(v4.0)

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

(SCMP) July 22, 2016.

A former University of Hong Kong student union president has denied threatening the schools governing council chairman Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung at a meeting in January as he pleaded not guilty to four charges at his first court appearance.

Billy Fung Jing-en, 22, faces one count of criminal damage and its alternative charge of disorderly conduct in a public place, plus another count of criminal damage and one of attempted forcible entry. He pleaded not guilty to all charges on Friday through an interpreter, each time shaking his head as he stated not guilty.

His arraignment before acting principal magistrate Joseph To Ho-shing was heard before a full house at Eastern Court. Many in attendance were Fungs schoolmates, including his successor at the student union, Althea Suen Hiu-nam, and the Federation of Students former secretary general, Alex Chow Yong-kang.

Prosecutors said Fung threatened Li outside the main entrance of the Hong Kong Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research at Pok Fu Lam on January 26 this year.

It was alleged he behaved in a disorderly manner with intent to provoke a breach of peace at the time or when such a breach was likely to be caused, shouting: Dont let him go! Dont let Arthur Li go! Kill him! Kill him!

He was also said to have damaged the frame of a glass door in the building, joined by unidentified persons, without any lawful excuse.

A final charge accused him of attempting to enter the building in a violent manner along with unidentified persons.

Four prosecution witnesses, including Li, were expected to testify against the student leader. The court also heard there would be video evidence used against Fung but that prosecutors needed time to authenticate it and establish a chain of evidence.

Fung was granted bail at HK$10,000 on condition that he not contact any of the prosecution witnesses.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 22, 2016.

Security guards at the meeting venue in January called the police when the incident occurred. Citing the universitys executive vice-president Steven J. Cannon after a meeting, current student union president Althea Suen Hiu-nam said the secretariat of the school called the police again in February, upon the request of members of the council, and with the authorisation of the schools senior management team.

Suen said according to Cannon, some of the members of the senior management team have given statements to the police, and submitted a report to the police requesting investigation of the incident. She urged the school not give further information to the police. The school has no obligation to provide CCTV footage or other evidence to the police, she said.

Suen said it was not appropriate for the school to report the case to the police, that the university as an educational institution should not see student protests as criminal offences. The senior management team includes president Peter Mathieson, seven vice-presidents, the registrar and the director of finance. Mathieson described the incident at the time as mob rule .

A statement from HKU said A judicial process is under way and it would be inappropriate for the university to comment further.

The Hong Kong University Students Union issued a statement on Friday supporting Fung. [T]he current university authorities have forgone their integrity and the aim of education to cling to the powerful, allowing universities to become a political tool and the higher education to fall because of their moral bankruptcy, it said. The union said it was obviously a revenge directed against Fung as only he was charged out of dozens of people who joined the protest. The university authorities may believe that we will submit out of fear after this incident, but we say eloquently that we shall never back down. Filled with rage and having certainly no fear, we shall stand with Billy until the truth defeats the power, it added.

The University of Hong Kong Alumni Concern Group said Arthur Li should bear the biggest responsibility for causing the chaos as he did not explain the developments after the meeting to students, alumni, and members of the public. The students there were asking for conversation and explanation. We believe they did not have the intent to intimidate or damage the universitys facilities. The school could handle the damage caused by the incident using existing procedures of the university, it said in a statement.

The Hong Kong Federation of Students and the student union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong also criticised the school for suppressing its students.

Link: HKU Council Battle - Main Event (2016/01/26)
Link: HKU Council Battle - Postlude (2016/01/28)

Internet comments:

- Based upon the following screen captures, a police report has been filed against Hong Kong University Students Unions president Althea Suen for obstruction of justice.

Althea Suen: I strongly issue this request


Althea Suen: I hope that he will not provide other information.


Althea Suen: Because the school has no obligation or responsibility


Althea Suen: To provide the so-called closed circuit television segments.

- The next time that a crime (e.g. robbery, rape, murder, etc) takes place on campus, please don't bother to call the police. How can they investigate any crime when you don't have the obligation or duty to provide any evidence to help solve the case?

- (TVB) Barrister Ronny Tong said: "To convince certain witnesses to not testify in court, or not to provide certain evidence to the police may constitute obstruction of justice. I think that this student is acting dangerously. She should stop and get some legal advice first."

- (SCMP) Alex Lo. July 23, 2016.

To defend Billy Fung, his successor at the HKU Student Union has told the universitys administration on television, no less that it has neither the duty nor obligation to offer evidence to the police or cooperate with them. This is to protect the future of its students and the reputation of the school, according to Althea Suen Hiu-nam.

Well, Althea, people do have a legal duty to give evidence and provide witness. And telling people not to do it may amount to interfering with witnesses and perverting the course of justice, which any well-informed secondary school child knows are criminal offences. I dont fret about youthful rebellion. Its the quality of student leadership I worry about. And they are all running for Legco!

- Arthur Li and Billy Fung: "Don't let Arthur Li leave! Kill him!"

- It is alleged that Billy Fung said aloud: "唔好畀李國章走!隊冧佢!" This can be translated as "Don't let Arthur Li leave! Kill him!" But "隊冧佢" is gangster talk and not approved to be used in regular society. So a better translation is "Don't let Arthur Li leave! Fucking kill him!"

- Spoof photo of Billy Fung: Why should I be afraid? At most, I'll be sentenced to community service.

Evidence of forcible entry

- Democracy Wall, inside the Hong Kong University campus

The intention was to say, "Arthur Li, Fuck your mother!" Instead, the writer missed the comma. So it is coming out as "Arthur Li fucks/is fucking/fucked your mother!"

- I once thought that illiteracy was limited only to the Demosisto punks who didn't have good enough DSE marks to enter university. Now I know that illiteracy is rampant among Hong Kong University students.

- Arthur Li comes from a wealthy family. I can completely understand why you want Arthur Li to be your daddy.

- There were two other banners, both of which were problematic as well. The one above says: "我們的杏林﹐我們會奪回來" which "We'll take back our medical sector." This makes zero sense, because they really wanted to say "我們的翰林﹐我們會奪回來" which means "We'll take back our academic world." So this was a typographic error.

The other banner said: "Hong Kong University takes the side of the evildoers, we voice our support for Billy Fung Jing-en, Mathieson is shameful." Unfortunately this can also be taken to read: "Hong Kong University takes the side of the evildoers, vocal support for Billy Fung Jing-en/Peter Mathieson is shameful."

- Former Hong Kong University Students Union president Yvonne Leung brought others to charge into the Western District Police Station https://www.facebook.com/hkjoesin/videos/10154289030227381/ The police officer said that there are security reasons for not allowing too many people inside the police station. Leung demanded to know the maximum number of persons allowed under the regulations. The police officer said that the police decide based upon the situation.

- (Ming Pao) Meanwhile over at Shue Yan University, the administration said that three individuals (a recent graduate; a third-year student; a first-year student who has already dropped o ut) hung up two banners that read: "You will regret it for the rest of your life if you enter Shue Yan University" and "Open University and Hang Seng Business School are better." According to information provided by another student, "the three individuals prepared the banners inside the Student Union conference room and left at 1030pm to hang up the banners." Afterwards many students, teachers, staff members and alumni said that they were upset.

- If these people think that Shue Yan University is a shitty place, they should have dropped out and stayed far away. Instead, they spend so much time to prepare these banners.

Q1. What is your overall rating of the political parties in Hong Kong?
49.7%: Dissatisfied
39.1%: In-between
5.3%: Satisfied
6.0%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. Compared to one year ago, what is your overall impression of political parties in Hong Kong?
54.0%: Worse
36.8%: The same
5.3%: Better
3.9%: Don't know/hard to day

Q3. Why are you dissatisfied with the political parties? (Base: Those who are dissatisfied)
24.7%: Political parties failed to accomplish anything
15.7%: Political parties look after the interests of themselves instead serving the citizens
15.2%: Political parties only know to squabble with each other
10.1%: Political parties do not represent the opinions of citizens
6.5%: Political parties often engage in filibustering
3.9%: Legislators from political parties often fail to attend meetings
3.4%: Political parties are biased on behalf of the government
2.5%: Political parties won't tolerate dissent
2.2%: Political parties behave poorly/have bad image
2.0%: Political parties politicize everything
9.8%: Other reasons
3.9%: Don't know/hard to say

Q4. Why are you satisfied with the political parties (Base: Those who are satisfied)
31.6%: Political parties represent the diverse opinions among citizens
13.2%: Political parties are able to help citizens
10.5%: Political parties can effectively monitor the government
7.9%: Political parties performed well in the lead-in-water incident
5.3%: Political parties are not squabbling without reason, they are appreciated and accepted
2.6%: Political parties can held weak and vulnerable groups
7.9%: Other reasons
15.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q5. How you optimistic or pessimistic about the future for development of political parties over the next ten years in Hong Kong?
54.1%: Pessimistic
33.8%: Half-half
5.4%: Optimistic
6.7%: Don't know/hard to say

Q6. Do you agree that the Hong Kong SAR government should be led by political parties through election?
25.8%: Disagree
29.7%: Half-half
35.8%: Agree
8.8%: Don't know/hard to say

Q7. Which political party do you support?
8.9%: DAB
8.7%: Civic Party
7.6%: Democratic Party
2.4%: New People Party
1.9%: Federation of Trade Unions
1.7%: Liberal Party
1.4%: Hong Kong Indigenous
1.0%: Neo Democrats
0.8%: Labour Party
0.7%: Youngspiration
0.6%: People Power
0.6%: League of Social Democrats
0.1%: ADPL
---
4.6%: Pan-democratic camp
2.2%: Pro-establishment camp
1.0%: Localist camp
5.0%: Other
50.8%: DOn't know/hard to say/none

Q8. Are you a registered voter?
14.1%: No
85.0%: Yes
0.8%: Don't know

Q9. Will you vote in the September Legco elections? (Base: Registered voters)
5.4%: No
21.5%: Possibly
66.4%: Definitely
6.7%: Don't know/hard to say

Q10. Which political party will you vote for? (Base: Likely voters)
10.3%: DAB
6.4%: Democratic Party
5.5%: Civic Party
1.8%: Federation of Trade Unions
1.6%: New People Party
1.4%: Liberal Party
---
7.5%: Pan-democratic camp
2.5%: Unaffiliated/middle-of-the-road/independent candidates
2.5%: Pro-establishment camp
1.1%: Localist camp
5.9%: Other political part/group
53.6%: Undecided/blank vote/don't know

(South China Morning Post) July 15, 2016.

Radical pan-democratic legislators seeking re-election have vowed to defy a change to election rules for the Legislative Council polls in September despite the risk of being disqualified.

The controversial change targeting independence advocates requires candidates to sign a declaration acknowledging Chinas sovereignty over Hong Kong and allowing electoral officials to follow up on their compliance, but pan-democrats are up in arms against it.

They complained yesterday that the new rules amounted to political censorship, and planned to meet the chief of the citys election watchdog over the matter on Tuesday. They will not sign the new declaration until their concerns are addressed.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying stressed that independence for Hong Kong was out of the question even after 2047, when the governing principle of one country, two systems expires.

The two-week nomination period begins today, and all candidates have to make the standard declaration to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the city. But under the new rules imposed by the Electoral Affairs Commission, they will have to sign a second form agreeing to provide information if requested on their compliance. Refusal to sign could risk disqualification.

Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen denied political censorship, and said candidates could submit their nominations without signing the new form, but that would be a factor in deciding whether to approve their candidacy.

People Power lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip and his pan-democratic colleagues demanded the commission clarify the consequences if a candidate refused to sign the new declaration. They would not rule out launching a judicial challenge.

Elsie Leung Oi-sie, vice-chairwoman of the Basic Law Committee under the national legislature, said the new measure only repeated the constitutional requirement for lawmakers to swear allegiance to Hong Kong. If you make an oath thinking it is meaningless and you do something later to break it, it would be a criminal offence, she said.

Maria Tam Wai-chu, a member of the same committee, warned candidates to think about your stance clearly when you take the oath.

Anyone who makes a false statement in an election-related document commits an offence and is subject to a maximum fine of HK$5,000 and six months in prison.

The Progressive Lawyers Group, a legal concern group, said: We sincerely hope that the declaration is not used as the first step towards an illegal restriction of fundamental rights ... such as that of standing for election and of free speech.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 15, 2016.

The government has required Legislative Council election candidates to declare that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China or they may not be nominated, in a surprise effort to potentially bar Hong Kong independence advocates from running.

Anyone making a false declaration on the nomination form is liable to criminal sanction. The maximum penalty, according to the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, is a fine of HK$100,000 and three years of imprisonment, and offenders cannot be elected as district councillors and lawmakers for five years.

Localist candidates who support the citys independence have criticised the move introduced by the Electoral Affairs Commission on Thursday, while some pan-democratic parties questioned the declarations legality.

In the original nomination form, candidates were already required to declare that they will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. But the new declaration requires them to specifically support three articles in the Basic Law.

Articles number one, 12, and 159(4) are about Hong Kongs status in China. They say that it is an inalienable part of China with a high degree of autonomy under the Central Government and that no amendment to the Basic Law shall contravene Chinas established basic policies regarding Hong Kong.

The move came after announcements from several independence advocates that they will join the election in September, ahead of the start of the nomination period on Saturday. According to a preliminary poll by the University of Hong Kongs public opinion programme, two candidates from the camp may win in the election.

A spokesperson for the government said we take the view that advocating and promoting the independence of Hong Kong is contrary to the content of the declaration that the law requires a candidate to make, namely rendering it questionable as to whether the concerned candidate is capable of being validly nominated, causing uncertainties to the solemn Legislative Council election and confusion to electors. The government agreed that there was a need for the Electoral Affairs Commission to take certain corresponding measures in the electoral process, added the spokesperson.

The Electoral Affairs Commission said [i]n making the declaration, candidates must clearly understand the relevant context and legal consequences. Upon receiving the nomination form, the Returning Officer shall process the nomination according to the law and the procedure, and determine and announce whether the nomination is valid according to the law, a spokesperson said.

Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen denied that it was a measure of political suppression. He said that if candidates refused to sign the declaration, it will not directly lead to disqualification, as returning officers will instead communicate with them to determine the outcome on a case-by-case basis.

Edward Leung Tin-kei, who is considering running for a LegCo seat, told HKFP that he will not sign the declaration, unless my groups lawyers tell me it is absolutely necessary. His lawyers are still looking into it, he said. He said he was considering submitting his nomination form on Saturday. We may not sign the declaration  we may watch the reaction from the Electoral Affairs Commission and make plans after that, he said. Leung who is spokesperson for Hong Kong Indigenous added that he will still speak about his advocacy for Hong Kong independence during his run no matter what the consequences are.

Alan Leong Kah-kit of the Civic Party said candidates were already required to make the declaration in the original nomination form, and that he could not see any legal grounds for the declaration. Im guessing it is aimed at censoring certain political ideals it is challenging our freedom of speech and thought, he said.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Starry Lee Wai-king said the new declaration was reasonable, as candidates should know that they would have to pledge allegiance to the Basic Law after being elected anyway.

(EJ Insight) July 15, 2016.

Pan-democrats opposed a move by the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) to require candidates in the Legislative Council election to declare that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is part of China.

The requirement, a declaration attached to the nomination form that must be signed by all Legco candidates, is seen as an attempt by the government to prevent those who are advocating independence and self-determination for Hong Kong from running in the election scheduled for Sept. 4.

In a press statement, the EAC announced on Thursday that candidates must agree to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR before they can be nominated to run for Legco seats, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

The two-week nomination period starts on Saturday. Anyone who fails to sign the form will not be validly nominated as a candidate, the EAC said, adding that running for the election, signing the nomination form, and making the declaration are solemn acts.

Civic Party legislator Alan Leong Kah-kit, who is a barrister, questioned the legal basis of the declaration form, while Democratic Party lawmaker Emily Lau Wai-hing said the new form is unnecessary and may backfire, broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong reported.

The nomination forms are available for collection starting Friday. The returning officer will process the nomination after the form is received, and determine and announce whether the nomination is valid, the commission said. It also warned that candidates who make the declaration must clearly understand its relevant context and legal consequences.

Making a false declaration is liable to criminal sanction, which may involve a fine of up to HK$100,000 and three years imprisonment in addition to deprivation of the right to run in District Council and Legco elections for three years and five years respectively.

In explaining the new requirement, the EAC said questions have been raised by the public as to whether candidates fully understand the Basic Law.

It specifically pointed out three provisions in the Basic Law that all candidates must bear in mind, namely Articles 1, 12 and 159(4) which state that the Hong Kong SAR is an inalienable part of the Peoples Republic of China, that it enjoys a high degree of autonomy and comes directly under the central government, and that no amendment to the law shall contravene Chinas basic policies regarding Hong Kong.

Following the EAC announcement, the government said in a statement on Thursday evening that advocating and promoting Hong Kong independence is contrary to the content of the candidates declaration, rendering it questionable as to whether the concerned candidate is capable of being validly nominated, and causing uncertainties to the Legco election and confusion to electors.

Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen denied the declaration form is tantamount to political censorship, as some have alleged. A source in the government told HKEJ that there will no legal consequences or criminal conviction for any candidate who refuses to sign the form.

Leong said he is surprised that EAC chairman Barnabas Fung Wah would allow such a form that has no legal basis whatsoever.

Edward Leung Tin-kei, a member of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous who is running again in the New Territories East geographical constituency after losing in the Feb. 28 by-election, said the EAC move is clearly aimed at pro-independence candidates, who are seen as a threat to the regime. He said he will sign the form if his lawyer suggests to him to do so, but that is only to be able to run in the election. He said he will continue to promote the idea of independence during the campaign.

(EJ Insight) July 18, 2016.

One in three nominees in the Sept. 4 Legislative Council elections has refused to sign a declaration to uphold the Basic Law.

The Registration and Electoral Office (REO) said it received 33 applications on Saturday, the start of a two-week nomination period, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports. Nearly a third did not sign the declaration which also includes a pledge of allegiance to the Hong Kong government.

The declaration, announced Thursday by the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC), quickly came under fire as an attempt by the government to weed out pro-independence candidates. EAC, which called the declaration a solemn act, said only nominees who signed the form are valid candidates. But REO said the declaration is not part of the nomination form and all nominations will processed.

The Democratic Party and several of its allies have said their nominees will not sign the declaration. Labor Party chairwoman Suzanne Wu said such a pledge is unnecessary.

Pan-democrats are scheduled to meet with EAC chairman Barnabas Fung to demand the retraction of the requirement.

Edward Leung of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, who is running in New Territories East after losing in the Feb. 28 by-election, refused to sign the declaration when he filed his candidacy on Saturday.

A spokesman for the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party, whose convenor Andy Chan Ho-tin plans to file his candidacy on Monday, said none of its nominees will sign the declaration.

Alvin Cheng of the radical political group Civic Passion is the only non-establishment candidate who has signed the pledge. But he said he will continue to promote his pro-independence agenda.

Peking University law professor Rao Geping, a member of the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee, said the declaration is a political requirement that is consistent with the Basic Law and the Chinese constitution.

Internet comment:

- (HKG Pao) The Hong Kong National Party announced that the people on the Election Affairs Commission are kidding themselves if they think that they can stop Hong Kong independence from becoming mainstream. They said that all pro-Hong Kong independence organizations should not be intimidated or follow the requirement by the Election Affairs Commission to make promises. Instead, we should rip off the resources of the Hong Kong Communist government to push for Hong Kong independence.

The declaration said that even if the Hong Kong National Party makes the promise, they will continue to promote Hong Kong independence. If the Election Affairs Commission rejects their nominations, there will be political consequences. If the law enforcement agency should charge them with making a false statement, they are willing to fight the charges all the way.

- If you refuse to take the promissory oath because you are an conscientious objector, your nomination is incomplete according to Legislative Council Ordinance CAP 541/542 and therefore you won't be one of the listed choices on election day. You can apply for a judicial review (using legal aid, of course) but the outcome won't be known until a couple of years later. It would be extraordinary for any court to rule in your favor, because the law (the Basic Law and the Legislative Council Ordinance) is very clear and the courts are reluctant to breach the separation of powers and dictate what the Election Affairs Commission should be doing. Besides, if you win, it means that the 2016 Legislative Council elections would be voided and taken all over again (at a cost of several hundreds of millions of HK dollars).

- Why is the government doing this just before the nomination period begins? This is setting a trap for the pro-Hong Kong independence folks.

(1) If you refuse to sign the promissory oath, you won't be allowed to run in the election.

(2) If you sign the promissory oath but continue to preach Hong Kong independence, you are guilty of perjury.

(3) If you sign the promissory oath and won't speak for Hong Kong independence again, you will have betrayed your avowed cause.

- (3) is the best option. You can tell everybody that you will stop speaking for Hong Kong independence for now. But if elected, you will be shielded by Basic Law Article 77:

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

You promise that you will spend every minute of your speech time at the Legislative Council to say how great Hong Kong independence will be.

- (TVB) Demosisto chairman Nathan Law said: "This is not only suppressing the Localists, but this rule is also a form of suppression on the political rights of the people of Hong Kong. This is more than not dealing with it when it is not an advocacy of Hong Kong independence."

This is typical of Demosisto that their comments are incomprehensible. They need to learn (1) logic/reasoning based upon acquisition of relevant facts and (2) command of the language of expression.

- (Bastille Post) Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) refused to sign. He said that this was political censorship. If he signed the pledge and then expressed support for Hong Kong independence, the government can rescind his candidacy because he has violated. In fact, he may be charged with making a false oath. But Leung also acknowledged that failure to sign the pledge may mean that he is ineligible to run. The chances of winning a judicial review are slim because the candidates were previously required to pledge to support the Basic Law and the government is only enumerating specific articles of the Basic Law now.

- (HKG Pao) A number of Legislative Council candidates have refused to side the pledge of allegiance, including pro-independence elements as well as traditional pan-democrats. On the surface, they seemed to be saying: "I think that it is wrong for the government to do this. So I will stick to my principles and do the right thing by not signing."

But the truth is that refusing to sign is a political ploy. By declaring that you won't sign, the media will come and ask you to make brilliant comments. If the government responds, you will make even more brilliant comments that the media will report, etc. This is a lot more fun than just signing the pledge.

But what if the Election Affairs Committee stands firm and insist that all those who refuse to sign won't be eligible to run in the election? What happens to those who initially refuse to sign?

Some of them will throw their principles away and sign. They will say that it was more important to prevent the Chinese Communists from taking over the Legislative Council. But they will have lost the moral high ground. Everything that they said before will be used against them in the ensuing debates.

Some of them will stick to their principles and still refuse to sign. If so, I will give them some more respect because they stuck to their principles.

- When so many pan-democrats refuse to sign the pledge, it means that they are sticking to the principle of "They can't kill us all." That is, the Hong Kong SAR government will not be able to withstand the international outcry if all of them are excluded for refusing to sign the pledge.

- Unfortunately, it is also international standard for election candidates to pledge allegiance to the constitution and government of the respective governments. If the international community wants to condemn Hong Kong, they will have to explain why.

- (Bastille Post) Signing the pledge or not is a sure indicator of who is a fool or knave. Among those who signed are Alvin Cheng of Civic Passion. Among those who didn't sign are Lam Cheuk-ting and Hui Chi-fung of the Democratic Party.

So far the government hasn't even shown its hand yet. They may just decide that those who didn't sign are not eligible to run. And if you don't like it, you can apply for a judicial review which will take years. Even then, even if the Court of Final Appeal rules in you favor, the government can get the National People's Congress Standing Committee to overturn this constitutional issue.

The young doves of the Democratic Party are making a mistake. The gesture may make them seem radical, but the reality is that they will never be so radical as fight for Hong Kong independence. The pledge requirement was never directed at them. They should have signed under protest and then they would have gained the votes of those who refused to sign in the end. If Szeto Wah were alive, he would have been kicking and screaming, but he would still sign. And he have preferred the Localists not to sign!

(The Diplomat) Of Course China, Like All Great Powers, Will Ignore an International Legal Verdict. By Graham Allison. July 11, 2016.

This week the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) will deliver its award in the Philippines case against China over maritime disputes in the South China Sea. In a bid to thwart Beijings attempt to turn the South China Sea into its own virtual lake, Manila contends that Chinas claim to exclusive sovereignty over all the islands and shoals within the nine-dashed line which encompasses 86 percent of the Sea has no basis in international law. There is not much suspense about what the tribunal will decide: it will almost certainly side with the Philippines. The United States and its allies have already started criticizing China for signaling in advance that it will ignore the courts ruling, which one Chinese official derided last week as nothing more than a piece of paper.

It may seem un-American to ask whether China should do as we say, or, by contrast, as we do. But suppose someone were bold enough to pose that question. The first thing they would discover is that no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the PCA on an issue involving the Law of the Sea. In fact, none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international courts ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests. Thus, when China rejects the Courts decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades.

From the day the Philippines went to court, China has argued that the PCA has no legitimate jurisdiction on this issue since it concerns sovereignty which the text of the Law of the Sea treaty explicitly prohibits tribunals from addressing. When the Court rejected Chinas objection, Beijing refused to participate in its hearings and made it clear that it will ignore the PCAs ruling. The United States and others have criticized Beijing for taking this stance. But again, if we ask how other permanent members of the Security Council have acted in similar circumstances, the answer will not be one we like.

When the Netherlands sued Russia after the latters navy boarded and detained the crew of a Dutch vessel in waters off of the Russian coast in 2013, Moscow asserted that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter and refused to participate in the hearings. It also ignored a tribunals order that the crew be released while the dispute was being resolved. After the PCA ruled that Russia had violated the Law of the Sea and ordered Moscow to pay the Netherlands compensation, Russia refused.

Anticipating the Courts ruling in the case brought by the Philippines, UK Prime Minister David Cameron proclaimed: We want to encourage China to be part of that rules-based world. We want to encourage everyone to abide by these adjudications.  Perhaps he had forgotten that just last year the PCA ruled that the UK had violated the Law of the Sea by unilaterally establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Islands. The British government disregarded the ruling, and the Marine Protected Area remains in place today.

The United States has never been sued under the Law of the Sea because unlike China Washington has not ratified the international agreement and is thus not bound by its rules. Expect Chinese commentators to emphasize this point in the mutual recriminations that will follow the Courts announcement.

The closest analogue to the Philippines case involving the United States arose in the 1980s when Nicaragua sued Washington for mining its harbors. Like China, the United States argued that the International Court of Justice did not have the authority to hear Nicaraguas case. When the court rejected that claim, the United States not only refused to participate in subsequent proceedings, but also denied the Courts jurisdiction on any future case involving the United States, unless Washington explicitly made an exception and asked the Court to hear a case. If China followed that precedent, it could withdraw from the Law of the Sea Treaty altogether joining the United States as one of the worlds only nations not party to the agreement.

In the Nicaragua case, when the Court found in favor of Nicaragua and ordered the United States to pay reparations, the U.S. refused, and vetoed six UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to comply with the courts ruling. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick aptly summed up Washingtons view of the matter when she dismissed the court as a semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes dont.

Observing what permanent members of the Security Council do, as opposed to what they say, it is hard to disagree with realists claim that the PCA and its siblings in The Hague the International Courts of Justice and the International Criminal Court are only for small powers. Great powers do not recognize the jurisdiction of these courts except in particular cases where they believe it is in their interest to do so. Thucydides summary of the Melian mantra the strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they must may exaggerate. But this week, when the Court finds against China, expect Beijing to do as great powers have traditionally done.

(Manila Times) Psst All superpowers usually ignore international verdicts  By Riboberto Tiglao. July 14, 2016.

I REALLY hope the $30 million (P1.4 billion) I was informed we, taxpayers, spent for the legal fees and expenses of the eight top-notch international lawyers and their staff who prepared our case against China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) turn out to be well spent.

Not only did they manage to get the PAC to redefine the standard meaning of arbitration, which for centuries had been defined as procedure in which two parties agree to a third party to settle their dispute. Now, it seems, arbitration can be a unilateral arbitration.

Now we also have succinct propaganda kit to try to convince the world to kick Chinas ass for its bullying in the South China Sea. The US Central Intelligence Agency or its State Department should reimburse us the P1.4 billionthe suit is a big blow to Chinas clout in the Spratlys, where the Americans have been pulling their hair how they could intervene since they dont have claims in the area, and they even havent ratified the UNCLOS.

Theres one hitch though, which I bet the very clever lawyers the government hired werent eager to tell their clients. The arbitral courts decision is certainly a blow to Chinas image, which the Court in effect portrayed as a bully in the South China Sea that even drives away lowly fishermen from international waters.

The hitch is that so far, superpowers normally ignore rulings not only of the Arbitration Court, but even of the International Court of Justice, even with a resolution of the UN demanding that they comply with decisions of such international bodies.

Superpower here is defined as the four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states, especially resolutions for going to war. These four, each with veto powers over any of the bodys resolution are: US, Russia, France, United Kingdom, andsince 1971the Peoples Republic of China.

Id have to have to include long footnotes for this column to convince you, dear incredulous reader, that superpowers routinely have ignored PCA decisions, which the world would later forget. So better just trust the following July 11 article in The Diplomat by a respected academic, Graham Allison, now director of the Harvard Kennedy Schools Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and former dean of Harvards John F. Kennedy School of Government.

The articles title was Of Course China, Like All Great Powers, Will Ignore an International Legal Verdict, with the lede, In ignoring an upcoming verdict on the South China Sea, Beijing is following well-established precedent by great powers. Article starts as follows:

From the day the Philippines went to court, China has argued that the PCA has no legitimate jurisdiction on this issue since it concerns sovereigntywhich the text of the Law of the Sea treaty explicitly prohibits tribunals from addressing. When the Court rejected Chinas objection, Beijing refused to participate in its hearings and made it clear that it will ignore the PCAs ruling. The United States and others have criticized Beijing for taking this stance. But again, if we ask how other permanent members of the Security Council have acted in similar circumstances, the answer will not be one we like.

When the Netherlands sued Russia after the latters navy boarded and detained the crew of a Dutch vessel in waters off of the Russian coast in 2013, Moscow asserted that the court had no jurisdiction in the matter and refused to participate in the hearings. It also ignored a tribunals order that the crew be released while the dispute was being resolved. After the PCA ruled that Russia had violated the Law of the Sea and ordered Moscow to pay the Netherlands compensation, Russia refused.

Anticipating the Courts ruling in the case brought by the Philippines, UK Prime Minister David Cameron proclaimed: We want to encourage China to be part of that rules-based world. We want to encourage everyone to abide by these adjudications. Perhaps he had forgotten that just last year the PCA ruled that the UK had violated the Law of the Sea by unilaterally establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Islands. The British government disregarded the ruling, and the Marine Protected Area remains in place today.

The United States has never been sued under the Law of the Sea becauseunlike ChinaWashington has not ratified the international agreement and is thus not bound by its rules. Expect Chinese commentators to emphasize this point in the mutual recriminations that will follow the Courts announcement.

The closest analogue to the Philippine case involving the United States arose in the 1980s when Nicaragua sued Washington for mining its harbors. Like China, the United States argued that the International Court of Justice did not have the authority to hear Nicaraguas case. When the court rejected that claim, the United States not only refused to participate in subsequent proceedings, but also denied the Courts jurisdiction on any future case involving the United States, unless Washington explicitly made an exception and asked the Court to hear a case. If China followed that precedent, it could withdraw from the Law of the Sea Treaty altogetherjoining the United States as one of the worlds only nations not party to the agreement.

In the Nicaragua case, when the Court found in favor of Nicaragua and ordered the United States to pay reparations, the US refused, and vetoed six UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to comply with the courts ruling. US Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick aptly summed up Washingtons view of the matter when she dismissed the court as a semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes dont.

Observing what permanent members of the Security Council do, as opposed to what they say, it is hard to disagree with realists claim that the PCA and its siblings in The Haguethe International Courts of Justice and the International Criminal Courtare only for small powers. Great powers do not recognize the jurisdiction of these courtsexcept in particular cases where they believe it is in their interest to do so. Thucydides summary of the Melian mantrathe strong do as they will; the weak suffer as they mustmay exaggerate. But this week, when the Court finds against China, expect Beijing to do as great powers have traditionally done.

(SCMP) On matters of sovereignty, China is following the US playbook. By Alex Lo. July 14, 2016.

A weaker country takes its case against a more powerful country to an international court. The stronger country ignores the case, saying the legal body has no jurisdiction. After it loses, it denounces the ruling and tells the other country to stuff it.

Sound familiar? No, its not China and the Philippines; not even the United States and Nicaragua, back in 1986.

In March this year, Argentina won its case against Britain at the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The unanimous ruling meant the Falkland Islands the same place Britain fought a war over falls within the territorial waters of Argentina. British prime minister sorry, I meant ex-PM David Cameron duly rejected the ruling.

Granted, the South Atlantic is not as headline-grabbing as the South China Sea. But the way people react to the latest ruling at The Hague makes it sound like China is the first country that ever defied a ruling by an international panel.

But the 30-year-old case of Nicaragua, which it won against the US, is even more relevant. For one thing, it provided a legal template in the Philippines case against China. Why else would Manila hire as its lead lawyer Paul Reichler, who also helped win the case for Nicaragua? The guy practically wrote the book on how sovereign states can sue each other.

Ironically, though, Beijing is following, every step of the way, the US playbook in the Nicaragua case.

Step one: deny the court has jurisdiction. In Chinas case, its the Permanent Court of Arbitration; in the US case, the International Court of Justice.

Step two: criticise the ruling, then ignore it.

Step three: wait for a friendlier government to emerge, then settle with it.

The US had to wait for years for the hated socialist Sandinistas to leave office after failing to oust them by illegally funding the Contra mercenaries through arms sales to Iran. China may be luckier. While former Philippines president Benigno Aquino was encouraged by the Americans and Japanese to pursue the case against China, his successor, Rodrigo Duterte, is more flexible and willing to play both sides.

My bet is that after The Hague ruling, the Philippines will tilt diplomatically towards Beijing rather than Washington.

Say what you will about Beijing, but it rarely fails to extract useful lessons from history, even American.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 14, 2016.

Dozens of Hong Kong celebrities with business ties in the mainland have publicly expressed their views on Chinas sovereignty after an international tribunal ruled against its territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Following the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on Tuesday, celebrities such as Wong Cho-lam, Leanne Li Yanan, William Chan Wai-ting, Yang Ying Angelababy, Donnie Yan Ji-dan and Hins Cheung defended Chinas claim over the disputed waters by posting an image which reads China can not lose even one bit of itself on microblogging platform Weibo.

The image, which originated from state newspaper Peoples Daily, showed a map of China with the nine-dash line a demarcation indicating Beijings claim over the South China Sea. The image also marks Taiwan and Hong Kong as territories under Chinas sovereignty.

One version of the poster features a slogan that reads Chinas territorial sovereignty does not need to be arbitrated by other people. This is our home country  not one bit of it can be lost, said Wong in his Weibo post. Fight for every inch of [Chinese] soil, do not give up even one inch of it, said Li on her microblogging account. Actress Angelababy said on her Weibo account on Wednesday that she advocates peace but would not compromise on the subject of national sovereignty.

Other Hong Kong celebrities such as Jackie Chan and Charlene Choi Cheuk-yin received online criticism from Weibo users for posting pictures unrelated to the ruling, reported Stand News. If I love my country, do I have to say it all the time? said Choi in response to commenters who claimed she was unpatriotic.

(Hong Kong Economic Insight) July 14, 2016.

A group of Hong Kong movie and TV celebrities wasted no time weighing in on the decision by an international tribunal to shoot down Chinas claims to disputed waters in the South China Sea. They are using their star power to drive a Peoples Daily post called China not a single dot less through social media. As expected, the viral post is stirring up a lot of controversy.

And why not, if it came from the likes of model Angelababy, Ip Man Donnie Yen, comedian Wong Cho-nam and wife Leanne Li (who both regularly work in China) and singer Hins Cheung (who posted a map of Red China that includes Hong Kong, Taiwan and the disputed Paracel and Spratly islands)?

Beijing quickly rejected Tuesdays ruling by The Hague tribunal that these two islands in Chinas nine dash line, stretching hundreds of miles south and east from Hainan, dont belong to China by any historical argument. Beijing has regarded the two islands as part of its sovereignty for centuries.

Its not uncommon for local artists to express their views on current events given the freedom of speech Hong Kong enjoys. But many mainlanders think they are not patriotic enough when they comment on issues other than Chinas territorial claims in the South China Sea.

So when movie star Jackie Chan posted his new production on Weibo, he was criticized for clowning around when China just lost a major international battle. Ditto Charlene Choi from the popular duo Twins for posting work photos while staying mum on an important matter. Choi hit back, saying I love my country but do I need to say it every hour? She went on to say everyone has a role which makes our country stronger but that its different if you just talk about being strong. Still, it puts people like her in a no-win situation whichever way the argument goes.

Doesnt this remind us of the Chinese saying that in a crossfire, you can get shot even with your head down (躺着也中槍)?

More than at any other time, artists in Hong Kong and Taiwan have to be careful about what they say and what they dont say. Early this year, Taiwan teen pop star Chou Tzu-yu was forced to apologize after she waved the Taiwanese flag in a promotional photo. Ironically, the apology, which came on the eve of Taiwans presidential election in January, helped the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party win a landslide.

Canto pop singer Kay Tse, a supporter of the civil disobedience group Occupy Central, cancelled a 10-city mainland tour after Anna Chan, convenor of the pro-establishment group Caring Hong Kong Power, complained to the mainland organizer. Then there is Lancome, which abruptly shut down a mini-concert by activist Denise Ho over her controversial political views.

Now the ball is in Jackie Chans court. People are waiting to hear what he has to say, but does he have to say anything?

Videos

(CCTV News @ YouTube) In the daily press briefing at the US Department of State on Sunday, while answering questions on the subject of the US policy of freedom of navigation and the South China Sea, the director of the departments press office Elizabeth Trudeau struggled to respond to a series of tough questions from Associated Press journalist Matthew Lee. Watch the video to see how the American reporter grilled Trudeau, and how she responded.

(Sina.com.cn) Another day and another US Department of State spokesperson mumbles through a press conference while a reporter hums "I am a rock and I am an island."

(YouTube) Simon and Garfunkel sing I Am A Rock
(Silent Radio version) Simon and Garfunkel's song accompanied by news footage

Internet comments:

- What is a rock? What is an island? Here are the answers as provided by the permanent court of arbitation.

Okinotorishima is a Japanese island with a total area of 2.096 acres. Because it is an island, the area around the island is a Japanese Exclusive Economic Zone with over 400,000 square km.

Taiping Island is a reef with a total area of 110 acres administered by the Republic of China/Taiwan. Because the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the case brought by the Philippines against China classified Taiping Island as a rock and not an island, ROC/Taiwan is not entitled to a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

These examples should make very clear the difference between rock and island -- it is about which judges you can buy off to rule in your favor.

- PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION ARBITRATION RULES 2012 Section I Article I.1 --

Where a State, State-controlled entity, or intergovernmental organization has agreed with one or more States, State-controlled entities, intergovernmental organizations, or private parties that disputes between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual, treaty based, or otherwise, shall be referred to arbitration under the Permanent Court of Arbitration Arbitration Rules 2012 (hereinafter the Rules), then such disputes shall be settled in accordance with these Rules subject to such modification as the parties may agree.

It takes two to tango. A solo tango is something completely different.

- United Nations (verified user on Chinese microblogging service Weibo)

The International Court of Justice is a major justice organization established under the United Nations Charter and is situated in the Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands. This building was constructed by the non-profit Carnegie Foundation for the the predecessor of the International Court of Justice, namely the Permanent International Court of Law of the League of Nations. The United Nations makes an annual donation to the Carnegie Foundation each year in order to continue to use the building. Another renter of the Peace Palace is the Permanent Court of Arbitration established in 1899, but this organization is not related to the United Nations in any way, shape or manner.

- (International Court of Justice)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The Peoples Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCAs website (http://www.pca-cpa.org/). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJs website.

Thus, the International Court of Justice is announcing for the Permanent Court of Arbitration that the latter only provided secretarial assistance to one Arbitral Tribunal which was hired and paid for by the Philippines government in a unilateral arbitration process.

- Wrong! An arbitration process is always bilateral. There is no such thing as one party going into arbitration against another party which refuses to participate.

- The biggest mistake for the Permanent Court of Arbitration was to take on this project. The net result is that its brand is completely destroyed as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice raced to cut off all connections.

- (Discuss.com.hk forum)

The Chinese Communists were heavily defeated in this arbitration and the nine dash line were totally not mainland territory. This proves that Hong Kong has been illegally occupied by the Red Commies for the longest time with no country acknowledging the occupation. This time, the United States and Japan will be justified to station their soldiers in Hong Kong.

- Progress UST's own version of the China's national boundaries

- This map is politically incorrect. It is true that they carved out the nine-dash line, Taiwan, Hong Kong/Macau and Inner Mongolia. So far so good. But they left Xinjiang in with China. How do you explain this to the comrades of the World Uyghur Congress?

- (RTHK) The meaning of the South China Sea arbitration towards problem-solving. July 13, 2016. This commentary would have gotten no reaction except for the fact that the female commentator was the former Goddess of Democracy Crystal Chow Ching.

- In what manner is Crystal Chow qualified to be a current affairs commentator. Her only known job experience was as a nightclub 'companion' (although she swore that that she never went to bed with the clients).

- Her manner of speech is slow, disconnected and slurred. She needs to have some professional training first. But for the fact that she was a Goddess of Democracy, she should never have gotten this job.

- From the pro-establishment New People's Party.

Meanwhile the pan-democratic politicians are silent. On one hand, they cannot afford to offend the Chinese patriots by saying that all of the South China reefs/rocks/islands should be handed over to other nations. On the other hand, they could afford to upset their biggest backer, the United States of America.

- Question to the US State Department? Are the following rocks or islands under the principles enunciated by the Permanent Court of Arbitration? If they are rocks, why does the US have 200 kilometer exclusive economic zones for them?

Jarvis Island: Total area: 4.5 square kilometers. Highest elevation: 7 meters. While a few offshore anchorage spots are marked on maps, Jarvis island has no ports or harbors, and swift currents are a hazard. It has no natural freshwater lens and scant rainfall. There is no evidence that the island has ever supported a self-sustaining human population. Public entry to Jarvis Island requires a special-use permit and is generally restricted to scientists and educators. The island is visited periodically by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Coast Guard.

Johnston Atoll: Total area: 6.9 square kilometers. Highest elevation: 10 meters. Used by American military variously as naval refueling base; airbase; nuclear and biological weapons testing; space recovery; secret missile base; chemical weapon and Agent Storage and disposal site. The area is environmentally contaminated. It has no inhabitants. Public entry is only by special-use permit from the United States Air Force. It is visited annually by US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Palmrya Reef: Total area: 12 square kilometers. Highest elevation: 1.8 meters. It has a temporary population of a dozen of so "non-occupants" (staff and scientists employed by various departments of the US government."  Fresh water is collected from the roof of a building. The Reef is located where the southern and northern currents of the Pacific Ocean meet, which means that the beaches are littered with trash and debris. There is no current economic activity on Palmrya.

Kingman Reef: Total area: 76 square kilometers. Highest elevation: 1.5 meters.  "... hardly, as yet, assumed the distinctive features of an island. It is entirely under water at high tide, and but a few coral heads project here and there above the surface at low water."

Reference point of comparison (found by the Permanent Court of Arbitration to be a 'rock' and not an 'island'):

Taiping Island: Total area: 46 hectares. Population: 600 military/coast guard/support personnel. Taiping Island has four existing wells. About 65 metric tons of water can be pumped from these well daily to provide drinking water and meeting cooking and everyday needs. The island has a power station that generates 50MWh per year. The Taiping Island Airport has a 1200-meter airstrip for C-130 transport planes and a helicopter platform. Additional facilities located on the island include a shelter for fishermen, a hospital (including a civilian doctor), satellite telecommunications facilities, radar surveillance equipment, and other communications equipment. Five public telephones are connected via satellite. The island also has Internet connectivity. Mobile phone reception is available for individuals with international roaming; a signal from China Mobile can be accessed from a GSM base station located on Nanxun Reef. P.S. Taiping Island is a sister city with Lincoln, Nebraska (USA).

- Double standards are a way of life in western democracy. Remember that Occupy Central was about the international standard of having civil nomination of a Chief Executive elected by universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote)?

(SpeakoutHK)  The new British Prime Minister is Theresa May, who has already named Philip Hammond and David Davis as ministers into her cabinet. Meanwhile in Hong Kong, appointments of ministers by the Chief Executive have to be approved by the Legislative Council.

Was Theresa May elected as the new Prime Minister by universal suffrage of 65 million voters? No! Did she elected by a vote among the 150,000 members of the ruling Conservative Party? No! Did the 650 Members of Parliament elect her? No! The electors were the 330 Conservative Party Members of Parliament. There were only two candidates. When the other candidate withdrew, May was automatically elected without even a vote of confidence.

Was Theresa May directly elected? She has been the Member of Parliament for Maidenhead since 1997. In 2015, she was elected with a vote of more than 35,000. At the time, the Maidenhead voters were not voting for the next Prime Minister, and they did not authorize her to nominate the new cabinet.

Does any Hong Kong pan-democrat criticize this British style of democracy?

- (Sky Post) By Chris Wing-yin. July 14, 2016.

The outcome of the South China sea arbitration made me think that I was still in the end of the Qing dynasty 200 years ago when the strong nations met to discuss how to allocate sovereignty over Chinese territories.

It is as if someone walked into your backyard and declared: the mango tree belongs to Joe, the laichee tree belongs to Mike ... as if you the owner was non-existent. No wonder why China was upset. No wonder why the Chinese people were upset.

Being polite does not mean that we are scared. Being polite is sheer manners. We don't want to be a hegemon like the United States, but that doesn't mean that we wanted to be slaughtered at will.

The five judges who participated in the Permanent Court of Arbitration hearing showed us what rule-of-law means in the western world. Of the five judges, one of them was appointed by the Philippines and the other four were appointed by the chief judge Shunji Yanai. Who is Shunji Yanai? He is a well-known Japanese right-wing politician who helped Prime Minister Abe's campaign to amend the constitution to allow Japan to re-arm. Given this line-up, what do you think that the outcome would be?

After the South China sea decision, Japan's Foreign Minister called upon China to obey the ruling. In 2014, the International Court of Justice ruled against Japan on whale-hunting. Why are Japanese fishing boats still hunting whales all over the globe as before?

As for he United States, the International Court of Justice ruled for the Reagan Administration to stop mining the harbors of Nicaragua to support the Contras. The American government ignored the court. Not only did they rejected the ruling, but they withdrew from the International Court of Justice altogether. When the principals do not obey the rules of the game, why should China do so?

Hong Kong Island (6 seats)
26.3%: Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People Party)
20.0%: Tanya Chan (Civic Party)
14. 6%: Ricky Wong (independent)
8.2%: Cyd Ho (Labour Party)
6.2%: Cheung Kwok-kwun (DAB)
5.2%: Hui Chi-fung (Democratic Party)
4.9%: Kwok Wai-keung (FTU)
2.6%: Cheng XX (independent)
1.9%: Paul Zimmerman (independent)
1.9%: Baggio Leung (Youngspiration)
1.8%: Chim Pui-chng (independent)
1.6%: Nathan Law (Demosisto)
1.6%: Lau Ka-hung (People Power)
1.3%: Tsui Tsz-kin (independent)
1.3%: Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion)
0.5%: Wong

Kowloon East (5 seats)
24.8%: Jeremy Tam (Civic Party)
16.8%: DAB list (16.8%)
16.8%: Woo Chi-wai (Democratic Party)
13.6%: FTU list (13.6%)
13.5%: Tse Wai-chun (independent)
4.5%: Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion)
3.6%: Tam Tak-chi (People Power)
3.1%: Oscar Lai Man-lok (Demosisto)
2.1%: Chan Chak-to (Kowloon East Power)
0.9%: Woo Wai-san (Labour Party)

Kowloon West (6 seats)
19.8%: Claudia Mo Man-ching (Civic Party)
17.9%: Ann Chiang (DAB)
16.0%: Leung Mei-fun (independent)
13.9%: Helena Wong (Democratic Party)
11.0%: Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute)
7.3%: Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration)
5.4%: Tam Kwok-kiu (ADPL)
4.9%: FTU list
1.8%: Lau Siu-lai (independent)
1.1%: Avery Ng Man-yuen (League of Social Democrats)
0.5%: Mak Ka-chun
0.3%: Cheng Cheng-lung

New Territories East (9 seats)
21.6%: Alvin Yeung (Civic Party)
10.4%: Lee Chi-kai
10.3%: Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous)
9.9%: Elizabeth Quat (DAB)
8.1%: Chan Hak-ken (DAB)
7.9%: Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats)
7.7%: Christina Fong Kwok-san (independent)
4.9%: Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung (4.9%)
4.6%: Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)
3.9%: Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party)
3.2%: Tang Ka-biu (FTU)
3.1%: Chan Chi-chuen (People Power)
2.5%: New People Party list
1.5%: Wan Chin (independent)
0.5%: Cheng XX
0.1%: Liu XX

New Territories West (9 seats)
18.0% James Tien (Liberal Party)
9.8%: Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party)
9.3%: Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party)
7.7%: Mak Mei-kuen (FTU)
6.8%: Chan Hung-ben (DAB)
6.0%: Raphael Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats)
6.0%: Leung Chi-cheung (DAB)
5.7%: Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL)
4.1%: Andrew Wan (Democratic Party)
3.7%: DAB list
3.3%: Junius Ho (independent)
3.1%: Cheung Chung-tai (Civic Passion)
2.9%: Wong XX (Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre)
2.1%: Chu Hoi-dick (Land Justice League)
2.0%: Chow XX (XXX)
1.9%: Tik Chi-yuen (XXX)
1.1%: Tam XX (XXX)
1.1%: Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party)

District Council Super Legislators (5 seats)
29.9%: James To (Democratic Party)
27.4%: Starry Lee (DAB)
10.7%: Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre)
6.2%: Holden Chow (DAB)
5.5%: Sumly Chan (Civic Party)
4.9%: Wong Kwok-hing (FTU)
2.6%: Other pro-establishment candidates
2.5%: Kwan WIng-yip (Neo Democrats)
1.8%: Chan Kwok-keung (independent)
1.6%: Ho Kai-ming (ADPL)
1.6%: Mandy Tam (independent)

(Cable TV) June 11, 2016.

Land Justice League executive member Chu Hoi-dick and several other members projected images of Internet user comments onto a large billboard to be seen from Shenzhen Bay on the Chinese side of the border.

They point out that a large number of mainlanders are crossing the Shenzhen Bridge to come to shop in Hong Kong. As a result, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long have become crowded and consumer prices for rent and goods are rising. They demand that the government shut down the Shenzhen Bridge for four days a month.

Internet comments:

- This news story does not explain what "closing Shenzhen Bridge down" means. It could mean that mainlanders are forbidden to use the Shenzhen Bridge on restricted days, or it could mean that nobody is allowed to use the Shenzhen Bridge on restricted days.

- If you close the Shenzhen bridge down for four days a month (e.g. every Sunday), you won't affect those who come once a week because they will come on Saturday instead. If you think it was bad on Sunday before, it will be living hell on Saturday.

If you close the Shenzhen bridge for four days a month (e.g. every Monday), you will affect those who live on the Chinese side of the border but commute to work or study. What do you want them to do?

If you close the Shenzhen bridge down, people who need to go to Hong Kong will use the other border control points (Lo Wu, Lok Ma Chau, Man Kam To, Sha Tau Kok). Tuen Mun and Yuen Long may be less crowded, but Sheung Shui, Fan Ling, Tai Po and Sha Tin will be more crowded. The problem is merely displaced elsewhere (reference: NIMBY).

If you close all the border control points four days a month, some Hongkongers may be upset that they can't get fresh vegetables and meat in the markets.

- The alternate model is that fresh vegetables and meat can be brought in by speed boats at considerably higher costs.

- Road space rationing is a management strategy to reduce vehicle travel by restricting access based upon the last digits of the license number for certain periods of time. Thus, mainlanders with ID's ending in odd digits will be banned on Monday, Wednesday and Friday while mainlanders with ID's ending in even digits will be banned on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Those mainlanders who commute to work or study in Hong Kong will only have to work or study half the time.

- Mainlanders coming to Hong Kong cause housing/consumer prices to rise? What the fuck were Hongkongers doing to Shenzhen in the 1990's and 2000's? They bought houses in Shenzhen because it was relatively very cheap compared to Hong Kong, and they ate, got massages and entertained themselves because it was very very cheap. The result was housing and consumption prices rose to the point where the locals couldn't afford it. Why didn't the Hongkongers stop going to Shenzhen?

- Hongkongers are no longer going to Shenzhen because it is getting to be more expensive than Hong Kong now.

- Today, it's Shenzhen Bridge. Tomorrow, it'll be the Hong Kong International Airport.

- If I have to demand a total ban every time that someone/something annoys me, then there is plenty of other things I want to see done. For example:

Sze Tat Chau's Facebook
Every Sunday, the Tai Po Centre invites a number of shitty bands to play in the mall. These people sing even worse than I do. They also sing too loudly and noisily. They are extremely annoying, especially in this extremely hot weather.

(Wen Wei Po) July 11, 2016.

According to Internet user Vincent Ho, "There was an emotionally disturbed boy in the IKEA store in Sha Tin. A dickface made a live broadcast of the situation. The workers told him not to film. I told them to call the police. But that dickface began to curse everybody out with obscene language. He did so in front of his own children! As a parent, he lacked sympathy, he was impatient, he used obscene language, he invaded the privacy of others, and he wanted to film everything!"

Vincent Ho added: "I was upset not necessarily because he used obscene language because he will get his just rewards (note: when his son grows up) ... I appreciate that the mother had tried her very best to control the boy, she tried cajoling, beating, scolding, talking, hauling him away ... but this bastard used Facebook to make a live broadcast ... When others tried to intercede, he cursed them out. I am really concerned about how he is going to raise his children!"

Internet users immediately identified that the bastard as Lee Ching-hei of Civic Passion. At the time, Lee was live-broadcasting under the title "A locust wanted to eat chicken wings -- a bunch of hypocritical cheap heroic dogs in Sha Tin." The video showed a fat boy screaming about wanting to eat chicken wings. His mother told him to stop and slapped him on the arm. Afterwards someone told Lee to stop, but he began to curse them out.

Lee said that he took the video because the boy was "really irritating him." He said that the mother was "fiercely assaulting the boy" and "the boy sustained unnecessary harm" etc. But it turned out the assault was not filmed because the camera malfunctioned.

Pro-Civic Passion Internet commentators rushed to condemn those who wanted to stop Lee from filming. "So many Hong Kong pigs!" "This video was great, because you can see Hongkongers can be such fucking dicks. Either it does not fucking concern them; but when it concerns them, they immediately fucking stand on the moral high ground." They swore that they will identify those Internet users and harass them.

But contrarian Adams Chung wrote: "You are an insult to Localism. First of all, the boy is not a locust. When you make a live broadcast of the little boy's action, you are definitely causing him harm. If this is the way Localists are, how many votes will you get in September? Actually, other people tried to speak to the mother and son. They tried to talk nice to the little boy. The mother also wanted to leave with the boy. When you only see the video of what happened in the middle without what happened before or after, you might think that there is a problem with the mother. But I saw with my own eyes that she was crying at the exit. The mother tried to control her son but some guy wants to make a live video feed. It was not easy for the mother to endure the gaze of the public. You can say that I am a leftist retard, but I am talking about reason." Of course, the Civic Passion Internet users went after this guy too.

Daniel Chiu's Facebook
This is going too far. Today I saw him cross over there to urinate. Uncultured. Damned locust.

Internet comments:

- No WHO WHY WHERE WHEN or HOW whatsoever. This could be anyone anywhere anytime, but it makes a political point when the person is ascribed to be a mainlander doing it in Hong Kong yesterday.

- Why couldn't this be some Japanese man in Tokyo? Such a sight is very common in the Roppongi or Kabukicho districts.

- Such a sight is common in all bar districts in all cities in all nations.

- "I look at this photo and I identify the man as (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE BETE NOIRE POLITICIAN) of the (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE BETE NOIRE POLITICAL PARTY)."

- I think this Facebook posts reveals more about Daniel Chiu than the particular person in the photo.

(Oriental Daily) July 13, 2019.

- Everybody knows that mainlander engage in uncivilized public behavior in Hong Kong, including talking loudly, picking their noses, urinating, defecating, copulating, fornicating, vandalism, theft of everything including trees, robbery, rape, prostitution, etc. But did you know that they also spray graffiti on public property? Recently there is a video taken at the Kowloon Bay MTR Train Deport. Apparently certain mainlanders cut through the wired fence in the middle of the night and sprayed CRIME TIME on the body of the train. Another video showed the individuals spraying MTR during daytime. Afterwards, the cameraman filmed the masterpieces roll by the Sau Kei Wan and the Quarry Bay stations. These graffiti will have to eventually removed at the expense of the MTR. Depending on the type of spray paint used, it may be hard or easy to remove. This is the reason why mainlanders should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong!

- In this case, the perpetrators are an American couple named Ether and Utah. They have previously intruded into train depots in Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea to spray graffiti. On each occasion, they filmed the process and posted the videos onto the Internet for people to enjoy. According to them, their next stop is China.

This is the reason why Americans should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong!

- It is understandable that Americans feel free to spray graffiti all over Hong Kong. The Hong Kong courts wouldn't dare to penalize them because the US Consulate calls the shots here. However, Ether and Utah showed great courage to do so in Singapore (or so they claimed).

(Reuters) March 5, 2015.

A Singapore court sentenced two Germans to nine months in prison and three strokes of the cane on Thursday after they pleaded guilty to breaking into a depot and spray-painting graffiti on a commuter train carriage.

Andreas Von Knorre, 22, and Elton Hinz, 21, both expressed remorse while being sentenced in the state courts of the island republic.

"This is the darkest episode of my entire life," said Von Knorre. "I want to apologize to the state of Singapore for the stupid act...I've learned my lesson and will never do it again."

Hinz added: "I promise I will never do it again. I want to apologize to you, and my family for the shame and situation I've put them into."

Both were dressed in prison uniform - a white T-shirt and brown trousers with the word "Prisoner" down the sides and on the back. They spoke to the court in English.

Singapore sentences hundreds of prisoners to caning each year as part of a system that has been criticized by rights groups. Vandalism and over-staying by foreigners are offences that can be punished by caning along with other crimes like kidnapping, robbery, drug abuse and sexual abuse.

According to the U.S. State Department, 2,203 caning sentences were carried out in 2012, including 1,070 foreigners caned for committing immigration offences.

"The Singapore judicial systems shameful recourse to using torture in the form of caning to punish crimes that should be misdemeanors is indicative of a blatant disregard for international human rights standards," said Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch.

"One of the defendants said that sentencing day was the darkest day of his life, but in reality every day that Singapore keeps caning on its books is a dark day for the countrys international reputation," he said in an e-mail.

In Berlin, a foreign ministry official said the government respected the sovereignty of Singapore. "But it speaks out against corporal punishment as a form of sentence worldwide - and that also means in Singapore," the official added. "The German government has made that clear."

The two Germans were accused of vandalism and trespass after they broke into one of Singapore's train depots last November to spray-paint a carriage. They then fled Singapore, only to be tracked down in neighboring Malaysia in an international manhunt and were brought back to the city-state to face trial. Their lawyers said they would meet the prisoners on Monday to decide on whether to appeal.

Almost five years ago, Swiss national Oliver Fricker was sentenced to seven months in jail and three strokes of the cane after he pleaded guilty to cutting through the fence of a train depot and spray-painting graffiti on train carriages.

Singapore, well known for its cleanliness and its zero tolerance for crime, uses the rattan cane to carry out the sentence. Prisoners are stripped and strapped to a wooden trestle with a medical officer on hand to intervene if necessary. People who have been caned have called the pain excruciating.

For the two Germans, the court ordered four months imprisonment for entry into a protected area and another five months jail and three strokes of the cane for vandalism.

Singapore's vandalism laws became global news in 1994 when American teenager Michael Fay was caned for damaging cars and public property, despite appeals for clemency from the U.S. government, including then President Bill Clinton.

The Campaign to Stop Organ Donations

1. The Hong Kong Red Cross has been found out to send blood donated by Hongkongers to the Chinese Communist Nation, such that there is a run on the local blood bank.

2. The pro-Communist Hong Kong government officials are pushing the Opt-Out method to compel organ donations. If you don't register to indicate your objection to organ donation, you will be taken as willing. But if you register, there will be retaliation against you later on.

3. The Chinese Communist Nation has listed Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan under the National Human Organ Allocation System.

4. The pro-Communist Hong Kong government officials are accelerating the invasion of mainland locust doctors in Hong Kong through the reform of the Medical Council.

5. Within the Chinese Communist Nation, organ transplant is a huge business.

When all five things happen, the worst situation will be:

When a Hong Kong citizen enters a hospital due to illness/accident, he/she will not receive proper treatment. He/she will be forced to donate his/her organs which will be immediately shipped to China for the use by senior government cadres or wealthy people. Someone will make big money out of this.

If you don't want this to happen, SAY NO to the compulsory opt-out organ donation!

You should immediately register to stop organ donation!

Tell your friends and families too that when they die, their organs can only be used by Hongkongers.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) July 10, 2016. The Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service said that they have noted the misinformation on Facebook. They said that they are the only organization authorized to collect, handle, test and distribute blood to all local hospitals. All gathered blood samples are used locally. If Hong Kong patients have a rare blood type for which they cannot find local donors, they will assist the patient to seek the right blood supply from outside Hong Kong. Based upon humanitarian considerations, when they have adequate blood supplies and when Hong Kong people have no immediate need, they may offer some of their supplies to patients outside of Hong Kong.

The Red Cross emphasized that the Hong Kong blood bank has never experienced an oversupply situation. Over the past 5 years, the demand has steadily increased by 10.4% for the ageing population. Today, 62% of the blood plasma is used for senior citizens aged 60 or over and 28.2% for senior citizens aged 80 or over. The Red Cross encourages more citizens to give blood in order to ensure an adequate supply of blood plasma for Hong Kong patients.

- Why should I believe anything that Hong Kong Red Cross says? The Facebook said clearly that they have been taken over by pro-Communist individuals. I know that plenty of people waiting on line at public hospitals speak improper Cantonese, which means that these mainlanders are stealing our medical services. The hospitals do not discriminate between genuine Hongkongers and sneaky mainlanders.

- Yes, I completely agree. Medical services at Hong Kong public hospitals should be restricted to only those who pass a pre-admission speaking/reading/writing test in Cantonese.

- The Hong Kong blood bank needs to maintain two different banks, one for Hongkongers and one for mainlanders, and never the twain shall meet.

- So what happens if a foreigner needs a blood transfusion. Which bank can he/she use? The answer is simple, because the underlying premise is about racial superiority/inferiority. Thus, Americans, Brits and Aussies can use the Hong Kong bank, while Nigerians, Colombians and Indonesians can use the mainland bank. Everybody knows their own place in the scheme of things.

- What happens if your father of a child is American and the mother is Nigerian?

- For example, if there is a natural disaster elsewhere in Southeast Asia with massive casualties, the local Red Cross there may issue a regional appeal for blood supplies. The Hong Kong Red Cross may ship some of its oversupply to that place based upon humanitarian reasons.

- If some day Hong Kong gets hit with a natural disaster with massive casualties (e.g. subway collision during peak hour), the local blood bank will be running low. The Hong Kong Red Cross will make a regional appeal for help and others (including China) will respond as well. It would be unbecoming for Hong Kong to say that they will only take from others but they will never give.

- Let me declare this: If war should break out between China and the United States, I will donate blood to American soldiers so that they can come and liberate Hong Kong!

- Why would Americans accept blood donated by inferior chinks? You may think that you are a Hongkonger and not Chinese, but the Americans take a look at  you and say that you are a Chink! A Chink is a Chink is a Chink!

- Only Hong Kong localists could believe in such a story on Facebook. Do you think that China has to depend on Hong Kong's blood oversupply in order to get by? Do you think 7 million Hongkongers can supply the blood needs for 1.4 billion Chinese?

If there is a natural disaster with massive casualties and China needs blood urgently, there are other sources. President Xi Jinping is the supreme commander of the 2-million strong People's Liberation Army. He can order immediately blood donations from the PLA soldiers (plus all the other auxiliary services such as police, firemen; the universities; etc). Only Hong Kong localists continue to dwell in the fantasy that China cannot live without them.

- (People.cn) August 13, 2015. Mainland Chinese people queued up to donate blood in Tianjin after the warehouse explosion.

- No. These mainlanders are selling their blood in order to buy iPhone's! Everybody knows that this is true.

- Ditto the situation with organ donations. How many hundreds of livers and kidneys are donated by Hongkongers each year? According to Organ Donation: Statistics, there were 66 kidneys donated from deceased donors and 15 from live donors while there are 1,941 patients waiting for transplantation. So do you think that Hong Kong has any kidneys to spare?

- Meanwhile in China, the Falun Gong is saying that (1) tens of millions of government officials and party members have resigned to join the Falun Gong; (2) the Chinese Communists persecute the Falun Gong by executing them and harvesting their organs (see Wikipedia). With this unlimited supply of readily available organs, why would China need to think about getting organs from Hong Kong?

- Well, someone who has never crossed the border to China for their entire lives will obviously be clueless. But you don't have to be there to understand statements such as "If each Chinese citizen spits at you once, you will be drowned immediately" and "If each Chinese citizen takes a fart, the people of Hong Kong will choke to death."

- (Oriental Daily) July 10, 2016. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department said that there is no formal system for Hong Kong to share donated organs with medical authorities outside of Hong Kong. At present, organs donated by deceased Hongkongers are reserved for needy Hongkongers as a matter of principle. Only when there are no suitable Hong Kong donors will the Hospital Authority consider transferring the organs outside of Hong Kong.

In January this year, the Hospital Authority approved one case of allowing a liver donated by a Hong Kong citizen to be used by a Taiwan patient. At the time, there was no Hong Kong citizen suitable for receiving that liver. The Hospital Authority obtained the permission of the donor's family and consulted the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department before shipping the liver to Taiwan. The Hospital Authority emphasized that this was a special case and that there is no system for processing such cases.

- An organ donation to a Taiwan patient is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. The people of Taiwan are a different race from the mainland Chinese people, and its current government is a strong supporter of Hong Kong independence. Therefore it is okay to send the liver to Taiwan. I completely approve along with the rest of the people of Hong Kong.

- What! What the fuck do I care about whether some Taiwanese person live or die? Why are you speaking as if you represent me! We don't owe the Taiwanese anything!

- When the people of Hong Kong refuse to donate blood and organs, who do you think that they will hurt? The people of Hong Kong or the people of mainland China?

- When the Hong Kong localists harassed mainland tourists in order to discourage from coming to Hong Kong, who are they hurting? The people of Hong Kong or the people of mainland China? The mainland Chinese have plenty of other tourist destinations, and they are flooding South Korea and Japan right now. Meanwhile, the tourism, hospitality and retail industries in Hong Kong are taking major hits because the big mainland spenders aren't coming any more.

-  When I donate blood, I want to save lives.

- But you shouldn't be donating blood to save mainland Chinese lives, because the Chinese are trying to invade and take over Hong Kong. We must resist and do everything and anything possible to make sure that all the Chinese die!

- I used to donate blood too. But when I realized that rich people go to private hospitals and poor people go to public hospitals, I stopped doing so. I am doing my bit in fighting the rich-poor wealth inequality.

- This makes zero sense. If there are no voluntary blood donors, the poor people at the public hospitals will die while the rich people at the private hospitals will buy blood from overseas and live happily afterwards.

- It makes perfect sense. When there are fewer poor people than rich people, the Gini coefficient for income/wealth inequality is a lot smaller.

- Alternately, when there are fewer poor people to work for slave wages or be otherwise exploited, the rich people won't be as wealthy.

- When a patient receives a blood transfusion in Hong Kong, the blood is supplied by the Red Cross and therefore free. The difference between private and public hospitals is in the service fee.

- Even if the Hong Kong Red Cross has an oversupply of blood here, the surplus should not be shipped to mainland China no matter what.

- Any oversupply should be shipped to the United States of America. Each year, about 50,000 Americans are shot intentionally or accidentally, so the need for blood transfusion is clearly very great over there. Excess blood should be sent where it is needed most.

- The Hong Kong race and the Chinese race are two completely different races, and their blood should not be mixed. The United States has laws that ban "race-mixing" or "miscegenation."

- (Wikipedia) Miscegenation. The Nazi ban on interracial sexual relations and marriages was enacted in September 1935 as part of the Nuremberg Laws, the Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre (The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour). The Nuremberg Laws classified Jews as a race, and forbade extramarital sexual relations and marriage between persons classified as "Aryan" and "non-Aryan". Violation of this was condemned as Rassenschande (lit. "race-disgrace") and could be punished by imprisonment (usually followed by deportation to a concentration camp) and even by death.

- I am less worried about Hong Kong blood being secretly shipped to mainland China than the reverse case. The superior bloodline of the people of Hong Kong will be contaminated if we unknowingly received blood transfusions that were donated by inferior Chinese mongoloids.

- Worse yet, we all know that hepatitis/AIDS are rampant in China and we would be suffering from a fate worse than death if we received blood from mainlanders. Reference: Plasma Economy.

- Eh, blood transfusion service centers collect the blood and then they test it before it can be used. The safeguards are in place (unlike And The Band Played On).

- (SCMP) June 10, 2016.

A regular blood donor in her home country Denmark, Larsen wanted to do her civic duty and donate in her adopted Hong Kong. However she was shocked to hear she was unable to give blood because of fears of Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), the human form of mad cow disease.

I went through two steps: filled out the forms and had a blood sample taken. But on the third step the interview with a nurse I was told I couldnt continue because Ive been in Europe more than five years after 1980, says the 30-year-old.

According to the Hong Kong Red Cross donor selection guidelines, anyone who spent three or more months in Britain from 1980 to 1996, or five or more years in Europe from 1980 to the present, are unable to donate blood in Hong Kong due to fears of transmitting vCJD. This rule is based on evidence from a small number of case reports involving patients and laboratory animal studies that vCJD can be transmitted through transfusion.

Similar measures apply in other countries including the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Singapore.

According to the Hong Kong Department of Health, two cases of vCJD have been recorded in Hong Kong since 2001, one of them fatal and both classified as imported cases from Britain.

The first case in 2001 involved a 34-year-old woman who lived in Britain during the 1980s and 1990s. She died in 2002.

A 23-year-old British man who came to Hong Kong in 2006 was diagnosed that year. According to the latest information, he is now living in Britain.

Early symptoms of vCJD include memory loss, unsteady gait and loss of coordination of limbs, according to the Department of Health. These dementia-like symptoms will worsen and twitching of limbs and trunk also occur. Besides, visual disturbance, abnormal behaviours and seizures can occur. Most patients die within one to two years after onset of symptoms.

The World Health Organisation says there are no reliable tests to use before the onset of clinical symptoms of vCJD. Currently diagnosis can only be confirmed following pathological examination of the brain post mortem.

Says Larsen: I definitely think there needs to be a rethink on the rules governing blood donation as they are way too strict at the moment.

A British man who wanted to donate blood at a Red Cross blood-donation drive in his office earlier this year was also surprised when told he could not because of fears over vCJD.

Cases are very rare judging from my own research, and symptoms generally prove fatal within 12 months. If I had caught this disease before 1996 Id either be a) long dead or b) a medical miracle. Im neither, says the Briton, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

It sounds crazy and outdated considering both the government and Red Cross are trying to encourage blood donations. Im not sure how many people in Hong Kong are excluded, but Im sure its a significant part of the citys population.

The Red Cross says its donor selection criteria is under regular review by the Hospital Authority and undergoes revision based on the latest scientific and epidemiological evidence.

- This Facebook shows the essential difference between Hong Kong and mainland China. In mainland China, anyone spreading this story may be subjected to arrest for disturbing the peace. In Hong Kong, anyone spreading this story will be praised for heroism, courage and valor.

- In a previous case, the judge had said that real-life laws cannot be applied to crimes committed in virtual worlds. So this Facebook user will be released immediately without even the usual 80-hour community service.

- (SCMP) June 27, 2016.

The National Peoples Congress is overhauling the 23-year-old law on the Red Cross Society of China, vowing to punish any person or group that further smears the charitys already tarnished image, mainland media report.

The revisions by the top legislative body come after a series of scandals in recent years undermined the reputation of the charity, which is not affiliated with the International Red Cross.

A draft amendment tabled on Monday sets out the legal responsibilities of the public and staff at Chinas Red Cross, the mainlands largest charitable organisation and a body with close ties with the government.

Any one who fabricates, publishes and disseminates false information that smears the reputation of the Red Cross, who misappropriates or abuses the funds or assets of the Red Cross or pretends to be someone else, misuses or tampers with the name and label of the Red Cross would receive administrative punishment, or even be subject to criminal law, The Beijing News reported. The draft says the Red Cross should set up mechanisms to independently audit and monitor its funds and assets. It also calls on the charity to be transparent about the donations it receives.

But the legislative bill, now in its first reading, does not specify how those changes should be implemented. The existing law managing the charitys operations was passed in 1993.

The charitys public image was battered in 2011 when a woman called Guo Meimei flaunted luxury goods online while claiming to work for the organisation. Guo was later jailed for five years after being convicted of running an illegal casino.

Although her claims of links to the Red Cross were confirmed as false, the reputation of the organisation took another hit in 2013 after it was found to have directed earmarked funds to other projects without the consent of its donors.

Many observers said that any changes to the law needed to cut the charitys dependence on and close links with the government, something the draft changes would not accomplish, The Beijing News reported.

- In Hong Kong, citizens enjoy the inalienable right to destroy the reputation of the Red Cross. In mainland China, people go to jail for doing so. In a nutshell, that is the difference between Hong Kong and mainland China. That is why we must valiantly resist the mainlandization of Hong Kong!

- This is an old story. At first, somebody made a similar post at the discussion forums where it ran into massive opposition. But now, the same post is re-emerging on Facebook and it is being circulated among like-minded Yellow Ribbon Facebook pages. The point here is that the discussion forums is closer to a broad community whereas Facebook is an echo chamber of like-minded people who exclude dissidents.

- (SCMP) May 10, 2016.

The Hong Kong Red Cross will not provide blood to mainland hospitals, the organisation said after internet users on a popular internet forum urged the public to boycott blood donations. Discussions on Golden Forum suggested it was suspicious of the organisation to announce a shortage for the third time this year and suspected it would send its supply of local blood to the mainland.

But the Red Cross clarified that its appeals were necessary, contending the lack of blood donations in the city stemmed from a prolonged flu season and more would-be donors being found unfit. Recent extreme weather and examination periods for school children also meant there was a dip in the number of volunteers.

The organisation said it needed an average of 1,100 donors a day, in order to supply around 800 bags of blood to the citys public hospitals. All the blood collected from our service supply is for local use, said Dr Lee Cheuk-kwong, a consultant of Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service.

Typically about 10 per cent of new blood donors were unfit to donate due to their low blood pressure or lack of haemoglobin, the latter a result of poor eating and living habits. Recent extreme weather and examination periods for school children also meant there was a dip in the number of volunteers.

The organisation said it needed an average of 1,100 donors a day, in order to supply around 800 bags of blood to the citys public hospitals. All the blood collected from our service supply is for local use, said Dr Lee Cheuk-kwong, a consultant of Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service. Typically about 10 per cent of new blood donors were unfit to donate due to their low blood pressure or lack of haemoglobin, the latter a result of poor eating and living habits.

However, internet users on Golden Forum raised their suspicions concerning the Red Cross, a non-government humanitarian organisation embroiled in a money donation scandal in China, and it urged the public to stop donating. In a discussion generating over 100 comments, a user who claimed to be a regular donor said he would now stop. Another said: Hong Kong Red Cross has a very complex relationship with its mainland counterpart. I am very suspicious about where the blood goes. But many users said a boycott would mean there would not be enough blood to save themselves or their loved ones.

Lee rejected the suspicions. None of our blood will supply other places, he said. A majority of it goes to public hospitals, usually for elderly people.

- The solution is simple: You sign a document to stipulate that your blood and organs will not be used for Hong Kong traitors, which include at least the following persons:

- All Hong Kong government officials and their immediate family members (parents, spouses, siblings, children)

- All members of the Disciplinary Services (Police, Fire Services, Emergency Services, etc) and their immediate family members

- All members of pro-establishment political parties (DAB, FTU, etc) and their immediate family members

- All members of the mainstream pan-democratic political parties (Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, etc) and their immediate family membrs

- All real-estate property developers and their immediate family members

- All others who have participated directly and indirectly in the destruction of the unique characteristics of Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Red Cross will be responsible for screening out these people before my blood and organs can be used.

(EJ Insight) July 4, 2016.

Media entrepreneur Ricky Wong Wai-kay announced that he is running in the Legislative Council elections in September to represent the Hong Kong Island geographical constituency.

Speaking on Facebook live on Monday, the chairman of Hong Kong Television Network said his aim is to prevent Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying from securing a second term, broadcaster RTHK reports. He said he hopes to do that by forming an alliance with at least half of the 70 Legco members. He said he could work with both pro-democracy and pro-Beijing lawmakers, as long as they all believe that Leung should not be allowed to get a second term.

Wong said he has written a 100-page political manifesto which can be downloaded from his website. He also said he doesnt have a political party to support him, which is why he is urging people to volunteer for his campaign.

Video:

RTHK https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1136893186384616/ Ricky Wong's press conference

Internet comments:

- (Silentmajority.hk) July 6, 2016.

After Ricky Wong declared his intention to run for Legislative Council in Hong Kong Island, various pan-democrats immediately stabbed their daggers into Wong.

Democratic Party district councilor Au Nok-hin had formed a Facebook page to support Ricky Wong's HKTV in 2013. He was criticized later for using the HKTV logo to raise money for his party. After Wong's declaration, he immediately posted "There is no need to turn Ricky Wong into a deity" because Wong is just another selfish Hongkonger.

Civic Party's Tanya Chan is also running in the Legco election in Hong Kong Island. She wrote on Facebook: "Someone is attempting to say that they are 'Anything But CY' and 'Oppose CY Leung' so that they can blend into the pan-democratic camp. He is underestimating the intelligence of the voters if he thinks that he can muddle his way through."

Demosisto's chairman Nathan Law posted on Facebook: "The democrats cannot afford to united with Ricky Wong. With respect to Wong's proposal to include a foreign language on top of the 8 compulsory school subjects, Law said that this was typical of "monster parents." Law said; "Wong does not understand education in Hong Kong, so it is no wonder that Wong sends his own children to study overseas ... please spare our children, okay?"

- (Silentmajority.hk) July 6, 2016.

Once again, Demosisto showed that they even lack the most basic stuff of grammar and logic.

In English, they had declared that the July 1st march was not just going to just a demonstration to oppose Chief Executive CY Leung. They said:
NOT JUST "ANYONE BUT CY"
FOR DEMOCRACY
FOR DETERMINATION

But after Ricky Wong made his declaration of intent to enter the Legco election, Agnes Chow Ting posted on Facebok: "Hong Kong needs a democratic movement, not anti-Leung movements." Nathan Law said that he does not support ABC ("Anyone but CY").

Hey, does Demosisto even understand the difference between "NOT JUST 'ANYONE BUT CY'" and "NOT 'ANYONE BUT CY'."

Civic Party member Tanya Chan who will be running against Demosisto's Nathan Law in Hong Kong Island wrote on Facebook: "Somebody talk and talk about the pan-democrats only care about ABC (ANYONE BUT CY). Taken out of context, this is misleading the public. As a pan-democrat, my position is very clear." Demosisto has been frequently made fun in the media for being ignorant and incompetent. They may not be deliberately misleading the public; it is just that they don't know enough.

- (NOW TV) July 4, 2016. DAB chairwoman Starry Lee said that she does not understand why Ricky Wong would use "Anyone but CY Leung" as his main election platform position. After all, a Legislative Councilor has constitutionally little or nothing to do with who is the Chief Executive.

- When Starry Lee says so, she is clearly pretending not to understand. Everybody in Hong Kong knows that Ricky Wong entered the Legco election because he is still upset at CY Leung for denying a license to HKTV. If HKTV had gotten the license, Ricky Wong would be laughing to the bank instead of running in the Legco election.

- (EJ Insight) Why the 'ABC' campaign is illogical. By Michael Chugani. July 4, 2016.

It is a fact that many Hong Kong people dont like Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. But does this hatred run so deep that if the central government offers him a second term, a million people will take to the streets in a second wave of Occupy Central?

Civic Party member Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, for one, believes that it will indeed happen. He told an English-language radio show that he will be one of the first to join a second wave of mass civil disobedience if Leung gets a fresh term.

I personally dont think that a million people will take to the streets just because Beijing gives Leung a second term. Even though many people loathe him, this hatred alone is not a strong enough trigger to cause a mass protest of that magnitude.

Even during Tung Chee-hwas unpopular rule, Article 23 national security legislation, the SARS outbreak, negative-equity home prices and a financial crisis, only 500,000 people joined a mass street protest in 2003.

Organizers said recently that about 6,000 joined a protest march against the central government after Hong Kong bookseller Lam Wing-kee claimed mainland security agents had abducted him for interrogation when he crossed the border late last year and that his colleague Lee Po had been kidnapped in Hong Kong by mainland agents and taken across the border, violating local laws.

The case of the booksellers strikes at the very heart of one country, two systems, yet a protest march against mainland heavy-handedness drew just thousands.

Some estimates have it that one million people joined the 2014 Occupy movement. But it would be inaccurate to say one million people occupied streets in Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay at the start of the Occupy protest in the same way that 500,000 people took part in a mass protest on one single day on July 1, 2003.

The Occupy movement lasted 79 days and it may be that during this time one million people, including actual protesters, curious Hong Kong people, and foreign and mainland tourists went to the various protest sites. That is not the same as claiming one million people took part. I went to the protest sites many times but it would not be accurate to say I was a protester who joined the movement. I went merely as a journalist and an observer.

Although all the possible candidates, including Leung, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, and New Peoples Party chairwoman Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee have refused to clearly say if they will run in next years chief executive election, all the signs are that Leung is preparing to seek a second term.

When the time comes, he will, of course, only run if he gets the support of the central government.

My view is that if he runs, Lam and Tsang will not because it would not look good for the central government if either the chief secretary or the financial secretary competes against the sitting chief executive. The central government will face the dilemma of having to decide who to support.

Supporting Leung instead of, for example, Lam, will send the negative message that Beijing doesnt trust Hong Kongs chief secretary. Supporting Lam, meanwhile, will send the signal that Leung had failed as chief executive. Running also means Lam will have to resign her post to focus on the election. Same thing if the financial secretary runs.

As the chief executive, Leung will not have to resign to run but will have to focus on the election. This means two of the top three people in the government will not be able to focus on governing Hong Kong.

The situation was different when Henry Tang Ying-yen resigned as chief secretary in 2012 to run for chief executive because Donald Tsang Yam-kuen who was not allowed by law to run for a third term could still focus on governing Hong Kong.

The opposition camp has embraced the ABC Anyone but CY slogan as a campaign strategy for this Septembers Legislative Council polls and next years chief executive election.

Ricky Wong Wai-kay, whose application for a free-to-air TV license was rejected by Leung, has said that if he formally decides to be a candidate in the Legco election, he will use the ABC slogan as his sole campaign strategy.

But I find the ABC movement puzzling. The movement rests solely on the principle of targeting a man rather than his policies. Are pan-democrats saying they dont mind even if the central government selects a far less qualified person than Leung?

For the sake of argument, will the pan-democrats not mind even if Beijing makes Arthur Li Kwok-cheung the next chief executive? Are they saying they dont want Leung even though many of his livelihood policies are things they support? How can that be logical? Surely, its in the overall interest of Hong Kong to have the most qualified leader possible, even if that leader is hated by many.

The ABC movement puzzles me because the opposition camp is now asking the central government to replace Leung even though whoever takes over will, of course, also be someone loyal to Beijing. This same opposition camp voted down a political reform framework last year that would have given millions of Hong Kong people the right to elect their own chief executive through universal suffrage.

Pan-democrat legislators rejected the framework with the argument that it was not genuine democracy because candidates would be screened out by a nomination committee filled with pro-Beijing people, which means only candidates loyal to the central government can compete.

Now, which is better giving people the right to vote out Leung and elect another Beijing loyalist through universal suffrage or asking the central government to do the same thing through a small circle election which allows only 1,200 people of an election committee to vote?

The pan-democrats rejected a plan that could have replaced Leung with another loyalist through one person, one vote but now embraces an ABC movement that seeks to replace Leung not through one person, one vote but through Beijing. It makes no logical sense.

It is too early to say if Beijing will buy the ABC reasoning, which is that five more years of Leung will tear apart Hong Kong politically. The central government likes to keep its cards close to its chest, re-shuffling them when necessary.

There is no doubt that Leung is widely seen as a divisive rather than a unifying figure. Many people see him as a leader who puts the central governments interests above those of Hong Kong. This perception was further cemented by Leungs weak response to the case of the five Causeway Bay booksellers who were seized and detained by mainland agents for interrogation.

Lam Wing-kees astonishing revelations that mainland agents grabbed him and whisked him away blindfolded to secretive locations for months of questioning when he crossed the border will add fuel to the ABC campaign.

But the question is whether the central government still cares so much about Hong Kong that it prefers a unifying figure to someone it can trust completely.

Another question is if not Leung, then who?

None of the possible candidates mentioned so far have shown they are far more qualified than the current chief executive. But the ABC philosophy is that qualifications are not important, and that anyone whose name is not CY Leung will be accepted with open arms.

All the signs so far are that Beijing prefers a chief executive who is a hardline loyalist than a more likeable one who is better skilled in unifying the people. There is also the fact that it cannot really make a difference whoever becomes our next leader. I said this in a previous column some months ago.

Lets assume that Beijing buys the ABC philosophy and makes Lam our next chief executive. Will the pan-democrats then no longer demand so-called genuine democracy? Will the independence movement end its campaign? Will the localists give up their call for self-determination? Will Beijing soften its hardline position against so-called true democracy?

Of course not.

Whoever becomes chief executive will still have to do Beijings bidding. And it is no secret that Beijing and the opposition camp are poles apart on issues such as democracy and self-determination. This will guarantee continued confrontation whoever becomes our next leader.

Add to that our dysfunctional political system and we have a recipe that makes Hong Kong virtually ungovernable. I have said in a previous column some months ago that Hong Kongs political system is so outdated that it makes governance very difficult whoever is chief executive.

Former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa has now also said that governance is difficult because the chief executive is not allowed under the Basic Law to be a member of a political party. Thats why I believe even if the ABC movement succeeds it will not make much difference.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Anyone But CY? Hong Kongs reviled leader and media tycoon Ricky Wong are virtual soulmates. By Kent Ewing. July 6, 2016.

Yes, Leung Chun-ying is the most divisive, hard-headed and reviled chief executive Hong Kong has suffered in the nearly 20 years since the handover from British to Chinese rule.

But dont believe maverick media tycoon Ricky Wong Wai-kay, who this week entered the political fray to win a seat in Septembers Legislative Council elections, or other pandering pols who jump on his ABC (Anyone But CY) bandwagon: Evicting Leung from Government House will not make things much better and could, God forbid, make them worse.

ABC may turn out to be an effective populist election slogan that wins a Legco seat representing Hong Kong Island for Wong, but it is also cheap, grossly oversimplified politics and bad for Hong Kong.

Moreover, it smacks of revenge as Wong is still clearly smarting from losing his bid to make HKTV one of the citys free-to-air television stations after his application for a license was denied by the Leung administration.

Indeed, HKTV may very well have deserved that license, and Wongnot to mention millions of ordinary people fed up with the tired, formulaic dramas and entertainment shows offered by TVB, the citys dominant free-to-air broadcasterwas understandably miffed by the wholly inadequate explanation offered by the Executive Council (Exco) for its denial.

But that was then, and this is now. The dubious rejection of a free-to-air television license in 2013 should not translate into a Legco seat for the HKTV chairman in 2016especially on a dishonest, misleading ABC platform.

Dishonest because, if you check the record, Wong actually agrees with Leung on just about every major issue except who should be the next chief executive. The personalities of the two men may clash spectacularly, but on paper they are virtual soul mates.

Like Leung, for example, Wong is no environmentalist. He and Leung are both keen to transform parts of our country park system into housing developments and rush into building a costly third runway at Hong Kong International Airport that critics say is unnecessary and could spell the end of the Chinese white dolphin in Hong Kong waters.

Also, like Leung, Wong is no friend of democracyat least not the kind of democracy recognised in most of the rest of the world. He fully supports the political reform package for Hong Kong proposed by the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress that would see candidates for chief executive chosen by a Beijing-controlled nominating committee, thus assuring that only those pre-approved by the central government could win in a subsequent sham city-wide election.

And remember, Wong may be maverick in comparison to Hong Kongs older generation of tycoons such as Li Ka-shing and Lee Shau-kee, but he is still a businessman and on livelihood issues will vote like one. So its no surprise that he opposes legislation that would standardise working hours in a city where low pay and long hours are the norm.

Wongs idea to set up an electronic, referendum-style voting system on key issues within the next decade or so has merit, but who knows if it will ever really happen or is just a gimmick to garner votes now.

In the end, how can a candidate who is so much like CY in his thinking wage a campaign for Legco headlined ABC? The patent contradictions in Wongs rhetoric and record underscore the  fundamental disingenuousness of a candidacy that is attempting to exploit Leungs record-breaking low popularity ratings so as to enhance, undeservedly, his own.

Plus, the ABC campaign is just plain wrong. Alarmingly, there are worse choices out there than the currently serving CEamong them former finance chief Antony Leung Kam-chung.

Sensing CYs vulnerability, Leung is showing his face a lot more around town these days, hoping people have forgotten about Lexusgate, the scandal that forced his resignation as finance minister 13 years ago after he purchased a HK$790,000  Lexus LS 430 just prior to imposing a tax on new vehicles in his budget.

Or how do you like the sound of thisChief Executive Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee? Ip is another failed official in the administration of Hong Kongs first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, who resigned in disgrace after Article 23, the unpopular anti-subversion legislation she so enthusiastically pushed as Tungs security czar, prompted a 500,000-strong protest that forced Tung to shelve the bill and Ip to disappear into self-imposed exile in the United States for three years.

Ever since her return to the city in 2006, Ip, now a legislative councillor and an Exco member, has been hard at work reinventing herself as a champion of the Hong Kong people. Dont buy it: Nobody wants to be CE more, and no one deserves it less.

Sad to say, this city could do a lot worse than CY. And even if one of the marginally more promising possible candidatessuch as current finance secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor or Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-singwere to win the job, it wouldnt make a great deal of difference as the bosses in Beijing would still be pulling all the levers. Besides, although John Tsang has been making positive albeit non-committal noises since his budget speech in February, Jasper Tsang and Lam have stated they are not interested in the job.

Maybe they are simply being coy, but at this point in Hong Kongs post-handover history, it seems fair to ask: Why would any sensible person want this no-win position?

As for CYwho clearly does want another termhe should counter Wongs campaign with one of his own.

How about CBW? It doesnt boast the perfect alphabetical succession of ABC, but its message is more accurate: Could Be Worse.

- The pan-democrats want to push Ricky Wong into the pro-establishment camp where he can cannibalize the votes for Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee. However, Wong's policy platform seemed to have been copied from pan-democrats: "Universal suffrage for Chief Executive eleciton"; "elimination of functional constituencies at the Legislative Council"; "increased seats in mini-buses"; "I want referenda for self-determination."

- (DotDotNews) Ricky Wong may be a billionaire, but League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng points out that Wong wants to hire election campaign aides (required to be attending or having attended university; good English/Chinese speaking/writing skills; good computer skills; good communication skills) at the minimum wage level of $32.5 per hour. Cheapskate!!!

(SCMP) July 2, 2016.

The man at the centre of the bookseller storm met police on Saturday at a secret, safe location where he went into hiding after a serious threat to his personal safety, according to lawmakers helping him. But police said there was no evidence of a threat against him, after Causeway Bay Books manager Lam Wing-kee gave them a statement on being followed by strangers over the past few days the reason he cited for pulling out of the annual July 1 protest march on Friday.

Lam was supposed to meet officers at police headquarters in Wan Chai at noon, according to Democratic Party legislator James To Kun-sun, who has been helping the bookseller. But because of security fears, To said, officers visited the bookseller at his hiding place.

Lam told them that he felt he was in danger, To said, while party colleague Albert Ho Chun-yan said he had been moved to a secure location after feeling increasingly concerned about his personal safety. He is doing OK now, Ho said, explaining that the bookseller had made his own arrangements to go into hiding.

While Lam had said earlier that police were considering offering him protection, Ho clarified that it had yet to be decided. Police will take appropriate follow-up action and investigation according to the information provided, the force said in a statement. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Lams personal safety is at risk at this stage. Police have made appropriate suggestions to Mr Lam and reminded him to call 999 for assistance if necessary.

The bookseller caused a stir at the protest march on Friday by announcing at the last moment that he was pulling out because of personal safety concerns.

He became the centre of attention last month when he returned from the mainland, claiming he had been nabbed by agents from a secretive, central investigative unit after crossing the border into Shenzhen last October. He was then put through eight months of mental torture, he testified, before being allowed to return to Hong Kong on condition that he gave them a hard drive containing customers information from the bookstore.

Starting in October last year, Lam and four other associates of the Mighty Current publishing house and its Causeway Bay Books store started to go missing one after another from Hong Kong, the mainland and Thailand. Their disappearances sparked fears that they had been kidnapped by mainland agents for dealing in books banned across the border because of content criticising Chinas leaders. Police also confirmed on Saturday that To told them he may have been followed by someone on a motorbike when he was driving Lam to Wan Chai on Thursday. They said officers would look into the case.

Meanwhile, Bar Association chairwoman Winnie Tam Wan-chi hit out at mainland official Wang Guangyas earlier accusations that Lam was destroying the one country, two systems principle by selling banned books on the mainland. Tam asked if mainland officials and scholars were themselves harming the system guaranteeing Hong Kongs autonomy. There should be no double standards, she said.

(SCMP) July 6, 2016.

Chinese public security chiefs warned that bookseller Lam Wing-kee could face tougher legal action for skipping bail and refusing to return to the mainland, as a high-level Hong Kong delegation to Beijing secured a preliminary agreement yesterday on the need to overhaul the existing cross-border communication system.

The citys justice and security ministers met their mainland counterparts to discuss improving their notification mechanism after it failed to keep Hong Kong informed when Lam and four of his publishing associates disappeared last year and were detained separately across the border for months.

Minister of Public Security Guo Shengkun, his state councillor rank reflecting the importance Beijing has placed on the issue, stressed at the meeting that the notification system had been working well since it was established in 2001. But because the central government took very seriously Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings request for a review, Guo said, Beijing was willing to look into improvements.

Ever since the handover, the central government has firmly put in place the principles of one country, two systems, Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong, and high autonomy for the city, Guo said. Overall, we think [the mechanism] has been working well.

In a statement released before the meeting ended, the ministry said both sides had agreed on guiding principles as to how the system should be improved. They would review the length of time required for notifications, along with the scope, content and channels of such communication.

The case of the five booksellers sparked fears about one country, two systems being undermined when they went missing one after another late last year from Hong Kong, the mainland and Thailand. They ended up on the mainland, under investigation for selling banned books criticising Chinas Communist Party.

Lam, manager of Causeway Bay Books, caused a sensation last month when he returned from the mainland, claiming he had been nabbed after crossing the border into Shenzhen and put through eight months of mental torture.

The Ministry of Public Security issued a statement yesterday accusing Lam of violating his bail conditions, under which he was required to stay in the designated city of Shaoguan and to register any change of address in advance.

The ministry said the bookseller could be held liable for engaging in illegal business exceeding 400,000 yuan. It revealed details about 368 mail transactions, some of which had their package covers altered to state other titles in order to dodge border inspection.

The statement quoted the public security bureau of Ningbo, where Lam was detained for several months, as saying that the compulsory measures against him would be tightened. The most serious measure could entail his arrest, although the absence of an extradition treaty between the two sides makes it unlikely.

Professor Song Xiaozhuang, of Shenzhen Universitys Centre for Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macau, said extradition would be possible if a reciprocal judicial assistance agreement was struck between the two sides.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung told mainland officials at yesterdays meeting that Hong Kong people were very concerned about what happened to the booksellers. The citys government totally understood the public concern, he said.

The Hong Kong delegation was shown a prepared video detailing Lams crimes and providing some insight into how he was treated during his detention. Lam was filmed cheerfully eating meals, getting a haircut and having his blood pressure checked, with the narrator of the video asserting that the booksellers rights were fully protected.

Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan, who has been assisting Lam, said: What were they trying to show with the video? They havent explained why they did not notify Hong Kong that he was detained. They belittled Hong Kong officials who went to ask the question.

(SCMP) July 5, 2016.

The mystery over a secretive central special investigation unit that Hong Kong bookseller Lam Wing-kee claimed was behind his detention on the mainland deepened on Monday when officials said they had never heard of such a body.

Experts familiar with the Communist Partys operations said such units were often deployed in the Cultural Revolution, and similar ones were still used today for secret investigations.

Lam, who was taken away in Shenzhen by unidentified people, said last month that officers investigating him were part of such a unit. If Lams claim is true it would mean the investigation reported directly to the partys top leadership, and Beijing deemed his case important enough to form an

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said on Monday that he had not heard of such a unit, echoing comments by Wang Guangya, director of the State Councils Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office. The title of central investigation unit is very strange Its not an institute defined by the law, Wang said. Ive never heard of it.

A former cadre who worked at a high-level office in the party said such units were ad hoc and temporary teams formed to investigate top-priority cases and report directly to the partys leadership. They were all disbanded after the Cultural Revolution and all the files were sent to the Central Organisation Department, the former cadre said.

However, similar units were formed from time to time, including in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown to lead a nationwide investigation into people deemed to be behind the protests, the cadre said. [Lams case] might [also] have been handled by lower-level departments like the Ministry of Public Security or national security agencies. They sometimes call themselves special investigation units, too, the source said.

(SCMP) July 6, 2016.

Hong Kong police said on Wednesday that protection would be offered to bookseller Lam Wing-kee, after he told a newspaper he had been tailed six times since returning to the city.  The force had earlier refused to provide such protection.

Mr Lams account of events is different from our findings, acting police chief Wong Chi-hung said. We will contact Mr Lam and assess the risk he is facing, if any. Suitable measures will be provided to counter those so-called risks. He explained that no protection was offered earlier because a vehicle that Lam said was following him was actually hired by a media organisation. Police also found nothing unusual in an account by a witness.

Wong was speaking after Chinese-language daily Ming Pao published an interview with Lam on Tuesday, in which he lamented that he had lost his freedom from fear in Hong Kong and was worried he would be abducted and taken to mainland any time, like what allegedly happened to his ex-colleague Lee Po.

Lams expos came hours before Chinese public security chiefs told a high-level Hong Kong delegation to Beijing that the bookseller could face tougher legal action for skipping bail and refusing to return to the mainland.

Police have not offered any protection to me ... I used to enjoy freedom from fear in Hong Kong, but now its lost, he told Ming Pao. Lam said the most worrying incident happened on June 29, two days ahead of the annual July 1 pro-democracy march that he was supposed to lead. Four men allegedly followed him closely from Lai King MTR station to Yat King House in Lai King Estate, where he was then hiding.

The men were eventually blocked by a gate, but one of them stood at the entrance to see which lift Lam got into and which floor he took it to.

The bookseller said he became aware of this only after a shopkeeper nearby, who witnessed the whole incident, told him via his relatives. The shopkeeper told Ming Pao that he had already reported what he saw to police. Lam pulled out of the July 1 march at the last minute, citing safety concerns.

Lam said he was also tailed twice by people on motorcycles, once while he was en route to police headquarters in Wan Chai, and once on July 1, when he was moving from Lai King Estate to another safe house. The remaining three incidents happened on the MTR, he said.

Lam said he reported all the alleged events to the police and requested their protection when he tried to move to a new hiding place on July 1, but was rejected. I once hoped they would provide me personal protection, but they cited different excuses [to turn me down], he said.

Lam, who earlier said he had no plans to leave his hometown, told Ming Pao that he was now thinking of moving to Taiwan, though he had not considered seeking asylum. I think I am half-dead [in Hong Kong]. I cannot work, and I could be stuck in one place, he said. It seems that the Hong Kong government does not welcome me being here, even though I am a Hongkonger. He hoped the citys administration could investigate whether mainland agents had enforced the law in Hong Kong by looking into immigration records and CCTV footage from the MTR.

(EJ Insight) July 6, 2016.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying now finds himself in a very difficult bind.

Amid the public outcry over the revelations of bookseller Lam Wing-kee regarding his abduction and detention in the mainland, our leader had to show that he cares for Hong Kong people, regardless of what his critics say.

And so he sent a top-level delegation to Beijing to discuss the cross-border notification mechanism, which appears to have been violated with the disappearance of the five booksellers last year and, as it turned out, their detention in the mainland.

His objective, obviously, was to show to Hong Kong people that the one country, two systems principle is alive and well, meaning, respected by the authorities on both sides of the border.

But what he might not have anticipated was the response from Beijing, which turned the tables on Lam and accused him breaching his bail conditions by not returning to the mainland.

What CY Leungs delegation got, instead of assurances that the one country, two systems principle is intact, is a nothing less than an ultimatum from the mainland authorities.

Lam is a wanted man in China and he should return to China to face the charges, Beijings Public Security Ministry told the visiting Hong Kong delegation. We may consider taking action if he does not.

What did CY Leung expect to get from his bosses, anyway? Did he think that his justice minister Rimsky Yuen and security chief Lai Tung-kwok could go to Beijing and lecture their mainland counterparts, their bosses, on the mechanics of the notification system and the one country, two systems?

They were the ones who were lectured on, and shown a video of Lam admitting that he breached the laws of China and pleading for leniency.

Of course, under the circumstances he was in, Lam would admit to anything as he was in no position to assert his rights or protest his innocence.

And to show that Lams rights were respected while under detention in Ningbo in Zhejiang province, the video also shows Lam staying in a clean and cozy cell with a nice bed, and being given ample meals, appropriate medical checkups and a regular haircut.

In short, the video is saying that Lam was treated well.

Then, the mainland security officials issued a statement detailing Lams alleged crimes and the others who were also involved.

In the video, Lam admitted that he and another man had used a mainland bank account to collect more than 400,000 yuan (US$59,780) by selling 368 banned books in the mainland.

But there was no mention of the fact that though the books they sold are banned in the mainland, those books are not banned in Hong Kong, and that their bookstore is a Hong Kong company, and the business was conducted in Hong Kong.

Did CY Leungs men dare to point out these little details to their mainland counterparts?

Perhaps thats the meaning of one country, two systems as far as Beijing is concerned: A Hong Kong citizen can be arrested by mainland authorities in the mainland and charged with conducting illegal business in the mainland, although their business is entirely legal in Hong Kong.

We could only imagine Yuen and Lai humbly nodding their heads as they listened to the Beijing officials lecture.

But if we are to believe that one country, two systems is still being implemented in this part of the world, we should assert that Lam, or any other Hong Kong citizen for that matter, is protected by Hong Kong laws, and not subjected to Chinas laws, while living and conducting their business in their own city.

If we are to believe that one country, two systems is alive and well, Hong Kong officials should unequivocally point out to their mainland counterparts that Hong Kong and China are two different jurisdictions, operating under legal systems that are independent of each other.

What would now be the response of CY Leungs administration?

If he agrees with Beijings assertion, then he could have Lam arrested and sent back to the mainland to face the music.

But that would be a patent violation of the one country, two systems principle, something that is unlikely to earn him the sympathies of Hong Kong people.

But if he is to assert the one country, two systems principle, then he should ensure Lams protection, and prevent him from being abducted again and whisked off to a mainland cell.

However, that would not endear him to his Beijing bosses, and further lessen his chances of getting their blessing for a second term in office.

Beijing is clearly putting pressure on the Hong Kong government to toe the line as far as the Causeway Bay Bookstore case is concerned.

After returning to Hong Kong following eight months of detention in the mainland, Lam expressed fears for his personal safety.

The Hong Kong police offered to give him protection, but that obviously is of little comfort to him, as he was prompted to cancel his plan to join the July 1 pro-democracy march after noticing that some people are closely monitoring his movements.

Lam told Hong Kong media on Wednesday that he was being followed by four men and he felt his life was under threat.

He is currently living in a safehouse, but, again, that really doesnt assure his safety.

Lam also said he is not sure if Hong Kong police are ready to provide him protection, noting that officials have said they dont think he is in danger at the moment.

Lam, in fact, said Hong Kong police didnt want him to stay in Hong Kong.

Considering Beijings insistence that Lam is a wanted man, one could surmise that mainland officials will do their best to take him back to China. 

That could explain why four men, according to Lam, have been following him.

But Hong Kong officials said Beijing did not urge the Hong Kong side to arrest Lam.

That is far from reassuring. We can only hope that we wont learn one day that Lam has again disappeared, although, if that happens, we already know why.

(EJ Insight) July 7, 2016.

After denying claims by Lam Wing-kee that he was facing a threat to his personal safety, Hong Kong authorities have finally agreed to provide the bookseller with police protection. But that doesnt seem to have reassured the 61-year-old man, who has complained after returning from the mainland last month that some unknown people had been tailing him.

Lam told the media that he might consider moving to Taiwan if he continues to fear for his safety or if the situation becomes so severe that he has live under constant police guard.  

The comments came as Chinese authorities have asked Lam to return to the mainland to assist in investigations over the sale of banned books in the country.

If Lam, who was allowed to travel to Hong Kong in late June after an eight-month detention in China, doesnt return to the mainland, he will be breaching the bail conditions and will face tougher punishment, Ningbo police have warned. 

Beijing, meanwhile, has also been putting pressure on the Hong Kong government to hand Lam back to China for investigation.

Aware that any such move will trigger a volley of criticism and a storm of protests among locals, the Hong Kong government has assured that it wont send back the bookseller.

Security Secretary Lai Tung-kwok said there is no legal arrangement for the transfer of persons to the mainland authorities as Hong Kong doesnt have an extradition agreement with China.

Despite the assurance, Lam feels he still faces a threat of abduction by mainland agents and being ferried across the border.

The fears are not surprising, given the incidents involving Lam and his fellow booksellers over the past year.

Lam and four other associates from Causeway Bay Books, a Hong Kong bookstore that offered titles critical of China and its leaders, disappeared last year. Later, it came to light that they were detained in the mainland or were caught up in investigations there.

Lam returned to Hong Kong last month and claimed that he was kidnapped while on the mainland and held in custody.

Now he is being asked to return to China, but the bookseller says he has no intention of doing so, given the ordeal he underwent for many months at the hands of mainland authorities. 

With Beijing putting pressure, the Hong Kong government has been in a bind.

But in the end, officials took the right decision, realizing that handing over Lam would have meant a violation of the one country two systems framework. 

The critical issue now is ensuring that the police protection for Lam is effective, while at the same time also keeping it low profile.

With Lam warning that he might consider moving to Taiwan if he perceives further threats to his safety, Hong Kong police and the government are under a test. 

Local authorities may find it difficult to intervene in the police case in the mainland as the matter is totally controlled by law enforcement bodies of the central government and the Communist Party.

However, that doesnt mean the Leung Chun-ying regime can do nothing and just stay silent as Beijing plays a ridiculous game on Lam and his fellow booksellers.

On Tuesday, when a Hong Kong delegation visited Beijing for talks on a notification mechanism for cross-border police cases, Chinese public security officials played video clips that were purportedly shot during Lams detention in Ningbo.

One of the clips showed Lam admitting to breaching Chinese laws in relation to sale of books to mainland readers.

The video clips were shown to Hong Kong officials in a bid to pressure them into handing over Lam back to China.

Hong Kong authorities have so far made the right noises on the Lam issue, but will they stand up to Beijing even in the future? This is something that needs to be watched.

If Lam actually decides to move to Taiwan, it will represent a vote of no-confidence on the one country two systems.

Despite the brave talk on protecting Lam, the sad truth is that local officials have failed to display enough courage and tell Beijing that Lam and his fellow booksellers have done nothing wrong.

Authorities have failed to convince Beijing to respect Hong Kongs legal system and the citys way of doing business. 

Following the Causeway Bay Books saga, the Chinese government has now launched a nationwide crackdown on Chinese citizens who buy Hong Kong and Taiwan books via online platforms.

According to a Weibo post Wednesday, a Chinese reader who bought a copy of a book written by renowned author Tung Chiao was questioned at home by the mainland police and accused of breaching the law.  Although Tungs publications are mostly non-political, his works have been banned by Beijing, the author told Apple Daily.

There are reports that China has tapped into the computer systems of online book stores for information on Chinese buyers of books published overseas.

Amid such cultural crackdown, it is important for Hong Kong authorities to assure publishing houses based in the city that their interests will be protected and that they wont face trouble if their books land in the hands of mainland readers.

Is anyone listening?

(SCMP) July 8, 2016.

Bookseller Lam Wing-kee accepted a police offer to protect him on Friday, although a source said he was not happy about the arrangements and the force was considering his suggestion as to how they should go about it.

Police said they had assessed Lams fears about being tailed by strangers and found no evidence he was in danger, but would still arrange his protection because of public concern about his safety.

A senior government source revealed that Lam did not fully agree with the arrangements proposed by police.

Lam had his own ideas and gave a counter-offer to the officers. The force needs time to consider it, the source said.

It is understood the bookseller was offered a safe house guarded around the clock by the polices Witness Protection Unit, but Lam did not want to be under 24-hour surveillance.

Who should take responsibility if something happens to him when hes not under watch? the source said.

In a second interview with the Post on Wednesday, Lam, 61, spoke of his past to explain how he ended up at the centre of the storm after he and four other Hong Kong booksellers disappeared last year, and later turned up on the mainland, where they were detained for selling banned books across the border.

A primary school graduate with mostly blue-collar industrial work experience, Lam said he had followed his lifelong interest in reading and joined the publishing business as soon as he paid off his mortgage in the 1980s.

He set up his own book business in 1992, a decision that would eventually see him detained in Ningbo and Shaoguan after entering Shenzhen last October.

After dropping out of school, Lam took up jobs such as catering, delivering soft drinks, and making plastic moulds and wooden kitchenware. He was earning a living, but his heart was still in books.

Ive been in love with books since I was a child, Lam said, recalling that he picked upa copy of All Quiet on the Western Front, the classic first world war novel, before age 10.

His dream to combine work and his personal interest came true at around 30, when he joined Chung Hwa Book, where he met the woman who was to become his wife. But the job at the publisher that had close ties with the mainland ended unhappily.

Before the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, my colleagues were positive about [the protesters], he said.

But after the Chinese government labelled it a rebellion, my colleagues regretted their earlier positions. I found their attitude questionable. I was utterly disappointed.

In 1992, he set up Treasure Books, the predecessor of Causeway Bay Books. It was while working with this bookstore, which specialised in publications criticising Chinas leaders, that Lam and his associates would run foul of mainland authorities.

The fate of the booksellers raised widespread concern about the one country, two systems formula, prompting the government to open talks with Beijing on improving the cross-border notification system that failed in their case.

Looking back at his eight months in confinement or under surveillance, he said the loss of liberty was incomparably dreadful.

All I could do when confined was look out of the only window. I heard the birds sing, Lam said. If there was one thing I learned to distinguish, this was it: to hear birds sing from inside confinement is completely different from hearing them sing in the open.

That difference, he said, would be easily missed by a free man.

(SCMP) July 8, 2016.

Bookseller Lam Wing-kee has revealed that hes leaving the door open to move to Taiwan, even as he expects Hong Kong police to provide him with round-the-clock protection within a few days time.

Its a 50-50 chance. The police cant protect me for the rest of my life, he said in an interview with the Post on Thursday. The government in Taiwan is a democratically elected one, unlike in mainland China.

He also launched into a detailed rebuttal of a video released by Beijing showing his daily routine in detention and confessing to breaking mainland law by selling banned books across the border. Lam called it forced confession and said camera appearance had been choreographed by authorities.

After his explosive claims that he was nabbed by agents from a central special investigative unit when he crossed into Shenzhen last October and made to endure eight months of mental torture on the mainland, Lam has repeatedly complained about being tailed by unidentified people and his personal safety being under serious threat.

He told the Post he would leave Hong Kong if his family members and friends got into trouble because of him, detailing how he had been followed by suspicious-looking strangers on six separate occasions.

The bookseller, who is now a wanted man for skipping bail after returning home and refusing to go back to the mainland, also branded the release of the video as smear tactics.

He said his videotaped testimony, shown to a high-level Hong Kong government delegation in Beijing this week, featuring forced confessions that he was made to read from prepared scripts over and over again until the authorities were satisfied.

When he spilled the beans at a surprise press conference last month about his mainland ordeal, he said he had no plans to leave Hong Kong because the city was his home.

That changed, he said, after he was followed by four strangers on June 29 all the way back to his hiding place in Lai King Estate in Kwai Tsing. He did not see the stalkers himself but the owner of a photo printing shop claimed he did.

The police said it was not serious enough to warrant protection, Lam recalled. Police did a U-turn the day after the Hong Kong delegation secured a provisional agreement to improve the cross-border notification system that failed when Lam disappeared last year but they insisted there was still no evidence he was in any personal danger.

The bookseller declined to go into details of his protection arrangements, saying only that police had not ruled out a 24-hour watch on him.

Police on Thursday stuck to their guns on the lack of evidence suggesting a threat, having said earlier that he could have been followed by journalists and curious people.

Lam was shown in the video admitting that he was breaking the law because the books were banned across the border.

On Thursday he insisted he was only reading out scripts prepared by a director.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said police would compare the footage against what the bookseller said.

Lam told the Post he had read out confession scripts five to six times at a detention facility in Ningbo before the interrogators and their bosses in Beijing were satisfied. The videos were live-streamed to Beijing, he said. The officers present told me Beijing was not satisfied with my confessions almost immediately. They said I was not serious enough.

The video also depicted him in apparently good spirits, at one point smiling and giving a thumbs-up to a hairdresser.

What would you plead after you were confined for five months under triad-like circumstances? Lam said. There were no court procedures whatsoever.

Lam said there were three sets of cameras monitoring him round-the-clock in custody.

Asked whether the selected clips featuring his meals and medical checks told the whole truth, he urged Beijing to publicise all unedited footage to tell the whole story.

The defiant bookseller also hit back at claims that his failure to return to the mainland was in violation of the bail conditions attached to his Hong Kong visit.

I have committed no crime, Lam said. Is it legal to impose bail on someone after eight months of detention without due process?

He also criticised the Hong Kong delegation for not chasing mainland officials on four of his publishing associates who also disappeared and later appeared on the mainland.

Videos:

https://www.facebook.com/silentmajorityhk/videos/1086442138111558/ Surveillance videos of Lam Wing-kee while under detention

https://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=184907 NOW TV on the Ningbo Public Security Bureau interview by Phoenix TV

https://www.facebook.com/HKYDS/videos/644521775715725/ Phoenix TV interview

Internet comments:

- (Sing Tao/Headline Daily) July 6, 2016. In the video provided by the Ningbo Public Security Bureau, Lam Wing-kee told about how he sent the banned books into China. He said that the books were "lousy" and were compiled through various sources. Lam admitted that he violated Chinese laws, expressed his regrets and asked for leniency. There was also an audio recording from his girlfriend named Hu about how Lam used her to make money for himself.

- "I, Lam Wing-kee, does not need to see my family. I do not need to hire a lawyer at this time. I state so at this time."

- (NOW TV) The Ningbo Public Security Bureau said that they established a special investigative unit in September last year after determining that Lam Wing-kee and an individual Hu were operating illegal business from Dongguan. In middle- and late-October, they were arrested in Dongguan. The Public Security Bureau said that 368 books were mailed, involving more than 400,000 RMB in transaction.

- (Silentmajority.hk) July 7, 2016.

After the Ningbo Public Security Bureau released the surveillance video of Lam Wing-kee dressed in orange-colored garb, Joshua Wong (Demosisto) said that he was stunned. Based upon his knowledge, only ISIS release videos of their captives dressed in orange-colored garb. Well, the origin of orange-colored prison uniform began with the Abu Gharib/Guantanamo torture camps run by the Americans. Quid pro quid, ISIS dressed their prisoners in orange before executing them. So Joshua Wong should think about expanding his very limited knowledge base.


(Photo: Washington Post)

(Sing Pao)

According to our consolidation of information from various sources, the suspicious car which was tailing Lam Wing-kee was rented by a Next Media publication. The manner in which the reporters conducted themselves led to suspicion that they were up to no good.

In the case of the eyewitness, that individual did not personally witness what Lam claimed to have happened. This eyewitness merely heard what another neighbor told him. When the police spoke to this other neighbor, the person said that there was nothing extraordinary. The police checked the surveillance video and confirmed what this other neighbor said.

As for the "strong man" who tailed Lam, he was an off-duty fireman who got curious. He had seen the celebrity Lam Wing-kee on the road and followed him for a period of time. The police did not find anything suspicious in this person's background.

However, based upon Lam Wing-kee's worries, the police offered him protection but he has to stay at a safe house under 24-hour-a-day watch by the Witness Protection Unit. Each time that Lam goes out, the police will have to make a risk assessment and use appropriate measures. Anyone who wants to meet with Lam will have to be screened and searched in order to ensure that Lam is safe. Lam has not told the police whether he will accept this offer.

- When Secretary of Education Eddie Ng was tailed by Next Media reporters, he called the police (see #419). Everybody made fun of him. When Lam Wing-kee was tailed by Next Media reporters, everybody said that White Terror is upon us and nobody is safe from cross-border law enforcement.

- The Ningbo Public Security Bureau said that Lam Wing-kee has not kept the terms of his bail. Therefore Lam is now a fugitive of the law and they may be forced to apply the law to pursue a criminal. Democratic Party legislative James To decried the Ningbo Public Security Bureau for threatening Lam Wing-kee.

Let me ask: Did the United States government threaten Edward Snowden who thought that he was in a safe haven in Hong Kong but had to flee to Russia instead?

- (Sing Tao/Headline Daily) July 7, 2016.

... Was Lam Wing-kee really forced to come back to Hong Kong to fetch the subscriber information? Since Lee Bo and others have gone over to the other side, the Chinese Public Security Bureau only had to tell Lee Bo to fetch the subscriber information for them. Why did they have to take the risk of sending Lam Wing-kee to Hong Kong?

Lam Wing-kee said that he was motivated to come out because of the people who demonstrated on his behalf. On July 1st, the Civil Human Rights Front predicted 100,000 persons will march with Lam Wing-kee leading in front. Why did he suddenly take fright when he is protected by tens of thousand plus the entire Hong Kong Police? Has be let down the Democratic Party and all those who believed in him?

By this time, the truth should be clear: Lam Wing-kee sold banned books to make money and he was caught by the mainland law enforcement. Afterwards, he is trying to obtain his personal freedom by lining up the pen-democrats and the media on his side ...

- (Ta Kung Pao) July 7, 2016. The lawyers/legislators Albert Ho and James To who advised Lam Wing-kee may not have clearly explained the consequences of skipping bail. When Lam was under detention in mainland China, he admitted to the crime of selling banned books. The authorities allowed him to post bail while the investigation continued. Once Lam skipped bail in Hong Kong, the Chinese government can issue an arrest warrant through Interpol. Obviously, if Lam returns to China, he will be arrested immediately as a wanted fugitive. If Lam should ever want to travel overseas, many countries friendly to China may send him directly to China. In other countries, they may want to avoid trouble and simply deny entry to Lam. So Taiwan may be the only place that Lam can go to.

In this matter, Albert Ho and James To are acting as lawyers who offer legal counsel for which Lam said was no need at this time. Thus, Ho and To are not responsible for what happens. Meanwhile Ho and To are also Democratic Party members, so they get to show that they are helping Lam Wing-kee. In this way, Ho and To win twice.

- If Lam Wing-kee cannot be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China for crimes committed on the mainland, then why are mainlanders who commit crimes in Hong Kong extradited to Hong Kong. Case in point: the kidnappers of Queenie Rosita Law took some of the ransom, crossed back to mainland China, were arrested in China and convicted here.

- https://youtu.be/vfVMFHts5bc Lam Wing-kee said that he is worried about his personal safety in Hong Kong. He said that he is thinking about moving to Taiwan so that he won't be arrested. According to legislator Leung Mei-fun, Hong Kong does not have an extradition agreement with mainland China but Taiwan has such an agreement for transferring criminals. Yes, they were not extradited to Hong Kong but they were put on trial for crimes committed in Hong Kong. Conversely, will Hong Kong put Lam Wing-kee on trial for the crimes that he committed in mainland China?

- Out of the five instances in which Lam Wing-kee said that he was being followed, one was a media organization and the other was a curious off-duty fireman. The three remaining cases took place inside the subway system. Hey, Lam has been on television quite a lot recently. Is it any surprise that people would want to gawk at a celebrity? If Leon Lai took the subway, he would be gawked at too.

- Albert Ho said that the police haven't been able to prove that all those who followed Lam are media workers. In particular, the subway gawkers have not been proven not to be agents of the Central Investigation Team.

- Philip Yan Kin Chan's Facebook

Hong Kong Police: The car that tailed Lam Wing-kee was rented by a media organization. If Mr. Lam wants, we are willing to provide him with personal protection.

This is the most absurd decision that was made under the pressure of public pressure. I want to ask: Why is a person who broke the law in mainland China, who openly inflame fear and hostility in Hong Kong towards China, who is unfaithful to his wife, who betrayed his lover and who told a stream of self-contradictory lies to divide society going to receive police protection? In particular, the police have determined after investigation that there are no other threats beyond the media? If such a person gets police protection, I urge all those entertainment industry workers and celebrities who have been followed by the media paparazzi also get police protection!

- (HKG Pao) Six questions in the case of Lam Wing-kee. July 8, 2016.

Q1. Under pressure from the pan-democrats, the Hong Kong Government has publicly promised that they will not transfer Lam Wing-kee to mainland China. Does that mean that if a Hongkonger kills and rapes in mainland, he will be scotfree as long as he makes it back across the Shenzhen river into Hnog Kong? Once the precedent is set for the case of Lam Wing-kee, do all Hongkongers who break the law in mainland China get the same treatment? And can they get police protection too?

Q2. Sing Pao divulged that Next Media rented the car that followed Lam Wing-kee. But when Apple Daily reported on Lam being followed, they acted surprised with the headlines "Lam Wing-kee being followed!" and "He feels that his personal safety is under threat!" What does that mean? How can Lam Wing-kee's personal safety be threatened when they are the ones who were following him around? Or they did follow Lam because they want to create this story?

Q3. After the police said that the car followed Lam was rented by a media organization, Apple Daily asked on Facebook: "Were only media vehicles following Lam Wing-kee"? Did they know that others besides themselves were following Lam? Why won't they say so then?

Q4. Lam Wing-kee said that he is considering moving to Taiwan because of concerns about his personal safety here. Interestingly, mainland China and Hong Kong do not have an agreement to transfer criminals, but there is one between mainland China and Taiwan. So why is Taiwan safer than Hong Knog for Lam Wing-kee? Why is he not afraid of being sent back to mainland China by Taiwan? Or was it just bluster here to politicize his case?

Q5. Who is the main beneficiary is Lam Wing-kee is disappeared or killed right before the Legislative Council elections? The government? The pro-establishment camp? The pan-democratic camp? Why better gimmick to hype up the sense of tragedy?

Q6. After reading Q1-Q5, where do you think the biggest threat to Lam Wing-kee's personal safety comes from?

- (Ta Kung Pao) July 9, 2016.

Lam Wing-kee is an individual who personally brought or mailed books published in Hong Kong across the border to mainland China. Not many people in Hong Kong are in the same business as him, nor would they bring or mail such books across the border. So when Apple Daily say that every person in Hong Kong is worried about being detained upon crossing the border, they are exaggerating.

The mainland authorities detained Lam Wing-kee not for writing, publishing or selling those books in Hong Kong. They did so because Lam took Internet orders for these books, mailed them from mainland China and received payment at a mainland bank. This was an illegal business operation, for which Lam was detained and investigated.

Meanwhile, if bookstore manager Lam Wing-kee says that he is just an ordinary book lover who wants to lead "a simple life", then he shouldn't be telling Apple Daily or radio listeners that even city mayors ordered books from him. These exposs can serve no purpose beyond making life more "complicated" for everybody, especially himself.

Meanwhile, Lam Wing-kee tells the media that he is being followed and therefore feels that his personal safety is being threatened. However, he refused to tell the police just where he is staying now. Isn't this self-contradictory?

- (Apple Daily) July 9, 2016. Concerning the video segments released by the Ningbo Public Security Bureau, Lam Wing-kee noted that he explained that switching book covers and using mainlanders to transship the books were done in order to ensure that his buyers can receive the books. He never imagined that that could lead to the outcome today.

- If he thinks that there is nothing wrong, he wouldn't have to get his workers to switch book covers! Does he think that they have too much time on hand?

- When he brought the books across the border in 2014 and got stopped by mainland Customs, did it occur to him that this could be illegal? If so, then why does he still want to get his girlfriend to engage in illegal activities afterwards?

- (Apple Daily) July 9, 2016. Lam Wing-kee said that his book buyers include mainland Chinese officials at the rank of mayor, but there were fewer than 10 of these. Most of them used middlemen to order the books.

- Ha ha ha! On one hand, let us say that a middleman is ordering a book on behalf of a senior government official. Would the email say something like: "Hi, my name is Wong Wingwang. I would like to order a copy of The Six Lovers of Xi Jinping. I am acting on behalf of Hu Jintao."? If Hu Jintao has to use a middleman, then he doesn't want to be known. That is tautological.

On the other hand, if an email order comes in to say: "Hi, my name is Hu Jintao. I would like to order a copy of The Six Lovers of Xi Jinping. Please mail the book to Hu Jintao, c/o Zhongnanhai." Then you know that the sender is more likely to be a Falun Gong follower than Hu Jintao himself.

- https://www.facebook.com/775416222580183/videos/914777058644098/ Brad Pitt dubbed with a fake Lam Wing-kee confession.

I went back to mainland China. I wanted my mistress to sell books. But I was arrested at the border crossing. I was very confused. The Public Security Bureau asked me if I admit to the charges. There is no need to say more. Go and seek the pan-democrats. I said that I don't want to go to jail. If I can blame mainland, I won't have to go to jail. But I was arrested after I crossed the border. So I said untruthfully that Lee Bo was kidnapped to mainland China. Fuck! If you are afraid of mainland China, then you should trust me.

- (Kinliu) July 9, 2016.

Law Wing-kee skipped bail in mainland Chinese and fled back to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Police did not assist mainland law enforcement in handling the case. Instead, they provided personal protection to Lam Wing Kee. This is awesome news to criminals. The next time that they commit murder or arson in mainland China, they will claim to be worried about "Central Investigation Team"/"Local Special Forces"/"National Security Investigators" crossing the border to arrest them and seek police protection. There must be thousands of such people. Does the Hong Kong Police have enough manpower to take care of all of them? These people have the status as Lam Wing-kee, so they must be protected if Lam is.

Furthermore, many Hongkongers suffer from paranoia/paranoid schizophrenia about being followed and persecuted. Will the Hong Kong Police give them personal protection too?

Offering personal protection to Lam Wing-kee is setting a bad precedent. It gives the impression that the Hong Kong Police is working against the mainland law enforcement agencies. When the mainland Public Security Bureau want to arrest a criminal, the Hong Kong Police provides that person. So it is a joke for Hong Kong government officials to travel to Beijing to discuss the notification system.

- (Kinliu) July 9, 2016.

When Democratic Party legislator James To went with Lam Wing-kee to report being followed, the police immediately provide a safe house and 24-hour-per-day witness protection.

Strangely, the police had already found out that the car that followed Lam Wing-kee belonged to Next Media. It was the same vehicle which trailed Education Minister Eddie Ng last year, and the occupants were also Next Media paparazzi. In Hong Kong, it is not a crime to follow others or even take phones in public. If those involved are reporters, they are even more justified because they always trot out "the public's right to know" and "freedom of press." That is why the celebrities who are harassed by them feel so frustrated over the years.

Over the past few weeks, Lam Wing-kee has been the media headline/front page darling. The only missing so far is the TIME magazine cover. He is a celebrity, and celebrities get public attention. Lam cannot expect to be famous without paying the cost of fame.

But someone has to go along with this.

The first collaborator is the Journalists Association. When it was journalists who were following Lam, then Lam and To were interfering with freedom of press by filing a police report. But where are they? In the past, they pounce out when a celebrity so much as raise a hand to block the camera. But when the pan-democratic legislators worked with the police to stop news gathering and deprived the public's right to know about the status of Lam Wing-kee, the Journalists Association went missing in action.

The second collaborator is the Hong Kong Police. Here is a criminal who broke the law in mainland China and fled to Hong Kong while out on bail. Although the Hong Kong Police cannot arrest him and extradite him back to mainland China, they provided him with 24-hour-a-day personal protection. Isn't this a clear case of special treatment? When a mainland criminal has more rights than a senior government official, celebrity or movie star, then it is unjustified and wasteful.

Lam Wing-kee betrayed his wife and sons and got kicked out of his home, he sold out his colleagues and he dumped his girlfriend who helped him to commit crime. So he was destitute with no place to stay. But he used the legal ambiguity in One Country Two Systems to avoid extradition and used the conflict between the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese Communists to construct a story of heroism. How can the Police now see this? Serving the citizens does not include serving criminals. If you have to accommodate every paranoid patient, how much budget would you need?

Let us reason why who wants Lam Wing-kee to get into trouble? And who doesn't want him in trouble?

Next Media used their paparazzi to follow Lam Wing-kee because they firmly believe that the Chinese Communists will send people to kidnap him. So they want to be there when that happens. If anyone who even remotely looks like mainland Chinese agents try to contact Lam, they will have the photos to have a big headline stories: "Communists cross the border to murder the witness!"

For this reason, it is the Chinese Communists who are most worried about Lam Wing-kee. If Lam misses so much as a hair, everybody will blame the Chinese Communists. So the Chinese Communists are praying that nothing happens to Lam.

- (Wen Wei Po) July 8, 2016.

When Education minister Eddie Ng was followed by strangers in cars many times, he felt his personal safety under threat and he called the police who found out that his trailers were Apple Daily reporters. The Journalists Association issued a strong condemnation of Eddie Ng and the police for violating freedom of press and depriving the citizens of their right to know.

When Lam Wing-kee was followed by strangers many times, he also felt his personal safety under threat and he called the police who found out that his trailers were Apple Daily reporters. But the Journalists Association has maintained a stony silence on the case of Lam Wing-kee. They did not criticize Lam for suppressing freedom of press. This type of double standards is unbecoming of journalist ethics.

- (SCMP) July 14, 2016. Has Hong Kong become a home for fugitives fleeing mainland law enforcement? By Song Sio Chong.

Is it too early to raise the question of whether Hong Kong will become a haven for absconders? In recent times, weve seen refugees coming here to seek asylum, and now fugitives from the mainlands law enforcement authorities coming here for protection.

Bookseller Lam Wing-kee, who was arrested and detained by mainland authorities for smuggling illegal books, has breached the conditions of his bail by returning to Hong Kong. Before giving him round-the-clock protection, the Hong Kong police should carefully consider the implications of their decision.

First, despite the lack of a judicial assistance agreement on criminal matters between Hong Kong and the mainland, mainland authorities have in the past voluntarily delivered to Hong Kong numerous fugitives who had committed crimes in Hong Kong, as a gesture of good faith. Mainland police may now ask for a similar favour in return. If their request is denied, the relationship between the central government and Hong Kong could be adversely affected.

Second, under Article 95 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong and the mainland should long ago have reached an agreement on criminal judicial assistance. By shielding Lam, the Hong Kong government will give the impression it has no intention to reach such an agreement. This will encourage other fugitives fleeing from the mainland to come to the city to avoid justice. Such developments may jeopardise Hong Kongs position under one country, two systems and aggravate the citys political divisions.

Third, police protection for Lam may attract troublemakers who will take every opportunity to create trouble then blame Beijing for it. And how much would this protection cost our taxpayers? If the protection works well, the costs may be high; but if it fails, the consequences may be disastrous.

Because of our two systems, some laws that existed before the handover have endured. In colonial times, if a bookseller had circulated books against the queen or the British government, firm action would have been taken against him. It is logical to ask why the Hong Kong government did not take action against the Causeway Bay booksellers.

We should learn from the wisdom of Americas founding fathers. Article 4, Section 2 of the US constitution says that a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

Especially in light of the fact that mainland authorities have in the past returned criminals to Hong Kong, acknowledging the citys jurisdiction over the cases, there is no reason Hong Kong should not do likewise, given that Hong Kong is a special administrative region directly under the central government.

It is up to Lam to decide if he should be protected by the Hong Kong police for an indefinite period of time, or surrender himself willingly to mainland authorities and answer the charge of selling illegal books.

- Here is a seemingly different case. (Oriental Daily) July 13, 2016. At 9am, a Hongkonger woman went across the border to the Luohu control point. The Chinese Customs officers thought that she looked nervous and they intercepted her. They found 2 iPhone's in her backpack and another 36 more iPhone's tied around her waist. Another 4 iPhone's were found in her underwear. In total, she brought 42 undeclared iPhone's. According to the Shenzhen Customs Department, this woman had previously been stopped with 300 iPhone's.

It is legal in Hong Kong to buy as many iPhone's as possible and to resell them at whatever price one wishes. Therefore what she did was totally legal. Under Lam Wing-kee's legal theory, if it is legal in Hong Kong, it must also be legal for a Hongkonger to do in mainland China as well. So we should start another demonstration march to support this woman to protest the failure of One Country Two Systems to protect her inalienable rights to do in mainland China what is permissible in Hong Kong.

- This Hongkonger woman is a parallel trader. She buys low in Hong Kong, brings it across the border and sells high to earn a profit. So if Lam Wing-kee's theory applies to this woman, it also applies to the parallel trading industry. So we should start another demonstration march to support the inalienable right of Hongkonger parallel traders.

Mind you, we are only supporting Hongkonger parallel traders. It is still illegal for mainlanders to be in the parallel trade.

- The only way parallel trade can be stopped is if there are explicit bans. For example, Hongkongers are forbidden to exit with more than 1.8 kilograms of infant milk formula. Under Lam Wing-kee's legal theory, everything is allowable unless explicitly forbidden. For example, Hongkongers can carry fresh meat into Australia because it is legal in Hong Kong, etc.

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2016.

The July 1st march organized by the Civil Human Rights Front started off from Victoria Park at 320pm and finished at Harcourt Road. The front of the parade reached the destination at 510pm. The last marchers came in at 7pm.

The Civil Human Rights Front announced that 110,000 persons marched.

The police said that 12,000 persons started off from Victoria Park. The peak number was 19,300.

The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme said that the number of marchers was between 23,000 and 29,000.

Civil Human Rights Front convener Jimmy Sham said that their volunteers counted the number of marchers at Percival Street, Aberdeen Road and Arsenal Street, and that 110,000 was a reasonable number. He pointed out many citizens avoided Victoria Road due to the heat and joined the march along the way. He said that the number of marchers was double that of last year because citizens must be re-energized after the helplessness of last year. Sham said that the Civil Human Rights Front takes no position on Hong Kong independence, but the citizens should know what to think of the pro-independence persons who tried to cause trouble at the front of the parade.

Our observation that not many people started off from Victoria Park. The number of people occupied less than one soccer field. This is far less than the 100,000 predicted by the Civil Human Rights Front.


2015/2016 comparison

Year/Civil Human Rights Front/Police
2003/500,000+/350,000
2004/530,000/200,000
2005/21,000/17,000
2006/58,000/28,000
2007/68,000/20,000
2008/47,000/15,500
2009/76,000/28,000
2010/52,000/20,000
2011/218,000/54,000
2012/400,000/63,000
2013/430,000/66,000
2014/510,000/98,600
2015/48,000/19,600
2016/110,000/19,300

(Oriental Daily) July 1, 2016.

The July 1st march of the Civil Human Rights Front ended at around 7pm. Afterwards, the League of Social Democrats, People Power and several hundred others proceed to Government House to settle their accounts with Chief Executive CY Leung. LSD chairman Avery Ng said " The more people the better; the bigger ones should stay!" The demonstrators were led by LSD legislator Leung Kwok-hung, People Power legislator Chan Chi-chuen and Demosisto vice-chairman Oscar Lai. Avery Ng said that they had not applied to the police beforehand and therefore this action was civil disobedience. However, they have given telephone numbers to the participants upon arrest, and participants were asked to assess and accept their own risks. They chanted slogans of "Down with CY Leung! Power to the people! Universal suffrage in all of China!" At 815pm, they arrived at the East Gate of Government House where their progress was impeded by a human wall of police officers. There were physical clashes. The demonstrators wanted to demonstrate at the front gate but the police refused. The police displayed the yellow warning flag and applied pepper spray many times.

(Oriental Daily) July 2, 2016.

At 750pm across the China Liaison Office near Connaught Garden, the police stopped 18-year-old male named Mak and found a boxcutter; they also found on boxcutter on 23-year-old male named Szeto. Both men were arrested on suspicion of possession of assault weapons.

According to information, Mak is a supporter of Hong Kong independence. Mak's Facebook carries a photo of brick-throwing in Mong Kok on Lunar New Year's Day. Mak is a supporter of the Hong Kong National Party. On June 27, Mak posted on his Facebook the call to assemble in front of the China Liaison Office after the July 1st march. According to information, Szeto had previously posted a photo of himself at Occupy Central to Facebook. He supported Edward Leung during the Legco by-election.

At around 830pm, the police stopped 35-year-old male named So and found a pair of scissors on him. So was arrested on suspicion of possession of of an assault weapon. According to information, So claims to be a graduate of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and is self-employed as a hypnotist-therapist.

(Oriental Daily) July 2, 2016.

After the July 1st march, the League of Social Democrats proceeded to Government House. They were blocked by the police who applied pepper spray to stop their progress. Afterwards, LSD regrouped at the old Legislative Council building at De Voeux Road Central. Several members of the Mong Kong Shopping Revolutionaries laid down on the ground to block traffic. The League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng and legislator Leung Kwok-hung asked the demonstrators to return to the pavement in order to discuss their next steps.

As Avery Ng was being interviewed by the media, CUHK Student Union president Ernie Chow and others got emotionally excited and accused the League of Social Democrats of stopping the students from occupying the road. During their exchange, the students accused LSD member Chan Tak-cheung of intimidating the students and putting his hands on Chow's neck while other LSD members "hit Ernie Chow with their fists and kicked with their feet." Ernie Chow was escorted away by other students.

There was a Facebook war as the sides told their own versions. The CUHK SU said that Ernie Chow was hit by fists and kicked by feet. League of Social Democrats/People Power questioned why the CUHK students came over from the China Liaison Office (Sai Wan) to Central: "If the leftist retards have to flee, how do you expect them to valiant build the Hong Kong nation?" LSD/PP also said that they invited Ernie Chow to lead the way to block the road.

Video:

Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1022741034427926/ Wanna raise money? It's T&A!

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1022740741094622/ Children being told to assault effigies of government officials

Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1134395656634369/ Pro-independence demonstrators attempted to take over the Civil Human Rights Front demonstration march.

Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1022550444446985/ Outside Government House

Cable TV Cable TV Police use pepper spray against demonstrators outside Government House

Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1134402296633705/ League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung asked CUHK SU president Ernie Chow to lead the way to block road traffic. Chow flew into the subway.

Kinliu http://kinliu.hk/real/22860-7f2469335517710cd4eb914516002847 League of Social Democrats versus CUHK Student Union.

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1022574051111291/ Another view of Leung Kwok-hung versus Ernie Chow

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1023094197725943/ Ernie Chow running into the subway station while still being pursued

Speakout HK https://youtu.be/tpSCC13RxbQ League of Social Democrats' Avery Ng explained how they were holding a peaceful demonstration and the police attacked them with pepper spray without any warning

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDi-vp5n-cs League of Social Democrats' Avery Ng gives press conference and then CUHK SU's Ernie Chow showed up.

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1023293247706038/
https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1023292971039399/
Civic Passion member Lee Ching-hei releases a torrent of obscenities during the group's 'national' flag ceremony

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1022631751105521/ Hong Kong independence movement advocates in front of the China Liaison Office

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1022631751105521/ Hong Kong Indigenous members Ray Wong and Edward Leung live-casting their encounter with the police

Internet comments:

- (Sing Tao/Headline Daily) The Civic Human Rights Front march was supposed to be led by Causeway Bay Books manager Lam Wing-kee. But Lam informed the Civic Human Rights Front this morning that he would be absent because of personal safety concerns due to serious threats. The Civicl Human Rights called for a stop of the terrorist campaign against Lam Wing-kee. They want citizens to march in the streets to support Lam Wing-kee to defend the freedom from fear and terror.

- (HKU POP) A soccer pitch in Victoria Park measures 72.75 meters long and 46.5 meters. If fully occupied at 2.8 persons per square meter, a soccer pitch carries 72.75 x 46.6 x 2.8 persons = 9,472. So who many people are there in this photo?

- (Wen Wei Po) July 6, 2016. Civil Human Rights Front convener Jimmy Sham declared that 110,000 persons marched. The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme estimated between 23,000 and 29,000 persons. The Hong Kong Police said that 12,000 left from Victoria Park and the peak number was 19,300. Sham said that "in order not to let down all those who marched, they took the average number that they counted at three locations and multiplied it by a factor of 1.5. Conveniently, the estimate of 110,000 exceed their predicted turnout of 100,000.

- (TVB) From the pedestrian overpass at Arsenal Road, the Civil Human Rights Front volunteers counted 59,000 persons marching underneath. At the same location, the HKU POP student volunteers counted 18,000. Some people need to have their lying eyes checked immediately for quadruple vision.

- (TVB) Paul Yip at the Hong Kong University's Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science came up with an estimate of between 24,000 and 29,000. This meant that the two Hong Kong University estimates are consistent with each other.

- (SocREC) Jimmy Sham explains their methodology in front of the press. The methodology may be fine, but there is no explanation why they counted many more people than the two HKU teams.

- On July 1st, 26,000 tickets were handed out for citizens who want to visit the bases of the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong. Many more were turned away.
|
This sort of thing are not newsworthy to Apple Daily, RTHK, BBC or CNN.

- https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1133885303352071/ Counter-demonstrators asking Lam Wing-kee to go home to eat dinner like a good responsible family man.

Lam Wing Kee: Your wife is telling you to come home for dinner.
The Defend Hong Kong Movement

- (HKG Pao) July 1, 2016. About 30 or so pro-independence persons waving the British Dragon-Lion flag attempted to cut into the procession near Gooseneck Bridge. These individuals wore surgical masks and chanted "Hong Kong independence!" to take over the lead position. The demonstrators were upset and rushed up to seize the flags. It was chaos. Afterwards, the pro-independence people were surrounded and sequestered by the police. While the procession went ahead, the pro-independence people were "protected" by a human wall of police.

- (Oriental Daily) July 2, 2016. Five members of the Hong Kong-UK Reunification Campaign went to the British Consulate to ask the United Kingdom to take back Hong Kong. They demanded the British Consulate accept their petition letter. Nobody came out. Eventually they left the letter at the security desk and left.

- (Oriental Daily) July 1, 2016.

Based upon observations in the field, citizens have brought plenty of money to donate. They do not seemed worried about where the money is going. A Mr. Mak said that he has never worried about it because "I trust them."

We checked the various political parties and organizations which solicited donations. The traditional brands such as the Democratic Party and even Youngspiration were registered corporations which openly disclose their financial statements.

Joshua Wong's Demosisto is still not registered, so financial disclosure is not remotely close yet. How are the donations being used? Wong said: "Each organization has the identical goal when they raise money." He said that because the organization does not have a corporate account, the donations will be deposited into the accounts of individual members.

Neo Democrats aid that the public can ask them for financial statements if they want, but they have not considered public disclosure. The Proletariat Political Institute and the League of Social Democrats said that they are not disclosing finances, but they believe that their supports will trust them.

- Video: https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1134373446636590/ Yes, you have to remember to hire some hot chicks to hold your donation boxes.

- (Sky Post) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. July 5, 2016.

Hong Kong is the demonstration capital of the world. In 2006, there were 2,228 demonstrations; in 2015, there were 6,029 demonstrations. That is to say, there are at least 16 demonstrations every day in this city. How come the demonstrators have so much time/ Don't they have to work? Are they really so unhappy?

Has anyone done a detailed analysis? What are they demonstrating about? Who are the organizers? Who are the participants? If such an analysis was done, we would know who the professional demonstrators are.

I have always wondered why these professional demonstrators don't have to go to work. How do they earn a living? So I looked up some data in order to understand their motives.

The theme of this July 1st march is an excuse. The true purpose of the march is to raise money. Let us look at what the political parties took in: Demosisto, $500,000; People Power, $200,000; Civic Party, $441,000; Democratic Party, $175,000; League of Social Democrats, $420,000; Labour Party, $140,000.

What kind of job requires no thinking, no education and no labor. All you have to do is to hold a donation box and chant slogans for several hours and you will rake in $500,000. When you see that the Demosisto kids raised more money that the barristers at Civic Party, you will understand why Joshua Wong does not want to study or work. And why won't politicians do what they are supposed to do? It's all about $$$$$$$.

- Spoof: Pan-democratic legislators: "We are hungry. Please donate."

-  (Posters)
July 1st is the date when Hong Kong fell. Tyranny must fall, the people of Hong Kong must save themselves.
Rule of law anti-violence independence rally.
July 1st evening 7pm. Outside the China Liaison Office.
Hong Kong National Party/Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration.

- Hong Kong University Students Union statement on the national sorrow of Hong Kong on July 1st
Unless the Communist bandits are eradicated, disaster will still plague on Hong Kong


To: Baggio Leung (Youngspiration); Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous); Raymond Wong (Proletariat Political Institute); Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party)
If you dare to charge into the People's Liberation Army Headquarters and demand Hong Kong independence loudly, I will fucking vote for you on September 4th.
But I think that you prefer to count your money in an air-conditioned room, you stupid prick!

- Civic Rights Observer provided information for legal aid in the event that a demonstration is arrested during the July 1st march or any action afterwards.

- Why would you get arrested for participation in an event for which the organizers obtained police permission beforehand? It is the 'post-march action' that is risky.

- (Discuss.com.hk) An Hong Kong Indigenous document showed the following points on the siege of the China Liaison Office.

1. We must mobilize at least 1,000 people. We must not be fewer than the Hong Kong National Party. We should all wear our dark blue uniforms.

2. Some of the people in charge should wear black clothes to merge in with the others in order to monitor the actions of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Shue Yan folks.

3. Because we have to proceed to the China Liaison Office in five groups, Hong Kong Indigenous will lead the way. We will take the flower bed before 630pm and take over the vantage point.

4. Ray and Edward will dear with the police. The other people will stay at the two main gates of the China Liaison Office, the basement driveway to the left of the flower bed, the pedestrian overpass, the intersection of the Ming Sing Seafood Restarant, the intersection between Chiu Kwong Street and Connaught Road. We will actively provoke the police. If we can trigger a clash, we will be able to call for help.

5. According to the aforementioned deployment, the six positions should have 18 positions for filming. The camera batteries should be fully charged beforehand.

6. Download the FireChat app onto your mobile phones beforehand for internal communication.

7. Thomas, Edmond and Kit should arrange for seven persons to arrive at the scene in four groups. Do not worry about being searched by the police. We are amply supplied with weapons. We have plastic bottles, Coca Cola cans, lighters, etc. When we set off fires, we should watch out for our personal safety.

8. Please bring enough food and water. We plan to lay siege for 48 hours or longer. You can also make purchases at the nearby 7/11 convenience store.

9. Watch out for the reporters at the various locations. When we charge, we must remember to mask our faces.

10. Please remember to keep your receipts. The expenses may be submitted and processed afterwards.

If you are worried about being exposed,  you should stay home and watch soccer. The night of July 1st belongs to genuine justice fighters!

- (NOW TV) Eh, three members of Youngspiration complained to the press that the police cordon around the Chinese Liaison Office is a serious violation of the Hong Kong people's freedom of assembly.

- Eh, the police didn't say that you couldn't demonstrate outside the China Liaison Office. But in view of the threats of violence that were announced beforehand, the police searched everybody first and then restricted them to demonstration zones in accordance with universal values as practiced in the United States, the United Kingdom etc.

- Hong Kong Indigenous

[Current arrangements]
We are discussing the current situation. Please hide in a safe place for now.
[Observed situation]
Security is tight at the scene. We are evaluating the information and assessing the risks required by action.
There are five to six police officers at each corner covering 200 meters. They are searching bags and threatening citizens not to cause trouble. There is even a road block as far away as Sheung Wan.
When the police find suspicious objects, they claim that they have the right to confiscate the objects. But when citizens want to call their lawyers, the police let them go.
A reporter said that there are as many police officers as when Zhang Dejing was in Hong Kong.

- Surrender notices

Youngspiration: The assembly on the night of July 1st was not held as scheduled. Youngspiration cannot blame anyone else. We apologize to the public and to our supporters.
Our organization and Hong Kong Indigenous will provide a full explanation soon. We have learned our lesson and we will seek improvements. Your criticisms will help us move ahead.

Hong Kong National Party: Our various mistakes for tonight's assembly cannot be blamed on anyone else. We will hold a meeting tomorrow and provide a detailed explanation. We will provide full support to any demonstrators who were arrested tonight and need assistance.

- Hong Kong Indigenous

Based upon our preliminary assessment, our organization believes that there are three things that requires reflection:
Firstly, the police took the extraordinary measure of using anti-terrorist police deployment against an ordinary assembly of citizens. This caused our organization to mis-estimate severely. Our organization and others discussed and decided to change the assembly location. But the information was leaked and the police were deployed there as well. Therefore, our organization must improve our communication methods with others in order not to leak secrets.
Secondly, our organization did not post the latest information onto the Internet on a time basis, so that the public did not have that information. Thus, the justice fighters did not know what to do. Our organization plans to improve on this in order to make sure that information flows clearly.
Thirdly, our organization admits that our action plans was not detailed such that we could not respond to breaking events. When we saw the extraordinary police deployment, we called off the action out of concern for the safety of the participants. We will reflect on the planning process so that we can perfect the future actions.
Hong Kong Indigenous apologizes to the public for the failure of this action. We express our deep regrets about the justice warriors who were arrested last night. We call the arrestees to contact us so that we can provide aid. Hong Kong Indigenous promises to accept public criticisms and improve thereafter.

- (HK Revolution) This is no way to apologize.

(1) This was not the same setup as the one for Zhang Dejiang. The police did not even deploy the water barricades tonight. If your target is the China Liaison Office, you should have factored in the likely police presence. If you didn't anticipate this, you were being too naive.

(2) Information was leaked? That is not the main point. It is normal that you are outmatched in numbers and discipline because the police are professionally trained. But when you make a plan, you need to have alternate models when conditions change. For example, you call for the China Liaison Office. If there are too many police present, you switch to Location A. If they are there as well, you switch to Location B. When the police are at all the locations, you pick a random location. Those who answer your call will know that you are employing guerilla tactics.

(3) Black bloc? Actually you should consult the foreign experience. They find a space to assemble the black bloc and then charge together. They do not send the guys in black one by one to be stopped, searched and arrested by the police. And you don't even know this after all this time. At the least, you tell them to bring black clothes to change when ready.

(4) No matter what happens,  you need to have a set of demands for your action. Right now, people are just fucking marching to the China Liaison Office without a clue about why they are doing so. At the least, you should exploit the case of Lam Wing-kee.

Instead you have an action for which you have no purposes, you did not study the terrain, you did not consider the conditions, you have no backup plans, you have no defined plans. It looks as if you just want to send people in to be beaten up the police. Or else you are like small children playing in a sandbox.

My sense is that the people who organized this action do not feel that the supporters are a rare commodity. Instead, the supporters can be discarded without any sense of responsibility.

"The wolf is coming!" You can say it once, twice, thrice. Eventually nobody will show up.

- (Headline Daily) July 1, 2016. At around 10pm, Civic Passion's Cheng Kam-mun and more than 10 other members went to the Western District Police Station to complain about the bad attitude of the police. He said that he is concerned about the three men who were detained on suspicion of possession of assault weapons. They left the police station after a few minutes, and staged a demonstration outside. A large number of police officers stood by.

- Ha ha ha! Complaints about the bad attitude of the police! Why don't you just charge into the police station and beat the police up!? How are you going to build a Hong Kong Nation if all you do is to lodge complaints with the Police Public Relations Branch?

- (Oriental Daily) July 1, 2016.

- Here is the best photo to summarize the debacle. On the bottom panel, Chin Po-fun of the Shopping Revolutionaries lay down on the road to block the buses. On the top panel, unamused passengers watch from the top deck and thinking about when (if ever) they will reach home tonight. The Shopping Revolutionaries say that they want "genuine universal suffrage." How is stopping these people from going home tonight going to realize that? I don't understand it, you don't understand it and everybody else doesn't understand it but the Shopping Revolutionaries can see what we can't.

- Avery Ng is studying for a masters degree. Ernie Chow is studying for a bachelor degree. Did they study all these books in order to fight? Aren't they better off enrolling at a Thai boxing school?

- This is hilarious: (Wen Wei Po) Forty to fifty League of Social Democrats members chased after a dozen of so students and said that they wanted to haul Ernie Chow to block the road in front of the China Liaison Office ... Chow had thought that he was placing League of Social Democrats/People Power into a no-win situation. If they agreed to block the road, they will be arrested by the police; if they refused to block the road, they will be shown to be gutless. Instead, Chow was the loser because he did not dare to block the road when challenged to lead and he was chased fleeing into the subway for shelter.


- Tam Tak Chi (People Power) to CUHK SU president Ernie Chow
(1) If Long Hair and Avery Ng assaulted you, I recommend that you seek police assistance. You must not let this go if it is true.
(2) I won't tolerate this type of thing even though I am allied with Long Hair. But it would be very bad if this was a smear job.
(3) Even if Long Hair didn't want people to block the road, this is between him and those who wanted to do so (such as Miss Chin of the Shopping Revolutionaries and myself). There was no need for President Chow to race over from the scene of the China Liaison Office to raise hell.
Nowadays, I get worried because it is hard to reason with people.

- The Stand News

July 1, 21:20, Government House. A female protestor objected to the police blocking off the roads. She said that she wanted to go down the hill to relieve herself. The police did not respond. So she immediately took off her pants and took care of her problem.

- This is being unfair to this female demonstrator. (Oriental Daily) She said that she has high blood pressure and did not have her medication. That was why she urinated in public. When our reporter went up to interview her, she cursed him out with obscene language.

- (Oriental Daily) July 1, 2016. Hong Kong Indigenous spokespersons Ray Wong and Edward Leung were stopped by the police in a vehicle with 3 other persons. The police found at least 10 helmets and Hong Kong Indigenous flags. The police released the five individuals but towed the car away. Wong and Leung said that they were merely passengers and they have idea why the helmets and flags were in the vehicle.

- Ray Wong was under a curfew under the bail terms for the Mong Kok rioting charge. So tonight he begged the police to arrest him, because he wouldn't be responsible for not being home during his curfew.

- (HK Peanut) When the League of Social Democrats sent HKU SU president Ernie Chow fleeing into the subway, Denise Ho used the "Ha ha" expression on her alternate Facebook account. Internet users accused Denise Ho of engaging in Schadenfreude. Civic Passion founder Wong Yeung-tat was more direct and said that all those who support Denise Ho are "stupid cunts."

- (Headline Daily) July 5, 2016. According to Eastweek, Hong Kong Indigenous, Hong Kong National Party and Youngspiration spend two months casing the China Liaison Office in preparation for assaulting the place with golf balls on the night of July 1st. But the plan was stalled when the police deployed massive numbers of officers at the site. As alternatives, they wanted to either destroy the Golden Bauhinia statute or attack the People's Liberation Army barracks with smoke bombs. But those plans were also aborted because the police erected barricades on Lung Wo Road.

- Fake Apple Daily front page

Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration/Hong Kong National Party
announced that they will lay siege to the China Liaison Office on the night of July 1st
Their leaders were nowhere insight but their supporters were arrested.

Conclusions:
(1) These groups have no organizational skills
(2) These groups think that their supporters are fools
(3) These groups have ideas and means that are not supported/approved by reasonable Hong Kong people.

- https://www.facebook.com/HKYDS/videos/644521775715725/ Woo Chih-wai (Democratic Party versus Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) on television

Woo: You educate the people. Your idea is: "You go and throw (rocks or whatever). I teach you people to throw." You incite them to throw. If that is the case, then you as a political leader don't even have the most fundamental of human character.

Wong: This is a distortion. This is unreasonable ...

Woo: How is this a distortion? You must remember that you are leading the action. You are leading a bunch of people to break the law, or at least increase the cost of governance for the government. But you merely incite others while you yourself hide behind. You tell the others: "I cannot be arrested, because my job is to incite others. I must not be arrested by the government." In this way, you don't even have the minimal morals for the most basic political resistance.

- Hongkonger Republic Army Facebook

The Hongkonger Republican Army made an assessment after the failure of the action on the night of July 1st and came to the conclusion that the organization should continue to conduct "lone wolf action" and "underground action." Our organization is not suited for public action, because we have never intended to participate in the Legislative Council or District Council elections. Our organization is also the number one target for the Evil Hong Kong Police, the Hong Kong Communist regime and the Chinese Communist regime.

In the past, our organization has been completely successful in its many "lone wolf actions" and "underground actions."

For example, we used force to attack the Chinese Liaison Office, the residences of senior People's Liberation Army officers and other Chinese Communist targets in Hong Kong.

The only problem is that our actions are highly secretive, such that the mainstream media could not report on what nobody knows are the actions taken by our organization.

Choosing the lesser of evils, our organization has decided to continue our 'lone wolf' actions in order to reduce the risk of failure or being arrested.

Reference: Most of the actions of the Irish Republican Army were 'lone wolf actions' or 'underground actions' with significant results.

If we decided to publicize or divulge our resistance actions, we may get more mainstream media coverage but also increase the chances of failure and arrests.

- Fuck! This is the old philosophical thought experiment of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

(SCMP) June 22, 2016.

A group of activists are setting up another political party to campaign for Hong Kongs independence.

Calling itself the Alliance to Resume British Sovereignty over Hong Kong and Independence, the extreme localist group is the second political party formed within three months that advocates Hong Kongs independence.

The first was Hong Kong National Party, formed in late March.

Among the core leaders of the new party is activist Billy Chiu Hin-chung, 31, who said the party was planning to field candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September.

Unlike the National Party, Chiu said they would not aim to make Hong Kong an independent state in one-go, rather, they would want Hong Kong to become a British colony again first before asking Britain to let the city go independent.

We do not recognise the Sino-British Joint Declaration. So, the only logical result that Hong Kong has to return to British rule. It will be transitional. And we shall aim ultimately at going independent, said Chiu on Tuesday.

He added that they had prepared to set up the party for about half a year.

The party is to be formally inaugurated on Sunday.

Despite the seemingly common goal of Hong Kongs independence, Chiu said they had no ties with the National Party, adding that the form of independent state the National Party was seeking was not genuine independence.

The National Party claim they would recognise those outsiders who flee to Hong Kong [as Hong Kong nationals], said Chiu.

Chiu was formerly with the League of Social Democrats and later founded the protest group Hongkongers Come First in 2013. He managed to catch media attention by waving the colonial-era Hong Kong flag during protests.

He and several others made a political stunt in late 2013 when they broke into the Peoples Liberation Army barracks in Admiralty while waving a colonial flag and asking the PLA to get out of Hong Kong. He was at last sentenced to two weeks in jail for entering a closed area without a permit, but the term was suspended for 12 months.

In one of the latest cases, Chiu was found guilty of taking part in an unlawful assembly in June 2014 when he and other protesters stormed into the Legislative Council building during a violent protest against the government plans to develop the northeastern New Territories. Chiu was sentenced to 150 hours of community service by the court in February.

(SCMP) If youre going to be loony, at least have a little fun. By Alex Lo. June 23, 2016.

If you want the Brits to retake Hong Kong, its advisable to know something about Britain first.

A group of Hong Kong activists have set up a new secessionist party advocating the resumption of British sovereignty. Given their political stance, I think its safe to assume they know absolutely nothing about British politics. What British politician would seriously consider taking back Hong Kong?

So before they start, I suggest our localists learn something from a quintessential British institution, the never-do-well but still respectable Official Monster Raving Loony Party, founded by the late musician David Sutch, better known as Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow. Its members have run in every British parliamentary election since the 1980s but never won a single seat. Still, they are not without influence. Thanks to them, Britain has 24-hour pubs. Few political parties anywhere can claim such a solid achievement.

Our new localist party may not have the same catchy name or comparable sense of humour and fun, but their members seem to be every bit as crazy as those of the British party. You can tell by their name. Sorry, it doesnt get any better in Chinese: The Alliance to Resume British Sovereignty over Hong Kong and Independence. One definition of insanity is to hold two contradictory ideas in your head and fervently believe in both.

If the alliance wants to fight for highly implausible policies and unlikely causes, they should at least try to have a little fun while they are at it. Co-founder Billy Chiu Hin-chung wants to kick out the Peoples Liberation Army and does not recognise the Sino-British Joint Declaration. How do you go about unrecognising an international treaty?

Chius greatest act of provocation so far is with the colonial flag. He was one of the first people to wave the flag during political protests. He even did that once with his girlfriend after breaking into the PLA barracks in Admiralty, a stunt that earned him two weeks in jail, suspended for 12 months.

Many have followed his flag-waving example, which may be why Chiu thinks he now has enough clout to form a party. But fighting for the colonial flag to fly over Hong Kong once again is surely a quixotic quest. Some of us thought it was just an expression of youthful rebellion and resentment. Now we know they actually mean it.

(SCMP) June 26, 2016.

A new extreme localist political party is hoping to grab as many as five seats in the Legislative Council elections in September with a xenophobic and pro-independence manifesto.

The Alliance of Resuming British Sovereignty over Hong Kong & Independence, inaugurated on Sunday, said it did not recognise the Sino-British Joint Declaration and their identity as ethnic Chinese. The party defines a Hong Kong national as someone born to parents who had gained right of abode in the city before 1997.

The separatist group is the second party formed in the past three months after the Hong Kong National Party that advocates Hong Kong breaking away from China.

The new partys convenor, Billy Chiu Hin-chung, a self-styled pro-independence revolutionary, said the party had about 30 members so far but claimed it had overseas support, with prominent Taiwanese independence campaigners Shih Chao-hui and Wang San-chi serving as honorary consultants.

Among the partys platforms is a call for a 10 per cent sales tax for all non-Hong Kong shoppers, cancellation of the one-way permit system to halt an influx of mainland migrants, dumping all books written in simplified Chinese characters in public libraries, and awarding infrastructure projects to Britain in exchange for military protection by the Commonwealth.

Chiu said the party was financed by donations of its members, who include office workers, teachers, students and nurses. The members were recruited through social media.

The party planned to field candidates in each of the five geographical constituency in the Legco elections, Chiu said.

I am not a daydreamer. If I won in the election, I, in my capacity as a legislator, shall liaise with the British government over repealing the Sino-British Joint Declaration and taking back Hong Kong. After that, we shall seek to make Hong Kong an independent state.

Chiu claimed they had spent about six months preparing for the party launch, but Sundays press conference was shambolic.

Without warning, Chiu ticked off some fellow members for having forgotten to bring a Hong Kong national flag they had designed to show to the press and refused to continue without it. A fierce quarrel ensued in front of the media. Chiu walked out and returned only when scolded by another member for keeping reporters waiting.

He was formerly with the League of Social Democrats and in 2013 founded the protest group Hongkonger Come First. That same year Chiu and several others broke into the Peoples Liberation Army barracks in Admiralty while waving a colonial-era Hong Kong flag and demanded the PLA get out of Hong Kong. That stunt earned him a two-week suspended jail term for entering a closed area without a permit.

(Yahoo.com) June 26, 2016.

Billy Chiu said that the election will cost $70,000 to $80,000 per district. Each candidate will be responsible for raising their own money. Will they coordinate with the Localists? Billy Chiu said that they are not fellow travelers with Hong Kong Indigenous or the Hong Kong National Party. Chiu said that Civic Passion-Proletariat Political Institute-City State are their enemies. He said that the Alliance of Resuming British Sovereignty over Hong Kong & Independence is the only genuine "pro-independence" party in Hong Kong, and he is very confident about their prospects in the upcoming elections.

(Wen Wei Po) June 26, 2016.

Where does the money come from? Billy Chiu said that they accept donations from Hong Kongers, contributions from its own party members, loans from family members and donations at street booths on July 1st. Chiu also claimed that they have already registered a building firm named Hong Suk Company 巷蜀 and acquired a bank account for it.

A law expert said that when a company is registered, it must state the nature of its business. A company cannot be formed to do one thing and then do something else instead. When a building company starts accepting political donations, the bank should freeze the account for further investigation. If this building company is used for an election campaign, then its assets and operational details must be disclosed to the Election Affairs Commission as well.

(EJ Insight) June 27, 2016.

A group of activists seeking the return of British rule and Hong Kong independence will field candidates for all the five geographical constituencies in the upcoming Legislative Council elections.

Billy Chiu Hin-chung said he will be one of the candidates of the group called Alliance of Resuming British Sovereignty over Hong Kong and Independence (RBSI) (香港歸英獨立聯盟), which was formally established on Sunday, Headline Daily reports.

Chiu said seeking the return of British rule in Hong Kong is only the groups transitional goal and its ultimate objective is the citys independence. The group is also proposing that children of all foreigners, including those from mainland China, should not be issued Hong Kong birth certificates even if they are born in the city; that the Chinese History subject being taught in schools be replaced with Hong Kong History; and that a Hong Kong self-defense force be established.

Asked if the RBSI would collaborate with localist groups, Chiu said his group does not see Hong Kong Indigenous and Hong Kong National Party as allies, and considers Civic Passion, Proletariat Political Institute and City-State Camp as enemies.

Chiu, who founded the now defunct political group called Hongkongers Priority, said he is very confident that RBSI candidates will win in the September elections. He said candidates will fund their own campaigns with a budget of around HK$80,000 for each geographical constituency.

Should it fail to win any seats in Legco, Chiu said the RBSI will continue with the revolution outside the establishment and resort to violence as a means to achieve its goals, news website hk01.com said. It would be ridiculous to discuss if our actions would be anti-constitutional when we are seeking independence, Chiu was quoted as saying.

According to Chiu, the RBSI now has around 30 members from all walks of life, including office workers, laborers, nurses and teachers.

The RBSI has yet to register with the police and is currently using the business registration of an inactive building company.

(Oriental Daily) June 27, 2016.

Today an Internet user informed Billy Chiu about being unable to deposit a donation into the East Asia Bank account. When Chiu asked the bank, the reply was that deposits into new business accounts must enclose proof of business relationship. The building company has no business relationship with the Internet user. Chiu expressed his regrets.

Later in the afternoon, Billy Chiu said that there is a difference of opinion between the Alliance of Resuming British Sovereignty over Hong Kong & Independence and himself. Specifically, the Alliance does not want any association with Taiwan independence. Therefore Chiu and the Alliance have agreed to an amicable separation effectively immediately.

Video:

(Phoenix TV) June 29, 2016. News segment on Billy Chiu.

Internet comments:

- The United Kingdom has a whole lot of problems after the vote to LEAVE on BREXIT. Getting into a military and/or trade war with China over retaking Hong Kong is not on their minds.

- Wan Chin's Facebook:

740,000 people in United Kingdom have signed the petition to redo the BREXIT referendum. Referenda which depend on numerical outcomes will surely lead to disputes unless an absolute majority occurs. When electing a president, losing by a few votes does not matter because the president will take care of both sides. A referendum is a showdown between two sides to be decided mechanically by the numbers. That is troublesome. Therefore very few places will vote on independence via plebiscite. Most of the time, they prefer to go through the parliamentary process. In the case of Czechoslovakia, they reached a consensus on sovereignty without needing a referendum. I have said this many times before. If Hong Kong were to use a referendum on independence, it would be a political disaster for the future if 30% of the population is opposed. Those people will work with China to do all sorts of bad things. I have said so many times before. But those people peddling self-determination via referenda keep peddling this idea because they know that the mainstream media won't report what Wan Chian says.

The best way for Hong Kong to build its own nation is to amend the constitution gradually and establish city-state sovereignty. Then we will negotiate with China for a separation in return for a loose federation relationship. This is best for the long-term interests of Hong Kong-China relationship.

Building the Hong Kong nation has to count on the sovereign country China revising its constitution and treaty, or else it is independence through revolution. These are the only two possible ways. Self-determination through referendum is rubbish.

- If referenda are rubbish, why are we supposed to vote for the Civic Passion-Proletariat Political Institute-City-State combination at the Legislative Council elections? After all, you said that this will be a de facto referendum on constitution reform.

- (Associated Press) Wong said Demosisto's long-term goal is to hold a referendum in a decade to decide whether Hong Kong should have self-determination for its future after 2047, when a 50-year transition period following its handover from Britain to China ends. "We know we can't achieve self-determination in one single step, so we propose a 10-year timetable for the plan," Wong said, adding that the party would lobby for international support for its cause. "We hope to decide our second future through a universal referendum."

- When the time comes, Hong Kong will vote for "self-determination/independence" or not. YES or NO. It is that simple. If the answer is YES and China actually acquiesces, then the regrets will start pouring in for another referendum because nobody realized what would actually happen?

- The Hong Kong dollar is worth 0.1 RMB.
- Fish maw soup costs HK$9,500 per bowl.
- The apartment that I paid $10 million for is now worth $1 million.
- I have to pay $780 for a visa each time that I go to China when I went for unlimited times on my 10-year People's Republic of China Home Visit Permit before?
- The four pillars of the Hong Kong economy -- financial services; trading and logistics; tourism; professional and producer services -- are completely eviscerated.
...

- Nobody told me that this was going to happen before. Can we take a vote again now?

- Awarding infrastructure projects to the United Kingdom in exchange for military protection? Singapore spent USD $9.5 billion on defense in 2015 (The Diplomat). So that's about HKD 72,000,000,000 for the 7,200,000 Hongkongers or $10,000 per capita. I think that this should be easy to do.

- You can't extract $10,000 from a 2-year-old, or a 90-year-old retiree, or someone living on a subsistence income. Only about 20% of Hongkongers pay any taxes. This means that the annual military tax will be $50,000 per taxpayer.

- Yes, we'll award the High Speed Rail project to United Kingdom. Both the United Kingdom and the United States have yet to build a single inch of High Speed Rail but it's alright. The money will be well spent because this is just a protection racket.

- No, this is not a protection racket. According to the dictionary, a protection racket is an illegal system in which criminals threaten to harm you or your property if you do not give them money. To protect yourself and your property, you can either call the police or pay off the gangsters. If you go to the police, you know that they can't be with you all the time whereas the gangsters will be watching and waiting all the time. If you pay the gangsters off, you are guaranteed peace and quiet. So the better solution here is to pay off China not to bother you. Of course, protection fees are generally a lot higher than your regular tax bill which pays for the police budget among other things.

- (SCMP) Referendums are democracys Achilles heel. By Alex Lo. June 27, 2016.

If Nigel Farage had talked a casual lover into bed, I wonder if he would confess the next morning: sorry darling, it would be a mistake to think I love you.

The morning after the Brexit vote, the leader of the UK Independence Party admitted it would be a mistake for voters to think the Leave vote would put 350 million (HK$3.7 billion) into the national health system overnight.

Now he tells them.

The latest British adventure in referendums offers many lessons for Hong Kong people and mainland Chinese. Among these are thank God our Chinese constitution and the Basic Law do not allow the holding of referendums. Next time a pan-democrat or a Benny Tai Yiu-ting say they want to launch a mock plebiscite, you know what to say to them.

Democracy has many strengths; the practice of referendum is not one of them. By turning extremely complex questions into a yes or a no, it treats citizens like little children, yet grants them supreme power to make momentous decisions: chocolate or vanilla; coffee or tea; Leave or Remain.

Brexit is a vote against the European Union, which has come to symbolise everything that is wrong in the world of the Leave voters: the underfunded National Health Service and public universities; the widening wealth gap; lost jobs and stagnant wages; political elitism, its democratic deficit and the failure of its leaders. Ironically, Brexit is one of those rare instances where even many experts and politicians admit its a leap into the dark: they dont know what will happen next. Then, there is the spectre of hordes of foreigners those Poles and Turks taking up British jobs and welfare while the rich ones drive up property prices.

Sound familiar? Instead of the EU, we have the mainland to blame for everything that has gone wrong in Hong Kong. Instead of foreigners, we have mainlanders to accuse of making life hell for us.

Funny enough, we have an independence party that wants Britain to retake Hong Kong. In case they havent heard, Scotland and Northern Ireland now want to break up the union to stay in the EU.

Hong Kong has no future outside of China. But our secessionists want us to become an island state or join that other fortress island, soon to be Little England.

- The United Kingdom wants to break away from the European Union. Fine. But now Scotland, Northern Ireland and London want to break away from the United Kingdom because they prefer to stay with the European Union. What will happen to Hong Kong then? If Hong Kong breaks away from China, which districts will break away from Hong Kong to stay with China? At the level of the 5 Legislative Council district level, I think that they might lose New Territories East and New Territories West. At the finer level, they might lose North Point (Hong Kong Island), etc.

- When that happens, the MTR will have Immigration Department posts set up. If you want to go from Chai Wan to Admiralty, you have to disembark at North Point, clear Chinese Immigration, exit Chinese Immigration, and get back on the train to complete your journey.

- (Wen Wei Po) The preview before the press conference said that the RBSI has 30 members and will enter 5 members in the 5 Legislative Council districts. But when the press conference began, Billy Chiu said that he has not thought through whether he should enter the election himself. There were two other RBSI members who had previously said that they were going to enter the election. After Chiu spoke of his hesitation, these two suddenly said that they were undecided as well. They declined to provide their names to the press.

- (HK01) RBSI says that its 30 members include white collar workers, blue collar workers, nurses and teachers.

- I have been scouring the Internet but I have not been able to locate the unedited audio recording of Billy Chiu saying: "We are having a press conference right now. What the fuck do you want!?" as he left the room to search for his newly designed independence flag.

- Here is the missing independence flag. What? A junk ship? What is the symbolic value? That the RBSI wants to plunge Hong Kong back into the Middle Ages?

- What is so big deal about not having a Hong Kong birth certificate? Billy Chiu was born in Vietnam himself.

- In what way or manner does a typical Hongkonger look a Brit? Take a look in the mirror, Billy Chiu. However you look at yourself, you look Chinese and definitely not British.

- Yes, Billy Chiu has a better chance of saying that he is Japanese than British.

- It does not matter what you tell him. It won't affect him a bit, because you are clearly Chinese as well. It will take a Brit to tell him (e.g. Michael Tanner) to fuck off! Then maybe he will realize that there is a problem here ...

- Billy Chiu does not think that the Hong Kong National Party is a fellow traveler because (1) they don't distinguish between independence and nation-building; (2) they take a positive attitude towards retaining the Chinese historical views.

(SCMP) June 24, 2016.

The killer blaze that burned out of control for four days at an industrial building in a densely packed Hong Kong neighbourhood was finally tamed on Friday night, as the citys security minister rejected concerns that the entire block could collapse.

The inferno at the Amoycan Industrial Centre in Ngau Tau Kok was brought under control at 7.38pm, more than 80 hours after it broke out on Tuesday, killing two firefighters over two days.

Thomas Cheung, 30, and Samuel Hui Chi-kit, 37, have been hailed as heroes, amid an outpouring of public support and sympathy. Two others were still in the hospital yesterday in a stable condition. The fire started at the SC Storage facility on Tuesday, making it the longest running blaze in the city in more than 20 years.

(SCMP) Ignore online rumours and get behind our firefighters, Hong Kong public urged. June 24, 2016.

Top Hong Kong officials and unionists on Friday urged the public to support the citys firefighters, saying hearsay and criticism of the strategies used in tackling an industrial building inferno had piled pressure on frontline officers.

While firefighters unions said the morale of the force was high, some frontline officers posed angry messages online questioning the decisions of their commanders and blasting inaccurate media reports.

A four-minute clip consisting of 11 short voice messages purportedly from firefighters circulating online blamed the top managements ignorance about the actual situation at the scene for the two deaths. One message claimed that under external pressure, senior firemen gave up the safer approach of fighting the blaze from the outside. Buildings [Department] told them the building could collapse, so they sent some dare-to-die corps up there, and the accident happened.

An executive committee member of the Fire Services Officers Association, Mak Kam-fai, said he understood the feelings and emotions of junior staff, but their morale was high. In real life it is not practical for the seniors to explain tactics to them fully, Mak said. Mak also said the frontline firefighters faced huge pressure from the challenge of dealing with the deadly blaze in complex circumstances, and from also the public. All the guessing, hearsay and rumours upset us and put pressure on us, he said. It is irresponsible for people and so-called experts to spread negative remarks and criticism, as they have absolutely no idea what the fire situation is like.

He said the firefighters were doing their best to put out the fire as quickly as possible. Some frontline colleagues who were supposed to be off after a full day there had also volunteered to return and do back-up work. Mak expressed sadness at the two fallen officers but said the public should not confuse their deaths with the firefighting strategy.

Some members of the public have criticised fire service management for sending officers inside the burning building even though no one was trapped. So we should just let the fire burn? he asked, adding that firefighters had to enter the core area to put out the blaze regardless of whether there were people inside or not.

Jerry Nip Yuen-fung, chairman of the Fire Services Department Staff General Association, said firefighters were angry at rumours that some of them were sent in when they were not ready. They have worked very hard in fighting the fire. Such groundless rumours should not be spread around, he said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 22, 2016.

A group of four pro-Beijing politicians have been criticised for attempting to take political advantage of a fire that claimed the life of a firefighter after they published a photo of themselves at the scene.

The four district councillors of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong posted the photo on Tuesday afternoon, showing them standing next to fire trucks at the Kowloon Bay fire scene.

Netizens slammed the councillors for hindering the firefighters work. Facebook users compared the image with a controversial photo of four Filipino police officers who posed next to a tour bus involved in the 2010 Manila hostage crisis which left eight Hongkongers dead.

One such post attracted more than 5,000 likes and 2,000 shares as of Wednesday afternoon.

Jack Cheung Ki-tang, one of the district councillors, even took to the page himself to counter the criticism.

It is normal for district councillors to be at the scene to understand the situation, and to take photos to report to citizens, he wrote. I believe those residents who read our Facebook pages would care about the situation.

Netizens went on to criticise Cheung, and other politicians in the photo, including Au Yeung Kwan-nok, Cheung Yiu-bun and Wilson Or Chong-shing. They said that they were not even part of the constituency that the fire occurred in.

Some commenters also said that, even if they were taking photos of the scene to report on the situation, it was unnecessary to include their faces.

Wilson Or Chong-shing, who is tipped to run for a Legislative Council seat in September, was the most active of the four on social media. Or posted nine Facebook posts after the fire started, including some saluting firefighters, and some photos showing him helping residents. But he did not post the controversial photo, and did not respond to the controversy on his page or other pages.

Tam Siu-cheuk, the DAB partys district councillor for the constituency where the Ngau Tau Kok blaze unfolded, defended his colleagues on social media. I am the district councillor for the constituency the roads were blocked and people could not go home, buses could not enter the estates, so why shouldnt we report on it? he asked. He added that the four in the photo had a responsibility to be at the scene in order to understand the incident before a meeting at the Kwun Tong district council on Wednesday to discuss it.

Peter Chan (Chinese University of Hong Kong student)

Those bastards normally have lots of time. They eat and then they sit around to wait to defecate. This time, they got what they deserved. But two deaths are too few. There are more than 9,000 Fire Department workers. Excluding the 2,000 who are emergency rescue, at least half of them should die (that is to say, 3,000 of them). Can you imagine what a waste of public funds to have 7,000 sit around, eat, play basketball, go to the gym, flirt with girls and fuck them?

- The man in the photo is a fireman who worked at the scene. His photo was stolen by someone to use in this post. It is pathetic that someone can do this, and it is worse that people should actually believe this.

Kiko Tsang (Civic Passion)
[Left photo: with Raymond Wong Yuk-man; Right photo: with Wong Yeung-tat]

Each day, somebody dies. It goes with the job. The Hong Kong pigs and moral prigs have forgotten about the facts of life when they ask.
[YAWN]

Who is truly serving the People? You know!
The firemen risked their lives to protect Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Public Security Bureau wield their batons to beat defenseless Hongkongers who want democracy.

- If you get your wish and the Hong Kong Police is disbanded, then you may find the following things happening:

--- A hacker breaks into your bank account and steal all your money with no possibility of recovery
--- Your parent have to stay indoors as soon as it becomes dark outside to avoid being mugged
--- You have to escort your daughter to and back from school every day to fend off the sex offenders
--- Your son tells you that he needs $3,666 because the triads at his school are forcing him to enlist and pay tribute
--- Your wife is hit and crippled for life by a drunk driver who speeds away immediately
--- You go down to the parking garage to get your car and you find that someone has stolen all four wheels
--- Your family goes to a birthday party and when you arrive home, you find that everything has been removed by burglars
--- You eat at a restaurant for a simple soy chicken on rice. You are told that the bill was $20,000. You refuse to pay. You are beaten up by the waiters, taken forcibly to the ATM and withdraw the money to pay them
--- You tell someone that you support genuine universal suffrage, and they smash a beer bottle over your head

Normally you call the police. Now you have nobody to call. So you got the idea of Death Wish ...

Civic Party

We demand that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government cancel all celebratory events on July 1st.

Joshua Wong (Demosisto)

We strongly demand the Hong Kong government to cancel the reception to celebrate the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and donate the budget to the fund for families of deceased firemen. All government officials should cancel all official celebratory activities and not appear in their official capacity at any of the celebratory activities.

- Ask not what the HKSAR government has done for you. Ask what you have done for HKSAR.

- Although Demosisto was founded a short time ago, they are known to have raised several hundred thousands of dollars. How much have they contributed so far? Ten bottles of water! If you want to impress me, write out a check for $1,000,000. Lead us by your own example and we will follow. But if you can't do it, then shut up!

- July 1st should be made a day of mourning for all of Hong Kong for the two heroic firemen. Therefore, we strongly demand that the Civil Human Rights Front cancel their July 1st demonstration march out of respect for the heroes and their families. Of course, this means that all the pan-democratic political groups (including Civic Party and Demosisto) will miss out on the biggest fundraising event of the entire year. If you dare to demur, I will say: Have you no sense of decency?

- Alternately, the Civil Human Rights Front can redirect the theme of the July 1st demonstration march to commemorate the two heroic firemen. And all donations made to all organizations during the event will be handed over fully and completely to the wives of these heroic firemen. Thus, everybody will do everything that they can.

- Be careful! The pan-democrats have a habit of "keeping the money in their pockets temporarily." Auditors will have to be hired to watch the donation boxes.

- What is the use if they hire Benny Tai's accountant/auditor? The financial statement preceding the 2014 Occupy Central period hasn't even been done yet even though this is 2016 now.

- Well, but what about Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) promising that his people will dress in Black Bloc and take 'action' at the China Liaison Office on the night of July 1st? Ray Wong said that they are doing this because Lam Wing-kee has personally stated that he was kidnapped by the Chinese Communists. Right on, brother!

- Joint Announcement
We thank the Hong Kong firefighters
The Democratic Party, Civic Party and Labour Party have decided to donate all the donations collected this year and last year to the families of the deceased firefighters.

- The difference with the Communist government of Hong Kong couldn't be starker! The pan-democrats listened to the voices of the people and they will give all the donations that they received to the families of the deceased firefighters. This is why you must vote from the pan-democrats in the September Legislative Council elections.

- Of course I won't believe a word of this. They are going to rake in $1,000,000 and tell the world that they only got $100.

- For last year, they announced what they each collected. So they have to donate those amounts. For this year, they should say that they won't accept a cent from anyone; if anyone wants to donate to them, the money should go directly to the two families and they will be hands off.

- This is a fake photo. For one, the Civic Party has declared that they will donate $20,000 to the families. As for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they raised over the past two years, they need it for the Legislative Council elections. This is an important election because of FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE RULE OF LAW. In fact, you should donate more money to the Civic Party more frequently.

- The Democratic Party and the Labour Party have also issued denials. But they didn't offer to donate a single cent.

- (Headline Daily) June 28, 2016.

The pan-democrats have issued a statement to clarify that donations collected during the July 1st march will not be given to the families of the deceased families. They said that the information in the photo on the Internet is inaccurate.

- New 'fake' poster for the pan-democrats


Democratic Party, Civic Party and Labour Party
"We WILL NOT give the donated money to the firefighters"

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 23, 2016.

A netizen who asked for donations on Facebook for a firefighter who died on Tuesday has been criticised for being a potential scammer. A person claiming to be the deceaseds cousin said that those who were using the incident to cheat people at this time should move away.

A fourth-alarm fire occurred at a mini-storage at Kowloon Bay on Tuesday and continued into Wednesday. Thomas Cheung, a 30-year-old senior station officer, died at the scene after being found unconscious inside the Amoycan Industrial Centre on Tuesday evening. The government has vowed that it will inspect all mini-storages after the fire claimed a life.

The netizen posted in a Facebook group saying that he only wanted to ask the kind people here if [they] could donate money. In the post, he said that he knew the family and would hand the money to them. He then provided an account and asked people to spread the word.

However, he mistook one of the Chinese characters of the deceased firefighters name for another in his post. The two characters are pronounced the same in Cantonese. Someone claiming to be the firefighters cousin commented saying you are scamming whats your problem? She also said that if you want to donate, I can give you the familys account.

According to Apple Daily, the post was later deleted and the poster said I hope everybody will forgive me.

For the 2016 Appropriation Bill draft, Legislative Council members introduced certain amendments. Here is a revisit of the list:

Amendment #64 (motion introduced by Chan Chi-chuen (People Power)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation for the Fire Department by $5,198,792,000 (the reduction is about equal to the entire operational budget of the Fire Department).

Amendment #65 (motion introduced by Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation to the Fire Department by $173,597,000 (the reduction is about equal to the budget of the Fire Department for machinery, vehicles and equipment).

...

Amendment #71 (motion introduced by Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation to the Fire Department by $76,952,000 (the reduction is about equal to the budget of the Fire Department for small machinery, vehicles and equipment).

Amendment #72 (motion introduced by Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)) The motion is to reduce the appropriation to the Fire Department by $148,257,000 (the reduction is about equal to the entire budget of the Fire Department for ambulances).

When just asked about those amendments to cut funds from the Fire Department now, Leung Kwok-hung said that the Fire Department budget should not be cut without good reason. He didn't blink or blush.

- April 28, 2016 the Legislative Council Financial Affairs Committee record showed that Chan Chi-chuen said: "I proposed to cut the appropriation of the Fire Services Department. But I am unable to explain why I want to cut the appropriation of the Fire Serves Department. In the past, I have said that I am targeting the government and the administration of the Fire Services Department." And this is the reason why Chan Chi-chuen wanted to cut the entire budget for the Fire Services Department.

- Yes, CY Leung must resign!

(Kinliu)

After a fireman died in the Ngau Tau Kok fire, Oscar Lai (Demosisto) tried to find ammunition for his Kowloon East Legislative Council election campaign. He posted on Facebook on the question of "Who killed our firefighter heroes?":

According to the Fire Department, there are 650 industrial buildings older than 30 years of which 120 are in the Kwun Tong area. In 2007 Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance, all buildings built before 1987 had to be upgraded in terms of firefighting equipment, but not the industrial buildings older than 30 years. In fact, tragedies have occurred before. In March 2010, one fireman was killed and three more were injured in a Cheung Sha Wan industrial building fire; in 2007, seven firemen were injured in a Tsuen Wan factory fire. ... Isn't it government indifference that killed our heroes?

Hundreds of critical comments poured in, such as "Oscar Lai, you political thug! You only know how to blame the government but you never offer a single constructive idea!" "You go eat shit, you only know how to exploit a situation!" Oscar Lai immediately deleted this post and replaced it with the Demosisto "Salute to the firemen"!

- Oscar Lai is either too stupid or too deceptive about the two cases that he cited to support his presentation. In the 2007 Tsuen Wan fire, the factory had a sprinkler system installed, but it did not function. The fireman was killed by a flash burn. In the 2010 Cheung Sha Wan fire, the ceiling and the shelves collapsed on the fireman. The causes of death in this new incident will be determined by the court of inquest. It is no wonder that Oscar Lai has drawn the ire of citizens.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 23, 2016. Oscar Lai replaced his Facebook post with another post saying that his Kowloon East election campaign team had just learned that the Lam Tin Community Centre was opened for those who are displaced by the Ngau Tau Kok fire. He even provided instructions on how to proceed from Tak Po (Kowloon Bay) by foot to Lam Tin.

-From Tak Po through the Choi Ying Estate pedestrian bridge to Kai Tin Community Centre? That would be four MTR stations! Does anyone over at Demosisto know how to read a map?

- Oscar "Magnet Man" Lai chose to run in the Kowloon East district. But he has not done his homework about local geography. Besides, there is a closer community center in Kwun Tong.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 24, 2016. First, Agnes Chow Ting posted on Facebook:

I bought a batch of bottled water in Kowloon Bay and took it over to Amoycan Industrial Centre.

Please, everybody should give a little bit to do something for others.

P.S. The Kowloon Bay MTR is very close to the scene of the fire. It is absolutely not hard for any individual to bring ten or so bottles by foot. Please, everybody.

Joshua Wong immediately shared that post.

But Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) countered: "Will all political hacks not call on citizens to head towards the scene at Amoycan Industrial Centre! Do not go to deliver bottled water or watch the fire! No! You are going to interfere with the mission of the firemen. Besides it is dangerous because of the heavy smoke. Residents are telling me that the smoke carries a heavy plastic smell and causes dry throats. Please spread this information around." Other Internet users pointed out that the Fire Department has plenty of matriel already.

Agnes Chow then amended her post with this addition: "But please do not interfere with the work of the firemen and do not stay to watch." And then she added: "It is enough to leave the water behind the police line."

But Internet users said that Agnes Chow must think the firemen are beggars.

Finally Demosisto issued its statement: "The Kowloon Bay fire is still not under control. There are cracks on the outer wall of the building. Citizens should avoid going to the scene."

Demosisto did not know when to stop. On Facebook, today they issued "Four questions that the government must answer." This ended up with a tidal bore of bad reviews:

- The fire has not been put out yet. A few firemen are still in critical condition. Why are you demanding the government to answer your questions? Why do they have to answer you here and now? Who do you think you are? Apart from opposing the government on everything and telling people to donate money to you all the time, what have you contributed to society?

- It is Demosisto which must answer questions from the citizens. Here is one question for a starter: Why did Agnes Chow tell citizens to go to the scene when there is the danger of a building collapse as well as toxic smoke inhalation?

- And here is another question: Why is Agnes Chow encouraging citizens to give presents to members of the Disciplined Services in violation of the well-known code of conduct?

- And this question was asked a long time without being answered: Demosisto says that any donations going to them will be monitored by a lawyer and an auditor/accountant. What are the names of these professionals?

- And this question is even simpler: Have you start paying taxes yet?

- Here is the Oscar "Magnet Man" Lai: It has now been proven wrong to maintain physical condition by playing ball at the fire station when there is no fire. I hope that everybody support me to enter the Legislative Council and reform the Fire Department.

But wait ...

Oscar Lai Man Lok:
Earlier today (June 25) there was a screen capture that pretended to be me giving my opinion on training methods for firemen. I solemnly clarify that I have never said anything like that. I know that I am not a professional, and therefore I hold no opinion about training methods at the Fire Department.

At this time, the firemen are still fighting the fire at the industrial building. Some person with ulterior motive deliberately framed me and disrupted the regular flow of information. This is disgusting. Rumors stop with wise people. I issue this statement for clarification.

- Oh, really? Was it a forgery? In that case, I will say sorry. But Oscar Lai is well-known to having written many ill-conceived posts and deleting them quickly upon negative feedback. As a result, when I see a screen capture of an Oscar Lai post, I can't really go to his Facebook and see if it is actually there. Just because it is no longer there doesn't mean that he didn't do it. I think Oscar Lai should spend more time thinking about what he is writing so that he does not have to delete so frequently.

(Photoblog.hk) June 24, 2016.

- This photo is clear evidence that the Hong Kong Communist government is suppressing freedom of press. This photo showed clearly that the emergency workers in neon orange jackets were interfering with democracy-loving photojournalists who were trying to satisfy the people's right to know. The Hong Kong Journalists Association will surely bring the case to the attention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

- When one photojournalist takes photos at a disaster site, he is said to be courageous. When 100 photojournalists take photos at a disaster site, they are interfering with rescue operations.

- The contrast between the "courageous fireman who was injured in the line of duty" versus "the photojournalists who used every means possible to get some photos" is obvious. This is a simple case of Hero vs. Villain. Today, nobody believes that photojournalists will make way for an ambulance to pass through. In Hong Kong, when a small number of photojournalists cross the line, there is no effective system to restrain them (because of FREEDOM OF PRESS). Therefore common folks are angry at all of them.

- (HKG Pao) Beyond covering the fire itself, the media brought up: "Did the Chief of the Fire Services Department commit errors of command, thus causing the deaths of his colleagues?" They quoted many spectators who criticized the judgment of fire fighters. Over the past 5 years or so, Hongkongers have been brainwashed by the notion of so-called 'democracy.' They have become ignorant and arrogant. Who are you people? Why do you know about fire fighting procedures? What is your source of information? And who is this anonymous retired fireman that gets quoted? What is the basis for saying: "Let the fire burn itself out; there is no need to send anyone inside" and "They should not be breaking down doors unless they need to save someone"?

Firstly, you are not professional fire fighters. Secondly, you are not present at the scene. Thirdly, you don't have access to all the information. In spite of all this, you still want to tell the Fire Services Department how to fight this fire!? I have plenty of ideas myself too, but I know that I don't have the expertise. Therefore I maintain my silence and humility out of respect to the experts. Do you want the people of Hong Kong to hold a referendum and then the Fire Services Department will take the course of action as chosen by popular opinion?

- (Bastille Post) When a fireman is take onto the ambulance, the media rushed up to take photos. The firemen get upset about this and other interference by the media with our work at the scene. When we scold them, they retaliate with inaccurate reports and nasty comments. I dare say that they are doing this because they want to attract eyeballs ...

- Indeed, this double tragedy must lead to one and only one thing: the resignation of Chief Executive CY Leung.

- This is shameful! Official blunders caused two firemen to die, but that still can't make CY Leung resign. This Hong Kong Communist government is truly unpopular with the people.


Speechless Part 1

- Speechless? Why? I've got something to say. It is obvious that the father and son are mainlanders. Hongkongers won't do this because they are a superior race.

- I analyzed this photo. The boy is still in elementary school. The male photographer has fully grey hair. So that means that their age difference is at least 50 years. This fits into the typical Hong Kong story of a single 50-year-old man marrying a 20-year-old mainland woman and having a son. Therefore it is not true that both father and son are mainlanders.


Speechless Part 2
HK Valiant's Facebook: Salute to the Hong Kong firemen

- HK Valiant is in the business of setting off the fires that the firemen have to put out. Thus, HK Valiant is the meal ticket for the firemen.


Mong Kok Fish Ball Revolution, February 2, 2016.

- Well, that is incorrect. When the fire engines came, the valiant warriors obstructed their progress because they wanted the fires to keep burning. What is the point of having firemen when they are not allowed to put out fires? That is the reason why legislative councilor Chan Chi-chuen wanted to cut the entire budget of the Fire Services Department.

- Passion Times https://www.facebook.com/passiontimes/videos/1045254302204403/ Video of valiant warriors throwing bricks at firemen who were trying to put out fires. That was then, but today the valiant warriors want to pay tribute to the marvelous and courageous firemen.

- Indeed, everybody in Hong Kong knows that the firemen are leeches who want to get paid playing volleyball/basketball/football all day. There is no reason to pay them a cent! Meanwhile, the people who work really hard are the lifeguards, who have been out on strike in order to obtain the same pay scale as the firemen.

- (RTHK) Hundreds of lifeguards have decided to delay a planned strike this Sunday in view of the raging fire in an industrial building in Kowloon Bay that has claimed the lives of two firefighters and injured ten others. The Hong Kong and Kowloon Lifeguards Union announced the postponement on Friday, a day after announcing the strike following fruitless talks with government officials.

- Indeed every day the lifeguards risk being eaten by sharks or getting melanoma but they do so in order to save countless number of Hong Kong citizens from drowning. They deserve to earn whatever it is that they are demanding.

- Fuck! The spokesperson for the Hong Kong and Kowloon Lifeguards' Union is Alex Kwok Siu-kit, known as an Occupy Central marshal who took one year with pay for a work-related injury but who seemed to have no problems with fighting counter-demonstrators and policemen.

- The cowards at HK Valiant knew that they had stepped on a hornet's nest, so they apologized: "One of our administrators placed the wrong photo (about fire). We have no intention of hurting people's feelings towards firemen. We apologize profoundly for this!"

(Kinliu) What do you know about fires? By Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 26, 2016.

When I was teaching at Baptist University, I had the habit of looking out of the window during recess and tests. The Baptists School of Journalism classes were held in the Baptist University Communication and Visual Arts Building. On one side, the class rooms face Renfrew Road. On the other side, the classrooms face Baptist University Road. The scenery is the typical serenity of Kowloon Tong, very few pedestrians, very few cars, everything is still outside.

Students asked me what is so good to look at?

"What is that?" I asked as I pointed.

"Fire Department." The whole class answered together.

"Which district?"

"Kowloon." "No, it should be Kowloon Tong." "Or Kowloon City?" "It could be Mong Kok ..." Everybody chimed in.

"This is the Kowloon Tong Fire Station and Rescue Station. It says so on the sign over the building. You walk by there every day. Have you never looked?"

"It's enough to know that it is the Fire Department ..." A student rebutted.

"Do you know what firemen normally do?" I asked.

"Play volleyball!" "Basketball!" "Football!" "Gym!" "..." There were plenty of answers.

"Did you see them doing it?"

"I guessed!" "They said so on television ..." "Everybody knows that" "..."

"Why don't you come over to the window and look for yourselves? The Fire Department station is right over there. The firemen are right underneath your eyes. Why don't you stand up and see if the firemen are playing volleyball every day? Why don't you walk over to them and conduct a special interview? Why don't you follow them around for a few days and tell the world what firemen do?"

"I've taught here for several years. Each class lasts 3 hours. I like to look out the window. I can see everything from up here. I see the firemen sometimes training to extract people trapped in cars. I see them pry open the car door. I see them haul a heavy water hose up the stairs. I see them scale up and down a ladder ... over the years, I have watched them at various times. I have never seen anyone play volleyball."

"Therefore, reporters must never say as others say. Your duty is to find the truth and tell the world that some things are mistruths and rumors. You are not supposed to repeat what others say and make things worse."

Before this Ngau Tau Kok mini-storage fire was even put out, a number of reporters and politicians were already trying to hold people responsible and demand their resignations. With respect to fires, we are all amateurs. Reporters and legislative councilors don't know everything under the sun. How can you question the professional opinions of experts and demand their resignations? If you are merely following certain Internet opinions and rumors, shouldn't you investigate whether they are truthful and valid first? Can't you find those who are really qualified to give expert opinions and then seek accountability later?

Normally you people take the Fire Services Department for granted. Legislative councilors Chan Chi-chuen, Leung Kwok-hung and Chan Wai-yip wanted to cut the budget of the Fire Services Department. Now you turn around and become fire fighting experts. You sit in an air-conditioned room and you want to know why the firemen at the 1,000-degree-heat building are taking so much time? And why did the two firemen die? Who did right and who did wrong? The heroes who are fighting the fire should be asking you: "Who are you? What do you know?"

TVB, NOW TV, Cable TV, Phoenix TV, ViuTV, TVB Network Vision, Commercial Radio, RTHK and Metro Radio have joined hands to produce a tribute called "Support HK Firefighters." More than 100 entertainers are participating. The group called on all citizens to take a white sheet, write down the words "Support HK Firefighters," shine a flash light, take a photo and post on Facebook with the hashtag #Support HK Firefighters.

TVB's version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXkm8UzxqeU
Commercial Radio's version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuiAqddB3uI

Music video: Salute to Our Fighters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSg0klLgr3U More than 100 entertainers
Music video: The Sincere Hero (Jackie Chan, Wakin Chau, Anthony Wong and Jonathan Lee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea9I6SKahnk

- They are wasting money here. All money should go to the families of the deceased firemen.

- More than 100 entertainers are going to participate? None of them were willing to participate in the #We Are All Denise Ho campaign. This shows that they are Hong Kong traitors.

- On the contrary, it showed how unpopular Denise Ho is within the industry. Ho politicized a simple contract dispute and forced every entertainer to make clear that they are pro-China or else face extinction of career.

- Other Internet users have started a #We Are All Lam Wing Kee campaign. Response has been tepid. This shows that citizens are letting Hong Kong down.

- On the contrary, it showed that most Hongkongers do not think betraying your wife, betraying your sons, betraying your girlfriend, betraying your colleagues, betraying your country and telling self-contradictory lies to everyone from one day to the next are core values of Hong Kong.

- Here are the fake photos to support Lam Wing-kee and his cause of Hong Kong independence:

- (Yahoo) The Hong Kong Fire Services Department Staffs General Association's former chairman has condemned the fake photos of entertainers, saying that they are disrespectful to the two deceased firemen as well as the entertainers. "Although I respect derivative art, it is appalling in these circumstances!"

- (YouTube) Hacken Lee and Joey Yung paid tribute to the firefighters during a concert at the Guangzhou International Sports Performing Arts Center for 15,000 persons.

- (Oriental Daily) June 29, 2016.

Sammy Leung was one of the hundreds of entertainers who took part in the campaign. He said that paying tribute to the firefighters is the right thing to do. But if entertainers are intimidated by Internet users not to do it, that would be White Terror. Naturally he drew the wrath of the "Internet uesrs."

- I really want to know in what way are you qualified to educate the citizens.

- What the fuck are you talking about? Hypocritical entertainer!

- Why haven't you come up to support the two highway repairmen? Are you waiting for Big Brother Jackie Chan to issue the order first? Hypocritical entertainer!

- There is nothing wrong with taking the photo
But you are causing trouble by saying this on your radio show.
On July 1st, you should march to support Denise Ho and Lam Wing-kee.
That's all.

Sammy, come out and support the two highway repairmen. You have the chance to speak out but you keep quiet? Are you being threatened with White Terror? Hypocritical entertainer?

- You want to educate the citizens? Radio is meant to provide information and entertainment! How are you qualified to educate the citizens? I observe that you have changed ever since your 40th birthday. I seem to seeing how Ko Chi-sum, Wong Jing and Natalis Chan evolve to what they are! People at the radio call you "Elder Brother" and now you think that you are really "Elder Brother" who must re-educate all the citizens who object to your point of view. When I see you, I know how the Communist Party evolve into what they are. It pains my heart to see a native Hongkonger could evolve into this!

(YouTube) Sammy Leung's radio show on the true meaning of the tribute to the fire fighters.

- "You must support Denise Ho. You must support Lam Wing-kee. If not, you are not allowed to support the two firefighters." Is this genuine democracy? Or autocracy?

- Sammy Leung's true offense was saying:

"Firefighters, police and soldiers use their own lives to defend the safety of others. A life is invaluable. So no matter how high the salary is, why are they willing to take these jobs? They do so because everybody respects them."
Sammy Leung should never have listed the firefighters with police and soldiers. In Hong Kong, firefighters are respected but the police are hated.

- Sammy Leung's father was a fire fighter. Sammy said: "This is the right moment for anyone (whether he is an an entertainer or not) to salute the fire fighters."

- (HKU POP) Net satisfaction rate with the Hong Kong Disciplined Services, November 2015

Fire Services Department: 88%
Government Flying Serivce: 88%
Auxiliary Medical Service: 81%
Customs and Excise Department: 76%
Immigration Department: 72%
Independent Commission Against Corruption: 53%
Civil Aid Service: 54%
Correctional Services Department: 56%
Hong Kong Police Force: 29%

- Really? Since firefighters only play volleyball/basketball at work, why don't we make them issue parking/jaywalking tickets instead? Let see if their popularity plummets or not.

- (HKG Pao) Who didn't "Salute our Firefighters"? The most glaring cases are Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, Denise Ho, Kay Tse, Ellen Loo, Endy Chow, Deanie Ip and Chapman To. In the case of Anthony Wong Chau-sang, he explained publicly that he is using his own way to support the fire fighters, including a Facebook call on people to donate to the families. What were the those seven thinking? Were they not in Hong Kong? Were they not aware? Or did they choose not to stand with the people of Hong Kong? We don't know.

- (Apple Daily) Leon Lai donated $500,000 to the Apple Daily Charity Foundation to assist the families of the two fire fighters and the two highway repairmen. This information came from an informed source who said: "He donated the money to the Foundation. I wanted to tell this because I see many singers post photos on the Internet and record a song. Perhaps they meant well but I don't think that they are too practical. Although money isn't everything, it is sad for them to lose husbands and fathers. I know that Leon Lai did this. I want to praise him." Apple Daily called Leon Lai's management company to verify the donation, but they said: "No comment."

- Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! An anonymous donation was made to a Foundation and then an informed source reveals everything. Nobody can beat Leon Lai in Machiavellian machinations.

- A donor who requested anonymity with the Apple Daily Charity Foundation has been identified publicly in Apple Daily. On one hand, the Foundation has failed to honor the request of its donor. On the other hand, the newspaper has violated the privacy of a citizen who was seeking to protect his own privacy.

- Don't donate to this foundation and don't read this newspaper. PERIOD.

- Well, does this informed source know that the one hundred plus entertainers didn't donate millions anonymously?

- Well, I can easily imagine that this 'informed source' would refuse to disclose if it happens that Jackie Chan or Eric Tsang also donated large sums of money. "I know that they did this. But I don't want to praise them (because of their politics)."

- Alas, this story has so many possibilities.

Possibility#1: Leon Lai planned all this. He donated $500,000 and requested anonymity which the Apple Daily Charity Foundation honored. But Leon Lai went and used another party to leak the information to Apple Daily. Leon Lai does not comment, as he is famous for having said: "I do not reply to hypothetical questions."

Possibility#2: Leon Lai did nothing whatsoever. But the Apple Daily fiction writer made up this unsourced story and made the popular Leon Lai seems as if he objects to what hundreds of other entertainers are doing with their photos and singing.

Possibility #3: Leon Lai, the Apple Daily Charity Foundation and Apple Daily collaborated on this PR scheme. It is not as bad as you think, because the intent was to encourage many more others to make donations.

- It is true that Leon Lai has been involved heavily in charitable activities, so that donating a large sum of money is not surprising. Specifically he is a board member of the Community Chest of Hong Kong. So why does he want to donate $500,000 anonymously to the Apple Daily Charity Foundation? Why not donate $500,000 publicly to Community Chest in order to encourage others to do likewise?

(Sky Post) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 29, 2016.

Several days after the fire started, Democratic Party legislator Wu Chi-wai formed a Amoy SC Storage Fire Victims Grand Alliance with those who rented mini-storage units there. In so doing, legislator Wu probably forgot that another group of victims had been waiting for before, namely the Fire Ordinance Victims Grand Alliance.

Previously on June 12, Wu Chi-wai, Cy Ho (Labour Party) and 200 others held up the flags of the Democratic Party, Labour Party and ADPL and marched to the Fire Services Department headquarters to demand "amending the evil Fire Ordinance" and "suspend citations for violations."

In 2007, the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance stipulated that all buildings built in 1987 or before must have fire safety equipment. On that day, Wu and Ho led others to demand that older buildings be exempt from having water tanks to fight fires.

The Amoycan Industrial Centre is 66 years old and was exempt from having an automatic sprinkler system. So when fire broke out, the first line of defense did not exist. So what are the politicians complaining about? Aren't they the same ones who want to erase the Fire Ordinance and rock the foundation of our personal safety?

Two highway road repairmen were hit and killed by a taxi while working in the rain
They were also serving socity
They also ran into a sudden accident
They were also two lives
Two also let families behind
But they got different treatments (from the two firemen)
These two workers encountered an unexpected disaster
They got no pension, no donations, no Facebook campaign of tributes
They don't have celebrities to salute them
Isn't the difference too great?

- The sole purpose of this kind of comparison is to create more conflicts among people, setting people against each other.

- When faced with an unfortunate event, a good and positive media should use its influence to call on citizens to help those in need. They should not be creating conflicts to set people off against each other!

- We don't need any comparisons. We need to help. If you can help, please help.

(SCMP) June 20, 2016.

There was chaos and violence at Chinese Universitys council meeting on Monday, as students urged the governing council members to set up a governance review panel.

Physical conflict erupted among students, some protesters from outside the university and security guards, as about 50 students and other protesters tried to storm the meeting venue at Bank of America Tower in Admiralty at around 5pm.

During the chaos, a security guard suffered an injury to his right eye which drew blood.

Students at the university have been demanding the council review the current governance system where the chief executive becomes the chancellor by default and has the power to appoint members. Critics said such a system would expose the university to political interference, thus threatening academic freedom.

University vice-chancellor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu and council chairman Leung Nai-pang later promised protesters that the council would discuss setting up the panel at the meeting, before the chaos calmed down.

(Oriental Daily) June 20, 2016.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong council was holding a meeting at the CUHK Educational Centre at Bank of America Tower when fifty people charged into the meeting area. Security guards blocked the intruders and there was pushing and shoving. One security guard was bleeding in the face, and some students claimed to be injured. Among the intruders were some who were not CUHK students, such as "Four-eyed brother" Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) who will be running in the Legco election and Hong Kong University Students Union president Althea Suen. Some of these intruders wore black face masks, black hoods and even black veils.

CUHK Student Union president Ernie Chow presented four demands to the CUHK Council chairman Norman Leung and CUHK vice-chancellor Joseph Sung: (1) establish a panel to study the law by which the Chief Executive becomes the chancellor automatically with a clear time table; (2) the CUHK Council should have student and teacher representatives; (3) reduce the number of council members who are appointed directly by the Chief Executive; (4) CUHK Student Union representatives should be able to attend council meetings before the reforms take place.

Norman Leung said that the Council will discuss these demands, but Leung and Sung cannot promise anything because it all depends on the opinions of the full council. The students let the two go. Shortly afterwards, another round of clashes started because somebody said that the council members were leaving. The students immediately rushed to block the back door. Then somebody said that it was not true, and the students calmed down again.

Legislative Councilor Helena Wong (Democratic Party) said that the council had previously voted not to form a panel because of the lack of a social consensus on the issue. Today's meeting agenda does not include the demands today. Wong said that while she understands that the students are concerned about the university ordinance, demands should be expressed peacefully.

CUHK SU president Ernie Chow said that the action today was pre-planned along with the Hong Kong Federation of Students. He said that the university ordinance is not solely a CUHK issue, but it affects all students and all of society. Chow said that physical clashes were inevitable during the tense situation, and he believes that both sides did not harbor evil intent.

Legislative councilor Tommy Cheung left around 6pm. He was surrounded by about 20 students and other individuals who chased outside the Bank of America Tower. They stopped Cheung from getting into his car, accusing him of illegal parking. Eventually Cheung left on foot.

At around 7pm, three more council members left including deputy vice-chancellor Fanny Cheung. The intruders blockaded the corridor once more. At around 715pm, School of Business Administration dean Chan Ka-lok wanted to leave but was blocked. So he went back into the meeting room.

Videos:

Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/HKYDS/videos/637893936378509/

TVB http://news.tvb.com/local/5767d07d6db28c7564dc345b/

Now TV http://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=183137

Cable TV https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/501911086672940/

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/566867336851879/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1016365941732102/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1016608498374513/

Resistance Live Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VHMYXC3-0g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGKceIwhqBM

Internet comments:

- Do you think that these are Chinese University of Hong Kong students? Or Passion Times reporters?

- The Buddhists believe in karma. In this case, the relevant Chinese phrase is 姑息養奸 (to tolerate is to nurture an evildoer). Joseph Sung tolerated all the shenanigans before and he is reaping the harvest today.

- Example of toleration of evil: The Chinese University of Hong Kong security guard was cut around his eye. CUHK refused to called the police. They only called an ambulance to take the security guard to the hospital where he received five stitches.

- Did the security guard agree? Or was he "agreed" by CUHK?

- (Oriental Daily) The Hong Kong Security Guards and Property Management Workers Association said that there have been more than 30 incidents in which demonstrators caused physical clashes. This year, there has been four incidents including Hong Kong University students charging at the council meeting and now the Chinese University of Hong Kong students charging at their council meeting. Whenever that happens, the personal safety of the security guards is at risk. The Association demanded that the government and insurance companies review how they can protect the security guards. They urged the government to prosecute the attackers and arrange for police presence.

- I keeled over in laughter when I read in (Wen Wei Po) that the students stopped council members from leaving because they don't want the meeting to be called off due to lack of quorum. Ha ha ha. What has been happening at the Legislative Council over the past several years? Is it true that Legislative Council members can be prevented to leave by force?

The students also said that council members cannot leave the council meeting because they have to attend to personal business. Ha ha ha. Would you care to check out absenteeism at the Legislative and District Councils?  There are District Councilors who are absent more than 90% of the time!

- (SCMP) Universities are allowing radical students to get off scot-free even when they resort to violence. By Alex Lo. June 22, 2016.

A group of students and outside protesters wearing intimidating black masks gatecrashed a meeting of the Chinese Universitys governing council.

They caused mayhem, resulting in the injury of a security guard. Instead of calling the police and reprimanding the students by name, council members invited two of them to the meeting. Even then, the intimidation didnt stop. They were protesting against the law that automatically makes the chief executive the head of Hong Kongs public universities.

The university did issue a statement condemning the violence, but only in the most general terms. Well, we all know violence is not a good thing. But how about chasing, naming and punishing those responsible? Probably not.

One of the protesters said violence was unavoidable but refused to take any responsibility. The universitys student union president, Ernie Chow Shue-fung, one of the two student representatives invited to the council meeting, said: When the situation has reached such an intense stage, some physical conflict is unavoidable.

Tell that to the injured guard and his family that it was for a good cause. One thing we do know about administrators at our top universities well, not top anymore according to some recent international rankings is that they are generally spineless when it comes to dealing with radical students.

Similar chaos had broken out during protests at meetings of the University of Hong Kongs council in the past year. Former HKU council member and student union president Billy Fung Jing-en had helped lay siege to them. Reprimand or at least a warning letter? Not a chance at HKU.

The University of Chicago this month almost refused an undergraduate degree to protest leader and student body president Tyler Kissinger for helping to occupy a university building. For his action, he was hauled before a disciplinary committee that accused him of premeditated and dishonest behaviour and contributing to an unsafe situation in the building.

He, too, was protesting for worthy causes like boycotting investments in fossil fuels, paying university workers a minimum wage of US$15 an hour and ending racist policing on campus. Ultimately, he got off scot-free but was at least taught a lesson that things you do have consequences, even if its for a good cause.

Reprimand our student leaders? No, that would be political persecution.

- Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 23, 2016.

... On the next day, the student representative was asked on radio why they used violence. The answer was that they have to exercise the public's right to violence in order to fight the System's violence.

Excuse me, I have lived and studied for many years and I only learned the terms "public's right to violence" and "the System's violence" in recent years. But I prefer to characterize them as "word play."

When you injured somebody, you have injured someone. If you apologize, I may still give you some respect as an upright, honest person. But now you did it and you don't want to admit it, so you package it as an act of justice. This is a disgrace to the Chinese University of Hong Kong brand.

The incident took place at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Education Centre inside the Bank of America Tower in Admiralty. At the time, teaching classes were being held in the other rooms. A foreigner teacher was upset at being disrupted and he came out to the corridor and told the troublemakers not to disturb others. Unexpectedly, these university students who had just been screaming and yelling at the council members suddenly shut up. They were tongue-tied and only knew to stutter out one English word: "Sorry."

This makes me wonder if the solution is to hire more foreigners to become police officers, security guards, spokespersons and mediators. As soon as these thugs see a foreigner with red hair and green eyes, they get intimidated. When the foreigners start speaking in English, the thugs will immediately raise up their hands to surrender.

If there aren't enough white people, then there are plenty of South Asians who have rushed over to Hong Kong in recent years. As long as they speak English, they will have the best weapon against the thugs. If that isn't enough, you can hire the tall, strong black men looking for work outside Chungking Mansion. When there are black men wearing police uniforms, the thugs can't chant "Black cops" because the black men will charge them with racial discrimination at the Equal Opportunities Commission.

I look forward to seeing this.

- (Headline News) If I were the injured CUHK security guard. By Poon Lai-king. June 23, 2016.

If I were the injured CUHK security guard, I would ask Vice-chancellor Joseph Sung why he didn't call the police? Aren't you the doctor who risked his own life to save others during the SARS period? Aren't you our Hero of Asia? You saw the CUHK students and the masked men in black clothes surround the meeting venue, scream and yell. In order to maintain order, I got cut in the corner of my eye, blood poured out and I went to the hospital to get five stitches. The university called an ambulance, but they did not call the police.

I am a lowly security guard. In order to protect the reputation of your university, you did not consider calling the police. You were not willing to see justice done for me. Actually, you should call the police not for my sake but for the Chinese University of Hong Kong. When my attacker is not brought to justice and punished, you are tolerating violence and it will be worse next time.

I had hoped that someday my son would become a CUHK student. But right now I am ashamed of the actions of those students.

CUHK Student Union president Ernie Chow was interviewed afterwards. He said that he was blockading the place that day. If he didn't get his answer, he would prevent the council members from leaving. That is imprisonment. When the security guard got injured, he refused to apologize or show any concern. He said that the security guard could have been injured by his own colleagues. Besides the security guards used improper violence themselves. Thus, he refused to take any responsibility.

As the vice-chancellor, this would have been a great chance in education. What is respect? What is peace? What is reason? What is responsibility? But a university that is supposed to be in education hid behind a feeble statement. The students who led the way will not be punished as they should be.

Worse yet, society is tired and numbed by the continual show of students acting as thugs who assault, imprison and curse out people. Reporters don't even follow up anymore.

The university and the students are cowards. As a lowly security guard, I was not only hurt in the eye but I am broken-hearted.

(Oriental Daily) June 13, 2016.

Yesterday at around 240pm, five men who looked like mainlanders appeared near the home of Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai Chi-ying. Four of the men are between 40 to 50 years old and another man 20 to 30 years old. The younger man wore a neon yellow wind jacket and held a blue foldable umbrella in his hand.

The five men proceeded from the bottom of the hill up the hill. Four of them walked up to Number 87, which is right across the home of Jimmy Lai. The fifth man walked up to Number 81. One of the four men used a camera to film Jimmy Lai's home as well as St. George's Court next door. Then they stood around the entrance to Lai's home. After about one minute, the four men walked down the hill and left.

At around 430pm, three of these men were observed in Tseung Kwan O filming exterior of the Apple Daily building? So who were these men? Why were so interested in filming Jimmy Lai's home and office? So far, nobody has the answer.

Neither Jimmy Lai nor his neighbors called the police. Most citizens would call the police if they find suspicious characters wandering around. But Jimmy Lai didn't. About 30 minutes later, sme Next Media reporter showed up at Jimmy Lai's home.

Internet comments:

- Derivative spoof: Who are those guys? The Hong Kong Police, or the Independent Commission Against Corruption, or a certain bureau/department in a certain Strong Nation?

- (Oriental Daily) Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai has previously been characterized as the "black hand" behind the illegal Occupy Movement. Yesterday five mysterious men filmed outside his home and office for unexplained reasons. They had crew cuts, they carried sling bags and they wore striped t-shirts, all of which are telltale signs of mainland agents.

The situation in Hong Kong is getting out of control, and Jimmy Lai is the biggest reason. Beijing is beginning to lose its patience. If economic punishment doesn't work, then law enforcement may be the only solution. Earlier a state leader had said: "Nobody is above the law. No lawbreaker can find excuses to evade the long arm of the law." Unfortunately the Hong Kong government has not been able to enforce the law. On one hand, the Justice Department has failed to prosecute Jimmy Lai and others. On the other hand, the courts have repeatedly failed to punish Occupy Movement lawbreakers. Under such circumstances, the five mysterious men outside Jimmy Lai's home may be a warning: If the Hong Kong government won't enforce the law, unnamed bureaus/departments of the Strong Nation will come across the border to Hong Kong and enforce the law. Before you know it, Jimmy Lai may become the next Lee Bo "who used his own method to go back to mainland China to cooperate with the investigation of the authorities."

(Oriental Daily) June 16, 2016.

After the court verdict on Bawang vs. Next Magazine, about 10 Bawang employees dressed in black and another 20 members of the "Support Bawang Concern Group" demonstrated outside the Next Media building in Tseung Kwan O. They held banners on "Hooligan media lose public trust," "Down with Chinese traitor Jimmy Lai, give us back out national corporation," "Six years of slander finally cleared, give us justice and clear our names." Very soon, Next Media sent out reporters to film and ask: "Are you being paid?" The Concern Group members retorted: "You have no conscience. How dare you say that we are being paid?" There was a quarrel. Next Media summoned the police to keep order. The protest continued for about 40 minutes and then the demonstrators left.

At 335pm, the demonstrators showed up outside Jimmy Lai's home in Kadoorie Avenue. In addition to the aforementioned banners, they added: "Down with Chinese traitor Lai XX!" and "Evil Next Media is media gangster!" The police were also present. The demonstrators left around 445pm. One of the demonstrators bore a resemblance to one of the five men who were here several days ago. When asked, this demonstrator only identified himself as a Bawang employee. The Bawang International Group was asked about the demonstrators, but they said that they won't comment on the spontaneous actions of certain employees.

(Oriental Daily) June 17, 2016.

At around noon, about 10 persons from the Justice Alliance demonstrated outside the Next Media building. They threw darts at the figure of Jimmy Lai and chanted "Down with Jimmy Lai, down with Apple Daily, down with bad media." According to Justice Alliance convener Leticia Lee, Jimmy Lai is the enemy of Hong Kong, because he libeled Bawang, persecuted public servants, conspired with the United States, gave secret donations to Legislators, incited Occupy Central, etc. "We want to cleanse Hong Kong from the mud of Jimmy Lai and keep media clean."

At around 4pm, a group of investors who claimed to have purchased Bawang share protested outside Jimmy Lai's home. They chanted "We support the Bawang Group, we want our money back."

At around 1230pm, Jimmy Lai left home for the Sai Kung Yacht Club. He declined to speak to the reporters waiting for him there.

Jimmy Lai's bodyguard prevented reporters from exercising their freedom of press.

(Oriental Daily) June 17, 2016.

At around 2pm, a dozen people demonstrated outside Jimmy Lai's home in Kadoorie Hill. They  carried banners that said: "Down with Chinese traitor Lai XX." These members of the "Support Bawang Concern Group" shouted slogans such as "Evil Next Media is media gangster." Thirty minutes later, another dozen or so more people showed up.

One of these demonstrators said that he was an investor in Bawang Group stocks. After Next Magazine published its libelous story on Bawang, the stock price plunged and he lost tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore he was there to demand justice from Jimmy Lai. The protest lasted until around 3pm before the demonstrators left. The police watched from the side.

Videos:

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1015216831847013/
https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1015216648513698/

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1015202728515090/
https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1015202978515065/

(Oriental Daily) June 18, 2016.

At around 320pm, two men drove a white van to Kadoorie Avenue and walked up to Jimmy Lai's home to case the situation. About one minute later, they drove up and tossed two bottles containing fruit juice at the gate. The plastic wrap on the gate as damaged, and some fruit juice was spilled on the gate. The perpetrators left in the car. The security guard called his supervisor who came and called the police. The Police is listing this as a case of criminal damage of property. Police detectives came and gathered evidence, which includes a plastic bag and bottle caps left outside singer Kelly Chan's home, which is right across the street from Jimmy Lai's home.

(Oriental Daily) June 21, 2016.

At around 1050am, more than 20 young persons in their 20's arrived in a white tourist bus to protest outside Jimmy Lai's home. Some of these people wore surgical masks and sunglasses. They held banners that said: "Apple Daily's inaccurate reports misled citizens and damaged Hong Kong's reputation," "The shame of Hong Kong newspapers hurt Hong Kong and its good people." They used megaphones to chant slogans such as: "Inaccurate reporting, fictional news" and "Evil media cause trouble in Hong Kong, corrupting young people." The police were summoned. A protestor was questioned by the police, but he said that they were "spontaneously organized" to protest inaccurate reporting by Next Media. The demonstrators continued to change slogans. At 1135am, they left in the same bus.

At 4pm, the same group of protestors plus several middle-aged men and women arrived at the scene. They unfurled banners and chanted slogans. They left by tourist bus about 20 minutes later.

(Oriental Daily) June 22, 2016.

At 3pm, 45 members from the Hong Kong Travel Agency Owners Association, the Hong Kong Tourism Industry Workers Association and the Justice Alliance protested outside Next Media building in Tseung Kwan O. They said that Next Media has promoted the anti-parallel protests, smeared Hong Kong and destroyed the tourism industry, such that the industry has lost $10 billion already.

The demonstrators unfurled banners about "Chinese traitors," "eradicate the cancerous poisoned Apple Daily cells," "eradicate poisonous media," "Poisonous Apple Daily is the most shameless," etc. They chanted slogans such as "Eradicate the number one bad egg," "Insult our country, deceive our citizens," etc. The demonstrators placed a photo of Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai on the ground and tossed eggs and apples at it.

(Oriental Daily) June 22, 2016.

At around 3pm, more than 30 members of Justice Alliance and Peace Forum showed up with banners and placards outside Jimmy Lai's home. At around 320pm, they were joined by more than 20 tourism industry workers. The more than 60 people chanted slogans until 4pm.

Justice Alliance convener Leticia Lee said that she was here because Next Media had published the private photos of her and her family members. Loyal Militia member Man Shek said that he was there because Next Media had sent an undercover reporter to his beauty salon in order to smear his business. "The report was 10% true and 90% false. The only thing true was the photo of the worker."

Video: https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1017453364956693/

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1017482924953737/

(Oriental Daily) June 24, 2016.

In Next Magazine, Jimmy Lai wrote that he was driving down the hill with his wife when the sky turned dark. His wife said that it was going to rain soon and suggested turning back. Back at home, Jimmy Lai took the cup of coffee from his wife and suddenly told her: "I'm going to retire." He used the weather as an analogy: "The cloudy sky reflected my mood. The fatigue is like a cloud hanging over my head. I want to turn back." He said that his wife was not surprised. "I am going to retire smoothly."

(Oriental Daily) June 24, 2016.

About 20 people showed up at noon outside Jimmy Lai's home. They carried placards that said: "Dark money harms society, libel hurts businesses." They demand that the Justice Department punish those who are involved in the dark money affair. The police watched on the side. The group left at around 1pm. Meanwhile Jimmy Lai couldn't less as he went to the Sai Kung Yacht Club to take a cruise with a foreigner.

(Oriental Daily) June 25, 2016.

At 1030am, more than 20 demonstrators marched up to outside Jimmy Lai's home. They chanted: "Jimmy Lai is shameless," "He caused trouble to Hong Kong and its people," "He is a sinner for eternity", etc. Some of these demonstrators claimed to be investors who bought Bawang shares. Others said that they came spontaneously after reading about Jimmy Lai's secret donations. The demonstrators showed various cartoons of Jimmy Lai. They placed a photo of Jimmy Lai on he ground and stomped on it. They stayed for about 10 minutes and then they left.

(Headline Daily) June 26, 2016.

At around 11am, Bawang Group chairman Chen Kai-yuan and about 30 Bawang workers dressed in yellow shirts went to protest at the Next Media headquarters in Tseung Kwun O. Chen said that Next Media used freedom of the press as shield to libel a Chinese company, causing economic losses at the Bawang Group.

(Headline Daily) June 26, 2016.

At around 330pm, Bawang Group chairman Chen Kai-yuan and more than 30 Bawang workers arrived at Jimmy Lai's home. They held up placards and chanted slogans. They accused Next Media of using freedom of the press as shield to libel a Chinese company. Chen demanded Lai to come out and answer him. Security guards at the Lai mansion took videos. Five policemen were present to observe. The demonstrators left after one hour. Chen said: "Lai did not dare to come out when he saw that there were so many people outside."

(Oriental Daily with video) July 9, 2016.

Justice Alliance convener Leticia Lee and more than 10 others went to protest outside Jimmy Lai's home at 3pm. The demonstrators held up signs about Jimmy Lai quitting Taiwan and Hong Kong and is now in hiding from the people. "You better not leave until you paid the bills." They burned papers with Jimmy Lai's photo and criticized Next Media for poisoning Hong Kong.

(Oriental Daily) July 10, 2016.

At around 11am, 24 persons who claim to love Hong Kong protested outside Jimmy Lai's home. The demonstrators held up placards with "Support One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong, defend law and discipline." They accused Jimmy Lai of opposing China, harming Hong Kong, destroying One Country Two Systems and ignoring law and discipline. Several policemen came and took down the ID's of two of the demonstrators. The group left at 1135am.

(Oriental Daily) July 12, 2016.

About 20 protestors showed up outside Jimmy Lai's home at around 3pm. They claimed to be from the Secret Political Campaign Donations Concern Group. They held placards that accuse Jimmy Lai of being a Chinese/Hong Kong traitor who used secret donations and his media publications to destroy Hong Kong. The group stayed until 4pm. So far, there have been at least 15 demonstrations outside Jimmy Lai's home or the Tseung Kwun O Next Media headquarters within the past 30 days. Of these, 7 were Bawang employees or investors; 3 were by the Justice Alliance; 5 were by tourism industry and others.

(Oriental Daily with video) July 14, 2016.

This morning and this afternoon, about 25 went to protest at Jimmy Lai's home and the Next Media building. At around 430pm, they showed up outside Lai's home. They held placards that demand the shameless evil media return their blood-sweat money. They took out photos of Jimmy Lai and trampled them. According to the security guards nearby, this same group showed up in the morning too.

(Oriental Daily) July 17, 2016.

At noon, about 20 persons demonstrated out Jimmy Lai's home. They held up placards saying "Black Gold corrupting Hong Kong" and "selling out Hong Kong for money," and they chanted slogans such as "Jimmy Lai is the shame of the media." They sat for about 2 hours before leaving.

(Oriental Daily) July 18, 2016.

At noon, abot 20 persons demonstrated outside the ICAC Headquarters in North Point. They held placards such as "uproot Fat Lai and purify Hong Kong," etc. These people claimed to be from the Anti-Black Gold Concern Group. They held up photos of Jimmy Lai and pan-democratic legislators who have taken money from Lai. There were also placards saying things like "Fai Lai has to face the law, Black Gold has to be buried" and "Long Hair has to go to jail, the Legislative Council has to be reformed."

At around 430pm, this group went to Jimmy Lai's home to demonstrate. They stayed for around 14 minutes. So far there has been at least 20 demonstration against Jimmy Lai at his home in Ho Man Tin or the Next Media Headquarters in Tseung Kwan O.

(Oriental Daily) July 19, 2016.

At around 11am, about 30 persons arrived outside Jimmy Lai's home and chanted "Black Gold causing chaos in Hong Kong! Disaster for the people of Hong Kong!" They left after about 10 minutes. The reporter asked them about their affiliation. They said that they were spontaneously organized.

At around 230pm, another 30 persons protested outside Jimmy Lai's home. They held up placards "Chinese traitor running dog Jimmy Lai, Black Gold legislator Lee Cheuk-yan, they are bad people who are harming Hong Kong" and "anti-China anti-Hong Kong Next Media Jimmy Lai get out of Hong Kong". They waved the flags of China and the HKSAR and used accented Cantonese to chant slogans. They left around 250pm.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 16, 2016.

Recently returned bookseller Lam Wing-kee has said that he was only allowed to return to Hong Kong from China if he agreed to travel back with a hard drive full of evidence from his book store. Lam the founder of Causeway Bay Books, which sells political gossip titles banned in China returned to the city on Tuesday. He was due to return to China on Thursday but held a surprise press conference at the legislature with lawmaker Albert Ho instead to expose what really happened during his eight month detention. Lam Wing-kee.

The hard drive demanded by the Chinese authorities contained sales records from the bookstore. Lam said that Lee Bo, another bookseller who returned to Hong Kong in March, copied a hard drive of customer records. Lam was asked to look through the records to identify customers.

The records include some 600 people, mostly mainlanders, and some 4,000 book titles.

I was afraid my readers would be affected, that they would think Hong Kong people or I sold them out, he said. But I did not do so Now they were doing something even worse asking me to bring them a hard drive as evidence.

He said he was accompanied back to Hong Kong by two men. One was surnamed Chen a chief and another surnamed Shi. They separated after crossing the border as they could not be seen near him. He added that Shi treated him kindly but was not allowed to speak to him.

Lam said that he could not read any information when he was in the mainland, and that he felt touched when he returned to Hong Kong and read that 6,000 supporters had marched for the release of the booksellers in January.

I watched videos on my phone for two days, he said. I dont know these 6,000 people they spoke out for the five of us, our small bookstore I am thankful.

He said he was supposed to return to the mainland on Thursday and hand over the hard drive to a central special unit. However, after seeing the support from Hongkongers, he hesitated at the Kowloon Tong MTR station en route to the border.

He said he spoke out after coming back because he was less burdened in that his family was not on the mainland. He said he had dinner with his sister and a phone conversation with his son upon returning to Hong Kong.

Lam said that, on the day he was accosted on the mainland last October, he was originally planning to visit his girlfriend, who he met after living away from his family. She was also detained on the mainland as she had helped him with sending banned books into China. She was released on bail.

I am sorry for my girlfriend, he said. But I dont consider this a personal matter anymore, rather a matter for the whole of society Hong Kong people were forced without any way out. He said it was unacceptable that his colleague Lee Bo was kidnapped from Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has rule of law I am not afraid for my personal safety, and I do not plan to go to the mainland again, he said. This is the red line for Hong Kong people Hong Kong people will not give in to the powerful regime.

Regarding the booksellers that returned to Hong Kong and went to the mainland again, he said he hoped the Chinese government would treat them well. Just like God treats human beings well I only hope for that, he said.

Five booksellers from the Causeway Bay store went missing from Thailand, China and Hong Kong last year. The whereabouts of Swedish national Gui Minhai are still unknown. The UK and the US governments, and the European Union, have expressed concern over the issue.

Lam founded and operated the banned book store before it was purchased by Mighty Current in 2014. He last used his computer at the shop on October 23 and was reported missing by his wife on November 5. He called his wife the next day to say he was safe, following media reports of his disappearance. He was confirmed to be in China on February 4 this year.

Lam stood accused of being involved in illegal activities on the mainland. Chinese authorities said that criminal compulsory measures were imposed upon him and he was under investigation.

(SCMP) June 16, 2016.

A bookseller who went missing for nearly eight months and only returned to Hong Kong from the mainland this week described on Thursday his harrowing detention at a border crossing and sustained efforts by authorities there to extract information from him.

Lam Wing-kee also stated during a 70-minute press briefing that fellow bookseller Lee Po told him he had been taken away from Hong Kong contrary to Lees contention after his release on March 24 that he had entered and left the mainland voluntarily.

The Hongkonger said mainland police detained him on October 24 while he was visiting Shenzhen and offered to release him if he could hand over a Causeway Bay Books hard drive listing readers who had bought books from his business, and that they had asked him to return to the mainland on Thursday with it. I did not return, he said before a packed briefing room at the Legislative Council complex. Of course, I dared not return.

Lam said he thought the authorities were more concerned about who wrote the books that were sold at the Causeway Bay establishment than who purchased them. I suspect they wanted to know who wrote them, he said. But I dont know the authors. I only sell the books. And as many people know, the contents are not always reliable.

He claimed he had been kept alone in a room measuring about 200 or 300 sq ft for five months following his detention. He added he had lost sleep the last two nights since returning to Hong Kong.

Lam said he was taken from Shenzhen to Ningbo in Zhejiang province by train, one day after he was intercepted at Lo Wu Control Point in the New Territories. I was handcuffed and my eyes were covered, he said. It took about 13 or 14 hours. I noticed I was taken to Ningbo, because I glimpsed the station when we got off the train.

Recalling his detention, he said: I was afraid, feeling helpless. I didnt know what would happen or if there would be a trial. I was alone. I couldnt believe this could have happened to me, he continued. It was very surreal I hoped it was only a dream.

During November, December, January, February, and March, for five months, I was detained in a 200 or 300 sq ft room, he added. For 24 hours, six groups of people took turns watching me. I was allowed no outside communication, no lawyer.

Lam said he was detained for questioning in a large compound a 45-minute car ride away from the station. He also claimed he was not told what offence he had committed until after he was taken to Ningbo. He said he believed the officers detaining him were not from the national security council.

As for his confession on mainland TV in February. It was a show, and I accepted it, he said. They gave me the script. I had to follow the script. If I did not follow it strictly, they would ask for a retake.

On Lees earlier claim that he went to the mainland voluntarily, Lam said: Obviously, it was exactly the same situation in which I was forced to make a televised confession.

He said he was not told what offence he had committed until after he was taken to Ningbo. He said he believed the officers detaining him were not from the national security council.

Lam, one of five individuals associated with Causeway Bay Books who went missing over a three-month period from October last year, was accompanied by Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan at the partys office in Legco.

Upon his return to Hong Kong, Lam asked local police to drop their probe into his missing person case. He also told them he did not need help from the authorities, according to a government statement issued on Tuesday.

Police stated Lam declined to give further details.

The request to abandon investigative efforts mirrored the approach taken by Lams three Hong Kong associates who returned home before him, despite unanswered questions about the circumstances of their disappearances and concerns that they had been kidnapped by mainland agents acting beyond their jurisdiction.

(SCMP) June 17, 2016.

Q: Did the Hong Kong government give you any protection at all?
Lam
: No

Q: Is there anything you want to say to Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying? He kept saying that he has been following up on the cases of you and the others.
A:
I have nothing to say to him. He cant do anything, so what is there to say?

A: I was very afraid. I was alone. I didnt know how they would deal with me. I didnt know whether there would be a trial. At the time, I couldnt believe this could happen to me. It was very surreal. I thought I was in another world and even hoped my situation was a dream and not reality. As a Hongkonger, I am a free man. I did not commit any crimes but I was locked up for no reason for five months.

Q: After this incident, is there anything you would like to say to Hongkongers?
A:
I hope Hongkongers will say no to an authoritarian regime.

Q: Do you think that in the circumstances Hong Kong finds itself, we can really say no to an authoritarian regime?
A:
I can do it, so why cant you?

Q: Have you thought what might happen to Hong Kongs freedom if you didnt come and speak out today?
A:
If I didnt come out to say anything, freedom of speech and publication in Hong Kong would continue to be attacked. I dont want to see this happen.

Q: How was the interview on Phoenix TV conducted?
A:
I dont know about the others. But for me there was a director, a script.

Q: Which parts (of the script) were contrary to your true beliefs ?
A:
They said I had committed crimes, thats already against what I thought. I dont think I committed any crimes.

Q: During the interview, you admitted the books were all made up and expressed regret, are these not your words?
A:
These are the things they made me say. They wanted me to admit them. I couldnt not admit them.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Full, complete transcript of returned bookseller Lam Wing-kees press conference and Q&A

Last October 24th, when I crossed the Shenzhen border to visit my girlfriend in Dongguan, I was detained by Shenzhen police.

So when I was detained, I asked them what crimes had I committed. I kept asking for an entire day, and nobody was able to answer me. I recalled that when I crossed the border, the gate closed. I was trapped at the crossing, and then two officers pointed and then a few more customs officers came. I dont know if this counts as detainment.

They took me to a corner on the left, and they probably recognised me. And then there were a few people, I remember there were at least 11 people, they took me away to examine [me], and then [we went] to the Shenzhen police station, where they confiscated my identification documents.

At that time I went after them and asked what crimes I had committed. All along nobody answered me so I could only sit inside the police station, the place where I was detained, until it was nighttime. There, someone who asked me Your surname is Lam, right?

My ID and everything had been taken away when I was crossing the border, so I was in the police station that night. I was in the criminals chair. I sat there and I could not sleep, but of course there was food provided for me to eat. Around 7 oclock, very early [in the morning], the people from the police station and some who took me away gave me breakfast to eat. [Then] I remember I sat in a car and was headed to the North of China, heading in that direction.

As they were taking me away, they handcuffed me. I wore an eye mask and they gave me a baseball cap almost covering me entirely, and I sat on the train, and sometimes I sneaked a peek [to see] just what crimes had I committed and where was I going. I sat on the train for a total of 13 to 14 hours and then later on I found that they had taken me to some place in Ningbo I saw that when we got off.

[After] getting off the train, they took me to a large compound which was about 45 minutes away by car. They took me to one of the rooms on maybe the second floor, and they searched me, and that night I also asked them what crimes I had committed, and still no one could answer me. And then the next day, around the afternoon, someone came and did a news piece with me and at that time they did not tell me what crimes I had committed.

They detained me, they only gave me two pieces of paper and asked me to sign my name.

On one piece of paper, there were two conditions one is that I promise to give up my rights to contact my family, the other is to promise not to hire a lawyer.

Under these conditions, in reality I did not have any ways to find anyone who could give me any suggestions. I was alone so I could only sign the paper because the situation was that I could not refuse to sign the paper, so They started asking me my position at the bookstore, and if I was previously the owner of that bookstore. It is the Causeway Bay Bookstore.

They also asked me why I continuously helped mainlanders send books [into the mainland], where I had made my profits from at the bookstore, what made me sell [the bookstore] to the publisher Mighty Current, what relationship did I have with Mighty Current before that. And of course we are a legitimate bookstore according to Hong Kong law, running a typical small bookstore for Hong Kong is legal.

At first they said because in Hong Kong I brought or sent some banned books into the mainland that I had broken their law and they said that books published in Hong Kong are basically not allowed  to be sent or brought into the mainland, and that counts as an illegal activity. Then they said that they might prosecute me afterwards because I had broken their law by sending books from 2013 till 2015. Before that I had also brought some books across the border.

One time I was discovered by them, and they verbally warned me, detaining me for a few hours.

They also said that me bringing books [into the mainland] broke laws of the Chinese government. After that time I no longer dared to bring books and switched [my] thinking.

Some readers like to read. Hong Kong is a free [place] where you can read and publish and I thought that on one hand it was a necessity [of running the bookstore], on the other hand it also satisfies mainland readers and situations they want to understand.

So I helped them send books from Hong Kong. My situation is legal in Hong Kong and did not violate any Hong Kong laws so I did not understand why my sending books from Hong Kong had violated their laws. If they think I had broken Chinese law they can, in Hong Kong, go through criminal prosecution or the court to prosecute me because there is such a space and such condition.

Why did the Chinese government when I was crossing the border say nothing and suddenly detained me? Of course in this process they did not give me any difficulties, they gave me food to eat there was a doctor for me to see, there was a place for me to sleep. But from October 24th, apart from one night in Shenzhen [I sat] on a train to go to Ningbo, November December January February March, five months I was in a room of around 200-300 square feet. 24 hours.

Two in a group, six groups of people took turns monitoring me in the 24 hours. Took away all my freedoms.

I want to ask whether this detainment is necessary before they charged me. They beautified it and said that it was monitored living. I didnt even [have the chance to] do anything wrong. I could only look up into the sky. I could not hire a lawyer. I was not allowed to call my family.

I didnt know that such a big and strong Chinese government could do [this] to a bookstore. To think that it has violated Chinese laws, that it can treat people like that.

I want to invite relevant departments in the Chinese government to give me an explanation, because this incident is not just a personal matter or a matter of Causeway Bay Books. It is a matter of Hongkongers rights, the freedom to read anything.

You say One Country, Two Systems. Please regarding Hong Kongs freedoms my personal experience, as well as my colleagues, did the Chinese government violate One Country, Two Systems? We dont need to do anything to make a fuss. We just need to watch.

Justice is in our hearts. That is why I had come out [to speak] through Albert Ho, to meet with Hong Kong and world media, saying what I want to say.

After March, they let me go to Shaoguan. Shaoguan was better but I could not leave a certain area in Shaoguan. They rented a room for me to live long term, to intend for me to live long term from around April, because they released me in March. I lived there until now, June. The time there was more relaxing and the let me read freely.

They arranged accommodations for me and they successfully requested that Mighty Current, as a compensation for dismissal, pay me HK$100,000 [to cover my] living expenses. This is what they did to take care of us and this was what let me solve daily problems while I was staying there, a sort of compensation for us. But this, personally, I was not the one requesting this. The only thing I hoped to request was freedom.

Until just now, the day before yesterday, because I had always requested to come back to Hong Kong to meet with my family and my teacher, we talked for a very long time before they agreed [to let me go]. But they had a condition. They requested that I take the hard disk with records of those who we sent books to in the past and bring it back to them as evidence.

When they had interrogated me before, I did not think that they would do this. From what I remember, [they asked] Lee Bo to copy [information from] a hard disk for them in Hong Kong and they showed me the information on a computer. They asked me to identify who had ordered books and what relations I had with them.

I knew that they will investigate those readers according to the information. Why I am speaking about this here is because I didnt want to risk it. The thing I am scared of is that my readers will be affected and that they will think that we Hongkongers, or me, betrayed them. But I did not do that.

At first I thought that telling [the guards] directly, they will have the information but not the physical object. But I didnt expect that they will find someone to copy it from Hong Kong. Now its getting so bad that they are asking me to get the hard drive for them as evidence for court.

When I had come over [to Hong Kong], they did not let me go alone. There as a director surnamed Chen and then there was a Mr Shi. Mr Shi was very nice to me. He looked after me and for this I am personally very grateful towards him. He had always looked after me. But policy wise many things were not up to him.

I have a girlfriend because I met her after I separated from my wife. I hope that this is made clear I met her after I separated from my wife. She is still in the mainland now. Because I had asked her to help me send some books, meaning that it also involves her, that she is also seen as having violated Chinese law and is in the same situation as me. She is now on bail and awaiting trial and is living in the mainland.

I have a few colleagues who are in Hong Kong who have to go back to the mainland, for example, Lee Bo and Lui Por. Cheung Chi-ping is in the mainland. I hope that the Chinese government will not, because of this incident [my press conference], cause trouble for my friends and colleagues. I hope that the Chinese government will treat them kindly just like how God treats people kindly. I can only hope that it is like that.

In the two days since I came back to Hong Kong, I actually almost did not sleep at all. Because I didnt have information in the mainland, I completely did not understand what happened because of this incident [of the missing booksellers]. I looked up information for two days, news for two days. I am very touched, especially because of the 6,000 protesters who went on the streets. These 6,000 people are all Hongkongers and I do not know them. They can do this for the five of us, a small publisher, a bookstore, to speak out for us and voice their support.

I am very grateful because of these five people, compared to them, I have less [connections in the mainland]. At least my family is not in the mainland, only my girlfriend. I feel sorry for this girlfriend of mine, but I thought about the fact that this matter is no longer my own. It matters to the entire society, Hong Kong society, and everybodys demands for freedom.

The Chinese government has left Hong Kong people with nowhere else to retreat to. This is the bottom line. Especially since Lee Bo was kidnapped. This is something we cant acceptcrossing the border and enforcing the law. If you say this is One Country, Two Systems what problems does this have? I dont want to go into it.

I reiterate, this evidence here is I was willing. Ive thought about this carefully. Hong Kong is a place of rule of law and there is still a protection of rights. Im not worried about my personal safety here. I also do not plan to go to the mainland in the future.

I only want to convey one message here. Hong Kong people there are a lot of Hong Kong reporters here were all pretty much in the same boat. Myself, or my colleagues at the bookstore, lost our freedom. This will happen to all of you in the future. This is for sure. If nobody speaks out, if I, the one of five with the smallest burden, doesnt speak out, there is no salvation for Hong Kong.

I will do everything I can. Everything I can. I had to muster a lot of courage. I thought about it all night for two nights, until I could half make sense of it. and tell everyone, and tell everyone in the world. If we dont consider this my personal matter Hong Kong people have a baseline. Hong Kong people will not submit to authority.

Ho: There are a lot of people here. Ill pick people to ask questions.

Mr. Lam, can you say who arrested you and did they tell you clearly, at the end, what crime you committed, and was national security involved? And was Gui Minhais video the same situation as yours, made voluntarily?

When they caught me in Shenzhen, they didnt tell me what crime I had committed.

And now?

When I reached Ningbo and they were interrogating me, thats when someone told me I had broken the business law.

Because of the books?

The books. It was also because I was in Hong Kong sending books to the mainland for readers. You asked who they were? They never told me, up until now. But I heard. They werent national security, and they werent police.

The military?

Not military either. They were the Central Special Unit. On this, Iexcept for hearing it during the Cultural Revolution, I dont know. If you say Central Special Unit or whatever if they can use this Central Special Unit, I think we should all think about what Central Special Unit means. Im really not sure.

Were you the only one in Ningbo, or were the others in Ningbo as well? Also did you see the others afterwards?

No. I only knew that the others were in Ningbo as well.

You knew the others were in Ningbo. Did you have tea together? There were reports that said you drank tea together.

Drinking tea together was arranged by them. They took us to a place called Shenzhen Kylin Villa and at the time, Lee Bo gaveeveryone, all three of usthe HK$100,000 to us as a severance fee. It was to cover our living expenses to stay in the mainland.

Do you think the Hong Kong government, in saving people

Im not aware of anyone that the Hong Kong government has saved.

Everyone else has already been let go. Why were you released so late?

Was it because you wouldnt give in?

No, Im not that brave.

Im just a regular Hong Kong person. If they wanted me to sign, I signed. If they wanted me to act in a video, I acted. Minhais videoGui Minhais video, did you answer the way they told you to? On Phoenix TV.

I dont know about the others, but I had a director and a script that they wanted me to read.

What was it like at the time?

At the time, if I couldnt remember they would give me more time, and I would write it out.

From the beginning, how did they tell you to say it how long

In they said it was illegal business operations, going to the mainland to sell books

Can you tell us about the entire set up for the video interview?

Its very simple. They mainly wanted me to read. One part was taken from the evidence letter I wrote. If they werent satisfied we would add to it or take away. They wanted me to remember it, and then in the video say it according to the script. Thats it, but of course they had not used physical force on me.

But which parts were done according to your wishes?

Well, they think I committed a crime but of course I dont agree. I really dont think I committed a crime.

In the video you said you knew the books were made up

Thats right.

You said you realised you were wrong. What about this?

Well, thats what they thought. They wanted me to admit it. I couldnt not admit it.

Mr. Lam, you said a director brought you back to Hong Kong

I dont know if he was a director thats what I heard.

So someone accompanied you to Hong Kong, at least is that cross border law enforcement?

Thats your interpretation, I dont know.

Did he say he was kidnapped in Hong Kong?

I dont want to sayat the time the situation was being monitoredbut everything should have been recorded. I was still in Shenzhen.

Can you tell us how you came back to Hong Kong? [inaudible] 

I said whatever they told me to say.

Has anyone said or implied that if you break the law again that they would bring you back? And now youre holding a press conference, are you afraid that this will impact your family? And members of the media have photographed a woman outside your home, was that a sex scandal?

Of course that was my woman. That was my woman but whether it was a sex scandal or not depends on what evidence they have. For myself, no. Or I can tell you, when I was in Shaoguan at 1 in the middle of the night, there were two small cars that pulled up. I dont have anyone in Shaoguan, no friends. They knocked on my door at one in the morning I opened the door to see.

One tall, one short. They didnt say anything. I understood at the time that they were probably looking for business. I told them that they had found the wrong person. I dont know if

Actually the two didnt know Cantonese. One asked me, he didnt understand, what? And they were blocking the door, not letting me close it. I was surprised. Its rare that theyre so bold. So I told them again that they had the wrong person. They closed the door and left. This was weird, right?

Do you think it was the authorities?

I dont know, I cant say. I just remembered this. Just now when I was here with Albert Ho, he showed me. This thing happened out of the blue, I dont know whether it has anything to do with it.

How is Gui Minhai doing? He said in the video that he was involved in a car accident some ten years ago and killed someone

I saw that stuff too, but I dont know what his situation is.

I want to ask why it took so long for you to come back.

It took so long because they took that long to release me.

When you were required to read the scripts or to sign papers, when you seemed unwilling, did they imply that something would happen to you, or ?

They didnt need to imply anything. In that situation, you couldnt not sign.

The condition for your return was to bring back the records for the book, do you ?

It was a store of readers information.

Did you promise to bring it to them and did they say when you had to return to report to them?

They came yesterday to get the computer. In Hong Kong, someone called Chan was helping them, I heard. I dont know who he is. In the bookstore, gave it to Lee Bo.

They might have taken the wrong one. Yesterday I went up myself to bring the hard disk back to the hotel. At night I looked again and they had taken everything. It wasnt the one I used to use. So I told the two people accompanying me that I needed to get the original one I was using. So I went up and grabbed the one I used to use. That means it has our readers data on it whether from the mainland or from other places. But the hard drive I didnt give it to them.

At Kowloon Tong, I went out of the station. And last night and tonight and afterwards I didnt give it to them. Seeing 6000 people on the streets and chanting for us, if I, as a Hong Konger,I dont say anything, out of us five I have the lightest burden, I thought I had to come out and disclose everything.

When do you have to go back to see them?

Ho: They are asking if you will go back up?

They originally wanted me to go back today.

Ho: Let him finish, okay?

I answered them.

Ho: No, they asked if you would go back up?

Of course I wont.

But are you worried that theyll bring you back up, like Lee Bo?

Theres nothing I can do about that. That depends on the Hong Kong government and whether our safety is guaranteed in HK. This will tell us whether our lives are guaranteed in Hong Kong.

Will you ask the Hong Kong police for help?

I would rather ask Albert Ho. I dont know if [Chan] was a director. I heard

There were mainlanders coming to Hong Kong with you. What was that situation like? Can you elaborate? Where did they bring you?

In Shaoguan, they bought train tickets and then gave me back my ID. Those people split up. They were a little worried that they would be photographed. Whether it was cross-border law enforcement, I dont know. The process was like that. They split up with me in Hong Kong. They didnt dare stay with me. I can only contact Lee Bo myself.

How did you get away actually?

Because you from when you returned to Hong Kong until you came to this press conference there was somebody following you, like this morning.

I dont know I dont know if there was anybody following me.

But how did you get rid of the two?

They did not dare to appear next to me in Hong Kong.

The Mr Chan you just mentioned, is he the one who took over Causeway Bay Books?

Thats what Ive heard.

Could you say some more about this?

I am not clear about this. TheyI heard Mr. Lee say that [Chan] was going to take over the bookstore, but who was behind this I dont know.

These few days, didnt you just say

(correcting the reporter) These two days

That you went with him to the bookstore together to get stuff

I didnt go up to Causeway Bay Books I only went to Lee Bos office.

With him?

No. Mr Chan I have heard Mr Chan took the computer to Lee Bo and I went to take it at Lee Bos office.

I want to ask whether you know where your case is in in the prosecution process? That is when will you go to court?

Can you talk about the legal process in the mainland?

I dont know about legal process.

Or when you will or when will the case be judged or sentenced and everything?

No idea. No they only said that I am on bail and awaiting trial.

I want to ask about closing the case. Did the mainland police ask you to close the case with the Hong Kong police?

Yes. I answered that just now.

Mr Lam, you mentioned that what happened

Ho: He does not speak English.

Mr Lam I want to clarify whether Lee Bo had taken the bookstores hard drive with readers information on it or  was it all Mr Chan bringing it up?

And do you completely

Chan I heard that Chan took the hard drive to Lee Bo, and I went to Lee Bos office to take it.

This all happened in Hong Kong?

Yes.

Before, there were rumours saying that you were arrested because

I took the wrong one the first time, the second time was OK.

Before, there were rumours saying that you were arrested because there were some books related to [Chinese President] Xi Jinping.

Actually, you were up there for a few months this time, the whole interview process do you think it is related to what you guys published or do you think they just want to catch those who are reading banned books?

Those who read banned books are probably not a big deal. I suspect that they are trying to get information on those who wrote the books because they asked me whether I knew some of the authors.

Which books authors did they ask you about?

Yes, and what kind of person wrote them.

So which kinds of books?

Did they say in particularly which book or all books?

Books about Chinese senior official, sources, power struggles, or about sex scandals news.

Can you give some examples?

I am not clear on this.

But they had asked you so did you give [information], actually?

We dont even know we just sell books.

So you did not know of these information?

We did not know.

So Lee Bo and Gui Minhai did?

Not possible, because a lot of these information, as everybody knows, not reliable.

Do they have information on the authors?

That I am not clear about.

Mr Lam, did you make contact with other colleagues?

The first time it was eating in Shenzhen, because they had arranged it at Kylin Villa.

Why did they arrange for you guys to have a meal?

Did they clarify whether Lee Bo or Gui Minhai had been kidnapped?

No, they did not mention these things. We only talked about daily happenings.

When you were being interviewed, that time on Phoenix?

They were not clear about it and I was being interviewed. I was being interviewed, not interviewed, being interviewed.

So not being interviewed together?

No.

What did they use to did they use that drag things on? You just said that you needed to eat as well what does that mean?

You have fear. What they wanted to do we dont know. Personally, I did not know.

I want to ask if you will consider reporting to the police or request personal protection because you just said, are you afraid that the mainland will be angry and will find someone to take you back to the mainland after you held the press conference? What kind of protection will you seek?

I did not think about this at all.

Do you think that the Hong Kong Police cannot protect you?

Seeing the Admiralty incident we know, the tear bombs, the students without any weapons.

So you dont think the Hong Kong Police is standing on the side of the Hong Kong citizens?

I see that they really dont.

Do you have anything to say to [Chief Executive] Leung Chun-ying? Because he said that he had already done a lot regarding this matter. But do you have anything to say?

Regarding this we have nothing to say. what is there to say.

Did you completely not see how the Hong Kong SAR government protected you in this case?

No, no.

In 2012 your bookstore was bought by Mighty Current

2013, no, 2014.

And up to now, do you think that you are being implicated by Mighty Current because of their publication business and you are selling books. Do you think that way?

We are in the same boat. What happens to them may happen to us. What happens to us may also happen to anybody.

Mr. Lam do you know about Lee Bo or Lui Pors situation right now and are you afraid of holding this press conference and revealing the situation that it will be

I am afraid of the situation of those colleagues who are staying [in the mainland] or will have to go to the mainland in the future. I hope that the Chinese government will treat them kindly.

Your family in Hong Kong, did they get harassed or investigated?

As far as I know, no.

Do you think that all five [booksellers] are innocent?

I am not sure about Gui Minhai. If it is simply about mailing or publishing what they think is banned books, then from the perspective of Hongkongers, there is no crime.

Did Gui write some books?

I am not very clear about this.

Can you tell us about the hard drive? The hard drives containing the mainland readers information. Did Lee Bo take the hard drive?

He copied it. As I know he copied.

But not the hard drive?

The hard drive stayed at the bookstore

So has it been taken into the mainland or not?

No.

So it is still in your hands?

Yes, I am keeping it

So I want to ask the central government

I dont want to give a bad impression to mainland Chinese people, that I would give such half copy [evidence] to the Chinese government, I did not want [them to think] that.

Is it true that without the hard copy there would not be enough evidence to [interrupted by Lam]?

I do not know that. I do not understand law.

Does the central government have information about your clients?

Pardon?

Does the central government now have information about the people who you sent books to?

Yes, because Lee Bo copied the files for them. They showed the files to me in Ningbo, asked me to confirm them.

How many people were in the files?

I estimated it must have been about 500 to 600 people. As for books, they counted, there were more than 4000.

Were those information about mainland readers or Hong Kong readers?

Both. But majority were mainland readers.

Did they tell you they were going to find these people?

No idea.

Mr Lam what is your plan to ensure your own safety. You said you dont trust the police.

[Lam turns to Ho] Ho: I think today Mr Lam has told us his situation in this press conference. If anything happens to him, it wont be that he took a shampoo boat back to the mainland. (A shampoo boat is a boat running illegally between Guangdong and Hong Kong on which passengers can solicit prostitutes. This is a reference to lawmaker Ng Leung-sings earlier comment that the five booksellers were caught on such boats.) You would know what happened to him.

Ho: I believe we are an open society. Media workers, you have the freedom and obligation to cover many important events comprehensively. I hope, I believe that your attention is the best protection for Mr Lam, and me also.

Has anyone told you to admit that everything was Guis fault?

What they asked me to admit was that I mailed the books. I did mail the books.

After this incident, do you have anything to say to the Hong Kong people?

Er I hope Hongkongers can say no to hegemony.

But do you think we can still say no under the current circumstances?

I can, why cant you?

Would you continue working in the publishing industry?

Its possible I may.

Mr Lam will you seek political refuge elsewhere?

I am a Hongkonger, born and raised here. I dont need to leave Hong Kong.

Do you have regrets about all this, about sending books to mainland?

Why regret? Sending books is legal in Hong Kong. If they think I broke the law then [approach me] through legal means. [They] shouldnt have detained me. This I cannot accept. Hong Kong is a society ruled by law.

Mr Lam do you have your identification papers? You said they were taken away from you.

They gave them back to me when they let me go. They gave me back my HKID card. The home return permit I didnt want.

Does your family know you were going to hold this press conference?

I called my wife and my sister just now.

Do you worry about their safety?

They should be fine. I am not that worried.

There has been a rumour that the authorities in mainland arranged for you to work in a library. Could you tell us about that?

The library was just a place for me to spend my time.

Where was it?

It was the Shaoguan Library.

Albert, now you have evidence about what really happened in this case, what are you going to do to pursue justice?

Ho: First of all, I think theres a blatant non-compliance on the part of the mainland authority in failing to provide information about Hong Kong citizens being put under compulsory criminal measures in China, OK? With all particulars as soon as reasonably recognised. In fact he has been confined for some many months before information that he was under compulsory measure was notified to the Hong Kong government.

Ho: And in fact a lot of material information was missing, such as the reason for the compulsory criminal measure, place where the measure was put in place and also the reason, ok? So I think the Hong Kong government should follow up and ask for a full account as to why there was such a blatant non-compliance.

Ho: And secondly, we are of course still very concerned about Mr Lee Bo, who obviously had been kidnaped and forced to go to the border to the mainland. This matter is not closed and we got to pursue further until a satisfactory explanation is given to us.

Ho: Thirdly about his personal safety. I dont think from what he told us he committed any offence on the mainland. All the books were mailed out from Hong Kong. OK? All the books were published in Hong Kong. And within the territory of Hong Kong all these acts are lawful. So theres no reason he should be detained, or threatened to be prosecuted for certain acts committed in Hong Kong, which are perfectly lawful.

Ho: I think again the mainland government ought to explain. I think everybody, every hong kong citizen, including the media should keep an eye on I and Mr Lam, make sure he wont suffer the same situation, the same experience as Mr Lee Bo had painfully suffered a few months ago.

Ho: So I think his safety should be protected by all Hong Kong people. All of us should be committed to keeping a close watch and concern for his family. One by one Please listen to me and follow the rules.

Mr Lam, Lee Bo has told the media that he voluntarily returned to the mainland. But you just said he was taken away forcefully. How did you know that?

I talked to him about this. In private he admitted to have been kidnapped.

When did he tell you and under what circumstances?

I didnt ask him when it happened. I asked him this morning.

So you asked him this morning?

He didnt tell me directly.

Does he know you were going to hold a press conference?

He didnt know.

What do you mean he didnt tell you directly? How did he tell you?

He told it in passing that he was taken up there from Hong Kong.

Illegally taken away?

I dont know if it was legal.

You said you struggled for two days thinking whether to tell your story. What was your struggle like? Did the 6000 protesters give you hope and courage? I also want to ask, whats your plan to protect yourself now?

Lets see if the Hong Kong government can protect me. I really havent slept in the past two days watching videos; they touched me a lot. I really think Hong Kong people should come out. Because this is not just my own business, its all of your business.

Did Lee Bo say specifically he was taken away by mainland officers?

No he did not.

How did you ask him and how did he answer?

He told it in passing when he was talking about something else, he didnt specify.

So he was taken away against his will?

Of course.

Do you believe it was mainland police [that took him away]?

No idea.

I apologise if you already answered this in Cantonese, but when you and your colleagues first went missing, the loudest concern in Hong Kong was that it was an unprecedented violation of One Country, Two Systems, Do you agree with this interpretation and if so, what do you think this means for Hong Kongs freedoms?

Ho, translating for Lam: I agree. Their behaviour taking away five people secretly, its obviously [a violation of One Country, Two Systems. And their charge for us illegal publishing. We published and ran our business in Hong Kong without breaking any law, there shouldnt be any problem. I think they just confined us like this, its a violation of One Country, Two Systems.

Sorry can you summarise what he said?

Ho: He said that it was a blatant violation of One Country, Two Systems because the acts of mailing books because the act itself is not unlawful OK?

Ho: So um, he said it would pose a threat to the Hong Kong people that such acts are taken as criminal acts in mainland China.

Did Lee Bo tell you anything about his plan for the future or about the other colleagues situation today?

No. He wishes this would end soon.

Did he say anything about what to do with the bookstore?

He said the bookstore would be taken over, by that Mr Chan. And he said the lease would be extended but whether the money is from Mr Chan, this I dont know.

Did Lee Bo tell you why he still wants to go back to the mainland, and if he is free right now?

They asked him to go back after managing some company affairs here. Thats what I heard.

Have you watched his TV interview? He said he smuggled himself up there. Just now you said you think he was spirited away. Why did he say that on TV?

You are asking me the same question as the one about why I admitted guilt on TV. Its the same thing, we were coerced.

Some people say that four of the five missing booksellers have returned to Hong Kong to cancel their missing persons reports so there is no need to investigate further, what do you think of this?

This incident obviously represents a breach of Hong Kongs human rights.

Maybe those people said that because they thought you wouldnt speak out.

Yeah maybe they think they have nothing to fear.

Did you receive any warning or any signs before this happened?

Personally I did not.

Did you sign any papers to admit guilt in China?

When they questioned meyes I did sign such papers.

Did you sign anything else?

Even if they asked you to sign a slavery contract you had to under those circumstances.

But did you sign?

Yes.

What else did you sign?

I dont know.

Did they say or imply that if you make the same offence again they would arrest you again?

I had a feeling they would.

So from their conversations with you, you sensed that

Yes.

Did they ask you not to hold press conferences? What did they say?

Yes, a Mr. Shi who questioned me told me [not to hold press conferences.]

What did he say exactly? How did he say it?

He told me if police ask me if I need protection I should say no. If they ask if I feel safe I should say yes.

What about interviews?

Of course no interviews.

Reporter, asking Ho: As lawmakers how would you follow up this case?

Ho: As I said before, the Lee Bo incident, and the whole Causeway Bay Books incident has shocked Hongkongers and made them angry, infuriated. I had never heard anyone was emigrating out of fear for their safety before. After the Lee Bo incident many said they had no choice but to emigrate.

Ho: I also heard many people said their families told them not to take part in politics, because the mainland government is capable of anything: they dont keep their words, they have no respect for the law, they can use their power to crush anything. So many people are scared. But as Mr Lam said before, 6,000 people came out to speak out for the bookstore. I believe they [the booksellers] must have been touched by this. But we know, those of us who spoke out, we were doing this for ourselves, not just for them.

Ho: Most of us are not leaving Hong Kong. Where can you go? Hong Kong is our home. I myself wont. So we need to, like Lam said, have the courage to say no to hegemony, to pursue the truth and protect each other.

Ho: This Lee Bo incident I think Beijing knows Hongkongers are very unhappy. There is also a lot of opposition internationally. Gui Minhais daughter testifying in the US also attracted a lot of attention around the world. Many people are asking if One Country, Two Systems has crumbled, if they can still come to Hong Kong to invest. These questions are being asked overseas.

Ho: So if the Beijing government does not want Hong Kong, as an international financial centre, to fail, does not want Hong Kong, as an international metropolis, to see its reputation go under overnight, it needs to immediately promise to stop doing this.

Ho: I told Lam today. Theres no need to be too scared, because if he is arrested, Hong Kong people wont accept it. If he suddenly goes missing again, there wont be another explanation. If anything happens, there is no other explanation.

Can you describe what you went through in those months of detention. Were you scared at the beginning? Were you angry? What did you do during those days? How did you spend your time? How has it impact you?

At the time of course I was scared, very scared and lost, felt lonely and helpless. Didnt know what they were going to do to me they werent going by the law. I didnt know if I would be tried. [long silence] I couldnt believe this had happened to me.

It did not feel real. I thought I was in an absurd place. I even hoped what was happening was a dream, not reality.

As a Hong Kong citizen I am a free person. I had never broken the law in Hong Kong. For, as I see it, no reason at all, they just jailed me for five months, I couldnt take a walk, couldnt read the news, couldnt [inaudible]. And the environment I was put in, everything was babyproofed, all desks and chairs were wrapped in soft padding.

The water tap was wrapped in plastic paper. What were they afraid of? They were afraid that people would kill themselves after going crazy because of the long confinement.

It was really obvious. They wanted to keep you there until you go crazy. Such measures prove that in the past people had [killed themselves]. For example the toothbrush they give you, it was a small one but it was tied to a string. Every time you brush your teeth, a guard is holding that string. You have to return the toothbrush to him after you finish brushing your teeth. Because they are afraid you would kill yourself with that. Did you know this? No?

For example when they give you a nail clipper, the nail clipper is also tied to a string; they are afraid you would swallow that to kill yourself. Their suicide proof measures were done very well. But the more I thought about it the more I was afraid. Why would anyone kill themselves? Unless they have been confined for so long they go crazy. Only insane people would do this. Then [a person] would [commit suicide]. Theyre very experienced, I could see this.

So during that period you have not had any contact with the outside world?

No, no news at all.

Did they do anything to you that scared you?

Psychological torture.

How? Did they say anything to you?

During the later period, there were two who were sent from Beijing. I dont know what their identities were, they said I was under control.

Under control?

The government will not show mercy when it comes to people like us. They scolded us so much it put me in a state of confusion. It made me really confused. Selling books can also be put under control.

The place where you were held captive, was there anyone nearby, what was the inside of the place like?

There were about 12 people, they were split into two teams and would watch over me 24 hours a day.

Ho: Were there any other prisoners?

In the other room, according to my knowledge, there were, but I dont know what people were being held in it, because we were never allowed out of our rooms.

Were there any windows? Could you see what is outside of the window?

[Outside] the window was something like a detention house, and there were similar rooms.

What about the place you were located at?

Mine was just one of them. I counted about 20 windows in the building, so about 20 rooms. So if they were holding people prisoner I could see washing basins, and towel, toothbrushes and toothpastes inside the washing basin. Sometimes they would ask me to go out for an interrogation I dont know where to and they would blindfold me, and take me out. And out of the corner of my eye, in the rooms next door, I could see that there were washing basins and towels, so evidently they were keeping people captive in there. Maybe its the legal procedures they believe in and theyve demonstrated that.

What kind of place were you being held in?

A room.

What kind of building?

Was it a detention house?

I dont know if it was a detention house. I have no idea.

What organisation? What unit?

There was no information at all.

You mentioned that you were interrogated. How many times were you interrogated? Youve mentioned that people were sent from Beijing to question you and scold you. Do you know what their identities were?

I dont know. I dont even know what their surnames were. They dont tell you.

What did they say, to make you feel terrible?

They think that publishing these books was [an act of] slandering their leader, that it hurt his reputation. They think its an act of spreading rumours to create trouble.

Do you feel like they were brainwashing you?

They werent brainwashing me, they were just scolding me. I should succumb to authoritarian rule.

I want to ask you about your interrogation. Where did it happen?

Where I slept. There was a table, theres a file and theres a computer. And then there was a period when they would produce a document of the answers I gave and the process of the interrogation, and they would make a record, and ask me to sign it, put my thumbprint on it and confirm.

Like Lee Bo, with the charges laid and and assisting investigation.

Lee Bo? I dont know anything about this.

But you said, the documents they asked you to sign, the affirmations and testimony, does it match up with what you have told them?

They said I was running a business illegally. So even if I didnt admit to that, I still have to sign.

Any impression of how many times you underwent an interrogation?

In terms of leaving the room, maybe two times, but in the room I think maybe 20 to 30 times.

So every week?

Sometimes less frequently, sometimes three to four times a week, sometimes not even once over the span of two weeks.

So they inform you of [when] the process [takes place]?

They inform me, interrogations are conducted, they ask me questions about what happened. Then I answer.

How long was each questioning?

Each time, half an hour to 45 minutes. Sometimes longer, maybe longer than an hour.

What if you didnt answer or refused to

I had to cooperate, there was no other way. I dont know what consequences there were if I didnt answer them. I was in a state of fear.

So you trust them?

Theres no other way except to trust them.

Did you go to the public security bureau at any point or was it all in the room?

Yes.

Have you asked to contact your family or see a lawyer during the process?

They requested me not to speak to a lawyer or my family. The first day, they made me promise and sign a document.

So you didnt dare bring it up again [while you were detained]?

There was no point in bringing it up. Because according to the declaration I signed there was no point mentioning it again, I gave up [the right to do so anyway].

About the bookstore, if Mr Chan had taken it over, why has he not shown up?

I suggest you ask him.

About the Central Special Unit, during the whole process they were in charge? You said a department head came along with you what department it was?

I do not know. What I know is the person taking my statement, there was someone who said he was the Central Special Unit. When I was held by the Shenzhen immigration, when I was being questioned that night, he was [from] the Central Special Unit. And this guy, back in 2013 when I was crossing the immigration *carrying books* and I was caught by him, this young person was the one in charge of making a written statement. Because he recognised me and I recognised him in 2013 when I was carrying books across the border, he was in charge of making a record. I think his surname was Lee.

Was he a part of the public security, his identity, when he was making a written record?

Do you mean 2013? I think he was from the National Security Bureau just from what I remember.

You said department head so should be from the Central Special Unit?

He should be, from the natural understanding of things, but whether the department head, I dont Its what I heard from Lee Bo.

After so many questionings, during the process apart from asking you to hand over the information, what were the questions about?

They mostly want to know who wrote the books that were being published. They gave me a list of authors names and asked me if I knew them.

They wanted to know the identities?

They wanted me to provide information in detail.

He asked you to disclose their identities?

He demanded that I disclose in detail. For example there was one author I recognised called Liu Lu. I recognised him because there was a book published. I skimmed through it it was a book about the human rights situation. Of course I answered directly, but I dont know much about Liu Lu.

Mr. Lam, youve been detained for eight months how is your physical and mental state? Have you lost weight?

I used to work 13 hours a day, but when they detained me I didnt need to work. So my physical health is actually better than before. But Ive faced great mental stress.

How great?

I didnt know how they would deal with me they didnt go through legal means. What evidence was there to prove that I violated Chinese law? I wasnt breaking the law in Hong Kong. Why would I have broken the law once I crossed the border?

How has this incident changed your opinion of the Chinese and Hong Kong governments?

All I can say is that One Country, Two Systems exists only in name. Because if they can kidnap Lee Bo, then they are enforcing law extraterritorially. But you have to ask Lee Bo to know more about this.

Mr. Lam, you mentioned that you distrust the Hong Kong government.

You have not asked the police to protect you.

Have you considered moving abroad? Or will you stay in Hong Kong?

I am born and bred here. Ive seen Hong Kong grow since the days when we had nothing. Some families had no telephones or televisions. Hong Kong is really my home our home. I have no plans to leave Hong Kong.

Over these few months, apart from the Central Special Unit, have any other people disclosed the identities of government departments or agencies that they work for to you?

They revealed to me they were from the Central Special Unit. But whether they were from the Ministry of State Security or the Public Service Bureau I didnt know.

They didnt tell you during the interrogations?

I asked but they wouldnt answer. They just demanded I sign papers.

Mr. Lam, your family members have been speaking to the newspapers and television about your situation. Have you had the chance to speak to them about what to do next and how they can help you more?

No I havent discussed with them yet. I contacted Albert Ho before I called them, so no.

So you havent seen your family yet?

I ate dinner at my sisters last night and saw my wife. I ate dinner with my sister the night before as well. So Ive seen my family twice.

And your son?

They have their own livesbut weve spoken on the phone.

Have you seen Cheung Chi-ping and Lui Por?

I wasnt allowed to. Ive only seen Lee Bo.

You werent allowed to see them after you returned to Hong Kong?

As far as I know, I wasnt allowed.

What do you think would be the effect on Hong Kongs freedoms, if you hadnt come out to speak today?

Its for the best that I spoke outIt shows that there are still people who speak out in Hong Kong. If I didnt speak out, Hong Kongs freedoms of speech and press would suffer suppression in silence. This is something I dont want.

Youve returned to Hong Kong for two days. Have you spoken to Lee Bo or Cheung Chi-ping?

I spoke to Lee Bo when I gave him the computer.

Lui Por?

Lee [Bo]. Lee Bo is one of the shareholders of [Mighty Current]. As for Lui Por, as far as I know, hes currently doing something somewhere else.

In mainland China?

No, in Hong Kong, from what Ive heard.

You said you heard a womans voice outside your residence just now. Was that your wife?

I didnt hear clearly, Im not sure.

Did you know what she was talking about?

Im not sure.

Could you describe the people who interrogated you? Were they in uniform?

No uniform.

Were they dressed nicely, or?

One of them was dressed nicely. One surnamed Shi treated me very well. I want to say that Im grateful. But I want to call on the Chinese government to treat him nicely. Because this incident could implicate him. And I have a girlfriend in mainland China. I also hoped that she will be treated nicely.

How did you do what you did [over these past two days] in Hong Kong?

Like when you [turned back] at Kowloon Tong station

I dont know if anyone followed me. I just exited the station gates. I just thought about the questions Ive been contemplating over the last two nights.

Ho: I believe that [the authorities did this to avoid us accusing them of extraterritorial law enforcement. Some people might have been watching [over Lam] but they can say they are not enforcing law. I think they are doing this deliberately. Now that [Lam] is in Hong Kong, there appears to be no interference with what he says or does, for the time being. Thats the truth, I have to say.

Mr. Lam, what are your plans for the future? Whether related to this incident or yourself, personally.

I hope that Hong Kong will become better. I hope everyone in Hong Kong can make their voices heard.

Regarding your title, you are the head of the Causeway Bay Bookstore?

Yes.

Ho: Thank you everyone. Lets give him some rest.

Mr Lam, thank you.

Thank you all.

(SCMP) June 18, 2016.

As he led an estimated 6,000 outraged Hongkongers in a protest against Beijings alleged violent suppression of free speech, Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee urged everyone in the city to fight for themselves.

Lam said on Saturday that he is not worried about his personal safety because he knows that he is supported by the people of Hong Kong.

The bookstore is located in Hong Kong, a place where the freedom of speech and of publishing is protected. And the country is making use of violence to destroy it, because the country wants to tighten the freedom of Hong Kong people gradually, Lam said. I hope that, after this incident, if we are ever to face other incidents in the future, Hong Kong people need to come out again. Dont let it end here.

Lam made the remarks before a march from Causeway Bay to the central governments liaison office began. Organisers estimated that 6,000 people took part, after the march ended before 6pm.

As Lam and marchers reached Southorn Playground in Wan Chai, several protesters from pro-Beijing Voice of Loving Hong Kong shouted: You are anti-China and messing up Hong Kong. They brought a banner, which read: It was right to arrest Lam, it was shameful for anti-China politicians to accuse Beijing.

Lam and chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, Albert Ho Chun-yan, left the protest at Admiralty after marching for more than an hour.

Several pan-democrat lawmakers continued, and reached Central at 4.30pm.

At 5.40pm, the procession arrived at the Beijing governments liaison office in Sai Wan, after a 160-minute walk.

The Labour Partys Cyd Ho said: Although this march was announced with less than 24 hours notice ... and there was the rain and wind [this morning], you have come to respond to Lams bravery, to defend our two systems, and to stand up for our personal safety.

We dont know if we will face any consequences tomorrow, but we know ... every difficulty we faced will build a stronger foundation for our struggle, Ho said.

Lam attended the march after making explosive claims earlier this week about how he was kidnapped by the mainlands secretive central investigation team while crossing the border last October. Lam has also said that his associate Lee Po has told him he was kidnapped from Hong Kong last December.

In response to Lees claims on Saturday morning that he never told Lam he was kidnapped, Lam said: Although Lee Po is now in Hong Kong, he is being controlled because he has family members in the mainland. I knew he has said a lot of things against his will.

(EJ Insight) Lam Wing-kee epitomizes the spirit of Hong Kong people. By Wong On-yin. June 22, 2016.

Ive said before that Hong Kong citizenship can sometimes offer a person more protection and reassurance than what people holding other foreign passports can get if they fall in trouble in China.

Lam Wing-kee, the co-owner of Causeway Bay Bookstore who had been detained in the mainland for more than 8 months, and who is a 100 percent Hong Kong citizen, has come home in one piece and is unafraid to speak up.

That is in contrast to his fellow booksellers who are either staying mum after their release, or are still unaccounted for.

The developments surrounding Lams colleagues Lee Bo and Gui Minhai, both of whom have foreign passports, show that an overseas citizenship is of no help when you are on Chinese soil and the mainlands secret police is after you.

As I was writing this article I learnt that Lam had given an interview to Channel News Asia, during which he told the reporter in no uncertain terms that he is for the independence of Hong Kong.

I heard that TVB had also arranged for an interview with him, but cancelled it at the last minute as it got cold feet, probably due to the fear that Lam might drop another bombshell during the interview which could land the network in trouble.

The video clip of Lams interview with Channel News Asia went viral on the internet shortly after it was aired, and the bookseller has become talk of the town for his unwavering advocacy of Hong Kong independence.

Thanks to the internet, the traditional print and broadcast media no longer have the monopoly on the dissemination of information, which means media owners and the authorities can no longer control the public discourse like they did before.

The information superhighway now enables people from around the world to stay tuned to up-to-the-minute reports on basically everything that is going on across the globe. Media blackouts imposed by dictators, to keep the public in the dark about controversial issues, no longer work.

During his interview, Lam used vivid metaphors to describe Hong Kong-China relations, winning praise from many viewers.

The relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland is like that of a forced marriage, Lam said.

We were forced to marry China against our will, and almost 20 years on it has become crystal clear that it hasnt been a happy marriage. So why dont we just divorce and move on separately, he said.

Chinas state police might have thought that Lam would be just another pushover like Lee Bo, and that he will zip his lips and keep a low profile for the rest of his life. Thats why they let him go home.

What they didnt know is that Lam was probably just pretending to be submissive when he was in custody in the mainland in order to fool the communist authorities into believing that he had converted and hence it was safe to send him home.

That has proved to be one heck of a masterful trick.

The political officer who signed off on the paper to release Lam would have never imagined that an old guy like Lam was putting on an act for eight months in order to get released early.

Lam always kept in mind that he had a more important mission to complete, which is, to tell the entire world the stark truth the Chinese Communist Partys disrespect for basic human rights hasnt changed a bit, despite all the nations material wealth and progress over the years.

Lams unwavering determination and courageous act epitomizes the go-getting spirit, righteousness, resourcefulness, endurance and mental toughness that define Hong Kong people.

He has not only set a good example to citizens in Hong Kong who are in their 50s or 60s like myself, but also inspired our young people who want to make a difference.

Hong Kong independence is no longer a topic restricted to a small minority in the city, but has instead become a legitimate subject for open debate in mainstream society.

Following Lams bold remarks, one cannot avoid or push this subject aside anymore.

Videos:

Apple Daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUHj5_KOJQA (Full version, 1:23:33)

Internet comments:

- Even if you don't understand Cantonese, you should watch the video of the press conference for the body language.


Left: Lam Wing-kee who was telling the 'truth'
Right: Lee Bo who was telling 'lies'

- Lam Wing-kee said that he does not understand why the Chinese government would treat him in this manner. He does not believe that this concerns just himself personally or Causeway Books. Instead, this concerns all of Hong Kong society. He says that the Chinese government has pushed the people of Hong Kong up against the wall with nowhere to go.

Ha ha ha. There are numerous bookstores all over Hong Kong. So why did the Chinese government target Causeway Bay Books and the five booksellers? What were you people selected? You have said nothing at all. How can you go around accusing the Chinese government?

- Lam said that they were publishing/selling books that tell the truth about China. That is not an opinion that is shared by most others. (SCMP) January 5, 2016: Some of the banned books, especially those concerning politicians who are still alive, contain sensational, or even fabricated, elements intended only to grab eyeballs. They are like entertainment magazines people read them to pry into celebrity affairs, but do not take them seriously.

- Does Lam Wing-kee really not understand what he did? He sold unauthorized books in mainland China over an extended period of time, and he was detained in mainland China. If I may make an analogy. In Hong Kong, it is legal to sell Nazi flags, insignia and uniforms. In Germany, Strafgesetzbuch section 86a prohibits such activities. If a Hong Kong resident brings a trunk full of such materials into Germany for sales, he will be arrested, charged and convicted.

- As another example, marijuana is legalized in Holland but if a Dutch citizen faces the death penalty if he brings drugs into Singapore.

- These books are 'banned' in China not just because of the contents. In China, books are are legally published by a proper publishing company which have International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN) allocated to them. Any book published in China without a Chinese ISBN is illegal. So if you cannot get an ISBN for your book, you can say that it is 'banned' from publishing.

Why won't a publishing house publish these books? Do you really think freedom of expression covers libel, defamation and slander anywhere in the world?

- Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 10. Any person who commits a crime outside PRC territory and according to this law bear criminal responsibility may still be dealt with according to this law even if he has been tried in a foreign country; however, a person who has already received criminal punishment in a foreign country may be exempted from punishment or given a mitigated punishment.

Article 103. Whoever organizes, plots, or acts to split the country or undermine national unification, the ringleader, or the one whose crime is grave, is to be sentenced to life imprisonment or not less than ten years of fixed-term imprisonment; other active participants are to be sentenced to not less than three but not more than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment; and other participants are to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights.

Whoever instigates to split the country and undermine national unification is to be sentenced to not more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights; ringleaders or those whose crimes are grave are to be sentenced to not less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment.

Article 105. Whoever organizes, plots, or acts to subvert the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system, the ringleaders or those whose crimes are grave are to be sentenced to life imprisonment, or not less than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment; active participants are to be sentenced from not less than three years to not more than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment; other participants are to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights.

Whoever instigates the subversion of the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system through spreading rumors, slandering, or other ways are to be sentenced to not more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, control, or deprivation of political rights; the ringleaders and those whose crimes are grave are to be sentenced to not less than five years of fixed-term imprisonment.

- Lam said that he had previously been detained while bringing books into China. So he knew that this was a crime under Chinese law. So what was he and his colleagues doing? They were bringing in large number of books from Hong Kong into China for sales/distribution.

It was not the case that Causeway Bay Books took telephone/online book orders and shipped the books through Hong Kong  Post or other courier services. If that were the case, they might argue that they were Hongkongers doing what is legally allowed in Hong Kong.

That would not work, because a parcel containing a single book mailed from Hong Kong to mainland China would likely be opened for inspection by Chinese Customs and be confiscated.

Instead, the bookstore workers (Lam Wing-kee, Lui Por and Cheung Jiping) shipped the books to Shenzhen in bulk cartons which were less likely to be inspected. There, they removed the covers of the banned books and glued in covers of innocuous mainland Chinese titles with proper ISBN's. That is the nature of their operation. They were selling and distributed unauthorized books in China in order to make money.

These details came from Cheung Jiping previously. Lam Wing-kee has completely avoided this matter during the press conference today and only talked about wanting to bring the truth to the people of China. Nobody in the media seemed to remember what Cheung Jiping said either.

- Lam Wing-kee said that he was detained in Lohu and admitted he brought banned books into mainland China. When a Hong Kong citizen breaks mainland Chinese law and is detained in mainland China, why is that a violation of One Country Two Systems? Are Hongkongers exempt from criminal charges on mainland China?

Conversely if a mainlander robs a bank in Hong Kong and is arrested, should he be charged in Hong Kong? There should be a symmetry in how the Two Systems work.

- A recent case is that of a mainland woman assaulting a Hong Kong woman in Hong Kong. She was arrested and held in Hong Kong while awaiting trial here in Hong Kong.

- The Hong Kong localists say that they need to defend Hong Kong against the parallel traders who buy infant milk formula, personal products, etc cheaply in Hong Kong and bring it to sell expensively in mainland China. But this is exactly what Lam Wing-kee was doing -- he was buying banned books cheaply from publishers in Hong Kong and selling them expensively in mainland China for profit.

- How was Lam Wing-kee arrested? Lui Por and Cheung Jiping who live in Shenzhen were both arrested in mainland China first. Lam Wing-kee was in mainland China at the time. Whether Lam Wing-kee knew about Lui and Cheung or not, he tried to cross back over to Hong Kong. He presented his Home Visit Permit to the Chinese immigration inspector, who summoned officers to detain him. So his case is not one of cross-border arrest.

Lam Wing-Kee said that this morning Lee Bo told him that he returned to China against his will. This is hearsay and what was said or heard is unclear as well. This will have to wait for Lee Bo to explain himself.

- (Oriental Daily) June 17, 2016.

This morning, Lee Bo (=Paul Lee) responded on Facebook:

Originally I don't want to say anything more but I need to clarify some of the things that Lam Wing-kee said:
1. I have never used any computers over at Causeway Bay Books, and I have never printed any customer list. Obviously I could not have handed over any customer list to the Chinese public security bureau.
2. When I spoke to Lam Wing-kee, I never mentioned anything about how I got back to the mainland, and I did not say anything to him in the order of "taken back to the mainland against my will."
3. During this period, I cooperated with the Ningbo Public Security Bureau. I have never heard of any "central investigation unit."

A large number of reporters waited outside Lee Bo's home this morning. Lee Bo: "Everything that needs to be said has been said. I don't want to say anything more. I hope that you can give me and my family some peace and privacy."

- Just in case you don't understand, here is the summation:

- Lee Bo has relatives living in mainland China, so it is understandable that he has to lie.

- Lam Wing-kee has a girlfriend living in mainland China, so it is understandable that he tells the truth.

- (Speakout.hk) The "Central Investigation Team" came into being during the Cultural Revolution era. According to the memoirs of Wu Faxian (who was the Chief of Staff of the Fourth Field Army led by Lin Biao), there were 14 central investigation teams organized under 3 offices. The more famous ones are the Liu Shaoqi case team, the Peng Dehuai case team, the He Long case team, etc. With the end of of the Cultural Revolution and the vindications of various falsely constructed cases, the Central Work Conference abolished the organization. It is hard to imagine that this Causeway Bay Books case could cause the revival of that Cultural Revolution-era products. And if Lam Wing-kee says that the Central Government thinks that he is as important as the likes of Liu Shaoqi, Peng Dehuai and He Long, then there was no way that they let him come back to Hong Kong.

(TVB) June 18, 2016.

As Lee Bo left his North Point residence this morning, he said: "Yes, I have met with Lam Wing-kee. But during our meeting, I never told him about how I went back to mainland China. Therefore I deny what he said about me."

On the subject of the customer list, Lee Bo said: "That's something else that must be said. I can solemnly say that I have never used any computer at Causeway Bay Books. Therefore it is fictional when you say that I took the information to mainland China. And about what he called the 'central investigation team.' His information may be different from mine. I have only dealt with people from the Ningbo City Public Security Bureau. I don't know anything about any 'central investigation team.' I ask people that you can say whatever you want about yourself and I won't comment. But please don't get me into this. Everything about Lee Bo should be based upon what Lee Bo himself says."

He added: "I was doing quite well recently. But the last two days have been very vexing. I hope that you will spare me and let me have a little bit of freedom. Otherwise I am like sitting in jail." He said that he is not saying that Lam Wing-kee is lying. "I never said that. He can tell his story. I don't want to appear in his story." "Mr. Lam's story is his story. I don't have any friendship with him." Lee declined to answer the other questions.

(Oriental Daily) June 18, 2016.

Former Causeway Bay Books part-time employee Woo Chih-wai was interviewed last night and quoted Lee Bo as saying that he went to mainland China by land, as opposed to sea or air. Today Lee Bo responded on Facebook:

Woo Chih-wai totally put his own words into my mouth based upon an imaginary Q&A with himself. I know about this "unlimited imagination" of his, and that is why I won't discuss any sensitive topic with him. Please don't believe him! I plead with everybody: You can say anything you want, but please don't attribute what you want to say to me. Please!

(Sing Tao) June 18, 2016

Causeway Bay Books manager Lui Por was interviewed by Sing Tao today. Lui said that Lam was lying and that Lam was being manipulated by somebody behind the scene. Lui said that he was arrested on October 24, 2015 and taken to Ningbo city. Lui did not go anywhere else. During this time, he had to sign legal papers addressed to the Ningbo City Public Security Bureau. He said that the public security bureau allowed him to contact his family by telephone and Weixin. Lui was asked if he was willing to do media interviews, so he presented the facts and his thoughts in front of the camera. Lui Por said that he was definitely not coerced or led to follow any direction or script. He said that he met with Lee Bo, Lam Wing Kee and Cheung Chiping in Shenzen in March this year. At the time, Lam Wing-kee told him that the public security bureau treated him very well. He also met with Lee Bo in Hong Kong. He has never heard Lee Bo say that he was involuntarily taken back to mainland China. Lui said that he never imagined that Lam Wing-kee is such a dishonest person. Lui Por said that Lam is distorting the facts because he is being manipulated by certain persons with ulterior motives behind the scene. Lui said that Lam is shameless for doing this, and he would have the minimal conscience of a Hongkonger.

Cheung Chiping was also interviewed by Sing Tao Daily. He said that the four booksellers met in mainland China, and he heard Lam Wing-kee said that he didn't want to return to Hong Kong because of poor family relations over a long term and therefore he wanted the Public Security Bureau to help him with making a living in mainland China. He did not hear Lam Wing-kee talk about being forced to do anything.

- (Sing Tao) June 19, 2016. Shaoguan library director Chen Weiqing was interviewed by Sing Tao. He said that Lam claimed to under house arrest between April and June this year, but in fact Lam was working at the Shaoguan Library. It was around the Qing Ming Festival when Chen took in Lam: "I thought that he was alone in an unfamiliar place and I took pity on this jobless old man. I took him in to help me at the library." Lam said that the other library workers can testify that Lam was in good shape and had actually gained weight. Chen also showed some photos of outings with Lam. Chen said that Lam even had a girlfriend in Shaoguan. Chen would like to confront Lam about how he was treated during this three months in Shaoguan.

Phoenix TV video: https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/1001628893219509/

Chen Weiqing said that the Shaoguan Library is equipped with closed-circuit television and he can show the videos of how Lam Wing-kee was treated at work. Chen said that Lam was very happy in Shaoguan and even spoke about buying a home and living there. Chen said that Lam never told him that he was out on bail after committing crimes. In retrospect, Chen thought Lam was very frightening and hypocritical, especially because Lam went to tell lies at the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

- (Apple Daily) June 18, 2016. According to an informed source, Beijing went after the five booksellers in order to see which author leaked the plans of Xi Jinping to purge the People's Liberation Army. Unfortunately, this has turned in a debacle. Right now, Beijing's solution to defuse the ticking bomb is to escalate the smearing campaign against Lam Wing-kee. According to one individual in politics, "the smear campaign will go full force, using character assassination to make the citizens and the foreign media not trust him. At the very least, they want to make people suspect Lam of political motives." However, this individual did not think that the people of Hong Kong would believe this.

- Fuck! Please stop changing the script! Several months ago, Apple Daily swore that Beijing went after the five booksellers because of the book on the Six Romances In The Life of Xi Jinping. Even you must have forgotten about what you wrote before, because you are now talking about Xi Jinping vs. People's Liberation Army.

- "An informed source"? "One individual involved in politics"? This means that the report is fictional.

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2016.

Today Lam Wing-kee said that Lee Bo never said that he was taken away outside the Mighty Current warehouse in Chai Wan, nor did he say that he was taken away against his will to the mainland. But he remembered that Lee Bo said that "someone from up there went with him." Based upon the tone of voice, Lam Wing-kee determined Lee Bo was taken away against his will.

Lam Win-kee also said that he did not know if there is any other equipment in the office. When asked what office and what equipment he was asking about, Lam said that he doesn't know.

As to how he learned that he was detained by the central investigation team, he said that he encountered a national security agent whom he met previously when stopped in Shenzhen and this time the person said: "This is the second time. The central investigation unit will not hold back on you."

(Wen Wei Po) June 19, 2016.

Earlier Lam Wing-kee said that Causeway Bay Books shareholder Lee Bo told him about "being taken away against his will." Lee Bo came out and emphasized that he never said anything of the sort. Yesterday, Lam Wing-kee changed his statement and said that he only determined from Lee's tone of voice that he must have been "involuntarily" taken away. Lam admitted that Lee did not use those words.

Yesterday, Lam Wing-kee was asked by a Hong Kong news agency about the circumstances under which Lee Bo told Lam about "being taken away against his will." Lam said that he met Lee Bo and his wife. During the discussion, Lee Bo said that someone wanted him to go to mainland China. The reporter asked about the specific details. Lam replied: "It was not specific. Lee said that someone went with him. I can't remember what he said afterwards."

The reporter reminded Lam Wing-kee that he said during the initial press conference that "Lee Bo was taken back against his will by somebody." Lam said: "Very clearly, I heard it from his tone of voice." The reporter wondered: "Tone of voice? He didn't say it directly?" Lam admitted: "Tone of voice. He did not say it directly."

- Fuck! I can tell from the tone of your voice that you are ______________ (fill in as you wish).

Several months ago, the League in Defense of Hong Kong's Freedoms held a demonstration march holding a banner:
We are all Lee Bo
Today Lee Bo, tomorrow you and I

This week, the Democratic Party held a demonstration march holding a banner:
We are all Lam Wing-kee.

- Holding out a "We are all Lee Bo" today would be highly inappropriate because he is now a pariah and a Hong Kong traitor.

- Is there anyway to recycle these banners? It seems such a waste to discard them after using them once (and they don't appear to be re-useable because of the changing realities).

- On the matter of the customer database, Lam Wing-kee's statements are very confusing. The critical issue is whether the Chinese government knows who the Causeway Bay Books customers are and hence take action.

Lam Wing-kee said that Lee Bo copied a hard drive of customer records in March to give to the Chinese government. The records include some 600 people, mostly mainlanders, and some 4,000 book titles. So this means that the Chinese government already has the information.

Lam said that he was asked to look through the records to identify customers. Is Lam Wing-kee the only person in the whole bookstore who can read and understand computer records? Or are certain details (real names, addresses, etc) stored only inside Lam's brain? So if Lam Wing-kee drops dead from a cardiac arrest, everything would be lost and the bookstore can cease all operations?

Normally, a customer database will contain: name, mailing address, telephone number, email, billing information, past transactions (ISBN, title, date, sales amount). If that is what the customer database looks like, the Chinese government knows everything already.

Lam also said that Causeway Bay Books is currently being operated by a mysterious Mr. Chan. Given that his known background is in operating saunas/spas, it is speculated that he is acting at the behest of some unknown mainland Chinese party. This means that the Chinese government has access to everything still there.

From SCMP:

I was afraid my readers would be affected, that they would think Hong Kong people or I sold them out, he said. But I did not do so Now they were doing something even worse asking me to bring them a hard drive as evidence.

Lam said he was supposed to return to the mainland on Thursday and hand over the hard drive to a central special unit. However, after seeing the support from Hongkongers, he hesitated at the Kowloon Tong MTR station en route to the border.

What is on the hard drive that is not already copied by Lee Bo? Why is turning over the actual hard disk "something even worse"? What, if anything, is on the hard drive that Lee Bo hadn't copied?

If the hard drive belongs to Causeway Bay Books, it should be located inside the bookstore which has been closed and under the control of the mysterious Mr. Chan. Why do they need Lam Wing-kee to travel to Hong Kong and retrieve it himself? Lee Bo could have done so himself. This press conference only generated a ton of questions.

It just makes you wonder how much Lam Wing-kee understands operations.

- (Initium) Lam Wing-kee siad that the mainland authorities demanded that he bring the computer hard disk containing customer information to them. In January this year, Initium published an exclusive report about the mysterious Mr. Chan who took over the bookstore in November in order to obtain the customer information. We have now learned that Mr. Chan came back to Hong Kong  on the night of June 15 after vacationing in Pushan (South Korea). Mr. Chan then went to Causeway Bay Books, took the computer hard disk, handed it to Lee Bo who handed it to Lam Wing-kee to bring back to mainland China.

With due respect, this is making less and less sense. Why can't they just hand it over to any agent (of the central investigation team)? What is the point of specifically requiring Lam Wing-kee and only him to bring it?

- (Apple Daily) June 20, 2016.

Lam said that he was permitted to go back to Hong Kong to do two things. Firstly, he has to go see Lee Bo and fetch the hard disk that contains the customer records. "Because I was the person who entered the information and I personally mailed the books, so the evidence is more reliable if I brought it over personally." Secondly, he wants to meet with his elder sister. Lam wanted to gain more time to stay in Hong Kong. On June 15 when he met with Lee Bo, he brought the wrong hard disk. He waited until late night before telling Lee. This let him stay in Hong Kong for an extra day.

On that day, he took the subway to Kowloon Tong in order to switch to East Rail to go to mainland China. "The pressure was very great. I knew it was wrong. I thought that I needed to stop." He wanted to smoke a cigarette. He ended up smoking three cigarettes. He thought for 30 minutes and decided to go home and think some more. He realized that he was being followed. He recognized that the person had been to the bookstore and has been following him. As soon as the person realized that Lam knew, he left. Lam decided to contact Democratic Party legislator Albert Ho. He held a press conference that evening.

Lam said that once he decided not to return to mainland China, he threw away the mobile phone that the mainland agents gave him because he was afraid of being tracked. His worries are not unfounded. Last November, his wife filed a missing person report with the Hong Kong Police. Still detained in Ningbo, Lam was told that "your son has just contacted a Legislative Councilor." Lam said that he was angry that his son was being followed and monitored on telephone.

- Tom Clancy is a better writer than this Apple Daily 'reporter.' This is not about the style, but the homework done to come up with seemingly convincing details.

- Did Lam Wing-kee actually say that "Because I was the person who entered the information and I personally mailed the books, so the evidence is more reliable if I brought it over personally"? How about familiarizing yourself with the rules of evidence first?

- Who has ever heard of the investigators in a case tell the defendant to go fetch a key piece of evidence himself? What if Lam Wing-kee just tossed the hard disk into Victoria Harbor? Then the agents can't prove that he committed any crimes, rights?

- On one hand, the Chinese Communists are lawless thugs. On the other hand, they want the evidence in a court trial to be reliable such that they asked the defendant to personally fetch it himself. Which is it?

- (Headline Daily) Based upon the various pieces of information that Lam Wing-kee provided about the surveillance on him, we concluded (1) the mainland agents are lousy; (2) he was not under close surveillance. Here are the details.

Lam Wing-kee believed that he was allowed to come back to Hong Kong because he was compliant during his time in mainland China. Two agents named Chan and Shi accompanied him on this trip.

He said that Chan and Shi used different passageways to enter Hong Kong, and they arranged to meet at the convenience store on the Hong Kong side after passing through. However, the two agents did not show up. But Chan and Shi continued to keep contact with Lam by mobile phone. They told him not to contact anyone; to tell them about any telephone calls he made. Lam said that these demands "obviously meant that they want to control me."

So according to Lam, these two Central Investigation Team agents actually believed that they can run remote control on Lam because they can count on him to provide all the details of all the contacts that he made. Aren't they being too simple and naive? Do they really believe that they can control someone by telephone? Did they ever consider the possibility that Lam may discard the phone and flee?

If Lam was tasked with bringing the all-important customer list back to mainland China, then these agents are even more incompetent than characters in a Stephen Chow comedy.

And if these agents are really as lousy as Lam described, the people of Hong Kong have nothing to fear from this 'powerful' government department from the 'powerful' nation.

- But previously, this is what Lam said: (Apple Daily) June 20, 2016. Lam said that his case was one of cross-border law enforcement. If the government is willing to air the closed-circuit videos at the border, he is willing to identify the people who cross over with him. "The problem is whether the Hong Kong government is willing to do that."

- Lam Wing-kee used the Immigration Department passage for Hong Kong residents whereas Mr. Chan and Mr. Shi would have to use the passage for mainlanders. They didn't come in at the same time down the same passage. What is the point of looking at the videos? Is Lam not even aware of this?

- (Wen Wei Po) June 22, 2016.

Yesterday Lam Wing-kee was on radio to overturn what he said at the initial press conference about tossing the mobile phone away in Kowloon Tong. He is now saying that he turned the mobile phone off in Kowloon Tong but kept it with him. After the press conference, he was worried that the mobile phone might still be tracked, so he destroyed it. "At the time, I was under a great deal of pressure. I was afraid that they may locate me. So I turned it off. But I am not very good with mobile phones, and I must have touched some control or the other because the mobile phone was on again. I turned it off once again. I put it in my pocket and I did not think about it. That evening, I saw that the mobile phone was still in pocket. When I got home, I got afraid of being tracked. So I immersed it under water in the bathroom. Later I got a relative to come and dismantle it."

Lam also claimed that the hard disk from the bookstore is still in his hands. The data stored included the personal information (name, address, mailing information) of the book buyers. He said that he was afraid that the hard disk may fall into the hands of the other side and becomes court evidence. The other side can also cause trouble for the buyers, or obtain information about the authors and sources from the database.

Lam Wing-kee admitted that his case is not cross-border law enforcement, because he was detained after he crossed into Lohu. But he said that when he came back to Hong Kong, he was accompanied by two members of the Central Investigation Team who used text messages to monitor him and attempted to control his actions in a way that is beyond their authority. "The people of Hong Kong can decide for themselves whether this is cross-border law enforcement."

- (Oriental Daily) June 22, 2016. Lam Wing-kee admitted that the sole piece of evidence against the "Central Investigation Team" has been destroyed by him. He explained that the mobile phone contained the records of how the team leader Mr. Chan and team member Mr. Shi were communicating with him. He was afraid of being tracked, so he submersed the phone under water and then got a relative to dismantle it. In retrospect, he destroyed the most important piece of information.

Lam Wing-kee said that he determined from Lee Bo's tone of voice that Lee was taken away against his will. However, only the principals can confirm this. He said that Lee Bo has relatives in Fujian and is being forced to tell lies. He called on the media once more not to interview Lee Bo and others.

(Silentmajority.hk) June 22, 2016.

Yesterday on radio, Lam Wing-kee admitted that after he was arrested for personally carrying banned books into China, he changed the mode of operation by letting mainlanders purchase online and then mailing the books to them. The online platform and the bank account for receiving payments are both located inside China, so he may have broken mainland laws. Lam admitted that his own case was not that of cross-border law enforcement.

Moral hazard occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks.

Lam said that, on the day he was accosted on the mainland last October, he was originally planning to visit his girlfriend, who he met after living away from his family. She was also detained on the mainland as she had helped him with sending banned books into China. She was released on bail. I am sorry for my girlfriend, he said. But I dont consider this a personal matter anymore, rather a matter for the whole of society Hong Kong people were forced without any way out. Hong Kong has rule of law I am not afraid for my personal safety, and I do not plan to go to the mainland again.

Lam took the risk and his girlfriend bears the costs of those risks.

- It has been speculated that the reason why Lee Bo went to China was because someone from a "central special unit" told him: "You are the owner of Causeway Bay Books. Four of your colleagues have been detained in mainland China on matters related to Causeway Bay Books. Will you come with us to clarify matters?" Lee went because he was a man with a sense of responsibility. This is much more than can be said about Lam Wing-kee.

- Lam Wing-kee received $100,000 in severance pay from Lee Bo. How much of that did he give to his girlfriend and other accomplices who were detained by the Chinese police? Enquiring minds want to know.

(HK01) June 16, 2016.

At around 5pm this afternoon our reporter went to visit Lam Wing-kee at home to ask him questions. Before we even pressed the door bell, we heard a loud female voice talking about a sex scandal. Her voice could be clearly heard in the corridor outside the apartment. The woman spoke in Cantonese and mentioned a person and a woman in bed. "The photo was taken in December. Did you really just got to know her?" "Where did  you take the money? You keep saying that you have to go out on business trips. I told you to take me with you. You said no. Were you really working? Why couldn't you take me with you? I knew that you were up to something." "She must already be related to you before she let you ... it is a video of the entire process." No other voice could be heard during this time.

While the woman was talking, our reporter pressed the door bell around ten times. We said aloud: "Is Mr. Lam home?" This indicated to whoever was inside that someone was outside the door. But nobody came to the door. The woman continued to talk for about half an hour. She said: "I don't know him ... he was with a woman? I don't know about it." "When you don't care about the child, why should the child care about you?" "You teach by example. You don't even know what you are doing, so how can you make demands of a child? Do you know how to? Did you teach him? Right or not?" After the woman finished talking, our reporter pressed the door bell again. But nobody responded. So our reporter left.

At around 7pm, our reporter went to Lam Wing-kee's apartment again. We identified ourselves again. We pressed the door bell many times and asked the woman whether she is Mrs. Lam. We asked the woman to respond to the involvement in the sex scandal. But nobody answered the door. We heard the woman call up the security guard, who came up shortly afterwards to evict our reporter.

We also received information that Lam Wing-kee came back three months later than the other three booksellers for cause. Lam was granted bail in March, but he needed a guarantor. His wife and his son did not go to the mainland to be his guarantor. Between March and June, he was given a temporary job at a Shenzhen library to make a living while he waited.

[Transcription of audio recording (5pm, June 14, 2016)

Female voice: The photo was taken in December. If the woman was a recent acquaintance, there is no reason to go to bed as soon as you got to know her. She already has a relationship with you and that was why you were caught. The video recorded the entire process. It was not filmed with the clothes on. Where was your money spent? I have already asked him. He goes on business trips frequently. I said, "You take me with you. If you are really going on a business trip, why not bring me with you?" I already know that there was a problem. He has a bank account in mainland China. There should be several tens of thousands of RMB. I don't know if he spent all the money after he got together with that woman. In terms of Hong Kong dollars, there should be $100,000, or at least $80,000.  He wanted to save face. That was pointless. I really can't help him. If he really needed money, I could have brought the money to him overnight.]

(HK01) June 16, 2016.

Lam Wing-kee said that the female in the audio recording is his wife. "That is my woman. As to whether there was a sex scandal, it depends on what evidence she has. I didn't." Lam continued: "I got acquainted with the mainland girlfriend after I separated from my wife. She helped me to mail books. Right now she is being investigated. I hope that the Chinese government won't make trouble for my friends on my account."

- Now we see why by the time that the train got to Kowloon Tong station, Lam Wing-kee changed his mind. He did not want to go to Shenzhen and see that woman anymore because his wife was giving him hell over the extramarital affair.

- We can foresee that in the next few days, Lam Wing-kee will be hounded about the purported sex scandal. If he says "No such thing", his wife may really blow up and spill everything to the press? If he says "No comment", everyone will assume this to be true.

- I see that someone is complaining that such scurrilous reportage should not be allowed. Well, what the fuck did you think "pro-democracy" Apple Daily has been doing over these years?

Sample: Bosco Wong-Myolie Wu in Sudden Weekly (defunct Next Media Group magazine)

- Mrs. Lam has made things very clear. She received a video dated December 2015 of Lam Wing-kee and a woman naked together in bed. Lam must know that his wife knows everything. Therefore he would rather stay in mainland China than come back to Hong Kong and confront his wife. But how was he going to make a living for himself and his mistress? Therefore he asked the public security bureau to arrange a librarian job for him in Shenzhen. As time went on, his mistress realized that there is no future in this sixty-something-year-old librarian who got her into all sorts of legal trouble. So now mainland China was also becoming unbearable to Lam Wing-kee. This means that Lam Wing-kee had to come back to Hong Kong.

So who can help him in Hong Kong in terms of money? Well, Albert Ho would surely want Lam to help him 'support patriotic democratic movements in China' which had just raised $1.7 million on June 4th. There is also Jimmy Lai (Next Media) and the US Consulate/National Democratic Institute too. What is Lam Wing-kee's most valuable contribution? He can attack Lee Bo, who issued a denial immediately. But Lam has gotten on the train and he cannot get off now. So Lam will continue have to continue with his shtick now.

But the show isn't over, because there are potential developments. For one thing, if Lam Wing-kee provokes his wife, she may release the December 2015 video. As another example. That video will be worth a lot of the paparazzi media (even including "pro-democracy" Next Media). For another thing, the mistress on mainland China may give an interview to describe her life and times with Lam Wing-kee. That would be another major scoop.

Historical case study:

(August 17, 2004)  The Headline News In Hong Kong - Part 2 Hong Kong Legislative Council candidate Alex Ho was caught stark naked in a mainland hotel bed with a prostitute ("兩條肉蟲").  Was it a frame-up?

(September 1, 2004)  The Verdict On Alex Ho  Simply put, Alex Ho's comrades-in-arms have dumped him by purging his name and face from their Hong Kong Legco campaign.  This is as good as those air-brushed photos of Chinese Politburo membership, but it is a little bit too late.

(September 9, 2004)  The Headline News In Hong Kong - Part 4  The Dongguan Public Security Bureau held its second press conference during they showed photos of a naked Alex Ho, a condom wrapper, menstrual blood stains, scattered underwear, etc, plus further references to a pattern of patronizing prostitutes in Shenzhen dating back some years.

(February 5, 2005)  Alex Ho Meets The Press  Full coverage of one of the most bizarre press conferences in recent times. The shorter summary: "I did not have sex with that woman. That is all I have to say. After today, I will never respond on this issue ever again. I will not address or refute any evidence. You'll just have to trust me. My wife trusts me.  P.S.  Yes, I know that woman, she did knock on my hotel door at 3 am that night I did let her into my room and I was naked when the police entered the room. But I don't have to tell you what we were doing because I just told you that I did not have sex with her and that should be enough for you.  P.P.S.  I am resigning from the Democratic Party this very minute, which means that their disciplinary committee won't have to conduct an internal investigation about the facts of the case.  P.P.P.S.  I am going to remain being a District Councilor because my personal morals is none of your business.  And the fact that the position pays tens of thousands of dollars per month has nothing to do with it."

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2016.

Lam said that he has contacted his separated wife many times after he returned to Hong Kong. With the assistance of Albert Ho (Democratic Party legislator), he spoke to her by telephone. She opposed him going  public in a big quarrel. Lam that she cut off the telephone line as soon as they started to argue. After the initial press conference, his ex-wife contacted him. But they quarreled immediately. Lam said that he finds it insufferable.

Lam also said that his wife has something to do with the decision to sell Causeway Bay Books to Gui Min-hai. His wife wanted Lam to come home and not work anymore, so they sold the bookstore. During the separation period, his wife asked him to come home. Apart from this, the sale had to do with the economy going sour. Lam does not exclude the possibility of restarting the bookstore some day.

Lam said that he contacted his two sons after the press conference and warn them not to travel to mainland China. The elder son supported him going public, and the younger son said he was concerned.

(Wen Wei Po) June 17, 2016.

A Sing Tao reporter called up the Ningbo Public Security Bureau and spoke to a police officer in charge of the case. The police officer said that Hong Kong resident Lam Wing-kee and others knowingly violated mainland laws by bringing in unauthorized books over a long period of time. In September 2012, Lam Wing-kee was subject to administrative penalty by the Lohu Customs Department for bringing in unauthorized books.

On October 24, 2015, Lam Wing-kee entered the Lohu border crossing to meet with another person named Hu involved in the case (aka Lam Wing-kee's 'girlfriend') and was detained by the public security bureau. Because Lam and Hu were personally involved, they volunteered to sign letters not to hire lawyers and not to meet with their relatives.

According to the police investigation, Lam used disguised book covers and other methods to mail unauthorized books directly or use Hu and others to mail indirectly to mainland Chinese customers between October 2013 and October 2016. Furthermore, he used a mainland Chinese bank card to accept payments for those books.

The police officer said that Lam Wing-kee admitted to the crime of illegal sales and wrote a confession. Because of Lam's attitude, the public security bureau allowed him to post bail while awaiting trial. During this period, Lam said that he did not get along with his wife and son and would find it hard to live in Hong Kong. Therefore, he asked the public security bureau to help him. The public security bureau made certain arrangements for him.

Recently Lam applied (see letter below) to go to Hong Kong to take care of personal matters. The public security bureau granted him permission.

"I am presently separated from my wife, so it will be inconvenient to stay with her during the probation period. It would also be inconvenient to go back to live and work at the bookstore. The only option is my sister, but she is living in a congested public housing estate unit and it would be inconvenient. Therefore it can be said that I don't any place to stay in.

Furthermore, certain Hong Kong media are hyping up this affair. During my bail term, I can avoid interviews if I stay in mainland China so that things can calm down ... Based upon the above, I want to stay in mainland China for now. In consideration of my personal hardships, I am not applying to the government to arrange a residence and a job (ideally as a librarian) for me in some city. I hope that you can help me. Many thanks!

Applicant: Lam Wing-kee."

Blogger Yip Yat-chee: Lam Wing-kee said something fearful on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. You can imagine how great his sacrifice is. His sacrifice was made only to protect the core values of the people of Hong Kong. Even for a group of Hong Kong pigs who never care about politics, Lam has still sacrificed a lot of protect the freedom that you are not even aware of. Lam is a justice fighters and martyr."

- Lam Wing-kee is a martyr? So what are the requirements to become a martyr:
(1) You double-cross your wife by cheating with another woman
(2) You double-cross your girlfriend by getting her to participate in criminal activities and abandoning her now
(3) You double-cross your bookstore workers (Lui Por and Cheung Jiping)
(4) You double-cross your boss (Lee Bo) who invested money to save your bankrupt bookstore

Oh, I forgot: "You double-cross your country." Did I miss anything?

- Let us assume that Lee Bo was under threat not to tell how he went from Hong Kong to mainland China. Lam knows that his friend is being threatened, but he nevertheless puts his friend in peril. What a friend!!! Why is Lam doing this? There can only be one purpose: Lam does not want to return to mainland China and face the legal consequences of his crime. Therefore he must create a political shield for himself in Hong Kong. What shield? He has to say that Hongkongers are being taken across the border by mainland police! The living proof of that is the Lee Bo case as described by Lam Wing-kee. Once that happens, Hong Kong will never turn Lam over to the mainland for his trial.

(Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 18, 2016.

A certain person was arrested in mainland China for selling banned books. He was detained for several months. When he came back, he said: "This is not just my personal issue. This is not just the issue of the bookstore. It is an issue for the people of Hong Kong." And now he is a hero.

"It concerns the people of Hong Kong" is a panacea. Whenever the phrase is invoked, it becomes a public issue for justice. A lot of people will rush in to support you blindly irrespective of the facts and reasons. Such was the case of Denise Ho, such was the case of Causeway Bay Books.

"If we don't speak up, then Hong Kong will be beyond rescue ..." Thus spoke Causeway Bay Books manager Lam Wing-kee at the press conference the other day. This sounds familiar. During Occupy Central, the anti-national education campaign, the Mong Kok brick riot, etc, the people on high moral grounds speak in this manner with megaphone in hand.

There are many Facebook posts with Mr. Lam's photo and the word "Hero" underneath. I would like to ask just in what way or manner is Mr. Lam a hero?

Everybody knows that those books are banned. If you bring them across the border, you are committing a crime. If you want to take risk to make money and then you get caught, who else can you blame except yourself?

Twenty years ago, I worked in Jimmy Lai's Next Media. At the time, tension was high between Taiwan and China. I was sent to gather information in the Fujian province military sites. Since Next Media has always been anti-Communist, our reporters could never get press passes. Each trip is therefore illegal news gathering. Every reporter knew that.

Normally I cover livelihood issues. So people tend to turn a blind eye. But this time, I was going into a military zone to cover national security. We knew that this was very dangerous. Indeed, I and my photographer were arrested while filming in a small fishing harbor across from Matsu Islands (Taiwan). We knew that we crossed the red line this time. So we were detained for a week by the National Security Bureau for illegal news gathering and endangering national security. We were eventually ejected. Our Home Visit Permits were confiscated and we could not enter China for two years.

Afterwards, our boss offered to give us compensation for our troubles. I rejected the offer. I told the boss. "As the Chinese saying goes, if you eat salted fish, you must be prepared to suffer the thirst. You pay higher salaries than other newspapers because of the risks. If I take your salary, I am ready to accept the risks."

So, on the first day that Mr. Lam, Mr. Lee and Mr. Gui decided to get into this business, they have stepped into a minefield. When you libel people to make money, you must be prepared that one day that will get back to you. You cannot say that I have been hurting you so many years in order to make money, so why are you hurting me now?

Causes lead to effects. You deserve the consequences of your actions. You decided to sell banned books about other people by plagiarism and creative writing and you make $200 to $300 per book. If the business is so profitable, then why aren't other writers and publishers rushing in? That's because these other people have considered the risk to be too high and/or they have moral qualms.


Demosisto: Signature campaign to demand the Hong Kong government make a thorough investigation of the Causeway Bay Books incdient.

- The year is 2016 now. Demosisto wants to have a signature campaign to petition the Hong Kong SAR Government (of all people) to conduct an investigation? I am afraid that I can no longer tell the difference between genuine and play-act navet.


Demosisto marched today with Siu Lai's Democracy Classroom, Chu Hoi-dick (Pat Heung) and Edward Yiu to demonstrate at the China Liaison Office. When they got there, they threw newspapers that reported on the Lam Wingkee affair at the entrance gate.

- After their unique contributions to social activism of (1) the relay hunger strike of a relay team with each person fasting for four hours followed by another person; (2) jumping into the harbor which wearing life saving vests; (3) setting up a complex chain of dominoes to topple; they have now come up with throwing newspapers.

- I recently checked Urban Dictionary and I was amazed to see that nobody has come up with a definition for "leftist retard" yet. I think "throwing newspaper reports at the authorities" may easily qualify.

(Headline Daily) June 19, 2016.

Recently Lam Wing-kee's Shenzhen 37-year-old girlfriend named Hu was interviewed by mainland media. The year before last, she got acquainted over the Internet with Lam Wing-kee, who is almost 60 yars old. One month later, Lam Wing-kee came to Shenzhen and they went to a hotel and established a relationship.

Hu said that she only realized that everything that Lam told her was lies. She said: "He got me involved in his bookstore business. He repeatedly brainwashed me. His goal was to get me to forward books for him. But Lam never explained to her that it is illegal in mainland China to mail these books."

Hu had carefully asked Lam whether this was legal. Lam said that there was no problem. Later on, Hu found out that Lam had been penalized for precisely this sort of thing before and so he had to know that this was against the law.

Eight or nine months after they got acquainted, Lam began to ask her to help mail the books. Each time, he would mail the books to Hu and tell her to ship them out by courier service to the names/addresses that he provided. Each time that they met, Lam would pay her a fee for forwarding the books.

At first Hu was suspicious. She asked Lam why he needed her to do this instead of doing it yourself. Lam told her that since she was getting paid, she should not ask any more questions. Hu felt that Lam was exploiting people to do something that he knew was against the law. The receipts showed Hu's address, and that was how the public security bureau eventually tracked her down.

She remembered that Lam once scolded her. "He sent a big parcel of books for me at the post office. The sun was particularly vicious that day, and the  post office is not far from my home. So I didn't go to the post office. He telephoned me and scolded me. He said that he is paying me a fee but I did not do my job. He said that I was too lazy."

Last October, Lam and Hu were both detained by the public security bureau. The investigators told them that they have the right to hire lawyers. But Hu considered that Lam had a family (his parents are in their 70's and there is a son) and did not want them to know about their relationship. So they did not hire lawyers and they did not notify their families either. They only wanted to resolve this matter as soon as possible. So when Lam Wing-kee went back to Hong Kong and said at the press conference that he was forced to sign papers not to inform the family and not to hire a lawyer, he was lying.

In March this year, Hu was allowed to post bail. On the morning of June 17, Hu saw Lam's press conference. Hu said that Lam mentioned her and divulged their relationship. Hu did not want her friends and relatives to know about this. She felt that Lam was being very selfish, wanting only to do the best for himself without worrying whether other people will live or die. Hu will not be to able to lead a serene life from now on.

Hu said repeatedly that if she ever get a chance to see Lam Wing-kee again, she is going to ask him what he did this to her. He used fancy talk to persuade her to mail illegal books in order to make money for him. He only cared about his political interests. He was not a man, he was not a Hong Kong man. Normal Hong Kong men will stick to their promises and principles. But this incident has completely destroyed the image of the Hong Kong man.

Hu now considered that knowing Lam Wing-kee has been a nightmare that she really wants to end. She wants to erase the painful memories so that she can live a new life.

Hu said that she is a divorced woman bringing up a child by herself. She has seen some female friends married to Hong Kong, and so she also hoped to marry a Hong Kong man so that she and her child can live better lives. When she first got acquainted with Lam Wing-kee, he gave her a wonderful dream. Hu said: "Lam Wing-kee told me that he has a wife in Hong Kong but they don't get along. He wants to wait a couple of years to get a divorce, and then he will marry me. He also promised to get my son to go to live in Hong Kong."

- Lam Wing-kee is practicing One Country Two Wives like some many other Hong Kong men.

- Well, the mainland Public Security Bureau apparently has all the mailing and financial records of this Hu woman. This is even more reliable and definitive than any computer file in Causeway Bay Books.

- What are Lam Wing-kee's options right now?

Option 1: Completely ignore the existence of the Hu woman and refuse to answer anything about her. Lam will need to have very thick skin.

Option 2: Attack her for being a gold digger, police informant and/or mental patient. But if you study the case of Alex Ho, there is a good chance that she will counter-attack with all sorts of other evidence (transaction records, photos, videos, etc) so that it becomes a long slow death.

Option 3: Apologize to her in public and promise to make amends.

- Fatal Attraction: "I'm not going to be ignored." Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

- The detractors of the Hu woman said that mainlanders cannot watch television news of Lam Wing-kee's press conference, so she must be fake. Well, the detractors are still living in the Chinese Internet world of twenty years ago. I suggest that they go and visit mainland China some time and actually see what Chinese Internet users actually do nowadays.

Besides, even if she hadn't seen a news broadcast, the Sing Tao reporter must usually have brought the video clip of the relevant section to show her and ask for her reaction.

(Apple Daily) June 19, 2016.

Before our reporter even asked, Lam Wing-kee immediately said: "Of course, I am a man." In 1994, he founded Causeway Bay Books. In 2013, he decided to sell the store to Mighty Current. One one hand, the rent was expensive and he anticipated that the economy would be even worse in 2014. Besides he said that he did not get along with his wife and she wants to sell the bookstore.

Lam said that he got to know this girlfriend two years after he separated from his wife. He said that he has not read the Sing Tao report itself, just the title. "It is for normal for her to talk like that. I am sad that I cannot help her. I know that she would say that. Surely." He said that he was sorry for his girlfriend. "I am rueful. Nothing that I say will make a difference, because she cannot hear me. So I might as well as save my breath."

As for the rebuttals from the other principals at Causeway Bay Books, Lam sighed: "If I confront them each time, it will damage them because they will have to betray their conscience. Therefore I don't want any confrontation. That is not because I am lying, but because it will damage them and make them feel bad. So why do it?"

He said that the business manager Cheung Jiping lives in Dongguan with his wife, so Cheung is unlikely to be allowed to return to Hong Kong. General manager Lui Por was processing the corporate accounts a few days ago. "Lee Bo wants to finish the matters related to the company. He was going to go to mainland China on June 27. My guess is that he won't be going because the Communists don't people to know their agenda. If he doesn't go on June 27, it will prove that what I say is true."

(SCMP) June 19, 2016.

Lee Pos entry to mainland

Lam: Lee admitted he was abducted to the mainland. He entered the mainland involuntarily, as he told me when I met him after I returned to Hong Kong. He had to say what he said because his relatives are in Fujian

Lee: When I was chatting with Lam Wing-kee, I did not talk about how I returned to the mainland, and so I didnt say I went to the mainland involuntarily or anything similar.

Lee Pos handling of customer details

Lam: Lee passed a list of 400 to 500 customers to mainland authorities.

Lee: I never used the computer at Causeway Bay Books and had never printed out any lists of customers, much less passing any lists to mainland police.

Mainland girlfriend on relationship

Hu: [Lam] lied about the legality of mailing banned books on the mainland and paid me every time I helped him deliver the books through mail.

Lam: I do not want to confront her as she would not be able to hear what I say on the mainland. She could not say things voluntarily there, so I dont want to bring further trouble to her. I hope she would be treated leniently on the mainland.

Business partner Lui Por on televised confession

Lam: [Some officers] gave me a script to read to confess on mainland TV. I had to follow the script. If I did not follow it strictly, they would ask for a re-take.

Lui Por: There was absolutely no such thing as coerced confessions or pre-arranged media interviews with a script. I never imagined Lam Wing-kee was such a dishonest person. He should bravely admit his guilt and shoulder the legal responsibility.

Lam: He was forced to say that as his wife was from the northeastern part of China.

Cheung Chi-ping: Lams press conference was premeditated and an attack on the one country, two systems principle

Lam: His wife is in Dongguan city, Guangdong province so he had to say so

Confrontation with Ningbo authorities

Lam: I wanted to commit suicide in Ningbo as the solitary confinement and interrogation was so stressful.

Ningbo authorities: He stayed there voluntarily as he had family disputes in Hong Kong.

Lam: I had separated from my wife for some years already.

(SpeakoutHK)

Legislator Michael Tien: Lam Wing-kee held a press conference and it was like throwing a rock into a lake. But he kept changing his tune afterwards. First it is this, then it is that. He should get points deducted.

You admit that you have a girlfriend in mainland China. The whole thing is that you admit that you mailed books to mainland China and then they are remailed. You knew the law and you broke the law.

At the press conference, he said that two mainland agents came to Hong Kong with him. I got the impression that the two men were holding you by both arms. But now he is saying that the two men disappeared before he even reached the Lohu border crossing? At first, he said that the two men came with him and this made people think that this was cross-border law enforcement. But now those two persons were not seen after crossing the border. So this is another version, back and forth.

At the time, he gave me the clear impression that Lee Bo told him: "I was kidnapped to the mainland." I don't understand why Lam Wing-kee changed his statement yesterday. After being questioned a few times, he now said that it was a feeling that he had. At the press conference, he said that Lee Bo was taken to the mainland against his will. But now it boils down to the tone of voice. It was just the tone of voice, and Lee Bo did not say it directly. Then why didn't he make it clear at the press conference? Frankly he gets many points deducted over this.

Former legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah: We must admit that as soon as he crossed the border into Hong Kong, he is protected by Hong Kong Basic Law and other laws. Frankly, Lam held this press conference and he said a lot of things. He only indirectly proved that everything that he wanted from One Country Two Systems is already working. One Country Two Systems is working.

(Oriental Daily) June 19, 2016.

Eight members of the Hong Kong-UK Reunification Campaign went to the British Consulate-General to petition. They said that mainlanders coming to Hong Kong to enforce the law are seriously violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration. So they want Hong Kong to be be handed back to the United Kingdom. The group is also starting an online petition and they want to gather 10,000 to 20,000 signatures, so that the United Kingdom can act with public opinion on their side.

(Channel News Asia) June 20, 2016.

The Hong Kong bookseller who broke silence on Thursday about being interrogated in detention in China, said he had weighed the pros and cons before deciding to speak. His decision to break his silence sparked public furore in the process.

In a one-on-one interview with Channel NewsAsia's Wei Du on Sunday (Jun 19), Lam Wing-kee said he was not surprised to hear that his girlfriend and associates had spoke out against him. He also spoke of Hong Kongs political future.

WEI DU: After you gave the interview on Thursday, your associates and girlfriend have told the media that you were not telling the truth. They used some strong words. Are you surprised?

LAM WING-KEE: They were speaking in an abnormal environment. You know what that means? They were not acting on free will. If I refute them point by point, itll do them harm, because everything theyve said is against their own will. They have a lot on the line, I dont want to refute them anymore.

WEI: Do you worry the damage is already done?

LAM: I expected this. When I decided to speak out, I weighed the pros and cons. Its harmed them, its harmed me. My girlfriend is still there, but Ill never see her again in future. The other ones, their cases are pretty much decided on, so the damage is not so great, probably not greater than the harm to myself. But its a different case for the people of Hong Kong. Its important that someone stands up and fights, because many people are too afraid to say anything. I had to make the compromise.

WEI: You said you expect not to see your girlfriend again?

LAM: Thats right. I cant go back anymore, and she will never be able to come here. I hope the Chinese government treats them better. Dont treat them badly because of me.

WEI: You said Lee Bo (one of the other booksellers) told you he was abducted in Hong Kong. If that could happen to him, are you worried about your safety in Hong Kong now?

LAM: When he was abducted in Hong Kong, maybe it was because mainland authorities didnt expect the reaction in Hong Kong to be so strong. It crossed the line for Hong Kongers, so the reaction was strong. Maybe they didnt see that.

WEI: So you think its different now?

LAM: It is different. They werent too smart.

WEI: You think you are safe in Hong Kong?

LAM: Yes. After Lee Bo, they wont be so blatant.

WEI: You were interrogated for eight months. During that time, did you find out what they wanted to know the most?

LAM: Sources for the books. Where the information came from. Thats what they wanted to know.

WEI: What are we supposed to make of the books by Mighty Current (the publishing house)?

LAM: Mighty Current published books to make money. You dont have to understand why. If there was a profit to be made in a book, itd be published. Its all business. The books are often plagiarised. Sometimes they are truthful, sometimes not.

WEI: Many young people in Hong Kong think the "One Country, Two Systems" wont work out. What do you think is the best way forward?

LAM: Independence. My personal opinion, and I am not afraid to say, is that its doable.

In a marriage, if the man treats the woman badly, the woman will leave. Its normal. She wants her happiness too. The Communist party wants to control everyone, but its not elected, it has no legitimacy. It has no respect for human rights. So when people demand independence, they have a reason. Its the same for Hong Kong.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/SinManSing/videos/625192654306981/

- The key comment  is about Hong Kong independence as the best way forward. Lam says "it's doable." That's going to upset the pan-democrats (e.g. Democratic Party) who think that the best way forward is communication/negotiations with the Central Government.

- Very quickly Lam is brought out to reverse course! (TVB) Lam Wing-kee said: "You cannot say that I support Hong Kong independence. I merely support democratic elections." How does he support democratic elections? He said: "So-called Hong Kong independence also goes through democratic elections." He also said that Hong Kong independence is one way forward with democratic elections, but not the only way.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Im not saying [I] support independence. I just think that it can be up for discussion, said Lam during a D100 Radio interview on Monday night. At least give it a space [for discussion], he added. Hong Kong is a free society, everyone has different views, and are promoting different views. The best way to go about it is to host a referendum like a free society, Lam added.

When asked how he would envision an independent Hong Kong, Lam provided a Chinese proverb from ancient philosopher Lao Tzu to illustrate his view.

To not interact with each other until death, but to hear the sounds of chickens and dogs in your surroundings, Lam explained. If it is a place with freedom, someone has the right to not interact with people from another place they can. This is their freedom.

If you, as a powerful regime, force people to interact with you, is this considered tyrannical? he added. You took away peoples freedom, and this applies to Hong Kong too. If Hong Kong has freedom to decide its own future, you can give Hong Kong an election [referendum].

Lam said that it is not about whether people support independence or not.

You have to first give people a free space, [China] does not have the right to decide, [China] hasnt given anything to the people, right? he said.

Lam said that Hong Kong can only hope that China will truly implement the One Country, Two Systems principle, otherwise Hong Kong people will have to fight for it.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 22, 2016. On June 21, Lam Wing-kee was interviewed by Taiwan television channel PTS on telephone. He said that if the central government oppresses Hong Kong too much, then what is wrong with a referendum on independence? He said that while he does not necessarily advocate Hong Kong independence, the central government is a violent organization which is destroying One Country Two Systems. Therefore the people of Hong Kong must find their own way out.

When the PTS host asked about the feasibility of Hong Kong independence, Lam said that no matter whether there is any likelihood for Hong Kong independence, "you should do it first" and that "it should be done even if it is not likely." At the same time, he admitted that he has no idea what the consequences are. He said that Taiwan is more likely to become independent than Hong Kong. Therefore Taiwan should become independent so that Hong Kong can observe how things turn out.

(Ta Kung Pao) June 20, 2016.

After arranging Lam Wing-kee's press conference at the Legislative Council building last Thursday, the Democratic Party against arranged for Lam to be interviewed at the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. When the Ta Kung Pao reporter arrived, he was told the press conference was restricted to "certain invited media." So our reporter had to stay outside and wait for information.

Lam Wing-kee said that he was once arrested and punished by Chinese Customs for bringing books into China. Then he told others to bring books or mail books in China. So is this an intentional violation of mainland laws? Yesterday our reporter asked lawyer-legislator Albert Ho (Democratic Party) whether selling unauthorized books in mainland China is breaking mainland laws. Ho said: "Let mainland explain everything clearly to him. Based upon what he learned when he was in mainland China, nobody ever told him what his crimes were. Ok? Everything that he did was done in Hong Kong. That is the case according to what I know."

With respect to why all the others at Causeway Bay Books reject Lam's position, Ho said: "I think many Hongkongers are using common sense to judge."

When asked whether assisting Lam Wing-kee is part of the Democratic Party's Legco campaign, Ho said that this was risible. "If a citizen asks you help, can you ignore him because you are in an election? That is a joke."

But almost 1,000 citizens demonstrated outside the Legislative Council building against Albert Ho. Love Hong Kong chairman Ko Tato-bin said that Lam Wing-kee admitted that he had violated the law in mainland China for which he was arrested inside mainland China. One Country Two Systems was not violated in any way. Ko said that Lam was hijacked by the pan-democrats to deceive the people of Hong Kong and smear the central government.

- Albert Ho said that Lam Wing-kee has no intention of filing a report to the police. Lam believes that it was more effective to communicate with Security Bureau through the Legislative Council. Ho said that there is no conclusive evidence that cross-border law enforcement took place.

In the case of Lee Bo, Lam Wing-kee said at first that Lee Bo told him about being taken away against his will. Lee Bo issued a denial. The third person Mrs. Lee Bo present at the meeting can also step in. Lam now agrees that Lee did not say so directly but Lam says that he can tell from Lee's tone of voice that this is what happened. Lee repeated that he has nothing to say and he does not need the services of the Hong Kong Police.

In the case of Lam Wing-kee, the original crimes were committed in mainland China and he was arrested in mainland China. So there was no cross-border enforcement. Lam said at first that when he came back to Hong Kong this time, he was escorted by two Central Investigation Team members to take back a computer hard disk. This may be cross-border law enforcement, depending on what the two persons did. Lam is now saying that he lost sight of the two persons before he crossed over to Hong Kong. So there is no cross-border law enforcement.

Given this is what is on the table now, what case is there for cross-border law enforcement in violation of One Country Two Systems?

- Well, just a few days ago, Albert Ho organized the press conference for Lam Wing-kee and the "6,000-person demonstration march" for "We are all Lam Wing-kee." Today, he is saying that there is no conclusive evidence fro cross-border law enforcement. In gambling, once you place your bet, you cannot pull it back because you realized that you are making the wrong bet. You have to wait for the result. Several hundred cameras caught you in the act before as  you making, doubling and tripling the bet. Let us see you squirm and wiggle now.

- A print newspaper Ta Kung Pao (founded in 1902) reporter was refused entry into a press conference held inside the Legislative Council building by a Legislative Council. What (if anything) did the Journalists Association have to say? Nothing, of course. Why? FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES YELLOW UMBRELLA.

- (Lau Nai-keung) June 21, 2016.

If behind a great man there is always a great woman, then behind a despicable man is always one or more crooked men.

Behind the disloyal, unfair, unjust and untrustworthy man Law Wing-yee is the legislator Albert Ho, who does nothing at the Legislative Council except watch adult videos.

Albert Ho is as lusty and exploitative as Lam Wing-kee. When Edward Snowden came to Hong Kong to seek refuse, Ho appeared like the Magnet Man at the press conference. But if you have see the Snowden documentary, you now that "AV Ho" had nothing to do with anything.

This time, "AV Ho" probably had a director/scriptwriter role, because the Ming Pao depiction that Lam WIng-kee smoked three cigarettes, tossed away the mobile phone given to him by mainland agents, left the Kowloon Tong station to seek help from Albert Ho is too melodramatic and unrealistic to be true.

But if Lam said that his activities in Hong Kong were monitored by mainland agents Mr Chan and Mr Shi of the Central Investigation Team, why didn't they do anything? Why didn't "enforce the law across the border" as they have been accused of doing previously?

In any case, we get to see "AV Ho" meet the press and this time he was using Lam Wing-kee.

The opposition thought that they had found a treasure. After the June 16 press conference, they organized a demonstration march two days later. No matter whether the figure was the police estimate of 1,800 or the organizers' claim of 6,000, the number was pretty good. For the sake of getting more votes, there is no such thing as most despicable; there is only being more despicable than ever.

The  problem is that all the bookstore colleagues of Lam Wing-kee have come out to call him a liar. On June 19, Lam told the media that Lee Bo did not tell him directly about being taken away against his will, but Lam said so because he "clearly heard from the tone of voice."

In addition, the media reported on his wife's accusations against him and the tearful interview with his girlfriend. Yesterday the Shaoguan librarian was reported in the media calling Lam a liar and a womanizer.

All of a sudden, Lam Wing-kee has gone from the killer weapon for the opposition to become a negative asset. For elections, lying may be acceptable but womanizing/betrayal upsets female voters.

At this time, "AV Ho" has resurfaced on radio, saying that there is no conclusive evidence on cross-border law enforcement. Well, it that was the case, then what were they demonstrating/marching about?

In one sentence, there is no such thing as most despicable; there is only being more despicable than ever.

Lam Wing-kee's son Phoenix Lam announced on Facebook today: "I want to see a place with no publishing industry and no way to mail books will detain an ordinary Hongkongers for no apparent reason." He said that he will update his post on his post on Friday. But he dies, he wants people to burn some joss money for him.

- Yes, if Phoenix Lam actually goes to mainland China, he will be accompanied by an Apple Daily/Next Magazine team to record his arrest. This will be a replay of the Chan Kin-hong incident, a landmark event in Hong Kong media history.

- Let us suppose that Phoenix Lam actually goes to mainland China (and that is a big IF).

If he commits no crime and he gets arrested, then it proves the thesis that the Chinese Communists are bad.

If he commits no crime and he does not get arrested, then it proves that rule of law exists in China.

If he commits a crime and he gets arrested, then it proves that rule of law exists in China.

If he commits a crime and he does not get arrested, it proves that there is no justice under heaven.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 21, 2016.

Phoenix Lam, the son of recently returned bookseller Lam Wing-kee, has denied that he crossed the border into the mainland to challenge or test any authority. He said that he visits China regularly for legal business and the fact he entered without trouble shows that China is civilised and open and One Country Two System is intact.

He said he mentioned testing the border on Facebook in an effort to seek part-time work. Lets see whether a Hong Kong person who is not involved in the book business, and did not send books anywhere will be detained unreasonably, he wrote on Monday. He then announced through a friend that he had successfully crossed the border at around 6pm the same day.

However, Phoenix published a statement on Tuesday saying that media outlets had used provocative words or did not report the truth about his trip and that he felt that it was necessary to clarify immediately. He said that he talked about entering China because he would only be available for interviews for part-time job offers when he returns on Friday.

He said that his success in returning to the mainland showed that the Chinese government rules according to the law and is civilised and open. It will not detain anyone unrelated to the [Causeway Bay Bookstore] incident. [It] shows the improvement of Chinese law and the effective implementation of One Country, Two Systems. He added that he was not stalked or placed under surveillance inside the mainland [and] was not harassed.

He also said that he runs a design business which does not sell nor mail books, and that the medias inaccurate reporting may destroy his good country-loving, Hong Kong-loving image and affect his business.

Lam Wing-kee said to HKFP last week that he had a separate life to his son.

In a D100 interview on Monday, Lam said that his son had always been rebellious. Phoenix is still immature and his attempt to go to the mainland was unwise and he was playing with fire, Lam said. However, he also said that he was not worried about his sons safety.

- (Bastille Post) The initial Facebook post by Phoenix Lam misled Apple Daily into thinking that he was going to mainland China to challenge the government. Apple Daily contacted him through Facebook but did not interview him directly. Yesterday Phoenix Lam said that the "media" destroyed his "good image of loving China and Hong Kong." This is such an anti-climax that some people think that the initial post was designed to entrap Apple Daily.

(Oriental Daily) June 20, 2016.

At around 5am, somebody hung out a yellow banner saying that "LSD: We are all Lam Wing-kee" on the mountainside by Lung Yan Road. At 940am, the fire department removed the banner. The League of Social Democrats claimed credit for the act.

- The most frequent Internet comments were: "We all want to be Lam Wing-kee -- we want one wife in Hong Kong and one wife in mainland China!" and "We don't want One Country Two Systems -- we want One Country Two Wives!"

(Oriental Daily) June 20, 2016.

The emergence of Lam Wing-kee has suddenly become rain during a drought for the pan-democrats. The pan-democratic political parties and the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China immediately rushed out to hold a demonstration with the "Golden 72 Hours" period. In so doing, they took the sail away from the Civil Human Rights Front which wanted Lam Wing-kee to be the theme of the July 1st march. On June 17 (Friday), the Civic Human Rights Front held a meeting to discuss whether the theme for the July 1st march should be changed from "The Final Battle Against 689" to "We are all Lam Wing-kee." But since the pan-democrats had already done this, a second round on the same theme may not be a good draw. So they will keep the original theme unless things change.

(Apple Daily) June 18, 2016.

Our newspaper received information that TVB News had invited Lam Wing-kee to appear on the programme On The Record. Lam accepted the invitation. But TVB News has now canceled. According to information, the decision "came from the highest level." Our reporter called TVB News general manager Yuan Chi-wai. Upon learning that our reporter is from Apple Daily, Yuan said: "Sorry, I am not in Hong Kong right now." Then Yuan hung up.

(Headline Daily) June 20, 2016.

A TVB spokesperson that the Apple Daily report was inaccurate. TVB had not decided whether to invite Lam or not, so there is no issue of "cancelation."

According to an informed source, television news programs are required to be fair and balanced. Many of those involved in the affair have already come out to rebut Lam Wing-kee. So if Lam is invited as the sole interviewee, he will only repeat his one-sided story and then TVB will be getting a lot of complaints (to the Broadcasting Authority).

(Kinliu) June 20, 2016.

... Over the past few decades, I have interrogated countless number of criminals. I know that every criminal will exaggerate things that are favorable to their cases and gloss over their own misdeeds. At the June 14 press conference that Lam Wing-kee held under the aegis of legislator Albert Ho, he made all sorts of slips and errors. He may be able to fool some politicians driven by ulterior motives, but he can't expect to fool all of the citizens. Among the most ludicrous slips is the Central Investigation Team that Lam said was in charge of his case. Why is it ludicrous? Let us answer these two questions first: How big is Hong Kong? What is the population of Hong Kong?

Hong Kong has an area of more than 1,100 square kilometers. China has an area of 9.6 million square kilometers. So they don't even bother to discuss any place less than 10,000 square kilometers. Hong Kong has a population of 7.2 million. China has a population of 1.3 million. So they don't even bother to mention any place less than 10 million people. China is the second largest economic power in the world, more than twice as much as number three Japan. Hong Kong's economy is just over 2% of China's economy.

If a foreign government leader or a business mogul sees these numbers, what would they think? If you are Chairman Xi Jinping, how much attention will you give Hong Kong? Stop kidding yourself! Hongkongers are megalomaniacs who think that the world has to revolve around them. The truth is that world leaders and the Central governments rarely think about Hong Kong. Americans are interested in Hong Kong only to the extent that it is the only part of China that is defenseless against their machinations.

Based upon my decades of contact with the mainland public security, Lam's crime is relatively light. That is why he was released back to Hong Kong after several months of "education." Lam is just making it up by saying that his case was handled by a "central investigation team" in order to con Albert Ho and his ilk. He might as well as said "the special investigation team sent by the state chairman/president."

(SCMP) June 23, 2016.

The man at the centre of the bookseller storm stated he would report his case to Hong Kong police in the next few days, putting his account on official record for the citys law enforcement to follow up.

Causeway Bay Books store manager Lam Wing-kee, 61, made explosive claims last week about his abduction and eight months of detention on the mainland. He said he returned to Hong Kong on June 14 after agreeing to hand a hard disk of client information to mainland authorities, but changed his mind at the last minute and instead contacted lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan for help.

Lam had said it was not urgent for him to report to the police, explaining he did not have high hopes that local law enforcement would be helpful. But speaking on a DBC radio programme on Thursday, Lam clarified he would indeed contact the police.

Ill contact them in the next few days, he said. Theres no problem with my personal safety now, so Ill arrange it after meeting media. He added he had media interviews to conduct on Thursday and Friday.

The bookseller did not explain why he had changed his mind.

Hong Kong police said they had been trying to contact Lam for more information about what happened to him.

Lam revealed on Thursday that when he was detained for months in Ningbo in Zhejiang province he had to wear an orange uniform and his hair was shorn.

- Lam Wing-kee is too busy doing media interviews to bother with providing evidence to the police. He knows what the priorities are.

- (HKG Pao)

On one hand, the advantages of doing media interviews include:
- As long as you are opposing CY Leung and the government, you will get large numbers of reporters to attend.
- If CY Leung and the government holds a press conference afterwards to rebut your accusations, you can cry "Political oppression," "White terror" and "Mom, they're bullying me." It will only be more publicity for you.
- It is easy to hold a media trial, because the reporters are on your side. You are the egg and CY Leung is the high wall.
- The audience (including the reporters) don't question you, so you get to say whatever you want
- Even if you engage in libel, slander and defamation, you won't be held accountable (reference: Bawang)

On the other hand, the disadvantages of filing a formal police report are:
- The police will take down your statement and ask you to sign to confirm that everything that you tell them is the truth (and nothing but the truth).
- Everything that you tell the police will be kept confidential, as the police will not comment on the specifics of a case.
- The police will investigate other sources of information to confirm your allegations. If what you tell them does not meet the reality test, you may be charged with wasting police resources. If your case goes to court and your lies are uncovered, it would even be contempt of court.

(YZZK) July 3, 2016.

According to a publisher who works in Hong Kong and China, many Hongkongers are very muddled about the issues. It is not certain whether they are ignorant or deceptive. For example, New People Party legislator and National People's Congress delegate Michael Tien questioned: If a mainlander orders a banned book from Amazon.com which mails the book there, is Amazon.com breaking Chinese law? As another example, pro-Occupy solicitor Herman Tang wrote that "Lam Wing-kee was said to violate Chinese laws by mailing banned books to mainland China ... If that is the case, then shouting 'End one-party-rule' at the June 4th assembly (in Hong Kong) would be violating Chinese law and sending photos and descriptions of the June 4th assembly to friends in China via Weixin would also be violating Chinese law."

The publisher said that Michael Tien and Herman Tang are switching concepts here. They said, If Lam Wing-kee was merely selling banned books that were already being sold at Causeway Bay Books into China, then how can that be violating mainland Chinese laws? Well, if Lam was only mailing these books from Hong Kong to mainland China, then at the most the Customs Department detect some of these books and confiscate them. They won't come across the border to enforce the law. Lam Wing-kee broke mainland laws because he brought the books into mainland China where he sold them. He established a mainland bank account for the buyers to transfer money for payment. He also got his girlfriend in Guangdong to mail those books for him. Michael Tien and Herman Tang are skirting these facts perhaps deliberately so, but they have misled certain Hongkongers.

The publisher said that it is clear to everybody in the Hong Kong publishing industry that Lee Bo-Gui Minhai's Hong Kong Culture and Arts Publishing and Mighty Current publishing political books that were based upon fiction, plagiarism, libel, slander, defamation and rumors. Most Hongkongers won't read these books. If mainland China bans such books, then what has this got to do with freedom of expression, freedom of press and freedom of publishing?

... On June 18, many organizations marched in Hong Kong. Lam Wing-kee held up a Freedom of Expression placard. On June 21, Law WIng-kee said on radio that China is interfering with freedom of publishing in Hong Kong. This is surely misleading. This is the most basic key point in the entire Causeway Bay Books affair. But everybody including singer Denise Ho, the legislative councilors, the political scholars and the media reporters have completely neglected it. A writer even wrote: "Many of the contents in the banned books came from anonymous whistleblowers in China."

(The Standard) June 14, 2016.

A group of secondary school students in Shek Kip Mei began a signature campaign to protest new policies by their principal, including an earlier start to school and threatening to cancel their talent contest. The students at Church of Christ in China Ming Yin College launched a petition on Facebook criticizing principal Anne Chan Yee-man for "carrying out tyranny" and demanding she review the new policies. The petition had 242 signatures by 8.30pm last night.

In an open letter, the group said Chan required teachers to set up tutorial classes regardless of their teaching progress and forced teachers and staff to read specified books. "Teaching work is heavy enough. Why did principal Chan add to their burden?" the letter read. "After principal Chan took office, [she] has threatened to cancel [talent show] New Top Idol, and the student union also needs to take down the uploaded singing contest videos."

The group said Chan changed the school schedule, advancing the start of school by 15 minutes. "Principal Chan claimed that this is one of the ways for self-learning but this cannot lead to self-learning, and has affected students' learning interest." The students said they raised their demands with Chan but were ignored. A black banner stating "face students' demands and petition to call for a dialog" was unfurled outside the campus on Wai Chi Street. Some students were seen distributing leaflets.

The Standard asked for an interview with Chan, but a school employee said there were many media inquiries and they would release a press statement instead. However, The Standard had not received a statement by press time.

(EJ Insight) June 14, 2016.

Students of CCC Ming Yin College (MYC) in Shek Kip Mei are protesting some decisions taken by the secondary schools management recently, particularly with regard to the issue of class timings. The pupils are upset that classes will start at 8.15 am everyday under a new rule, rather than the previous schedule of 8.30 am. Also, there are concerns about a move to increase the number of hours for mandatory tutorial classes and additional mock examinations for DSE students. Angered at the decisions, students are urging the school authorities to reconsider their plans, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported. 

On Monday, a banner was hung outside the school, calling on the management to enter into a dialogue with the students. Meanwhile, some former and existing students of the institution published an open letter to the school principal, Anne Chan Yee-man, urging her to sit down with student representatives and listen to their grievances.


Look at the student demands
Signature campaign to request dialogue

Questioned about the revision in class timings, Chan said the 8:15 am start was aimed at standardizing the school hours. Under the previous system, classes used to begin at different times during the summer term and in the winter months. Class timetable is an internal school policy and should not be a matter of public discussion, the principal said, according to Apple Daily. Students are welcome for a dialogue but they would be wrong to think that they can vote on decisions like these, she said.

A former student named Yip Ka-yu, who showed up at a protest outside the school, said Chan was acting like a tyrant and forcing her decisions on the students.

Chan agreed to be interviewed by Apple Daily, but demanded that the transcripts be submitted to her for approval before publication. But she relented after reporters explained that such action would be deemed as censorship and interference in press freedom.

Chris Wat Wing-yin. Where is the tyranny?

Several students and alumni CCC Ming Yin College in Shek Kip Mei set up a banner for a signature petition against "tyranny" at the school and demanded the school principal meet publicly with the student representatives.

The black banner had the words "Look at the student demands, Signature campaign to request dialogue." This was led by the "Protest Against Tyranny At CCC Ming Yin College Concern Group." They also had a plan to ambush the school principal at the front gate in conjunction with the Apple Daily reporter.

I am curious as to what tyrannical rule was imposed upon the students. Why did the children apply such Red Guard tactics to 'treat' their school principal?

So it happens that one of the tyrannical actions was to start class 15 minutes earlier. The school used to start at 830am. Now it will start at 815am. The extra 15 minutes becomes a reading period, so that students will develop the habit of reading for 15 minutes. But a student who signed the petition said: "We are forced to read. I feel so bad (in English)." "This is inconvenient for students who live faraway. Not much reading can be done in 15 minutes."

Actually many schools are already running this type of morning reading period. Usually it is 20 to 30 minutes. I remember that my first class in secondary school was to read the newspaper. At the time, I thought that it was boring. Eventually I developed the habit of reading the news every morning. When I read the news, I keep up with the world; if I can't read the news, I feel as I am missing something.

Thus the principal answered the reporter in that ambush interview: "This is tyranny? May I ask which part of this is tyrannical?" Yes, those 15 minutes are very important. If the students can read some more, maybe they will find out what tyranny is in history and then they will know what tyranny is.

An Internet user wrote: "If it truly tyrannical to force you to come to school earlier and make you read books! You should be able to play with computer games, watch movies, eat and sleep all day; you should get full marks without taking any exams; you should be able to graduate from university automatically; you should be able to get a house and a car automatically; you should be able to have lots of money without working ..."

I have said that something has gone wrong with education. Every school has some cancerous political cells who want to turn educational issues into political strife in the manner of the Cultural Revolution. The person who started this is Yip Ka-yu, who studied for the DSE at CCC Ming Yin this year and who is a follower of Joshua Wong at Scholarism and Demosisto.

What happened at CCC Ming Yin College should be an example for all schools in Hong Kong. A few cancerous cells may take down the entire body, just as a few cancerous students and alumni may take down an entire school. So principals should be wary and prepare yourselves for the coming battle.

Internet comments:

- (Apple Daily) Yip Ka-yu who graduated this year said that the sixth-year students have to take a pre-mock test, a mock test and a post-mock test in order to deal with the Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) exams. This increased the pressure on students greatly.

- In order to run a mock test, the teachers have to prepare a test, administer the test, grade the test and review the results with each students. This is simply a lot of work. Why do this? Because the DSE is the exam is the culmination of six years of hard work and the results can literally change lives. If you do well, you get to attend university; you get to attend trade school or just get a job as a kitchen apprentice.

- Yes, some schools don't even give any mock tests. But parents get nervous and enroll their children in tutoring schools that run the mock tests. The cost may be several thousand dollars per test. In this case, CCC Ming Yin College is offering a pre-mock test, a mock test and a post-mock test for free. What more can you ask for?

- What pressure on students? If the students don't like doing these mock tests, they don't have to do it. In Hong Kong, compulsory education is only for nine years. A 12-th year student sitting for the DSE can always drop out.

- (Apple Daily) Yip Ka-yu said that the school extended school hours by almost one hour, including adding 15 minutes of reading time and making students show up earlier for school.

- Here are some famous quotations from the students themselves:

- Yip Ka-yu explained why this is so bad. She said that showing up earlier will affect the 精神 (mental concentration, vitality, spirit, liveliness) of the students and teachers).

- A student with surname Wong: This is a huge problem because the school did not consult the student. Also the action means that the students cannot go home earlier to rest and study.

-- A student with surname Lai: What is the effectiveness of 15 minutes of reading time? "It is inconvenient for students who live far away, and how much can you read in 15 minutes?"

-- A student with surname Yiu: Reading should be a matter of personal interest for students. Extending the school hours will reduce rest time. "They are forcing us to read. I feel so bad (in English)."

Here are some points:

- Yip Ka-yu attended the CCC Ming Yin College in Sham Shui Po district. Last year she joined Scholarism and became a member of the Standing Committee. So that explains everything.

- Meanwhile Dr. Anne Chan is a member of the pro-establishment Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers. So she must be targeted for extinction.

- No, that isn't everything. The remaining piece of the puzzle is how to get Secretary of Education Eddie Ng into all this.

- Well, all these other issues are peripheral because the main point is to decide the question of "Who is the boss?" So is it the school principal Dr. Anne Chan? Or the students? The issues could be school hours but it could also also have been many other issues (e.g. extracurricular activities, teachers' pay, etc). So who gets to decide on these issues?

- If the students are the decision-makers on school hours, then they will demand the power to hire/fire staff/teachers, setting school curriculum, etc.

- CCC Ming Yin College is a Band 1B school. But there are plenty of other Band 2 and Band 3 schools where students come in every day to have fun and never to study. That is why CCC Ming Yin College students are upset. They want equality, justice and fairness so that they can also come in every day to have fun and never to study.

- If these CCC Ming Yin College students are not happy, they can always transfer to Band 2 and Band 3 schools where it is party time all the time.

- By comparison, mainland Chinese students could only wish that they can be in class every hour of the day to better prepare themselves.

- If you don't want to read, you can just sit there and stare at the book and think about something else. In this case, you are preparing yourself for your future low-end job (such as security guard) which involves serving a certain number of hours each day.

- When I was a student, I studied five to six hours a day on my own. When the school bell rang, the teachers rushed out the door. What do they care about giving me the extra minutes that I wanted? Today students are different. When the principal and teachers want you to do better, you call them tyrants! Why don't you just drop out of school already!? Do you think that the principal/teachers have nothing better to do?

- When I was a student, all the teachers were Division 430 soldiers. When 430pm came around, they got off the job. They won't respond to anything that you ask them. So they should ever voluntarily to give us extra tutoring, we would have been elated to the high heavens! I am not saying that they were lousy teachers; but they stuck to their duties, they did what they were supposed to do and then they went home and led their own lives.

- If the students don't perform well at DSE, the fault lies with the school. The school needs to come up with a way to let students perform well in DSE without having to study. This is why the school is there.

- The students always had the choice. They can choose to study diligently and obtain good results at the DSE. Or they can choose to abandon all hope and choose failure for themselves. Nobody is forcing them. In fact, the students don't even have to stay in school for one more day -- they can drop out right now!

- Compare CCC Ming Yin College against an elite school such as LaSalle College. Why do LSC students work so hard? Is it because their principal and the teachers are oppressive tyrants? Or is it because the students want to study hard and do well? It is clear that the students are elites who know what they want and who do what they have to do to get there.

- These students don't want to go to the additional tutorials, but they are afraid that their fellow students may go and thus gain an advantage over them. So the solution is to make sure that nobody gets anything!

- This is a new world of labor/student thinking. Not only do workers want maximum working hours, but students want maximum study hours.

- If the students are excellent in academically, the principal couldn't care less. But the situation is that the student performances are sliding. What is the principal going to tell the board of directors? Should the principal say that "sleeping in the streets at Occupy Central" is more valuable than "four years of schooling"?

- I don't think that the school should make it compulsory for the students to do one thing or the other. They should offer the students the choice. If the students don't want to take the pre-mock, mock and post-mock tests, then so be it.

- If you think that your whole person will be wasted without getting that 15 minutes of extra sleep, then maybe you shouldn't have stayed up all night playing computer games.

- What is the difference between waking up at 700am and getting to school at 830am, versus waking up 645am and getting to school at 815am? Is it really a matter of life and death?

- What is the 15 minutes for? For example, you have English dictation in your fourth class of the day. You memorized the passage last night (or at least you thought that you did). Why not go over the passage one more time this morning?

- If a student has 15 minutes to spend, would it be for reading books? Or for Facebook? And is Facebook really going to help him/her do better on DSE?

- When the mission is to overthrow tyranny, how can a signature campaign be sufficient? We need student class strikes, labor strikes, sabotage, takeovers, fire bombs, etc.

- (YouTube) From the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, "Revolution is no crime, to rebel is justified."

- (YouTube) Sam Hui's classical song about student life. But that was a long time ago.

- This is the first time anywhere in the world that providing education is TYRANNY because the students say that they don't want it.

- There is a school in Ho Man Tin district where the school principal imposes compulsory extra lessons, compulsory summer classes, compulsory outdoor singing lessons, compulsory religious activities, and compulsory handover of mobile phones. However, the classrooms are in disgraceful shapes. How about that for TYRANNY?

- We can eliminate tyranny by banning the following undemocratic rules and regulations:

- Attending school on time
- Wearing school uniforms
- Handing in homework
- No sleeping in class
- Taking exams to assess achievement
- Attending physical education classes
- Forbidding private chats during teaching ...

- The Revolution never stops. After you are done with tyranny at school, you are going to find tyranny at work:

- You must show up for work on time
- You must adhere to company dress codes
- You must do your work
- You must not sleep at work
- You must be subjected to job performance appraisals to determine your wages
- You are not allowed to use Facebook for personal purposes

- CCC Ming Yin College is a Band 1B school. It is a decent school, though not great. If the students take over, it will guarantee to be a great place to study at, but the students will be non-competitive against those from other schools.

- Where is the Professional Teachers Union? Where is the Civic Party/Democratic Party/League of Social Democrats/People Power/Civic Passion/Hong Kong Indigenous? Everybody knows that the case is so ludicrous that it is drawing huge media attention around the world. So why aren't they jumping in already to get some media exposure? Or is this too embarrassing for even them?

- Soaphk.hk

CCC Ming Yin College students leave angry words at Soaphk.hk to say that they are stakeholders at their school and that they are being nice by not using obscene curses already.

(EJ Insight) June 13, 2016.

Stanley Lau Chin-ho (劉展灝), one of Hong Kongs prominent businessmen, died on Sunday after suffering a heart attack at the age of 66.

Lau, an employer representative on the Labour Advisory Board, attended a public consultation of the Standard Working Hours Committee on Saturday after returning from a business trip to Japan. In the evening, he went to the residence of Eddy Li, the president of the Chinese Manufacturers Association of Hong Kong, for dinner. Later, he complained of chest pain and was taken to the Hong Kong Baptist Hospital. He was sent home but was asked to come again on Monday for another check-up. However, he passed away during sleep in the early hours of Sunday.

The businessmans family expressed shock and sadness at the sudden death. Laus elder son, Gary Lau, said his father was in good health and that he had been exercising regularly, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported. Following the patriarchs death, Gary said that he and his brother will now jointly take care of the family business.

Lau, who proposed contractual working hours last year, has faced strong criticism and protests from labor representatives. In a protest on Saturday, Tam Leung-ying of the Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre threw a wig at Lau and mocked him for suggesting a fake standard working hours proposal, according to RTHK. The wig missed Lau. The public consultation ended earlier than scheduled. Tam said he was shocked by Laus death but he said his protest was not personal at all.

Leung Chau-ting, an employee representative on Labour Advisory Board, said that although he had some differences with Lau, he will readily admit that Lau had a deep understanding of labor issues.

Irons Sze Wing-wai, a permanent honorary president of the Chinese Manufacturers Association of Hong Kong and an employer representative on the Labour Advisory Board, said Saturdays protest was not good, even though he acknowledged that the incident cant be linked to Laus heart attack. 

(The Standard) June 13, 2016.

Leading industrialist Stanley Lau Chin- ho, a former chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries who opposed standard working hours, has died of a heart attack. He was 66.

Police said they received a report at 5.13am from a 61-year-old woman, saying her husband was in a coma in their home at Kowloon City. The man, who was later confirmed as Lau, was sent to Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei, where he was certified dead at 5.40am.

Lau, who was managing director of Renley Watch Group and an employers' representative on the Standard Working Hours Committee, made his last public appearance on Saturday during a public consultation on working hours in Tai Po, where a protester threw a wig at him, criticizing the employers' representatives for refusing to regulate working hours. Lau was supposed to attend the RTHK program City Forum yesterday to debate issues on Mandatory Provident Fund and retirement protection.

His sons, Gary Lau Sun-tao and Ronald Lau Sun-ting, released a statement through the Productivity Council. "It is with great sadness we announce that our beloved father passed away suddenly at home in his sleep this morning with our mother and family members by his side. It is difficult to put into words our loss," they said. "We wish to thank everyone for the love and care towards our father. The funeral arrangements will be announced in due course."

Lau apparently had his last dinner when he attended a reception hosted by Eddy Li Sau-hung, president of the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong, at his home on Saturday evening. He then went home but felt uncomfortable at about 10pm. Lau went to Baptist Hospital where his family doctor gave him an electrocardiogram and he went home.

Lau had opposed legislation on standard working hours as he believed it would create labor shortages and hurt Hong Kong's competitiveness.

Hong Kong Trade Unions chairman Stanley Ng Chau-pei, who quit the committee with five other employees' representatives, said yesterday: "Although our stances are completely opposite, both of us keep the public interest in mind instead of personal grudges."

(SCMP) June 13, 2016.

Stanley Lau Chin-ho, one of the citys most prominent industrialists, has died of a heart attack. He was 66. Lau, an honorary president of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, passed away at Kwong Wah Hospital in Yau Ma Tei on Sunday morning. He recently told the Post that he was in good health and ran every morning before work even participating in the occasional marathon. Laus two sons, Gary Lau Sun-tao and Ronald Lau Sun-ting, said their father died in his sleep with their mother and family members by his bedside.

Lau, the federations former chairman and the current Productivity Council chairman, was due to appear on the RTHK programme City Forum on Sunday to discuss Hong Kongs MPF system and retirement protection issues. He had received intense criticism in recent years for voicing the concerns of the industrial and business communities over issues such as standard working hours

Federation chairman Professor Daniel Cheng Man-chung called Lau's death a sad loss to Hong Kong and the local industry. Mr Lau had made invaluable contribution to the FHKI, the Hong Kong industry as well Hong Kong's economic and social development as a whole. He is an outstanding industrial leader and our dearest friend," Cheng said.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor praised Lau as an outstanding industrialist and being passionate for Hong Kong. She expressed condolences to his wife and sons, and said it was totally unfair to criticise Lau for giving his views to the government. Im shocked and saddened by the sudden news, said Lam. All those who know him will sorely miss him. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who was out of the city on holiday, also expressed his sadness and condolences.

Lau, who was also an employees representative on the Standard Working Hours Committee, attended the committees first community consultation meeting on Saturday in Tai Po. Only about 30 citizens attended the consultation, and Lau had a wig thrown at him by a protestor.

Lawmaker Leung Yiu-chung, of the Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre, said: Although we had different stances [over the standard working hours issue], we felt shocked and sad at [Laus] sudden passing away.

Lau had previously openly opposed legislation on minimum wage and standard working hours.

Standard Working Hours Committee member Leung Chau-ting said that while he and Lau never saw eye to eye, the industrialist was a straight talking man who was easy to get along with. He stood for industry and we stood for the labour sector. On camera, we were at loggerheads. But after meetings we were still friends, Leung said. He was a person who was very easy to get along with. He was very upfront with everything, very frank and never beating around the bush. He would tell us very straight up that certain issues would have an impact on industry.

A watch manufacturer by trade, Lau was a member of the Sichuan Provincial Committee of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference. He was awarded the Young Industrialist Award in 1994 and had a long record of public and community service in industry and labour circles. He also received a bronze Bauhinia Star in 2009 and a silver one in 2014.

He was chairman of the Vetting Committee of the General Support Programme under the Innovation and Technology Fund, and a member of the Economic Development Commission, Hong Kong Trade Development Council and the Labour Advisory Board, among other public roles.

That's what you read in English. Now see what you read in Chinese.

(Oriental Daily including video) June 12, 2016.

In the first round of public consultations on Standard Working Hours in Tai Po, only about 30 citizens and organizations took part because the labor representatives had quit the commission already. The meeting was over by 530pm, more than 1 hour ahead of time. Many members of the Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre members protested.

Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre member Tam Leung-ying pulled the wig from his head and threw it at Standard Working Hours Committee member Stanley Lau, hitting the chair on which Lau was sitting on. Lau did not react. Afterwards, Tam and a dozen others left the meeting room in protest. Tam said that throwing the wig was meant to take a dig at the the employers for having no intention to legislate standard working hours ("no wig" sounds like "no law" in Cantonese).

Before the meeting began, the Civic Alliance To Fight For Standard Working Hours protested against committee chairman Edward Leung. They chanted slogans and demanded the establishment of standard working hours. At one point, they surrounded Leung and demanded the cessation of any further discussion of contractual working hours. Leung said: "I heard you. I heard everything that you are saying." The demonstrators dispersed after five minutes.

(Oriental Daily) June 12, 2016.

After Stanley Lau passed away, Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre member Tam Leung-ying said that Lau might be unhappy over Tam's action. However, Tam said that this was the conseuqnce of Lau's poor performance as a member of the Standard Working Hours committee. He said that Lau's previous comments such as saying that "the boss is the dealer and the worker is the dealer" made people feel that he disrespected workers.

- How can Stanley Lau say that "the boss is the dealer and the worker is the dealer"? He has obviously no idea who is in charge. When the workers go out on strike, the boss is finished. Without the workers, the boss is nothing.

- Please fill in: Without the boss, the workers are _____________ .

(Kinliu) June 15, 2016.

On June 13, our reporter reached Tam Leung-ying at the office of Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre legislative councilor Leung Yiu-chung in Kwai Fong Estate. Tam said: "I find this is ... quite funny ... to accuse me of throwing the wig that caused his death." Tam admitted that he wore a wig in order to skirt around the security check. "Throwing a wig will clearly not cause personal injury." He did not think that Stanley Lau was scared by a wig being thrown at him. Tam said that Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre was trying to cause trouble at the public consultation, so that the public won't think things were going smoothly. Tam said that, if necessary, they may initiate a labor strike.

Tam said that if events rewind back to the same moment, he would still not hesitate to throw the wig. He exhibited no remorse. He said that Stanley Lau's death had nothing to do with him. "I have seen an Internet photo which accused me of being the murdering. I didn't think that matters to me."


"Murderer"

Video: https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/499943960202986/

(Ming Pao) June 13, 2016.

Shortly after the news came that Stanley Lau had passed away, Neighbourhood and Workers Services Centre member Wong Yun-tat posted on his Facebook: "If standard working hours become fact, not just workers but I guess that even bosses will have lower chances of cardiac conditions." He added: "Will the government please enact standard working hours legislation in order to protect the health of citizens." This post drew massive criticisms and was soon deleted.

Yesterday Wong Yun-tat responded to our reporter. He admitted that he deleted his post because it was like throwing salt on other people's wounds. If the family of Stanley Lau is uncomfortable about those comments, Wong was willing to apologize. Lau said that he made those comments because many bosses and not just workers have to work overtime. Lau said that his comments were directed at the social system and not at specific individuals. Wong said that his expression may have been imperfect and he did not intend to be disrespectful to the deceased.

- Standard working hours legislation is going to help the boss stop working too many hours? Do you know what the boss has to do? And the consequence of those things not getting done?

- Mr. Lau clearly died from exhaustion due to overworking. Let us hope that his death will cause him to seriously reflect on his priorities in life.

- I hope that all young people are as wise and humane as you are.

(Sky Post) The First Death. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. June 14, 2016.

Starting two years ago, Hong Kong became strange. The string of political incidents and the nonstop acts of rage gave the feeling that someone is waiting for the first blood, even the first death, in order to call the emotional Hongkongers to lose their minds and break into rage.

When we looked at the reaction from the Admiralty tear gas and the ecstasy over the shots into the air in Mong Kok on Lunar New Years Day, we begin to sense that the opposition camp do not care at all about the lives of citizens. All they want to see is blood and deaths, because that would be the basis for their emotional appeal. Hongkongers are bleeding hearts. If there are any casualties, then the incident becomes another June 4th and their enemies will never be able to stand up. That is why political confrontations are getting angrier and the words are becoming more vicious.

But the opposition never figured that the first death would take place on the other side. Recently Standard Working Hours Committee member Stanley Lau passed away due to cardiac problems. Earlier he had attended a local consultation meeting in which someone threw a wig at him in insult.

The two facts do not seem to have a direct connection. But Stanley Lau had just returned that day from a business trip to Japan and went immediately to Tai Po to participate in the consultation meeting. Lau receives no compensation for his work on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, but he was insulted in public. One can imagine how hurt it must be. That evening, Lau felt ill and went to Baptist Hospital for treatment. When he got home, he went to sleep and passed away.

According to committee chairman Edward Leung, the committee has held 50 consultation meetings. Lau was absent only once. That means he attended 49 meetings, and he might have encountered similar insults for 49 times. Anyone with common knowledge knows that cardiac problems arise out of excitement.

If a death occurred among the opposition, this would have been a political incident already. But Mr. Lau's family are magnanimous and has not condemned anyone with a single sentence. All those opposition members who think that it is their duty to insult others while veins pop up on their foreheads, should you reflect on whether this type of behavior is necessary?

- In total, Stanley Lau held positions in seven public commissions. He doesn't get paid for any of these positions. He will have to replaced.

How does Civic Passion valiant resist the Chinese Communist Party? They do it by valiant doling out free glutinous rice dumplings!

And when September comes, they will be doling out moon cakes.

Reference: 2015 District Council Elections - Part 4 (Snake banquets, vegetarian meals, moon cakes and rice dumplings)


June 19, 2016 1pm-3pm, ClubOne, Kowloon, Wong Yeung-tat and Raymond Wong Yuk-man comedy show, ticket prices: $1000/$600/$500 all other tickets sold out.
All proceeds will go to the Legislative Council campaign whereupon their candidates will resign immediately upon being elected in order to use the by-election as a public referendum for a new constitution.


2016 Plan for young people to experience politics
Let students have the opportunity to participate in Legislative Council elections, experience and learn about Hong Kong politics. The students will assist in the Legco election campaigns, including local matters, administrative support, election propaganda, etc.
Qualifications: Students at tertiary institutions of education; DSE graduates this year
Time period: July-September 2016
Requirements: Full time, five- to six-working days per week (Saturday and Sunday required), at least 8 hours per day.
Salary: HK$5,000 in subsidies per month.

Please send your C.V. before June 20, 2016 to ymwonghelp@gmail.com, or call 2309-2809.

- Six working days per week at 8 hours per day is 48 hours per week. At the minimum wage level of $35 and four weeks per month, the minimum salary should be 48 x 4 x $35 = $6,720. But they are only paying $5,000.

- Raymond Wong Yuk-man's organization is the Proletariat Political Institute. Proletariats are not born knowing that they are proletariats who are exploited by the capitalists, especially students who have never worked before. So this is their first chance of experiencing exploitative working conditions. Hopefully they will develop the working-class consciousness after this experience and become working-class hero resisters.

- (silentmajority.hk) In 2010, Raymond Wong Yuk-man supported the minimum wage of $33. However, his beef noodle shop was paying employees as low as $25 per hour. He blamed his wife "because she said that if the minimum wage ever reached $33, the business would be impossible to run." But also he blamed rent increase for causing the beef noodle shop to go out of business. If it is the rent, then why won't he raise wages? Also in 2010, during the second reading of the minimum wage bill, Raymond Wong spoke about intern students. He said that university students have special skills, so they deserve to have dignity. "If this minimum wage bill covers all workers, then why don't university students get the same protection for summer internships?"

(Wen Wei Po) June 13, 2016.

Recently, League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng and vice-chairman Raphael Wong have been distributed pamphlets about themselves.

In the case of Avery Ng, he said that he graduated from Melbourne University majoring in engineering and actuarial science and worked as strategic consultant for a multinational corporation. He returned from New Zealand to Hong Kong and joined the League of Social Democrats because he felt that society was unfair. During the Umbrella Movement, he stayed to defend Mong Kok and was nicknamed "The Great General" for chasing after triad thugs. He believes firmly that the people will defeat the tyrants by popular resistance.

In the case of Raphael Wong, he is nicknamed "The Village Mayor." He graduated with a degree in social policies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has participated many times in civil disobedience, and has been arrested/charged uncountable number of times. He is accustomed to defending himself in court. He said "I am not afraid of going to jail; I am only afraid that there is silence." He does not care to be understood by others; he only wants justice to be done.

About these depictions, one Internet users wrote: "This is so shameless that I don't even know how to characterize it!" Here are the facts. Avery Ng's full nickname was "The Grand General of the Pedestrian Sidewalk." During Occupy Mong Kok, Ng smeared Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat for being absent when in fact photos showed that Wong was present. Meanwhile it was Ng who stood on the sidewalk watching the battle. That was how Ng came to be sarcastically called the "The Grand General of the Pedestrian Sidewalk."

Raphael Wong's nickname came during the Legislative Council debates about preliminary funding of the New Territories North East development. Raphael Wong stopped others from charging at the Legislative Council and uttered the famous words: "The villagers do not think this way." At the time, there were no villagers present but Wong said that he "represented" them because he knows them best. That was when people made fun of him by calling him the "Village Mayor."

But even as Civic Passion made fun of these two League of Social Democrats candidates, other Internet users pointed out that Civic Passion members are called "Hot Dogs" because they say that they are valiant but they are in fact all talk and no action.

So everybody treats 「噓聲當掌聲,柴台當站台」(= they treated the booing as applause; they treated the heckling as support).

(Wen Wei Po) June 13, 2016.

Ever since the rise of the Localist factions, the two old radical parties People Power and League of Social Democrats are expected to lose a lot of votes. So the two parties have just announced that they will join together for the Legislative Council elections in September. Supporters of the two parties say that this alliance will be the death knell for organizations just as Civic Passion-Proletariat Political Institute-City State, Hong Kong Indigenous, Youngspiration, etc. They said that they will even take over the votes of the Labour Party, ADPL and Neighbourhood and Workers Service Centre.

Civic Passion struck back as say that their liaison is more of a lonely man with a lonely woman. Others said that they more like "dumb and dumber" except it is hard to say that who is dumber. But in the end the only thing that matters is winning. If they lose their Legco seats (currently LSD has League Kwok-hung and PP has Chan Wai-yip and Chan Chi-chuen), they are extinct.

- This must be the anti-Raymond Wong Yuk-man alliance, right? I actively wait for "Big Guy" Chan Wai-yip to fail in his effort to life up "Village Mayor" Raphael Wong; for "Roadside General" Avery Ng to continue as spectator; Chan Chi-chuen and Tam Tak-chi both defeated; and "141" (former PP chairman Lau Ka-hung supported by current PP chairwoman Erica Yuen) to lose again.

- (Silentmajority.hk) In the New Territories East Legco-election, Edward Leung received 66,000 votes. Polls showed that 25% of these were People Power/League of Social Democrats supporters, 19% were Civic Party supporters and 38% supported other political parties.

- (Wen Wei Po) Chan Wai-yip (People Power) is going to give up his incumbent position to make way for Raphael Wong (League of Social Democrats) not because he is generous but because he stands no chance of re-election. By yielding his own slot in New Territories West and also supporting Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats) in Kowloon West, Chan Wai-yip will secure the support of League of Social Democrats for three People Power candidates: Chan Chi-chuen (New Territories East), Tam Tak-chi (Kowloon East) and Lau Ka-hung (Hong Kong Island). Without this deal, neither party won't be able to field strong enough candidates in all five districts.

(Wen Wei Po) June 12, 2016.

The Civil Human Rights Front recently held a press conference about the July 1st demonstration march. They plan to set off from Victoria Park at 3pm and arrive on the east side of Government Headquarters to demand the resignation of Chief Executive CY Leung, implement a universal retirement plan, etc. They estimated that 100,000 will attend.

However, it is common knowledge that the point is not about the number of marchers but the amount of donations to be raised.

Youngspiration convenor Baggio Wong said that they disagree with the themes of the July 1st march. So they won't participate in the march. However, they will set up booths along the march route "in order to reach more citizens who want freedom and democracy." Youngspiration had made the decision not to apply to the Civil Human Rights Front to set up these booths.

Traditionally, the pan-democratic groups that solicit donations at the July 1st demonstration automatically hand over a portion of their proceeds to the organizer Civil Human Rights Front. Since Youngspiration has stated that they won't apply, it naturally means that they won't share any of their proceeds. Civil Human Rights Front convener Jimmy Sham said: "If you don't agree with the Front's demands or platforms, why do you still want to set up street booths during the march? I find this incomprehensible."

- Youngspiration is telling people not to participate, but they are nevertheless trying to rake in money along the march route.

- In the past, the older people who want to rake in money also participate in the march. Now the younger people don't even want to pretend to march. They just set up a booth to take your money!

- Youngspiration will talk about youth and aspiration, but in the final analysis all they want is $$$$$$$!!!

- The Civil Human Rights Front is being petty-minded! Look, there's plenty of money out there to be shared by everyone. There is no need to attack each other.

(Wen Wei Po) June 17, 2016.

Yesterday the Electoral Affairs Commission held a public forum  in Quarry Bay on the proposed guidelines on election-related activities in respect of the Chief Executive election. For the first 90 minutes, the meeting was conducted on an orderly basis.

Then "Supersonic Mouse" Cheng Kam-kun (Civic Passion) said during the question session that this forum was just a show because at most 1,200 can vote in this Chief Executive election. "You feel very good, don't you?" Cheng said that he will be pushing for a de facto referendum in the Legislative Council in order to come up with a people's constitution. Cheng attempted to get on stage and charge at EAC chairman Barnabas Fung but he was intercepted by security guards. Cheng continued the shouting and said that this public forum must be terminated because the people of Hong Kong cannot vote in the Chief Executive election. He called on others to leave. He and his Civic Passion colleagues led the way by removing the chairs. However, nobody else listened to their call. Eventually the security guards removed the Civic Passion, who tried many times to charge back into the meeting hall. Some citizens left because it was too chaotic and disorderly. Barnabas Fung said that the commission deplored those who disrupted the meeting and deprived other citizens their right to express their opinions.

Oscar Lai Man Lok

Please circulate broadly: We do not want a 'time bomb' by our side!

Hong Kong does not want another building collapse in the manner of City University.

In 2008, the Transportation and Housing Bureau reported that Block 22 of the Tung Tau Estate on Ngai Chin Wai Road requires a large-scale maintenance work. However, the effectiveness of maintenance/repair is less than rebuilding, so the Bureau decided to demolish the Estate.

During the construction period, I went with our Kowloon East team to the construction site. As soon we stepped into Tung Tau Estate, the sound of the pile drivers were deafening. We walked along the path that Estate residents must travel through every day, and the sound of the pile drivers was even more stunning. As we approached the construction side, we felt the mountains shake and earth move while the trees were shaking. We put a key on a railing outside the construction site and attempted to gauge how the construction work is impacting local residents. The video showed that the key vibrating each time that the pile was driven. This demonstrated how much noise the Tung Tau Estate residents have to endure every day. Although the key is small, the construction activity must affect the nearby buildings and the foundation of the entire Tung Tau Estate. We don't want to see Hong Kong have any building collapse in the manner of City University. Besides, the Po Yan Oblate Primary School is located less than one meter away from the construction site, so it will have a huge impact on primary school students. Who can ensure attending class eight hours a day next to a construction site?

We want every resident to monitor the construction activity with us, and minimize the impact of the construction work on residents. If you have any questions or complaints, you can call the company.

Sze Tat Chau

You blokes can make people laugh to death! Brother, how detached are you from reality? Have you never seen pile drivers before? Do you need to place a key on a railing to see if it vibrates or not? How can pile driving affect the foundation of other buildings? Professional experts are monitoring everything, stupid dick! Besides, the building collapse at City University had nothing to do with the foundation. Somehow you mix it up as the same thing. Please, if you don't know something, go ask somebody who does. You just expose your own shortcomings all the time and rant!

Oscar Lai Man Lok went and deleted his post without explanation.

Sze Tat Chau

Oscar Lai, it won't do you any good to delete your post. Stupid things should be remembered forever, and this screen capture will be kept forever. You will never escape from my grasp.

(Wen Wei Po) June 10, 2016.

Oscar Lai Man Lok removed his Tung Tau Estate (I) post shortly afterwards. Then he posted another one:

During the hot Dragon Boat Festival, apart from the dragon boats that are dancing in the water and congratulating each other for happiness during the Dragon Boat Festival, the traditional food of glutinous rice dumpling should not be omitted. This dumpling is not the dumpling as in "snake banquet, vegetarian meal, moon cake and glutinous rice dumpling," but it is a homemade glutinous rice dumpling made by ordinary people.

Once again, Internet user Sze Tat Chau jumped to make fun of him

If Demosisto screwed up again, they should have taken it. However, they are beyond reasoning and they made innumerable denunciations to Facebook which removed Sze Tat Chau's post and banned him for 24 hours.

Sze Tat Chau posted at an alternate Facebook account: "This is not the first time that Facebook favored Demosisto. First, Facebook helped them merge all their pages. This is highly suspicious. Now for the past two days they have been continuously removing information that is critical of Demosisto, even banning Sze Tat Chau. This is just violent action that represents online hegemony, suppression of freedom of expression and violation of democratic principles. Demosisto, do not be proud because your chance of success is zero!"

Sze Tat Chau added: "What use is it to suppress freedom of expression? If I don't fucking ambush you until you fold, I might as well as adopt your family name." The Demosisto also denounced that post, which was also removed by Facebook.

Sze Tat Chau continued: "Demosisto claimed to be fighting for a city of self-determination, but they use violent methods (banning, censorship, deprivation of freedom of expression) to suppress all dissidents. You may be able to co-opt the Facebook administrator but you will never win public support because you don't deserve this! During normal times, you say 'Although I disagree with your viewpoints, I will defend your right to say it to my death!" All that is fake! Once I got you in your weak spot, you immediately got me banned. You can't ban me forever. I will be back in 22 hours. You fucking bastards can forget it!"

Comments:

So what was funny about the Magnet Man's post on the Dragon Boat Festival. Everything!

「炎炎熱熱的端午節」(The scorching blazing searing hot Dragon Boat Festival) Isn't it enough to say 'this hot Dragon Boat Festival'? Writing out "scorching blazing searing hot" only appears in essays composed by primary school students.

- No, Oscar Lai is extending what the poetess Li Qingzhao (1081-1151?) wrote: 「尋尋覓覓, 冷冷清清, 淒淒慘慘戚戚」(I seek and seek, I search and search -- in vain! It's cold, it's cold! Am so lonely, lonely! I am in pain, in pain! ) into  「炎炎熱熱,尋尋覓覓, 冷冷清清, 淒淒慘慘戚戚」. In this case, Oscar Lai is suffering from 炎 (infection) and 熱(fever), so he is feeling cold, lonely and in pain.

「水中起舞的龍舟」(The dragon boats which were dancing in the waters) Do you see the dragon boats dancing in the waters? Has Oscar Lai ever seen a dragon boat competition (live or televised)? Do they dance when they race?

「互相祝福端午節快樂」(Wishing each other a happy Dragon Boat Festival) For as long as I have lived, I have never wished anyone a happy Dragon Boat Festival nor have I ever heard anyone ever say that to me. You wish each other Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. And Happy Birthday too. You do not wish people a happy Dragon Boat Festival, Mid-Autumn Festival, Ching Ming Festival, Chung Yeung Festival, Buddha's Birthday, etc.

「糉這個傳統食物也總會令人透心涼」(The traditional food of glutinous rice dumpling generally makes people cool down inside) Hey brother, you store the dumping in the refrigerator first because it may rot in hot weather. When you want to eat it, you take it out the refrigerator and put it into a pot of boiling water for several minutes. If you serve it immediately, it will be hot. If you lay it on the table and wait a while before eating it, it will be at room temperature. Either way, it won't "cool you down inside."

P.S. 「透心涼」has many other meanings none of which you really want to apply here.
(Baike.Baidu.com) (1) A fruit drink concocted from egg yolk, orange juice, lemon and cherries; (2) a bottled drink concocted from water, sugar and dye materials favored by school children in smaller Chinese cities during the 1990's; (3) to become thoroughly disheartened; (4) Schadenfreude, taking delight in the misfortune of others; (5) using a sharp knife to make a clear and precise stab through the heart.

P.P.S. Even Oscar Lai knew that this was indefensible, so he quietly edited this post into saying "the traditional glutinous rice dumpling is an indispensable part of this festival." No acknowledgement about the previous problems, of course.

Other comments:

- ("Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) I support Sze Tat Chau and I support freedom of speech! ... If you have something to say, send me a personal message (pm) and I will post it for you. Defend freedom of speech!

- Demosisto, give up. This is really appalling. If you want to come out and run for election, you ought to have some tolerance for criticisms.

- So Demosisto defends freedom of speech while they report their critics to silence them. Freedom and democracy are so wonderful. Civic society is so wonderful. Marvelous! I have learned something.

- If you can't tolerate dissidence, how can you fight for democracy?

- We must circulate the stories about their dirty tricks so that more people will know. Whenever Joshua Wong, Oscar Lai, Agnes Chow and Nathan Law lose an argument, they resort to dirty tricks. They should go and eat shit!

- Demosisto ... they suppress dissidents.

- They are not in charge yet and they are already like this. What will happen if they ever take charge?

- Whenever they don't like something that they hear, they immediately stop people. What happens if they ever become Legislators? They will be the only ones allowed to speak.

- I detest the bum Joshua Wong. He is only interested in finding ways to take in more money. As soon as he hears something that he dislikes, he files a complaint to the authorities. This is not a person who can be entrusted to achieve great things! He is an enemy of Democracy.

- The Demosisto people are feebleminded. They screw up with what they do, they screw up with what they write. But when they screw up and someone else point this out, they immediately fucking rush to complain to the Facebook administrator! This is suppression of freedom! They can all go and eat shit!

- A better strategy for Demosisto is to get Oscar Lai to screw up fucking less often! That will mean less opportunity for Sze Tat Chau to make fun of him.

- If they delete one post, we will re-post it ten more times. Let us see how many Facebook accounts can Demosisto complain against?

- Demosisto hoists the banner of democracy high ... but when someone makes a screen capture and makes a comment, they immediately launch a campaign to complain. You guys can go and eat shit! Double fucking standards!

(Wen Wei Po) June 11, 2016.

According to the Demosisto web page, they received donations of almost $390,000 coming from 354 persons on June 4th outside Victoria Park. But earlier Demosisto president Nathan Law said that they received $450,000. It is possible that they have got even more when people sent checks care of Wong Chi Fung. So Internet user Sze Tat Chau wanted to know: "How much money did you receive in total?"

Sze Tat Chau noted that Demosisto promised on Facebook that they will normally reply within 10 minutes. But many 10 minutes later, Demosisto still has no response. Other Internet users went to the personal Facebooks of Nathan Law, Oscar Lai and Joshua Wong. But they didn't get any response either, with some of those comments being deleted too.

Internet comments:

- Oscar Lai's Magnet Man gig is wearing thin, so he needs something more substantive for his Legislative Council campaign. This debacle isn't going to help.

- Pile driving has been fucking banned a long time ago already. Nowadays, they use drill holes and then insert the piles. How can the mountains fucking shake and the earth fucking move? All construction projects have permits that allow them to drill only certain hours of the day. All data (noise levels, settlement displacement, groundwater level, etc) goes to the independent project consultant every day. So it goes to fucking show that you are fucking ignorant!

It is fucking alright for you not to fucking know something. But the City University case was one in which they build a green garden on a roof that was not designed to handle the extra load. It had fucking nothing to do any foundation problem. If you want to stop the next City University incident, you should be checking all the green rooftops around Hong Kong for safety. You are fucking wasting your time if you want to fucking check all the building foundations!

That is why I say that trash tend to get together -- Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, Nathan Law, Oscar Lai. These people fucking know nothing but they are still full of confidence enough to spout all sorts of nonsense. The only reason why people were tolerant before was that they saw that you were only middle school students.

So please don't go around now saying The People of Hong  Kong this, or The People of Hong Kong that. Will you fucking wake up already!?

- Hong Kong buildings can withstand earthquakes of Richter scale 5 or 6. How is construction activity going to be more intense than an earthquake?

- Oscar Lai said that he and his entire Kowloon East team went down to Tung Tau Estate (I). This shows that there is not a single person with commonsense in Demosisto Kowloon East. What is commonsense? All you have to do is walk up to the entrance of the construction site and you will find all the required permits posted publicly (including the hours of operations, number of accidents, etc).

Here is one of those permits:

... Hard-impact pile driving can be conducted 1230pm-115pm and 430pm-645pm on days other than public holidays. So please stop this nonsense about primary school children putting up with 8 hours of mountain-moving, earth-shaking piling driving each day!

- Maybe a construction permit is too complicated for Oscar Lai to understand, but how about this press release dated January 14, 2008?

(Hong Kong Government) Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 to be cleared in 2012. January 15, 2008.

The Housing Authority's (HA) Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) today (January 15) approved a proposal to clear the 43-year-old Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 in Wong Tai Sin in 2012.

     The decision was made after carefully weighing up the structural conditions and the financial viability of further extending the lifespan of the block.

     Although a comprehensive recently completed structural investigation concludes that the Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 is structurally safe, large-scale repair works are required in order to sustain the serviceable lifespan of the building for the next 15 years," an authority spokesman said. "The necessary repair works, estimated at about $46 million, are not cost effective, not to mention the extensive nuisance and disturbance to be borne by the affected tenants.

...

      He said the Po Yan Catholic Primary School which is connected to Tung Tau (I) Estate Block 22 would be retained. The school is structurally sound and the school as well as parents welcomed the proposed retention arrangement.

     To ensure that the school is operated under a safe and less-disturbing environment during the redevelopment period, a liaison group consisting of representatives from the school, Education Bureau and Housing Department will be formed. Hydraulic concrete crusher demolition method and non-percussive piling method will be used to mitigate noise emissions.  Dust suppression devices will also be adopted to minimise air pollution at the school.

- Oscar Lai scored the lowest possible Level 1 in English language during the Diploma of Secondary Education exam. In his defense, people say that he is simply not good with languages. The problem being revealed now is that his problem is not language learning, but commonsense thinking!

- It is true that you don't need to have pilings in order to erect a tall building. They do it right next door to Hong Kong. Remember this?

- Of course, the Demosisto folks are still in their early 20's, so they have never seen what real pile drivers can do back in the 1960's and 1970's.

- Other Demosisto inanity:

(1) Support Denise Ho
(2) Support elimination of animal testing
(3) Decide to quit using Lanme
WHY NOT ALL?
Demosisto

I am fine with (1) and (2)  because it is just some harmless clicking on Facebook as opposed to real action or you asking me for even more money. (3) is really easy for me, because I have never heard of Lanme before and I solemnly promise that I won't use it in the future.

By the way, you bastards can't even type a few words without mistakes!

- Even more Demosisto inanity:

Nathan Law

Chinese University of Hong Kong student needs a heart transplant urgently.

The degree of civilization for a society is a function of how its people value life. There is a young person who loves life but urgently needs a heart transplant. He has at most six months left to wait. If within these six months, another person sends it a donor card, he will have one more chance. Are you willing to lend a helping hand?

Sze Tat Chau

Is he actually crazy? Each person has one and only one heart. One cannot donate one's heart and still live. "If within these six months, another person sends in a donor card, he will have one more chance." What does that mean? Does he want the registered person to die within six months?

P.S. The CUHK student found a donor and Joshua Wong applauded the good news. This drew another round of criticisms for lack of sensitivity because this is surely not good news for the donor and her family.

- (Wen Wei Po) June 11, 2016.

Demosisto has just updated their Facebook with this portrait of Nathan Law and Oscar Lai singing to "Determine Our Future." This is ripped straight off Sonic Youth's <Goo> album cover. A media consultant said: "I know that many people have done spoofs of this cover, but Demosisto is a political party. So what is the point? Is this a spoof, tribute or ripoff?" An Internet user wrote: "Certain idealistic young people often talk about grand things on stage, but they actually carry out all manners of sneaky things. Character is important, but it takes time to discern it. I hope that people won't be conned by their appearances."

- This is Standard Operating Procedure to Demosisto. Their logo comes straight from the Barcelona Gallery Weekend.

- (Kinliu) June 17, 2016

Yesterday around 3pm, Joshua Wong posted a photo taken of a notice posted in the restroom of Demosisto.

<Warning>

To all those people with penises, you have three choices:

(1) You lift up the toilet seat when you urinate
(2) You sit down first and then you urinate
(3) If you wet the toilet seat, you lick it clean

WHY NOT ALL

- Why not all? Just imagine: (1) You lift up the toilet seat; (2) you sit down on the ceramic base and then you urinate; (Hey, that's kind of harsh (especially in winter), isn't it?); (3) you lick the toilet seat clean (but not the ceramic base which you soiled).

- "We are the demos"? According to Merriam-Webster, a demo is an example of a product that is not yet ready to be sold. So when are we going to see the actual product?

(HK01) June 5, 2016.

Recently mainland media reported that Denise Ho was invited by the cosmetics brand Lancme and the mouthwash brand Listerine to do commercials and promotions. Mainland media said that Denise Ho is publicly supporting Hong Kong independence and carries a photo of her with the Dalai Lama at her Facebook. Mainland media said that the commercials and promotions are done for Hong Kong only, but Lancme and Listerine are also operating in mainland China. So this becomes a case of the companies making money off mainland consumers to give to an entertainer to support Hong Kong independence!

So far Lancme has issued an official statement that Denise Ho is not their spokesperson and they apologize for any misunderstanding. Listerine said that Denise Ho is only participating in promotions in Hong Kong. Meanwhile mainland Internet users say: "Chinese traitors usually betray their country for economic reasons" and "There should be a civil organization to mobilize everybody to denounce those businesses and entertainers who take our money and use it against us."

(Global Times) June 6, 2016.

Net users from the Chinese mainland began an online boycott of L'Oreal and Listerine products on Saturday over the two companies' alleged commercial ties with controversial Hong Kong singer Denise Ho Wan-see.

Lancome, a brand of beauty products manufactured by L'Oreal, met with substantial criticism on the mainland's social media on Saturday after Ho posted Thursday on Facebook that she would attend a promotional event for the brand in Hong Kong on June 19.

Many Sina Weibo netizens voiced their anger over the company's commercial connection with Ho, who they claim constantly makes "inappropriate and unpleasant" remarks about the mainland on Facebook.

On Saturday evening, Lancome issued a statement on Weibo that Ho is not a spokesperson for the brand. The statement had received over 550,000 page views as of press time. Netizens urged Lancome to issue the statement on Facebook in addition to Sina Weibo and requested that the brand ask Ho not to attend the promotion.

A similar statement made on the official Facebook account of the brand's Hong Kong branch on Sunday clarified that Ho was simply invited to share her music at the event.

Listerine, a maker of mouthwash and other dental hygiene products, also came under fire for its relationship with Ho after a Listerine ad featuring the singer went viral Saturday.

It is not the first time that the Hong Kong singer has triggered controversy in the mainland.

On May 13, Ho posted pictures of her meeting with the 14th Dalai Lama in Japan on Facebook, calling it a "happy moment," a move that incurred widespread criticism on the mainland's social media. Ho also announced in January that she would close her online shop on Chinese e-commerce platform taobao.com, claiming to follow the actions of Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing, who reportedly began pulling investment funds out of the Chinese mainland in September 2015. Li's company denied the divestment accusations later that month, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

Several other Hong Kong celebrities have been the subject of recent boycotts by Chinese Net users for remarks and actions deemed politically "inappropriate" after the Occupy Central movement. In January, Wong Hei, former star of several TV series produced by Hong Kong's TVB, irritated mainland Net users for reportedly posting "inappropriate" content on Hong Kong-mainland ties on Facebook. Wong's face was later blurred out in a reality TV show aired by State-run broadcaster China Central Television. Later that month, a Facebook sticker fight flared up between Net users from the mainland and Taiwan over the former's boycott of reportedly pro-Taiwan-independence singer Chou Tzu-yu. Both Wong and Chou later apologized for their actions.

In February, L'Oreal said that China had outstripped the brand's home base, France, to become its second-largest market in 2015, up from third in 2010.

(SCMP) June 4, 2016.

The cosmetics giant Lancome has cancelled the promotional concert that would have featured Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-see. The firm had moved to distance itself from the singer, prompting an internet backlash.

A short statement posted on Lancomes Facebook page on Sunday afternoon read: Hong Kong actress Denise Ho is not a spokesperson of Lancome. We are sorry for the confusion caused. Thank you for your continuous support to Lancome.

The company had invited Ho to host a mini-concert at a promotion event in Sheung Wan on June 19. The event, which was free of charge, was fully booked. The promotions website only confirmed there would be a concert that afternoon, without naming any singer. It is not known whether Ho sought the companys consent before announcing that she was the performer.

The statement drew a huge backlash on Facebook, with more than 10,000 angry reactions received after just five hours, compared with fewer than 500 likes. Many called on others to boycott Lancome products, while others questioned if the company ever had the Hong Kong market in mind.

Some felt the move was prompted by a Weibo post by Beijing newspaper Global Times on Saturday. We have received tip-offs from netizens that Listerine and Lancome, both popular brands on the mainland, have recently invited Denise Ho a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote their products in Hong Kong. What do you guys think? the post read. Most comments on Weibo condemned the brands. A comment which read There have been precedents either you apologise and replace the spokesperson, or you can quit the mainland market drew more than 1,200 likes.

Lancome announced at 10pm on Sunday night that the event had been cancelled, citing possible safety reasons, and apologised to its supporters. However, the announcement failed to please internet users, with more than 1,000 angry reactions being posted in less than half an hour.

Ho, who is well-known for her pro-democracy stance, could not be reached for comment.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 6, 2016.

International cosmetic giant Lancme cancelled a mini-concert that was to be performed by outspoken pro-democracy Canto-pop celebrity Denise Ho Wan-see on Sunday night. The company said that it was due to possible safety reasons. Prior to the announcement, Chinese netizens called for a boycott of Lancme, as well as popular mouthwash brand Listerine, for allowing Ho to represent their products.

Lancme also issued a statement saying that Hong Kong actress Denise Ho is not a spokesperson of LANCME on Sunday afternoon before the cancellation.

The boycott campaign was sparked by Chinese state media outlet Global Times, which posted a Weibo post on Saturday morning saying that according to a source, Listerine and Lancme had hired Denise Ho, who was pro-Hong Kong independence and pro-Tibetan independence, for promotional events. You pick your own spokesperson, get out of the Chinese market crying yourself, read one of the most liked comments on the Weibo post.

Lancmes announcement of the decision to cancel the event has attracted 17,000 angry likes as of Monday morning. Netizen Winnie Leung commented on the post, saying The event was cancelled due to safety issues? Are you kidding me? Being a marketing professional, I would say this incidence is definitely a good example of what we called PR disaster.

Listerine continued with Ho as their official face and some commentators noted the difference in approach between the two firms. Grateful thanks to you guys. You are not like the other brand, which has no courage, no guts and no stance, wrote Joel Chow. Ho told Ming Pao through her assistant on Sunday that as she was not in Hong Kong she had not understood the beginnings and ends of the incident. She will release a statement on Monday. The concert was to be performed on June 19 and details of the event remain on Hos personal page on Facebook as of Monday morning.

Ho was a prominent supporter of the pro-democracy Occupy movement in 2014. She was allegedly banned from performing in the mainland after voicing support for protesters in the movement.

- (Quartz) Lancme is self-censoring outside mainland China to keep Beijing happy. June 6, 2016.

Lancome, the global cosmetic brand owned by LOreal, canceled a Hong Kong event with a pro-democracy singer, after a Chinese state newspaper complained online. The company is now facing a boycott in Hong Kong.

On late Sunday night (June 5), Lancome abruptly decided to cancel a musical performance by Denise Ho and others it was sponsoring in the neighborhood of Sheung Wan, citing safety reasons. Ho is one of a handful of outspoken Hong Kong celebrities who openly supports democracyand was the first to be arrested during the 2014 Umbrella Movement protests.

...

As of Monday morning, nearly 25,000 Hong Kong supporters had posted angry emoticons on Lancomes Facebook page, and left a rich variety of comments and photos. Many also called for a boycott of the brandHong Kong musician Ivana Wong wrote Lancome Bye Bye on her social media page.

Sales in China are a huge part of LOreals business. According to LOreals 2015 annual report (pdf), sales in the Asia-Pacific region were up 19.7% and accounted for nearly 23% of the total. It did not break down mainland Chinas contribution, but said the Consumer Products Division is benefiting from good performances in India, Australia and Thailand, and from LOral Paris, particularly in China. What about Hong Kong? The report described it as a difficult market.

Meanwhile, Listerine has yet to respond to the Global Times post and continues to use Ho in its Facebook cover photo. Many netizens in Hong Kong have vowed to include Listerine mouthwash in their daily dental cleansing routine.

(SCMP) June 6, 2016.

Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-sze has urged cosmetics giant Lancome to explain why a promotional concert was cancelled after mainland internet users criticised her for her political stance. The company had invited Ho to host a mini-concert at a promotion event in Sheung Wan on June 19. The event, which was free of charge, was fully booked.

But a day after Beijing newspaper Global Times accused Lancome on Weibo for inviting Ho a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote their products, Lancome clarified on Sunday that Ho was not the brands spokeswoman and called off the concert, citing possible safety reasons.

The incident highlighted the Hong Kong markets relative insignificance in the cosmetics industry compared with the mainland. A pro-business lawmaker also said it showed international investors could be discouraged from doing business in Hong Kong if it remained politically divided.

Ho is well-known for her pro-democracy stance. She was blacklisted by mainland media along with singer Anthony Wong Yiu-ming and actor Anthony Wong Chau-sang, who also support democracy.

Ho issued a statement on Facebook on Monday afternoon, criticising Lancome for seriously misleading the public and tarnishing my personal reputation with their statements on Sunday. I understood that the decision was made by the brands head office in France, and I urge it to come clean on the decision, to clear my name and give the public a reasonable explanation, she said. The worlds values have been seriously twisted when we face punishment for seeking freedom, justice and equality, and we must face the problem when an international brand like Lancome is kneeling down in the face of this bullying hegemony, she said.

A spokeswoman for LOreal Hong Kong, which supervises the Lancome brand as well as Shu Uemura, Kiehls and the Body Shop , said the company has nothing to add. Listerine, of whom Ho is a spokeswoman, did not respond to the Posts inquiries on Monday.

Joseph Ho Shiu-chung, president of the Cosmetic and Perfumery Association of Hong Kong, said that mainland tourists usually accounted for 60 per cent of business for cosmetics brands in Hong Kong in recent years, while local customers took 40 per cent. The incident showed that many mainland people misunderstood the views of some Hongkongers ... and businesspeople have to be cautious, especially on social media, he said.

Felix Chung Kwok-pan, chairman of the pro-business Liberal Party, said the controversy showed that foreign investors could be discouraged from doing business in Hong Kong if their decisions could be slammed by critics from both sides of the political spectrum. When companies think of where to invest ... they could go to Singapore or stay on the mainland, as it could be more stable there, Chung said.

According to LOreals annual report last year, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for 36 per cent of the global cosmetics market. LOreal described Hong Kong as a difficult market, and while China was a new market that experienced a slowdown last year, the groups e-commerce platform and Lancome performed strongly there. The group also runs a research and innovation centre in Shanghai. LOreals spokesman in Paris could not be reached for comment.

The storm surrounding Lancome and Ho erupted on Saturday after mainland newspaper Global Times said on Weibo: We have received tip-offs from netizens that Listerine and Lancome, both popular brands on the mainland, have recently invited Denise Ho a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote their products. It was referring to Hos meeting with the Dalai Lama on her birthday last month. On May 13, Ho posted pictures of herself and Tibets exiled spiritual leader on her Facebook page, writing: He is a sublime venerable; a loving grandpa, she wrote.

The newspapers post prompted a barrage of criticism against Lancome, while some internet users from the mainland criticised Ho on her Facebook page. One of them, Luo Xuan, said: I dont want to spend a dime on separating my country. On Sunday, Lancome clarified on Facebook that Ho was not the brands spokesperson, and announced that the concert had been cancelled, citing possible safety reasons.

Many internet users, apparently from Hong Kong, called on others to boycott Lancome products. Internet user Maria Wong wrote: If u think there is an issue about the safety in HK. Go merchandise somewhere else but HK. Leave Hong Kong market.

(Global Times) June 7, 2017.

Hong Kong entertainer Denise Ho has hit the headlines recently. After she announced last week that she would be performing at a concert organized by French cosmetics giant Lancme, mainland netizens launched a boycott of the brand.

Ho was one of the most prominent activists during the 2014 Hong Kong Occupy Central Movement. Mainland netizens then began to boycott her and her harsh response further enraged the mainland public. Last month, she posted her photos with the Dalai Lama on Facebook, writing "I could feel the blessing and energy rushing through my body just by holding his hands." The disagreement between her and mainland opinion is deepening.

Lancme responded fast by releasing a statement saying Ho was not a spokesperson for the brand and canceled the planned concert, citing "safety reasons." But the real reason is self-explanatory.

Some Hongkongers slammed Lancme for groveling to the mainland and vowed to resist the products of Lancme and parent company L'Oreal. It seems that Ho has pushed Lancme into a dilemma. Apparently Lancme has given more consideration to the sentiment of the mainland public, because the mainland boasts a much larger market than Hong Kong. As a commercial company, it is bound to seek commercial gains, a wisdom it is supposed to have under complex situations. No big companies would like to step into politics as the high stakes have already been proved by previous cases.

Entertainers often stay away from politics. The more successful they are, the more they are mindful not to cross the line. But there are a few who want to seek the spotlight by touching politically sensitive issues.

Ho's high-profile stance in the Occupy Central protests won her some support within Hong Kong. However, she has lost virtually all of her work on the mainland and became the target of censure by mainland netizens of celebrities who support Hong Kong independence or Taiwan independence.

But some Hongkongers also called for a boycott of pro-mainland entertainers such as Jackie Chan. Such incidents now often occur on the mainland Internet. Ho's fierce political stance makes her an unavoidable target of netizens. Perhaps she has prepared for it or even calculated the losses and gains.

The mainland public has realized that they are an influential market force. They will be picky about external celebrities who count on China for business while tarnishing China's image. If they want to gain from the market of the Chinese mainland, they must not harm China's national interests, no matter if they are in or outside China.

(EJ Insight) What the Lancme-Denise Ho controversy tells us. By SC Yeung. June 7, 2016.

Lancmes move to cancel a Hong Kong promotional event featuring Canto-pop star Denise Ho is another example of how foreign brands cave in easily to perceived pressures from Beijing.

The French cosmetics brand announced Sunday that it has scrapped an event scheduled for June 19 due to possible safety reasons.

The statement gave no details, but it is not difficult to fathom the motive behind the decision the company just doesnt want to put its mainland China business at any risk.

As Ho is a pro-democracy sympathizer and had in 2014 voiced support for the Occupy movement, there had been calls in the mainland for a boycott of brands that she was associated with.

Over the weekend, Chinas Global Times lashed out at Lancme, saying that it was patronizing an artist who was known for pro-Hong Kong and Tibetan independence leanings.

The company is using the money it earns from mainland consumers to give a platform to someone who acts against the interests of China, the newspaper suggested in a Weibo post.

Following the criticism and several adverse comments in mainland online forums, Lancme stressed on its Facebook page Sunday that Ho is not its spokesperson.

The remarks and the event cancellation make it clear that the French brand and its parent firm LOral are trying to distance themselves from Ho as they doesnt want to antagonize mainland consumers.

Also, that will help it stay on the right side of Beijing, something that is crucial if the group wants to grow its business in China.

Ho is among a handful of Hong Kong celebrities who have openly supported the citys democracy movement. During the 2014 Umbrella Movement, the pop star courted arrest for a while.

In Global Times Weibo post Saturday, Ho was described as poison of Hong Kong.

The post drew thousands of likes from mainland netizens and triggered fresh calls for boycott of the brands the unpatriotic artist was promoting.

This obviously rattled Lancme, prompting it to issue a statement quickly.

On Monday, Ho called on the French firm to provide a clear explanation on the reason for the event cancellation.

This is not only about me. This is about those who believe in freedom, justice and equality. This is about those precious universal values that every individual yearns for, she said in a statement.

This is about what kind of a world we want to live in. It is unjust when people have to be punished for speaking out, standing up and seeking for these rights we consider to be basic human rights.

Accusing the French firm of kneeling down in the face of a bullying hegemony, Ho urged the group to come clean on its decision and to clear her name.

From an outsiders perspective, the latest incident is further proof of Chinas growing intolerance against creative artists who stand up against Beijing on issues such as democracy and human rights.

Ho is the latest in a long line of overseas celebrities who have faced bullying from the Communist regime across the border due to political reasons.

Some artists have been informally blacklisted by Beijing, while some have seen their concerts in the mainland drastically limited often after complaints by Beijing loyalists in Hong Kong.

If you want to make money in China, refrain from speaking about sensitive political issues this is the message going out to performing artists like singers and actors.

Commercial entities or brands that associate themselves with problematic artists will also face the heat, as Lancme has discovered.

In the end, it is up to individual firms to decide how to respond to any threats and intimidation from China.

Are you willing to stand up for what you believe is right, or would you let commercial considerations override everything else? This is the choice facing overseas brands.

It is worth noting that while Lancme has backtracked on its association with Ho, another foreign brand with which the artist is associated Listerine has shown spine despite also facing boycott calls in China.

The mouthwash product launched its latest Bring out the bold global branding campaign in late May, with Ho as its spokesperson.

Despite being called out by Global Times, Listerine is continuing its promotional campaigns featuring Ho.

The courage shown by the Johnson & Johnson brand has been applauded by many netizens, going by the comments in online forums.

Ho is, in fact, a good ambassador for the Bring out the bold campaign, given the singers track record of courage which saw her come out and declare her homosexuality in the past, as well as stand up and be counted among the pro-democracy sympathizers in Hong Kong.

Amid the controversy surrounding Lancme, the artist has raised some important issues for brands operating in the Greater China market.

If we stop self-censoring out of fear and start respecting ourselves and others based on good honest work, we could all be freer, Ho said.

It is about freedom and justice. Because the reality is that if we opt to stay mute and do nothing, the freedoms would all be stripped away from us before we notice.

It is a message that most Hong Kong people would agree with.

- (SCMP) June 8, 2016.

Several cosmetic brands under the LOreal group have closed their stores in shopping malls and department stores across the city, hours before a planned protest against Lancomes decision to cancel a concert amid criticism from mainland China.

Lancomes booth at Lane Crawford, Times Square was the target of the Wednesday afternoon protest initiated by the League of Social Democrats and seven other groups, after the brand cancelled a concert involving Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-sze.

The Post found that the Lancome, Yves Saint Laurent Beaut and Helena Rubinsteins booths, as well as Shu Uemuras store at Times Square were all closed on Wednesday. All four brands are under the Paris-based LOreal group. A note was posted outside the Shu Uemura store, saying: Our store will be closed on 8 June. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Lancome counters in Sogo and Hysan Place in Causeway Bay were both closed, while those for other brands under LOreal, as Shu Uemura, were open. The Sogo information desk said the Lancome counter would not open on Wednesday, but they had no knowledge of the reason for this. Other closed Lancome locations included the shop at Harbour City, Tsim Sha Tsui, and the store at Cityplaza, Taikoo Shing.

Lancome had invited the singer to host a mini-concert in Hong Kong on June 19, but abruptly called off the event on Sunday after Beijing newspaper Global Times accused it of inviting a Hong Kong and Tibet independence advocate to promote products while mainland internet users threatened to boycott the brand.

However, after Lancome cancelled the concert citing possible safety reasons, Hong Kong internet users and political activists also vowed to boycott all brands under the LOreal group, including Lancome, Shu Uemura, Kiehls and the Body Shop.

Meanwhile, Ho said Lancome should stand firm on its core values and moral standards.

The singer was speaking up for the first time in a live interview with the BBC on Tuesday night, hours after Global Times argued in its editorial that people should not do things that jeopardise Chinas interest if they were to take part in and benefit from the Chinese market.

Ho was among more than 200 people arrested as the pro-democracy Occupy protests ended in December 2014. She was blacklisted by mainland media along with singer Anthony Wong Yiu-ming. Last month, Ho met the Dalai Lama, Tibets exiled spiritual leader, on her 39th birthday.

There have been at least two petitions launched to raise concerns about Lancomes controversial decision, including one initiated by the eight groups planning the protest and eight other local groups.

Another petition was launched on the change.com website by Beatrice Desgranges, believed to be a French citizen, for LOreal Hong Kongs president and managing director Stephen Mosely to reconsider the cancellation. By 10am on Wednesday, it had drawn about 4,200 supporters, 800 away from its target of 5,000.

Speaking to a BBC interviewer on Tuesday, Ho said she was shocked and saddened by Lancomes decision. As an international brand, it should stand firm on its core values and moral standards ... It is not just about making money, Ho said.

She had issued a statement on Monday urging Lancomes office in Paris to come clean on the decision.

LOreal Hong Kong and Paris could not be reached for comment.

(SCMP) Lancome has only itself to blame for public relations fiasco. By Alex Lo. June 8, 2016.

Lancome should have stuck with Kate Winslet, Julia Roberts and Emma Watson. Even Zhang Ziyi, Fan Bingbing and Gong Li would do. Sure, they all cost a lot more than Canto-pop singer and democracy activist Denise Ho Wan-sze. But the public backlash over the cosmetics giants cancellation of a free concert with Ho has probably inflicted far greater cost than jetting one of those superstars to Hong Kong.

The reputational damage is incalculable. Not only has the company suffered a backlash from Hong Kong netizens angry over its apparent kowtowing to Beijing, but the furore has become international news, covered even by The New York Times, the BBC and Le Monde.

There is no right or wrong answer as to whether a multinational like Lancome should have hired, or stayed away from, politically active stars like Ho, who also recently visited the Dalai Lama. If you want to be edgy and appeal to younger locals, you can probably do that. But if you want to stay on Beijings good side, you should definitely stay away.

Whats a definite no-no is to hire someone like Ho and then promptly ditch her after an official mainland newspaper complains. That not only makes you look spineless and unprincipled, it shows you are incompetent, which is more unforgivable in the corporate world.

Listerine has also hired Ho for some of its promotional campaigns, and it is sticking with her. Its been praised for showing courage in standing up to Beijing. I just think they know what they are doing.

The Lancome fiasco has created the perfect opportunity for Ho and her pan-democratic friends to raise hell.

Fourteen local political groups are campaigning against Lancome and its parent company, LOreal.

Ho has accused the French firm of kneeling down in the face of a bullying hegemony.

This is not only about me. This is about those who believe in freedom, justice and equality. This is about those precious universal values that every individual yearns for, she said in a statement.

This is about what kind of a world we want to live in. It is unjust when people have to be punished for speaking out, standing up and seeking for these rights we consider to be basic human rights.

Fine words and just about every international corporations nightmare.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 16, 2016.

International cosmetic brand Lancme has asked shops at Po Hing Fong, Sheung Wan, to return collaboration deposits after they controversially cancelled a concert in the area, Apple Daily has reported. The event scheduled for Sunday, which was to feature pro-democracy Canto-pop singer Denise Ho Wan-see, was axed in to safety reasons on June 5.

Prior to the controversial cancellation, state-backed Global Times linked Ho with Hong Kong and Tibetan independence movements on Weibo. The post led to netizens in the mainland calling for a boycott of the French brand. After the concert was scrapped, Lancme faced protests and boycotts in Hong Kong.

The manager of La Glaise Pottery surnamed Chan told the newspaper that Lancme had invited shops to participate in the event, asking them to place a sticker associated with the brand on shop windows. It paid a deposit for the collaboration prior to the concert, and Chan said she had also ordered 30 cups for a workshop related to the event. She said that Lancme called the shop to request a refund of the deposit but she refused because she found it unreasonable.

Alice, store owner of coffee shop 3rd Space also said she had already ordered a lot of food.

Pro-democracy Canto-pop singer Denise Ho Wan-see announced on Wednesday that she will hold a concert at the same location and on the same day. In her announcement, Ho said that the concert will be very safe: without politics, slogans, banners, no catchphrases, organisations, nor big companies and asked Hongkongers to use [their] own hands to open a path for themselves.

(EJ Insight) June 16, 2016.

Its now more than ten days since Lancme announced the cancellation of a promotional event featuring Cantopop artist and pro-democracy supporter Denise Ho, sparking a controversy. The French cosmetics brand cited security reasons for the abandoned Hong Kong gig, but most people believe the company chickened out due to perceived pressure from Beijing. The speculation is not off the mark, given that Ho was dumped soon after a mainland newspaper warned foreign firms against patronizing artists who may be supporting pro-independence groups.

As Lancme was deemed to have buckled under pressure, it came under much criticism and ridicule in Hong Kong and also faced some boycott calls. While is no escape from the negative press and unfavorable social media comments, the French brand has been hoping that the controversy will die down and that things will get back to normal.

Well, that may indeed happen, going by signs that peoples focus is shifting to other matters. After a few protests outside Lancme outlets last week, there has not been any follow-up action by citizens groups or political figures to demand a formal response from Lancme management. We need not be surprised if the whole matter fades from the publics mind in the coming weeks.

With the Legislative Council election just about three months away, people will turn their attention to the campaign issues and a debate over whether Leung Chun-ying should be allowed a second term in Hong Kongs top job next year. Also, we must bear in mind that the so-called localist groups in Hong Kong have remained largely indifferent to the Lancme-Denise Ho controversy. 

No localist group leader has come out in support of Ho, even though the singer has faced retribution from Beijing for supporting the 2014 Occupy pro-democracy protests. There seems to be strange ambivalence among some groups on what matters they will take up.

Meanwhile, political parties have been accused of trying to use the Ho issue for their own ends, rather than stand with the artist and help her get an official apology from Lancme. The sad truth is that most politicians have narrow agendas, focused only on issues that will yield electoral dividends and career benefits. As for the public, they have short attention spans, taking their mind from one issue to the other.

With Lancme staying mum and the company receding from newspaper headlines, peoples interest in the Denise Ho affair is already beginning to wane. 

That comes even as the Cantopop singer has reminded the public that she is still owed an apology from the French firm. On Tuesday, Ho announced that she will hold a concert and community event on June 19, the same date when she had been scheduled to perform for Lancme. The event, which will have freedom as its theme, will take place at the same location and time as the cancelled show.

In a statement on her official Facebook page, Ho invited people to respond to oppression and fear in Hong Kong using music and culture at the event which has been titled The Beauty of We. But she added that the show will feature no politics, no slogans, no banners, no catchphrases, no organizations, or big companies.

That suggests that even the singer wants to keep her problem with Lancme from getting politicized further. Given the realities in Hong Kong, we can only say that Ho is just being pragmatic.

Internet comments:

- Denise Ho made the announcement that she has gotten a job assignment for the first time since Occupy Central. Global Times mis-characterized her as being a spokesperson capacity for Lancme and Listerine. Lancme issued a correction and said that Ho is not a spokesperson. However, the mainland Chinese are not quibbling about being spokesperson or not; instead they don't want their money go to a separatist. Therefore Lancme canceled the event altogether.

- How significant was this 'concert' event? The cafe has a capacity of 50. Even if the organizers were to charge a HK$1,000 per head, the total receipts would only be HK$50,000. In this case, the organizers don't charge for this neighborhood event. So how much does Denise Ho expect to be paid? $10,000? $20,000?

- "Ho was a prominent supporter of the pro-democracy Occupy movement in 2014. She was allegedly banned from performing in the mainland after voicing support for protesters in the movement." Wrong on two counts.

Firstly, the Occupy movement in 2014 was not 'pro-democracy.' What kind of 'pro-democracy' movement is opposed by the majority of the population? If you are 'pro-democracy,' you should leave when 80% of the population tells you to go.

Secondly, there is no evidence that any Chinese government department (such as the Ministry of Culture) has ever issued bans against any of the so-called Yellow Ribbon entertainers (Denise Ho, Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, Anthony Wong Chau-sang, Chapman To, etc). Whenever these entertainers are invited to some event, there is a spontaneous consumer backlash that caused the event to be canceled. The Chinese consumers are exercising their individual freedom and that is what you want to see in a free society. After a while, the Yellow Ribbon entertainers don't get invited anymore because of the foreseeable consequences.

- Some Q&A's:

Q1. Do the mainland people have the right to like a singer or not?
A1. Yes

Q2. Do the mainland people have the right to like a product or not?
A2. Yes

Q3. Should the mainland people have the freedom of expression?
A3. Yes

So the mainland people disliked singer Denise Ho because she supports separatism, they won't buy any products that pay Ho and they are saying that this is what they are doing. What is wrong with this?

- Your answers are wrong in many ways. Here are the correct answers:

A1. The mainland people have the relative right to like a singer or not, but they are absolutely required to like those singers who support freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/universal values.

A2. The mainland people have the relative right to buy a product or not, but they are absolutely required to buy products which support freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/universal values.

A3. The mainland people have the relative freedom of expression, but they are forbidden to criticize anyone who supports freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/universal values.

- (Quartz) Musician Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, who lost all his mainland gigs, last year described the way corporations have capitulated to Beijing as no different from spreading the white terror.

(SCMP) Wong, who was reportedly banned from the mainland along with Ho, said he was prepared to lose job opportunities across the border. Previously scheduled performances were cancelled. "But not getting even one job in Hong Kong is strange, and it is worrying," he said. Wong suspects that those who have business interests in the mainland are not hiring performers who had high-profile associations with the Occupy protests.

Same misleading statements here. Beijing did not force corporations to capitulate. No ministry is threatening to ban the corporations otherwise. The corporations listened to their customers.

LOral is a listed company with 78,600 employees in 2014. The company is a component of the Euro Stoxx 500 stock market index and has total revenue of 25.257 billion in 2015. It is in the business of making money (and possibly looking after its employees); it does not exist to promote freedom/democracy/human rights/rule of law/civil nomination/universal suffrage/universal values.

- Denise Ho used #Justice because her concert was canceled. What about the companies that went out of business or lost money during the Occupy Movement? Who is going to give them #Justice?

- Hong Kong is a capitalist society and all commercial disputes can be settled by contract law in civil court. When one side cancels a contract, the other side can sue for damages. But Denise Ho is not interested in any lawsuit; she wants a 'reasonable explanation' for what happened. When she says that the explanation must be reasonable, it means that it must match her pre-defined position or else it is not reasonable.

- Speaking of unreasonable explanations for terminating a business deal, how about this one? (Reuters) XpressWest, the private U.S. firm proposing to build a high-speed rail link between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, terminated a joint venture with Chinese companies ... the biggest challenge has been a federal funding requirement that high-speed trains be manufactured in the United States, even though no such trains are produced in the country.

- This is a huge public relations disaster for LOral. It all started because someone in Lancme Hong Kong booked Denise Ho for the Energizing Factory Event on June 19th. There are two theories about this decision. One theory is that the decision-maker is a Yellow Ribbon who wanted to continue the Umbrella Revolution using company resources. The other theory is that the decision-maker was truly ignorant of the foreseeable consequences, or thought that a Hong Kong music concert would have no impact elsewhere. Instead here is the mainland Chinese boycott list of all the brands of the LOral group:

- (HK01) June 9, 2016.

Is Denise Ho pro-Hong Kong independence? That depends on your definition of Hong Kong independence.

To some people, this means expressing and/or acting in support of Hong Kong independence, as in the case of Hong Kong Indigenous and the Hong Kong National Party. Based upon this definition, Denise Ho would not be such because she has never publicly expressed or acted in support of Hong Kong independence. Furthermore, the genuine pro-Hong Kong independence people ostracize Denise Ho because she is regarded as a "leftist retard" and "Greater China chauvinist."  For example, on the issue of June 4th, she supports the responsibility of the people of Hong Kong to promote democracy in China. So when Global Times called her pro-Hong Kong independence, both Denise Ho and the genuine supporters find it objectionable.

Yet, mainland Chinese standards are different. Some Chinese think that pro-Occupy Central means pro-independence; others think that all Hong Kong localists are pro-independence; still others think that saying "I am a Hongkonger" is sufficient to be pro-independence. Based upon these standards, Denise Ho would be pro-independence because she took part in Occupy Central in a high-profiled manner and she emphasized local values.

- It wouldn't matter. The point here is to make Denise Ho make an unequivocal statement to denounce Hong Kong independence. If she can't come out and say it, then she'll have to bear the consequences.

- Photo of Denise Ho being arrested during the clearance of Occupy Central and photo of Denise Ho with the Dalai Lama. Pictures are better than words.

- This is far from the first time that this sort of thing has happened. Here are two examples:

(July 8, 2009) The Body Shop Foundation announced funding of the International Tibet Support Network which is dedicated to campaigning non-violently to restore the rights that Tibetans lost when China occupied Tibet sixty years ago.

Note: Shortly after June 6, 2016, the above link was disappeared into an Error 404 message.

With the Chinese consumer backlash, the Body Shop International issued a statement of plausible deniability:

(China.com) May 1, 2008. I was strolling down Robson Street (Vancouver) and I wanted to buy some eye cream. The salesperson was very enthusiastic and recommended several. I went up to the cashier to pay. Suddenly my husband came up and told me to look at the wall on the left. I turned and saw this photo:

A man is holding the Tibetan flag of independence with the comments: To Kiehl's, Thanks you for your support, 1st Tibetan flag on the summit of Mt. Everest. With Best Wishes.

I looked at the photo for a while and I felt very upset. It was more than mere anger. I did not even respond to the salesperson. My husband asked me, "Do you really need this?" Of course not. Even if I never wear eye cream again, I would not use my money to support Tibetan independence! I turned around and told the salesperson that I didn't want the merchandise anymore. Then I left the shop.

The Body Shop and Kiehl's are both subsidiaries of L'Oreal, which is why the Lancme Hong Kong incident was so surprising. It is as if they have no inkling that this was going to happen.

- Everybody is waiting for the inside story of what happened at Lancme Hong Kong. How many people were fired?

- Denise Ho is callling out Lancme Hong Kong president Stephen Mosely to give an explanation to her and to the public. According to information, Mosely is on vacation. When he returns, he is scheduled to retire. So Denise Ho is targeting the wrong person.

- (HKG Pao) There is a timing issue that should be sorted out.

There are two events: (1) Lancme Hong Kong signed Denise Ho for the Energizing Factory Event; (2) Denise Ho visits the Dalai Lama on May 10, 2016. Which happened first?

If Lancme Hong Kong signed Denise Ho before she went to visit the Dalai Lama, then Ho engaged in what she must know is risky behavior after the contract signing. Did she do this deliberately to cause a PR crisis at Lancme and gain public sympathy for herself?

If Lancme Hong Kong signed Denise Ho after she posted the photo of her with the Dalai Lama saying that "He tamed me", then this brand manager is suicidal.

- (HKG Pao) Lancme Hong Kong tried to give Denise Ho a job. Ho will now get the full payment without having to do the concert. However, Ho said that she had to go after L'Oreal headquarters as a matter of principle. In Chinese, there is a saying: 落井下石 (=drop a stone down on the man who has fallen into a well). Whoever was responsible for getting her the job is screwed, so is the whole PR/marketing team plus maybe the Hong Kong brand manager. Even the Asia-Pacific regional manager may be at risk. Basically anyone who had anything direct contact with this matter plus anyone else who knew about it will be axed. At this time, L'Oreal is only saying that they have nothing to add. We'll let you if we find out more.

- Listerine's strategy consists of maintaining total silence and letting Lancme take the heat. But how long can this last?

- Whoever at Listerine decided to make this advertisement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdEryGrht7Q must also be trembling about if and when they get axed.

- The Listerine ad talks about being BOLD. Here is a spoof: Is this called being BOLD? If you are bold, you should do more than talking. You said that you will surrender yourself (after Occupy), then you ought to surrender yourself.

- Listerine is manufactured and distributed by Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson sells these products in China: Listerine, Neutrogena, Johnson's body care, Johnson's baby care, o.b., Tylenol, Motrin, Livostin, Imodium, Band-Aid, etc.

- (Wall Street Journal) April 3, 2016.

With 2014 revenue of $74 billion and net profit of $16 billion, Johnson & Johnson is among the worlds largest health-care companies. In an interview in Tokyo following a stop in Beijing, the companys chairman and chief executive, Alex Gorsky, 54 years old, was interviewed.

WSJ: Whats your view of China?

Mr. Gorsky: I think theres tremendous opportunity in China.

Weve recently opened up an innovation center in Shanghai. The way that science is conducted today is much more virtual, is much more ubiquitous versus simply having a large number of scientists in a classic brick-and-mortar setting. Its rather, how can you quickly identify and how can you build relationships with the early startups, with academic centers, with thought leaders, with the venture community, and establish a network and an ecosystem?

We see this as a way to move from bringing great products to China to actually discovering and developing things in China. So one of the areas were looking at right now, for example, is lung disease. I think Chinas got about 50% of the cases of lung disease in the world today. Heres a great opportunity to put a dedicated team of people with pharmacology backgrounds, people with medical-device backgrounds, even people with consumer backgrounds in things like smoking cessation and have them work together. Because so often, if you go to a pharmacologist and ask for a solution, it tends to be a pill. If you go to a medical-device person, it tends to be an engineering approach.

And so by having these people work together, its our hope that we can bring really very innovative, transformational kinds of solutions to bear. And ultimately what we would love to do is then be able to take those from markets like China and take them to other markets around the world.

There goes everything because some PR flack in J&J Hong Kong wants Denise Ho as a promoter.

- Wong Wing-ping holding a bottle of Listerine mouthwash: "It is time to buy more."

- You are buying a whole box of Listerine? Wait till Listerine comes out tonight and dumps Denise Ho as well. Then you're going to have a lifetime supply of toilet cleanser.

- (Apple Daily) June 16, 2016. Our reporter visited Watsons, Mannings, ParknShop, Wellcome and other dispensaries in Tiu Keng Leng and Hang Hau districts to check out the shelves containing Listerine products. We found that only Watsons in Tiu King Leng still had any Denise Ho promotional materials on display. When we asked Listerine whether they had sent their promoters to remove those materials, the company did not deny this. The company only said: "This week Listerine will be entering the next phase of our promotion plans for the properties and functions of the new products. Just like any marketing plan, we have various stages emphasizing various themes to market our products."

On the previous evening when we went to Watsons, we saw the Denise Ho promotional material still there. We asked the worker whether the box was going to be returned. The worker thought that our reporter was the person in charge of removing the material and began to dismantle the box for removal. This confirmed the rumor for us. The worker also said that the box was due to be removed either today or tomorrow, but no reason was offered.

- Time to boycott Listerine ...

- Time to roll out the scientific evidence about the ill effects of Listerine, such as alcoholic addiction, bladder damage, oral cancer, etc. Previous these truths were inconvenient and therefore covered up. Now the world can know the truth about Listerine.

- The pan-democrats (Civic Party, Democratic Party, League of Social Democrats, etc) wouldn't dare go after J&J. L'Oreal is fair game because it is a French company, but J&J is an American company. You wouldn't want the US consulate and the American Chamber of Commerce to come out against you, would you?  You would be losing your UNIVERSAL VALUE (CAPTAIN AMERICA) shield!

- Time for Denise Ho to come out and demand Listerine never ever to remove her photos from the display shelves. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE EQUALITY UNIVERSAL VALUES DALAI LAMA.

- The good thing is that the research efforts do not go to waste. When Lancome hired Denise Ho, mainland Internet users came up with a list of L'Oreal products to boycott. After Lancome fired Denise Ho, Hong Kong Internet users found the list to be very useful for their boycott. Somebody had done all the homework for them. The same thing happens with Listerine. Hong Kong Internet users can now use the J&J product lists for their boycott now.

- The lesson to Lancme and all other corporations: Do not hire Denise Ho or any other Yellow Ribbon entertainer because you lose both ways.

- Worse yet, they are going to snap back and bite you when things go wrong.

- Please note that Yellow Ribbons cannot never be trusted. One day, after Denise Ho boasted about her first post-Occupy job, the Yellow Ribbons praised Lancme to the high heavens. The second day, after Lancme changed its mind, the Yellow Ribbons think Lancme products are scum. So do not think that appeasing them for one moment will buy their eternal loyalty.

- At first, Denise Ho happily accepted the job and her supporters applauded this breakthrough. Now she is launching a public relations campaign against Lancme while her supporters point out that Lancme uses animal testing to develop their products. Gee, why wasn't that an issue before?

- Whey you first date a girl, you say that she is the most beautiful woman in the world. After you break up, you say that she is the ugliest bitch in the world. Your opinion is completely shaped by the state of your relationship. So what else is new?

- In this case, Denise Ho is saying that Lancme needs to fight for freedom, justice and equality. That means specifically to oppose both the government and the people of mainland China.

- (Wen Wei Po) Lancme has the freedom to hire Denise Ho and to praise her. They do not have the freedom to terminate the contract with Denise Ho and they do not have the freedom to criticize her. Why? Because this is a universal value.

- But that doesn't mean everything stops for her, because fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

(Ming Pao) The eco-friendly disinfectant and deodorant house product manufacturer Hyginova said that they are honored to be associated with Denise Ho and hope to invite her to sing some songs. Hyginova said that theirs is the first brand in Asia not to use animal testing. "We promise that we will not conduct animal testing in order to enter the neighboring market of 7 billion persons and we have no intentions to going there until the market regulations have been improved."

- Hyginova is merely jumping in to get free media exposure.

- Thanks to Denise Ho's reaction this time, no other Yellow Ribbon entertainer will get any work as spokesperson now.

- Not true. Fairwood continues to have Chapman To as their spokesperson.

- It seems to be a step down from Lancme cosmetics to Hyginova household products ...

- (Liberty Times (Taiwan)) June 7, 2016. Online music MOOV stated on their Facebook: "Denise Ho, we will hire her forever." MOOV is a PCCW company headed by Richard Li, son of Li Ka-shing.

- (Apple Daily) After MOOV was reported to say on Facebook that they will support Denise Ho forever, mainland Internet users began to organize to boycott all the companies under the Li family. This includes Watsons, ParknShop, etc.

- (Sina.com.hk) Richard Li and PCCW issued a response:

Recently, there was some talk on the Internet about the political position of PCCW's MOOV.

Richard Li and the company have a clear position, namely Hong Kong independence is an impossibility so that any discussion is a waste of social resources. But the company and him respects freedom of expression.

MOOV has always supported the creation of music and has no intention of engaging politics.

According to our understanding, the colleague in charge of the webpage said that "hire forever" was posted before the Internet linked the matter with the politics of Hong Kong independence.

PCCW and Richard Li has never before, now or in future supported any person or thing in support of Hong Kong independence.

- Clearly some PR/marketing flack at MOOV came up with the idea of exploiting the case to get some publicity for a music service that nobody uses, got some Facebook comments such as "Thanks, MOOV! Although I will be laughed at for still paying for music, I think it is worth it! I didn't want to use MOOV but now I will support you forever!" And now the top brasses are pissed.

- Time to start a global boycott campaign of PCCW brands.

- (Weixin) There were several things coming out of PCCW/MOOV/Richard Li. The timing is intriguing.

(1) On June 4th, mainland Internet users learned about the Denise Ho concert and began a campaign against Lancme.

(2) On June 5th, Lancme canceled the concert.

(3) On June 6th at 12:30pm, MOOV stated on its Facebook that "Denise Ho, we will hire her forever! She is a courageous person, she only loves to work and stick to every single one of her beliefs. MOOV loves courageous music." If the PCCW believes that it was wrong, it should have been removed. As of June 8th 7pm, this post is still there.

(4) On June 8th, PCCW/Richard Li issued a statement to say that "Hong Kong independence is an impossibility so that any discussion is a waste of social resources." This statement is worded such that you don't know whether they support or oppose Hong Kong independence; they only said that it is an impossibility.

(5) On June 8th, PCCW/Richard Li sent a statement to a number media outlets that added two paragraphs: "According to our understanding, the colleague in charge of the webpage said that "hire forever" was posted before the Internet linked the matter with the politics of Hong Kong independence. PCCW and Richard Li has never before, now or in future supported any person or thing in support of Hong Kong independence." This was probably added to address the ambiguity caused by the previous statement.

Actually, what does PCCW/Richard Li care about mainland Internet opinion? Several years ago, Richard Li had given up on running business in mainland China. The mainland boycotts being organized right now are directed at Watsons, ParknShop and other properties owned and operated by his father Li Ka-shing and his brother Victor Li, with whom he is not particularly close.

- The MOOV case provides an interesting comparison with Lancme. In the case of Lancme, they hired Denise Ho for a concert but she went ahead and co-branded the brand with her own politics. So Lancme had to back out. In the case of the paid music service MOOV, they have always carried her music and continue to do so. But she is treated no differently than any other musician, nobody thinks that MOOV supports or opposes her political views, and there has never been any demands from any group to ban her from MOOV. PCCW/Richard Li are forced to issue those pseudo-denial statements only because certain people are co-branding MOOV with Denise Ho's politics.

- It is true that Denise Ho did not say on Facebook that she thanks MOOV for their support of her politics. But here is what is in Apple Daily: 電訊盈科主席李澤楷旗下網上音樂串流供應商MOOV最近力挺何韻詩 (PCCW chairman Richard Li and the online music service MOOV recently gave strong support to Denise Ho ...). That is what forced PCCW/Richard Li to issue those statements. You may want to avoid politics, but politics has a way of finding you.

- (Apple Daily) June 6, 2016. Denise Ho issued a statement at around 230pm. There were four points:
(1) Lancme unilaterally terminated the cooperation without cause and also used inexplicable terms in its statement;
(2) It is understand that the decision to terminate was made by Lancme headquarters in France;
(3) Lancme headquarters in France must explain the decision in order to give justice back to Denise Ho and to offer a reasonable explanation to the public;
(4) It is regrettable that Lancme's statement has seriously misled the public and damaged Denise Ho's reputation.

- Companies hire and fire spokespersons all the time, and different people have different reactions to such decisions. No company has to explain their decisions. They might say, "We decide to head in a different direction." It is your personal opinion whether the decision was right or wrong. So why does Denise Ho think that Lancme have to give her and the general public an explanation that has to be "reasonable" to her?

- Companies hire famous spokespersons and promoters because they hope to co-brand each other. For example, Bawang shampoo hired popular actor Jackie Chan as their spokesperson, while Tang Wei speaks for SK II. After Occupy Central, Denise Ho has become a toxic brand. The fact that she couldn't get any job assignments since means that everybody in advertising/public relations knows this. In this case, someone at Lancme Hong Kong made the stupid decision to hire her and Lancme headquarters had to step in to stop the losses.

- Besides, you are not really going to listen to the answer -- either it is going to match the answer that you have already settled upon or else it is not 'reasonable'. Reference: Lee Bo on The Missing Booksellers.

- Denise Ho has many open options at this time. Most obviously, she can apply for legal aid (because she is unemployed) to file a judicial review at the High Court to obtain an injunction to make the Energizing Factor Event take place as scheduled. She can also go to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to complain that her freedom of expression has been unreasonably deprived.

- But here is the mirror symmetry. On one hand, Hong Kong Internet users are deploring the mainland Internet users for boycotting Lancme because such tactics represent bullying hegemony. On the other hand, Hong Kong Internet users are organizing their own boycott of Lancme. Did anyone say "Bullying hegemony"?

- In mainland China, 100% of consumer expenditure on cosmetics is made by mainlanders. In Hong Kong, 60% of consumer expenditure on cosmetics is made by mainland tourists and 40% by Hongkongers themselves. And not all Hongkongers are 'pro-democracy.' So the choice should have been obvious.

- Singer/actress Ivana Wong wrote on Facebook: "Lancme Bye Bye". Wong is known to dislike any and all politics, so this statement is consistent with her past views. In Eileen Chang's novel <Eighteen Springs>, a character said: "Politics decides everything. You may not seek politics, but politics will seek you out."

-Statement from Denise Ho, June 6th, 2016.

- Comments in English by a citizen (Ms. Hei-lo):

I'm rather pissed to read your statement when you claim that you are (though you didn't obviously say it) safeguarding Hong Kong people's freedom! Freedom is not the first priority in businesses and pls ask any CEO on earth whether they'd place "Freedom" as their top priority in their business vision and mission statement!!

My reply to her statement:

"It sounds and looks intelligent in terms of your English but if you ask any CEO of any corporate companies if "Freedom" is their first priority in their business vision and mission, many of them may say "NO" because their positive image is always the first priority in any companies.

Public Relations is all about establishing and securing a positive image but if anyone, whether it is the spokesperson or anyone in the company, has done something wrong that would bring disastrous impact to negatively influence the company's image, then that person will either be fired or penalized.

For the spokesperson's case, I reckon most CEOs will simply cease the working relationship with the spokesperson. It's just a business decision and pls don't self-create such an image that HOCC is such a great person to safeguard HK's / HK people's freedom. You are not the spokesperson of Freedom!! Your statement makes me feel very sick! I'm sorry!"

- Denise Ho thus wrote:

This is not only about me. This is about those who believe in freedom, justice and equality. This is about these precious universal values that every individual yearn for. This is about what kind of a world we want to live in. It is unjust when people have to be punished for speaking out, standing up and seeking for these rights we consider to be human rights.

(Wen Wei Po) Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world. A company can legally terminate contracts and cancel projects, and any disputes can be resolved according to the terms of the contracts. This is the essence of freedom of business. But when this happens to Denise Ho, it becomes an unforgivable crime. If you don't hire Denise Ho, then you are assaulting freedom, justice and equality in Hong Kong and even the precious universal values of every individual in the whole world. Who does Denise Ho think she is? Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa?

- (Chapman To's Facebook)

Chapman To:
Actually life is basically what is the so-called censoring of entertainers.
Whenever a job opportunity arises, it is gone because the boss, competitor or peer is afraid.
People in the street look at you as if you are a monster.
Your family and friends receive well-meaning reminders or malicious criticisms, usually in the manner of: "Tell your son not to do this" or "Your husband hasn't considered you.!"
It is common in the entertainment industry to kick you while you are done!
But I am not a dog. You are.
"Even if I bang my head until I bleed, I will continue to fight on until the last round." This is my motto for over forty years!
Try hard! Fight hard!

- Hey, fella, how about making some money yourself to contribute to your family instead of living off your wife?

- Wang Jing's last movie <From Vegas to Macau III> made $1 billion RMB in mainland China. Your last movie <Aberdeen> made $2 million RMB in mainland China. You must have tried hard and fought hard.

- It is telling that Chapman To is the only known entertainer to come out with a supportive statement. No other actor, actress, singer, musician, director or producer of note has done so.

- Sai Kung District Councilor Christine Fong: "I used Lancme cleaning liquid to wash my toilet! Then I flushed the toilet. That's all."

Video: https://www.facebook.com/christinefks.page/videos/1042796882467650/

- Dump all Lancme products? Who owns Lancme?  LOral. So you should dump all LOral products as well. But who owns LOral? Would you believe that its second biggest shareholder is Nestl? So you should dump all Nestl products as well. You can locate their brands here (partial listing: Nestl, NESCAF, Dairy Farm, Carnation, Gerber, Purina, Milo, Pak Fook, Maggi, Dreyer's, Crunch, KitKat).

- And did you know that NESCAF runs a Leon Lai commercial on TV Most? Now do you realize that you have to boycott NESCAF coffee, Leon Lai and TV Most?

- Does anyone still remember the boycott spreadsheet from Occupy Central?


Boycott all the
LOral products
We will never yield to money
Tomorrow at 1pm we will march to the
Lancme outlet in Lane Crawford
Participating organizations: League of Social Democrats, People Power, Demosisto, Labour Party, Hong Kong Shield, Democratic Party, Neo Democrats, Chu Hoi-dick (more being added)
Date: June 8, 2016
Time: 1pm
Assembly location: Public space at Times Square, Causeway Bay.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 8, 2016.

Dozens gathered outside Lancme store in Times Square, Causeway Bay on Wednesday in protest of the companys decision to cancel a concert featuring pro-democracy star Denise Ho Wan-see.

The French cosmetics giant cancelled the June 19 concert after Chinese state mouthpiece Global Times accused Ho of being a supporter of Hong Kong and Tibetan independence movements. The move sparked controversy among netizens and customers. Ho supported the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests but has rarely spoken about the independence debate.

The protesters urged an international boycott of the brand, as well as other brands under its parent group LOral, until a full explanation and an apology are given. They urged to company to promise not to carry out further political censorship.

What shocks the society is that an international brand, emphasising social responsibility and women[s] empowerment like Lancme, also kneeled down to the bullying government, said Avery Ng Man-yuen, chairman of the pro-democracy League of Social Democrats party. Ng said the incident was a great contradiction to LOrals mission. Lancme not only insulted Denise Ho, but also insulted Hong Kong citizens who fought for democracy for years, and all global citizens embracing democracy and liberty, Ng added.

Several lawmakers of pro-democracy parties attended the protest, namely Helena Wong Pik-wan of the Democratic Party, Gary Fan Kwok-wai of the Neo Democrats, Cyd Ho Sau-lan and Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung of the Labour Party.

Citing a Whatsapp message from Denise Ho, lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung said although Ho could not come due to her busy schedule, she thanked participants at the protest. [She said] this matter is not her not her personal matter, and not the companys matter anymore it is white terror, he said. She hopes everyone will keep fighting, otherwise people will all live in fear. The protesters produced a large banner with Hos face that said We are all Denise Ho say no to mainland tyranny. Other banners read No kowtow to Beijing and Protecting Hong Kongs core values.

Civic Party lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching said Hos treatment by the firm was simply blatant, naked and despicable. We need to ask, whatever happened to the French qualities liberty, equality, fraternity  are they telling us these days, today, that money talks? Profits come first? she asked.

People Power party representative Tam Tak-chi questioned Lancmes decision to pull Ho from the event. He said that brand ambassadors who opposed animal testing for cosmetic products have not been dropped. LOreal is accused of using animal testing. Does that mean Hong Kong people are easier targets to suppression? he asked.

The Lancme booth at Lane Crawford in Times Square was closed ahead of the protest. The protesters pasted props criticising the company onto the booth, including one saying Lancme Lanout Hong Kong demanding the brand leave the city.

Ng said that they will allow a week for LOral to apologise, and will not rule out any further actions.

- Why was Denise Ho herself absent? She says that she is unemployed but claims to have "a busy schedule." Let me tell you why -- she couldn't control who might show up. For example, if Andy "Captain America" Yung showed up waving his British dragon-lion flag for Hong Kong independence, what will she do? She says that she is not pro-Hong Kong independence, but now someone is advocating it at her event. What can she do? As another example, the event is backed by the pan-democratic political parties, both traditional (Democratic Party, Civic Party) and so-called radical (League of Social Democrats, People Power). But what if the radical localists (Civic Passion, Hong Kong Indigenous) showed up and start a clash either with the pan-democrats or the police. She would own the consequences.

- That is the same calculation for Johannes Chan, who never shows up at any demonstrations on his behalf.

- Why do they do this type of thing? They are going to the LOral booths in the Lane Crawford department store. They are not numerous, being only "dozens" but enough to surround the booths and disrupt business. Who is at the booth? The sales people. Did the sale people have anything to do with the decision to hire/fire Denise Ho? Absolutely not. Why harass them that? Because you can. The people who are really responsible are sitting in an office somewhere and absolutely unreachable. Therefore you reach the people who can be conveniently reached. What do the sales people think? About one-third of their income is derived from sales commission. When their booths get surrounded and customers stay away, they lose money. Well, that's tough shit because their sacrifice is needed for the sake of freedom/democracy/human rights/universal values.

- Also, everything is for a media show. Going to an office and not being admitted is not a good media show. Charging into Lane Crawford and stopping business at the LOral booths as well as all other booths makes for a good media show (see video). That is why this has to be done.

- It was the same thing with Occupy Central. Your beef is with CY Leung, the Hong Kong SAR Government, the Central Government and the Chinese Communist Party. But you can't reach them. Therefore you Occupy Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok and make it hell for ordinary citizens.

- The report says "dozens." Let me count them ...

Video: Resistance Live Media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFODcOXkZcc League of Social Democrats chanting "Global boycott of LOral," "Shame on self-censorship", etc. Looks like many more photographers than demonstrators.

- I look at the photo of Leung Kwok-hung in this "Global boycott of LOral," and I find it impossible to believe that Leung is a past user who intends to boycott now. If Leung boycotts, the net loss to LOral is zero.

- Actually, if Leung Kwok-hung had used some LOral skincare products, he would be less ugly.

- (HKG Pao) The pan-democrats (Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, Neo Democrats, League of Social Democrats, People Power and Demosisto) must have pretty good reasons to hold demonstrations at the LOral booths at Lane Crawford. After all, there were so many photographers out there. What they don't realize is that they have effectively ended the economic prospects for Yellow Ribbon entertainers. As the saying goes, you are never afraid of powerful enemies; you should be afraid of allies who are even stupider than pigs.

- (HKG Pao) On the day after the demonstration, the Lancme store inside Lane Crawford was re-opened for business. A worker said that they were instructed by the company to report if more demonstrations take place and "our personal safety is of the utmost concern to the company."

- The Energizing Factory Event was canceled by Lancme due to concerns for personal safety. What does that mean? Look at what happened. You don't know which political factions are going to show up at the concert, do you?

- (HKG  Pao) There is a lesson for public relations specialists from all this. On one side, the Hong Kong demonstration against Lancme came with media coverage in the Yellow Ribbon press. LOral closed its booths in anticipation of the demonstration. But when the time came, the media saw just the usual array of the dozens of pan-democratic professional demonstrators (Leung Kwok-hung, Avery Ng, Raphael Wong, etc). Meanwhile on the other side, the Global Times Weibo posts drew tens of thousands of comments against Lancme at first. LOral is present in 80 cities in China at this time. Do they want to see all their booths in China shut down in the face of demonstrations? But apart from sheer numbers, it is also about intensity. In Hong Kong, the thunder is loud but the raindrops are few.

- (SCMP) June 23, 2016.

Five pan-democratic parties are planning to protest at LOreals Hong Kong office on Friday morning, as they say the cosmetics giant has refused to apologise and come clean on its decision to cancel a concert by Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-sze.

League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Ma-yuen told the Post on Thursday that the matter was not over.

We want LOreal to know that many people around the world are upset about their decision, Ng said. We want LOreal to apologise, explain how the decision was made, and promise that there will be no more self-censorship ... If they refuse to come clean [on Friday], we will not rule out taking further action.

Ng said the League, Labour Party, Democratic Party, Civic Party and NeoDemocrats would gather outside Times Square at 11am on Friday, before protesting at LOreals office on the 45th floor.

It is unclear if LOreal will close its office and stores on Friday. A spokeswoman said the group had nothing further to add to what it said on June 5.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 7, 2016.

A petition demanding that the cosmetic giant Lancme reverse its decision to cancel a concert featuring pro-democracy singer Denise Ho Wan-see has gained traction online. Prior to the announcement, Chinese netizens had called for a boycott of Lancme products and also of its Listerine mouthwash brand. The company dropped Ho, who is known for her outspoken pro-democracy stance, on Sunday.

The French petition has garnered over 2,200 signatures, and includes a letter directed at the President and Managing Director of LOreals Hong Kong branch, Stephen Mosely. LOreal owns the Lancme brand. The petition called for a boycott of Lancme should it not allow Hos concert to proceed. We cannot accept Lancme as an ambassador of France a country of human rights to Hong Kong, while it sacrifices freedom of thought and freedom of expression in its trade policy. We cannot accept that French companies bend to the dictates of the Chinese Communist Party, the petition said.

- There are 7 billion people in the world. This petition has garnered over 2,200 signatures so far with a goal of 5,000 signatures eventually. Should LOreal be trembling at the might of the masses?

- This is being positioned as a disaster for L'Oreal. How disastrous? In 2015, the company had 25.257 billion in revenue. How many billions will it lose as a result of this 'global boycott'?

- France is 'a country of human rights'? Can you imagine something like in these videos from France happening in Hong Kong now? And this is not some piece of ancient history (like the Reign of Terror); it is happening at this moment in France.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVAsLghXacM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kac5W62hcXM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDaA_4tR-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fckCuucHXg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stoGzuko_u0

In Hong Kong, they observed an 87-second silence to mark one month since police 87 rounds of tear gas at demonstrators. How many thousands of rounds of tear gas have the French police fired over this past month? Why don't you solve your own human rights problems first? Or should we adopt the 'universal values' that you are using?

- Or this just in: (RT) Euro 2016: French police teargas England fans clashing with Marseilles residents

- The impact of an online petition drive is even less than a loud fart.

- (SCMP) June 10, 2016.

When Lancome cancelled Canto-pop star Denise Ho Wan-szes concert in Hong Kong, it seemed unlikely that a retired philosophy teacher in Paris would be leading the calls for the cosmetics giant to reconsider its decision.

But there she is. Beatrice Desgranges started a petition on change.org on Monday after learning about the incident from a tweet from a French expatriate in Hong Kong. By 3pm on Friday, Desgranges petition had been signed by more than 50,000 people. A separate petition endorsed by 17 Hong Kong political parties and activist groups was supported by more than 4,300 on Facebook and signed by about 450.

In an exclusive interview conducted via email, Desgranges, 65, said she didnt know much about Hong Kong.

I only spent one day and one night there [in 1995], but it is not the problem for me. I think my duty is to stand up for freedom wherever freedom is violated, she wrote.

Desgranges studied philosophy in Paris in the 1970s and taught it in a school in Eastern France before retiring. She now mostly lives in Paris.

As a philosopher, I always remember Socrates, who said he was like [a] horsefly who keeps people awake, she said. I used to [tell] my pupils: Well, you cant change the world by yourself but you can do what depends on you, you can speak out and tell what is wrong.

Desgranges also suggested that her petition was partly inspired by French writer Emile Zola, who spoke up for Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus when he was accused by the French government for being a spy in 1894.

Liu Xiaobo, whom I admire, says he has drawn inspiration from Zolas principles, Desgranges wrote.

Liu was sentenced to 11 years in jail in 2009 for inciting subversion of state power through Charter 08, co-signed by more than 300 signatories, which called for freedom of expression, free elections and human rights. But a year later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to push for greater freedom in mainland China.

Desgranges also told the Post about her love for Chinese culture and history.

She said she once had a 10-day journey in mainland China, during which she remembered Tiananmen, or the crackdown of the 1989 pro-democracy movement in Beijing.

I thought my duty was to learn the Chinese language to be able to talk with Chinese people without any interpreter, she said. I read Chinese novels, see Chinese films ... and created my [online] forum to share what I read or see with others.

Earlier, she wrote in her petition that it was unacceptable for Lancome, as an ambassador of France in Hong Kong, to sacrifice the freedom of thought and expression to their commercial policy.

Denise Ho was vilified and blacklisted by mainland media for taking part in the Occupy movement protests in 2014.

The trouble began after Lancome invited the singer to host a mini-concert in Hong Kong on June 19, then abruptly called it off after Beijing newspaper Global Times accused the brand of inviting a Hong Kong independence advocate. With mainland internet users calling for a boycott of the brands products, an angry backlash ensued from Hongkongers, who accused LOreal, Lancomes parent company, of kowtowing to Beijing.

With more than 56,000 people supporting her petition as of Friday afternoon, Desgranges told the Post that we can wait a little more before sending the petition to Lancomes office.

- (HKG Pao) June 10, 2016. Yesterday Denise Ho shared the link Apple Daily columnist Li Yi's essay <Something that couldn't happen." The essay said that all the accusations against Denise Ho are baseless, that these are is labeling without evidence and "what else is this but the Cultural Revolution?" At the same time, Denise Ho took a dig at Justice Alliance founder Leticia Lee for coming out in support of Lancme, accusing her of acting as if she is the new spokesperson. Ho said: "So I admit defeat!! What more do you want from me?!!! (throwing bottles and cans around)."

Li Yi said that he does not remember Denise Ho ever mentioning Hong Kong independence or voicing support of Tibet independence. Unless you think that all those Hong Kong people who have participated or supported Occupy Central are independence advocates, then she might be. Ho has never mentioned Tibet independence. She met the Dalai Lama in Japan "in order to learn the wisdom to become a person" etc.

However Internet users pointed out, "It is mainstream public opinion that thinks Denise Ho is pro Hong Kong independence and Tibet independence. After all, they mind very much about the Dalai Lama. From the very start, it was the mainland Internet users spontaneously organizing their boycotts. If it was just Global Times making some noise, Lancme would not have to take such drastic actions." Other Internet users said: "If Denise Ho does not separatism (in Hong Kong and Tibet), all she has to do is come out and say so loudly and clearly. PCCW/Richard Li did just that. Once the news get around, the mainland Internet users will stop going after Denise Ho."

- Now that things have been blown up, Denise Ho is out of a living now and in the future. So she is immediately saying that she has said anything ever in support of Hong Kong and Tibet independence. She is accusing people of smearing her ... This is risible! ... She wants a whitewash at this moment in time? Too late!!!"

- Can Denise Ho really come out and declare: "Mainland Chinese people misunderstood me. I do not support Hong Kong independence and I do not support Tibet independence. PERIOD. I hope this message gets to everybody who misunderstood me before." Of course she is incapable of saying it in this loud and clear manner, because it will make her a "leftist retard" and "Chinese chauvinist pig" among her (now former) base of support.

- Another problem is that Denise Ho went too far initially, for she positioned this fight as the final battle of principles. How can she back off now in what seems to be a surrender? She cannot do this herself, but her surrogates (e.g. Li Yi) can't do it for her.

- (Sing Tao) June 10, 2016.

Denise Ho revealed that she had communicated with the persons in charge at Lancome and L'Oreal many times in order to find a solution. She understands that they are under pressure. But they have so far only handled the matter by just informing her. "Our side pleaded with them, but they ignored us. There is nothing to discuss. We find this very regrettable." So far, L'Oreal has said that they will pay compensation but they have ignored everything else. "We keep asking them about what explanation they will offer me or the public. But they refused to answer to any of this. I don't have the sense that they want to face up to this."

Denise Ho emphasized that this is not personal, not about money and not about the cooperative relationship. This is about how the company handled the matter. "Apart from the inexplicable reasons behind, it gives you a feeling that they are respectful. Not just disrespectful of me, but disrespectful of the people of Hong Kong."

"Certain choice of words created misunderstanding and speculations. Why not explain to the public just what the so-called safety issues are?" When the company contacted Denise Ho at first, they must know about her background and view. But they unilaterally terminated the cooperation brusquely due to pressure from mainland official media. To a certain degree, this communicates a certain terror to Hong Kong society, and it also encourages political oppression in the business area."

Finally Denise Ho called on everyone to support the online petition campaign. She would like Lancome Hong Kong person-in-charge Stephen Mosely to make an explanation: "Over the past two years, the people of Hong Kong has had enough of this kind of 'this is how it is.' It is not a choice. It is 'this is how it is' which is increasing the terror and anger in Hong Kong society. This is a responsibility not just to me, but to the entire society."

- I find the story very amusing. The first sentence said that "she communicated with Lancome/L'Oreal many times." Fine. Then its goes on to explain that this so-called communication consists of Denise Ho sending many messages which drew no response. Do you call that communication?

- Communication, noun, the imparting or exchanging of information or news. Denise Ho is talking about imparting information from her to them, not about exchanging information between two sides. So this is within the definition of communication.

- There is no chance that Lancome/L'Oreal will communicate any further with Denise Ho. That's what any PR consultant will advise. So far, they know for sure that anything that they might say will wind up being released and distorted outside.

- More head scratching required here! Since when did disrespecting Denise Ho = disrespecting the people of Hong Kong? Why does she raise discussion of herself to discussion of the people of Hong Kong? Isn't that presumptuous?

- (The Stand News) When Lancome cut off Denise Ho, the focus shouldn't be about any public relations crisis. The real point is that when Lancome had to choose between China and Hong Kong, it chose China because it is a much, much larger market than Hong Kong. That is the brutal reality.

To date, Lancome has not offered any excuse, explanation, justification or apology. Absolutely nothing. Do Lancome and L'Oreal not know about the public clamor in Hong Kong over the past several days? Of course, they know. But so what? The demonstrators can chant their slogans out loud, but can Hongkongers stop buying Lancome forever? And Armani, YSL, Body Sthop, BioTherm, etc? When the demonstration stops, it will be business as usual. This is how Hongkongers feel. They don't give a shit. They won't even want any explanations.

- (Post852) June 11, 2016. Post 852 quotes Denise Ho: "The fact is that before Lancme Hong Kong issued its first statement, a person in charge informed us that this was an irresistible order from a certain mainland Chinese department. Indeed, it was a business decision. But it was a business decision influenced by political factors."

- There is no WHO WHEN WHERE WHY and HOW to verify any bit of it. And why is it only coming out one week later?

- 「大陸部門」(mainland Chinese department)? When you read that phrase, you immediately think of a government department? Zhang Dejiang? The State Council? Central Propaganda Department? Ministry of Culture? But if there were so, they would have nailed it by spelling out "mainland Chinese government department"! Right? But they didn't. So it is not a mainland Chinese government department. More likely, it was a L'Oral department to which Lancme Hong Kong reports. When the matter involves both Hong Kong and mainland China, Lancme Hong Kong has to seek instructions from their supervisor right? L'Oral is structured hierarchically as the L'Oral executive committee, of which Alexis Perakis-Valat is the member in charge of L'Oral Asia Pacific which oversees L'Oral China (also headed by Perakis-Valat) which oversees L'Oral Hong Kong which oversees Lancme Hong Kong.

- There hasn't been many cases of government departments applying political pressures on commercial corporations. In the case of fashion store chain Giordano which was owned by Next Media boss Jimmy Lai at the time, the company kept having problems with license renewals and safety inspections (fire department, labor department, etc) so that Lai decided to sell his shares more than two decades ago. Google left China on its own with great fanfare but is crawling back in quietly. So what order can a mainland government department issue to L'Oral? Cancel the Hong Kong concert or else we are going to close down all L'Oral outlets in 80 mainland cities?

- (Apple Daily) June 9, 2016.

Anna Chan proposed this theory about the entire affair. "How can an international brand work with with an over-the-hill singer such as Denise Ho?" "There is reason to believe that they are deliberately trying to touch on the nerves of mainland Internet users" by crossing the bottom line and "then pretending to be innocent and severing relations, but having provided Denise Ho the chance to gain international sympathy and decry Chinese Communist oppression etc." She said that the American brand Listerine also hired Denise Ho as spokesperson. "Can there be so many coincidences?" She wondered if Lancome is making these moves just before the Hong Kong Legco elections in September. "Although I rarely use cosmetic products, I will firmly remind all my friends to boycott L'Oreal products!"

- Under normal circumstances, it would be logical to assume that Denise Ho set Lancome up because she wants the media publicity to launch a Legislative Council election campaign. This is not true. According to Cap 542 Legislative Council Ordinance S7, a person must be a Chinese citizen who is a permanent resident of Hong Kong with no right of abode in any country other than the People's Republic of China. But according to Wikipedia, Denise Ho was born in Hong Kong and emigrated with her family to Montreal at the age of 11. If Denise Ho wants to run for the Hong Kong Legislative Council, she would have to renounce her Canadian citizenship like Albert Cheng.

... unless, of course, Denise Ho has already quietly renounced her Canadian citizenship in preparation for this election ...

- (HKG Pao) June 11, 2016. National People's Congress Standing Committee member Rita Fan said that the Lancome affair was purely a business decision, and she does not see Global Times as suppressing freedom of expression in Hong Kong. Just because you don't like what someone is saying, you can't accuse them of suppression. If Hong Kong has freedom of expression, then it should respect the freedom of expression of others.

Rita Fan also said that there are many people who express certain opinions under freedom of expression, and then they claim that they represent the people of Hong Kong.

- How have Hong Kong media handled this news story? Among newspapers, the Yellow Ribbon Apple Daily and Ming Pao do not appear to be as rabid as expected. Maybe this is because their advertising revenues have been taking deep dives such to cause staff cuts. And L'Oral would be a big-time spender on print advertising. I know that the editorial department acts independently of the advertising department, but the publisher knows who is putting the bread on the table.

Among Internet media, HK01 is taking the lead. Everybody knows that HK01 is bankrolled by mainland money and is losing tens of millions a month. HK01 went ahead and hired away hundreds of workers away from Apple Daily and Ming Pao. How can this be? One conspiracy theory is that the Chinese Communists are hiring away the Apple Daily/Ming Pao workers and then HK01 will declare bankruptcy soon and leave all these Yellow Ribbon people jobless. How is this for a worst-case analysis?

- (Apple Daily) D100 radio host Jess says that his mainland factory had been producing packaging for LOral/Lancme to the tune of several million dollars per year. However, he has decided that he will no longer accept any jobs from them in the future. He tells the people of Hong Kong that they can also help by boycotting products made with mainland Chinese capital. Denise Ho expressed thanks to Jess via Facebook.

- Well, that's fucking great! But Jess, can you please explain why your fucking factory is located in mainland China? Why oh why isn't it fucking located in Hong Kong? Are you another one of those people like Denise Ho who wants to make money in mainland China while criticizing everything there? If you have the courage, you should fold up your mainland factory and set one up in Hong Kong!

- Why can't Jess set up a factory in Hong Kong? Rent and labor. If Lancme sends out a request for proposal for 200,000 packages, the Hong Kong factory's bid will be several times costlier than the bids from Dongguan/Panyu-based Hong Kong-owned factories for the same assured quality. What should Lancme do? Please tell us, Jess.

- This fucking bastard Jess went to set up a factory in mainland China after what happened on Tiananmen Square, June 4th 1989. His fucking conscience must have been eaten by a dog.

- That's fucking fantastic news. When Jess turned down the multimillion business, LOral/Lancme is going to go out of business because they can't find any packaging for their products! NOT! Hundreds of other factories are ready to jump in to take this business for better quality and lower price! This is Jess's loss, not the loss of LOral/Lancme. It will contribute to greater profitability to LOral!

- PLEASE! If Jess is truly a businessman with a conscience, he would not have set up a blood-and-sweat factory in China to exploit workers with inhumane wages and working conditions. And if you say that Jess is different from other factory owners because he pays good wages and provides working conditions, then he wouldn't be getting any contracts (unless the client happens to be a business with a conscience and a sense of social responsibility).

- This Jess guy just turned down a job for Lancme? I am going to call Lancme at 9am on Monday morning to put in a bid. I am sure that I can do a better job.

- Well, timing is an issue here.
If Jess never got the contract and now says he rejected it, this is rubbish.
If Jess got the contract and refuses to carry it out, he will have to pay a penalty. Then he is truly courageous.
Which do you think happened?

- We need to publicize the name of Jess's company. This is a company that puts in a tender offer; when it doesn't get the job, it goes around badmouthing the potential client. Everybody should know about this company and avoid it in future.

- Yes, I remember this Jess guy. He started his career by offering online information on where to find prostitutes in mainland China. So it is hilarious that he is being presented by Apple Daily and Denise Ho as a businessman with a conscience.

- A low-end printing factory rejects a recurrent job from a transnational company? Hahahaha! This is like a Golden Forum lad rejecting a proposal from Miss Hong Kong!

- Many Internet users feel elation whenever foreign media begin reporting on something about Hong Kong. The same thing happens in Taiwan. People in Hong Kong and Taiwan look down on their own media and they think that something becomes more important when written up in English. So they rush to tell each other that CNN, BBC or NHK is reporting on something or the other. Right now some Hong Kong Internet users are congratulating each other because BBC has interviewed Denise Ho and the story has appeared in Daily Mail. Unfortunately, this is a superficial reading. A friend remarked: "You don't realize that BBC was only interested in teaching people how to conduct business in China. They couldn't care less about Denise Ho, Hong Kong or democracy." But do Hongkongers get this?

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016. Crowd estimates by source.
 
Year Alliance Police
2007 55,000 27,000
2008 48,000 15,700
2009 200,000 62,000
2010 150,000 113,000
2011 150,000 77,000
2012 180,000 85,000
2013 150,000 54,000
2014 180,000 99,500
2015 135,000 46,600
2016 125,000 21,800


2016 photo


2015 photo

(HKU POP)

1. Soccer pitches (six in total, parallel to each other). Each soccer pitch is 72.75 meters long and 46.5 meters wide.

Total length = 72.75 meters plus boundaries of 5 meters at one end and 7.5 metes on the other end = 85.25 meters

Total width = [6 x (46.5 metes)] + [6 x 6 meters boundaries] + [passageways of 6 meters + 6 meters + 24 meters] = 351 meters

Total area = 85.25 meters x 351 meters - [size of grand stage 846 meters] = 29,077 meters

2. Central Lawn. 206 meters long and 108 meters wide for a total area of 22,248 square meters. At 67% usage, the total area is 9800 square meters.

3. Pavilion: 2870 square areas. At 50% usage, the total area is 1435 square meters.

4. Basketball courts. Each basketball court is 28 meters long and 15 meters wide. Total area is 1050 square meters for 2-1/2 courts.

5. Pathway around the soccer pitches. Southern passage is 351 meters long and 6 meters wide. Northern passage is 351 meters long and 5 meters wide. At 50% usage, the total area is 1931 square meters.

Grand total area = 43293 square meters.

At a density of 2.8 persons per square meter, total number of persons = 121,220
At a density of 2.5 persons per square meter, total number of persons = 108,223

- What is 2.8 persons per square meter? In each square meter box (which is 3 feet by 3 feet), 2.8 persons are present. Since the proceedings go on for more than 2 hours, people have to sit. Once they sit down, they cannot move within the box anymore.

- In 2009, the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China announced that 200,000 persons attended. That means there were 200,000 / 43292 = 4.6 persons per square meter.

- An alternate calculation is based upon there being 12 rectangular blocks in the soccer pitches in the 2016 aerial photo above. Counting the number of candles, each block is about 50 times 20 = 1,000 candles. Therefore the total is 1,000 x 12 = 12,000. Add some for the Central Lawn and you get the police estimate. Now who do you trust? The Alliance or your own lying eyes?

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016.

Before the assembly began, many demonstrators carrying "Hong Kong independence", "Hong Kong is not China", "Breakaway from the Chinks and build our own nation, One Country One Side" charged in. One demonstrator got on stage and yelled: "Support Hong Kong independence" before being escorted away by workers. One demonstrator punched the monitors, but was subdued. The police handcuffed one demonstrator and took him away. When they reached the Tin Hau exit of Victoria Park, the demonstrator took off onto the street. Fortunately the cars braked just in time.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) June 5, 2016.

A stage invasion by Hong Kong independence activists at Saturdays Victoria Park Tiananmen massacre vigil received mixed reactions from different localist political groups.

Several minutes before the commencement of the vigil at 8pm, around a dozen activists, wielding colonial Hong Kong flags and banners, attempted to storm the main stage. One activist seized the microphone, shouting we dont want a democratic China, we want Hong Kong independence we need to take care of ourselves before being removed by event organisers amid scuffles. Others continued to speak to the public behind the stage for around an hour, surrounded by a large contingent of police.

The activist who successfully mounted the stage was named as Simon Sin, a 23 year-old former member of Internet-based group Hong Kong Localism Power, according to Stand News. Sin later alleged that he was assaulted by event staff, saying he was pinched on his arm, seized by his neck, and received blows to his rear.

Hong Kong Localism Power, however, condemned the incident. Everyone has the right to choose to identify with a country, and we will not force Hong Kongers to deny they are Chinese, said Chairman Jonathan Ho Chi-kwong in a statement. We believe that this was a malicious attempt to instigate conflict, Ho concluded.

Last year, the group attempted to disrupt a forum held at Victoria Park on the afternoon of June 4, prior to the vigil. In the same Facebook post, Ho apologised for the groups past actions.

Following the stage invasion, a 24 year-old man was arrested by police on charges of obstructing public officers, and was released on bail shortly before midnight. Members of localist political organisation Civic Passion demonstrated outside North Point Police Station, where he was held. They criticised the event staff for their violent removal of the stage invaders, and questioned the vigil organisers commitment to peaceful forms of protest.

- For this one day of the year, we swear solidarity with our compatriots in China to support patriotic democratic movements there. Now that this is past midnight, we are back to our regular program of "We are Hong Kong", "Hong Kong is not China" and "Mainland locusts, go back where you come from!"

- (The Stand News) June 4, 2016. Video: https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/999217053497248/
Simon has frequently propounded on Hong Kong independence before at his street booth. He has more than 1,000 followers on Facebook. At around 745pm, he declared on Facebook that there would be a duel between Reunification versus Independence as he intends to ambush the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. Afterwards, reporters and citizens asked him (see video) if he was being rough and impolite. When asked if he applied to speak, Simon said: "We didn't do anything wrong. We only want to express our opinions. We are not on the same side." Afterwards he chanted "Hong Kong independence" with his comrades. He said that those by his side are his brothers and "we will not let the Communist Party rule us."

Kyle is the person holding the "HK is not CHINA" banner. He is a student. He said that it means nothing to him if one or two hundred thousand people attend the assembly tonight. It is more important to let people know that twenty to thirty people oppose the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. He said that in the 1980's, the people of Hong Kong wanted to continue to be be ruled by the British. After June 4th, the Alliance exploited the feelings of the people of Hong Kong and helped the Chinese Communists colonize Hong Kong. Kyle said that the Alliance and Szeto Wah were co-opted to deceive the people of Hong Kong. So should June 4th be commemorated? Kyle said no, because "the dead were Chinese students and not us."

(Apple Daily video) https://www.facebook.com/832553626780002/videos/1007475699287793/

(Video) https://www.facebook.com/HKDiscussForum/videos/994196780629387/

- Definition of dog-eat-dog: Complete egotism; action based on utter cynicism; marked by destructive or ruthless competition; without self-restraint, ethics, etc. Because how can you think that 120,000 persons at an event is less important than 20 persons who hold the opposite view? It is the definition of "egotism" --- it's all about ME and the rest of the world be damned.

Definition of egotism: the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance.

- What is the use of seizing the microphone on the grand stage of the Alliance? How does that get Hong Kong independence any closer? Why don't you take over Government Headquarters or Government House?

- You hear that someone is holding a vegetarian banquet at the restaurant. So you decide to crash the gate and you take up a table to eat the chicken thigh that you brought along with you. Why? Because you say that you have the freedom to eat meat. And why won't you just eat your chicken thigh in your own home? Because you can't get media exposure for doing that.

- Video https://www.facebook.com/679614048818777/videos/977426052370907/ Post-incident interview of a demonstrator speaking to reporters. Although bigotry is a serious matter, this comes though comedic all the same.

"We did indeed barge in, but they have no right to beat us.  They support universal values. They support democracy. They support freedom. Why won't they allow pluralistic voices."

(Megaphone) "Hong Kong is not a part of China. The Chinese people are the enemy. They invaded our Hong Kong. They are robbing our resources."

"I want to tell formally that we ostracize the Chinese people! We are not talking about rationality, we are not about welcoming anyone, we are not talking about the quality of the Chinese tourists. Right now we are talking about the water level reaching our eyelids. We are being colonized by China. We are now saying formally and properly. We want a Hong Kong without any Chinese people. There is no need to give any more reasons. In summary, Hong Kong is not China.

- (The Stand News) June 4, 2016. The VTC Political Reform Concern Group and other groups marched towards the China Liaison Office after the Victoria Park candlelight vigil. The police raised the yellow flag to warn them that the march had not received permission. But almost 300 people continued to push on. The police said that they should go back on the sidewalk. The marchers said that the police should give them a car lane. So traffic comes to a halt by the Wan Chai Fire Station.

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016. After the Victoria Park candlelight vigil, the League of Social Democrats called on citizens to march to the China Liaison Office. As they gathered outside Victoria Park, the police stopped them. They argued for about 30 minutes before they were allowed to proceed. They said that they don't need police permission to march in the streets. At around 1030am, the demonstrators reached Hennessey Road and some of them jumped on the vehicular lane. The police raised the yellow warning banner to ask them to move back on tto the pedestrian sidewalk. League of Social Democrats' Leung Kwok-hung told the demonstrators that occupying one vehicular lane was sufficient. The police gave them one slow lane on Hennesey Road to march.

- Why did the police object? Look at this photo -- the point of the marchers is to obstruct westbound vehicular traffic and maximize inconvenience to regular citizens. Why should the police go along with this?

- Recently, there is a campaign to issue instant fines to enforce traffic laws (such as loading/unloading passengers/goods in restricted zones, jaywalking, etc). So it turns out that traffic rules are not applicable when you are breaking them in the name of freedom/democracy/human rights/June 4th?

- The whole point:  "Suport Long Hair, Support League of Social Democrats. Please donate money."

- Video: Beggars' alley
https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/559859970885949/
https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/559856327552980/
Give as much as possible, as soon as possible and as often as possible for the sake of freedom/democracy/human rights/patriotism/rule of law.
You must donate because we need the money to sustain ourselves until next year's candlelight vigil.
If you don't donate, there won't be another candlelight vigil, and then the Chinese Communists/Li Peng will have won. We can't let that happen, so you must donate as much as possible, as soon as possible and as often as possible for the sake of freedom/democracy/human rights/patriotism/rule of law.

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016.

About 20 members of Voice of Loving Hong Kong demonstrated outside the Tin Hau MTR statoin. They criticized the assembly tonight is the "Alliance Alms-begging Evening Gathering." They got into a quarrel with several members of Demosisto and there was a clash (see video). Several dozen policemen were at the scene. Lui "Female Long Hair" Yuk-lin tossed joss paper at the Voice of Loving Hong Kong people and yelled "Vindicate June 4th." Lui was arrested for disorderly conduct in public.

Several other patriotic organizations (including Defend Hong Kong Movement) set up a street booth on Patterson Street "to commemorate the dead soldiers and citizens during the June 4th riot." They chanted "Learn the truth about June 4th," "The pan-democrats have no conscience" and "Albert Ho, you lied by hiding the truth of the bloodshed", "The Alliance is immoral for denying that soldiers were killed." Several other citizens confronted them, and the police intervened.

- (FEHD) "Anyone who commits such offences as littering, spitting, fouling of streets by dog feces, or unauthorised display of bills and posters in public places in Hong Kong is liable to a fixed penalty of HK$1,500.

- (RTHK) June 4, 2016.

At the Tsim Sha Tsui assembly, Civic Passion member "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun said that he doesn't want to vindicate June 4th, because he only wants the Chinese Communists to fall. He quoted a citizen who said, "The Umbrella Movement is the June 4th event for the young people of Hong Kong."

- If you want to bring down the Chinese Communists to fall, you should try to cross the Lohu border. For 27 years, neither the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China nor Civic Passion nor anyone else have tried. They resolutely stayed in Hong Kong to beg alms. In this regard, Civic Passion is no different.

- Well, they don't need to go to Lohu. The China Liaison Office officially represents the Central Government/the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong, and it is located in Sai Wan, Hong Kong Island. Why don't you go and bring them down?

P.S. The People's Liberation Army has a garrison in Admiralty, Hong Kong Island, a marine base on Stonecutter's Island and an airbase in Shek Kong. Why don't you take them over?

- (Oriental Daily) June 4, 2016.

Today is the 27th anniversary of the June 4th incident. Several members of the Hong Kong-UK Reunification Campaign (including a masked Andy "Captain America" Yung) went to the British Consulate in Hong Kong to protest. They said that the Joint Sino-British Declaration stipulated that Hong Kong be handed over to China in 1997 without ever consulting the wishes of the broad masses in Hong Kong. After the handover, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly of the people of Hong Kong were deprived, the democratic system was destroyed, corruption is worsening and Hong Kong language is being tampered with. Since China failed to keep the promises in the Joint Sino-British Declaration, they demand that the United Kingdom proclaim it null and void and take back sovereignty over Hong Kong! The British Consulate took the petitions seriously and sent out a security guard to take their letter.

- (SCMP) June 5, 2016.

Donations to organisers of the June 4 candlelight vigil to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown have surged 30 per cent to HK$1.74 million despite a lower turnout at last nights Victoria Park event.

Attendance at the worlds biggest commemoration to the 1989 protests was down by 10,000 from the previous year to 125,000 the lowest since the 20th anniversary vigil in 2009. Police put the figures at a mere 21,800, one of the biggest discrepancies in years compared with the organisers estimate.

- Total amount of donations = $1.74 million.
Number of participants = 125,000
Average amount of donations per person = $13.2.
Cheap bastards!

- (Oriental Daily) June 5, 2016. As for the other pan-democratic political parties, the Labour Party got around $90,000 which is about the same as last year; the League of Social Democrats got $226,000 just slightly less than the $250,000 last year; the Civic Party got $287,000 just slightly less than the $300,000 last year; the Neo Democrats got $60,000 which is about the same as last year; Siu Lai's Democracy Classroom got $87,000 as a first-timer.

- Demosisto led everybody with $450,000 in donations. It should be remembered that they are not registered either as a company or a society, that they don't have a bank account, that they accept checks signed to "Wong Chi Fung" and that they will gladly take checks. This is such an inspiration! Come next June 4th, everybody should show up with a foldable table and a Demosisto banner to collect donations. Who is to say that you are the real thing or not?

- When the League of Social Democrats counted their money, they found that someone had stuffed joss money worth $1,000,000. That was probably reimbursement for the joss money that they burnt outside the China Liaison Office later that night. (video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaI2BxZtK9Y )

- (Local Press) June 5, 2016. A synopsis of the June 4th Forum held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong on the evening of June 4th as an alternative to the Alliance's candlelight vigil in Victoria Park. There were about 500 at the start, and the organizers claimed that 1,500 tickets were handed out.

Session 2: The future of Hong Kong

Fong Chi-hung: Hong Kong has to establish an awareness of an independent identify. We must recognize that we are different from China. We have our own uniqueness (such as our language, culture and independent constitutional system). The Localist movement is more than seeking universal suffrage. With respect to China, we must be autonomous in various domains (politics, economics, culture, energy, etc). Faced with the red-ification of various domains, we must be ready to resist and join up with the civil movements in South East Asia (such as Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan) and establish a unique Hongkonger identity and culture.

Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous): The preceding generation or generations came as refugees to Hong Kong, so they have strong emotion feelings for China, including a sense of guilt. It would be hard for them to separate from China. But our generation are not close to China. We do no inherit those emotions. We only want to have free, stable lives and retain our own lifestyles, culture and language. If we recognize our own power, then Hong Kong independence is the way to protect our race.

Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party): The June 4th incident gave us two revelations. Firstly, the Hunan Trio advocated the overthrow of the Communist Party in order to establish a democratic society. They threw ink at the Mao Zedong portrait at Tiananmen Square. The Beijing students immediately held a press conference and said that the trio is not connected to the patriotic democratic movement. Their action was just like the pan-democrats today. They regard the Communists as the overlords and they say "We won't overthrow you."

Secondly, the Beijing students advocated non-violent tactics. Liu Xiaobo smashed a gun to pieces. The Hunan Trio were also non-violent. Nevertheless, the People's Liberation Army came out ... We advocate that the people of Hong Kong must get clear what their racial identity is -- that is to say, we are the Hong Kong race, we are the people of Hong Kong and we are not Chinese. Otherwise, it is useless to have Hong Kong independence, because the new government formed by the coalition of the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China and the pro-establishment political parties will only lean towards China and Hong Kong will die.

We want to negotiate with the Chinese Communists. If they refuse to negotiate, we will use our fists and bricks to pound them until they agree to negotiate ... We will infiltrate into the various sectors (such as medical care, finance, business, education, culture, etc). For example, if we take over the trade, transportation and logistics sectors, we will be able to prepare Hong Kong to deal with food imports.

Tommy Cheung (former Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president): Our opponent is the Chinese Communists which is a combination of party-state rule and Chinese chauvinism. We must gain self-determination, we must gain autonomy in military and political matters. We must obtain the conditions for self-determination. We must obtain the bargaining chips to realize this vision. We must establish our strengths in economics, academics and culture in order to help Hong Kong.

To get self-determination, we must link up with the histories of resistance in Macau, Taiwan Japan, South Korea and South East Asia. We exchange with their civil groups so that the voices of the people of Hong Kong will get supported. We must stand in the world and seek out Localists everywhere.

Baggio Leung (Youngspiration convener): When Hong Kong first faced the issue of its future, the people of Hong Kong were not aware of sovereignty. At the negotiations between the United Kingdom and China, the people of Hong Kong were missing. 27 years ago after the Chinese Communist murdered its people, a group of Democratic Handover Terrorist appeared. The Chinese Communists need Hong Kong but they don't need its people. This explained why so many absurd things occur in Hong Kong. Now Hong Kong faced the issue of its future for the second time. Hong Kong must establish its racial identity and awareness of sovereignty. Therefore we are advocating a racial self-determination movement ... we must find ways to increase our soft power in order to prepare ourselves for taking over governance and building our own race.

Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous): The Chinese Communist Party does not believe in the spirit of contracts. Therefore, they wouldn't keep their promise if we negotiate with them. We must increase our own strengths, and link up with Xinjiang and Tibet which are also trying to get independence. Compared to these other places, Hong Kong is the strongest to become independent. Therefore we don't need to negotiate with the Chinese Communists. We have the ability to become independent. Negotiating with them is a regional government negotiating with the sovereign power. It would be an unequal negotiation.

Fong Chi-hung: It is not morally wrong to negotiate with the Chinese Communists. We need to preserve our strengths in order to restrain them.

Baggio Leung: It is not a problem to negotiate. The problem is who gets to negotiate? For example, we wouldn't be getting the Alliance's Choi Yiu-cheung to negotiate. We don't want to repeat the mistake. In 1982, the Reform Society conducted a public opinion poll and only 4% of the people wanted Hong Kong to be handed over to China. So how could these salespersons use the data to sell a democratic handover? The previous generation used such undemocratic methods to sell the democratic handover.

Chan Ho-tin: I am not going to fight for negotiations. I advocate Hong Kong independence. I advocate the use of force, but not violence. Violence gives the impression that you are irrationally and arbitrarily attacking others. I don't lean towards the establishment of an army. Ireland established the Irish Republican Army but that was quickly destroyed. I think that guerilla warfare is better suited for Hong Kong. Will force hurt innocent bystanders? If we don't do anything, the innocent bystanders will suffer even worse fates. For example, many young people are committing suicide due to social pressure.

Right now, 14% (which is 1 million) Hong Kong persons support independence. We must figure out our identities. We are not Chinese, so why should we be governed by the Chinese? Right now, many people are talking about self-determination. That is just a disguise, because they are afraid to say out Hong Kong independence. I think that more and more Hongkongers will support independence. This is inevitably going to happen.

Ray Wong: Do we need the United Kingdom to help Hong Kong? No. If your democracy and freedom were given to you by other persons, it won't last. You have to do it yourself.

Chan Ho-tin: We won't ask the United Kingdom to get democracy for us. We must do it ourselves. But we must gain international recognition, so we need the United Kingdom to support us.

Baggio Leung: Pragmatic politics involve interests. If we want the United Kingdom to help, then it must touch upon their interests. It depends on the objective conditions whether to seek the help of the United Kingdom. If it should happen that everybody in Hong Kong will die unless the United Kingdom supports us, then we want the United Kingdom to help us.

Tommy Cheung: Democracy always depends on oneself, or else the democracy won't last long ...

Fong Chi-hung: Establishing a localist movement is not in conflict with international support. As a cosmopolitan city, Hong Kong needs to gain the recognition of other place in order to gain space for self-determination. It is an objective fact that China is right next door. We need to move among different forces.

More at Occupy Central Part 6


More at:
Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5
(401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6
(501+)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com