the proportional representation system these veterans have little chance of winning.

In a statement last Friday, the HKU Public Opinion Programme said it would not consider altering its methodology as it had found no significant statistical difference between mentioning one and two candidates on the slate in a test when polling 469 people from August 11 to 15. But it backtracked and decided to mention two candidates on the slate to respondents from Monday night onwards.

[HKU POP] made this decision after taking into account opinions from all walks of life and we believe [the change] is manageable, Frank Lee, the programmes research manager, told the Post.

The pollsters had earlier said the number of slates in direct elections had increased drastically and they had no choice but to name only the first aspirant on each list, saying it was the best they could do. When asked if they could have done better from the beginning, Lee said: We will not look back.

Dominic Lee Tsz-king, a Liberal Party candidate running in New Territories East who had criticised the polls methodology, said he welcomes the pollsters making amends. The level of support for Lees list, with veteran James Tien Pei-chun standing in second place, was 4.1 per cent when Tiens name was read to respondents. Without Tiens name read out it was 2.6 per cent, according to the test.

People Powers Albert Chan Wai-yip, who is running second with the League of Social Democrats Raphael Wong Ho-ming in New Territories West, said the change had come too late as the damage had been done. The TV and radio have been running the results of the poll every hour and voters have already formed an impression on the candidates, he said.

The parties earlier had expressed their worries over the poll, which they said might mislead voters into giving up on hopefuls who in fact had a chance of winning.

The poll was commissioned by three media organisations and Power of Democracy.

(i-cable tv) August 25, 2016.

Cable TV News will no longer publish HKU POP poll numbers for the Legislative Council elections, effective immediately. We learned yesterday that the data from August 21 to September 1  will become the 5,000-person sample for Power for Democracy and published two days before the election.

Power for Democracy advertised that this definite 5000 person sample will be useful for political parties to adjust their strategies in order to increase their chances for winning Legco seats.

We do not believe that we as a media organization should co-sponsor an election tool along with a political organization. Therefore we have decided that we will no longer release polls numbers, effective immediately.

(SCMP) August 25, 2016.

Two television stations which are sponsoring a rolling poll on the Legislative Council elections have stopped broadcasting the results, after a co-sponsoring political group announced it will make use of the data for electioneering.

As media organisations, Cable TV and Now TV said it would be inappropriate for them to continue working together with the political group.

The poll, conducted by the University of Hong Kongs public opinion programme, has sparked controversy since it was launched late last month. Last week, it was criticised by several political parties, whose candidates were shown as lagging, for having a small sample size, with only 100 to 300 people in each of the five geographical constituencies.

The pollsters cited budget constraints, adding it would raise the size closer to the election.

In a statement yesterday, Cable TV said it found out only on Wednesday that co-sponsor Power for Democracy was planning to make use of some of the poll data to compile a large-scale survey, to be released on September 2, two days before polling day.

Power for Democracy has ... [said] the survey with 5,000 [people] will be indicative and helpful for political parties to adjust their strategies and win more seats, the statement read. Cable TV considers it is not appropriate for itself, as a media organisation, to co-sponsor an opinion poll for electioneering, it added. It will stop showing the results today.

Under the law, broadcasts must be politically neutral, with equal treatment given to candidates during the election period.

On the first day the poll results were announced, the HKU pollsters stated in a press release the survey was co-sponsored by the two stations, online news portal HK01 and Power for Democracy.

Cable TV news editor Lam Miu-yan had noted the groups participation, but said her station was not aware it planned to use the data for the 5,000-people survey. Now TV said it had never before co-sponsored a survey with a political body, and it was not informed of Power for Democracys participation during negotiations on the poll contract with HKU.

Both stations said they have not decided on whether to withdraw sponsorships or not.

Karie Pang Ka-lai, assistant director of HKUs public opinion programme, said her team did not expect the political group to come up with a different purpose for the data after the deal was made but stressed that the pollsters independence had not been compromised.

Power for Democracy, meanwhile, said it was shocked and did not understand the broadcasters decision.

(HKG Pao) August 23, 2016.

There is a discussion forum post which cites a HKU POP worker that the polling numbers for certain pro-establishment candidates are artificially inflated in order to boost votes for 'pro-democracy' candidates.

The information is given in a table. For example, the original data showed that Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee had 9% support. But a new target is set to be 16% and her number was artificially adjusted up to 16%. Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme has not yet responded to press inquiries.

Here is a translation of the post:

"Deep throat" revelation: Pan-democrats fix opinion polls to fool people

Last night, I went drinking with a friend who works at a think tank. After four bottles, our heads were spinning and we began to talk about the Legislative Council elections ...

He said confidently that the pro-establishment camp won't be able to get 15 seats in the geographical constituencies.

I said that I don't believe it!

He challenged me to a bet: How about two Lafite's?

I never back off from a challenge!!! So I immediately took him on.

"Dear friend, what do you know? Right now, the poll results on Cable TV have been fixed ... the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme research assistant Shiry told me that Power For Democracy has artificially raised the poll numbers for the pro-establishment candidates.

For example, Mrs. Ip has a support level of 9%, less than Ricky Wong's 10%. But they inflated it to 16%. Leung Mei Fun has only 4.3% support, even less than Yau Wai Ching. But she is being boosted up to 7%. The same thing with Wong Kwok Kin."

I asked: "What is the advantage?"

"Fuck! I was right what I said that you know nothing! They do so in order to play up the pan-democrats as victims and get the sympathy vote. The pro-establishment camp appeared to be heavy favorites, but they may lose everything. I even got a photo of their document. Let me send this over to you. You are going to lose this one for sure."

The fucking Power For Democracy has caused me to lose two Lafites. Today I am telling you about this dirty secret, so that the Electoral Affairs Commission can arrest these bastards."

(The Standard) June 6, 2016.

Eighteen pro-democracy groups have formed an alliance to promote strategic voting in the September Legislative Council elections under the "ThunderGo" plan of University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai Yiu-tin.

The alliance, Citizens Unit