[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) November 27, 2016.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was publicly abused by a teenager using the f word during a sharing session with young people on Saturday.

The young man, surnamed Chan, was among hundreds of secondary school and university students invited to the annual Youth Summit organised by the governments Commission on Youth.

During the one-hour forum, more than a dozen youngsters were given the chance to ask Leung questions. When Chan was picked by the moderator, he took the opportunity to accuse Leungs administration of cracking down on young peoples participation in social movements such as the Occupy demonstrations and protests against cross-border parallel traders.

During the Occupy Central movement, how come the government used tear gas on a group of bare-handed teenagers? he said. Chan said such a move went against calls by the government for teenagers to participate more in social affairs.

At the end of his question section, Chan suddenly became emotional. I just cant resist any more, I am so sorry ... he said, before shouting the f word at the chief executive.

Leung did not directly respond to the swearing, but said cases of police intervention during protests in Hong Kong were much fewer than in other countries. The situation should not be over-generalised. Hong Kong police have been very restrained, Leung said. He said he encouraged the citys young people to use any means to express their ideas as long as it was legal.

However, when asked by a female student whether he would consider enabling the comments section on his Facebook page to offer a platform for youngsters to voice their views, Leung said he would like to do so if people could express their opinions rationally. Even if they are against me or the SAR government, there is absolutely no problem, he said.

But the top official said the activities of people on Facebook tended to be too simple and therefore had little value. Even a post of me visiting elderly homes was given thousands of angry faces I dont think these kinds of activities have much reference value, he said.

(Oriental Daily with video) November 27, 2016.

During the Q&A session, a man said that it is a good thing for young people to participate in the Umbrella Movement, but the government suppressed them. The authorities fired tear gas at the demonstrators, and a demonstrator was accused of using her breast to attack the police. The man said: "Fuck your mother" to express his discontent. The workers asked the man to leave. The man left on his own. Leung responded that there are many demonstrations in Hong Kong, but very few of them are stopped by the government.

A male middle-school student said that young people oppose the government because they don't trust the government. He said that legislators don't know how to do screen captures on computers, they don't know how to do live broadcasts and they don't play computer games. However, legislators can vote to pass Internet Article 23!"

A female student said that Leung was deleting comments on his Facebook. She demanded that Leung open up comments again. Leung said that he finds it incomprehensible that photos on his Facebook of a visit to a senior citizen centre should draw several thousand angry faces. Leung said that smooth communication must be held in a civilized and rational manner.

Video transcript: Chan: "And then I wanted to say ... how come the government is not supporting and caring about, but is suppressing instead? Finally I want to say ... I know that I am out of time ... I really cannot hold it back ... I am really sorry ... I fuck your mother!"

(TVB) November 27, 2016.

Chan: "They are oppressing young people, and not caring and supporting. They are oppressing young people. They are not oppressing. For example, like the Umbrella Revolution, a group of unarmed young people were tear-gassed. Finally I really cannot hold back ... I am really sorry ... I fuck your mother!"

Leung: "Hong Kong has a lot of demonstration and marches to express opinions, whether they are outdoors or indoors like our meeting today. It is rare for the government to take the so-called suppression action for the police to control the situation. We absolutely should not be biased about this. The Hong Kong police and the government realizes that traffic is really tight in such a constricted area. The police has been very restrained. I hope that Yu-hin (the speaker) knows this."

Internet comments:

- Whenever something likes this happens to a pro-establishment/pro-China person, the Yellow Ribbon pundits always say that the victim needs to seriously reflect on his failures which led to such verbal/physical attacks.

Whenever something like this happens to a pro-'democracy' person, the Yellow Ribbon pundits say that the police should be called in to the arrest the perpetrator (see, for example, the Shoe Throwing Incident) in order to protect our freedom of speech.

- Mr. Chan asked: During the Occupy Central movement, how come the government used tear gas on a group of bare-handed teenagers? Indeed, the whole world saw how the government used tear gas on a group of bare-handed teenagers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfUTqQmF_vU. To date, the government has not been able to provide a reasonable explanation.

Mr. Chan said that the authorities fired tear gas and then accused one demonstrator of using her breast to attack a policeman. This was the case of Ng Lai-ying.

- Actually this is a CHAN SAID LEUNG SAID kind of thing here. We cannot resolve who is right or wrong. We need a neutral referee. Hey, Chris Patten is in town? Let's ask him whether the police can use tear gas against unarmed citizens. P.S. A search for "tear+gas+police" yielded 216,000 results.

- There is no need to respect CY Leung because he doesn't respect the people of Hong Kong.

- I completely agree that if you don't respect others, others should not respect you either. So when the Yellow Ribbons paralyzed Admiralty and Mong Kok, did they respect the people of Hong Kong? When 90% of the people of Hong Kong want them to go away, did they respect this popular will?

- If the Yellow Ribbons want "genuine universal suffrage" and the National People's Congress Standing Committee is standing in the way with the August 31st resolution, then take it up with the NPCSC -- go to Beijing and occupy the Great Hall of the People in Tiananmen Square. Why occupy Mong Kok instead?

- CY Leung doesn't respect the people of Hong Kong? What did he do? Does he say "Fuck your mother" to everyone that he sees?

- It is not that you don't want to listen to what young people want to say. It is just that the stream-of-consciousness rant is incoherent. What was this Chan person trying to say?

- Any Joe can use curse words. But to what purpose? What was this about?

- Any Joe can use curse words. But not all Joe's slur when they speak. So this Joe is especially hard to understand.

- When this generation thinks that something is right or wrong, there can be no IF's, BUT's or OR's. They don't know and they don't care. They just want to have it their way. What is the point of communication if everything is an ULTIMATUM of MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY? If they are incapable of listening, then why should anyone bother to talk to them?

- Mr. Chan probably felt very good after saying "I fuck your mother" to CY Leung. Yes, it was the perfect performance. And then what? If he wants to, he will probably have a good political career as a Legislative Councilor.

- At least this case proves that freedom of expression is alive and well in Hong Kong. But to what purpose?

- It is people like these who elected Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. What did you expect?

- Why is there so much unhappiness among young people here? Here is the standard litany of reasons:

- I want to travel overseas. In October, I went to Japan. In November, I went to Australia. In December, I want to go to Maldives. But I don't have the money and I don't have any vacation time left. I am so depressed. The government should institute mandatory paid vacations for citizens.

- I am single and I want my own apartment. Why is the waiting list for single-person public housing units so long? I want it now! I don't want to wait!

- I am still using an iPhone 6S. Everybody else has an iPhone 7 already. I feel so out of it! Why doesn't the government have a purchase program for young people?

- I only have two credit cards. Everybody that I know has at least 6. Why aren't the banks giving me more credit cards? The banks should be made to give credit cards to everybody.

- Five years after I graduated from university, I still haven't been able to pay any of my student loans. The government must forgive all outstanding student loans because this is clearly not good for my mental health.

- Everybody I know says that you can get a girl to climb into bed on the first date. Why haven't I been able to do that? I feel miserable. Is there something really wrong with me?

- I am twenty-nine years old. I own nothing significant -- no apartment, no car, no money, no jewelry, no pets. But I do own 59 pairs of special edition athletic shoes. The problem is the most exclusive editions are reserved only for sale in America, Europe and Japan, and our government refuses to do anything about it.

(SCMP) July 7, 2015.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying today dismissed rumours one of his key ministers had got the nod from Beijing to be Hong Kongs next leader after President Xi Jinping offered an eyebrow-raising handshake to the financial secretary at a key international meeting last month.

Speculation that finance chief John Tsang Chun-wah could be a dark horse for the 2017 chief executive election mounted after Xi approached and wordlessly shook hands with him at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank meeting in Beijing last month, attended by 57 founding member states.

Last month, Tsang laughed off speculation that he was tipped to be the citys next leader. The president [Xi] also shook hands with a lot of other people, but those moments were not captured by the television cameras, Tsang replied when asked if he saw any political signal from Xis gesture. But he sidestepped a question about whether he was interested in the top job. Instead, Tsang asked the reporter who posed the question: Have you asked other people [the same question]?

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 7, 2016.

Financial Secretary John Tsang has told local media not to look too deeply into his handshake with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Hangzhou. I think this is a very normal thing, he said. I think meeting each other, shaking hands, and making conversation is very normal. He had previously shaken hands with the Chinese leader last June in Beijing, leading to speculation that Beijing favoured him as the next Chief Executive of Hong Kong. I thanked the president for giving us the chance, inviting us to participate in this conference, and we did not talk about anything else, said Tsang. He refuted questions over whether they had spoken about the position of Chief Executive.

The speculation stems from historical moments dating back to 1996. Tung Chee-hwa won a handshake from then Chinese president Jiang Zemin while campaigning for Chief Executive elections in January 1996. Tung successfully became the citys first leader in 1997. After Tung stepped down in 2005, former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen attended a financial forum in Beijing where former president Hu Jintao offered a six-second long handshake.

(SCMP) November 22, 2016.

President Xi Jinping has for the first time sent a forceful message to Hong Kong against independence advocacy, urging Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to ensure stability and safeguard national unity.

After their 45-minute meeting on the sidelines on the Apec summit in the Peruvian capital, Leung said on Monday that they did not discuss his possible re-election bid when Hong Kong chooses its leader next March.

Instead, he said Xi was very concerned about Hong Kong, but also very supportive of the Leung administrations handling of the row over two pro-independence lawmakers who were disqualified for insulting China while taking their oaths.

[Xi] fully acknowledged my work and the [governments] work ... including the recent handling of the Legco oath-taking [controversy], Leung said.

Very simply put and very forcefully the president said there is no room whatsoever for Hong Kong independence under the one country, two systems arrangement.

Professor Lau Siu-kai, a leading Beijing adviser on Hong Kong affairs, said the central government wanted to avoid any room for speculation about its preference for the next chief executive at this critical timing.

What is noteworthy is that unlike on similar occasions in the past, Xi didnt give positive comments on Leungs work before the cameras, and those remarks were only carried in the Xinhua report released subsequently, Lau said.

Chinas official Xinhua news agency reported that, while fully acknowledging the work of Leung and his government, the president told Leung to lead his team to continue to implement policies in a comprehensive manner, to build broad social consensus, to focus on boosting economic development and improving the peoples well-being, to safeguard national unity, and to maintain social and political stability.

Asked if he felt let down that Xi had no made comment on his possible aspirations for a second term as chief executive, Leung replied: I had no plan to raise any of my personal matters with the president in this meeting today, nor did I expect him to say anything about me standing for re-election or not.

During the photo opportunity at the start of their meeting in Lima at the hotel where he was staying, the president smiled as he briefly shook hands with Leung.

It took 20 to 30 hours to fly here, right? It took a total of 27 hours, Xi said, engaging in small talk with Leung in front of the cameras as the Hong Kong leader compared the difference in travelling time to Lima between Beijing and Hong Kong.

Also watched was the seating arrangement, after Leungs duty visit to Beijing last year, when Xi sat at the far end of the table with the chief executive on the side to signal the presidents superior status as the head of state. This time the pair sat side by side.

(The Standard) November 21, 2016.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is set to meet President Xi Jinping at 7am today (HK time) during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru. Leung is perceived by many to be seeking reelection in March, though if he does he will likely face challenges from several candidates, including retired judge Woo Kwok-hing.

Leung greeted Xi at the airport when the president arrived in Lima on Saturday morning and shook hands with him for 3.5 seconds as they talked and smiled. It was their first handshake since Leung's duty visit to Beijing in December.

Some commentators said the meeting should be closely observed for signals on whether Xi will give his blessing to Leung for a second term in office, although Leung earlier said they will focus on the APEC summit rather than Hong Kong affairs.

There was similar speculation when Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun- wah shook hands with Xi this year and last year. After Tsang shook hands with Xi in the inauguration of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Beijing in June, Leung also greeted Xi at the airport when they attended the APEC meeting in the Philippines.

(Taipei Times) November 22, 2016.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) yesterday criticized claims that President Tsai Ing-wens (蔡英文) APEC envoy and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had met at the APEC leaders summit in Lima, Peru, although it took credit for what it called a chance encounter.

KMT Culture and Communications Committee deputy director Hu Wen-chi (胡文琦) told a morning news conference in Taipei that People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soongs (宋楚瑜) 10-minute conversation with Xi on Saturday was only a chance encounter, nothing like the formal meetings that former vice presidents Lien Chan (連戰) and Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) held with Chinese leaders when they attended previous APEC summits as special envoys of the president.

The government should refrain from boasting about the encounter, Hu said.

The lack of a formal meeting between Soong and Xi was due to Tsais refusal to acknowledge the so-called 1992 consensus, a tacit understanding between Beijing and the KMT that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge there is one China, with each side having its own interpretation of what China means.

Given that Beijing denied Soong an opportunity to be photographed with Xi and has categorized the pairs talk as simple, natural greeting exchanges rather than a Soong-Xi meeting, the PFP founder should not try to pass off fish eyes for pearls (魚目混珠), Hu said, using a Chinese idiom meaning to present a fake as something real.


Formosa English News: Soong and Xi have brief conversation before APEC meeting

Formosa English News: Taiwan's envoy to the APEC leaders' summit in Peru holds meeting with Chinese leader

Formosa English News: Details of APEC envoy James Soongs encounter with Xi Jinping at APEC summit remain murky

Internet videos:

- Closing ceremony group photo; Peru president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski is center of front row, Xi Jinping to his immediate right and Leung Chun-ying to his immediate left. Putin and Obama are in the backrow.

But before attach any significance to the proximity and importance of Xi-Leung, please remember that the arrangement is based upon alphabetical order: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua-New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States and Vietnam. As long as APEC has the same 21 Member Economies, China will be the right of the host and Hong Kong to the left of the host in the family photo. In 2008, Hu Jintao to the right and Donald Tsang to the left. So please calm down!

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 2, 2016.

 Financial Secretary John Tsang has pushed back against rumours that Beijing told him not to run for chief executive. The rumour, written by an anonymous commentator, was first published in pro-Beijing newspaper Sing Tao on Tuesday. Other pro-Beijing newspapers followed suit, saying that after Tsang informed Beijing of his intention to run for Hong Kongs top job, he received a negative reply. Tsang clarified on Tuesday: No one has discouraged me [from running]. However, he did not deny or admit to the speculation that he wrote to Beijing indicating his intention to resign and join the race for chief executive.

Veteran commentator Johnny Lau Yui-siu told Apple Daily that typically Beijing would not tell a particular contender not to run even if it did not want that person to participate. If that person becomes bitter and publicises [Beijings message], wouldnt Beijing give the impression that it is directly meddling in Hong Kongs elections? Lau said.

(Bastille Post) November 26, 2016.

Over the past couple of days, attention has been drawn once again to John Tsang. It is said that his campaign team is in place, with a former senior government official to serve as the campaign manager.

But once again we are hearing footsteps but somehow nobody actually appears. The key here is the attitude of Beijing. The rumor was that John Tsang had inquired Beijing through a friend in the banking sector. Beijing gave a yellow light, which is neither a red light to oppose or a green light to support. Instead, the yellow light means that Beijing does not encourage John Tsang to enter the race. It is said that John Tsang will go ahead in the presence of yellow light.

This weekend, John Tsang will travel to Beijing to meet with Wang Guangya, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. It is said that he wanted to inform the Central Government of his intention to resign and enter the election.

According to an informed source, if John Tsang goes to see Wang Guangya, he will be getting the red light instead of a green or yellow light. It is up to John Tsang to decide what to do in the presence of the red light.

This informed source said that no Chief Executive can function without the support of the Central Government. A smart person will know not to proceed against the red light.

- (Kinliu) November 26, 2016.

When John Tsang got a 2.5 second handshake with Xi Jinping, all the pundits proclaimed Tsang to be the next Chief Executive. But now Xi Jinping has met with CY Leung for 45 minutes behind closed doors. All of a sudden, sour grapes are overflowing in the Yellow Ribbon media. If 2.5 seconds makes for an anointment, then what is 45 minutes?

Of course, they can always spin the opposite way -- Xi Jinping spent 45 minutes haranguing CY Leung behind closed doors for failing to do his job! And when CY Leung came out of the meeting seeming to be gloating, it must be because his skin is as thick as dinosaur skin!

(Foreign Correspondents' Club @ YouTube) Christopher Patten - The World After Trump and Brexit. November 25, 2016.

(SCMP) November 25, 2016.

Hong Kongs last governor has torn into pro-independence activists, saying it would be a tragedy if the moral high ground achieved by student leaders in the 2014 Occupy protests was lost because of pro-independence antics.

Chris Patten, who is in the city for a short visit, accused such activists of diluting support for democracy in Hong Kong.

However, he also lamented the slow progress of democracy since the 1997 handover and suggested the central government should have exercised restraint when considering an interpretation of the Basic Law.

I still have great admiration for those who campaign for democracy, but not for those whose campaign dilutes support for democracy and makes a mockery of a serious political argument, he said.

He was speaking amid the ongoing oath-taking saga in the city. On October 12 localist duo Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching pledged allegiance to a Hong Kong nation and insulted China at a swearing-in ceremony at the Legislative Council. Patten said taking an oath was a serious matter and not something of a lark. In Britain, if you dont take an oath, you cannot even join a club, he added.

It would be dishonest, dishonourable and reckless of somebody like me, to pretend that the case for democracy should be mixed up with an argument about the independence of Hong Kong something which is not going to happen, something which dilutes support for democracy, and something which has led to all sorts of antics which should not take place in a mature society aiming to be a full democracy.

In a reference to the Occupy protests, Patten said: Two years ago, many brave young people in Hong Kong established moral high ground about democracy in governance, and I think it would be a tragedy if that high ground was lost because of a few antics. Patten also said it would be a mistake to confuse the way people know the relationship between their citizenship, freedoms and prosperity with headline-grabbing remarks about independence.

Asked what he had to say to young people who supported independence, he replied: I would far prefer it if Chinese officials were having to discuss an answerable case for greater democracy in Hong Kong, rather than talking about the ... very unwise case of arguing for independence.

(Financial Times) November 26, 2016.

Lord Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, has lambasted two lawmakers who were recently disqualified for pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong nation, arguing that the burgeoning independence movement in the Chinese territory is completely counter-productive.

Lord Patten, who is in Hong Kong to give a number of public lectures, told the Financial Times on Friday that taking an oath was a serious matter and Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, who were disqualified by a Hong Kong court earlier this month, were wrong to turn it into a sort of student game.

More broadly, Lord Patten, who is now chancellor of the University of Oxford, attacked the growing push for independence and self-determination, supporters of which won around 20 per cent of the vote in the legislative council election in September.

The danger is that they dissipate the enormously strong moral position that they established in 2014 by confusing the argument for a better form of government with the completely counter-productive demands for independence which are bound to provoke a backlash from China, he said.

He added: My strong, strong advice is that they should get back to talking about governance and democracy and eschew all this stuff about independence  That is not going to happen and people should recognise the dangers of pretending that it might.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 25, 2016.

Chris Patten, the last colonial governor of Hong Kong, has said that the city will not win independence from China and that such a campaign dilutes support for democracy.

I have great admiration for those who campaign for democracy, but not those whose campaign dilutes support for democracy and makes a mockery of a serious political argument, he said.

Patten appeared at the Foreign Correspondents Club on Friday to give a speech on the world after Brexit and election of Donald Trump, but he soon shifted to Hong Kong matters. Patten, who left his leadership post in Hong Kong in 1997, said it was a bit surprising that Hong Kongs democratic progress had not sped up. It was supposed to take place at a steady rate, but the steady rate seems to be pretty slow.

He said he supports sensible democratic movements in Hong Kong, giving special mention to the Occupy protests of 2014 as a peaceful and mature campaign for democracy.

But he referred to his knowledge of the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984, noting that it included a paragraph on Chinas national unity and territorial integrity.

It would be dishonest, dishonourable and reckless of somebody like me to pretend that the case for democracy should be mixed up with an argument about the independence of Hong Kong something which is not going to happen, something which dilutes support for democracy and something which has led to all sorts of antics which should not take place in a mature society aiming to be a full democracy, he said.

I think two years ago many brave young people in Hong Kong established moral high ground about democracy in governance and I think it would be a tragedy if that high ground was lost because of the antics about so-called independence for Hong Kong.

Patten was firm, saying that pledging allegiance is a serious business. Taking oath isnt something of a lark, he said. You wont take an oath, you cant join the club. Patten is now the chancellor of the Oxford University. He said he took oaths several times as the governor of Hong Kong, as a member of Britains parliament, and a member of the House of Lords, among others.

He cited the example of the Sinn Fin party, who would not pledge allegiance to the Queen. They were therefore unable to take their place in parliament. Simple as that, said Patten. And I would guess there are legislatures all over the world which have similar requirements, he added.

Concluding his speech, he joked that he was sorry to sound like a headmaster.

Internet comments:

- Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, (Oaths and Declarations Ordinance) Revised Edition 1986.

19. A member of the Legislative Council shall, as soon as possible after his appointment, or in the case of an elected member after the commencement of his term of office as an elected member, take the Oath of Allegiance or the Legislative Council Oath, which shall be tendered by the Governor, or other member presiding. (Amended, 23 of 1985, s. 3)

Part I [ss. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20] Oath of Allegiance

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law. So help me God.


PART IVA [ss. 16, 19.] Legislative Council Oath

I, swear that I will uphold the law of Hong Kong, and that I will conscientiously and truly serve the people of Hong Kong as a member of the Legislative Council. So help me God.

Well, at least the Legislative Councilors of the colonial era had a choice between two forms of oath. This means that they don't have to swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. If this is the case, why can't Hong Kong today have two forms of oath as well?

- (Hong Kong National Party)

The response of our Party to media inquiries about the speech of former governor Chris Patten about Hong Kong independence is as follows.

1. Chris Patten said that "we should return to discuss the issues of governance and democracy instead of Hong Kong independence." The Hong Kong National Party reiterates that if the people of Hong Kong do not have sovereignty, then there cannot be any genuine democracy, and governance will be completely controlled by the Chinese government. The pursuit of independence is the realization of the pursuit of democracy, freedom and human rights. No civilized nation can allow the Fascist tumor of the Communist Party to continue to grow.

2. Youngspiration had never advocated Hong Kong independence, but Patten used "student antics" to describe the actions so of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, linking them with all the supporters of Hong Kong independence, including the Hong Kong localist movements or the entire independence movement. The Hong Kong National Party regrets this biased and incomplete position.

3. Patten has been away from Hong Kong for some years already. Occasionally he makes quick trips or attend public events. But everything about democracy and livelihood has deteriorated in Hong Kong society during these 19 years. In addition, Patten spoke "the loss of the moral high ground achieved in 2014." The Hong Kong National Party believes that even if the people of Hong Kong occupy the moral high ground, they cannot dislodge the objective fact of Chinese colonization. Patten is ignoring how the people of Hong Kong are being oppressed under colonialism.

4. The role of China today is like that of Nazi Germany. The people of Hong Kong have moral reasons to break away from authoritarianism. Anti-colonialism is the consensus of all civilized societies in the 21st century. The Hong Kong National Party respects the fact that Patten defended Hong Kong democracy against the Chinese government. If Patten cares about the development of democracy in Hong Kong, he should tell the international community about the colonialism practiced by China in Hong Kong. He should not repeat the historical policy of appeasement.

- Chris Patten has been away from Hong Kong for such a long time that he now knows absolutely nothing about the situation in Hong Kong. He should have cited the Joint Sino-British Declaration to criticize China. Instead, he blamed the resisters. He should scram back to England!

- The way that I read the subliminal message beneath Chris Patten's speech is that Hong Kong is ungovernable under China, so the most practical solution is for China to return Hong Kong to the United Kingdom in order to rebuild an independent Hong Kong Nation.

- I completely agree. It doesn't matter what Patten actually said. I didn't listen and I don't care either. I only know that this has to be the conclusion.

- This is the first time that I was disappointed in Chris Patten. He is now on the enemies' list for me.

- Chris Patten is a one-thousand year sinner against the cause of Hong Kong independence.

- Since Chris Patten was opposed to Brexit, it is not surprising that he does not like Hong Kong independence.

- Chris Patten is an ugly fat bumbling slob who is losing his hair. He should vanish from sight forever.

- Since Chris Patten was opposed to Scottish independence, it is not surprising that he does not like independence.

- Chris Patten is a product that is past its expiry date. He spouts freedom, democracy and human rights all the time, but all he wants is to connive some favors from the Commies. By attacking the two pro-democracy legislators, Patten has shown that he is a fifty-cent ganger.

-  Chris Patten's speech has created plenty of glass shards on the floor as so many fragile glass hearts have been broken. At all the demonstrations, there are always people who show up with the Union Jack on behalf of Hong Kong independence, because they saw independence being achieved in two steps: (1) China hands sovereignty back to the United Kingdom; (2) the United Kingdom will determine how to implement democracy in Hong Kong, either as an independent nation or as part of the United Kingdom.

But how Chris Patten has broken their hearts.

- Chris Patten says that the Oath of Allegiance is a serious matter for the Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Here are some 'antics': Richard Burgon (Labour Party MP) in 2015; Dennis Skinner (Labour Party, MP) in 2010.

- Hong Kong independence is impossible, but Cantonese independence is certainly feasible. The Grand Cantonese Nation (including Hong Kong, Macau, Guangdong, Guangxi) is unified by a common language (Cantonese) and they form a huge self-sufficient economic bloc of more than 100 million people with complete infrastructure in place already. The Grand Cantonese Nation can formed a South China Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere with Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Philippines without having to include those backward-thinking northern Chinese.

- What Grand Cantonese Nation? Thanks to Deng Xiao-ping, these uneducated and unskilled natives were able to prosper from the rent collected from their lands.

 - Chris Patten brilliantly touched on the central issue: "Hong Kong independence is diluting the democratic forces." This is exactly what the Communist plot is about -- using the independence talk to stop democracy in Hong Kong. And the whole oath debacle was directed and carried out by CY Leung.

- If CY Leung hadn't talk about Hong Kong independence, it would never have happened. Now that CY Leung has done it, we the people of Hong Kong have no choice but to forge ahead. There is no room to reverse course anymore. We live free or we die!

- Oh, hell, Chris Patten is saying all this today because he has to defend the interests of British businesses in Hong Kong as well as China. The United Kingdom gets nothing from democracy in Hong Kong.

- If Chris Patten was genuinely concerned about the people of Hong Kong, he should get the British government to change the status of all BNO passport holders to full British citizen status with right of abode. But, of course, he won't do that.

- Three messages in Chris Patten speech: (1) 2014 Occupy Central was moral high point; (2) Hong Kong independence is hopeless; (3) No comment on CY Leung and his government.

Here is what it all adds up to: Chris Patten is making this trip to Hong Kong in order to help the traditional pan-democrats.

Firstly, these people nominally supported 2014 Occupy Central. Patten is here to remind people of their moral superiority.

Secondly, they have been losing votes to pro-independence/self-determination localists. Patten is here to slap down the localists.

Thirdly Patten is here is to unify the traditional pan-democrats. Now everyone of them have their pet issues (such as minimum wage, maximum working hours, universal pension, public housing, environmental protection, etc) but there is one issue that will unite all of them: ABC (Anyone But CY Leung). That is why Patten timed his visit to just before the formation of the Election Committee and the Chief Executive election season.

- (1) is absurd. The British cops would have removed any Occupy demonstrators if they threaten to occupy central London for 79 days. For example, (YouTube) London police violently suppressed students demonstrating against tuition fee hikes. Who has moral superiority?

- The reason why the localist/independence forces have been getting so much publicity is that the traditional pan-democrats refuse to denounce them loudly and openly in the manner of Chris Patten. Therefore, the Fat Man is here to show them how. But if a reporter were to ask the traditional pan-democrats for comments on this part of Patten's speech, they will continue to duck.

- (TVB) Chris Patten said that a government must put the citizens in the core, and the Joint Sino-British Declaration guarantees the freedoms, rights and duties of the citizens.

Eh, a 'treaty' is not going to guarantee anything. If treaties are binding, then we should still be enforcing the terms of the Treaty of Nanking. It is the Constitution that guarantees your freedoms, right and duties. In the case of Hong Kong, it is the Basic Law.

- (Apple Daily) November 26, 2016. With respect to Chris Patten characterizing Leung-Yau actions as "student antics" and insisting that Hong Kong democracy must not be mixed up with independence, Leung Chung-hang said that he respects Patten's persons position. Leung said that since the implementation of Basic Law is less than perfect, then the United Kingdom as the party which negotiated with China has the moral obligation to intervene. "In 2016, the people of Hong Kong ran into many difficulties with the implementation of the Joint Sino-British Declaration without any solution. As one side of the contract, shouldn't the United Kingdom have the moral duty to deal with this?"

- The slogans always say "Hong Kong people should determine their futures themselves" and "Hong Kong issues matters should be resolved by Hong Kong people." Great! But when the going gets tough, the proponents of self-determination/independence run to foreign countries for help. What gives?

- Leung Chung-hand said that about 20% of the votes went to self-determination/independence candidates in the September 2016 Legco elections. The problem right now is that their voices in parliament -- namely, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching -- are being silenced. Therefore Chris Patten must do something about this on account of moral duty.

When you hear this, your immediate question will be: Where did this 20% come from? After all, Leung Chung-hang got 7% of the votes in New Territories East and Yau Wai-ching got 6% of the votes in Kowloon West. Leung will tell you that the 20% refers to the total votes for self-determination/independence candidates, and he is going to enumerate how legislators such as Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Cheung Chung-tai, Nathan Law, etc have also expressed such opinions and taken such actions.

At this point, we know for certain that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching must be Chinese Communist moles. Not only do they want to lose their two Legco seats, they also want to bring the entire bloc down!

Yau Wai-ching writes letter to President Tsai: Pay attention to the issue of sovereignty of New Territories (in Hong Kong)
Liberty Times

To Ms. Tsai Ing-wen, President of the Republic of China

The People's Republic of China (the government of the Republic of China on mainland China) declared its so-called "Interpretation" on November 7, 2016. Objectively, this was the same was an "law amendment" which severely interferes with Hong Kong self-rule. Without going through the scrutiny of the Hong Kong legislative apparatus, the Chinese Communists have "amended" the local Hong Kong ordinances. This clearly contravenes the Joint Sino-British Declaration made by the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

With respect to his violent interference of the People's Republic of China in judicial independence and self-rule in Hong Kong, I and my party have written to the United Kingdom government. The Chinese Communists have broken Hong Kong Basic Law Articles 22 and 158, which stipulates that they can only interpret concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government, or concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This recent Interpretation by the People's Republic of China has clearly violated that stipulations of the Basic Law, broken the relevant articles in the Joint Sino-British Declaration and possibly nullified the Joint Sino-British Declaration. That Declaration was a bilateral treaty entered into by the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, and therefore must follow the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. At present both nations are still signatories of the Convention. So if the People's Republic of China were to reject what the United Kingdom has to say about what happened in Hong Kong, they will have violated the terms of the Joint Sino-British Declaration. Based up on Article 66 of the Vienna Convention, the United Kingdom can seek arbitration at the International Court of Justice on the validity of the Joint Sino-British Declaration and consider reverting the position of Hong Kong's sovereignty back to the status on June 30, 1997.

Under the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of Boundary Street) were ceded by the Qing Nation to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. The United Kingdom leased the New Territories from the Qing Nation for 99 years. Therefore the Joint Sino-British Declaration can only cover the issue of sovereignty for Hong Kong Island and Kowloon but not for the New Territories. It is controversial for the Joint Sino-British Declaration to lump the New Territories together with Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. At this time, the People's Republic of China has broken the Joint Sino-British Declaration, which is the sole basis for the Chinese Communist to claim "ownership" of sovereignty in Hong Kong. In addition, the lease for the New Territories ended in 1997. Since then the People's Republic of China has taken illegal possession of the New Territories for 19 years. I hope that President Tsai will become seriously concerned about the sovereignty of the New Territories.

On June 9, 1898, 56 years after Hong Kong Island was ceded by the Qing Nation, the British government and the Qing government in Beijing signed the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories to lead the territory from the north of Boundary Street to south of the Shenzhen River, along with 233 nearby islands for a period of 99 years until June 30, 1997. If the Joint Sino-British Declaration is no longer valid, the Republic of China still retains one of the three treaties concerning the sovereignty of Hong Kong. The Republic of China should make an official position about its view of the place of New Territories within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China. For example, what is the difference between the sovereignty of Hong Kong Island/Kowloon and that of the New Territories? Will President Tsai enter into negotiations with the British government as a result?

I recommend that President Tsai examine this issue and state your position in order to clarify confusions. I request that President Tsai provide me with updates on this matter.

Yau Wai China
Representative of public opinion in Hong Kong as elected legally by democratic election.
November 21, 2016.

(SCMP) November 23, 2016.

Disqualified pro-independence lawmaker Yau Wai-ching apologised for causing a misunderstanding after a Taiwanese newspaper published her proposed letter to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen to call her attention to the recent political turmoil in Hong Kong.

The citys constitutional affairs minister Raymond Tam Chi-yuen also weighed in on the matter on Wednesday, saying that no foreign country, official or authorities from other places should interfere with Hong Kongs internal affairs.

Yau wrote on her Facebook page on Tuesday that she had planned to write to Tsai over the recent interpretation of the Basic Law initiated by Beijing, but the letter published by Chinese-language daily Liberty Times was just a draft that had already been rejected. It is understood that it had been turned down by Yaus party, Youngspiration.

The drama over the letter fuels Hong Kongs ongoing oath-taking controversy, which will see Yau and fellow localist Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang in court on Thursday to appeal against the ruling that barred them from the Legislative Council. The High Court ruled earlier this month that the duo should be disqualified as they had declined to take their oaths by pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong nation and insulting the country at their swearing-in ceremony on October 12.

Yau argued in the draft letter that the sovereignty of the New Territories did not belong to the mainland according to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which should deal only with the sovereignty of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon.

That was because the New Territories became part of the British colony of Hong Kong only after London and the Qing empire signed a lease in 1898, which was supposed to expire in 1997. Since the Qing empire was overthrown in 1911, and the lease together with two treaties concerning the cession of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon are now kept by Taiwan authorities, Taipei should explain its stance on the constitutional status of the New Territories, Yau urged.

She said the New Territories had been stolen by China for 19 years after it resumed sovereignty over the city in 1997. Yau also argued that Tsai, who is the leader of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party, should show concern over the sovereignty of the New Territories and declare her position on the issue because there were questions over the validity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration after Chinas top legislative body issued its interpretation of the Basic Law on November 7.

The ruling, which stated that lawmakers who refused to take their oaths sincerely would be disqualified, was described by Yau as an obvious breach of articles in the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration.

In Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration, Beijing declared that to recover the Hong Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong) is the common aspiration of the entire Chinese people, and London declared that it would restore Hong Kong to China on July 1, 1997. Basic Law Article 1 states that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the Peoples Republic of China.

On Tuesday night, Yau said on her Facebook page that the version of the letter published by the newspaper was just one of the drafts of a letter for Tsai on the recent interpretation of the Basic Law and the collapse of one country, two systems, and that the draft had been rejected. She did not explain how it then appeared in the newspaper.

I apologise if I have created [any] misunderstanding for the Liberty Times and the public. I reiterate that I attach great importance to my relationship with Taiwan and would not act recklessly.

Asked about the letter, a spokesman for Taiwans presidential office said: Hong Kong people wanted reform and a choice on the life and system they want. The Chinese government should respond positively and conduct dialogues with patience.

Yau said last week she had written to London to complain about Beijings meddling in the former British colonys affairs.

Beijing-owned Global Times reported on Wednesday that Taiwans presidential office said Yaus letter would be handled by Taipeis Mainland Affairs Council. The tabloid also quoted Shenzhen Universitys Hong Kong affairs expert Zhang Dinghuai as saying: Yau was simply trying to get Taiwan independence forces to back Hong Kong independence and to get media attention. She will not succeed because Hong Kong people will not support such a nave and laughable cause.

(SpeakoutHK @ YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_DbH__6SU

Internet comments:

- Here are the relevant 'treaties':

The Treaty of Nanking or Nanjing was a peace treaty which ended the First Opium War (183942) between the United Kingdom and the Qing dynasty of China on 29 August 1842. The Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong Island a crown colony, ceding it to the British Queen "in perpetuity", to provide British traders with a harbor where they could unload their goods (the most important of which was opium). A copy of the treaty is kept by the British government while another copy is kept at the National Palace Museum in Taipei.

The Convention of Peking is an agreement comprising three distinct treaties concluded between the Qing Nation and the United Kingdom, France, and Russia in 1860. Article 6 of the Convention between China and the United Kingdom stipulated that China was to cede the part of Kowloon Peninsula south of present-day Boundary Street, Kowloon, and Hong Kong (including Stonecutters Island) in perpetuity to Britain. The original copy of the Convention is now kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei.

The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories was an unequal treaty signed between Qing China and the United Kingdom in 1898. Under the convention, the territories north of what is now Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding islands, later known as the "New Territories", were leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years rent-free, expiring on 30 June 1997, and became part of the crown colony of Hong Kong. The original copy of the Convention is now kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei.

These are not treaties in the sense of the normal bilateral agreements between nations. These are Unequal Treaties:

Historian Immanuel Hsu explained that the Chinese viewed the treaties they signed with Western powers as unequal "because they were not negotiated by nations treating each other as equals but were imposed on China after a war, and because they encroached upon China's sovereign rights ... which reduced her to semicolonial status". In many cases, China was effectively forced to pay large amounts of reparations, open up ports for trade, cede or lease territories (such as Outer Manchuria and Outer Northwest China to Russian Empire, Hong Kong to Great Britain and Macau to Portugal), and make various other concessions of sovereignty to foreign "spheres of influence", following military defeats.

After World War I, patriotic consciousness in China focused on the treaties, which now became widely known as "unequal treaties". The Nationalist Party and the Communist Party competed to convince the public that their approach would be more effective. Germany was forced to terminate its rights, the Soviet Union ostentatiously surrendered them, and the United States organized the Washington Conference to negotiate them. After Chiang Kai-shek declared a new national government in 1927, the western powers quickly offered diplomatic recognition. The new government declared to the Great Powers that China had been exploited for decades under unequal treaties, and that the time for such treaties was over, demanding they renegotiate all of them on equal terms. Most of China's unequal treaties were abrogated during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The United States Congress ended American extraterritoriality in December 1943. A significant example of unequal treaties with China did outlast World War II: unequal treaties regarding Hong Kong remained in place until Hong Kong's 1997 handover.

This explains why the United Kingdom had no negotiating power in the 1980's over the handover of Hong Kong back to the People's Republic of China. All civilized nations had surrendered decades ago any gains from the unequal treaties with the Qing dynasty. So how was the United Kingdom going to cling on to the spoils from the Opium Wars? That would be morally execrable!

- Is the Joint Sino-British Declaration a treaty between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China? Will the United Nations intercede to insure that the Joint Declaration has been implemented?

(info.gov.hk) December 17, 2014.

Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that "[e]very treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it". The Joint Declaration was registered with the United Nations in order to fulfil the obligation under Article 102 of the Charter. According to the Treaty Handbook prepared by the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretariat of the United Nations, where an instrument is registered under Article 102 of the Charter, this does not imply a judgement by the United Nations on the nature of the registered instrument, the status of a party, or any similar questions. As such, it certainly does not imply that the United Nations can "monitor" the implementation of a particular instrument on the basis of its registration by the relevant State.

Moreover, Hong Kong affairs are, in the words of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the press briefing on 30 September this year, a "domestic matter". Article 2(7) of the Charter provides that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter".

Under the principle of sovereign equality of States as stipulated in Article 2(1) of the Charter, no State shall interfere in the internal affairs of another. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations in Resolution 2625 of the General Assembly (1970) stipulates that "[n]o State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason, whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State", and "[e]very State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State". The Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States in Resolution 36/103 of the General Assembly (1981) also provides for "[t]he sovereign and inalienable right of a State freely to determine its own political, economic, cultural and social systems, in accordance with the will of its people, without outside intervention, interference, subversion, coercion or threat in any form whatsoever". Non-interference in each other's internal affairs is a basic norm of international relations and a fundamental principle of international law.

- And Article 102(2) of the Charter of the United Nations says: "No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations." That means the United Nations, the European Union, the Republic of China, Tsai Ing-wen, Yau Wai-ching and whoever else cannot bring the subject up before the United Nations.

- At her Hong Kong Legislative Council oath of office, Yau Wai-ching produced a "Hong Kong Is Not China" banner.

But in her letter to Republic of China President Tsai Ing-wen, she seems to agree that China indeed has sovereignty over Hong Kong. Under the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. In theory, the United Kingdom has permanent ownership and they can do whatever they want. But in 1997, the United Kingdom chose to hand sovereignty of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon to the People's Republic of China.

Under the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories, New Territories was leased (but not ceded) by the Qing Dynasty to the United Kingdom for 99 years (1898-1997). At the end of the lease term, the United Kingdom returned New Territories back to the People's Republic of China.

What Yau Wai-ching wants Tsai Ing-wen to do is to produce the original copy of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories from the National Palace Museum in Taipei and claim to be the true owner of New Territories!

- In the 1980's the United Kingdom realized that the status of Hong Kong cannot continue indefinitely. The lease for New Territories was due to terminate. So they entered negotiations. But with whom?

On any matter related to "China", United Nations Resolution 2758 says that the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations. Who else could the United Kingdom negotiate with?

Owning the original copy of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories does not make you the owner if you are not the recognized state entity. The owner is the lawful representatives of China.

- Yau Wai-ching knows that success cannot be achieved by a handful of valiant pro-independence warriors. So she has to get powerful nations to do this. But in realpolitik, the question is: What is in it for me?

Let us suppose that the United Kingdom determines that the People's Republic of China has violated the terms of the 'treaty' known as the Joint Sino-British Declaration and went to the International Court of Justice to obtain a ruling that the status of Hong Kong be returned to that on June 30, 1997: to wit, a British colony.

Guess what? They will find the place completely ungovernable. They will own all the unsolvable problems with none of the previous benefits. There will be demonstrations every day, ranging from pro-independence Youngspiration demonstrations led by the selfsame Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to pro-unification demonstrations led by Anna Chan and Voice of Loving Hong Kong to pro-agriculture/anti-development demonstrations led by Chu Hoi Dick to pro-unlicensed vendors demonstrations led by Lau Siu-lai to pro-"genuine universal suffrage" demonstrations led by the Civic Human Rights Front. What will they do? Send out the police and apply tear gas to disperse the crowds?

So it will be a quick exit for the born-again colonialists in the form of "democratic elections" with "genuine universal suffrage with one-person-one-vote and civil nomination." Whoever wins the election to form the next government will find Hong Kong to be completely ungovernable. They will own all the unsolvable problems, and they will want the United Kingdom to deal with the mess that was left behind.

So why would the United Kingdom be interested?

Let us suppose that the Republic of China (Taiwan) determines that they are the true owners of New Territories as suggested by Yau Wai-ching. So they produce the original copy of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories and file for ownership at the International Court of Justice. Guess what? Only States (members of the United Nations) may be parties to contentious cases, and the Republic of China is not a member of the United Nations. Furthermore the Court is competent to entertain a dispute in this situation only if "the States have entered into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court." Why would either the United Kingdom or the People's Republic of China agree?

The problem with Taiwan is not even about any international issues. It is about domestic politics, especially since the honeymoon period is over for President Tsai. Hey, if Tsai Ing-wen and her Democratic Progressive Party want to count on the support of pro-independence elements in Taiwan, then joining the fray with the standing as the Republic of China over the status of Hong Kong is out of the question. Their slogan is "Taiwan is not China". They may even give a friendly shout of "Hong Kong is not China" in order to irk China. But they won't stick their necks out for Hong Kong because "Hong Kong is not Taiwan" either.

- Actually, it is an intriguing "What If" exercise if we go through with the Republic of China getting the International Court of Justice to grant sovereignty for New Territories. When that happens, New Territories belongs to the Republic of China. The border with Shenzhen stays as is. But Boundary Street becomes the border once more as fences are set up between Kowloon and New Territories. The 3.6 million people who live in the New Territories become Republic of China citizens. Everybody who lives on the one side of the border will need a visa in order to travel to the other side.

- For example, a Hong Kong Islander will need a visa to attend the Jockey Club races in Sha Tin. You cannot walk across the street. You have to go through security screening, immigration control and customs inspection every time.

The Hong Kong International Airport is located in the New Territories, which means that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will no longer have its own airport.

The High Speed Rail from China will stop in Shenzhen, the passengers will exit China and clear ROC customs to enter New Territories, they will re-embark the train, they will disembark at Boundary Street, they will exit ROC and clear Hong Kong customs, they will re-embark the train which will deposit them at the Kowloon Terminal.

The Republic of China government will now have to deal with the 'country squires' (=indigenous inhabitants) and their inherited land rights as guaranteed by Basic Law Article 40. Undoubtedly they will think initially that they can just take those rights away, but they get their sorry asses handed back to them.

The residents of New Territories are now ROC citizens and therefore must perform compulsory military service under the Military Services Act as well as Article 20 of the ROC Constitution ("The people shall have the duty of performing military service in accordance with law").

Will Hong Kong schools continue to be taught in Cantonese? Or do they have to be taught in Mandarin in order to maintain a single standard for the Republic of China? After screaming all these years against education that includes putonghua and national history, what will the Localists now say?

New Territories is basically a large bedroom community. Four of the pillars of the Hong Kong economy -- finance, tourism, retail and service -- are located in Hong Kong Island/Kowloon. New Territories has the Hong Kong International Airport and Disneyland in Lamma Island and the container port facilities in Kwai Chung. But there are similar or better facilities in Shenzhen already. This means ROC citizens in New Territories will have to apply for work permits in order to keep their jobs in Hong Kong Island/Kowloon. Many more ROC citizens in Taiwan will want to move to the New Territories because of the relatively higher wages.

- Of course, the whole idea is that Taiwan should pay the price to fight for the separation of New Territories from the Republic of China. After that happens, the people of Hong Kong will fight to separate from Taiwan to form the Hong Kong Nation. There is no intention of ever becoming part of Taiwan.

- About those 'country squires', they are not going to like being handed over without ensuring that their rights are protected.

(Wikipedia) New Territories

Before the handover of New Territories to Great Britain in early April of 1899, Captain Superintendent of Police, Francis Henry May and some policemen erected a flagstaff and temporary headquarters at Tai Po and posted the Governor's proclamation of the takeover date. Fearing for their traditional land rights, in the Six-Day War of 1899, a number of clans attempted to resist the British, mobilising clan militias that had been organised and armed to protect against longshore raids by pirates. The militia men attempted a frontal attack against the temporary police station in Tai Po that was main British base but were beaten back by superior force of arms. An attempt by the clansmen at guerilla warfare was put down by the British near Lam Tsuen with over 500 men Chinese killed, and collapsed when British artillery was brought to bear on the walled villages of the clansmen. Most prominent of the villages in the resistance Kat Hing Wai, of the Tang clan, was symbolically disarmed, by having its main gates dismounted and removed. However, in order to prevent future resistance, the British made concessions to the indigenous inhabitants with regards to land use, land inheritance and marriage laws; the majority of which remained in place into the 1960s when polygyny was outlawed. Some of the concessions with regard to land use and inheritance remain in place in Hong Kong to this day and is a source of friction between indigenous inhabitants and other Hong Kong residents.

- Tsai Ing-wen's Democratic Progressive Party responded to the unsent letter at 23:20 that night.

In essence, the DPP says: "It is bad to have family squabbles, so your family should learn to get along and live long and prosperous lives. In any case, your family affairs are none of my business."

- Someone who wants Hong Kong independence/self-determination is actively soliciting the Republic of China to claim sovereignty over Hong Kong?

- The Republic of China does not even have sovereignty over Taiwan. How can they make claims for the New Territories in Hong Kong?

- Yau Wai-ching is setting up Tsai Ing-wen to fail. If the Taiwan government proceeds to claim sovereignty over New Territories, then the Democratic Progressive Party is acting as a pro-Unification/One China party just like the KMT. If the Taiwan government proceeds to declare that Taiwan is Taiwan and they have nothing to do with China (including Hong Kong), then this is a declaration of Taiwan independence. So the only option for Tsai is the current one: The matter has been handed over to the Mainland Affairs Council to study. Since Yau has disavowed the letter, this matter no longer needs to be addressed.

- Plausible deniability:


Yau Wai-ching's Facebook:

My response to the report in Liberty Times about my letter to President Tsai Ing-wen:
1. I did consider sending a letter to President Tsai in the hope that she can pay attention to the recent Interpretation affair in Hong Kong and the collapse of One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong.
2. At first, I wanted to bring out the issue of the future of Hong Kong in 2047 in order give the people of Hong Kong more ideas
3. The version published in Liberty Times was one of the draft versions, but it has been rejected.
4. I realized that there was a misunderstanding this afternoon and I have called to put a stop to it.
5. I apologize if this caused any misunderstanding at Liberty Times and with the mass of citizens.
6. I re-emphasize that I place great importance in the relationship with Taiwan and I will not act rashly.

- Yau Wai-ching's 'advisor' Lam Ho-ki was asked: "One of your suggestions?" about the letter. He responded: "None of my business." However, Lam praised Yau as being a brilliant thinker who is way ahead of other Hongkongers. BWAHHHHHHH!

- It is standard operation procedure for Youngspiration to do something and disavow it afterwards as if it had never happened. But this time they blew Liberty Times up as collateral damage.

- Dear Ms. Yau, what the fuck are you up to? I don't mind if you don't have a timetable for Hong Kong independence. I don't mind if you don't have a roadmap for Hong Kong independence. I don't mind if you leave a mess behind you for us to clean up. But why the fuck do you want to mess with Taiwan? If Tsai Ing-wen doesn't respond, Hong Kong would look fucking useless. If Tsai Ing-wen does respond, why can she really do for Hong Kong independence? For God's sake, don't make this a big story in Liberty Times in order that the people of Taiwan can say, "What the fuck are the problems of the people of Hong Kong to us?" We end up fucking worse than ever. #please_fucking_stop.

- Yau Wai-ching apologized to Liberty Times. If Liberty Times had obtained and published the letter without authorization, Yau Wai-ching should be suing them. So if she apologizes, it means that she (or someone in her circle) gave the 'draft' letter to Liberty Times for publication. Originally Yau Wai-ching was supposed to discuss this letter at 5pm via Facebook live coverage, but she canceled that event and issued the disavowal at 8pm. So there must have been internal dissension at Youngspiration to cause the letter be rescinded.

- What was the dissension about? The published letter focused on the sovereignty of the Republic of China over New Territories. The disavowal said that the original intention was to deal with the issue of the future of Hong Kong in 2047. This means that the opposing opinion within Youngspiration is that Republic of China sovereignty is dead-on-arrival.

- Yau Wai-ching is advocating separatism. If she wanted Hong Kong to be free of China before, now she wants New Territories to be free of Hong Kong. Of course, the Localists will react negatively to this destruction of territorial integrity of the Hong Kong Nation by handing half the population to an alien putonghua/minnan/hakka-speaking outside authority.

- The most appealing idea behind Hong Kong independence is self-determination -- the people of Hong Kong should be their own boss and decide what they want for themselves. Therefore, this letter is a cardinal sin, because the unelected Yau Wai-ching wants to cut a private deal with the President of the Republic of China to determine the future of the 3.6 million New Territories residents, without consulting them or holding a referendum.

- If you hold a referendum on the future of New Territories, what are the choices?

1. New Territories is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

2(a). New Territories is part of the People's Republic of China under One Country One System

2(b). New Territories is part of the People's Republic of China under One Country Two Systems

3(a). New Territories is part of the Republic of China (Taiwan) under One Country One System

3(b) New Territories is part of the Republic of China (Taiwan) under One Country Two Systems

My guess is that the distribution of votes among New Territories citizens will be:

1. 2%
2(a). 5%
2(b). 90%
3(a). 0%
3(b). 3%.

- Who gets to vote to decide the future of New Territories? Those who reside in the New Territories obviously should be able to determine their own future. But what about those who live in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon? They have families, properties, businesses and other ties in New Territories, and they should be considered stakeholders. But, alas, this cannot be. Because if you let the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon residents votes, it means that some day you will have to let the 1.4 billion people in mainland Chinese vote on the future of Hong Kong. We cannot allow that, so we must sacrifice the interests of the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon residents at this time. Sorry, but that's life.

- Why did the United Kingdom have to agree to hand Hong Kong back over to the People's Repubilc of China? Couldn't they just hand the leased New Territories back while keeping the perpetually ceded Hong Kong Island and Kowloon?

For one thing, Hong Kong's shipping ports (airports and port facilities), reservoirs and other vital installations are located in New Territories. More importantly, it would have been impossible to accommodate those New Territories residents moving to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon before the handover takes effect.

- (Bastille Post) When it came to "6. I re-emphasize that I place great importance in the relationship with Taiwan and I will not act rashly", the immediate reaction is that Tsai Ing-wen is indeed the big boss behind the Localist movement in Hong Kong! This was a pledge of fealty!

- Wan Chin: When the young people of Hong Kong travel to Taiwan and get asked about what Yau Wai-ching did to Liberty Times, they will be extremely embarrassed. As for myself, I can only say: "The people of Hong Kong really let the people of Taiwan down."

- The likely response from Yau Wai-ching:

- Fuck! How the fuck could Liberty Times print a draft letter unless someone in Yau's circle sent them a copy!? Obviously, they panicked after they saw the adverse reaction and decided to control the damage by disavowal.

- Same old song: (Harbour Times) August 23, 2016.

Last week, Youngspiration spokesperson Kenny Wong Chun-kit allegedly leaked Youngspirations plan to invite Taiwanese separatist group New Power Party (時代力量) to Hong Kong to Local Press, a localist news outlet in Hong Kong. After Local Press published the interview, Wong denied the plan and accused Local Press of releasing false information. Wongs reaction was frowned upon by Local Presss readership, whereas disappointment soon escalated to online outrage, forcing Wong to apologise and resign as Youngspirations spokesperson.

- In 2016, we saw the destructiveness of moles. Thus, Youngspiration managed to destroy the entire Localist movement in just a matter of months. During the Legislative Council elections, they worked with Operation ThunderGo to splinter the localists movement into Youngspiration/Hong Kong Indigenous versus Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order. During the oath of office, they managed to offend the entire Chinese population in the world, weakened rule-of-law, diminished the stature of the Legislative Council and gave up their two Legco seats. Are they going to disappear into the sunset after accomplishing their mission? No, they want to destroy relationships among the worldwide independence movements as well!

- Youngspiration cannot be so naive to think that they have a breakthrough here. But media exposure is decreasing after losing the two Legco seats, so they need some gimmicks. If President Tsai acted on their suggestion and face a powerful response from China (such as the cessation of all trade and travel), they will have achieved immortal fame.

- If we give them the $5,000,000 that they want, will they really promise to go away? Please. Pretty please.

- (SCMP) Spies and conspirators? Beijing needs neither to crush Hong Kong independence. By Michael Chugani. November 22, 2016.

It all began two years ago. Conspirators plotted a script so ingenious it was the stuff of Hollywood. Double agents, deceit, you name it, the plot had it. Every move was so masterful that no one suspected anything until it was too late.

As co-conspirator, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was tasked with putting the plot into play. He used his January 2015 policy speech to attack an obscure student magazine for advocating independence. His aim was not to stifle the voice of independence but to deviously stoke it so he could crack down hard to prove himself as a strong leader Beijing should trust for another term.

As chief conspirator, Beijing bankrolled Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration who posed as champions of independence to win Legislative Council seats. They played their parts perfectly by using their oath-taking to insult China, giving Beijing an excuse to smack the independence movement. It did that with a Machiavellian touch by interpreting the Basic Law in a way that not only excludes independence supporters from the Legislative Council, but also achieves its ulterior aim to dilute one country, two systems and Hong Kongs judicial autonomy.

Who knows? The Youngspiration pair may indeed be gifted actors paid to provide Beijing with a pretext to crack down. I find it far-fetched because the plot is full of holes. But youd be surprised how many Hongkongers believe this tale of double agents.

Opposition leaders claim Leung Chun-ying fomented, then acted tough against the independence movement to impress Beijing. Surely, if they can see through such a scheme, so can Beijing. And why would Leung need such an elaborate scheme to impress Beijing if he was in on the plot?

Do you really think Beijing needs to go to such lengths to tighten its grip on Hong Kong? We should know by now that if Beijing wanted to clench its fist, it would without hiring double agents to provide a pretext. It shoved a restrictive political reform framework down our throats, interpreted the Basic Law several times, and stood up to the Occupy protest without having to create excuses.

If Leung and Yau are really props, would Beijing give them such free rein? Their youth alone suggests they cant be trained spies. That would make them risky double agents who could be easily pressured to spill the beans. Is Beijing really that stupid?

- When everything that you touch turns into dust or rust, you either have very bad luck or else you are a saboteur or else you are truly incompetent. Take your pick.

(Tom Cotton, Arkansas Senator) November 16, 2016.

U.S. Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), a Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) Commissioner, and Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Co-Chair of the CECC, today introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, legislation that would renew the United States' historical commitment to freedom and democracy in Hong Kong at a time when its autonomy is increasingly under assault. The legislation also establishes punitive measures against government officials in Hong Kong or mainland China who are responsible for suppressing basic freedoms in Hong Kong, especially in connection with the abduction of certain booksellers.

"The United States must lead the world in ensuring that the Chinese government ceases any repressive acts in Hong Kong and abides by its three-decade-old international commitment to respect the autonomy of Hong Kong," said Cotton. "This bill would empower the president to hold Beijing accountable and send a strong message to Chinese officials that attempts to undermine liberty in Hong Kong and walk away from their promises will not be without consequences. Hong Kong's unique identity and traditions of liberty, rule of law, and a market-based economy can be a model for a China that is a more productive player on the international stage. U.S. foreign policy should encourage those traditions, and strongly warn Beijing against any diminishment of those values."

"When the British handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997, Beijing promised Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy guaranteed under Basic Law," said Rubio. "However, in recent years, Beijing has consistently undermined the one country, two systems' principle and infringed on the democratic freedoms the residents of Hong Kong are supposed to be guaranteed. This was on stark display over the last year with the abduction of the Hong Kong booksellers, the required loyalty oaths in the lead-up to the September LegCo elections, and last week with Beijing's unprecedented intervention in Hong Kong's legal system to block two democratically elected politicians from assuming office. China's assault on democratic institutions and human rights is of central importance to the people of Hong Kong and to its status as a free market, economic powerhouse and hub for international trade and investment.

"The importance of this legislation was again impressed upon me today after meeting with pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who became the face of the Umbrella Movement for many in late 2014," added Rubio. "Joshua is an impressive and thoughtful young man who, along with his fellow activists, represents the future of Hong Kong - a future that must not go the way of Beijing's failed authoritarianism and one-party rule. It is critical in the days ahead that the democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong be a vital U.S. interest and foreign policy priority. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act reaffirms America's support of the people of Hong Kong as they seek to oppose Beijing's efforts to erode democratic institutions."

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would:

Internet comments:

-  Here is the photo of Joshua Wong (Demosisto) meeting with Senator Marco Rubio in Washington DC.

On one hand, Joshua Wong is said to be skinny. On the other hand, Marco Rubio is said to be 5'10" tall when enhanced his three-inch-heeled boots.

Is there any honesty left in politics?

- When Joshua Wong put on his suit, Hong Kong Internet users could only think of the classical saying 沐猴而冠 (MDBG.net: a monkey wearing a hat/worthless person in imposing attire). But was it politically correct to say something like that? Maybe not in the United States, but it is apparently quite alright in Hong Kong where we have genuine freedom of speech.

(Kinliu) In the town of Clay in West Virginia, a development company manager named Pamela Ramsey Taylor posted on Facebook: "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing an ape in heels." Shortly afterwards, Clay mayor Beverly Whaling pressed praise and said: "Just made my day." The ape in heels refers to First Lady Michelle Obama. More than 150,000 signed to demand these two individuals to resign. Within two weeks, these two individuals resigned and apologized. In the process, there were no petitions, judicial reviews or interpretations of the Constitution. The two individuals did not blame their West Virginian accents. After they resigned, they said: "I am genuine sorry for any unhappiness that I may have caused." But under Hong Kong logic, this was "oppressing freedom of speech"! In the United States, 150,000 signatures were enough to bring two people down. In Hong Kong, 600,000 signatures could not get Leung Chung-hand and Yau-ching to resign or even apologize. Instead we need a judicial review backed by an Interpretation of the Basic Law to oust these two people Thus American democracy is even more backwards than ours here in Hong Kong.

- Let's look at the highlights of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in the Cotton press release.

- "Reaffirm the principles set forth in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, including support for democratization, human rights, and the importance of Hong Kong remaining sufficiently autonomous from China to justify different treatment under U.S. law."

- This is just a rehash. Nothing new here.

- "Reinstate the requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a report on conditions in Hong Kong of interest to the United States, including developments related to democratic institutions in Hong Kong, no later than 90 days after enactment and every year through 2023."

- In United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, the Secretary of State was required to issue reports on March 31, 1993, March 31, 1995, March 31, 1997, March 31, 1998, March 31, 1999, and March 31, 2000. Paperwork is meaningless unless something in there is actionable. As amended, the Secretary of State submitted reports in 1993, annually from 1995 to 2007 and in 2015.

- "Require the Secretary of State to certify that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous before enacting any new laws or agreements affording Hong Kong different treatment from the People's Republic of China."

- Everybody has the right to choose whom they associate or deal with.

- The problem is about the politician's favorite tool: Triangularization. On one side, there is God's favorite son, the United States of America. On the other side, there is Satan, the People's Republic of China. Which side is Hong Kong closer to? If the United States declare that Hong Kong is in Satan's hands and thus refuse to grant certain favors, who do you think the people of Hong Kong will blame? The Americans, of course. Who would be the happiest to see this outcome? The Chinese Communists, of course.

The winning formula for the United States is to drown Hong Kong with love and affection, while denying all the goodies to the Chinese Communists in order to show "Hong Kong is not China"!

- "Require the President to identify persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention, or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong, and other actions suppressing basic freedoms, and to freeze their U.S.-based assets and deny them entry into the U.S."

- The Hong Kong and international paparazzi haven't been able to even name the persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong. Even the kidnap victims don't seem to know. So good luck to the State Department! This clause does not say what happens if the President can't identify the persons.

- The buck stops at Xi Jinping's desk. So is the POTUS (President of the United States) not allowed to invite him to the United States for a summit meeting?

- And if the President determines that C.Y. Leung is one of those persons who kidnapped the booksellers, what is the substantive impact of freezing his U.S.-based assets (note: he has none; even if he has some assets now, they will have been moved by the time that this Act passes)?

- And if the President determines that Guo Shengkun (Minister of Public Security) is one of those persons who kidnapped the booksellers, what is the substantive impact of banning him from entering the United States (note: as Minister of Public Security in the People's Republic of China, he has no interest of visiting the United States now and forever).

- "Make clear that visa applicants who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the basis of the applicant's arrest, detention or other adverse government action taken as a result of their participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."

- According to the United States Consulate:

The immigration laws of the United States, in order to protect the health, welfare and security of the United States, prohibit the issuance of a visa to certain applicants. Examples of applicants who must be refused visas are:

  • Persons with certain communicable diseases of public health significance, such as tuberculosis;
  • Persons with a dangerous physical or mental disorder;
  • Persons who are drug addicts;
  • Persons who have committed serious criminal acts, including crimes involving moral turpitude, drug trafficking, and prostitution or procuring;
  • Terrorists, subversives, members of a totalitarian party and former Nazi war criminals;
  • Persons who are likely to become public charges in the United States;
  • Those who have used fraud or other illegal means to enter the United States or help others enter the United States; or
  • Those who are ineligible for citizenship.

Of course, they won't take your word that you have a clean sheet. So they will ask you to apply for a Certificate of No Criminal Conviction from the Hong Kong Police Force. This certificate will be sent directly to the U.S. Consulate General so that you have no opportunity to commit forgery.

So the Act is saying that you cannot be denied a visa because you have a police record showing convictions for unlawful assembly, obstruction of police business, disruption of public order, etc.

But you have to be very careful about the details here.

First of all, this Act covers only those who resided in Hong Kong in 2014.

If 'resided' means 'inhabiting', then if you were studying overseas in 2014 but came back in 2015 to join the fight for democracy, you are out of luck.

If 'resided' means holding the right of abode, you can be overseas in 2014 the whole year and  you will still be covered.

Secondly, you are forgiven for "arrest, detention or other adverse government action" during "your participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."

So the activity must be related to Hong Kong's electoral process. The 2014 Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement/Umbrella Revolution is about "genuine universal suffrage", so it is covered. The 2015 Lunar New Year's riot in Mong Kok is said by some of the leaders to be about the fight for the rights of unlicensed street vendors. So this Fishball Revolution is not covered.

The activity must also be about nonviolent protest. There were a number of violent episodes during the 2014 Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement/Umbrella Revolution. So if you were convicted of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer in any of the actions, you are not covered. Other leaders of the 2016 Lunar New Year's Day riot in Mong Kok said that it was a rally for Edward Leung's Legislative Council by-election campaign. So that is part of the electoral process. But they ripped bricks from the pavement to throw at the police. So this was a violent activity. Therefore you are not covered.

This is going to be a lot of work for the US Consulate General staff. The Certificate of No Criminal Conviction is simply going to list conviction of "Unlawful Assembly" which took place on a certain date at a certain location, the date of the court trial and the sentence. It won't list whether the activity was violent or not, and it won't say whether this was a protest that was part of the electoral process. The staff will have to do their own investigation.

- Here is a case in which two individuals were convicted by a court "as a result of their participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."

(SCMP) November 21, 2016.

Radical lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung was jailed for seven days on Monday for staging a protest directed at Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor during a school debating event. He was immediately freed on HK$4,000 cash bail, pending appeal. His co-defendant, People Power activist Fast Beat Tam Tak-chi, also received a seven-day jail sentence, suspended for 12 months.

The pair had argued that the charge against them breached their right to express themselves freely during a peaceful assembly in a public place.

But that was rejected in Eastern Court, which found both Leung, 60, and Tam, 44, had intentionally obstructed, disturbed, interrupted or annoyed other persons who were lawfully using the Queen Elizabeth Stadium during the 30th Sing Tao Inter-School Debating Competition on May 15 last year.

Acting principal magistrate Joseph To Ho-shing said the protest was staged in a unique environment, unlike street protests where people could just leave if they did not want to be disturbed.

Acting principal magistrate Joseph To Ho-shing said the protest was staged in a unique environment, unlike street protests where people could just leave if they did not want to be disturbed. This case involved an event that was planned for more than a year, To said.

He said there was a need to safeguard the constitutional rights of the civic centres lawful users to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression as the law specifically protected their privileged use of the venue.

Leung and Tam, he said, could have staged their protest on another occasion while the parents and students attending the event had only one opportunity to enjoy their rights on the 30th anniversary of the competition and they had clearly showed their disagreement at the protest. Leung took a deep breath as To delivered the verdict while Tam did not react. Under the Civic Centres Regulation, the offence is punishable by a HK$5,000 fine and one-month imprisonment. Neither defendant took the stand nor called any witnesses in their favour.

The court heard that organisers had begun preparations for the event the summer before. It was attended by 2,424 students, parents, teachers and guests including Lam, former Bar Association chairman Paul Shieh Wing-tai and then-director of information services Patrick Nip Tak-kuen.

Dozens of protesters began shouting, chanting slogans, waving banners and throwing paper balls when Lam was escorted into the venue, and they repeatedly disrupted speeches by Shieh and Nip. Lams speech was eventually cancelled and she left the venue early. The commotion lasted for 30 minutes.

Sing Tao reported it to police a few days later and filed a civil suit in June last year, demanding more than HK$1.5 million from the duo and district councillor Mandy Tam Heung-man, also from People Power. The company is also seeking an injunction to bar the trio from its future events

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkVuE5QzVzs

Does the United States want to judge that such behavior is acceptable? In the United States?

- Senator Tom Cotton was quoted in the press release: "Hong Kong's unique identity and traditions of liberty, rule of law, and a market-based economy can be a model for a China that is a more productive player on the international stage." So when a court found these individuals guilty in accordance with the law, the United States want to vacate the verdict for their own purposes. What does that do for rule of law in Hong Kong? Does the United States advocate rule of man with special treatment for "pro-democracy" protestors.

- In the case of Leung Kwok-hung, he has 16 prior convictions involving 27 charges. But Leung merely obstructed, disturbed, interrupted or annoyed 2,000+ people in a non-violent manner, so he goes free under the proposed Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

- If he did that to an American high school debate competition, he would have been beaten to death by the parents.

- Remember the Mariel boatlift? The American government kept saying that it is the beacon of freedom and democracy for all the suppressed people of Cuba. So the Cuban government announced that any Cuban who wanted to leave could do so by boat from the port of Mariel. Eventually almost 125,000 Cubans left in 1,700 boats which overwhelmed the US Coast Guard. At first, the American government felt elated at this shower of love. The situation changed when it was discovered the Cuban government had taken the opportunity to sending away their hardened criminal-prisoners and mental asylum patients to America. Eventually, 2.2% of the Marielitos were classified as serious or violent criminals under U.S. law and denied citizenship.

As Emma Lazarus wrote:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

So please take our "Mental Patients" In The Umbrella Revolution too!

(Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) November 18, 2016.

Two nights ago, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were interviewed on FTV (Taiwan). Q: "An even greater price will have to be paid for Hong Kong self-determination or independence, including even shedding blood or sacrificing lives. Are you willing?" Leung said: "I am willing to pay more to protect my homeland Hong Kong." Yau said, "If there has to be a first person to shed blood in exchange for Hong Kong democracy and the right for self-determination for the people of Hong Kong, I am willing to be that first person."

While Leung and Yau said that they are willing to sacrifice for Hong Kong, their bodies are more honest. In the earlier anti-Interpretation demonstration, Demosisto, Labour Party and League of Social Democrats charged at the China Liaison Office while Leung-Yau's Youngspiration offered "support." On that night, Yau Wai-ching wore elaborate make-up, light blue short-sleeve skirt and black long skirt. How was she going to lead the charge at the China Liaison Office? When the charge began, the police led her to the safe "demonstration zone" where she played with her mobile phone.

On that same night, Leung Chung-hang told that press that he was willing to give up his life in order to make sure that the last man got out. But as soon as the police moved up to clear the site, he turned around and ran faster than any of his supporters. Before the police had cleared the site, Leung had left in a taxi.

Internet comments:

- First person to shed blood? Has nobody ever shed a drop of blood in the fight for democracy in Hong Kong?

- On November 6, Leung and Yau led a group of resisters right into the police trap in front of the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan. Apart from doing media interviews and photo shoots, did they shed a drop of blood? As soon as the Evil Police started to crack down, the two fled. Leung even abandoned the resisters by taking a taxi! If you two want to shed blood, do so yourself instead of leaving it to other warriors!

- Talk is cheap, and I can do it just as well. I am willing to shed the first drop of blood too. I am willing to give up my sacrifice my life too.

- Ms. Yau, why not explain to us the meaning behind your "First Blood"? And "Armed Revolution"? And "Dying In Order To Demonstrate Your Resolve"? Please do it then!

- (SCMP) Michael Chugani. April 9, 2016. Now civil disobedience has flopped, dare our independence fighters raise the stakes to armed revolt? They have shown they dont fear the local police, but what match are they against the might of the Peoples Liberation Army? As Lennon said all those years ago, show us the plan if you want a revolution. There isnt one. Our young revolutionaries are no doubt better at capturing Pikachu than PLA soldiers.

(Passion Times) Chin Wan Kan's speech at Tseung Kwan O election rally. By Chin Wan Kan. August 18, 2016.

We are faced with two paths in our quest to become the ruling party in Hong Kong: armed revolution on the one hand, or breaking into the Legislative Council on the other. Lets look at the first option. Armed revolution is entirely possible in Hong Kong and can be organised very quickly, and Im not joking. However, a political leader that emerges from armed conflict is not normally a hot-blooded youngster or an idealist; he is usually someone who has chosen to connive with foreign power to obtain their support and will have already secured their protection from outside Hong Kong. These armed fighters will use sophisticated methods to bring down the government in Hong Kong or the mastermind behind it, Beijing, causing regime change.

Since their support and protection come from a foreign source, it is to be expected that after their success, the rebels would only be able to form a puppet government, and would then proceed to suppress the people around them, including those hotheaded fighters who have risked their lives for them in the first place. Do not think that armed revolution is very hard to bring about. In Hong Kong, with a weakening China and the return of the US to the Asian region, people with enough intelligence will be able to exploit the situation to make it happen. Unfortunately, the government that comes about afterwards will be a bad one. Furthermore, Hong Kongs existence relies on its status as an international centre of finance and business services. An armed revolution and regime change would cause such a seismic shock that many people here would lose their livelihood and everything they own. Thereafter, they would etch out a slavish existence, entirely at the revolutionary governments beck and call.

- (Polymer HK) On Building An Army In Hong Kong.

Counsel Lawrence YK Ma had previously said that it is impossible for Hong Kong to gain independence because it does not even have an army. This is a  false issue -- just because Hong Kong does not have an army doesn't mean that it cannot have an army some day. The point is not whether Hong Kong has an army now; the point is whether Hong Kong has the ability to raise an army. The fact is: Any region with a large enough population can build an army if it is willing to do so.

YK Ma spouts his nonsense probably because he thinks that an army is a professional force that has the same array of equipment as the American army. But according to the Geneva Convention, an army only has to satisfy the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Once we recognize that building an army does not require building another American army, things become much simpler. During the initial stage of nation-building in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Army can simply be a defensive militia, with full-time commanders, officers and clerical workers as the core. The soldiers receive training during normal times and are only mobilized for battles. There will be a unified supreme command (in the form of the Ministry of Defense of the Hong Kong Nation). The army only needs to wear uniforms that distinguish them from civilians, and they move around in normal/modified vehicles and helicopters painted with distinctive signs. They will carry mainly light weapons. And voila! We have our Hong Kong Army already.

It is clearly very easy to raise such an army. But the problem is whether such an army will succeed in its mission. The overall national defense strategy dictates what kind of army is required. This is also related to the timing of when this army is raised. At this moment, it is quite clear that Hong Kong is overshadowed by the overwhelming superiority of the Chinese garrison here, so that it would be very hard to raise its own army. Therefore, the best moment is when the Chinese garrison is withdrawn or loses its combat capabilities for whatever reasons.

Recently, the Chinese economy is in recession with all sorts of internal and external tensions. People everywhere are talking about the "Chinese meltdown". This article will not discuss the possibility and timing of this "Chinese meltdown." But if and when China melts down, there will be two major effects on Hong Kong:

1. Most of the soldiers in the Chinese garrison in Hong Kong will be called back to the Southern Military District to deal with the civil wars, rebellions, riots and other chaos in China.

2. A large number of refugees will rush from China to safe havens outside China, including Hong Kong.

When both of these things happen, it will be the ideal time for Hong Kong to go independent and build its own army during the vacuum. At the same time, the mission of the Hong Kong Army is fairly clear: to defend the border and prevent refugees from entering Hong Kong. When China melts down, the main external threat to Hong Kong are the refugees and bandits from China, and not the People's Liberation Army which are preoccupied with internecine fighting. To deal with these threats, what we need is a large number of people involved in border control, refugee internment and coping with low-intensity conflicts. This is why we want a large semi-professional low-technology army.

Of course, the two major effects above are based upon conjectures, with the first one particularly being debatable. Hong Kong is the place where the various Communist Party and military leaders hoard their money, so they may not give up Hong Kong so easily. It is uncertain whether the Chinese garrison in Hong Kong will be withdrawn, or whether they will launch a coup to take over the golden goose known as Hong Kong. No matter what, these two major effects will be the starting point of our discussion here.

The Chinese garrison in Hong Kong does not have any Hongkongers. It consists of soldiers and officers who come from all over China. Based upon what we saw during the Umbrella Revolution, they can't even communicate with locals without the use of interpreters. But unlike the Hong Kong-based British soldiers who had nowhere to retreat to during WW II, the Chinese garrison can always retreat back to the mainland. So when China starts a war with foreign country, or if their hometowns fall into chaos when China melts down, will they really stay in Hong Kong?

Now let us describe in detail how the Hong Kong Army will be formed.

The army officers and soldiers will come from two sources. The first way is to draw from the Hong Kong Disciplinary Services. The most direct way is to select certain members of the paramilitary Police Tactical Unit (PTU) and Emergency Unit and use them to form the backbone of the army. But right now the police are being turned into Public Security Bureau functionaries with low combat capabilities. When the China meltdown occurs, they may also sustain severe casualties and unable to provide enough personnel. The second way is to hire military advisors from overseas or Private Military Contractors (PMC) to train and command local soldiers. The PMC's have trained local soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and other combat zones. In the long run, we should sent local Hongkongers with good potential to receive training in foreign military academies. Of course, such training will take many years and will not solve the immediate problems. Therefore only the first two ways are viable in the short run.

Hong Kong has a population of more than 7 million, more than that of Israel. Therefore Hong Kong can mobilize even more people than Israel. Like Israel, Hong Kong has more women than men. So Hong Kong can conscript its women during war times. In modern warfare, female soldiers are used mostly in support roles. But looking at the Russia during WW II, Israel, China and North Korea, female soldiers can serve just as well fighting in the frontlines.

Because international regulations and controls are lax, it is easy to purchase light weapons from overseas. At the least, it will be a lot easier than purchasing tanks and other heavy weapons. Don't tell me "that nobody dares to offend China by selling weapons and munitions to Hong Kong." First of all, these are light weapons, not cannons and airplanes. It is easy to transact. Secondly, how many nations has China offended? When an armed force intent on resisting China wants to buy several thousand AK's, RPG's and recoilless mortars, are you sure that Vietnam or Indonesia won't sell?

In truth, if the Chinese garrison stays in Hong Kong, their main armored vehicle is the 92 Infantry Vehicle and they don't have any tanks. In street fighting, such armored personnel carriers can be destroyed by RPG's and other light weapons. Another threat is the Wuzhuang Zhishengji 9 attack helicopter. Helicopters can be counter-attacked effectively with heavy-caliber light weapons. MANPAD's (Man-portable air-defense systems firing shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles) cannot be easily purchased on the market. But remember: aircrafts cannot stay in the air forever, especially the Wuzhuang Zhishengji 9 attack helicopters which carry only a small number of air-to-ground missiles.

Therefore, who is to say that we can't build an army? But it is one thing to build an army; it is something else for this army to be sustainable. The above army is the one that is required in a hurry when China melts down. As the national defense needs change, the militia will have be gradually turned into a professional army. This is further down the road. For now I want to talk about an subject that would be essential for any army: armaments factories.

YK Ma tried to scare us with the amount of money that Singapore spends on national defense. In reality, the national defense budget for Hong Kong will be even higher, because Singapore only needs to keep what it already has going whereas Hong Kong will have to start from scratch. It takes a long time to build an armaments factory and then bring it into operation. As soon as the nation is founded, budget must be allocated and construction starts immediately. The initial goals are to produce and maintain the essentials, such as weapon spare parts and munitions. There is no need to build cannons and airplanes as yet. Hong Kong can purchase munitions from overseas. At least a few hundred thousands bullets may be fired in a single firefight, so Hong Kong probably can't buy fast enough to replenish what it has used up. Therefore a local armaments/munitions factory will be essential.

In any discussion of systems to support light weapons, we must consider what kind of light weapons are available on hand. The most common handgun in Hong Kong is the 0.38 Smith & Wesson revolver that only sergeants or higher ranked police officers were allowed to carry during the Umbrella Revolution. The police also possess a certain number of 9mm automatic pistols. In actual combat, it is preferable to have rifles, sub-machine guns or more powerful guns. The Hong Kong Police has a small number of 9mm sub-machine guns and 0.556mm-calibre rifles. But the largest number will be the 5.8mm 95 Model automatic rifles of the Chinese garrison in Hong Kong. In addition, some citizens and the police have 12-gauge shot guns. The Hong Kong Marine Police have a number of 0.50-caliber machine guns (which cannot use Russian 12.7mm bullets). The Chinese Garrison also has 7.62mm, 12.7mm or large caliber automatic weapons plus mortars of various calibers.

We see that there are many different kinds of guns in Hong Kong. This will make it harder to support all these different systems at the same time. The military can only invest support certain common weapons. The 5.56mm AR-15 series require precise equipment and metallurgic skills to support, and even Taiwan gave up production during the Vietnam War era. AR-15  production requires the factory to procure permits and schemes from the manufacturer. The only common weapon that does not require a license is the Model 95, but its 5.8mm bullets are produced by China only and it is unlikely that Hong Kong can acquire the production specs.

During the early stage of national building, Hong Kong may not have a full production line to produce ammunition. They will have to procure the production equipment and raw materials from outside. Even the Chinese Communists can only make the bullet heads and shells for its 7.62mm Model 56 rifle bullets, and the propellant and the centerfire are supplied by outside specialist factories. So it is more likely that our local factory will be placing new bullet heads and propellants into used bullet shells. This is appropriate for the Hong Kong Army which does not have enough ammunition.

In summary, when Hong Kong becomes independent, we should establish an army via conscription to stave off the tide of refugees from the north and to quickly develop an armaments industry that can support the available light weapons. The road to building a military will be long and arduous, but it won't be impossible as YK Mar and his ilk say. This essay has been offered for further thoughts by the warriors of independence.

- (China Daily Asia) 'HK independence' simply a fantasy. By Lawrence Ma. March 25, 2016.

... Even if Hong Kong can form its "own" government, supported by its "own" constitution, it can in no way defend it. Singapore appropriated $9.5 billion for its defense in 2015. Assuming Hong Kong resembles Singapore in some ways, each Hong Kong resident would have to shoulder an extra tax burden of about HK$10,000 per year.

Furthermore, even if Hong Kong can buy enough aircraft and battleships, it cannot buy its own soldiers, who must be recruited and trained locally. Are Hong Kong university students all willing to be conscripted, trained and ready to risk their lives to defend a "Hong Kong state" against the People's Liberation Army (PLA)? On the mainland, there are around 2.3 active personnel in the armed forces, whereas, according to official figures, there were only 87,600 university students in Hong Kong in the 2014-2015 academic year. Do your math -- that is 1:26 -- and you will now realize that it is an unwinnable battle. The PLA is legally authorized by the Constitution to defend the nation; its personnel are professionally trained -- and duty bound -- to fight off any secessionist campaign. In simple words, they can easily crack down on any illegal government in China at any time.

- "Based upon what we saw [of the Chinese garrison] during the Umbrella Revolution ..." No, they were deliberately kept invisible at all times so that you saw nothing. They don't get days off to cruise Lan Kwai Fong and start fights with other drunkards.

- "In truth, if the Chinese garrison stays in Hong Kong, their main armored vehicle is the 92 Infantry Vehicle and they don't have any tanks." The reason why the Chinese garrison hasn't been driving around in tanks is that the sight scares certain Hong Kong people. It doesn't mean that they can't bring in the tanks. There are many ways for tanks to cross from mainland China into Hong Kong, if necessary. Even if you blow up airports, bridges, tunnels and roads, the tanks can still be ferried over by helicopters.

- This essay begins with "This is a  false issue -- just because Hong Kong does not have an army doesn't mean that it cannot have an army some day." In like manner, the Chinese tank issue is a false issue -- just because the Chinese garrison does not appear to drive around in tanks does not mean that they don't have tanks.

- In like manner, New Yorkers have never seen tanks driven through their streets. But that doesn't mean that the American army does not have tanks.

- "Helicopters can be counter-attacked effectively with heavy-caliber light weapons. But remember: aircrafts cannot stay in the air forever, especially the Wuzhuang Zhishengji 9 attack helicopters which carry only a small number of air-to-ground missiles." Hey, have you heard of barrel bombs dropped by helicopters in Syria (see YouTube)? It only costs HK$1,000-2,000 to produce a barrel bomb because the ingredients (fertilizer, fuel oil, nuts, bolts, marbles) are so cheap. And you can't see or hear the airplanes, much less than shoot them down with your light weapons.

- All this talk about building this armaments factory that will supply the weapon spare parts and munitions for the Hong Kong Army is a waste of time. The Chinese Communists are monitoring the developments, including when the propellants and other raw materials are delivered. Twenty-four hours before the factory goes online, a Chinese cruise missile costing a total of 400,000 RMB slams onto the site and destroys this HK$10 billion project in toto. Before you build this factory, please consider buying a Patriot system, even a THAAD system.

- Ditto with your desalination plants. Is it a crime against humanity to destroy a desalination plant? They will also produce 'evidence' that this destroyed facility was in fact a biochemical weapons factory.

- The Chinese Communists don't even have to waste a cruise missile. Even if you build the armaments factory in Hong Kong Island south as far away as possible from mainland China (40km), it is still reachable by the Chinese long-range artillery guns. Patriot and THAAD won't help you against an artillery battery.

- The idea of conscripting all Kong girls aged 18 to 40 into the Hong Kong Army in the Great Battle to Defend Hong Kong Against Chinese refugees is too funny!

- Can they bring their Filipina/Indonesian domestic helpers with them?

- Like it or not, military service will be compulsory. Of course, there will be refuseniks and they will be too numerous to incarcerate (how do you house and feed 100,000 people?). So there will be DESERTION = DEATH signs posted everywhere in Hong Kong.

Even if they show up to report in, there will be disciplinary problems with the Kong girls. So there will be DISOBEDIENCE = DEATH signs posted everywhere in the training camps.

- You can get rid of some of the hardcore refuseniks by having a grace period. The Border Guards are shooting anyone who tries to cross the border from China to Hong Kong. For a one week period, people will be allowed to cross the border from Hong Kong to China. After one week, the border becomes a shoot-on-sight free-fire zone. This purges all the vermin unwilling to serve in the Hong Kong Army. What remains will be strong and valiant warriors.

- Eh, have you estimated how many people will be left?

- The Chinese Communists will also help the Great Evacuation by saying that after that week, anyone left in Hong Kong will be rebel vermin traitors who are doomed to extermination by massive bombing. Just to demonstrate the point, a MOAB will be dropped on the Wanchai Convention Centre on Day 1 of the Great Evacuation Week. Everybody will stay away from the one-mile blast radius, and television will show the explosion endlessly for the message to get through.

- This essay is typical of the stage of development for the theory and practice of Hong Kong independence -- everything hinges on the assumption of the China meltdown! In the interregnum, we will all just sit around, twiddle our thumbs and talk about how we can best prepare ourselves.

- Go read Horace: "carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (Seize the day, put very little trust in tomorrow). You should not believe that everything will fall into place tomorrow, but rather you should do everything possible today to make tomorrow better.

- Someone ought to figure out the detailed costs involved in building a military. For example, here is a sample quote from the Canadian arms dealer Dolorian (link):

For example, a Kalashnikov AKM assalt rifle costs only US$264.40 each if you order 5,000. Each 7.62x39mm cartridge costs only US$0.29 apiece. If we actually purchased this list, the total cost of US$14,366,600 works out to only about US$2 per capita. So the people of Hong Kong can easily afford this.

- This is not an one-time-only expense and this is just your side. The battle will be fought in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong Army is in no position to bring the war to the enemy (in Shanghai or Beijing). This is a defensive war against an invading army with heavy weapons. The cost to Hong Kong should include the collateral damage to lives and properties in Hong Kong. The ammunition listed above is good only for a few days of small arms fire fights in Hong Kong. Please imagine what Admiralty will look like after two million rounds are fired by both sides over two days, plus the artillery barrages, cruise missiles and drone strikes by China.

If you use DSHK anti-aircraft machine guns in Hong Kong, you are going to shoot up a lot of people and homes.

- Related Link: Hong Kong Independence - Theory and Praxis

Court of First Instance, The Higher Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Constitutional and Administrative Law List, No. 185 of 2016 and Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 2819 of 2016


HCMP 2819/2016

(1) A declaration that the oaths purportedly taken by Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau on 12 October 2016 contravened the Basic Law and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance and are invalid and void and have no legal effect;

(2) A declaration that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have been disqualified from assuming and have vacated the office of a  member of the LegCo since 12 October 2016 and are not entitled to act as a member of the LegCo;

(3) An injunction restraining Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau from acting as a member of the LegCo

(4) A declaration that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau claimed to act and/or acted as a member of the LegCo while disqualified from acting in that office; and

(5) An injunction restraining Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau from claiming to be entitled and/or acting as a member of the LegCo.

HCAL 185/2016

(1) A declaration that the President has no power to re-administer or allow for re-administration of any further oath(s) to be taken by Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau;

(2) A declaration that the office of member of the LegCo previously occupied by each of Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau is now vacant;

(3) An order of certiorari to quash the Presidents decision (namely to allow Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau to retake the LegCo Oath at the next LegCo meeting); and

(4) An injunction restraining the President from administering or allowing to be administered the making of the oaths of Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau.


1.  These proceedings concern the questions (a) whether the oaths purportedly taken by Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau at the LegCo meeting on 12 October 2016 before the Clerk to the LegCo (the Clerk) contravene the requirements under Art. 104 of the Basic Law (BL104) and/or the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (ODO), and (b) if so, whether they shall be regarded as having vacated their respective office (the Office) of a LegCo member as a matter of law.

2.  BL104 constitutionally mandates, among others, an elected LegCo member when assuming his office to take an oath in accordance with the laws under the ODO (a) to swear to uphold the Basic Law and (b) to swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China.

3.  Sections 16 and 19 of the ODO further require that a LegCo member elect must take the Legislative Council Oath (the LegCo Oath) which is in the form prescribed under the ODO.  Section 21 of the ODO further relevantly provides that if a LegCo member who declines or neglects to take the LegCo Oath when requested to do so shall vacate the Office (if he has already entered on it); or shall be disqualified from entering on it (if he has not yet entered on it).

4.  There is no dispute among the parties that, on 12 October 2016, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau purported to take the oath in the following ways and manners:

(a) Each of them used the term Hong Kong nation at the outset of the oath-taking;

(b) After the interjection by the Clerk, each of them mispronounced the word China as Geen-na or Sheen-na (支那);

(c) Ms. Yau mis-pronounced Peoples Republic of China as the Peoples Refucking of Sheen-na;

(d) Each of them unfolded and displayed a blue banner bearing the words HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA;

(e) Mr. Leung displayed dismissive and not-serious tone in taking the oath after the Clerks interjection and crossed his index and middle finger of his right hand over the Bible; and

(f) Ms. Yau emphasized Hong Kong with a distinctly loud tone of voice but adopted a lower voice and hurried manner for the rest of the oath.

5.  The Court notes that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have not put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that the oaths they purportedly took on 12 October 2016 complied with BL104 or the requirements under the ODO.  Nor have they put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that their above conducts did not amount to declining or neglecting to take the LegCo Oath under BL104 or the ODO.

6.  Instead, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau oppose the application on the principal grounds that the court could or should not intervene in the matters now under challenged in light of: (1) the non-intervention principle; and (2) the LegCo members immunity provided under Article 77 of the Basic Law (BL77) and sections 3 and 4 of the Legislative Council (Power and Privilege Ordinance (Cap 382) (LCPPO). So far as the President is concerned, his only objection is that he should not be joined as a party in these proceedings.

7.  On 7 November 2016, in exercise of its power under Article 158 of the Basic Law (BL158) the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress (NPCSC) pronounced an interpretation of the meaning of BL104 (the Interpretation).  The Interpretation is binding on all Hong Kong courts and the courts should give effect to it.

8.  Relevant for the present purposes, the meaning of BL104 under the Interpretation essentially provides that an elected LegCo member when assuming office must take the LegCo Oath as prescribed under the ODO (being the laws of HKSAR) solemnly and sincerely and in compliance with it both in substance and in form.  If he intentionally declines to so take the LegCo Oath, whether in form or in substance, the oath taken is invalid and he shall be disqualified from assuming the Office.

9.  On the other hand, the Court also accepts CE/SJs submissions that the laws of Hong Kong as set out in relevant provisions of the ODO, when properly construed independent of the Interpretation, carry effectively the same meanings and legal effects as those of the above meaning of BL104.  

10.  Adopting a purposive construction and common law, the Court holds that sections 16, 19 and 21 of the ODO have the following meanings and effects:

(a) These relevant provisions in the ODO reflect and underline the requirements under BL104;

(b) A LegCo member must take the oath as soon as possible after being elected and before his assumption of office;

(c) A LegCo member must take the oath in the same form, manner and substance of the LegCo Oath as prescribed under the ODO;

(d) An oath must be taken solemnly and sincerely and is a form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.  An oath of allegiance or loyalty means that a person promises and binds himself to bear true allegiance to a particular sovereign and government and to support its constitution.  In determining the validity of the taking of an oath, the essential question to be answered is whether it can be seen objectively that the person taking the oath faithfully and truthfully commits himself or herself to uphold and abide by the obligations set out in the oath.

(e) For the purposes of the ODO, the word decline means an intentional act to refuse or object to the taking of the oath as prescribed by law; and the word neglect means a deliberate or willful (in contrast to an inadvertent or accidental) omission to perform the duty to take the oath as prescribed.

(f) If a LegCo member declines or neglects to take the LegCo Oath whether in form or in substance, by the operation of law, he must (shall) be regarded as having vacated his office if he has entered upon it, or be disqualified from entering his office if he has not done so.

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

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

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

14.  The Court rejects the opposition ground based on the non-intervention principle.  The principle has its origin in common law based on the doctrine of separation of powers as practised in England, where there is the principle of Parliamentary supremacy and the absence of a written constitution.  The extent and limit of this principles application in another jurisdiction must be subject to and considered in the context of that other jurisdiction, in particular where there is a written constitution.

15.  In Hong Kong, there is a written mini-constitution of the Basic Law and the Basic Law is supreme instead of the legislature (see: Cheng Kar Shun v. Li Fung Ying).  The scope and limit of the non-intervention principle as applied in Hong Kong has since been laid down by the CFA in Leung Kwok Hung v. The President of the Legislative Council (No. 1). Deriving from the CFAs judgment: (1) the principle of non-intervention as applied in Hong Kong is necessarily subject to the constitutional requirements of the Basic Law; (2) where the Basic Law confers law-making powers and functions on the legislature, the court has powers to determine whether the legislature has a particular power, privilege or immunity; and (3) what can be properly regarded as the internal business or internal process of the LegCo must be viewed under the above caveat.

16.  Applying the above principles, the non-intervention principle as applied in Hong Kong therefore does not prohibit the court from determining the questions of (a) whether an oath taken by the LegCo member complies with the important constitutional requirements under BL104 (and hence also the legal requirements under the ODO), and (b) whether, in failing to so comply with these constitutional and legal requirements, the LegCo member shall be disqualified from the Office under BL104 and/or section 21 of the ODO.   

17.  In this respect, neither sections 19 and 21 of the ODO nor paragraph (4) of the Interpretation provides expressly that the decision of those administering the oath as to whether an oath is in compliance with BL104 and the laws of Hong Kong is final. Accordingly, although the Clerk or the President has an incidental duty and power to determine whether the oath taken is in compliance with the law as and when circumstances practically require, the Court holds that it does have power to finally adjudicate the matters under challenged in the present cases.

18.  The court also rejects the ground based on LegCo members immunity.  The Court holds that, on proper construction, the protection provided under BL77 and sections 3 and 4 of the LCPPO only covers statements and speeches made by a LegCo member in the course of official debate on the floor of the LegCo when exercising his powers and discharging his functions as a LegCo member.  The words expressed by a LegCo member in taking an oath cannot be properly regarded as falling within these meanings nor could they be regarded as expressed in the course of the exercise of a LegCo members power or carrying out his functions since he has not yet validly assumed the Office.

19.  The Court also holds alternatively that, in any event, the court must have jurisdiction as expressly granted by section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap 542) (LCO) to adjudicate the underlying question of whether a LegCo member has been disqualified when proceedings are brought under that provision against a person purporting to act as a LegCo member when disqualified.  The Court rejects Mr. Leung and Ms. Yaus submissions that section 73 of the LCO does not intend to cover the circumstances where a member has been disqualified under section 21 of the ODO.

20.  The Court further holds that the decision of the President to allow Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau to re-administer the oath in substance and in effect implies that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau did not decline or neglect to take the LegCo Oath on 12 October.  Hence, the decision of the President has a substantive effect and is amenable to judicial review and the President was properly joined as a party.

21.  As regards the locus of CE, the Court holds that, since under Article 48 of the Basic Law, the CE has the constitutional responsibility for the implementation of the Basic Law and other laws in Hong Kong, the CE therefore does have locus to bring either the judicial review or HCMP 2819/2016.  On the other hand, in so far as proceedings concerning section 73 of the LCO are concerned, the Court accepts that the CE in his capacity as the CE has no locus to bring such proceedings against Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau.  However, this does not materially affect these proceedings, as the SJ as one of the plaintiffs is a proper party to bring the section 73 proceedings.

22.  Finally, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau contend that the Court is not bound by the Interpretation since, properly construed under common law, the Interpretation amounts to amendments of BL104 instead of an interpretation as understood under BL158. The Court does not find this submission to be relevant to the present cases as it agrees with the submissions of CE/SJ that, with or without the Interpretation, the Court would reach the same above conclusion.   The Court therefore does not see the need to determine on this question.

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

Link: Full Statement of the High Court

(SCMP) November 15, 2016.

Hong Kong plunged deeper into political uncertainty after the citys High Court ruled on Tuesday that two newly elected localist lawmakers should lose their seats over the way they took their oaths last month.

In his judgment on the governments unprecedented bid to have Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching disqualified, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said their conduct during the October 12 swearing-in ceremony meant they had declined to take their oaths and must therefore vacate their seats.

The judge also ruled that Legislative Council president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen had no power to arrange a second oath-taking for the pair, adding that he arrived at his conclusion independent of the national legislatures interpretation of the Basic Law last week. The court ... agrees with the submissions of the chief executive and secretary for justice that, with or without the interpretation, the court would reach the same above conclusion.

The judge, adopting a common law approach to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, said an oath must be taken solemnly and sincerely and that oath takers are bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.

He agreed with the governments view that Leung and Yau did not truthfully and faithfully intend to commit themselves to uphold and abide by the two obligations under the oath, as they objectively clearly did not recognise the principle of one country, two systems and the importance of one country.

Au addressed the localists argument that the court could not in this case intervene in legislative matters. He drew a distinction from the UK, where he said the principle of parliamentary supremacy reigns and no written constitution exists. In Hong Kong, he said, the Basic Law is supreme instead of the legislature.

After the judgment, Baggio Leung pledged to appeal the courts decision, which he said would affect Hong Kong for decades. I was calmer than I expected, he said of hearing the judgment. Ill soon discuss possible legal actions with my lawyers. Leung added he was not fighting for his Legislative Council seat but for the city and that he did not regret what he had done.

Yau said she and Leung had been democratically elected. If the court could strip us of our qualification, we all know what kind of society we live in now, she said. She believed Beijings interpretation had heaped pressure on the court.

Yau said she and Leung would announce their next move at 7pm Tuesday at Legco, where an injunction bars them from acting as lawmakers.

Asked if he had disappointed the some 30,000 people who voted for him, Leung said he had never expected Beijing to intervene in the matter. He argued the government would use all means to disqualify him even if he did not alter his oath. Do people want us two lawmakers to do our jobs smoothly for four years but make compromises, or insist on what we advocated during our campaigns? he asked.

Leung said the judgment would cause many who advocated self-determination for Hong Kong to rethink their future plans. We have been trying hard to deliver our message through electioneering, but can we still do the same in future? he asked. The returning officers and Legco secretary general exhausted all means to block us.

The court in its judgment said that although the Legco clerk or its president had an incidental duty and power to determine whether one complied with the law, that person did not have a final say. Instead, the court had the authority to finally adjudicate the matter. It added the duo vacated their office from October 12, the day they took their oaths.

Internet comments:

- (Ming Pao) November 15, 2016. On Commercial Radio this morning, Hong Kong University School of Law Associate Professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting said that it is more likely that the government will lose the judicial review to be announced at 330pm. Tai said that there were prior cases in which the courts have refused to intervene with Legislative Council affairs. Tai said that the key will be Legislative Council president Andrew Leung. If Leung changes his mind, there will be another round of judicial reviews and more than a dozen legislators will be affected. Tai does not think that Leung wants more than a dozen legislators to be disqualified.

- When a legal scholar is so wrong, the only explanation is that he doesn't know the facts or his reasoning is flawed.

- Benny Tai also said that the court should have refused to accept this case. Under separation of powers, the judiciary should not interfere with the internal affairs of the Legislative Council. Now if that was what the court says, it will only draw the National People's Congress Standing Committee to issue another interpretation to the effect that there is no separation of powers in the Basic Law because the executive branch rules. The biggest losers will be the judicial and legislative branches. Thankfully, the judicial branch isn't so stupid.

- (Oriental Daily) As soon as the High Court issued its ruling at 330pm, Legislative Council administrative staff took down the name plates of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching.

Previously, thirteen of their office workers were banned from the building because of the charge that injured six security guards.

Leung Chung-hang's office
(Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey HK$308; Glenfiddich 18 HK$1080)

Yau Wai-ching's office

- (Oriental Daily) November 15, 2016. Yau Wai-ching said that they have no regrets even if they have to go to the Court of Final Appeal. He said that this judgment showed that elections are meaningless because they can easily be overturned. It also showed that civilization, the systems and rule-of-law are fragile. He said that they are looking at a dilemma. On one hand, they could accept this outcome and let the government hold by-elections. On the other hand, they can continue the legal process at the risk of personal bankruptcy. But as elected democratic parliamentarians, they have to defend civilization and the systems of Hong Kong.

- And therefore you must donate more money more frequently to Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. In the case of their organization Youngspiration, they actually have corporate registration and bank accounts, so they can take cash, transfer or checks. Thank you very much.

- How much money? Leung Chung-hang said that a conservative estimate is more than $5 million in legal fees. Get your wallets out!

- Give them more money? So that he can buy and consume more alcohol and she can buy more clothes to do the catwalk every day?

- The election expense reports showed that Yau Wai-ching spend HK$13,000+ on sake, beer, cotton candy and potato chips. So she can drink too.  What do the campaign donors think?

- Youngspiration points out that it is not a fantasy to raise $5,000,000 in private donations. They said that if 5,000 people would donate $1,000 each, the $5,000,000 can be raised in a matter of days. And that is going to change the ending of the story.

- Well, it might be hard for some people to part with $1,000. Since Youngspiration represents the people of Hong Kong, it is not too much to ask each of the 7,000,000 citizens to donate $1 each. This yields a war chest of $7,000,000.

- Li Yi has written another essay in Apple Daily, citing once again Haruki Murakami on the Egg and the Tall Wall. No wonder the people of Hong Kong hate Haruki Murakami more and more; each year we applaud the fact that Murakami has been bypassed once again for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Is being weak and vulnerable sufficient and necessary for you to give them money? If so, you should be giving money to Aum Shinrikyo, because they are a tiny religious sect being persecuted by the Japanese government. Or to ISIS, because they are being persecuted by the whole wide world. Right now, these two persons have destroyed the cause of Localism in Hong Kong, and you still want to raise $5,000,000 for them to continue the good work? Was the destruction not thorough enough for you?

Apple Daily also trotted out a defense of "Hong Kong is not China." Hey, that was never the focus. The opponents seized upon "re-fucking of Shina" as an insult to all persons of Chinese descent around the globe. And those two individuals refused to admit that this was an insult and blamed their Ap Lei Chau accents instead. When they led a demonstration to the China Liaison Office, it was a debacle. In less than two months, they have completely ruined the efforts of so many people to build up awareness of Hong Kong Localism. If you tell me that I must support them because they are weak and vulnerable, I tell you: "Fuck you!"

If Apple Daily thinks that they should get the $5,000,000, then why doesn't the Apple Daily Foundation start a campaign to solicit and collect donations on their behalf? If Apple Daily is on the side of the egg, then show us with some genuine action. How about a contribution of $200,000 from Apple Daily to set an example?

- Someone proposes to donate $60 per person. This is the average movie ticket price, and Youngspiration is certainly putting on the best political show in town. Well, I say that you are aiding and abetting the enemy.

(1) The purpose of resistance is to waste the resources of the enemy, to increase the cost of governance. It is one thing for you to flush your money down the toilet, but you are actually giving money to the enemy to buy the bullets they will shoot you with!

(2) What fucking entertainment!? There is nothing entertaining about resistance. One facet of resistance is to expose the truth. Right now, the truth is that these two little punks know that they broke the law but insist on filing more appeals in the vain hope that some court will find for them.

Look, they put on the oath ceremony show because they thought that the oath and the underlying ordinances/laws were wrong.  Great! If so, they should try to change the law from within the Legislative Council. If they can't make any headway within the Legislative Council, they can start a revolution on the outside.

Instead, they went to court and they want the court not to rule in accordance with the law. When the court declines to do so, they immediately announced that rule-of-law is dead in Hong Kong. Time for that looming armed revolution? No, instead it is time to raise more money to file an appeal in the rigged legal system in the hope that they might get a different result.

(3) Money, money, money, money. They raised money during the election campaign and they got advances for wages and expenses, which went to pay for their high living. Most of their prospective donors can't afford to drink the Moet-Chandon champagne, Glenfiddich whiskey, etc found in their Legco offices. They didn't bother to share anything with us when the going was good. Now that their money has dried up, they want us to give more to them

No wonder people say that living is easy in politics. Resistance means people give you money to spend as you see fit without any oversight or accountability.

This is fucking crazy!

- (SCMP) By Alice Wu. November 20, 2016.

If youre tired of all the politics, I feel you. Its draining, to say the least, especially when the melodrama in Hong Kong is dragging out; it has become downright dreadful when we know there is no respite in sight.

We were supposed to have a brief break after last Septembers Legislative Council polls, before the next big event. Even though a large number of people will be unable to cast a vote in the Election Committee subsector elections, less than a month away, and in the chief executive election, scheduled for late March next year, the city should by now be focusing on whats ahead.

But, thanks to the two recently disqualified lawmakers, who lacked the necessary knowledge, ability and respect for oath-taking, our (albeit dysfunctional) legislature has basically been shut down for a month. The ugly politics that should have been insulated within the chamber once again spilled out onto our streets.

And what should have been decided and concluded on September 4 is now dragging on indefinitely, with two or possibly more by-elections added to the election overload.

Hell-raising politics is not going away any time soon, but the sheer stupidity of the localist pairs actions really is one for the books Macbeth, in fact:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, / Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, / To the last syllable of recorded time, / And all our yesterdays have lighted fools / The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! / Lifes but a walking shadow, a poor player / That struts and frets his hour upon the stage / And then is heard no more. It is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.

They were indeed full of sound and fury, and they did nothing for the common good.

What they did opened the door for an invitation to the courts to intervene. What they did presented an opportunity for an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee.

What they did, ultimately, may well become the precedent for other legislators to be similarly barred. And that is why the duos pledge to spend every penny and lest we forget, this also means the mounting cost to the public purse to appeal at all costs is beyond rich, coming from them.

Clearly, they have yet to wrap their heads around the concept of personal responsibility. Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang is wrong in believing that their disqualification from Legco rendered the election meaningless. They have no one but themselves to blame for their defenestration. It is they who made the election meaningless.

And, to add insult to the grave injury they brought on the rest of us, they are asking for donations. At some point if were not there already we must take serious offence to be taken as fools, again and again. The curtain must now be drawn on this overly played-out second act.

The irony may be lost on the pair but its pretty obvious who has been played for total fools. In case they havent noticed, the lawmakers who served as the duos chaperones have stopped babysitting them because there is no value in being their keepers any more. Escorting the duos Legco gate-crashing attempts served their purpose: to usher the two straight to their political end, and the votes the two rendered meaningless are now political spoils.

The two took the toxic brew and there will be no stay of execution that could stop those ready to contest their seats.

We must fight our political fatigue. We can ill afford to be distracted by those who continuously try to foolishly make their own stupid mistakes our collective problem.

- In order to get a legal representation, a citizen cannot approach a senior barrister directly. Instead, they have to find a solicitor, who will find a barrister, who will find a senior barrister. Each of these people have to be paid half the estimated amount up front, unless these lawyers are willing to forgo the advance. It would seem that somebody has already paid or promised to pay. So why do they want $5,000,000 more? To maintain their lifestyles? So, are you going to donate more money more frequently to them?

- (Bastille Post) For the judicial review, the government hired the best legal help (such as Senior Counsel Benjamin Eu) out there. The High Court has ruled that Leung and Yau must bear 80% of the government's legal fees. Insiders estimated that the government's legal bill may be as much as HK$10 million, which means that Leung and Yau will have to pay HK$8 million.

- What are the grounds for an appeal? Leung Chung-hang enumerates:

(1) Parts of the Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 by the National People's Congress Standing Committee are invalid;

(2) Under the separation of powers, Legislative Council matters should be determined by the Legislative Council itself;

(3) They did not refuse or neglect to take the oath of office.

If these are the grounds, the case is lost already:

(1) The National People's Congress Standing Committee is the Court of Final Appeal for the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Final Appeal cannot overrule its superior court. Besides the judge wrote: "9.  On the other hand, the Court also accepts CE/SJs submissions that the laws of Hong Kong as set out in relevant provisions of the ODO, when properly construed independent of the Interpretation, carry effectively the same meanings and legal effects as those of the above meaning of BL104." That is, the Interpretation carried no weight in the court's ruling.

(2) There is no separation of powers in Hong Kong (nor for the United States or the United Kingdom either). For example, Article 50 of the Basic Law says that the Chief Executive may dissolve the Legislative Council if it refuses to pass a budget or any important bill introduced by the government.

(3) Just play the videotape of their swearing-in ceremonies. As the High Court noted:

4.  There is no dispute among the parties that, on 12 October 2016, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau purported to take the oath in the following ways and manners:

(a) Each of them used the term Hong Kong nation at the outset of the oath-taking;

(b) After the interjection by the Clerk, each of them mispronounced the word China as Geen-na or Sheen-na (支那);

(c) Ms. Yau mis-pronounced Peoples Republic of China as the Peoples Refucking of Sheen-na;

(d) Each of them unfolded and displayed a blue banner bearing the words HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA;

(e) Mr. Leung displayed dismissive and not-serious tone in taking the oath after the Clerks interjection and crossed his index and middle finger of his right hand over the Bible; and

(f) Ms. Yau emphasized Hong Kong with a distinctly loud tone of voice but adopted a lower voice and hurried manner for the rest of the oath.

5.  The Court notes that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have not put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that the oaths they purportedly took on 12 October 2016 complied with BL104 or the requirements under the ODO.  Nor have they put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that their above conducts did not amount to declining or neglecting to take the LegCo Oath under BL104 or the ODO.

- (Bastille Post) It is clear that Leung Chung-hang did not read the court ruling. His comments on their appeal showed that his ideas are all ill-considered. Not surprising at all, of course. Why else did they blow everything up with those silly acts at the oath ceremony?

- (Bastille Post) Leung Chung-hang said that they studied prior cases before deciding on how to perform their oaths. The idea is that one must read the whole text. "We did exactly that. We read it the same way as other people have done so before. Why are they saying no today?"

Why does anyone have to study prior cases in order to take an oath? How hard is taking an oath? The only reason why they studied prior cases was that they wanted to find a way of not saying the oath, especially the part about pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic China and the Basic Law. And then they thought that they could mispronounce "republic" as "re-fucking" and "China" as "Shina" and also display a "Hong Kong is not China" banner. In which prior cases were those actions acceptable?

- Leung and Yau said that they have to file an appeal in order to defend "civilization" in Hong Kong? Is it "civilized" to say "Re-fucking of Shina" in an oath of office?

- (Oriental Daily) Yau Wai-ching said that she has already written to the British government to ask them to look into just how China has reneged on the Joint Sino-British Declaration.

- How many times must you be told by the United Kingdom government that they are out of the loop? Why do you keep looping and looping this same old song?

- Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 in the United Kingdom:

Should a Member take part in parliamentary proceedings without having sworn the oath or made the affirmation, the penalty is 500 for every offence, together with vacation of his or her seat. The position is set out in Erskine May:

By the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, any peer voting by himself or his proxy, or sitting in the House of Lords without having taken the oath, is subject, for every such offence, to penalty of 500; and any Member of the House of Commons who votes such, or sits during any debate after the Speaker has been chosen, without having taken the oath, is subject to the same penalty, and his seat also vacated in the same manner as if he were dead. The fine may be recovered upon the suit of the Crown alone. When peers or Members have neglected to take the oaths from haste, accident, or inadvertence, Acts of Indemnity have been passed to relieve them from the consequences of their neglect. In the Commons, however, it is necessary to move a new writ immediately the omission is discovered, as the Member's seat is vacated.

There have been cases where Members or Peers have inadvertently neglected to take the oath and they have sometimes been relieved of the consequences of their omission by an Act of Indemnity. Such an Act cannot, however, prevent a Members seat from being immediately vacated; a new writ must be moved for at once.

The requirement to take the oath/affirmation is also enshrined in the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament:

II Public duty

By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law.

Action could, at least in theory, be taken against any Member not complying with this particular duty in the code of conduct.

This means that even if you make the oath faithfully and completely without any 'naughtiness', you are held to that oath afterwards. So if you pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and its Basic Law, you cannot talk about Hong Kong independence or overthrowing the government while you are a legislator.

Does the UK government approve of what Leung and Yau did during the swearing-in ceremony? What they did is indefensible. If what Leung and Yau did was wrong, then shouldn't the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (from which Hong Kong's Oaths and Declarations Ordinance is derived) apply, such that their seats are vacated in the same manner as if they were dead?

- Joshua Wong is in the United States and he can contact the State Department there. But is this a good time to promote self-determination/independence given #Calexit?

- (TVB) Here is Yau Wai-ching talking about the letter that she sent to the UK government. But the world is actually buzzing about the identity of the westerner standing behind her holding an "Interpretation independence" placard.

- (Facebook) The split personality of James To Kun-shun (Democratic Party)
(October 19, 2016) We democratic legislators severely reprimand the government for filing a judicial review without any cause, to castrate the separation of powers which has been so effective in Hong Kong.
(November 15, 2016) No matter what, we at the Democratic Party will not agree with their manner of taking the oath. But we have a reflection. The court has rendered a verdict. We respect this verdict.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 16, 2016.

The governments legal challenge against the Youngspiration duo is the terror of the law, white terror, former lawmaker Albert Ho has said on Commercial Radio Wednesday morning.

Ho spoke after the High Court ruled that the government won its bid to disqualify Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang from the Legislative Council.

The government applied for a judicial review as the two politicians were due to retake their oaths. During their first attempts, they carried a flag which said Hong Kong is not China and pronounced China as Chee-na.

The government is using taxpayers money to lodge this legal challenge, said Ho. The lawmakers are using their own money to fight, and if they lose they have to pay court fees. How is this fair? He also said that Yau and Leung should not be asked to pay back any expenses that they applied for, since the expenses were already approved.

Ho also questioned whether the government had already been planning the move to lodge a legal challenge against them beforehand.

I have reason to believe that there may have been a plan or a script at an earlier time. The pro-Beijing camp may have received instructions to collectively walk out of the Legislative Council Chamber before Yau and Leung could retake their oaths, Ho said.

I feel very worried and unsettled that the government is so cunning, he said, adding that it was not fair and that a society under the rule of law should not do such a thing. As with any issue, Ho said, if the government plans on seeking follow-up action, there should be ample warning.

The consequences of this incident are very deep and far-reaching, he said. No one thought that the law could be used that way, and now it has been given to the National Peoples Committee for an interpretation directing our judges on how the law should be interpreted.

In any civilised place with the rule of law, he said, the most important thing is that the law is clear, and people know their choices and the consequences for what they do. The first thing is that whether it is right or wrong, they did not know the consequences, said Ho, the second thing is that in so many terms, especially the last term, many people took oaths like that.

- The first thing is that whether it is right or wrong, they did not know the consequences, said Ho, the second thing is that in so many terms, especially the last term, many people took oaths like that.

Bwahhhhhh! Leung Chung-hang is 30-years-old and Yau Wai-ching is 25-years-old . Both are university graduates. And they don't know the consequences of saying "People's Re-fucking of Shina" during the oath of office? And they want to become legislators who will enact the laws of the land?

And many people took oaths like that in so many terms, especially the last term? Really. I thought that this was the first time that I heard anyone say "People's Re-fucking of Shina"! How many others have done this previously?

- (SpeakoutHK)

Firstly, Youngspiration violated both the Basic Law and the Oaths and Declaration Ordinance. These two laws/ordinances have always been around and the government did not just tailor-make them in order to go after Youngspiration. Everybody and especially lawmakers can see that they are there. So how can Albert Ho say that the government kept them in hiding until now?

Secondly, Albert Ho says that the government encouraged these violations because they didn't prosecute previous offenders. So he is clearly saying: "Hey, it was always this bad before but you didn't stop them. So it is wrong for you to stop these two now." Hey, if I have always illegally double-parked downstairs before, then it is wrong for the police to issue a parking ticket to me now!" Shouldn't you be reflecting on your crimes instead of blaming law enforcement?

Thirdly, while many people have played around with their oaths before, I am sure that it is the first time that somebody said "Shina" to insult the Chinese people. Just because people put up with all your previous shenanigans does not mean that you are right. They are merely giving you a chance! But you keep pushing and pushing until this got out of hand! The penalties are different for first offenders, repeat offenders and serial offenders.  As a lawyer, Albert Ho ought to know.

- (Apple Daily) A Taiwan thinktank advisor said that this court ruling "showed that Hong Kong's democratic legal system is not sufficiently mature and tolerant." "Such situations over oaths have occurred in Taiwan, the United States and other democratic countries" but those were never real problems. In Hong Kong, they "disrespected the choice of the people." If the by-elections ended up with the re-election of Leung-Yau, "it will look terrible for the High Court and the rest of Hong Kong."

- To make it into the by-elections, Leung Chung-yan and Yao Wai-ching will have to get past the Returning Election Officers. Let's suppose that they do by some miracle.

What are the absolute levels of support for Leung-Yau at this point? They were elected in a proportionate representation system with fewer than 6.5% and 7.4%% of the votes in their districts. Do you think that they will get more votes than before? Do you think their "Shina-jin" talk is going to attract more people?

What are the relative levels of support for Leung-Yau? There are three scenarios. One is that they are the only candidates in their districts. What do you think voter turnout rate will be? 1%? 2%? Second is that they run against one and only one pro-establishment candidate. Do you think that all pan-democratic voters (most of whom are ethnic Chinese) will come out for them? Third is that they run in a field with many candidates across the political spectrum. Do you fancy their chances against some pan-democratic "adult"?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Youngspiration politician Yau Wai-ching has stressed that she and Baggio Leung were democratically elected after the government won its bid to disqualify the duo from the legislature. I must stress that, Leung Chun-hang and I were democratically elected lawmakers by 20,643 and some 30,000 voters respectively in the election in September this year, she said. [Since] the court adopted such measures to strip us of our lawmaker qualifications, I think you all have an idea what kind of society this is, she said. When asked if she was disappointed by the ruling, she said she understood that such an outcome may happen. I will say that the government has employed many means to apply pressure to the court such a ruling was made under such pressure, it was within [our] expectation, she said. She also cited the ruling as saying that the decision made by the judge was unrelated to the Basic Law interpretation.

- Leung Chung-hang won 37,997 (6.5%) votes in 7th place in the New Territories East Legislative Council election. Yau Wai-ching won 20,643 (7.4%) votes in 6th place in the Kowloon West Legislative Council election.

It is a matter of speculation as to how many of those 37,997 + 20,643 = 58,640 regretted their votes. I would argue that the answer must be 'many.'

First of all, Leung and Yau were elected to fight inside the Legislative Council. Inside the system and not in the streets. By their oaths, they have managed to keep themselves out. So all those 58,640 votes are now wasted. If only they could just read off the words, they would be fighting long and hard for four years.

Secondly, Leung and Yau were elected to fight for Hong Kong self-determination/independence. By their oaths, they have managed to offend all the Chinese around the world and make them hostile to the idea of Hong Kong self-determination/independence. This was a brand-killing act.

It is for this reason that most people think that Leung and Yau are secretly working for the Chinese Communists to destroy Hong Kong self-determination/independence.

- The High Court's decision has nullified election results. If Leung and Yau did not provide the opening, how could the Department of Justice file a judicial review? Leung and Yau need to look in the mirror to see the people who caused them to lose their posts.

- (The Stand News) What will Leung-Yao do?

1. Apologize to those who voted for them (0% likelihood)

2. Use normal Chinese to write an open letter of apology (0% likelihood, because they don't know how to write in normal Chinese).

3. Come out and promise to fight for Hong Kong independence even at the risk of going to jail (0.5% likelihood, because Leung took the taxi out previously)

4. Yau will cut her hair to express her position (-100% likelihood) This is a statement of position. This is not performance art. This is to objectify women and define gender roles. You are welcome to sue me at the Equal Opportunities Commission. This is public relations through political image. You think I am joking but I am really serious.

5. Give an all-out effort to help localist candidates enter the by-elections ... (75% likelihood). Excuse me, if I were them, I wouldn't -- they are huge negative assets by now. But Youngspiration will want stick a hand in.

6. Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. But after you read the judgment, you would know that the lawyers who tell you to appeal are stealing your money. I will appeal, but this is merely a pose. (100% likelihood).

7. Resign from Youngspiration because you have disappointed your political party (1% likelihood). The problem is that you must know how to reflect. You know that if you resign, people will have the final proof that you were Communist moles. But you really are moles, you shouldn't have to care what other people think.

8. Disband Youngspiration (0%). Nobody can make that decision, nor Mr. Leung, not Ms. Yau. It is more likely that Youngspiration will fade away gradually.

9. Go back to local district politics, such as becoming aides to District Councilors. But of course you will only be causing fucking trouble for those District Councilors.

- (HKG Pao) Civic Passion legislator Cheng Chung-tai said that the oath incident has caused mainstream public opinion to swing away from Localism, with certain Localists abandoning the cause because what Leung-Yau did offended them. Cheng pointed out that the reports of soccer fans booing the national anthem used to be able to gather more than 1000 LIKE's. The most recent incidents were not able to get even 100 LIKE's.

- (Bastille Post) Next up is Lau Siu-lai's super-slow rendition of the oath of office. Afterwards she wrote on Facebook: "The slow reading is to highlight the vacuity of the oath" and "I read out more than 90 unconnected words, without any continuity or meaning to speak of."

In the Leung-Yau case, the judge that their oaths objectively and clearly showed that they had no intention to take the oath in a solemn and sincere manner and attest to their willingness to fulfill the oath. That was because they refuse to accept the One Country Two Systems principle and the importance of One Country.

It would seem very difficult for Lau Siu-lai to convince the court that she was genuinely sincere and solemn at the time. Her only recourse is to use Leung-Yau's defense that this court has no right to interfere with the Legco president allowing her to re-take the oath. However, the court ruling makes it clear that the Legco president has no right to do so. In the end, Lau may end up the same way as Leung-Yau.

- Yau Chung-yim's case is less serious because he inserted a phrase first in the middle, and then at the end of the oath in the second try. At least, he has not said that he disavow the oath.

- Yau Wai-ching's Facebook

Previously, the Chinese government has "interpreted Basic Law Article 104 in order to oust popularly elected legislators. This action may have vacated the Joint Sino-British Declaration. We have written to the United Kingdom for help. The letter has been delivered to the Foreign Office in the United Kingdom. Annex I of the Joint Sino-British Declaration states that:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Except for foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.

When China made the interpretation, they have clearly violated the conditions in this Annex. This Declaration was agreed upon by Chin and the United Kingdom. At that time, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was already in existence, and the Declaration was also filed with the United Nations. Under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, any complaint about violation can only be filed by the aggrieved nation. Therefore we had to write to the United Kingdom and ask for their intervention to make China fulfill their promise. Otherwise, the Joint Declaration becomes void, and the people of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom can renegotiate a new treaty to decide the future of Hong Kong.

- (SCMP) December 3, 2014.

Beijing has dismissed the notion that Britain has any moral responsibility for Hong Kong after 1997, shortly after a top Chinese diplomat claimed the Joint Declaration that settled the city's future was already "void". The war of words has continued after Beijing blocked a delegation of British lawmakers from entering the former colony.

Asked whether Britain still had any responsibility for the city as a signatory to the agreement, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that was not the case. "Britain has no sovereignty over Hong Kong that has returned to China, no authority and no right to oversight. There is no such thing as a moral responsibility," she said yesterday. "The real aim of a small minority of British people trying to use so-called moral responsibility to obscure the facts is to interfere in China's internal affairs. [This] cannot succeed, and is something China certainly cannot accept."

- (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China) November 17, 2016.

Q: Yau Wai-Ching, the disqualified legislator-elect said she had appealed the High Court's decision. She also wrote on her Facebook page that the central government violated the China-UK Joint Statement and asked for UK intervention. What is your comment?

A: We have noted the ruling given by Hong Kong's High Court yesterday.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, and its affairs China's domestic affairs. No foreign country has the right to interfere. Pro-independence forces in Hong Kong want to split the nation, and they publicly seek external support for that purpose. Such actions constitute a serious violation of the Constitution of China, the Basic Law of Hong Kong and other laws of the Hong Kong SAR, undermine China's sovereignty and security, jeopardize the fundamental interests of the Hong Kong SAR, and cross the bottom line of "one country, two systems". For those who try to buoy themselves up by leaning onto foreign forces, we want them to know that any scheme to rely on foreign forces for their own political motives will come to no avail.

- Yau's presentation mentioned (1) China 'interpreted' Basic Law Article 104; (2) popularly elected legislators were ousted as the evidence that the Joint Sino-British Declaration of 1985 has been violated. This glosses over two critical points.

Firstly, China 'interpreted' Basic Law Article 104 as empowered by Basic Law Article 158. The Basic Law was drafted by a Committee composed of members from Hong Kong and the mainland, and formally promulgated on April 4, 1990 by the National People's Congress. The United Kingdom sat and watched the process, in agreement that this mini-constitution should be written by the local Hong Kong people and the eventual sovereign nation. The United Kingdom cannot intervene with the exercise of powers given by the Basic Law.

Secondly, Leung and Yau were ousted not through the exercise of the NPCSC's interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. They were ousted by the High Court, which said that the ruling would be the same with or without the NPCSC interpretation. The reason was that Leung and Yau failed to take the oath of office properly in accordance with existing local laws. Does the United Kingdom think what Leung and Yau did during their oaths was acceptable? How silly can you look?

- (SCMP) Forget about localism, now its narcissism thats at play. By Alex Lo. November 17, 2016.

What sad, solitary figures those two struck against the closed gates to the High Court. By now, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang have become politically toxic. Even their one-time allies from the pan-democratic camp were nowhere to be seen. Those from the Civic Party who helped them gatecrash their first Legislative Council meeting were conspicuously absent.

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung of the Court of First Instance has delivered a stunning rebuke to every key point fought for by the pair from Youngspiration in the governments case against their disgraceful oath-taking.

His judgment is a model of common sense and judiciousness. Those who have tried to defend the indefensible on behalf of Yau and Leung would do well to study Aus ruling.

The judge wrote that the pairs oath-taking was a willful attempt to insult China, advocate independence, and mock the Legco oath itself.

Not only did they not swear solemnly and sincerely under the doctrine of common law, they showed outright contempt for the one country, two systems principle.

When Yau used the f word to distort republic in the nations name, Au wrote, the inevitable inference is the contempt she showed for the Peoples Republic of China as the one country in the one country, two systems concept which is fundamental to the Basic Law.

Au wrote that Yau had repudiated any allegiance to the city as an inalienable part of China, as did the pairs deliberate mispronouncing of China as Chee-na, a derogatory term used by the Japanese during wartime.

[They] manifested a clear intention not to be bound in conscience to perform faithfully and truthfully the oath as required by Basic Law Article 104 and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. Au ruled.

Yau claimed the court was under political pressure from the central government, and that Hong Kongs legal system was under threat because she lost her case. Wrong! Yau has a tendency to blame everyone else for her own mistakes and stupidity. No, you lose, Ms Yau, because of your own blindness, willfulness and juvenile irresponsibility. The same with your friend, Mr Leung.

The two put on a brave face, vowing to appeal all the way to the highest court. Some people just dont know they have crossed the line in the court of law and that of public opinion.

- Crossing the road

Panel 1: Most normal people will cross the road only when the light changes to green.
Panel 2: Only a small number of people will cross the road at will.
Panel 3: When more people ignore the pedestrian light ...
Panel 4: Some law-abiding citizens will follow their lead.

Panel 1: But does more people doing it make this right?
Panel 2: When they are held to account, all sorts of excuses are offered: "There were no cars on the road," "I didn't notice the light," "I was in a hurry", "This is a trivial matter," "I did whatever others were doing."
Panel 3: Then they come up with their illogical conclusions: "You are preventing me from going to work and thus interfering with my freedom", "I pay my taxes, so you have no right to ticket me," "Why did you pick on me when so many others were doing the same thing?"
Panel 4: How come they never ever admit that they were wrong to do it? Do they ever admit that they have been wrong? Police Officer: "Mister, please show me your Hong Kong ID."

- (US State Department Press Briefing, November 15, 2016)

QUESTION: I dont know if this was addressed before. Maybe you did or there was a statement over the weekend and I missed it, but Hong Kong? And --

MS TRUDEAU: I havent, so if you --


MS TRUDEAU: -- if you want to ask about them.

QUESTION: The removal of these legislatures on the oath issue.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. We are aware of reports that a Hong Kong court has disqualified two legislator-elects who altered the wording of their --

QUESTION: I think its legislators-elect.

MS TRUDEAU: What did I say? Legislators did I put the plural on the wrong --

QUESTION: Its like attorneys general.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you. Legislators-elect who altered the wording of their oaths of office. The United States strongly supports and values Hong Kongs legislative council and independent judiciary, two institutions that play a critically important role in promoting and protecting the special administrative regions high degree of autonomy under Basic Law and the one country, two systems framework that has been in place since 1997. We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by the rule of law is essential for Hong Kongs continued stability and prosperity as a special administrative region of the Peoples Republic of China.

QUESTION: Okay, maybe I missed it. So you think that you dont like this action by the court?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that the Chinese and the Hong Kong SAR government and all elected politicians in Hong Kong should refrain from any actions that fuel concern or undermine confidence in the one country, two systems principle.

QUESTION: So does that mean that you that altering the oath, youre opposed to, or that the court stripping them of their office is of concern? Which or both?

MS TRUDEAU: Both. We --

QUESTION: So you dont like the fact that they changed the oath and you dont like the fact that the court ruled the way it did.

MS TRUDEAU: We believed that actually, both. So one, it was an independent the independent legislative council, the independent judiciary, we believe played that important role. But we also call on both the Hong Kong politicians as well as the Chinese Government.

- I read this several times. I can't make any sense of what Trudeau is saying. Is there a problem with the transcription?

- Bwahhhhh! On one hand, they don't like the legislators-elect altering the oath. On the other hand, they don't like the court voiding their oaths and vacating their seats. Well, this is a clear advocacy for Rule-of-Man. Thus, the Oaths and Declaration Ordinance applies to all Hong Kong citizens -- unless you are a "pro-democracy" (whatever that means) legislator-elect in which case you must not be punished even though you did wrong.

- (EJ Insight) Why the Youngspiration duo lost their case. By Ding Wang. November 18, 2016.

The arguments presented by Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang the two lawmakers at the center of the controversy during the trial appeared to be both weak and flimsy, and could not even stand the most basic legal scrutiny in court.

For example, the duo cited Article 77 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that members of the Legislative Council shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.

Under Article 77 of the Basic Law, Legco members are immune from any legal liability for what they have say during Legco meetings.

However, both Yau and Leung were not yet Legco members officially when they took their oaths, nor should the swearing-in ceremony itself be considered a Legco meeting. Besides, the oath of the Legco office itself is hardly a speech or statement by nature either, and therefore doesnt fall within the jurisdiction of Article 77.

In fact, one of the major reasons why the two lawmakers-elect lost their case is because they cited the wrong piece of legislation in their arguments during the trial.

Worse still, the arguments presented by the duo were further undermined by the fact that they didnt even bother to cite the point that it remains questionable whether the words they used and the flag they exhibited during their oath-taking constituted any refusal to take the oath under the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.

Even Justice Au was puzzled by their failure to cite that forceful point during the trial.

After the High Court ruled in favor of the government and declared the lawmaker status of Yau and Leung as null and void, the duo vowed to appeal, arguing repeatedly that they were rightfully elected by their constituents, and therefore no one, including the court, has the power to remove them from office because public opinion is on their side.

Once again, they got it all wrong, as in any society governed by the rule of law, court decision is always made solely on the basis of legal grounds and substantial evidence rather than public opinion.

In other words, when deciding whether someone is guilty or not, the court would only take in account whether he or she has actually broken the law.

Public sentiment and general opinion are never the courts concern when it comes to trials.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Hong Kongs oath row is so perfect for Beijing, they couldnt have planned it better themselves. By Kent Ewing. November 21, 2016.

Are ousted lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching secretly in the employ of Chinas Ministry of Security? Is their political party, Youngspiration, a covert faction of the Communist Youth League?

Indeed, is Hong Kongs entire independence movement an elaborate plot hatched by Chinese leaders conspiring with Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to tame an unruly Legislative Council, shackle Hong Kongs judiciary and reintroduce national security legislation that will make sneezing in Beijings direction a treasonable offence?

Well, if so, then the nefarious scheme is working brilliantly and the two closet patriots are to be congratulated for their grand deception on behalf of their beloved motherland.

If, on the other hand, their arguments and antics over the past month have been a genuine and earnest attempt to defend and enhance the singular freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of China, then they are, in a city full of lame-brained political leaders both young and old, the lamest of them all. And now, with every appeal of the High Court ruling that went so predictably against them last week, their sorry legend grows.

Their juvenile stunts during the swearing-in ceremony for a new LegCo term last month may have been intended as an attention-grabbing protest against the oppressive hand of the central government and its servile minions in Hong Kong; as things turned out, however, their obtuse shenanigans were the gift that Beijing had been waiting for since the handover from British to Chinese rule nearly 20 years ago: an anti-China demonstration so insultingly beyond the pale that it actually increased public support for the central governments intervention into Hong Kong affairs while at the same time prompting an interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress that, at the very least, will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech in LegCo and, at worst, lead to an outright purge of dissident voices from that body and set Hong Kongs democracy movement back to the Stone Age.

Meanwhile, a combative and unpopular chief executive whose prospects of reelection were wavering between slim and none is now back in the fight for a second term after taking the lead in the battle against the Youngspiration pair. As it was his administration that filed the judicial review resulting in their ouster, CY Leungs once-moribund dream of winning another five years as Hong Kongs leader has been revived.

Leung must love this dynamic duo and can only hope for more like them. They are the perfect character foils for him as he works to convince Beijing that he is the best choice for Hong Kongalthough his efforts may not be enough to save him from a potential challenge from his finance minister, John Tsang Chun-wah, who remains far more popular than his boss.

Well see. But one thing is for sure: Leung has done everything Beijing could have asked of him, and the localist movement, embodied by the two expelled legislators, has played right into his hands.

This may seem like blaming the victimas Sixtus Leung claimed in a recent CNN interviewbut in this bizarre case it is the victims who are guilty of victimising themselves.

Hong Kongs constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are not going to be protected by crude protests that offend most of the people who live here and have now been foundalbeit dubiouslyto flout the Basic Law. In the end, the struggle to secure Hong Kongs future cannot be cast as a contest of Us vs. Them, Independence vs. Dictatorship, Good vs. Evil. Those will all be losing battles for the city and the special freedoms it enjoys within a large, paranoid and authoritarian state.

No, this must be a dance, a subtle dance that requires, first and foremost, adherence to the one country, two systems principle and an appreciation and understanding of Hong Kongs unique historical place in China.

In the wake of the oath-taking debacle, its time for the citys pro-democracy forces to regroup and rethink a strategy that has gone terribly wrong.

- (EJ Insight) How Justice Thomas Au opened door for cooperation in govt. By Wong On-yin. November 23, 2016.

The National Peoples Congress Standing Committees recent interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law left the people of Hong Kong in a state of shock in two ways.

One is that the interpretation unmistakably indicated that Beijing maintains a firm grip on both the judiciary and the legislature.

It will go to any lengths to get rid of any lawmaker who advocates separatism, regardless of the fact that he or she has been elected to Legco.

And two is that Justice Thomas Aus ruling on the oath-taking case almost completely dispelled the longstanding myth that judges are always impartial and immune to political pressure.

In fact, Justice Aus ruling served as a rude awakening that judges have always had the best interests of the government, the rich and the powerful, as well as the establishment, rather than the average individual, at heart.

We would be naive to believe that the common people can rely on the court to redress social inequalities.

As I have stressed over and over again, if the people of Hong Kong really want to achieve self-determination and topple the status quo, they can rely on no one not the judges or politicians and fight for their cause through direct action.

Just think about it: would Beijing have dared undertake the NPCSC interpretation if hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens had taken to the streets and staged another occupy movement as they did two years ago?

On the other hand, the fact that Beijing unilaterally called a halt to the Individual Visit Scheme and stopped allowing 10 million tourists to come to Hong Kong annually as planned is largely because it had cold feet in the face of massive resistance by tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens.

Such remarkable achievements are not something that the pro-establishment court or some hypocritical politicians could have accomplished.

The fact that on Nov. 4 Justice Thomas Au denied a request by senior barrister Benjamin Yu, representing the government, for a quick ruling after he had already heard the arguments from both sides, and then went on to spend two weeks to write his ruling suggests that Justice Au was waiting for instructions from the NPCSC.

Justice Aus repeated assertion that he had not been influenced by the interpretation was a dead giveaway that only further incriminated him.

Rather than laying down the legal grounds for the ruling in the governments favour, Justice Aus 50-page decision was in fact a collection of arguments intended to justify why the separation of the three branches of government no longer applies before the omnipotent NPCSC. That is absolutely spine-chilling.

I have reason to believe that not only were the government and the Department of Justice, but also the judiciary, notified in advance of the details of the NPCSC interpretation, all of them were also instructed by Beijing to act accordingly.

It appears Justice Au fully complied with Beijings order and also did more.

That said, I would say Justice Au has opened the door for the cooperation of the three branches, the kind of system practised in the mainland.

The fact that he failed to take into account the important factor that the Youngspiration duo were only mimicking their predecessors who also deliberately failed to deliver their oaths properly in protest against Beijings political interference, suggests that Justice Au has allowed himself to be an accomplice in Beijings plot to destroy our judicial independence.

Here is a YouTube video of an incident in which a traffic policeman is writing a ticket to a male driver and a female passenger.


0:05 Woman (to unseen person): Bitch, go eat shit!
0:10 Woman (to police) Go!
0:15 Policeman (to unseen person): Keep quiet! Keep quiet! Even I am not saying anything.
0:18 Woman: Eat shit!
0:24 Woman: You are taking a long time writing the ticket! You are crazy! You damned fella! You eat shit! How can you be issuing tickets in this manner? You are wasting taxpayers' money. How much do you earn each month? Damned fella! Fucking useless!
0:49 Woman (gets out of car and wagging finger): You are very diligent! You are really good at issuing tickets! But when it comes to arresting criminals, you hide on the side! Damned fella! There are so many traffic accidents around. Why don't you just die? You eat shit! Crazy! You took half an hour to issue a ticket! Are you nuts? Wasting taxpayers money! I am going to file a complaint against you. I am trying to save a life. I am going to Queen Mary Hospital. Damned fella! You eat shit!
1:24 Woman (tries to snatch the ticket): Give it to me, damned fella!
1:28 Policeman: I will put it over there.
1:32 Woman (approaches the policeman) I am definitely only to write a complaint about you.
1:35 Policeman: You calm down. This is my first warning to you.
1:37 Woman: This is my second warning to you.
1:39 Unseen bystander: Police officer sir, you don't have to be afraid. We can be a witness for you. You have us as your witnesses.
1:49 Policeman: Can you get back into the car? The two of you are the ones who are taking up the time.
1:51 Unseen bystander: There is a whole street full of witnesses. A whole street full of witnesses. Right, you have nothing to be afraid of.
2:20 Woman: I want to see if he is going to take 30 minutes to issue a ticket.

(Headline Daily) November 14, 2016.

Today the Hong Kong Police Public Relations Board brought 46-year-old traffic policeman Cheung back to the scene of the incident to explain traffic regulations. Cheung said that he acts in a restrained manner when issuing tickets because he understands how people feel. However, Cheung says that he has to carry out his duty.

Cheung said that it normally takes 5 minutes to issue a traffic ticket. In this case, the principal was emotionally excited, swung her umbrella and tried to snatch the tickets away. There were also large numbers of spectators. Therefore it took longer than usual, or about 10 minutes. With respect to the woman's threat to lodge a complaint, Cheung said: "That is not up to me."

According to the eyewitness Mr. Chow, police officer Cheung went by the book. Cheung had to call to check whether the driver has an outstanding arrest warrant. Then he had to copy down the vehicle registration information. Chow did not think that Cheung slowed down deliberately. Chow also thought that the woman was "out of bounds" with her berating of the police officer.

(Apple Daily) November 14, 2016.

The male driver in the video has been identified as Fung Siu-wing, publisher of the defunct Hong Kong Daily News. The now-retired Fung said that it is a tragedy for media to have such a piece of garbage news being hyped into a top story. He said that the policeman was deliberately annoying them and took half an hour to write a ticket. Therefore Fung's wife got upset.

Fung said that they wanted to hurry over to Queen Mary Hospital to visit a friend. During the haste, they took the wrong turn and violated the traffic regulations. Fung admitted that he was wrong and that he will pay the traffic fine. But he was not happy that the policeman took his time. He supported his wife in being so excited, because she was fighting for justice. "People have emotions. She was slightly aggressive. If the judge is wrong in court, you can throw a shoe at him!"

Fung said that the spectators at the scene were probably the demonstrators who participated in the anti-independence rally in Tamar Park. "They did so because my wife was nicely dressed. We are not afraid of being identified. We did nothing wrong. They should not think that they can ruin my reputation."

(Oriental Daily) November 15, 2016.

Dried food store worker Mr. Chow witnessed the incident. He said that the vehicle made an illegal right U-turn on Wilmer Street in order to get to De Voeux Road West. The police officer stopped the car and issued the ticket. The woman began to curse out the policeman immediately. She said: "I have lots of money. You can issue the ticket. Please be fucking quick!" Chow said that the process took about 20 minutes, mainly due to interference from the woman. Chow said that he approved of what the policeman did. Chow said that this was a traffic hot spot, including a fatal accident. Chow praised the policeman for his restraint in not responding to the curses.

(Oriental Daily) November 15, 2016.

Fung Siu-wing said that he received a phone call at 2pm that a friend was hospitalized at Queen Mary Hospital. So he and his wife hurried over. At the time, his car was heading east. Under safe conditions, he made a U-turn traversing two white lines in order to head west. The policeman stopped him and issued a ticket. Fung said that a traffic ticket is a minor matter. His wife was impatient and asked the policeman to hurry up. Instead the policeman deliberately went slow. "He took more than 10 minutes."

Fung said that it was inevitable that his wife got "grouchy" because the policeman went slow. "We are not gentlemen. We are not saints. We were rude, even though we broke the regulations. But it is also true that the policeman went slow." He said that while traffic regulations should be followed, policemen should also be more considerate. "I thought that he was inconsiderate. His attitude was very bad." With respect to his wife becoming the target of Internet criticisms, he said that she only did this because she was extremely angry. "She normally does not have the best temper, but not worst either ... I told her that I support her to speak up on behalf of all Hong Kong drivers to carry out justice!"

Internet comments:

- The particulars of the male driver:

Former Hong Kong Daily News publisher Fung Siu-wing
Car license number: EC 9992

 The particulars of the woman passenger:

- Born in a Times of Chaos Facebook

(Is this the Hong Kong that we know?)
November 14 (Reader's tip) A couple who are active in pro-China circles were unhappy with the traffic policeman giving them a ticket. They cursed the traffic policeman out with a stream of obscenities. They said that they will lodge a complaint because the policeman took too long to write the ticket! Is this the place that we live in?

- How did the former publisher of Hong Kong Daily News become "active in pro-China circles"? And this guy thought that the spectators were demonstrators at the anti-independence rally and they heckled him only because his wife was nicely dressed.

- Was the Hong Kong Daily News a pro-China newspaper? Well, its forte is the analysis of horse races and soccer games for gamblers. Even after the newspaper went out of business, the horse racing section continued to be published.

- And people were saying that the NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law Article 104 has destroyed rule-of-law in Hong Kong. No, the people who are destroying rule-of-law are those who say: "If the judge is wrong in court, you can throw a shoe at him!"

- You have the right to throw that shoe just as the judge has the right to throw you in jail.

- At the sentencing date, you will plead bipolar disorder or something.

- What would an American policeman do about this kind of aggression?

- Batons, brass knuckles, pepper spray, stun gun, taser, shotgun, etc.

- She would have been shot the second that she stepped out of the car.

- Mr. Fung was going to Queen Mary Hospital. He missed an exit and therefore he made an illegal U-turn on De Voeux Road West. Mr. Fung admitted that he violated the traffic regulation because U-turns were not allowed. Mr. Fung thought that because he was in a hurry to visit a hospitalized friend, the policeman should have considered the situation and let him go. Well, that would be rule-of-man and not rule-of-law.

- Whenever you have some piece of video about some detestable behavior, you immediately attribute that person to be in the enemy's camp. You strike first before your enemies do. The facts be damned!

- Strange! Usually the miscreant must be a mainlander, but not this one.

- The most "Yellow Ribbon" characteristic is that Fung supports his wife's behavior because "she was fighting for justice"!

- (SCMP) Journalist and his foul-mouthed wife were out of order. By Alex Lo. November 16, 2016.

Journalists have a well-deserved reputation for cursing like sailors. But it appears some of our wives are even worse, if a smartphone video clip that has gone viral on the internet is anything to go by.

The clip showed a woman verbally abusing a traffic officer after the vehicle her husband was driving was stopped and he was issued with a penalty for making an illegal U-turn on Des Voeux Road West.

The driver turned out to be none other than Fung Siu-wing, the former chief editor of the defunct Hong Kong Daily News.

His wife, whom friends and colleagues call Sister Wah, is well-known in journalism circles for her acumen in property investment. In other words, the couple are well-off, at least compared to many in the news business.

Throughout the incident, she cursed and swore at the officer, who calmly checked the car owners licence and registration before handing out a ticket.

The officer was a model of civility but Fungs wife just went berserk, at one point jumping out of the car and poking her finger at him.

Writing a few words took an hour. Are you crazy? Where are you when there are real robbers? Hiding? she said.

Bastard ... Go eat excrement You waste taxpayers money. How much money do you earn a month? [You] deserve to be a [junior] cop for the rest of your life. Loser!

She even cursed passers-by, who were outraged by her behaviour and defended the officer for doing his job.

Even since, the entire local press corps has been chasing the couple to find out more.

In one newspaper podcast interview, Fung admitted he committed the traffic offence but said it was a minor one.

Every driver does it when he is in a hurry, he said. Its not a big deal. We are model citizens making a minor offence.

He defended his wife, saying such shouting was [an] everyday occurrence, and accused the officer of being rude and unprofessional. He also accused some passers-by of blindly siding with the police and hating the rich.

But just by watching the clip, we can see the officer was calm and professional, at one point even advising passers-by to stop shouting at the woman.

If the officer is a model for the police, I hope journalism students wont take after Fung and his wife.

- (Apple Daily) Hey, it turns out that this couple is two repeat offenders. This video was taken on September 30, 2015 outside Connaught Place, Central. Fung Siu-wing was being ticketed for illegal parking, and his wife was seated inside the car. What did she have to say? "You eat shit! I am telling you! Wasting the taxpayers' money! I have written down all your information. I am going to lodge a complaint!" The police officers stayed calm and told her: "Calm down."

Meanwhile Fung stood outside and was very cooperative. Lai then stuck herself through the window with pen and notebook in hand, ready to take down the police badge numbers. Fung told her to calm down. She kept calling the police "Trash!" The police officers kept calm and said: "Let her take down our numbers. We are not afraid. We are only carrying out our duty."

Lai continued to curse. A male police officer and Fung tried to talk her down. But Lai got even more excited and banged on the car.

With respect to this video, Fung said that he does not remember the incident. But Fung said that somebody must be picking on them. He said that his wife is excitable and her actions in this incident were "very poor" like an ignorant woman. But nobody is perfect. "We haven't killed anyone or committed arson." "I have lose face." He wants everybody to leave them alone and continue their serene lives of retirement.

- She just keeps forgetting to take her Risperdal ...

Thousands of people attended a pro-Beijing rally in Hong Kong Sunday in support of Chinas decision to effectively bar two pro-independence legislators from taking office, as fears grow of the citys freedoms being under threat.

On Sunday rowdy crowds, waving Chinese flags, surrounded the governments headquarters in a show of support for Beijings unprecedented decision, slammed by pro-democracy activists and legal experts as a massive blow to Hong Kongs judicial independence.

Supporters chanted slogans such as fight against Hong Kong independence, support the interpretation at the rally, which was attended by pro-Beijing legislators.

The cancer cells are those who are promoting Hong Kong independence we will fight them to the end, lawmaker Michael Tien told the crowd who cheered loudly in response. China will never, ever tolerate the splitting of the nation, Tien said.

Priscilla Leung, another pro-China legislator who attended the rally, said the lawmakers behaviour at the swearing-in ceremony humiliated all of the Chinese people.

Police said that 28,500 people attended the rally.

(SCMP) November 14, 2016.

Opponents of Hong Kong independence staged a show of force yesterday as thousands of people took to the streets around the government headquarters in one of the largest rallies of its kind in recent years.

At the rally outside the Legco complex in Admiralty yesterday, protesters also voiced their support for Beijings ruling last week that lawmakers who failed to take the Legislative Council oath sincerely would face disqualification.

The rallys organiser, the Anti-Hong Kong Independence Alliance, said more than 40,000 attended the rally. The police said the turnout peaked at 28,500.

Attending the rally, Tin Shui Wai resident Mr Cheng, 72, said: I was born during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, I was very angry about [Baggio Leung and Yau] ... I think those lawmakers who shouted slogans should be disqualified too. Another attendee, who only identified himself as Mr Cheung, said he brought along his son to let him know that Hong Kong must be governed in accordance with law.

The alliance organiser Stanley Ng Chau-pei said the rally showed the world that we are determined to safeguard territorial integrity. He added that there were over 10,000 people who could not attend the rally because the venue was too crowded.

Internet comments:

- Well, there seemed to be many more people at this anti-independence/pro-interpretation demonstration than at the earlier pro-independence/anti-interpretation demonstration, either by the organizers' claims or the police estimate.

There can only be one explanation (Apple Daily):

It was predicted that at least 30,000 will attend and as much as 60,000. A married couple at the demonstration said that they came from Shekou (Shenzhen, China) whereupon a man named Zhou promised them HK$300 per person in compensation. The wife said: "You Hongkongers are getting $600."

In addition, 12-year-old student Ng said she does not understand why Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching would support Hong Kong independence. "They are obviously Chinese themselves." But she did not know what the Interpretation was, but she did not think that it destroys rule-of-law in Hong Kong. She said that she came with her family, but she does not know the name of the organization that they came with. She said that she can get $100 for coming, with a meal afterwards.

Because all the people in Hong Kong are pro-independence and anti-interpretation, the only people who came today must be paid actors.

- Aerial photos of demonstration size https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1274572795949987/

- HK$300 to come down from Shekou and demonstrate? Are we still living in the historical China of 30 years ago where everybody is dirt poor? At H$300 per day, you cannot even hire a street sweeper in Shekou.

- HK$300 to come down from Shekou to Hong Kong, stand around for two hours and go back to Shekou? Are you kidding? The ferry from Shekou to the Hong Kong-Macau Ferry Terminal in Central costs HK$130. It will cost you another HK$130 to go home. That leaves you HK$40 for the day's work. And if you buy a plate of rice at Cafe de Coral, you will be losing money for the day.

- It is said that mainlanders were getting paid HK$350 per person while Hongkongers were getting paid HK$600. But of course travel costs are significantly higher for mainlanders, so that the real inter-regional differential pay is a lot larger.

- HK$350? Do you know that a parallel trader makes $1,200 for a single round trip between Luo Hu (China) and Sheung Shui (Hong Kong).

- At an average of HK$500 per person, this gig costs a total of $500 x 50,000 = $25,000,000. That's a lot for you and me, but very much smaller than a peanut relative to China's GDP. Besides, the government wants to stimulate consumer spending and this is a good cause to spend helicopter money on.

- During Occupy Central, everybody knows that the rate card was HK$800 for those who wore surgical masks over their noses and mouths and cover their eyes with plastic shrink wrap to charge the police line, and $500 for those who slept overnight in the tents. So Occupy Central had more money from the National Endowment for Democracy than these guys today got from the Central Propaganda Department.

- On one hand, it is upsetting to learn that people actually only need to be paid $300 when your underlings have been telling you that $1,000 was the minimum wage. On the other hand, it is understandable that your underlings must grease their palms along the way.

- Oh, there's 'evidence' on Whatsapp:

Sunday 300pm-530pm! $350 for 2-1/2 hours of work. Three hundred slots available. Whatsapp me if you interested!

Reply: So many slots for what?
Reply: What's it for?
Reply: Demonstration.

Reply: Demonstration?

- What kind of evidence is this supposed to be? No WHO, WHERE, WHAT, WHY and HOW at all. And I can forge this screen in a couple of minutes.

- Next Media has major problems as they expect heavy losses, with advertising and distribution revenues declining by 24.8%. Apple Daily is likely to raise its newsstand price to HK$8 per copy, which will reduce distribution (and hence advertising) revenues even further. But that is not even the real problem, which is fewer and fewer people want to read this rag filled with poor creative writing stories.

- Three counter-demonstrators came to heckle the demonstrators.

Video #1: https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1680809642209233/ The leader of the three counter-demonstrators yelled on the megaphone that he is a Hongkonger and not a Chinese. The demonstrators yelled back to his two masked companions: "Take off the mask! Take off the mask!"

Video #2: https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1680809668875897/ The three counter-demonstrators want all Chinese persons to get out of their Hong Kong. Two policemen tried to protect the three from the angry mob screaming "Kill them!" and "Wastrels!"

- When the demonstrators react so angrily, it proves that they were not paid actors. At HK$300, nobody is going to react this way.

- Well, what upsets the "pro-democracy" crowd today is less so this demonstration than the YouTube video of Donald Trump's granddaughter Arabella reciting a nursery rhyme Little White Rabbit in putonghua. Hey, doesn't she realize that China is going to melt down any minute down and Hong Kong is going to be independent?

Hey, it's a good thing too. Everybody knows that the White Rabbit is codeword for LSD.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 14, 2016.

Every time there is a presidential election, some people in Hong Kong would wake up to the fact that there is no one-person-one-vote system in the United States!

Young people may not know this, ordinary citizens may not know that, but people like legislators Martin Lee, Alan Leong, Anson Chan, Audrey Eu, Emily Lau and James To ought to know, right?

Sixteen years ago, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush in terms of the popular vote, but he lost in the electoral college and therefore did not make it into the White House. So even as this self-appointed world sheriff criticize the state of freedom and democracy everywhere else, they don't have it either. Ordinary Hong Kong citizens may not know, but those American godsons (=Hong Kong pan-democrats) must surely know.

According to the American government, the so-called international standard for genuine universe suffrage is an impossible dream for Americans. Their current system is inherited from history, and it is hard to change things because it will cause social rifts and blowbacks. Such being the case, then why are the Americans pushing "I want genuine universal suffrage" in tiny Hong Kong, so as to cause social rifts and blowbacks here?

Now there is payback. After Trump was elected president, there were riots everywhere. California, Oregon, and even Silicon Valley want independence. Anti-Trump demonstrators block streets and commit assaults, vandalism, looting and arson. All this sounds very familiar.

The American police adhered to international standards and fired tear gas first, then rubber bullets. The pro-American pan-democrats (including Joshua Wong who was in Miami promoting Hong Kong self-determination) maintained complete silence about what the Evil American Police were doing. No reporter was able to ask Benny Tai for his thoughts on the Evil American Police firing rubber bullets at unarmed citizens exercising their freedoms of assembly and expression.

Two years ago, 89 tear gas canisters in Admiralty caused all of Hong Kong to cry for the poor students and the international community to join in. Today, Americans fighting for "genuine universal suffrage" are facing batons, tear gas and rubber bullets. Where are their Hong Kong fellow travelers? Are American lives worth less than Hongkongers lives? Trump won by getting 306 out of 538 votes in the electoral college. That number is less than CY Leung's 689 votes. Why don't you people deplore what is happening in the United States? Why aren't you going to America to support its people? Why aren't you donating money to help Americans? Why aren't Hong Kong teachers and students on strike? Why are Hong Kong newspaper columnists not writing blanks slots to express their rage?

When you were "persecuted", the Americans gave you all the help that you need; today the Americans are in trouble, so why aren't you return the favor and help them? Or is it because you suddenly recognize right from wrong when it is happening elsewhere?

More at Occupy Central Part 7

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
Occupy Central Part 6
Occupy Central Part 7 (601+)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com