(v4.0)

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

(The Stand News) August 24, 2016.

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

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

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

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

Videos:

https://youtu.be/6gw4ur9ToSw

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) August 21, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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


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


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

Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme five-day rolling poll (as of August 23, 2016).

District Countil (Second) Functional Constituency
ID# Name (Party)

%

801 James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) 16%
802 Starry Lee (DAB) 17%
803 Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) 5%
804 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) <0.5%
805 Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) 2%
806 Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) 6%
807 Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) 1%
808 Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 8%
809 Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) 5%

Hong Kong Island
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Gary Wong Chi Him (independent) 1%
2 Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) 1%
3 Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) 21%
4 Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) 2%
5 Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) 5%
6 Chim Pui Chung (independent) 1%
7 Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) 1%
8 Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) 4%
9 Shum Chee Chiu (independent) <0.5%
10 Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) 10%
11 Chui Chi Kin (independent) <0.5%
12 Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) 3%
13 Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) 4%
14 Tanya Chan (Civic Party) 10%
15 Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) 5%

Kowloon West
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) 3%
2 Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) <0.5%
3 Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) 8%
4 Leung Mei Fun (BPA) 14%
5 Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) 3%
6 Chu Siu Hung (independent) <0.5%
7 Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) 5%
8 Helena Wong  Pik Wan (Democratic Party) 8%
9 Lam Yi Lai (independent) <0.5%
10 Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) 10%
11 Kwan San Wai (independent) <0.5%
12 Lau Siu Lai (independent) 7%
13 Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) 3%
14 Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) 1%
15 Tik Chi Yuen (independent) 3%

Kowloon East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) 9%
2 Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) 10%
3 Patrict Ko Tat Pun (independent) <0.5%
4 Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) 1%
5 Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) 8%
6 Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) 12%
7 Lui Wing Kei (independent) <1%
8 Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) 10%
9 Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) 11%
10 Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) 5%
11 Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) 3%
12 Tam Tak Chi (People Power) 4%

New Territories West
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 1%
2 Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 5%
3 Ko Chi Fai (independent) <0.5%
4 Chow Wing Kan (Liberal Party) 1%
5 Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 5%
6 Kwong Koon Wan (independent) <0.5%
7 Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 12%
8 Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 4%
9 Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 7%
10 Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 6%
11 Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 3%
12 Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) 5%
13 Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 2%
14 Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 5%
15 Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 2%
16 Chan Han Pan (DAB) 5%
17 Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) <0.5%
18 Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) <0.5%
19 Tong Wing Chi (independent) 1%
20 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 2%

New Territories East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) 5%
2 Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) 4%
3 Liu Tin Shing (independent) <0.5%
4 Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) 4%
5 Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) 3%
6 Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) 3%
7 Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) 12%
8 Raymond Mak Ka Chun (independent) <0.5%
9 Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) 4%
10 Elizabeth Quat (DAB) 7%
11 Hau Chi Keung (independent) <0.5%
12 Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) 4%
13 Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) 2%
14 Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) 3%
15 Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) <0.5%
16 Wong Sum Yu (independent) <0.5%
17 Leticia Lee See Yin <0.5%
18 Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) 2%
19 Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) 5%
20 Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) <0.5%
21 Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) 3%
22 Chan Hak Kan (DAB) 5%

(HKG Pao) August 23, 2016.

With respect to the rolling polls conducted by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, two political parties held a press conference to lodge complaints. The first political party People Power said that the rolling polls are based upon small samples with large sampling errors. Furthermore, the interviews read only the first candidate on the list. The second political party said that their incumbent legislator Chan Wai Yip was second on the list and therefore this presentation puts them into a disadvantage.

In 2008 and 2012, the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme read out the first three names on a list, because many political parties put their better known members in second place. As a result, Chan Wai Yip estimated that he has to spend 80% of his time trying to tell people not to trust the polls instead of expounding on his own policy platform. Chan Wai Yip also said that his list had been 5% at one point, but is now less than 0.5%. He asked: "Is someone paying you to do this?" He said that if he loses, then the blame will be on the polling.

On August 19, Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme responded: "Due to limited resources, the rolling polls had a smaller sample at first. The sample sizes will be increased in the latter stages and the sampling errors will decrease in a corresponding manner." So HKU POP is admitting that their sample sizes are small and that the accuracy has room for improvement. No wonder the political parties are critical.

(SCMP) August 22, 2016.

Pollsters at the University of Hong Kong made a U-turn on Monday and changed the methodology of a rolling poll on the Legislative Council elections after political parties across the spectrum cast doubts on its reliability.

Angry parties, including the Democrats, People Power and the Liberal Party, had pointed to the small sample size of the poll 100 to 300 people in each of the five geographical constituencies and the pollsters failure to mention aspirants placed second on a slate when questioning respondents.

Several outgoing lawmakers are running second on tickets in an attempt to secure seats for their protgs. Under the proportional representation system these veterans have little chance of winning.

In a statement last Friday, the HKU Public Opinion Programme said it would not consider altering its methodology as it had found no significant statistical difference between mentioning one and two candidates on the slate in a test when polling 469 people from August 11 to 15. But it backtracked and decided to mention two candidates on the slate to respondents from Monday night onwards.

[HKU POP] made this decision after taking into account opinions from all walks of life and we believe [the change] is manageable, Frank Lee, the programmes research manager, told the Post.

The pollsters had earlier said the number of slates in direct elections had increased drastically and they had no choice but to name only the first aspirant on each list, saying it was the best they could do. When asked if they could have done better from the beginning, Lee said: We will not look back.

Dominic Lee Tsz-king, a Liberal Party candidate running in New Territories East who had criticised the polls methodology, said he welcomes the pollsters making amends. The level of support for Lees list, with veteran James Tien Pei-chun standing in second place, was 4.1 per cent when Tiens name was read to respondents. Without Tiens name read out it was 2.6 per cent, according to the test.

People Powers Albert Chan Wai-yip, who is running second with the League of Social Democrats Raphael Wong Ho-ming in New Territories West, said the change had come too late as the damage had been done. The TV and radio have been running the results of the poll every hour and voters have already formed an impression on the candidates, he said.

The parties earlier had expressed their worries over the poll, which they said might mislead voters into giving up on hopefuls who in fact had a chance of winning.

The poll was commissioned by three media organisations and Power of Democracy.

(HKG Pao) August 23, 2016.

There is a discussion forum post which cites a HKU POP worker that the polling numbers for certain pro-establishment candidates are artificially inflated in order to boost votes for 'pro-democracy' candidates.

The information is given in a table. For example, the original data showed that Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee had 9% support. But a new target is set to be 16% and her number was artificially adjusted up to 16%. Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme has not yet responded to press inquiries.

Here is a translation of the post:

"Deep throat" revelation: Pan-democrats fix opinion polls to fool people

Last night, I went drinking with a friend who works at a think tank. After four bottles, our heads were spinning and we began to talk about the Legislative Council elections ...

He said confidently that the pro-establishment camp won't be able to get 15 seats in the geographical constituencies.

I said that I don't believe it!

He challenged me to a bet: How about two Lafite's?

I never back off from a challenge!!! So I immediately took him on.

"Dear friend, what do you know? Right now, the poll results on Cable TV have been fixed ... the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme research assistant Shiry told me that Power For Democracy has artificially raised the poll numbers for the pro-establishment candidates.

For example, Mrs. Ip has a support level of 9%, less than Ricky Wong's 10%. But they inflated it to 16%. Leung Mei Fun has only 4.3% support, even less than Yau Wai Ching. But she is being boosted up to 7%. The same thing with Wong Kwok Kin."

I asked: "What is the advantage?"

"Fuck! I was right what I said that you know nothing! They do so in order to play up the pan-democrats as victims and get the sympathy vote. The pro-establishment camp appeared to be heavy favorites, but they may lose everything. I even got a photo of their document. Let me send this over to you. You are going to lose this one for sure."

The fucking Power For Democracy has caused me to lose two Lafites. Today I am telling you about this dirty secret, so that the Electoral Affairs Commission can arrest these bastards."

(The Standard) June 6, 2016.

Eighteen pro-democracy groups have formed an alliance to promote strategic voting in the September Legislative Council elections under the "ThunderGo" plan of University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai Yiu-tin.

The alliance, Citizens United in Action, hopes to topple the pro- establishment camp as the majority in Legco. One of its works is to promote the interactive polling tool "Votsonar" to collect the voting preference of more than 100,000 voters.

It aims to guide strategic voters to cast their ballots so that most legislators of their camp will be elected. The tool was launched last month on a free messaging app, Telegram, but by Saturday only about 2,000 people had joined.

Angus Chiu Chi-fan, Civic Data HK spokesman responsible for Votsonar, said: "I believe the number of participants will keep increasing and approach 100,000.

"And it's more like big data. The number of samples is much larger than random sampling of the HKU opinion polls, allowing higher accuracy."

Tai said 15 percent of voters may want strategic voting to maximize the number of legislators in their camp. That means 200,000 out of 1.2 million non-pro-establishment voters, which would be enough to return 35 legislators to Legco.

"That would make 30,000 to 40,000 voters in each district. With such a number of strategic voters, we can even get 25 seats in the geographical constituency, not mentioning 23 [pan- democrats]," he said.

Votsonar will then provide "accurate information" for strategic voters to cast their ballots.

Tai played down worries it may breach the Election Ordinance. "We won't tell voters to vote or not to vote for candidates A or B. What voters will receive is only the support rate of the candidates, so that they will consider whose chance of winning is higher, and make strategic decisions."

(Wen Wei Po) August 23, 2016.

In his live broadcast  yesterday, Sze Tat Chau criticized Votsonar for attempting to manipulate voter intentions and get votes for wastrels. He showed how he and his friends have voted together to become kingmakers. Thus, in New Territories West, Wong Ho Ming is now leading; in New Territories East, Chan Chi Chuen has surpassed Alvin Yeung, etc. "Unfortunately, we are not doing as well in Kowloon West because my friends have only started ... Do you want me and my friends to vote for CK Ho? ... Fine, let us vote him! Let's go, Votsonar!"

The Facebook page Look7s also called for people to vote for CK Ho at Votsonar. "Let us all support CK Ho so that he becomes the top vote getter at Votsonar. We are doing everything that we can to help Benny Tai."

Overnight, CK Ho went from dead last in Kowloon West to the top. Sze Tat Chau said happily: "I want to see how Evil Tai goes thunder down. I am dying from laughter." He added: "The so-called Project ThunderGo by Benny Tai has been laid waste in one instant by good friends. The pan-democrats' plan to built their empire on top of the voters' will is fragile. When Benny Tai wakes up this morning, he may have to call CK Ho to lend some votes to Claudia Mo and Helena Wong.!"


Out of 913 persons, 484 (53%) voted for CK Ho.

Q1. What is the issue that you are most concerned about?
25.1%: Political system/governance
20.8%: Land/housing
15.1%: Economic development
10.8%: Medical/healthcare
7.1%: Labor/employment
6.3%: Education
2.3%: Environmental protection
6.0%: Others
6.5%: No opinion

Q2. What is the main reason for deciding on whom to vote for?
32.1%: Past job performance
19.0%: Policy platform
18.2%: Political party background
16.3%: Political beliefs
5.1%: Candidate's image
1.9%: Strategic voting
3.2%: Others
4.1%: No opinion

Q3. How likely are you to vote?
53.5%: Definitely
18.1%: Most likely
3.5%: Most likely not
1.1%: Definitely not
4.8%: Undecided
19.0%: No opinion

District Countil (Second) Functional Constituency
ID# Name (Party)

%

801 James To Kun Shun (Democratic Party) 18.6%
802 Starry Lee (DAB) 20.0%
803 Kwong Chun Yu (Democratic Party) 3.7%
804 Kalvin Ho Kai Ming (ADPL) 2.3%
805 Sumly Chan Yuen Sum (Civic Party) 3.6%
806 Wong Kwok Hing (Federation of Trade Unions) 6.9%
807 Kwan Wing Yip (Neo Democrats) 2.5%
808 Leung Yiu Chung (Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 8.2%
809 Holden Chow Ho Ding (DAB) 3.9%
  Undecided 22.4%
  No opinion 7.9%

Hong Kong Island
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Gary Wong Chi Him (independent) 0.3%
2 Christopher Lau Gar Hung (People Power) 1.8%
3 Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee (New People's Party) 18.2%
4 Cyd Ho Sau Lan (Labour Party) 6.0%
5 Cheung Kwok Kwan (DAB) 8.2%
6 Chim Pui Chung (independent) 1.7%
7 Cheng Kam Mun (Civic Passion) 2.3%
8 Nathan Law Kwun Chung (Demosisto) 1.4%
9 Shum Chee Chiu (independent) 0.3%
10 Ricky Wong Wai Kay (independent) 11.1%
11 Chui Chi Kin (independent) 0.3%
12 Paulus Johannes Zimmerman (independent) 2.0%
13 Hui Chi Fung (Democratic Party) 5.1%
14 Tanya Chan (Civic Party) 15.4%
15 Kwok Wai Keung (Federation of Trade Unions) 4.2%
  Undecided 17.9%
  No opinion 3.8%

Kowloon West
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Avery Ng Man Yuen (League of Social Democrats) 3.7%
2 Jonathan Ho Chi Kwong (independent) 0.4%
3 Claudia Mo Man Ching (Civic Party) 14.2%
4 Leung Mei Fun (BPA) 10.5%
5 Tam Kwok Kiu (ADPL) 4.1%
6 Chu Siu Hung (independent) 0.1%
7 Raymond Wong Yuk Man (Proletariat Political Institute) 5.8%
8 Helena Wong  Pik Wan (Democratic Party) 8.0%
9 Lam Yi Lai (independent) 0.2%
10 Ann Chiang Lai Wan (DAB) 13.1%
11 Kwan San Wai (independent) 0.3%
12 Lau Siu Lai (independent) 2.5%
13 Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) 6.0%
14 Augustine Lee Wing Hon (independent) 0.9%
15 Tik Chi Yuen (independent) 5.0%
  Undecided 18.1%
  No opinion 7.1%

Kowloon East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Kwok Kin (Federation of Trade Unions) 12.4%
2 Wu Sui Shan (Labour Party) 1.1%
3 Patrict Ko Tat Pun (independent) 0.3%
4 Tam Heung Man (The Frontier) 1.1%
5 Paul Tse Wai Chun (independent) 7.0%
6 Wilson Or Chong Shing (DAB) 11.5%
7 Lui Wing Kei (independent) 0.2%
8 Wu Chi Wai (Democratic Party) 13.5%
9 Jeremy Tam Man Ho (Civic Party) 17.1%
10 Wong Yeung Tat (Civic Passion) 4.5%
11 Chan Chak To (Kowloon East Community) 1.4%
12 Tam Tak Chi (People Power) 2.5%
  Undecided 21.4%
  No opinion 6.0%

New Territories Wst
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Wong Yun Tat ( Neighborhood & Worker's Service Centre) 2.1%
2 Andrew Wan Siu Kin (Democratic Party) 5.9%
3 Ko Chi Fai (independent) 0.3%
4 Chow Wing Kan (independent) 0.9%
5 Cheng Chung Tai (Civic Passion) 2.9%
6 Kwong Koon Wan (independent) 0.1%
7 Michael Tien Puk Sun (New People's Party) 12.0%
8 Ho Kwan Yiu (independent) 4.3%
9 Leung Che Cheung (DAB) 5.4%
10 Kwok Ka Ki (Civic Party) 5.7%
11 Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats) 3.3%
12 Lee Cheuk Yan (Confederation of Trade Unions) 5.2%
13 Wong Chun Kit (Youngspiration) 5.0%
14 Mak Mei Kuen (Federation of Trade Unions) 4.7%
15 Frederick Fung Kin Kee (ADPL) 4.4%
16 Chan Han Pan (DAB) 6.3%
17 Clarice Cheung Wai Ching (independent) 0.4%
18 Hendrick Lui Chi Hang (independent) 0.0%
19 Tong Wing Chi (independent) 0.2%
20 Eddie Chu Hoi Dick (independent) 1.8%
  Undecided 22.7%
  No opinion 6.4%

New Territories East
ID# Name (Party)

%

1 Christine Fong Kwok Shan (independent) 4.6%
2 Lam Cheuk Ting (Democratic Party) 4.0%
3 Liu Tin Shing (independent) 0.2%
4 Chin Wan Kan (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) 2.5%
5 Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats) 3.6%
6 Cheung Chiu Hung (Labour Party) 3.3%
7 Alvin Yeung Ngok Kiu (Civic Party) 12.5%
8 Raymond Mak Ka Chun (independent) 0.9%
9 Andrew Cheng Kar Foo (independent) 3.9%
10 Elizabeth Quat (DAB) 10.0%
11 Hau Chi Keung (independent) 0.5%
12 Dominic Lee Tsz King (Liberal Party) 6.0%
13 Tang Ka Piu (Federation of Trade Unions) 2.5%
14 Gary Fan Kwok Wai (Neo Democrats) 3.7%
15 Estella Chan Yuk Ngor (independent) 0.1%
16 Wong Sum Yu (independent) 0.1%
17 Leticia Lee See Yin 0.5%
18 Raymond Chan Chi Chuen (People Power) 2.2%
19 Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Youngspiration) 3.1%
20 Ronald Leung Kam Shing (independent) 0.3%
21 Yung Hoi Yan (New People's Party) 4.4%
22 Chan Hak Kan (DAB) 5.5%
  Undecided 19.9%
  No opinion 5.7%

(Gizmodo) August 18, 2016

Heres a case where film marketers being incurably Western causes a big problem: Arrival released 12 posters depicting alien monoliths appearing across the world. One of them photoshopped a building from Shanghai into a Hong Kong skyline. Oops.

Bigger oops was not thinking about the tense history between Hong Kong and China, of which Shanghai is the largest city. (Full disclosure: io9 identified the poster as being of Shanghai when we published it.)

Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, when the Handover transferred its sovereignty to China. Theres been a fair amount of tension between Hong Kong and mainland China, especially in recent years. The political unrest culminated recently in the proliferation of groups calling for independence from China. And then Arrival stepped right into that debate.

The tower in the righthand corner is the distinctive Oriental Pearl Tower, a TV tower in Shanghai. The rest of the poster is of Victoria Harbour, a name that pretty clearly gives it away as being in Hong Kong and not Shanghai.

This has caused a pretty predictable backlash. If you want to see marketing gone horribly, horribly wrong, go scroll through the 2,700and risingcomments on the image on Facebook. Youll find its been taken over by people proclaiming #HongKongIsNotChina. Commenter Cherry Ben took it even further than just the hashtag with, Lets boycott this piece of shit. Putting the fucking tower in Vic. Harbour doesnt mean it represents China you fucking idiot. #Hongkongisnotchina

Mostly, though, the comments are exactly what youd expect. Some polite requests that the marketers do some research and respect other nations before doing things like this. Others making fun of them for making a stupid mistake. Some general dislike of the design of the tower. A fair bit of mocking the Why are they here? tagline, which seems especially ironic given this mistake. But mostly, comment after comment with just the hashtag.

Although the best response has to come from Horace Chin Wan-kan, a leader of the Hong Kong Autonomy Movement and who is running Hong Kongs Legislative Council election. Heres his response, as reported by Variety:

The movie adaptation of the sci-fi novel Arrival, which obtained the Nebula Award, [has] decent director Denis Villeneuve and actors Amy Adams [and] Jeremy Renner. However, everything is ruined by this improper poster.

The use of decent there is an especially strong burn.

Let this be a lesson to marketers and moviemakers everywhere: sometimes your ignorance just makes you look dumb. Sometimes its a political nightmare.

(SCMP) Hong Kong Taken Out of the Picture. By Alex Lo. August 22, 2016.

Another day, another localist controversy. This time its over a Hollywood sci-fi movie. Paramount Pictures has apparently produced a geographically and hence politically incorrect poster for its upcoming movie about aliens called Arrival.

The offending picture includes Shanghais iconic Oriental Pearl Radio and Television Tower as part of the cityscape of Hong Kong while an alien spacecraft hovers over it.

The inaccuracy has caused a storm of protests among localists and their sympathisers. The social media page with the hashtag #hongkongisnotchina has attracted a massive following.

Unlike our localists, Hollywood has long thought of Hong Kong as part of China. In any case, Tinseltown has had a long history of getting Hong Kong wrong, so what else is new? I am no film historian but arguably, it all started with Love is a Many-Splendored Thing. When Dr Han Suyin heard news that her lover, the journalist Mark Elliot played by William Holden, had been killed while covering the Korean war, she ran in tears from Wan Chai to what was supposed to be the Peak where they had a romantic encounter. The marathon run would have exhausted anyone. In fact, it was quite unrealistic, unless Dr Han had superpower.

And that reminds me of Michael Bays fantasy sci-fi movie franchise Transformers. The last one, Age of Extinction, was shot mostly on the mainland but Hong Kong also experienced some major destruction in the movie. Sadly for our localists, Government House and the government headquarters in Admiralty were left intact.

In the last part where the main characters had to rush from Beijing to Hong Kong to confront the evil alien robots Decepticons, their drive was so short it could have been taken from Wan Chai to Causeway Bay. If you didnt know better, you might think our nations capital is right next door where Shenzhen is.

Because of the furore, Paramount Pictures and international distributor Sony Pictures have quietly replaced the poster. Well, you guess it, Hong Kong is gone, but they keep the tower where it is, in Shanghai, and features the spacecraft hovering over the citys famous Huangpu River.

This incident pretty much sums up what would happen if our localists and secessionists have their way. Outsiders and other countries will just drop Hong Kong out of the picture and go straight to the mainland.

Internet comments:

- Here is a very funny spoof video on the movie poster producers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isq5AQBsg00

- (The Stand News) Some Hong Kong Internet users found the response unacceptable and continued to leave comments with the hashtags #HongKongIsNotChina and #BoycottArrivalMovie. They demanded that the movie companies apologize to the people of Hong Kong. "If you want to earn RMB, you should go to China and not come to Hong Kong!"

- Boycott this movie? They don't buy movie tickets anyway. They can just go to mainland Chinese BT websites to download for free. P.S. For that purpose, they suddenly know how to read simplified Chinese characters. At all other times, they will avert their eyes.

- Don't worry. When the movie Arrival arrives, the DAB/FTU and the Heung Yee Kuk will mobilize their people to buy movie tickets.

(Gizmodo) August 18, 2016

Heres a case where film marketers being incurably Western causes a big problem: Arrival released 12 posters depicting alien monoliths appearing across the world. One of them photoshopped a building from Shanghai into a Hong Kong skyline. Oops.

Bigger oops was not thinking about the tense history between Hong Kong and China, of which Shanghai is the largest city. (Full disclosure: io9 identified the poster as being of Shanghai when we published it.)

Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, when the Handover transferred its sovereignty to China. Theres been a fair amount of tension between Hong Kong and mainland China, especially in recent years. The political unrest culminated recently in the proliferation of groups calling for independence from China. And then Arrival stepped right into that debate.

The tower in the righthand corner is the distinctive Oriental Pearl Tower, a TV tower in Shanghai. The rest of the poster is of Victoria Harbour, a name that pretty clearly gives it away as being in Hong Kong and not Shanghai.

This has caused a pretty predictable backlash. If you want to see marketing gone horribly, horribly wrong, go scroll through the 2,700and risingcomments on the image on Facebook. Youll find its been taken over by people proclaiming #HongKongIsNotChina. Commenter Cherry Ben took it even further than just the hashtag with, Lets boycott this piece of shit. Putting the fucking tower in Vic. Harbour doesnt mean it represents China you fucking idiot. #Hongkongisnotchina

Mostly, though, the comments are exactly what youd expect. Some polite requests that the marketers do some research and respect other nations before doing things like this. Others making fun of them for making a stupid mistake. Some general dislike of the design of the tower. A fair bit of mocking the Why are they here? tagline, which seems especially ironic given this mistake. But mostly, comment after comment with just the hashtag.

Although the best response has to come from Horace Chin Wan-kan, a leader of the Hong Kong Autonomy Movement and who is running Hong Kongs Legislative Council election. Heres his response, as reported by Variety:

The movie adaptation of the sci-fi novel Arrival, which obtained the Nebula Award, [has] decent director Denis Villeneuve and actors Amy Adams [and] Jeremy Renner. However, everything is ruined by this improper poster.

The use of decent there is an especially strong burn.

Let this be a lesson to marketers and moviemakers everywhere: sometimes your ignorance just makes you look dumb. Sometimes its a political nightmare.

(SCMP) Hong Kong Taken Out of the Picture. By Alex Lo. August 22, 2016.

Another day, another localist controversy. This time its over a Hollywood sci-fi movie. Paramount Pictures has apparently produced a geographically and hence politically incorrect poster for its upcoming movie about aliens called Arrival.

The offending picture includes Shanghais iconic Oriental Pearl Radio and Television Tower as part of the cityscape of Hong Kong while an alien spacecraft hovers over it.

The inaccuracy has caused a storm of protests among localists and their sympathisers. The social media page with the hashtag #hongkongisnotchina has attracted a massive following.

Unlike our localists, Hollywood has long thought of Hong Kong as part of China. In any case, Tinseltown has had a long history of getting Hong Kong wrong, so what else is new? I am no film historian but arguably, it all started with Love is a Many-Splendored Thing. When Dr Han Suyin heard news that her lover, the journalist Mark Elliot played by William Holden, had been killed while covering the Korean war, she ran in tears from Wan Chai to what was supposed to be the Peak where they had a romantic encounter. The marathon run would have exhausted anyone. In fact, it was quite unrealistic, unless Dr Han had superpower.

And that reminds me of Michael Bays fantasy sci-fi movie franchise Transformers. The last one, Age of Extinction, was shot mostly on the mainland but Hong Kong also experienced some major destruction in the movie. Sadly for our localists, Government House and the government headquarters in Admiralty were left intact.

In the last part where the main characters had to rush from Beijing to Hong Kong to confront the evil alien robots Decepticons, their drive was so short it could have been taken from Wan Chai to Causeway Bay. If you didnt know better, you might think our nations capital is right next door where Shenzhen is.

Because of the furore, Paramount Pictures and international distributor Sony Pictures have quietly replaced the poster. Well, you guess it, Hong Kong is gone, but they keep the tower where it is, in Shanghai, and features the spacecraft hovering over the citys famous Huangpu River.

This incident pretty much sums up what would happen if our localists and secessionists have their way. Outsiders and other countries will just drop Hong Kong out of the picture and go straight to the mainland.

Internet comments:

- Here is a very funny spoof video on the movie poster producers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isq5AQBsg00

- (The Stand News) Some Hong Kong Internet users found the response unacceptable and continued to leave comments with the hashtags #HongKongIsNotChina and #BoycottArrivalMovie. They demanded that the movie companies apologize to the people of Hong Kong. "If you want to earn RMB, you should go to China and not come to Hong Kong!"

- Boycott this movie? They don't buy movie tickets anyway. They can just go to mainland Chinese BT websites to download for free.

(Harbour Times) August 3, 2016.

Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang (梁頌恆), inspiration of Youngspiration, has the thumbs up to run in the New Territories East.

Hong Kong Indigenous Edward Leung Tin-kei (梁天琦), a massive vote winner in the February by-election has been denied to the voters in New Territories East by the Electoral Affairs Commission via the Registration and Electoral Office and Returning Officer Cora Ho Lai-sheung (何麗嫦).

Now Baggio Leung will square off against the philosopher-king of localism, Horace Chin Wan-kan (陳云根), aka Chin Wan (陳雲) of the Civic Passion-Hong Kong Resurgence Order-Proletariat Political Institute alliance headliners.  

It wasnt meant to be this way. Baggio Leung originally planned to run on Hong Kong Island, but decided to join Kenny Wong Chun-kits (黃俊傑) bid in New Territories West as the third-ranked candidate in Wongs list. Presumably Baggion Leungs name recognition would help Mr Wongs ticket to attract votes.

According to Baggio Leung, the two signature localist groups came up with a joint election list a week before the nomination period ended. Their plan B saw them propose a list headed by Baggio Leung followed by former Hong Kong Indigenous member Li Tung-sing (李東昇).

The original idea was to secure [Edward Leung] Tin-keis candidacy by increasing the political costs of banning both lists for the Electoral Affairs Commission, while lowering the effectiveness of disqualifying him alone, he explains. In other words, it was meant to show to the election watchdog the futility of banning Edward Leung from the election.

Planning for all contingencies, the final result is the Youngspiration and Hong Kong Indigenous Plan B. Edward Leung will move to help coordinate election efforts in New Territories East, New Territories West, and Kowloon West where Youngspiration is running.

Commenting on the coalition, Baggio Leung says there are many similarities among the two groups, particularly on some general concepts concerning Hong Kong nationalism and self-determination. When we joined the All-IN-6 campaign during the New Territories East Legco by-election in February, we were not only backing [Leung] Tin-kei [whose candidate number was Six] but also his platform, he notes.

Baggio Leung hopes that voters wont be voting for him out of sympathy, but out of a sense of crisis in face of an executive branch exceeding its authority to bar candidates from running through the mechanism of the EAC. Meanwhile, he stresses some subtle differences that differentiate his camp from the rival localist bloc represented by Chin.

Id describe Chins advocacy of a de facto referendum, a universal constitutional reform and a permanent continuation of the Basic Law as a variation of One Country, Two Systems, which are essentially different from our nationality-centred ideology, Baggio Leung explains. Localist supporters will make their own choice.

(HKG Pao) August 11, 2016.

Youngspiration has three lists in the Legislative Council elections. Some people think that their candidates do not have good speaking skills. Youngspiration spokesperson Wong Chu-kit said on a Hong Kong Indigenous radio program that he has been spending at least one hour a day on speaking techniques. He joked that his trainer told him to use more foul language "which would be more relaxed and locally flavored."

Edward Leung Tin-kei thinks that he has good speaking skills which were acquired by experience as an online radio host. He said that he will become the commander-in-chief for the three Youngspiration lists, and he will hold mock debates with their candidates "so that they can internalize the political beliefs of Hong Kong Indigenous." He encourages the Youngspiration candidates to appear at more election forums.

(RTHK) August 16, 2016.

Yau Wai-ching: Today I offer everybody one word. The fifty-second sign in the Book of Change was "mountain." That means that our beliefs will be as unmovable as a mountain. All along, we have the fighting spirit to pave the road for Hong Kong's future. You add this together you will get "relentless." In the past, the people of Hong Kong has been too charitable towards the Hong Kong Communist Government. From now on, we will be  relentless. When it comes to the government, we will be relentless. This is how we will take back what is ours. Thank you. I am candidate number 13, Yau Wai-ching.

Augustine Lee Wing-hon: I want to post a question to Yau Wai-ching. She just brought up the word "relentless." I would like to know the definition of "relentless." Do you think that the Legislative Council is not chaotic enough? Do you want to get in and make sure that there is bloodshed before you are satisfied? What is being 'relentless'? When you spoke, you voice was quivering. When you said "relentless", your voice was quivering. So how are you going to be "relentless"?

Yau Wai-ching: You should make the effort to go home and consult a dictionary.

Augustine Lee Wing-hon: Are you supposed to have answered my question?

Yau Wai-ching: I don't want to waste my time.

Augustine Lee Wing-hon: You said it. You said that you will be relentless. How relentless?  What is being relentless?

Yau Wai-ching: Be relentless against the Hong Kong Communists.

Augustine Lee Wing-hon: I am 100% Hongkonger. I have the right to ask you in what way will you be relentless.

Yau Wai-ching: That is to say, you don't plan to be relentless against the Hong Kong Communist government. When you enter the Legislative Council, you only want to perform public service for the Hong Kong Government.

Augustine Lee Wing-hon: I am asking you. Don't ask me a question back. Do not use this type of political ruse. How relentless will you be? Will you throwing bricks?

Yau Wai-ching: How am I going to throw bricks inside the Legislative Council?

Augustine Lee Wing-hon: Will you?

Yau Wai-ching: I want to say, How am I going to throw bricks inside the Legislative Council? There is not a single brick inside the Legislative Council.

Lam Yi-lai: Then why don't you throw bricks in the Mong Kok streets? I have never seen you show up in Mong Kok. What are you saying about Localism? What are you saying about Hong Kong independence? You are lying to the young people to get their votes?

Yau Wai-ching: I have not shown up in Mong Kok? I reside in Mong Kok.

Lam Yi-lai: And you want to enter the Legislative Council? Is Hong Kong not chaotic enough? Huh?

Yau Wai-ching: You should not make things up, Lam Yi-lai. I reside in Mong Kok. How can I not show up in Mong Kok?

Lam Yi-lai: You were in Occupy Mong Kok? I have never seen you before.

Yau Wai-ching: At the time, I was an unknown. When I walked down the street, you wouldn't recognize me.

Lam Yi-lai: All of Hong Kong knows you. Throwing bricks, localists, Hong Kong independence. I want to ask you, how are you going to bring about Hong Kong independence.

More at RTHK.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 19, 2016.

A recently founded yet influential Taiwanese party has denied a report that it will come to Hong Kong to rally support for a localist party. A candidate of the Hong Kong party has apologized for misinformation given to a news site.

Local Press, an online news site close to localist groups, quoted Youngspiration candidate Kenny Wong Chun-kit as saying that Taiwans New Power Party (NPP) including their lawmaker Hung Tzu-yun will come to Hong Kong at the end of next week for an election rally.

But the NPP soon denied the report, saying that none of its five lawmakers had such plans. Our party is concerned about Hong Kongs development in democracy, we support full universal suffrage, it said. We welcome Hong Kongs civil society joining the election. But we have never discussed the development and support of individual parties.

In January, Huang Kuo-chang, then NPP candidate for Taiwans legislature, was denied a visa to Hong Kong for the second time.

Local Press apologised to the NPP in a statement, saying that it only cited Wong, but failed to confirm the news with NPP.

Around the same time, Wong told Stand News that there was a mistake in the Local Press report, as Youngspiration was still in talks with NPP and it was not confirmed. Five hours later, Wong backtracked and apologised to Local Press for providing misinformation in a statement: It was due to my failure to express the information in a good manner.

Wong said he had discussed with the NPP plans to visit Hong Kong, but he caused a misunderstanding as he told Local Press before they were confirmed.

Wong, a candidate running in the New Territories West constituency in the upcoming election, said he was willing to accept a disciplinary hearing from his party. But some pointed out that Youngspiration has no such mechanism.

But many localist supporters were not satisfied with Wongs apology, saying that he should not have blamed Local Press in his response to Stand News.

Another Youngspiration candidate, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chun-hang, was supported by Edward Leung Tin-kei as a substitute candidate in the New Territories East constituency, after Leungs candidacy was rejected by an election official.

Localist supporters voiced their discontent towards Wong during a localist online programme which over 2,600 people viewed, saying that Wong harmed the reputation of Local Press and Leung.

In a statement, a government spokesman said that the Government does not welcome activists who pursue the notion of Taiwan independence to come to Hong Kong to campaign for Hong Kong political organisations.

(HKG Pao) August 20, 2016.

Due to the reaction to the New Power Party story, Wong Chun-kit has resigned as the spokesperson for Youngspiration. Hong Kong Indigneous spokesperson Ray Wong said on online radio that he would not support Wong blindly just because they have an alliance with Youngspiration. "Wong was wrong this time. When he is wrong, he should admit it and rectify it. I don't want him to die; I only want him to start again."

Wong went on to say that Hong Kong Indigenous got into an alliance with Youngspiration after Edward Leung's nomination was invalidated. At first, "it was normal." "But the more we worked together, the more problems surfaced. The big problem is that none of the Youngspiration were prepared to get into politics."

Wong said that he can only hope that Youngspiration will do something better for everybody to see before the election. He hinted that he won't even support Youngspiration. "It is your freedom to cast your vote as you wish. This is your choice. You shouldn't vote for someone else's sake." So who should the localists vote for? Ray Wong said that the main mission is to grab the traditional pan-democrats' votes for the localists. Any further opinions on Youngspiration will be given after the elections.

(HKG Pao) August 21, 2016.

There appears to be a wave of departures at Youngspiration after the alliance was formed with Hong Kong Indigenous.

First of all, Kowloon City District Councilor Kwong Po-yin resigned. It is rumored that she has gone over to rival organization East Kowloon Community Concern Group to take charge of medical/healthcare policies. She will also attend as a volunteer for the East Kowloon Community Concern Group at election forums.

Now, Lai Yiu-chun who was a Youngspiration candidate for District Council has also departed for the East Kowloon Community Concern Group. Lai said that they parted on amicable terms. He said that he had resigned from Youngspiration because he had gotten a job. He is joinging the East Kowloon Communist Concern Group because he thought that they didn't have enough volunteers. Lai wrote on Facebook that he will be sleeping at the Concern Group's headquarters to make sure that he can given the maximum number of hours.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 21, 2016.

A womens rights group is accusing a Legislative Council candidate of making sexist comments during a televised debate on Sunday.

During the debate Grace Lam Yi-lai asked her opponent Yau Wai-ching if she and a localist ally used 100 Viagra pills together. The Kowloon West candidate also referred to Yau as a universal adaptor plug.

Lam accused Yau, from the Youngspiration political party, of using Viagra with Ray Wong Toi-yeung of fellow localist group Hong Kong Indigenous. Police discovered Viagra pills and HK$530,000 in cash in an apartment where Wong was arrested following violent clashes in Mong Kok this February.

What do [the pills] have to do with me? responded Yau when Lam pressed her again on the matter. Later in the debate, Lam later suggestively called Yau a universal adaptor plug.

In a statement on Stand News on Thursday, the Association Concerning Sexual Violence Against Women (ACSVAW) said that Lams comments were unacceptable, whether for the subject [of the attack] or for an observer.

Lam was not interested in discussing Yaus political views sex life and the female (and male) body should not be an obstacle to becoming a politician, read the statement.

The ACSVAW compared Lams comments to a Twitter post made by United States Presidential candidate Donald Trump last May, in which he claimed that fellow candidate Hillary Clinton was unable to satisfy her husband. It also pointed to the criticisms made by Taiwans Kuomintang political party against incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen for being an unmarried woman, and therefore a failure.

The issue of Viagra pills was initially raised by Simon Ho Chi-kwong, a candidate from Hong Kong Localism Power, during the televised debate hosted by RTHK. Ho asked Yau why her Youngspiration party accepted an endorsement from Hong Kong Indigenous, for whom Ray Wong is a spokesperson. Hong Kong Indigenous Edward Leung Tin-kei has been disqualified from the election next month.

Ho is known for sharply criticising other localist candidates for their unrealistic views. He alleged during the debate that the HK$530,000 found in the apartment where Wong was residing was laundered money.

Neither Lam nor Yau have publicly commented on the debate controversy.

Lam has run in various elections in Hong Kong since the 1990s. Among her various policy proposals, she is most well-known for advocating the criminalisation of adultery.

Yau, who ran unsuccessfully for a District Council seat last November, advocates self-determination for Hongkongers. Her Youngspiration party has proposed a number of policies with the aim of strengthening the citys identity, including tests for new immigrants and Hong Kong history classes.

Separately, local paper Sing Tao Daily invited fashion designer William Tang Tat-chi to be a guest columnist last week to rate the appearances of six female candidates in the Kowloon West constituency.

Tang praised the appearance of Priscilla Leung Mei-fun of the pro-Beijing Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong as refreshing, and said that Claudia Mo Man-ching of the pro-democracy Civic Party has an international look. However, he also claimed that Yau Wai-ching, in a chequered shirt and jeans, looked like a wet market woman.

Internet comments:

- You are kidding yourselves if you think that "ideas are everything" whereas "debating skills are worthless" and "ability is unimportant." I am fine with saying that debating skills aren't everything. I am even fine with someone drafting your policy platform for you. But when you show up at an election forum, you haven't even memorized your own policy platform, then this is unforgivable because you are ill-prepared for the election. If elected, you won't be prepared for your job either. Some candidates never look at their written notes but they can readily expound on their ideas. That is because they have thoroughly understood and internalized those ideas and their will is unshakeable.

- I just turned on the television and there was Yau Wai-ching being asked at an election forum about the item on "developing natural gas in Hong Kong" on her policy platform. Now I don't know enough about whether there is natural gas lying underneath the ground in Hong Kong. But I do know that you have no idea what this item is doing in your policy platform and therefore the Democratic Party candidate is ripping you to shreds.

Later someone went to ask Youngspiration's Kowloon East candidate Baggio Leung the same question. Leung said that there is a gas field 350 kilometers outside Hong Kong, and those resources can be used by Hong Kong by 'political means' or 'commercial means' to become self-sufficient in energy. Of course, Leung does not explain what 'political means' or 'commercial means' imply. He only said that this is pointless without an Exclusive Economic Zone for Hong Kong.

- (Wikipedia: Exclusive Economic Zone)

An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a sea zone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind. It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (nmi) from its coast.

Generally, a state's exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending seaward to a distance of no more than 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule occurs when exclusive economic zones would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime boundary. Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state.

Baggio Leung knows that there are no natural gas fields near Hong Kong. So he posits it somewhere 350 kilometers outside, right within the known limit of 370 kilometer for an Exclusive Economic Zone.

So why does he have to talk about 'political means'? Here is a map of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is in red and the rest of China is in yellow. Oh, no! There are Chinese islands to the south of Hong Kong! That means Hong Kong's Exclusive Economic Zone is circumscribed on all sides by China! If there is a natural gas field 350 kilometers out there, it belongs to China.

Oh, and there is the more fundamental problem is that Exclusive Economic Zones are owned by states. Hong Kong is not a state. It is not a member of the United Nations and can never be a state unless UN Security Council permanent member China votes AYE.

So it may be that Baggio Leung fully understands the situation. But he has no solution and he cannot admit that he has no solution.

- And this brings us to the issue of "innocent passage." Innocent passage is a concept in the law of the sea that allows for a vessel to pass through the territorial waters of another state, subject to certain restrictions. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines innocent passage as this:

Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

If Hong Kong imports from overseas, the cargo ships may or may not be allowed to pass. At a minimum, China may insist on inspecting the ships for arms.

- At least Yau Wai-ching did not talk about mining diamonds in Hong Kong. (Explanation: There is a place known as Diamond Hill in Kowloon!).

- Apart from her own policy platform, Yau Wai-ching could not answer a question on the amount of Old Age Allowance ("fruit money") currently being handed out.

- Yau Wai Ching was asked whether she still receives allowance money from her mom. She refused to answer.

- At the forums, Yau Wing-ching always says: "Blah blah blah ... I am Yau Wai Ching from Youngspiration. Please support me. I am Candidate #13, Yau Wai Ching. Please vote for me." In response to most questions, she says: "This sort of question? You should go ask XXX instead of me. I am Yau Wai Ching from Youngspiration. Please support me. I am Candidate #13, Yau Wai Ching. Please vote for me."

- (Ming Pao) August 23, 2016. Cable TV has a special segment <Say Say With You> to spring sudden questions on candidates. Yesterday, they showed how various Kowloon West candidates answered a question about the rules of procedure at the Legislative Council. Kwan San Wai, Chiang Lai Wan and Wong Yuk Man answered readily, but Yau Wai Ching (Youngspiration) said that she needed to think about it. Then the video showed a man approach Yau and whispered to her for a while. Aftewards, Yau answered the question on camera. Some people think that this was unfair to Yau because the audience could not hear what the man told her. Other people think that Yau needs to do her homework if she wants to become a Legislative Councilor.

Facebook video: https://www.facebook.com/silentmajorityhk/videos/1120972534658518/

- What can you do about an actress who refuses to memorize the script?

-  And who is the guy who read her the script at the last moment? Since he is obviously more informed, shouldn't he be running for election instead?

- Yau Wai Ching even told people to vote for her on September 3. Voting day is actually September 4. She is a total airhead with nothing between the ears.

- No. Yau Wai Ching is selling kawaii which means that her intelligence and knowledge are irrelevant. If elected, her job will not to explore any issues or ponder any legislation. She will show up at the Legco session and demand head counts. If there is no quorum, everybody can go home. If there is quorum, she'll stand on her chair, yell, get ejected and go home.

- Even the Yellow Ribbon newspaper Ming Pao is going after Yau Wai-ching. I thought that the attacks were coming only from Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order.

- When the Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order were quizzed about the countries that joined One Belt One Road, none of them could name anything. One of them characterized Singapore as a Third World country.

- They don't have to know which countries have joined One Belt One Road. They only need to know that it must be stopped at the border. The Road can run all the way from London to Shenzhen, but it must not cross into Hong Kong at all costs. That is all they need to know. But if you must know, then I'll tell you that it has something to do with infiltration/brainwashing.

- Nonsense is not limited to Yau Wai Ching. Here is Wong Chun Kit citing statistics:
https://www.facebook.com/434483659936746/videos/1231064570278647/

According to a public opinion poll, 17% of the people of Hong Kong support independence. Hong Kong's population is 7.4 million. 17% of 7.4 million is 1.25 million.

According to another opinion poll, 30% of Hong Kong University students support independence. Hong Kong University has 27,933 students. 30% of 27,933 is 8,380.

How do you answer to us?

With due respect, are you telling me that ...?

If 17% of the people want something, then the other 83% must do so.

If 30% of the Hong Kong University students want something, then the other 70% must do so.

How do you answer to the majority? How do you justify imposing something that the majority does not want?

- You can impose on the majority something that they don't want if you have a dictatorship.

- Alternately, you say that all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others. The minority which want independence are more equal than the majority of pigs. Therefore the minority position rules.

(SCMP) August 10, 2016.

The campaign for Hong Kong independence has extended to secondary schools, with students from at least 14 schools setting up localist concern groups, prompting the Education Bureau to warn such causes would be banned on campus.

The rhetoric that seemed to be growing among undergraduate unions across the city seemed to have had an effect on younger students as a 60-member group called Studentlocalism mounted a call to action on its Facebook page earlier this week.

The group, which was founded in April with a stated mission to get the city prepared when the time came for self-determination, appeared to be gearing up for the opening of the school year.

In the coming days, Studentlocalism will continue to increase [the number of] its street booths to promote independence, the group wrote on Facebook.

We have also started contacting different secondary student unions which support independence to foster more cooperation.

The group called on supporters to run for the student unions in their respective schools when the new term begins in September in a bid to bring the independence voice to campuses. It did not respond to questions from the Post.

As of yesterday, pupils from 14 secondary schools had echoed Studentlocalisms call to set up their own concern groups in their schools, including Wah Yan College on Hong Kong Island and Ying Wa College.

Mak Tak-cheung, vice-principal of Ying Wa College, said students would need to talk to teachers if they wanted to set up booths for promotional purposes at school. We will listen to their plan and decide ... if its appropriate or if it goes against the school and the Education Bureaus policies, Mak said.

Ting Wing-hing, principal of Po Leung Kuk Centenary Li Shiu Chung Memorial College, which has one concern group, said he would learn more from the students in September. I want the school to be a place for pupils to learn about knowledge, skills and moral character ... [It should not be] a political battleground, he said.

A spokesman for the Education Bureau told the Post that no pro-independence advocacy or activities should appear in schools ... and any organisation which serves to promote independence must be banned.

(SCMP) August 13, 2016.

Eight years ago, Parco Wong Lok-hang, then age nine, was proud of his Chinese identity during the Beijing Olympics. Now Wong has not only lost his interest in cheering for the national team, but has co-founded a localism group in his school, Ying Wa College, to promote the idea of Hong Kongs independence from China.

He expects independence to produce a Hong Kong government that will be fully democratic and responsive to peoples needs. He also believes the city can survive on foreign imports and trade without the backing of China.

We have enough money to build our own desalination facility and our food can be imported from abroad,Wong insists, when asked about the citys heavy dependence on the mainland for basic needs such as drinking water and food.

Wongs group was set up in his school in Sham Shui Po on August 8, and is one of at least 16 localist outfits run by secondary school students. They reflect the expansion of the highly controversial movement for Hong Kong independence from universities and youth activist groups to even younger recruits.

These groups emerged after a 60-member group called Studentlocalism mounted a call to action on its Facebook page earlier this month.

Ying Wa College vice-principal Mak Tak-cheung has previously said he will talk to students such as Wong and see if their plans go against Education Bureau policies, while a bureau spokesman said any school organisation which serves to promote independence must be banned.

But Wong, whose group has only three members so far, said he would proceed with his plans, such as planning forums and distributing pamphlets to discuss independence when he starts as a Form Five student next month.

If we cannot make a political stance by giving out pamphlets, we will share the materials online, he says.

Like many young people in the city, Wong studied Chinese history from Form One to Form Three, but it saddens him to learn about political troubles during Mao Zedongs era.

Wongs political awakening came in September 2014 when he joined fellow students in boycotting classes and gathering outside government headquarters in Admiralty to say no to Beijings stringent framework for universal suffrage for the chief executive election.

I was angry when police fired tear gas at protesters on September 28, he says, referring to a key incident that triggered the 79-day Occupy protests which paralysed parts of the city.

I realised that under Chinese rule, it was unlikely or impossible to have democracy, he says.

In the past, the [British] colonial government was more responsive to the peoples housing and economic needs. Now the chief executive ... often does things that seem to incite peoples animosity.

A Form Five student who founded a localism concern group at Salesian English School shares a similar story that he was proud of Chinese athletes in 2008, but the Occupy protests in 2014 encouraged his belief in Hong Kongs independence.

Earlier this month, electoral officials invalidated the candidacy of six localists for the Legislative Council elections on September 4 because of their pro-independence stance. The student, who only identifies himself as Tom, says the disqualifications only reinforced his belief that without independence, we will never see universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

Studentlocalism has urged supporters to run for positions in student unions in their respective schools as a way to promote independence.

Tom says he is actively considering challenging a group of students for union positions because he does not know if they back independence.

(SCMP) August 20, 2016.

A pro-independence group led by secondary school students announced plans yesterday to establish localist factions in more than 200 schools to discuss the contentious idea of separating Hong Kong from China.

They also suggested compulsory military service for the citys youth after independence, openly defying recent moves by the government to curb the trend of separatist talk in schools.

On a radio programme yesterday, Studentlocalism convenor Tony Chung Hon-lam said his group would start to promote localism in schools through such groups, and by distributing leaflets. The leaflets would be about opposing the use of Putonghua to teach Chinese, protecting traditional Chinese characters, or even Hong Kong independence, he said.

Chung said he expected schools and authorities would try to clamp down on their activities. If they try to stop us from distributing leaflets, we could do that just outside the school where they cant stop us from doing anything, he said.

On how Hong Kong would handle defence if it became independent, Chung said the city would need a conscript army. Hong Kongs youngsters are relatively weak. So if all adults could be drafted into the army for a year or two, it would be good for their health, in addition to being able to protect our country.

Internet comments:

- Here are the respective slogans adopted by the Concern Groups at the 17 schools:


1. Recover Hong Kong, become independent and strong
2. Recover Hong Kong, only through independence
3. When tyranny becomes reality, revolution is the only method
4. When tyranny becomes reality, revolution is an obligation
5. ---
6. Student uprising, Hong Kong independence
7. Respect words, practice force, defend our homeland
8. We would rather be flying dust then still dirt
9. Defending public justice is the mission for students
10. Facing off colonial tyranny, the people of Hong Kong will never be alone
11. We would rather be broken jade than intact tiles
12. Respect words, practice force, Hong Kong independent
13. To quote Martin Luther King: A genuinely harmonious society will not see the disappearance of all controversies.
14. Resist the Communists at the campus, Hong Kong independence
15. When tyranny becomes reality, revolution is an obligation
16. This is a revolution of our times
17. Hong Kong Independent

-  (NOW TV) Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference representative Henry Tang said that "談港獨是吃飽飯無事忙" (=talking about Hong Kong independence is for those who have nothing better to do after the meal).

- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 20, 2016.

As a parent, I wished that the Secretary for Education could make a firm statement such as: "Hong Kong independence is a complicated issue. Most teachers don't know enough to teach it, and they shouldn't be teaching it either. If the students genuine want to discuss Hong Kong independence, the Department of Education can hired a specialist to visit each school and speak to the students. When the speech is done, the discussion is over and there is no need to have any Concern Group because there is nothing there to be concerned about."

At the same time, the principals and teachers should tell the students clearly that the discussion of Hong Kong independence is not a freedom of speech issue, because it is illegal. Thus, when the school holds a discussion on drug abuse, they will state that it is illegal and bad and they will find former users, doctors and police officers to tell you why drugs are bad for you. The school won't let you form a concern group so that you can investigate how to prepare drugs, how to take drugs without being addicted, which drugs gives you the best high ... The school is a place to educate the children about the right ideas, not for them to try to break the law.

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube)

0:01 Professional Teachers Union president Fung Wai-wah : Not let him (the student) speak.

0:03 Professional Teachers Union vice-president Cheung Yui-fai: The campus can become a place for them to hold rational discussions (including Hong Kong independence).

0:11 Studentlocalism convenor Tony Chung Hon-lam: Actually we are not talking about discussions (about Hong Kong independence). We are promoting the idea (of Hong Kong independence). At the schools, more and more people are supporting the fight.

[The students are clearly talking about pushing Hong Kong independence, not holding 'rational discussions'.]

0:33 Studentlocalism convenor Tony Chung Hon-lam: We are going to take a look at the situation inside the schools. If the school authorities are not applying great pressure to stop us, we hope to organize discussion forums. We will invite Localists to come down to the schools to tell us what Hong Kong independence is about and how to achieve Hong Kong independence.

1:00 Host: That is to say, a certain organization tells you that independence cannot succeed. Would you want to invite them to share their opinions?

1:10 Studentlocalism convenor Tony Chung Hon-lam: You can express your views, because there are actually many people who say that Hong Kong cannot achieve independence. Actually I would like to know what is the basis of your argument?

[So is this "discussion" or "advocacy"?]

- (HKG Pao) As for financial resources, Tony Chung said that he would like to register his organization and open a bank account to solicit donations. But he is concerned that his registration will be rejected like the Hong Kong National Party.

- (HKG Pao) Tony Chung said that he does not exclude the use of violence or bloodshed to overthrow the existing the regime. Using Occupy Central as the example, he said that the principles of peace, reason and non-violence created many taboos such that "many things that should be done were not done." He condemned the pan-democrats for stopping the demonstrators from occupying the Legislative Council building in November 2014. He said that if they had occupied the Legislative Council building, they would have created the public opinion to oppose the Copyright (Amendment) Bill.

- This is wrong on many counts. First and foremost, the assault on the Legislative Council was based upon a rumor that the Copyright (Amendment) Bill would be discussed the next morning. Repeat -- it was a baseless rumor decided to incite people to riot. So how are you going to create public opinion to support a non-existent issue?

- After all this time, Tony Chung still doesn't realize what the government's strategy was during Occupy Central. The government let the demonstrators sit for 79 days until the welcome was worn out and public opinion swung completely. Occupying the Legislative Council building would have merely accelerated the process by a few days. The government does not mind the occupation of the Legislative Council building, or the Government Headquarters, or the China Liaison Office, because the government won't stop functioning as a result. Conversely, you can take over the building but you have no ability to hold it for an extended period of time. So what is the point other than make you feel good?

- (HKG Pao) Tony Chung described some visions of the independent Hong Kong. He said that Hong Kong can build large-scale desalination plants in order to become self-sufficient and even sell the surplus to China.

As for food, he said that the agricultural and livestock industries had been restricted by the government through licensing. Therefore he wants to revive the agricultural and livestock industries so that Hong Kong can be self-sufficient in food.

As for energy, he said that Hong Kong can depend on wind and coal burning to generate electricity.

As for national defense, he said that he hopes that Hong Kong can be a neutral like Switzerland. The first and foremost thing is not to have a hostile relationship with China because it will be hard to deal with the large Chinese army.

- More pearls of wisdom from Tony Chung:

"China will not abandon their business deals just for the sake of integrity of its national territory." In other words, China can't live without being propped up by Hong Kong's economic prowess.
Also, young Hongkongers can't afford to buy apartments because the Chinese are bidding prices up. Therefore, housing prices will be kept low after independence to prevent speculations.

- So these are his ideas about how Hong Kong can be independent of China. Well, the Book of Rites have this saying (Quora):

From ancient times, those who want to promote great virtue to the world, first they need to govern their states; in order to govern their state, they need to first manage their family; in order to manage their family, they need to first improve themselves; in order to improve oneself, they need to regulate in their mind; in order to regulate their mind, one needs to maintain sincere intention; in order to maintain sincere intention, one need to exhaust one's knowledge, in order to exhausted one's knowledge, one needs to study the essence of the physical world. Study the physical world, learn everything you can learn, being sincere with your intention and regulate your mind, with your mind at the right place, you'll be able to improve yourself. after you improve yourself, you can manage your family, after your family is managed, you can govern your state, and then you'll bring justice and virtue to the World.

Tony Chung has plenty of ideas about how to govern Hong Kong. But how does he deal with his own life first?

(Ta Kung Pao) On radio, Studentlocalism convenor Tony Chung Hon-lam said that his parents do not support his ideas. The programme host asked him repeatedly whether he can become 'independent' by living away from home for a couple of weeks. Chung said that it will be "tough" because he doesn't have any economic resources himself. He said that he can get by with living in a sub-divided room and eating cup noodles, etc.

If Tony Chung cannot even manage his own life, how does he expect to lead the new Hong Kong nation into  a glorious future?

- This is Tony Chung's idea of valiant warriors of the Hong Kong revolution:

Where are you going to get that gun? The US Consulate General?  The National Endowment for Democracy?

- Usually, the guns are supplied for free. But the bullets are very expensive to buy. This is the same pricing logic as the Sony Playstations and the Microsoft XBoxes -- you clean them up at the backend.

- I hate the double-talking style in Hong Kong. Why say something like "The possibility of violence and bloodshed cannot be excluded"? The negative of a negative is not a positive. Why not come and say directly: "Hong Kong will become an independent nation as of August 20th, 12:00 noon. If not, then there will be violence and bloodshed." Why don't we just get it with it quickly?

- The reason why they don't want independence immediately is that there is a lot of money to be made between now and then. But if they take action tomorrow, the fantasy will burst and there is only time left to run for political asylum at the US Consulate General.

- Here is a more direct statement:

"Wherever there is oppression, there will be resistance; a single spark can start a prairie fire!"
As an aside, does anyone remember who said this?

Joint declaration from Studentlocalism and various Concern Groups:
We are sternly warning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, the Department of Education and their lackeys that they must not attempt to suppress the voices of Hong Kong independence by expulsion or other means. Or else our organization will retaliate decisively.

- What is that 'decisive retaliation'? Use your weapon (=keyboard) to pound a few more Facebook posts?

- If you want to quote Chairman Mao, you should remember that his most important philosophical essay is On Contradiction. Applied to Hong Kong, it means that the debate over the constitutional reform bill was an internal contradiction among the people and can be tolerated. But Hong Kong independence is an irreconcilable conflict.

- Indeed, these anti-Chinese Hong Kong localist children are very familiar with Chairman Mao's sayings:

- Everybody knows that the big factor is the People's Liberation Army with 2.3 million soldiers. How does Tony Chung propose to deal with this?

- Institute a system of compulsory military service in order to build up an army
- Maintain a neutral position international position
- Avoid hostilities with neighboring countries
- Run signature campaigns to let the various foreign consulates learn about StudentLocalism's views on Hong Kong independence.

This is totally based upon wishful thinking. Firstly, a city of 7 million will never be able to build up an army strong enough to resist an established army of 2.3 million. Don't even waste your time thinking about this. Look for other solutions such as getting protection by the American nuclear umbrella.

- Before they think about how or why the Central Government would consent to have Hong Kong become independent, they leap-frog into deciding what they will do after Hong Kong becomes independent. I think that they need to solve the 'how and why' first.

- If I can offer an analogy, Tony Chung is like an otaku who idolizes Chrissie Chau. But instead of trying to figure out how to meet her in person for the first time, he only talks about the blissful life with Chrissie after they marry.

- The 'how and why' is summarized as "Valiant resistance."

- (SCMP) Legislative Council candidate Chan Chak claimed that he believed achieving independence would not necessarily result in war, saying: There is no need to use guns. The most important [thing] is the peoples support.

- When you don't have a gun, you are going to say: "There is no need to use guns." When you have a big Magnum 45, you are going to use it.

- The people's support? In your favorite poll where 17% support Hong Kong independence, the majority preferred to stay with One Country Two Systems. This means that you don't have the people's support. What kind of democracy is it for a small minority to impose its will on the vast majority?

More importantly, you cannot dictate whether that 'neighboring country' will take a hostile position or not. It is up to them; it is not only up to you. Have you ever explored what the position of the 'neighboring country' will be? You can try and ask. But at present, you are just a Secondary School Form 4 student and they are clearly not going to take you seriously enough to give you an answer. You can ask the China hands what they think. Most likely they will tell you that the Chinese gerontocrats aren't going to survive if they let Hong Kong become independent. The 1.4 billion Chinese citizens will never forgive them. So they will in fact keep Hong Kong at all costs, including imposing martial law and destroying its economy.

- Right now, they can't even bear giving up the Spratly Islands. Why are the chances of them giving up Hong Kong?

- You have a serious case of schizophrenia. Whenever June 4th comes around, you say that the Commies murdered several thousand students at Tiananmen Square and therefore they are cruel, ruthless and implacable. For the rest of the year, you say that the Commies will peacefully let Hong Kong become independent and conduct business as usual.

As for the belief that Hong Kong is too important economically to China and that the Chinese will always be willing to do business, I think you need to study some Economics first, including macroeconomics and international trade. At Form 4, Tony Chung has not begun studying serious Economics yet. Oh, he needs to study up on political science and Chinese history too.

- Anyway I copied down Tony Chung's key visions for the independent Hong Kong:

- Compulsory military service to build an army
- Desalination plants
- Revive agricultural/livestock industries.
- Revive the manufacturing industry.

With due respect, this is not very appealing to me.

- If this is what you plan, the treasury will run out of money very quickly.

- Let me respond to Tony Chung's arguments:

Desalination: The cost is $12 per square meter, which is $3 more than imported Dongjiang water. If you use desalination to completely replace Dongjiang water, the extra cost is $1.8 billion per year. That is not too much.
The six desalination plants will cost $60 billion to build. That is not too much.
But the six desalination plants will need 60 hectares of land. Where do you find 60 hectares of land? Some environmental protectionist dick is going to file judicial reviews to make sure that you won't be able to go ahead for at least 30 years.
Of course, you can just make up a new constitution to say that judicial reviews are not allowed in matters of national security (as you see it).

Agriculture: Hong Kong itself provides about 2% of the consumed vegetables from 4,000 farmers. If you want to reach 50%, you need at least 100,000 farmers. How do you make 96,000 people decide to become farmers of their own free will, when the work is hard and the pay is lousy? Besides, where are you going to find the farmland?

Energy: Wind power? CLP/Hong Kong Electric have a combined total of 10,000 MW. We don't have the land to build onshore wind farms, so we will have to go offshore. The London Array takes up 100 square kilometers and generates only 630 MW. So we are going to need 1,587 square kilometers of land for our wind farms. And the rest of the world will complain because it sits right in the middle of major shipping lanes. It will surely become one of the wonders of the world as seen from outer space. The cost of the London Array is about $22 billion. If we want to use the same technology, it will cost Hong Kong about $330 billion. Sure we can afford it. But a few billion here and a few billion there, we will have nothing left soon. P.S. God forbid that a super-typhoon should come around and blow everything away.

Military: Let me use Singapore for comparison. Singapore has about 48,000 soldiers and spends HKD 60 billion a year on national defense. Who the hell is going to agree with conscripting 40,000 persons and spending HKD 60 billion?  Right now nobody spends an hour or a dollar on Hong Kong defense. And even if Hong Kong builds such an army, will the western nations sell arms to Hong Kong? Taiwan is extorted to buy out-of-date military junk from the United States. Will Hong Kong have to do the same? And if the People's Republic of China does attack Hong Kong, then what? The Guangdong Military District has 280,000 soldiers already. That would be 7:1. Don't forget that their soldiers are already trained and armed, whereas our have only just begun elementary training. If and when war breaks out, the battleground will be Hong Kong and rockets will be dropping next to your house.

International relations: When Hong Kong becomes independent, it is not going to be 'neutral'. It will only be isolated. You cannot join the United Nations like Switzerland because China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and it can veto any motion even against the unanimous opinion of the rest of the world. If you go for independence against the wishes of China, do you think that they will let you join the United Nations. As the UN goes, so go the other organizations such as World Bank, WTO, WHO, UNICEF, IOC, FIFA, etc. There won't be any more "Hong Kong Is Not China" chants at FIFA World Cup qualifying matches, because Hong Kong won't be a FIFA member.

As for "decrease hostile relationships with the neighboring country", this is most asinine! China is on the other side of the very small Shenzhen River. How can you not have hostile relationship with China given what happened?

Actually, do we really need to discuss the subject of Hong Kong independence?

- There is all the talk about how Hong Kong without its tourism, retail, finance and logistic industries can keep the value of its currency. The wishful thinking is that Hong Kong has always been able to withstand the hedge-fund vultures and will again. But this time, what if the Hong Kong dollar is attacked by the People's Bank of China?

- (Local Press) According to Tony Chung, the trade between Hong Kong and China will not stop just because Hong Kong is no longer part of China. There is no reason to reject a business proposal when it involves a lot of money.

- Dear Tony, did you know that Hong Kong accounts for just over 2% of China's GDP.

Let us suppose that your parents give you an allowance of $200 per week. Now they give you an ultimatum: Either you take a 2% cut down to $196 per week with no curfew, or else you can keep getting $200 with an 8pm curfew. Which deal will you take?

Dear Tony, I don't think you have any idea what the true standing of Hong Kong is within the People's Republic of China.

- These two pro-independence guy could become Tony Chung's military advisors: "Let us buy an aircraft carrier. When China makes any noise, we'll drive the aircraft carrier over and intimidate them. That would be really cool."

- Handing out leaflets in school? Please refer to the case of Tsang Tak-sing:

St Paul's College Form Six student Tsang Tak-sing was arrested on 28 September 1967 after distributing anti-government and Communism promotion leaflets, which condemned "the education system aiming at enslavement", "The Colonial Government prohibits us from becoming patriotic, by quelling with fascist forces", around the entrance of his school. He was reported by the schoolmaster R. G. Wells, arrested, tried and convicted for two years for distributing inflammatory leaflets that promoted public order crime, thus depriving him of his chance of a university education due to his past criminal record.

Who are the tyrants? The Chinese Communists or the British colonialists?

- (Sky Post) YP 28171. By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 19, 2016.

I received an email from a reader. His name is YP 28271. This is not a car license number. This is the ID for a prisoner in jail. YP stands for "Young Prisoner". He wrote: "I asked the honorable judges how 49 years ago, 300 YP's who want to fight back for their ideals were sentenced to jail and left with permanent criminal records." Forty-nine years, there were demonstrators against the British colonial government. 16-year-old YP 28271 was not involved in any demonstrations. He was randomly checked by the police in the street and found to be carrying patriotic banners in his book back. He was sentenced to one year in jail. There were more than 300 other youngsters like YP 28271. All of them found their careers destroyed by their criminal records.

- Recently Joshua Wong has come out with the naked truth. He said that his group Scholarism held a monopoly in 2012. They owned the market as the sole player. Today, the market is much more competitive with groups such as Hong Kong Indigenous, Youngspiration, StudentLocalism, etc. This means intense competition for donations.

Sometimes a new brand comes into the market with a deliberate intention to cause brand confusion. On the left, we have the River Child version 1.0 (Joshua Wong) now scheduled for retirement. On the left, we have the River Child version 2.0 (Tony Chung).

https://www.facebook.com/nextmagazinefansclub/videos/631169137047033/

[The scene location is supposed to be the Tai Koo MTR station. Edward Leung is the man wearing the dark purple t-shirt. The man wearing the grey t-shirt may be a Ta Kung Pao reporter, according to Leung.]

-5:55 Purple: Scare them?

-5:53 Grey: Are you scared? Have you defecated on yourself?

-5:50 Purple: How many blows did you catch?

-5:50 Grey: Huh?

-5:49 Purple: How many blows did you catch?

-5:42 Grey: See you next time.

-5:38 Purple: How many blows did you catch? Why don't you admit it? How many blows landed on you?

-5:35 Grey: Take a look at your face first. Fuck your mother!

-5:31 Purple: Come over here!

-5:29 Grey: Your mother's stinking cunt!

-5:27 Purple: Two against one.

-5:26 Grey: You go back to your hometown. I only work for a living. Calm down first! Your mother!  You haven't even got a fully grown set of hair.  You calm down first!

-5:10 Purple: You come over.

-5:10 Grey: Your mother's stinking cunt. If I make the call, it will be fucking bigger than you. Your mother's stinking cunt! You go home! Fuck your mother!

-4:51 Purple: You come over.

-4:48 Grey: Your mother's stinking cunt! You keep talking about democracy all the time! You go and suck dick! Fuck your mother! If you want, you can fight. Fuck your mother! ... I am not going to fucking play with you. There will be another opportunity, brother! You leave! Why don't you fucking think about what you are fucking doing!

-4:09 Grey: Film your mother's stinking cunt! Wow! Leung Tin-kei is assaulting people! Leung Tin-kei is assaulting people. He is not talking about democracy. Wow! Please help me! Wow! Assault! Leung Tin-kei is assaulting people! Wow! Leung Tin-kei is assaulting people! Wow! That Leung Tin-kei for Hong Kong independence. Aiya! Aiya! He is assaulting people! Aiya!

-3:32 Purple: You are a paparazzi for Ta Kung Pao, right? Paparazzi, right? You are several decades old. You are doing such things. Worse than being a dog. How can you fucking face your parents? They raise you until you are this old. You are worse than a dog. I ask your mother.

-3:12 Grey: I am an orphan. I have no parents.

-3:06 Purple: No parents? Worse than being a dog. Are the Communists your mother? ... Ta Kung, right? Ta Kung, right? Hey. Hey.

[tussling]

-2:06 Grey: Fuck your mother!

-0:56 Grey: Please don't hit people, alright or not?

-0:54 Purple: I only want to hit you.

-0:54 Grey: Hit me?  You don't have the guts!

-0:50 Purple: How many blows did you catch?

-0:48 Grey: Forget it. We're not talking about this.

-0:48 Purple: But I want to talk about this. What the fuck are you afraid of?

-0:33 Grey: Calm down first, alright?

-0:18 Purple: Leaving? Hey! Ta Kung Pao! Come back! Fuck your mother!

Backup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E1BqBbCgy0

(DotDot News) August 15, 2016.

The reporter Mr. Lo and another reporter located Edward Leung at past 8pm last night in Causeway Bay and asked him to respond to certain facts, including some bad things. When Leung heard it, he refused to answer and left. He said as he walked away: "I have nothing to say." The reporter recorded the entire process. Leung was very upset and kept using foul language to tell the reporter to scram.

More than 3 hours later, the reporter had gone home, ate out with his family and got ready to go home. At Tai Koo MTR Station, he encountered Leung again. The reporter lowered his head and tried to walk past. Leung came up, stood and glared at the reporter.

The reporter said: "Mr. Leung, what do you want?" Leung said that the reporter was a dog! The reporter asked Leung to be more polite. Leung rushed up and hit the reporter with his shoulder/elbow, causing bleeding on the left side of the reporter's face. Leung threw two more punches at the reporter, causing the reporter to bite his own tongue and bleed all over his mouth. The reporter and Leung tussled with each other. Passersby and MTR employees interceded and pulled them apart. During this time, Leung struggled free and tried to continue the fight. He asked the reporter: "How many times did I hit you?" "You don't want to be a human, you want to be a Chinese dog!" The two cursed each other out with foul language.

Leung picked his mobile phone to film the reporter who had backed away. He asked the reporter not to leave. The reporter yelled that Leung was assaulting people. He scolded Leung for not daring to answer that he was advocating Hong Kong independence. "Do you have shit on your body?" With the intercession of many people, the two left separately. At the time, neither party called the police.

Passersby were present and they filmed most of what happened. Lo said that he is not afraid of a confrontation with Leung, even at a press conference. He is willing to tell the truth, "because this pro-Hong Kong independence person has gone too far. He is completely irrational."

Afterwards, the reporter found out that after the earlier encounter in Causeway Bay, Leung went on his Internet show and said that a reporter asked him questions. Leung said that he wanted to hit the reporter at the time, but could not because there was a camera. However, he has followed the reporter. Thus, the fight at Tai Koo was not an accidental encounter, but one in which Leung followed the reporter to exact revenge! As soon as Leung finished the Internet show, he went out to attack the reporter!

Early morning on August 14, Next Media posted a video of this incident. This was just the second half of the incident and was provided by a passerby. The video drew two extreme kinds of reaction. On one hand, certain media professionals called Ta Kung Pao and express their anger and shock. On the other hand, other people were delighted by a reporter having the courage to scold pro-Hong Kong independence people. At the same time, radical extremist uploaded information about the reporter and his family onto the Internet and called on people to harass, threaten and curse them. This made the reporter and his family very scared.

Video: https://goo.gl/jPpJxO Another view of the fight

Video: https://www.facebook.com/DotDotNews/videos/1402297503118906/ Interview with the reporter Mr. Lo on his injuries and the threats on his family. He said: "I only wanted to report this news story."


Ta Kung Pao reporter Mr. Lo

(Wen Wei Po) August 15, 2016.

The Police Public Relations Bureau said that they received a call at 1150pm about a dispute over at the Tai Koo MTR Station. When police officers arrived at the scene, they could not find the individuals that were involved. Later a 42-year-old man named Lo came down to the Chai Wan Police Station to provide the relevant information. Lo claimed to have been assaulted by a man the night before at the Tai Koo MTR Station. The police have reviewed the relevant closed-circuit television recordings, and determined that Edward Leung attacked the reporter first. The police is treating this as a case of fighting in public.

Internet comments:

- What a shame that this video began only in Round #2! A Round #1 had taken place before, with Leung's shirt being ripped in the back.

- (Apple Daily) From the reader who provided the video to Next Media: "At the time, I was listening to music and I couldn't hear what they were arguing about. Then they started to fight until they fell down on the ground. His glasses even fell off. The shirt was then ripped. They kept swearing and fighting. Several passersby went up to stop them. Two MTR employees also came to stop them. For a while, Edward Leung and the other guy could not stay calm. They continued to shout and want to fight. Leung took out his mobile phone to try to film the man. When the man saw the phone, he yelled and pretended that he was badly hurt. Then he seized Leung's phone and threw it on the ground. They tussled for a while. Finally they left on their own based upon the repeated admonishments of the MTR employees."  She added: "If I remember correctly, Edward Leung hit out first."

- My personal view is that Leung Tin-kei challenged this person who may be a paparazzi and lost badly. If this is his idea of valiant resistance, how is he and his ilk going to defeat the People's Liberation Army? The part that bothered me was the MTR employee who kept stroking Leung's back to calm him down. I am curious if this dog trick also works on humans.

- In Round #2, the other guy just spun Leung around like a monkey. It was no match.

- It was more like training a dog to do turns. Next lesson would be to jump hoops. Then the dog gets to eat the biscuits.

- This is the famous kungfu movement known as 「餓狗搶屎」("Hungry dog fights for feces to eat").

- The MTR employees in the yellow uniforms should tell the guy wearing the grey t-shirt that he can't walk his dog inside the subway system under the MTR by-law.

- Assume the position!

Edward Leung: "The only thing left to do is Revolution." Arf arf!

- The other guy was lucky. If the MTR station had bricks on the floor, Leung would have picked it up and smashed his face in.

- Edward Leung's excuse is that he is currently out on bail while awaiting trial for incitement and participation in the Mong Kok riot. His bail may be revoked if there is another criminal charge during this period. Therefore he has to act with restraint.

- If so, then why does Leung keep asking the other guy to count the number of blows received? Leung must know that he threw some punches which landed.

- Why didn't the MTR employees summon the police? If the police came, this is going to be a straightforward case of two parties engaging in disorderly conduct in public. And it will depend on whether the two parties will file complaints. In the case of Edward Leung, he would find it awkward to seek the help of the Hong Kong Black Police to file charges in a court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Meanwhile, the other party has made it clear that he is only working to make a living and so he is willing to fight all the way with his employer picking up the tab.

- The Police Public Relations Board confirmed that someone called at 11:48pm about a fight at the Tai Koo MTR station. When police officers arrived at the scene, they did not find anyone.

- I am accustomed to thinking that Hongkongers are peaceful, reasonable and non-violent and only mainlanders are violence-prone. I am still correct here, because Edward Leung was born in Wuhan, China.

- Eh, but you don't know where that other guy comes from ...

- The point is not for Edward Leung to defeat the People's Liberation Army as in Donnie Yen vs Mike Tyson in Ip Man 3. The point is for Edward Leung to be elected to the Legislative Council, where it is a good bet that he can physically defeat the gerontocrats there. Valiant resistance must be used wisely and strategically.

- Since the other party appears to be from a newspaper, the reaction of the Journalists Association would be interesting.

On one hand, if this reporter were from Apple Daily/Next Magazine, they would be rushing out to declare that freedom of press is being strangled in this city and that the attacker must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

On the other hand, if this reporter were from Ta Kung Pao, they would be rushing to say that they didn't see or hear anything (I See Nothing).

- It is said that these paparazzis have been following Edward Leung around for more than a month? Well, what is wrong with that? They are merely satisfying the citizens' right to know. Apple Daily/Next Magazine paparazzis do this sort of thing all the time.

- What do the paparazzis want to find out? For example, people have been saying that Edward Leung is renting a service apartment in Tai Koo at more than $30,000 per month. Shouldn't those who donated to Hong Kong Indigenous in the belief that they are contributing to Hong Kong independence know where their money is really going to?

- Could it be that they followed Leung around for a month without getting any reportable news? Out of desperation, they decided to create news by provoking a fight.

- If so, the video would be much more professional and it would not be posted first over at the Next Media website.

- Here is the Apple Daily-style report on the incident: "當時大公報記者正進行正常採訪 唯有人拒絕回應及襲擊記者 嚴重妨礙新聞自由及損害香港核心價值". (At the time, the Ta Kung Pao reporter was conducting normal news gathering. But someone refused to comment and attacked the reporter, thus seriously interfering with freedom of press and damaging a core value of Hong Kong."

- Is this case that the so-called reporter used obscene language to provoke Leung into a fight? But Leung is the person who normalizes obscene language:

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1040560225979340/ Edward Leung gets on a chair to raise middle finger and scream obscenities ("You eat shit" and "Fuck your mother") at the Electoral Affairs Commission briefing of the candidates. If he can use it against other people, he should be able to accept it when used against himself. Of course, he can try to out-shout the other party.

- Is it wrong for reporters to use obscene language to quarrel with their subjects? Here is Apple Daily reporter Gary Ma:

Born in a Time of Chaos Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1692551290956785/
https://www.facebook.com/1640482902830291/videos/1692549944290253/

- Obviously, Edward Leung cannot count on the Hong Kong Black Police to bring justice. Therefore his alternative is to take matters into his own hand by calling for a general demonstration to blockade the Ta Kung Pao offices/plants in Hong Kong until they apologize and promise never to follow Hong Kong Indigenous people around.

- This is the prelude to the current episode.

(Apple Daily) August 8, 2016.

Hong Kong Indigenous' Edward Leung posted a video/photos on his Facebook that a car has been following him for a month. In the video, Edward Leung and Ray Wong approached the tailing car and opened the car door to demand the two men inside identify themselves. The two men replied "Grandpa's" and "Newspaper." They also said, "We don't want to know about you." They did not say which organization they belong to.

Leung published the vehicle registration data which showed the owner is DCH which registered the car on June 30, 2016. DCH provides car rental service.

- Duh, this is one of those BEEN THERE DONE THAT stories. Previously Lam Wing-kee also said that he was being followed by unknown vehicles. The police investigated and found that the car was rented by Next Media.

- When Secretary of Education Eddie Ng was tailed by Next Media reporters, he called the police (see #419). Everybody made fun of him. When Lam Wing-kee was tailed by Next Media reporters, everybody said that White Terror is upon us and nobody is safe from cross-border law enforcement. Lam summoned the police and is now living under police protection in a safe house. Will Hong Kong Indigenous call the police and ask for help too?

- "Grandpa" is a derogatory term. No mainland Public Security Bureau agent is going to say that he works for "Grandpa." This is like being followed by foreigners and when you stop them and ask them who they are, they say "We're coons." When the two men gave that "Grandpa" response, they were making a joke that Leung and Wong don't appreciate at all.

- YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNXMWGmTSq8

- This is a poorly staged homemade movie. Imagine that you are the two special agents. You have been following the guy around for one month. Now you are parked on the street watching your guy. Your guy comes at you with another man. What do you do? You should lock the car doors, roll up the windows and drive off. Right? Wrong!

In the video, a man comes to the right side of the car. What does the driver do? He didn't lock the car door, which allows the man to yank the car door open and talk to him. Another man comes to the left side of the car while using a mobile phone to film. What does the passenger do? He rolls down the window so that the cameraman can record the conversation. This makes no sense at all, least of all for a couple of men who are either spies or reporters.

- So is the Tai Koo MTR fight another episode in this homemade movie?

- Next Media said that the video for the Tai Koo MTR fight was provided by a 'reader'. It is more likely that the video was made a Next Media paparazzi tailing the Ta Kung Pao paparazzi tailing Edward Leung.

- The conspiracy theory is that Jimmy Lai (Next Media) needed to boost the Legislative Council prospects for the traditional pan-democrats. Therefore he sent this guy to provoke Edward Leung into a fight in front of a camera. If it turns out that Edward Leung neither has the EQ/temperament nor the physical fighting skills, his votes will flow to the traditional pan-democrats.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) August 10, 2016.

Edward Leung Tin-kei, member of the localist party Hong Kong Indigenous, was banned from posting on Facebook for 24 hours on Tuesday after his video of two men allegedly following him was reported.

The video uploaded by Leung on August 7 showed him approaching a black car which he claimed followed him for a month. When Leung asked the two men inside the car where they came from, they replied grandpa a slang term used for the Chinese Communist Party.

I dont want to know about you. Someone wants to know about you I dont want to know, said one of the men in the car.

Leung was informed on Tuesday night that his original video was removed for not complying with Facebooks community standards. Shortly after, he uploaded it again and was banned from posting for 24 hours after the new post also got reported, said Ming Pao.

A few hours later, lawmaker Charles Mok of the Information Technology functional constituency left a comment on Leungs Facebook page, saying that he had asked Facebook about the incident. The original video of Leung allegedly being followed has since been restored.

For every post being deleted, just post ten more posts, said one commenter on Leungs Facebook page. According to Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook page, many users re-uploaded the video on their personal accounts since Tuesday.

- From the Hong Kong Indigenous talk show:

"I was followed by the Ta Kung Pao reporter down the street with a camera. He kept provoking me. I really wanted to fucking hit him. But he was recording me with this camera. I couldn't very well send a punch over. There wasn't anything that I can do. I can only remember his face and then fucking follow him in return. What else can I do?"

"He wants to find the dirt on you. So he follows you with his camera in hand. He keeps saying this and that about your family members. The number of family members, where they are, he knows everything about them. He tells it to you. He keeps provoking you and asking you for a comment."

- On the Internet, the 'reporter' who provoked Edward Leung is supposed to be a former entertainment paparazzo for Next Media. Given the cutbacks at Next Media, these paparazzi are scattered into other outlets in the media industry, where their training and experience are being put to good use. If you want to place the blame, it is Jimmy Lai introducing yellow journalism in Hong Kong.

- (Apple Daily) According to information, the reporter is named Lo and his nickname is Golden Hair. He worked at <East Week> once, and then he became the Entertainment Tracking Managers at <FACE> for 11 years. Three months ago, he was dismissed after Next Media shut down <FACE>. Thereafter he and some colleagues went over to work at Ta Kung Pao. He has been there for more than 2 months.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 18, 2016.

Although the eyewitness who provided the video to Next Media said that Edward Leung struck first, the pro-independence supporters quickly went aft er the reporter. They posted his name, telephone number, personal photos, work history, etc on the Internet together with some truly awful comments. Even the MTR employee who tried to intercede had his personal information ferreted out and published as well.

Although Edward Leung said that the dispute arose because he was upset at the reporter harassing his family members, the pro-independence supporters went after the family members of this reporter. The blogger Lo Lok wrote: "It is usefully to go after the reporter Lo directly, because his boss will merely consider that to be an accomplishment. The focus should to fucking harass all those around him, be they friends or family members. We must post their photos, addresses and telephone numbers; we will call their companies to complain. It would be even better if they have children because we can bully them at school. We will greet them after school so that the children will suffer psychological trauma that will follow them forever. We want to make this Lo person an untouchable. This is the only way to hurt a little bit. So, brothers, let us try our best to ferret out information and post altered photos. Resistance must not have any bottom lines."

At the Golden Forum discussion forum, someone posted the information about the family members and friends of this reporter, including the online accounts of the friends. The photos of his wife and daughter were also posted. Someone pointed out the name of the kindergarten which his daughter attended. Someone said that he wanted to organized a gang to rape the daughter. User "Cheung Siu-wai" wrote about the rape gang: "One person will be the lookout, one person will drive the car, one person will distract the woman (=the reporter's wife."

The "Hong Kong National Independent Movement" Facebook published 40 photos of the daily life of the reporter, including many of his family members and friends. The page explained in a contrarian manner: "The sins of the reporter should not affect his friends and relatives, so we should send information to them." The hashtags "#Sharing is a virtue" and "#Please share if you agree." were added.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 15, 2016. Snippets of Internet comments.

It is usefully to go after the reporter Lo directly, because his boss will merely consider that to be an accomplishment. The focus should to fucking harass all those around him, be they friends or family members. We must post their photos, addresses and telephone numbers; we will call their companies to complain. It would be even better if they have children because we can bully them at school. We will greet them after school so that the children will suffer psychological trauma that will follow them forever. We want to make this Lo person an untouchable. This is the only way to hurt a little bit. So, brothers, let us try our best to ferret out information and post altered photos. Resistance must not have any bottom lines.

Get people to go and rape Lo XX's daughter. One person will be the lookout, one person will drive the car, one person will distract the woman (=the reporter's wife).

It is a good method to pick her up after school. Different people can do it to different paparazzi.

Right, we need to scare the people. We must do our best.

Anyone who offends Tin-kei will see their entire families killed!

They should be prepared to see these consequences.

There is nothing that this family has to worry about. They will all attain eternal happiness together.

We must go after these Hong Kong traitors. None of them is innocent.

The Chinese take revenge against everybody around them. The principal will have to watch his family being decimated one at a time before his turn to die.

I hope that his daughter will become an orphan.

Disaster must be wrought upon his family.

His wife deserves it too, because she chose such a husband.

- (Ta Kung Pao) August 15, 2016.

Who is behind the sudden emergence of Hong Kong independence forces? Why do their resources increased suddenly after meeting with members of the US Consulate General? Behind the radical talk and action, is this a con game or a self-enrichment scheme?

These are the truths that the public wants to know after the Mong Kok riot. But the Hong Kong independence forces do not disclose how they are being financed, and they do everything possible to prevent the efforts by the public and the media to find out.

But paper cannot wrap up a fire. There are no impenetrable walls in the world. After the extensive investigation by the Ta Kung Pao reporters, Hong Kong Indigenous people such as Edward Leung and Ray Wong are definitely not as "clean" as they tell the outside world.

Edward Leung claims to be a DOUBLE NO youth (No job, no school), but he lives a life of luxury. He claims to reside in Yuen Long, but he actually stays at a luxury apartment in Hong Kong Island East. He bought an expensive car and he has servants. He lives like a wealthy man. A person who publicly urges young people to carry out a revolution is actually a privileged class member living off subsidies. A person who advocates resistance without bottom lines is enjoying the advantages of the system from his luxurious apartment. These investigations undoubtedly reveal the extreme hypocrisy behind the Hong Kong independence forces and the supreme irony for their political ideas.

Edward Leung lies all the time, but the facts are undeniable. These truths should be a wake-up call for the supporters of Hong Kong independence and radical localism.

When Edward Leung and others promulgate Hong Kong independence, they are looking after their own interests under the guise of these slogans. If young people listen to them and join riots, they will become the tools for Leung and others to earn their lives of luxury. If the rioters are punished by the law, Leung and others won't be harmed one little bit. It should be clear who is selling whom out.

But it should be pointed that the truths uncovered by the reporters is just a small portion. More needs to be uncovered. It requires a large sum of money to live such a lifestyle. Where does the money come from? What is the purpose of the people who are providing money to keep these people? This is something that every decent citizen should think about.

It is the duty of every journalist to seek out the truth. Those who insult or even assault journalists should be condemned for trampling upon freedom of press. Last night's ugly show at Tai Koo by Edward Leung showed us how vicious and hypocritical the pro-Hong Kong independence elements are. Previously Edward Leung refused to respond to the questions from the reporters. Afterwards he worked with others to follow the reporter after work and launched a violent attack while the reporter was dining outside with his family. The reporter was injured and was forced to defend himself.

Why did Edward Leung publicly attack the reporter? Is he afraid that the reporter may reveal the truth and expose his life of luxury? Or is there something more sinister behind?

By attacking the reporter, Edward Leung showed his true self. The Hong Kong independence forces are groups of violent extremists. Those are lawless, they have no bottom lines, and they will do anything. As long as they are allowed to roam free, there will never be calm in society. Who will be the next victim of the pro-Hong Kong independence people? Citizens have no choice but to oppose them if we want to maintain Hong Kong's prosperity and stability.

- (Ta Kung Pao) August 15, 2016.

Previously, Ta Kung Pao reported that Hong Kong Indigenous is not registered either as a social group or a corporation. Donations to Hong Kong Indigenous are taken by the private corporation Channel i (HK) Limited owned by Ray Wong and Edward Leung. How the money comes and goes is not transparent.

Our further investigation found that the DOUBLE NO (No school, no job) young man Edward Leung is living a life of luxury. Leung does not live with his parents. Instead he rents a service apartment that costs at least $24,000 per month at Kornhill Apartments, Hong Kong Island East. Channel i shareholder/director Ray Wong drives a silver Audi purchased by Channel i for almost $300,000. So are the living expenses of Wong and Leung being paid by Channel i or some other funder is unknown. On Saturday night, our investigative reporter asked the DOUBLE NO young man Edward Leung these questions, but he responded with "None of your business" and a stream of obscene invectives.

According to the company registry, Channel i was established in October 2015, with founders Ray Wong and Edward Leung being shareholders and directors. The registered capital was only $1. However, the company purchased a $293,000 Audi under its own name for the use of Ray Wong. During our investigation period, we observed that no other Hong Kong Indigenous member uses this vehicle. If Ray Wong does not take Edward Leung home, the latter would take a taxi instead.

Ray Wong is unemployed while Edward Leung admits to being a DOUBLE NO young man. Yet, they drive a Audi and Leung lives in a luxury service apartment. According to the the company registry data, Leung reported an address in an apartment Fu Ho Building, Kau Yuk Road, Yuen Long. We found that this 282-sq ft unit is inhabited only by Leung's retired father. Meanwhile Leung himself actually lives at Kornhill Apartments, 2 Kornhill Road, Hong Kong Island.

Kornhill Apartments is located at the Middle Levels, Hong Kong Island East. Apartments range from 400 to 1,000 square feet in area, and are rented out as service apartments with access to the swimming pool and gym. When we inquired about conditions, we were told that Kornhill Apartments does not have a hotel license so that they can only be rented out on a monthly basis. A renter must pay a one month deposit. We observed that Leung has been there for at least one-and-a-half months. Based upon the minimum rent of $24,000 for a 400-bed room without kitchen, he would have paid at least $72,000 already. Did Leung pay this out of his own pocket, or is somebody else paying for it?

Leung usually dines outside with his girlfriend. He seldom patronizes tea restaurants. Usually he goes with friends to restaurants that cost $150 per person.

Also Ta Kung Pao observed that Leung is a cigarette smoker, and he goes into the street to smoke. Our reporter estimates that he smokes at least one pack a day. Given that his cigarette brand costs $60 per pack, he spends at $1,800 on cigarettes.

Apart from his girlfriend, Leung also has a pretty camerawoman following him around to record his activities.

- In Taiwan, university graduates are looking at an average salary of NT$22,000 (about HK$5,500). In Hong Kong, a fifth-year university student with no job spends $24,000 in rent, $9,000 in food (two meals a day), $1,800 in cigarettes, free chauffeur service, etc. So how can young people in Hong Kong complain that they were born in a time of chaos in which the people cannot make a living?

- The Facebook of the Journalists Association is being flooded.  On one hand, a journalist has been assaulted and therefore the Hong Kong Journalists Association should come out immediately to defend Freedom of Press in Hong Kong. On the other hand, journalist for a pro-China newspaper was filmed assaulting a citizen and therefore the Hong Kong Journalists Association should come out immediately to denounce this flagrant violation of professional code of conduct. What is to be done given the pressures from both sides? In an act of exceptional valor, the Journalists Association officers have gone into hiding and not answering their phone.

- Finally, the Hong Kong Journalists Association has issued a statement. As expected, it listed both sides of the argument in a wishy-washy way. "Our Association workers reached out to Mr. Leung and the newspaper at which the reporter named Lo works to learn what happen. We have not received any replies yet. Therefore, we cannot comment on this dispute."

- (Wen Wei Po) August 17, 2016.

Yesterday at the Hong Kong National Independence Movement Facebook, they posted the photos of the daughter of a relative of reporter Lo and said that they will personally congratulate the little girl for studying well. They also wished her a good Ghost Festival.

When the Journalists Association finally spoke out, the statement was a condemnation of both Edward Leung and reporter Lo. They said that insulting and assaulting reporters are unacceptable behaviors, and that it is the duty of reporters to gather news on public figures. This roused the ire of the pro-independence keyboard warriors:

Here is one conversation:

Fong Hok-nang: How about standing a fund to pay paparazzi to dig up the personal lives of the Journalists Association executive committee members? I offer $10,000. I hope that other funders will add more.
P.S. I welcome young wastrels to join in and work together on an  uncompensated basis.
PPS. I don't have time to manage this project, so someone else has to take charge.
Charles Low: I am poor. I offer $1,000.
Andrew Tsai: I offer $100.
Fong Hok-nang: There has to be at least $100,000 to $200,000. We need to fire 10 to twenty people to follow them around all the time.
Yuk Bong-cheung: Will $100,000 be enough?
Fong Hok-nang: Huh? Not enough? Will it cost several tens of thousands of dollars to hire several people to follow them around day and night for one week?
Yuk Bong-cheng: Insurance, medical expenses, family compensation.

So far this post has more than 100 LIKES and several dozen comments. One commentator asked "Why go after the Journalists Association Executive Committee?" and received a response of "Because" alongside the Journalists Association's statement on the incident. Our reporter inquired but has not received any response from the Journalists Association.

At another front, even though Apple Daily filed a report under the title "Leftist newspapers manufacturing news on Edward Leung," the pro-independence keyboard warriors think that Apple Daily was working in cahoots with Ta Kung Pao. So they posted information about the family lives of two Apple Daily reporters. User "Fanny Sun" reminded the two reporters to "pay attention to the children." According to information, another Ming Pao reporter who is a friend of reporter Lo also had his telephone number and photos of his children posted.

- Did Wen Wei Po ask the Journalists Association about the threat by the pro-independence fans to burn Ta Kung Pao down to the ground?

- (Wen Wei Po) August 15, 2016.

Normally, the pan-democrats are willing to comment on everything and anything. But about this incident, they are forwarding their mobile phones to the message boxes and not responding to the messages left there.

Among those who picked up the phone, Sin Chung-kai (Democratic Party legislator) said that he has not heard of this incident and he has no idea what happened. Given that it is not clear who is right or wrong and the matter is being investigated by the police, then the police should be allowed to investigate.

Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats legislator) said that after viewing the various videos on the Internet, he "personally believes in the Edward Leung's explanation." Fan said that although political figures should have higher EQ than ordinary people, they have feelings and therefore Leung retaliated when the reporter mentioned Leung's family members.

Kenneth Kwok (Civic Party) said that there are numerous fights in the subway every day and there are many other "serious matters" that society should be concerned about, such as the personnel moves at the ICAC and the Electoral Affairs Commission banning political dissidents from entering the elections. Since the police and the MTR are investigating, comments are inappropriate until the investigations are completed. As for the disclosure of personal information about the reporter, his family and friends, Kwok said that he has to learn more about this before commenting.

- (HKG Pao) August 15, 2016.

Chris Wat Wing-yin: "If this is a tip from a reader, then how comes it only occurs at Next Magazine? The incident took place at some time after 11pm. The police said that they were called at 1150pm. However, the Next Magazine Facebook had posted the video at 1:06am already. Isn't that very quick? Any regular tipster would need some time to find the right channel to offer the video.

Also, most citizens would be scared to approach a street fight. What is this tipster able to stand close and make a professional-quality video? Isn't she too professional?

In truth, this is the typical "news gathering" method for Next Magazine reporters. Edward Leung has admitted that he tailed the Ta Kung Pao reporter and attacked him after work. Thus, Leung had all the time in the world to call the Next Magazine reporter.

- (Apple Daily) August 16, 2016.

Ray Wong responded to our inquiry and said that the Audi vehicle in the report belongs to the company Channel i (HK) Limited owned by Ray Wong and Edward Leung. The vehicle was purchased from the used car market for about $30,000 last month. It was intended to be used for the election campaign. Wong said that they don't have any financial backers, and they have relied on the subscription fees to the Channel i program to support operations. "We are a very poor political party. I don't understand why they say that we have financial backers who let us spend extravagantly."

- When the purchase price of the vehicle is a lot lower than its open market value, there is something suspicious about the seller. PERIOD. Why don't you see what kind of car you can buy for $30,000 on the open market?

- At least Ray Wong didn't come out to say that the Kornhill Apartments unit is being rented for only $1 per month.

- The vehicle was intended to support the election. Edward Leung is not a candidate anymore. So what happens to the vehicle and the rest of the money?

- When Edward Leung's nomination was invalidated, they lost their raison d'tre. In order to continue sucking in more money, they said that they are going to support the Youngspiration candidates. Send more money more frequently.

- (Ta Kung Pao) In July, Hong Kong Indigenous said their fund-raising goal was $200,000. They said that they would not want to exaggerate the amount of money needed. Yet, Edward Leung filed expenses that included $550,000 for advertising in the February 2016 New Territories East Legislative Council by-election.

- And still no explanation from Ray Wong about the $530,000 crisp new bills and the 100 Viagra pills that he was found with when he was arrested for incitement and participation in the Mong Kok riot.

- And finally we have the news report that Edward Leung was so upset about that he assaulted the reporter who asked him for comments.

(Ta Kung Pao) August 16, 2016.


Top: Address of former restaurant owned and operated by Edward Leung's father
Bottom: Address of former Xinhua Bookstore

Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward Leung Tin-kei told the media that "his father is anti-Communist, his mother fears the Communists, his maternal grandfather was a Nationalist Party member. When the People's Republic was founded in 1949, his ancestral home was confiscated and his maternal grandfather was exiled to Xinjiang. Thus he used a series of bitter family experiences to build up his radical localist image. Our reporter visited Leung's place of birth in Wuhan city, Hubei province to discover his past.

We found out that his mother "who is scared of the Communists" and his father "who opposes the Communists" ran a restaurant in the Jiang'an district, Wuhan City in the year 2000 and earned RMB. The so-called confiscated ancestral home has been returned to the family. Leung said that his "family members have immigrated overseas and have no need to go back to China" when in fact the family members are living in Beijing, Zhuhai and Wuhan. When our reporter asked Leung for confirmation, he cursed with obscene language and angrily said: "This is none of your business!"

According to what our reporter found in Wuhan, Leung Tin-kei was born on June 2, 1991 at Number 15, Xian'an Fang, Jiang'an district, Wuhan city, Hubei province, People's Republic of China. His given name was Liang Han-zhang. The Huang family on his mother's side were in the local cotton business before the founding of the People's Republic of China and they were wealthy. His grandfather Mr. Huang studied in Hong Kong in his youth, and also studied business management at the Shanghai Academy of Finance.

In 1953, Mr. Huang graduated from university and was assigned by the state to work at the Bureau of Mineral Affairs of the Xinjiang Metal Company for seven years.

The ancestral home of the Huang family at Xian'an Fang was once confiscated by the sate, but it was returned to the Huang family in 1979 before Edward Leung was born.

Today, Number 15 Xian'an Road is unoccupied. Leung's parents met each other here. According to Leung's father, he met Ms. Huang here when he was traveling and then they got married.

According to information, Leung's mother worked as an accountant at the Xinhua Bookstore on Huangxing Road, Jiang'an Disrict, Wuhan City. The location is now the office of the Xinhua Travel Agency.

Our reporter located an former employee Ms. Zeng of the old Xinhua Bookstore. She said that Ms. Huang married a Hong Kong man named Liang at the Wuhan Civil Affairs Bureau in the summer of 1990. At the time, everybody thought that this was a big deal. The girls were all envious! Shortly afterwards, Ms. Huang resigned from her job. In 1992, she immigrated to Hong Kong and they did not keep up the contact. But Ms. Zeng said that Ms. Huang's husband ran a restaurant in Jiang'an District in 2000. Another colleague had even seen Ms. Huang in the Jiang'an District.

Our reporter checked the local business registry. A man with the same name as Edward Leung's father registered the Fu Lin Men Food and Beverage (Wuhan) Limited Company in the capacity of legal representatives. The registration was canceled in 2006. The address is presently occupied by a Hubei-cuisine restaurant.

Mr. Leung told our reporter that he invested in a restaurant in Wuhan more than a decade ago, but gave up after losing money. He recollected that he was unfortunate to run into SARS and the avian flu crisis, and nobody ate out during that time. "At the time, I was dining with senior government officials in Wuhan. I saw that the restaurants were filled with people. So I decided to invest more than 1 million. But unfortunately I ran into SARS. Then it was over."

Although Mr. Leung lost money with this investment, he was not "anti-Communist" as his son. "I don't like the system in mainland China, but that doesn't mean that I don't like China," Mr. Leung said.

Edward Leung's background as a new immigrant to similar to others like him. He still has many relatives in mainland China. According to information, Edward Leung's mother has two sisters. The elder one immigrated to the United States, but has moved back to live in her Wuhan hometown. The younger one runs a cultural company in Beijing.

As for his National Party member maternal grandfather, he is living in Zhuhai now. Other relatives of Edward Leung's mother also live and run businesses in mainland China. So it is an exaggeration for Edward Leung to say that all his family members have immigrated overseas.

Edward Leung was born in the Huang family ancestral home at Number 15, Xian'an Fang, Jiang'an district. In 1993, it was listed as a Class 1 protected historical building. Our reporter checked the land registy and found out that Leung's materal grandfather sold the building for RMB 1,000,000 in year 2000.

- This is a classical news report, with nothing wrong or sleazy. The starting point is that a public figure has weaved a certain story around himself. The investigative reporter went out to verify that account and found numerous discrepancies. The principal was upset because he was caught in his lies. And now he has to face his family who wants to know why he has lied about them for his own political purposes.

- This Ta Kung Pao news report did not name the relatives of Edward Leung nor their addresses. That is a shame. They should be identified so that mainland Internet users can form lynch robs to kill the men and rape the women. That's what the pro-Hong Kong independence Internet users want to do to the family of the Ta Kung Pao reporter, so it must be okay up in the mainland too.

- This is the rule of law. If only Hongkongers can do it but not mainlanders, that would be rule of man and we all know that would be bad.

- Squeezing a bit out of the toothpaste tube every day. This is exactly what Apple Daily/Next Magazine does all the time. Mr. Lo, nicknamed Golden Hair, learned his trade well after 11 years at <FACE> as the manager of the entertainment industry paparazzi squad.

- The Valiant Frontier Facebook wrote: "It is wrong to harass the person's family because they are innocent. But if someone does that, we will applaud loudly and offer our strong support." In like manner, we write: "It is wrong to harass the extended family of Edward Leung. But if someone does that, we will applaud loudly and offer our strong support."

- The usual tactic from the Chinese Communists is to hang out a bait. If Edward Leung denies any part of this news report, his relatives on mainland China will be interviewed by Phoenix TV/CCTV to wonder why Edward Leung is saying these untruthful things about them.

- A recent American example: When did Melania Trump come to the United States, got a green card and became a citizen?

Melania Trump "seemed to confirm" that she came to the United States on an H-1B visa in 1996, and an agent for a modeling agency told the The Washington Post that his agency sponsored Trump for an H-1B visa in 1996. She became a permanent resident of the United States in 2001 and a citizen in 2006.

In August 2016, it was reported that Trump's account of her immigration status may have contained inconsistencies. Controversial photographs of Trump were re-published in the New York Post in the first week of August 2016. These photographs were originally taken in the United States during a photo shoot which puts her inside the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists. The photos themselves were published by the French men's magazine, Max, in January 1996. This causes a discrepancy in her timeline of being a legal resident of the United States: her purported immigration timeline has her entering the country in 1996 on a short-term travel visa, which would not have authorized her to work as a model. However, the photographer who took the pictures republished by the New York Post stated that Trump was not paid for her work.

This was only a big issue because her husband takes a hostile stance against illegal immigrants, including wanting to make Mexico pay to build a great wall along its borders with the United States.

- (Ta Kung Pao) August 17, 2016.

Edward Leung's father lives in a small unit in Yuen Long. According to the Land Registry, he purchased the unit for $278,000 in the 1990's and sold it for $800,000 in 2009 for a profit of $520,000. The new owner is believed to be his own brother. This is a decrepit unit, with old windows and doors. The window panes are rusting, and one corner of the kitchen window has fallen off. According to neighbors, Leung's father is very frugal. When he goes out at noon, he usually only buys some biscuits or bread for lunch.

Leung's father runs an antique shop in Yuen Long. The shop has an area of about 6 feet wide and 20 feet long. The shop is filled with cardboard paper, magazines, etc with barely any 'antiques' in sight. The dust-covered windows have a faded sign saying "Business move sales". Neighbors said that Leung's father is frugal and runs only an electric fan even in the hottest days of the summer. According to information, the shop has been losing money consistently and Leung's father wants to rent it out for between $7,000 to $10,000.

Neighbors said that they wanted Leung's father to tell his son to stop. But the father was proud of his son and supports his campaign to run for the Legislative Council. He reported told the neighbors: "He is not committing murder or arson. What is wrong with that?" "The Legislative Council pays $160,000 per month. It is better to become a legislator than a policeman!"

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 17, 2016.

... Frankly, I don't approve of paparazzi methods. I don't think that any reporter really wants to be a paparazzo. Ta Kung Pao has not been the home for paparazzi before. But given the number of crooks who are pretending to be freedom fighters today, even Ta Kung Pao has to use the Apple Daily method to illuminate these people.

Many of the Journalists Association folks came out of Apple Daly. They knew exactly who introduced the paparazzi when and where. When the entertainment celebrities complain, they got the standard response: "When you eat salted fish, you must be prepared to put up with the thirst (due to the high salt content)."

Therefore I recommend the same to Edward Leung: "When you eat salted fish, you must be prepared to put with the thirst." If you want to become rich and famous, then you must be prepared to deal with the ambushes, criticisms, incessant filming, being followed around, etc. If your EQ is so low that you blow up at the slightest provocation, then you are not thick-skinned enough yet. No wonder you won't become a Legislative Councilor.

- After going into hiding for days, Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward Leung Tin-kei finally emerged by posting a 6-minute video of him campaigning with a megaphone at Tai Po Plaza. The video showed Leung standing in the middle of the road to broadcast his ideas. It did not matter whether the traffic light was red or green, Leung just stood there and made cars and people walk around him. Indeed, Edward Leung knows no fear as a true valiant warrior for the people of Hong Kong.

- Transport Department, The Road Users' Code

Rules and advice for all road users

Avoid any behaviour likely to put into danger any person or to cause damage to public or private property or to obstruct other road users.

Do not obstruct other road users or make their passage dangerous by throwing, depositing or leaving any object or substance on the pavement or the roadway. If you are unable to avoid creating an obstruction in that way then take the necessary steps to remove it as soon as possible and, if it cannot be removed immediately, then warn other road users.

You should make allowances for and/or help children, disabled or elderly people and others who may have difficulty in getting around such as people with injuries or coping with children or luggage.

Among events that take place once every four years, I like the FIFA World Cup more because I really don't want to watch the Chinese team.

At the Rio Olympics opening ceremony, the order of countries is #44 China and #92 Hong Kong. So in front of a global television audience of more than 1 billion, Hong Kong is indeed an independent sovereign country!

- Eh, the placard in front of the Hong Kong delegation reads: "Hong Kong China." It does not read "Hong Kong."

- That should really upset those who like to chant "Hong Kong Is Not China" and boo their own national anthem at soccer games.

- At least, this was the ignominy of being called "Chinese Hong Kong" as in "Chinese Taipei." This CNN news title is titled: "Anger in Taiwan over 'Chinese Taipei' Olympics moniker". Well, either you accept that your place is at the back of the bus, or else you sit in front and deal with the consequences (reference: Rosa Parks).

- (Wikipedia) Hong Kong At the Olympics

The National Olympic Committee (NOC) for Hong Kong was founded in 1950 as the Amateur Sports Federation and Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, and is now known as the Sports Federation and Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China. It was recognised by the IOC in 1951, and subsequently, Hong Kong was represented separately from Great Britain (for any gold medal ceremony, the colonial flag of Hong Kong was raised and the British national anthem was played) at all future Olympic Games.

After the sovereignty of Hong Kong was transferred to the People's Republic of China in 1997, the NOC for the special administrative region has been designated Hong Kong, China. Hong Kong is represented separately at the Olympics by its own choice (for any gold medal ceremony the Hong Kong SAR flag is raised and the PRC national anthem is played). As permitted under its constitution as agreed upon handover from the United Kingdom (specifically, Article 151, Chapter 7 of The Basic Law), it "may, on its own, ... maintain and develop relations and conclude and implement agreements with foreign states and regions and relevant international organizations in the appropriate fields, including the economic, trade, financial and monetary, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural and sports fields."

- If and when the United Kingdom reclaims sovereignty over Hong Kong, we will finally get our national anthem back! Here is Lee Lai-shan with the first and only Hong Kong Olympic gold medal at the 1996 Atlanta Games to the tune of God Save The Queen!

- Well, brother, you have a long wait ahead of you ...

Facebook: Oppose "689" CY Leung ruling Hong Kong with lies, Down with 689

I turned on the television set to watch the Rio Olympics opening ceremony
Then I saw that this dickhead Natalis Chan is the host
So I turned off the television set.
Please press LIKE if you support this boycott

(Yahoo! Sports) August 7, 2016.

US teenager Ginny Thrasher got hooked on shooting when deer hunting with her grandfather and on Saturday that passion saw her past China's champion sharpshooters to claim the first gold medal of the Rio 2016 Games. The 19-year-old edged past Athens 2004 champion Du Li in the final shot in the women's 10m air rifle. London 2012 titleholder Yi Siling took bronze.

       

- People say that they cry when they see their national flags raise at the Olympics. But all Hong Kong localists should be very delighted to see the United States beat the two Chinawomen to win the first Olympic gold medal at the Rio Games.

- Long Live the United States!!! P.S. When are they going to send the marines in to liberate Hong Kong from the grip of the Chicoms?

- Kengo Ip's Facebook

Sports is not politics?
Japan took its first gold in swimming. Vietnam beat Brazil and China to win the men's 10m air rifle gold.
The hostility between China and Japan is mighty. Vietnam is tangling with China over South Seas. They are showing we Chinese off at the Olympics. How can you as a Chinese person not be angry?
When will China's first gold come? Hahaha, I think that that the Chinese coaches are more worried than you are.

Comment: Kengo Ip, if I don't pour acid on you the next time at the Book Fair, may I be run over and killed by a car in the street!

- Question: Why won't the Hong Kong Police investigate this case and arrest the Facebook commentator? After all, they arrested the people who threatened the Returning Officer of the Registration and Electoral Office.

- An anonymous third-party sends some screen captures to the Hong Kong Police Public Relations Bureau and demand an investigation. There is no complainant and there is no direct evidence. What do you expect the police to do? P.S. The police asked people to send in actionable information.

- What happened to the crew who said that the people who threatened the Returning Officer were merely exercising their freedom of speech? Where have they disappeared to now?

- Whenever there are ties that lead to a shared medal, the national flags are supposed to be place in parallel.  In the women's 100m backstroke, China's Fu Yuanhui was tied with the Canadian swimmer for the bronze medal. It really warmed my heart to see that the Rio organizers placed Canada's flag on top of the Chinese flag. Long live Canada! When they will send their army over to liberate Hong Kong from the Chicoms?

- Don't be silly! According to the Olympic rules, the flags are supposed to be in parallel when there are ties. In the event that there isn't enough room for parallel placement, the flags are supposed to be arranged vertically by alphabetical order of the winners' names. Here we have Fu Yuanhui (China) and Kylie Masse (Canada). Of course, the Brazilians have no idea that the Chinese woman's family name is Fu and the Canadian's family name if Masse. Instead, they thought that the Chinese woman's family name is Yuanhui! So Masse goes ahead of Fu Yuanhui. Get it?

But if you want to feel good, go ahead by all means ... please remember that masturbation is bad for you ...

- The rules actually say that the tied countries should be arranged vertically by country name in alphabetical order (because this could be a team event with multiple athletes). So Canada goes ahead of China.

At first, RTHK's website listed the Olympic medal counts by country by the total number of medals won. This meant that China was ranked number 2 on the list. A massive complaint campaign to RTHK by localists led to a new table in which countries are ranked by the number of gold medals first, silver medals next and bronze medals next. This meant that China was knocked down to number 11 on the list. This has been yet another great victory for The People of Hong Kong!

- That table above was for results after the first day. Here is the table right now (August 11, 2016) from Google. Why don't you find a way to complain to Google so as to knock China out of the top 10?

- You have a heart of glass. The only thing is whether you know it or not.

Top Left: Olympic Games news -- the Chinese won the 100m women's backstroke
Top Right: The Chinese won the 200m men's free style, 200m women's individual medley
Bottom Left: The Chinese won the 200m women's free style, women's gymnastics team event ...
Bottom Right: I can't stand this ... I want to see them lose their gold medals ...

(Wall Street Journal Blog) August 8, 2016.

For Chinas proud Olympians, the stars havent quite aligned in Rio.

Several Chinese flags used by organizers at the 2016 Olympics in Brazil featured wrongly angled stars, a subtle but significant slip that has irked Chinese officials as well as legions of viewers back home.

Olympic organizers pledged to rectify the mistake, which came to light on Saturday during the games first medal ceremony, where two Chinese shooters celebrated podium finishes beneath a pair of flags with wonky stars.

Chinas national flag features five golden stars backed by a field of red, with one large star flanked on the right by an arc of four smaller stars, each tilted to point a tip directly toward the center of the larger star. The small stars on Chinese flags in Rio, however, are laid uprightan error that first appeared on a flag waved by the Chinese delegation during Fridays opening ceremony, but seemingly went unnoticed at the time.

At a medal ceremony the next day, where the flags hung motionless and were easier to scrutinize, the mistake was obvious. Chinese officials lodged protests, while viewers at home voiced complaints on social media. Some attentive web users have discovered that the five-star red flag used at this Olympics appear problematic, state broadcaster China Central Television said on its official Weibo microblog. The national flag is the symbol of a nation! No problems are permissible!

CCTVs comments drew more than 93,000 likes from Weibo users, some of whom criticized the Olympic organizers for perceived sloppiness. This Olympics are the worst Ive ever seen, a user wrote. Others talked about who was to blame. If the flags were made in China, then things would be a little awkward, one Weibo user said. Another user responded, Even if they were made in China, they were based on Brazilian-supplied designs!

It wasnt clear who produced the erroneous flags, though CCTV said last week that all the national flags that will be hoisted during the [opening] ceremony are made in China, as part of a report asserting that Chinese-made products will be an integral part of the Olympics.

Chinese diplomats, for their part, have filed an official complaint to the Rio Olympic Committee and suggested that a non-Chinese contractor was responsible for the mistake.

In a verified Weibo post dated Monday, the Chinese consulate in Rio de Janeiro said the committee has apologized and ordered the contractorwhich the consulate didnt nameto resolve the problem.

A Chinese state-run newspaper, however, quoted the Rio Olympic Committee as saying that all flags used at the games had been approved by the respective national Olympic committees. The Chinese flag was approved by the Chinese Olympic Committee, Peoples Daily said, citing comments from the Rio committee.

Neither the Rio nor Chinese Olympic committees immediately responded to requests for comment.

The Chinese flag was designed in 1949, just months before the founding of the Peoples Republic. Its red field is meant to represent the Communist revolution, while the five stars symbolize the unity of the Chinese people under the Communist Party. The large star represents the party, while the small stars symbolize the four social classes as defined by Mao Zedong: the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie.

Chinas uproar over stars askew wasnt the only flag-related furor over the opening Olympic weekend. During Fridays opening ceremony, Australian broadcaster Seven Network accidentally displayed the flag of Chile instead of Chinas when representing the Middle Kingdom on a list of participating nations, drawing derision from Chinese viewers down under.

An unnamed Seven Network spokesperson told Chinas government-run Xinhua News Agency that the network apologized unreservedly for the human error that resulted in the flag switcheroo. Efforts to reach Seven Network for comment werent immediately successful, while a receptionist who answered a call after working hours said the broadcaster doesnt take queries outside of the business day.

(Silent Majority for HK) August 12, 2016.

For the longest time, the 'pro-democracy' have argued that national education is unnecessary in Hong Kong. As an example, they showcased the United States of America, because over there "patriotism comes from inside the heart" and national education, respect for the national flag, etc were unimportant. So now we have the case of gymnast Gabby Douglas who failed to place her hand over her heart during the playing of the national anthem during the Olympic medal ceremony. Eventually Gabby Douglas had to issue a public apology.

What if Gabby Douglas did what Joshua Wong and company did during the playing of the national anthem?

(New York Times) August 12, 2016.

The playing of the United States national anthem at Olympic medal ceremonies is bringing tears to the eyes of American athletes here. Elsewhere, the song is having a very different effect.

It is driving me crazy, said Jason DeBord, a 45-year-old living in Ann Arbor, Mich. I hit the mute button, or I make dinner, or I just sit there and brace myself.

DeBord has nothing against displays of patriotism, nor is he simply eager to return to the action. What irritates him is the version of The Star-Spangled Banner being used at the Olympics. Put bluntly, it has been butchered.

O.K., that might overstate the problem. Maybe it would be more accurate to say the song has been altered in ways that rob it of its oomph, its power and its optimistic essence.

Specifically, DeBord said, this Banner segues several times to minor chords, which in the Western canon are considered melancholic, in places where major chords, which are heartier and more upbeat, are the norm. The effect, DeBord said, is a rendering of the anthem that is darker and sadder.

It has a totally different emotional feel, he said. It is supposed to have an ascending chord structure. Instead, it sort of has a descending chord structure.

In short, this is a defeatist Star-Spangled Banner, and it is broadcast, around the globe, at a moment of ecstatic, international triumph. Continue reading the main story

DeBord, who spent 16 years on Broadway as a conductor and pianist, is on the faculty at the University of Michigans department of musical theater. He is the first to admit that few people are likely to notice, let alone be bothered by, the elements of the song that annoy him. But when he posted his feelings on his Facebook page, he quickly found that he had company. Lots of perturbed company.

Glad its not just me, one commenter wrote.

Another person posted: Sounds like a music school project gone awry. Just awful.

Im not on Twitter, someone else added, but there must be a way to tell them!!!

Asked for the particulars of his beef with this Banner, DeBord offered to head to the piano in his home and provide a live tutorial, over the phone. He quickly plowed through the beginning of the song O say, can you see, by the dawns early light but stopped when he got to What so proudly we hailed.

At proudly, he noted, the Olympic version of the anthem goes to one of those sad, dark minor chords where majors have long been the norm. He played the standard version and then the Olympic version standard, Olympic, over and over. Once he pointed out the difference, it was obvious. The Olympic version was conciliatory, maybe even retreating. The standard version was chest-thumping and on the offense.

It happens again on rockets red glare, he said, hands on the piano, and then again on land of the free.

There is no official or definitive version of The Star-Spangled Banner, and that is no accident. The 1931 bill signed into law by President Herbert Hoover that adopted the song as the nations anthem is a model of terseness. It is mum about both lyrics and arrangement, which, said Mark Clague, an associate professor of musicology at the University of Michigan, is one reason the anthem has continued to evolve over the years.

When Francis Scott Key wrote it, hed just seen a decisive victory in Baltimore in the War of 1812, which was like a second war of independence, he said in an interview. He writes the song in celebration, and its played for years with a celebratory feel, up-tempo and light. Only later does it become the song we know, slower and more majestic.

Clague, who is working on a book about The Star-Spangled Banner, did indeed notice the new Olympic take on the song. What struck him most was the way it handled the climactic land of the free, which is typically wrung for maximum emotion.

Here it goes to a minor chord, he said, so rather than having that firm, confident expression of the word free, you get an unstable, questioning chord. Where you should be feeling victory, you have a question mark.

Clague sounds less bothered by this take on the anthem. Maybe it is because he knows thousands of versions have been created over the years and he regards the tune as a variety of clay that everyone is free to mold. He also surmises that the arranger was adapting the song for the moment.

When we play the anthem in the U.S., its often all about creating a sense of unity in the country, he said. The Olympics is a very different context. Were really celebrating brotherhood, international cooperation, rather than martial qualities that anthems are often called upon to express. Three flags are being raised, not one. So I think that what has happened here is theyve softened the song, de-emphasizing the militant aspect and emphasizing the songs lyrical side, to bring out the community-of-nations idea.

The United States Olympic Committee said it was not responsible for submitting the anthem to Olympic organizers. The group that is running the Rio Games said it would look into the origin of the United States anthem being played here.

This version may not be making its Olympic debut. According to DeBord and Clague, the version heard here in Rio was also used at the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, and the 2012 Summer Games in London. Those were in the key of C major and were 70 seconds long.

During a medal ceremony, Shazam, the song identification app, tagged the track as The London Philharmonic Orchestra & Philip Sheppard.

If this rendition originated in London, where did London get it?

As it happens, a 2012 YouTube video shows the ambitious effort undertaken in the lead-up to the London Games to record new arrangements of more than 200 national anthems.

That project was led by Sheppard, a British composer, cellist and professor at the Royal Academy of Music whose website states that he has scored more than 30 films and worked with David Bowie, Jeff Buckley, the Weeknd and many other recording artists. In the video, he is seen conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra at Abbey Road, the studio made famous by the Beatles.

Sheppard could not be reached Wednesday.

The anthems serve a particular purpose at the Olympics, he tells an off-screen interviewer in the video. That is namely to get the flag up the pole during the gold medal ceremonies.

He is making the practical point that the songs cannot go on and on. So one of his biggest challenges, he said, was ensuring that each anthem lasted 60 to 90 seconds. This meant dramatic cuts for some anthems like Uruguays, which usually lasts for six and a half minutes and looping repetition for others, like Ugandas, which is only nine bars long.

All the countries had to sign off on the new arrangements, Sheppard says. At one moment in the video, he sounds a little nervous about whether Britain will give a thumbs-up.

The video ends, inexplicably, with the full, 70-second rendering of The Star-Spangled Banner as the camera shows an American flag. There is no commentary.

Is it possible that Sheppard went with minor chords as a way to shave time off the tune? The standard land of the free, for instance, when milked properly, takes its time.

DeBord doubts it. But for him, the need for edits could never justify such maddening results.

You dont need to compromise a piece of music, he said, to make it work for time.

(The Australian) August 9, 2016.

The comments of Mack Horton, Australias first gold medallist at the Rio Olympics, about his key rival, Chinas Sun Yang, have now inflamed diplomatic tensions between Australia and China, led by the Chinese government agency Xinhua and the Global Times.

Hortons outspoken remarks, referring to Yang as a drug cheat, have sparked escalating Chinese-led criticism of Horton, Australian swimming, Hortons family and now the entire Australian community.

An editorial in the Global Times was scathing of Australia, saying: In many serious essays written by Westerners, Australia is mentioned as a country at the fringes of civilisation. In some cases, they refer to the countrys early history as Britains offshore prison. This suggests that no one should be surprised at uncivilised acts emanating from the country.

Yang, who is set to dominate the 200m freestyle final later today, accused Horton who beat him in the 400m freestyle on the opening night of competition of cheap tricks and called for some respect.

The Chinese Swimming Association has demanded Horton apologise, putting it at odds with the position of the Australian Olympic Committee, which has publicly announced that Horton was free to express his opinion.

This morning Australian Chef de mission Kitty Chiller refused to step back and fully supported Hortons stance. Mack obviously has very strong views about the need for clean sport, as every single one of us does, she said. He has every right to express his views and his displeasure in that sense. We have no intention of making an apology.

Chiller said Horton was not affected by the trolling on social media or Chinas official demands for an apology. Mack is in a pretty good place, she said. Hes got probably his best event coming up in a few days and I know he, like all the swimmers, is focused on hia own event, his own lane, she said. I would hazard a guess that it wouldnt affect him at all.

But the China swim manager Xu Qi said Hortons malicious words were inappropriate and great hurt had been done to the relationships between China and Australia. We have been noticing what has been said in the past two days by Horton, who launched a malicious personal attack, Xu Qi told Chinas state media Xinhua. We think his inappropriate words greatly hurt the feelings between Chinese and Australian swimmers. We strongly demand an apology from this swimmer. It is proof of a lack of good manners and upbringing.

Australias synchronised diver Maddison Keeney, who won a bronze medal with Annabelle Smith, backed Horton. Im all for clean sport. Everyone should have an equal playing field, Keeney said.

(The Australian) August 9, 2016.

If Mack Horton had his way, the sporting world would see his increasingly rancorous rivalry with Sun Yang as an aquatic pantomime: a duel between evil and good, the Chinese drug cheat against an Aussie kid taught to play fair.

For a competitor like Horton, the notion that he represents all who are clean in sport, while Sun represents all who have doped, is blood in the water. It is the thought that will fuel his mind, when his body is entirely spent, at the end of those torturous 30 laps.

To a competitor like Sun Yang, it may also be a grossly unfair.

Sun Yang served a three-month suspension after testing positive in May 2014 to a banned anti-anginal drug, Trimetazidine, at Chinas national swimming championships in Qingdao. Trimetazidine had been added four months earlier to the World Anti-Doping Agencys list of prohibited substances.

In Hortons view, this means Sun is forever, irredeemably, a cheat. I used the word drug cheat because he tested positive, Horton told reporters after touching out Sun in the 400m freestyle to win his first Olympic gold medal. I just have a problem with him testing positive and still competing.

The truth is more complicated.

The reason Sun was suspended for three months, rather than the mandatory two-year penalty for taking a prohibited substance in force at the time, is that he was found not to have intentionally doped.

In the first instance, his case was decided by the Chinese Swimming Federation. After reviewing the evidence against Sun, WADA chose not to appeal. Its only quibble was the amount of time taken by Chinas anti-doping authority to report Suns positive test.

National anti-doping authorities are supposed to report positive tests within 20 days. It was not until November 2014, six months after the national championships, that media outlets first learned that one of Chinas most celebrated swimmers had failed a drug test and had been stripped of his national titles. By that stage, Sun had already served his short ban.

The Chinese Swimming Federation and WADA accepted Suns explanation that he took Trimetazidine for a genuine medical condition and not to gain an unfair advantage. Suns condition is angina pectoris, which loosely translates into strange feeling in the chest. The condition can be caused by coronary disease and other serious heart problems which interrupt the flow of blood. Sun occasionally feels it as a squeezing sensation in his chest. Famously, he felt it moments before his 1500m final at last years FINA world championships in Kazan.

I didnt feel good in my heart, the world record holder told reporters after his last minute withdrawal from his pet event. Today I felt really uncomfortable at the pool during my warm-up and I had to give up the idea of competing. I feel really sorry about that. It is the first time I have felt uncomfortable in competition.

Sun told the Chinese Swimming Federation he took Trimetazidine, then listed as a banned stimulant, in the lead-up to competition without realising it was banned. The doctor who provided it to him was suspended.

The problem for Sun is that Trimetazidine is used by athletes to cheat. A 2014 Polish study found that the drug, by improving heart function, was used by athletes to improve physical efficiency, especially in the case of endurance sports.

Trimetazidine is still banned in and out of competition by WADA. Only a month ago, a positive test for the drug ended the Rio dreams of Russias quadruple sculls crew. The culprit was Sergei Fedorovtsev, an Athens gold medallist who returned a positive test for the drug during an Olympic qualifying event in Lucerne.

Like Maria Sharapovas failure to declare her use of Meldonium before and after it was added to WADAs banned list, Sun failed to declare his use to Trimetazidine when he submitted a doping control form in Qingdao. Even assuming his medical condition is genuine, he did not have a therapeutic use exemption to take the drug.

Horton is entitled to be suspicious of Sun. This is a natural consequence of the history of doping in Chinese swimming and the conflict of interest in the World Anti-Doping Code, which entrusts national sports federations to act as judge in cases involving their own athletes.

Horton should also understand Suns case well enough to acknowledge that he has never been found guilty of deliberately taking a banned substance. There are certainly cheats aplenty at these Games. It may be however, that Sun isnt one of them.

(Brisbane Times) August 9, 2016.

French swimmer Camille Lacourt has taken a swipe at controversial Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, declaring: "he pisses purple".

The swimming world has erupted after Australian Mack Horton called Sun a drug cheat on the opening day of the Rio Olympics, with the veteran French backstroker expressing his dismay over FINA's decision to allow him to compete.

Lacourt, who finished fifth in the 100 metre backstroke final not long after Sun claimed gold in the 200 metre freestyle, likened the sport to athletics with a belief there are a number of athletes in each race who are taking performance enhancing drugs.

"Sun Yang, he pisses purple," Lacourt told French radio station RMCsport. "When I see the 200m podium I want to be sick. I prefer to remember the crowd that cheered when we went out. I am very sad when I see my sport getting like this. I have the impression I am looking at athletics, with two or three doped in each final. I hope that [swimming's world governing body] FINA is going to react and stop this massacre, because it is getting sad."

Sun, who served a three month ban for doping after testing positive to trimetazidine back in 2014, has felt the brunt of criticism after Horton's choice words at the start of the games.

The atmosphere was inflamed further when, after reeling in South Africa's Chad le Clos to win Olympic gold on Monday night, Sun embraced FINA executive director Cornel Marculescu. Sun said Marculescu was like a "grandfather" to him. After the race Sun was asked about his friendship with Marculescu, the FINA boss, and replied that he had been a figure of support since the controversy in Rio erupted.  "Marcu is a very good friend of [the] Chinese swim team and he actually watched me like a grandfather. So I was very happy to see him see me win the gold. I hope this friendship will last."

(SCMP) Sun Yang may not be a nice guy, but neither is he a drug cheat. By Alex Lo. August 11, 2016.

The paradoxical thing about international sports like the Olympics is that it brings out the nationalists in many people. I have naturalised Canadian friends who are proud of their adopted country, but once they turn to the TV sports channels, they inevitably become Aussies, Italians, Poles and Chinese again.

For sure, international athletes are trained by state-sponsored bodies and represent their countries when they compete. But it also means we dont see them as individuals, with their greatness and pettiness, strengths and weaknesses that are all their own.

Take the feud between Chinas superstar swimmer Sun Yang, and his Australian and French rivals Mack Horton and Camille Lacourt.

Horton accused him of being a drug cheat, while Lacourt said Sun made him sick because he pisses purple, that is, testing positive for drug back in 2014.

The Chinese team has demanded an official apology but the Australians counter there is nothing to be sorry for. Netizens from those countries have been trading insults; accusations of racism fly.

The public statements of Horton and Lacourt are disgraceful and ungracious, and unworthy of great sportsmen. Swimmers are among the most tested of Olympic athletes, and no positive results have turned up against Sun so far. They were referring to something back in 2014, but even that case was problematic.

Even so, Sun has fully earned the animosity of not only his foreign rivals but even his own team by his well-known arrogance, bad poolside manners and domineering behaviour.

In additional to Horton, national coaches from Brazil, Canada and South Africa have complained about his disruptive antics against other athletes during training sessions, with one complaining he acted like he owns the pools. His detractors are legion. None of it makes him guilty of doping, though, unless he tests positive.

A few months after the World Anti-Doping Agency added trimetazidine to its list of banned substances, Sun tested positive for the drug in 2014. He said it was used to treat his heart condition. By January last year, the agency downgraded the drug from being a stimulant to a metabolic modulator. It was not a case of cut-and-dried doping.

We expect great athletes to be great people who bring glory to their countries. The reality is that most suffer from the same character flaws as the rest of us.

(Agence France Presse) August 9, 2016.

IOC spokesman Mark Adams said the organisation encouraged free speech and had no plans to take action. However he said competitors had a right to compete "in tranquillity" and appealed to athletes to show respect to one another.

"Clearly we want to encourage freedom of speech," he said. "But on the other hand of course the Olympics is about respecting others and respecting the right of others to compete," he added. "There is a line somewhere there, and each case is different of course, where people should be free to compete in tranquillity. So, yes, we would encourage people to respect their fellow competitors."

Adams said the IOC had no plans to take action over the Horton-Sun spat. "People say many things after competition and they're entitled to say those things," he said. "At the moment we've had no complaints from anyone and no need to take it any further as far as we see."

(News.com.au) August 10, 2016.

Amanda Abates slip of the tongue comes off the back of an international feud after Aussie swimmer Mack Horton labelled Yang a drug cheat when he won gold in the 400 metre freestyle final on Saturday.

Some big names of swimming are lining up to support Aussie gold medallist Mack Horton, with mounting backlash from China for calling one of its cheats, sorry, one of its stars a drug cheat, Abate said.

Her co-host was quick to step in. Slip of the tongue with Sun Yang? he said, adding that it happens.

I definitely didnt mean that, but look everyone, it is a talking point, Abate added. She took to Twitter soon after the awkward slip up.

A number of social media users went straight in for the attack with Abate pleading with people not to troll her.


- Chinese swimmer Fu Yuanhui is the new social media darling (see Shanghaiist). With respect to the Sun Yang flap, Fu said on video interview: "When I saw that, I was very upset. This was a smear. How can Horton say that about Brother Yang. But it is pointless for me to say anything here. I cannot say anything. If I made a rebuttal, wouldn't that make me the same as them? ... At the time, I also thought it would be delightful if I can also defeat the Australians. But I have nothing to do with those backstroke swimmers. We cannot transfer our anger at others. Nevertheless I still think that they were going too far. How can they say that? Brother Yang works very hard. He is an excellent athlete. He did not cheat. Not all athletes take drugs. Many people think that if you excel, you must be taking drugs. But that is not true."

- (Bastille Post) The insane level of popularity of Fu Yuanhui in mainland China showed that there has been a major shift in individual values. Thirty years ago, if a Chinese athlete behaved like Fu Yuanhui today, she would be criticized viciously for acting in a disgraceful manner. At the 1988 Seoul Olympics, Li Ning fell down from the ring apparatus and lost the gold medal. He returned to China in secret because he felt so guilty about letting everybody down. Today as the economy develops, social values have changed. While mainlanders still have the competitive spirit, they also value happiness and self-expression. In the case of Fu Yuanhui, nobody minds that she only tied for a bronze medal. Instead, they love her because she exudes a happy spirit. But even as the social attitudes in China become better, what are things getting worse in Hong Kong? While is everything here embroiled in bitterness?

- The Commies are masters at manipulative propaganda. As you remember, police interrogators come in as a pair, one good cop partnered with one bad cop. Sun Yang is the big bad bully, while Fu Yuanhui is the cutie-pie sweetheart. In truth, both are just as ugly and evil. Beware!

(SCMP) August 12, 2016.

Hong Kongs Geoffrey Cheah won his heat at the Rio Olympics and then felt the need to unburden himself of issues that have been troubling him also taking a swipe at China for allowing their star swimmer Sun Yang to continue competing after a doping suspension.

Cheah, whose fathers cancer has affected his build-up to the Rio Games, won an Asian Games bronze in 2014 but never stood on the podium. He only received his medal after South Korean Park Tae-hwan was caught cheating.

I feel pretty sad that it feels like people dont respect the doping rules, said Cheah, who clocked 22.46 seconds in his 50m freestyle heat but was unable to reach the next round. They feel like theyre above the rules.

I know its two years ago but Im someone who gets the short end of the stick. I didnt get my chance to stand on the podium at the Asian Games, added Cheah as he unleashed years of pent-up frustration.

Also, I dont see how its acceptable that [Chinas] Sun Yang can serve a three-month secret suspension and show up at the Asian Games and Olympics as if everything is fine. You cant even train during suspensions.

- At 22.46, Geoffrey Cheah finished in 32nd place. Only the top 16 advanced to the semi-finals. If you eliminate the drug cheats (#1 Ukraine, #6 Russia, #20 China, #28 Russia, #30 China), Cheah is still far from qualifying. His personal best is 22.39. The world record is 20.91.

- In Hongkongese, there is a saying about people who shift the blame: "If you are unable to defecate, you blame the ground for being too hard; if you are unable to urinate, you blame the wind for being too strong." In any case, it is always someone else's problem and never your own. Thus Geoffrey Cheah got his ass whipped because the 31 swimmers in front of him are drug cheats. (P.S. I know that they tested clean, but you know how FINA works!)

- Geoffrey Cheah showed us the reason why Fu Yuanhui has become the most popular athlete at the Rio Olympics!

- Geoffrey Cheah has good "sour grapes" company in Hope Solo.

Hope Solo has had an interesting Olympics to put it mildly. Before the Games had even started she had alienated many people in the host country by posing with anti-mosquito gear, a reference to the problems Brazil is experiencing with the Zika virus.

That led to the USA goalkeeper being taunted with cries of Zika at every goalkick by Brazilian fans during the World Cup. She then made two errors as the US drew with Colombia in their final group game of the tournament.

On Friday, she really stepped things up. As the US faced a penalty that would see them crash out of the tournament to Sweden in shoot-out, Solo claimed she needed to change her gloves. That forced Lisa Dahlkvist to wait a few minutes to take her spot-kick, an uncomfortably long time at such a crucial moment. The Swede scored anyway and the defending champions were out.

Solo did not take kindly to the defeat. I thought we played a courageous game. I thought we had many opportunities on goal, she said. I think we showed a lot of heart. We came back from a goal down, Im very proud of this team. And I also think we played a bunch of cowards. The best team did not win today, I strongly, firmly believe that.

Solo was asked to clarify her comments and said her issue with the Swedes stemmed from their style of play. They didnt want to open play. They didnt want to pass the ball. They didnt want to play great soccer. It was a combative game, a physical game ... And they tried to counter with longballs.

The goalkeeper was also dismissive of Swedens chances going ahead. I dont think theyre going to make it far in the tournament. I think it was very cowardly. But they won, they moving on and were going home.

She told Sports Illustrateds Grant Wahl that she was proud of her team-mates. Tonight Sweden found a way to beat us. Nevertheless, I am so proud of the way we played tonight, our fight, our heart, and the skill we showed. Things dont always go the way you want them to. Such is life, and such is sport.

There was widespread criticism of Solo on social media following her comments. She later admitted on Twitter that losing sucks. Im really bad at it.

The Sweden coach, Pia Sundhage, led the US to gold and the 2008 and 2012 Olympics and was dismissive of Solos outburst. I dont give a crap, she told reporters after the game. Im going to Rio, shes going home.

- The biggest cowards in history were the Viet Cong who defeated the Americans with their cowardly tactics:

(Urban Dictionary) Viet-Cong

The Viet-Cong were cowardly soldiers fighting America, Australia, South Korea and Canada among other white nations. The Viet-Cong fought on behalf of international communism and were financed and equipped by the giant commie powers of USSR and China. They fought in a cowardly manner in that while we all wore military uniforms but they pretended to be ordinary citizens of the RVN during the day, but they would go out at night or whenever they had a chance to try to kill us using cowardly methods such as concealed land mines on trails we would be likely to use, and setting grenades to go off with trip wires, and concealing sharpened punji sticks covered with their own shit to cause foot injuries in the feet of the GI's. For a time, before we blocked them, they used little kids to drop grenades into the gas tanks of GI vehicles. The grenade had the pin pulled with the triggering lever held down only by a rubber band.

Despite all their backing and their treacherous butchery, the Viet-Cong were so thoroughly dominated by our forces that they had to sign off in 1973 on the Paris Peace Treaty as the only way to get us out of there. After that they proved their treachery once again so that as soon as all of us GI's were gone in reliance on the 1973 treaty, also signed by "North Vietnam", they re-invaded the south in 1975 with massive military power provided to them again by international communist assholes. Too bad for them all that communism was subsequently shown to be a demonic failure as a governmental system.

(Sydney Morning Herald) April 7, 2007.

Below a list of Australian Drug scandals. Sort your own business out before you give lectures to others!

1 Dean Capobianco

Australian track champion Dean Capobianco tested positive to steroids in 1996. His excuse? I ate too much contaminated red meat.

2 Ian Thorpe

His belly was chunky, he didn't want to swim anymore, so then Ian Thorpe retired. The five-time Olympic gold medallist gave up the chlorine life and was happily retired until he read L'Equipe this week. The newspaper revealed that Thorpe had returned a drugs test that showed an elevated level of testosterone and a hormone that may be used to mask testosterone. Drug testing officials, however, believe he will be found to have no case to answer.

3 Nathan Baggaley

A sip of steroid-laden juice from the family fridge caused Olympic kayaker Nathan Baggaley to be suspended from his sport for 15 months in 2005. Baggaley's defence to testing positive to drugs was that his brother, a country rugby union player recovering from a cracked rib, had mixed the drugs with juice and put it in the fridge. The excuse didn't wash with the judge. Recently, Baggaley got into more trouble after police allegedly found a drug-making pill press and a quantity of ecstasy at his Gold Coast home.

4 Carol Gaudie

Canberra netballer Carol Gaudie claimed she was a victim of drink-spiking. Gaudie tested positive to testosterone in 2002 but blamed an unknown person who may have spiked her drink in an attempted date rape at a night club in Kingston the night before the test. In the end Gaudie was banned for two years for the positive testosterone test.

5 Shane Warne

Warne's mum blamed herself for the positive drug test that nearly ended her son's career. Brigitte Warne said she gave the Australia's leg-spinner a diuretic tablet on the eve of his return from injury to the Australian one-day team in 2003. The chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, Dick Pound, was unimpressed with Warne's explanation that his mum had given him a banned tablet. "Poisoned by his mother? It is good, very good. It ranks up there with the one 'I got it from the toilet seat'," Pound said.

6 Ben Tune

In March 2001, Tune tested positive to the banned substance probenecid which is a drug used to increase the effects of antibiotics. However, for Tune, and not to his or his doctor's knowledge, probenecid is on the list of banned substances because it can mask the presence of steroids in the system. When the positive test was announced a year later, the Australian Rugby Union successfully avoided a ban and the International Rugby Board later ruled that Tune was free to play for the Wallabies.

7 Wendell Sailor

Cocaine ended Sailor's rugby career. He was banned for two years after he returned a positive test this time last year and that's meant more time for dancing. Sailor's recently starred on Dancing With The Stars television series. While he has been cha-cha-ing away, he has made it clear he wants to play again but this time back in the code of rugby league.

8 Samantha Riley

It was a headache tablet that caused a lot of headaches for swimmer Samantha Riley. In 1995 Riley's coach Scott Volkers gave her the pill which contained the banned substance dextropropoxyphene. Riley tested positive after taking the tablet during the 1995 world shortcourse championships and said the incident had a "huge impact" on her performances at the Atlanta Olympics. The then breaststroke world record-holder failed to win gold.

9 Mark Bosnich

Apparently a woman spiked his champagne with cocaine and that's why goalkeeper Mark Bosnich tested positive to the drug in 2002. The woman denied deliberately spiking Bosnich's drink, but said she might have put cocaine in his glass by accident while they were sharing a bottle of champagne in a London nightclub. This explanation did not get Bosnich off the hook and he was subsequently suspended from football for nine months.

10 Ben Cousins

The West Coast Eagles star has been troubled by a drug addiction for some time and is in rehab in the US. Cousins is recovering from his suspected $3000-a-week drugs habit in a luxury rehab centre in California. The 28-year-old and the AFL are said to be forking out $180,000 for the 60-day program.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 11, 2016.

Facebook commenters are speculating if the Hong Kong German Consulate Generals word of the week was a reference to the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang and his now famous phrase in 1500 metres, I am the king I am the new world.

Sun said the words when asked if he would beat rival Mack Horton at their next event, following Hortons controversial remark that he had no time or respect for drug cheats. Sun tested positive in 2014 for using a banned stimulant, which he said was prescribed for heart palpitations.

Following Hortons remark, Chinese people took to Weibo to demand an apology from the Australian swimmer. The Chinese swim team also condemned Hortons words, saying: we think his inappropriate words greatly hurt the feelings between Chinese and Australian swimmers. It is proof of a lack of good manners and upbringing. We strongly demand an apology from this swimmer.

The consulates word of the week was the verb sich entschuldigen, to apologise, and the accompanying sentence was he must apologise to the king! The post received 15,000 likes and 412 shares by 5:20pm. One commenter asked in the comments section To 1500 meter king? Another said to the King, to the new world.

(RT) August 11, 2016.

A Canadian sports commentator is facing a tsunami of outrage over his nasty and humiliating comments in which he said a young Chinese athlete died like a pig during an Olympic event.

Byron MacDonalds analysis of 14-year-old Ai Yanhans fourth place finish at the womens 4x200m freestyle relay has outraged viewers of CBCs live Olympic coverage on Wednesday.

Many called for the 66-year-old former swimmer to be fired for his disgusting public insult directed at the Chinese competitor.

After Yanhan and her teammates missed out on a podium spot to Team Canada, MacDonald remarked that the teenager had dropped the ball before following up with a bizarre and needless barb.

That little 14-year-old from China dropped the ball, baby. Too excited, went out like a stink and died like a pig, MacDonald said.

An apology from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Twitter and MacDonalds co-commentator has not quelled disgust across social media.

A CBC statement later released to the National Post read: To be clear, Byrons comments were related to the swimmers performance, not to her as an individual. That said, they were inappropriate and an unfortunate choice of words and Byron is very sorry for what he said.

YouTube: Olympic Commentator Says Chinese Swimmer DIED LIKE A PIG

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 11, 2016.

Localist groups are working together to live broadcast an Olympics badminton match between Hong Kong and China. It is not yet known what form of live broadcast, streaming or otherwise, will be used for the mixed doubles preliminaries match.

ProgressUST of the University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Indigenous, and the Channel i Hong Kong programme Self-determination hosted by Simon Sin will hold the live broadcast on Mong Koks Soy Street.

In an announcement, Hong Kong Indigenous said: There are no live broadcasts of the Hong Kong teams competitions. Although everybody is happy when the country next door loses gold medals, only the Hong Kong team can represent Hongkongers.

Sin, the events master of ceremonies and a Hong Kong independence supporter, said: I am thinking if at that time the viewers shout Down with China, Support the Hong Kong team, I am a Hongkonger, HK IS NOT CHINA, the scene would be very dramatic We need to let the international community, Chinese people, and everybody know that Hong Kong does not have a reason to support the Chinese team, he said.

Chris Ng, a lawyer from the Progressive Lawyers Group, said if the groups were to stream the match, its legality would depend on the source and its license. However, he also said that the groups will need a license to broadcast in public places, although recent public broadcasting events like the 100Most awards were allowed to continue even though the organisers had not applied for one. It is not known if the localists case would be treated similarly.

The Group A match will be between Chau Hoi-wah and Reginald Lee Chun-hei from Hong Kong, and Zhang Nan and Zhao Yunlei from China. The Hong Kong pair will also face Germany and Indonesia.

- (Ta Kung Pao) August 12, 2016.

According to Ming Pao, ProgressUST convener Lam Hin-hei said that this event is intended to separate Hongkongers from the Chinese. She said that it would be even better if this became a pro-Hong Kong independence rally.

According to Ming Pao, Simon Sin said that they chose the badminton match between Hong Kong and China so that the people will realize that Hong Kong and China are in opposition to each other. He said that there is no reason for Hongkongers to support the Chinese team. He wants to show public opinion to the media.

- According to the Badminton World Federation, the mixed doubles world rankings as of August 11, 2016 are:

#1. Zhang/Zhao (China)
#6. Xu/Ma (China)
#8. Liu/Bao (China)
#9. Lu/Huang (China)
#16. Lee/Chau (Hong Kong)
#21. Zheng/Chen (China)

This match will be #1 versus #16. Why did they choose this one to broadcast live? So that they can throw bricks after the Hongkongers lose?

(SCMP) August 12, 2016.

A localist rally in Mong Kok got off to a quiet start on Friday evening, with about 50 participants sitting down at a road junction and more standing around to watch a live broadcast of an Olympic badminton match between Hong Kong and mainland China.

Around 100 police officers were deployed to prevent any trouble, given concerns that the localists call for supporters to cheer on the home team against the national squad could inflame anti-mainland sentiment and incite violence.

Three localist groups organised the gathering for 7pm at the junction of Nathan Road and Soy Street, a bustling shopping area, to watch the encounter.

The same site was rocked by rioting in February involving one of the groups that organised the live broadcast. That organisation advocates Hong Kong independence and has had a member disqualified from the coming Legislative Council elections due to his political stance.

Sources with knowledge of the police operation told the Post more than 100 officers would be deployed at the Mong Kok site, most of them from the Police Tactical Unit. Some plainclothes officers were also to be present.

Police assessments of the event showed the risk of trouble was not high, but another source said officers at the site would carry out stop-and-search operations if necessary. Outside Mong Kok, hundreds of officers are ready to be deployed in the event of any problem, he said, adding that about 170 from the Kowloon West emergency unit could also be mobilised if necessary.

Despite the police presence, Lydia Lam Hin-hei, one of the organisers and convenor of University of Science and Technology student group ProgressUST, said the purpose of the broadcast was only to unite Hong Kong people in supporting the local team. Our purpose is not to incite conflict between Hong Kong and China, Lam said.

The organisers said they had not applied for a letter of no objection from police for the gathering because it was a leisure activity. But the police sources said it was possible officers would look into whether the organisers could face arrest for unlawful assembly.

Lams group and the other two co-organisers Hong Kong Indigenous, which took part in the Mong Kok riot in February, and Hong Kong independence advocate Simon Sin Wai-yin said the outdoor screening of the match was to let the international community, Chinese people and the public know there is no reason for Hongkongers to support the Chinese team. Lam said she expected about 100 people to attend the screening.

The mixed doubles game between Chinas Zhang Nan and Zhao Yunlei and Hong Kongs Chau Hoi-wah and Reginald Lee Chun-hei started at 7pm, but TVBs live programming for the days Olympic events was originally not scheduled to start until 9pm.

The organisers believed the local government had displayed a lack of support for the local team and that TVB, which secured the exclusive broadcast rights for the Olympics, had prioritised games involving the national team. Under pressure, the television station on Thursday night decided to broadcast the game.

A TVB spokesman said on Friday the station had, due to great interest in the Hong Kong team, brought forward its broadcast schedule for the nightly Olympic events on its J5 channel to include more live coverage of games in which Hong Kong athletes are taking part. Co-organiser of the Mong Kok screening Simonson Sin said organisers would broadcast using the J5 channel. He said their lawyer believed this might not constitute an infringement of broadcasting rights because local restaurants often broadcast TVB programmes to the public. TVB has not made any comment on the broadcasting rights issue.

As the Mong Kok screening began at 7pm, around 50 people sat down at the venue to show their support for the local badminton pair, cheering as they appeared on the court and when they won points.

Alex Wan Chun-hang, a 27-year-old property management worker, said he was attending the event to show his discontent over TVBs selective broadcasting of the Olympics. I really like the Hong Kong team, Wan said. Its really a pity we cant see many of their games live. Wan said he supported one of the organisers, Hong Kong Indigenous, and that Hongkongers should protect their own culture and values.

Mother Kat Hau and her husband brought along their seven-year-old son. Kat, who works in education and is a supporter of Hong Kong Indigenous, said she did not fear the night would end with trouble. We just finished dinner, so we thought we would come here to soak up the atmosphere, Kat said.

The cheering fans were given blue pom-poms on sticks to wave in support of their Olympic pair. The majority of attendees were young or middle-aged, but there were also about a dozen elderly residents.

Chiu Chor-chun, 60, said she came to support students and young people in their pursuit of localism. We need to support our own team and our own people, Chiu said. I have been supporting the young people since they started to ask for genuine universal suffrage two years ago. But Chiu said she did not support Hong Kong independence, saying it was not possible to realise such a status for the city.

Tang Man-lai, 66, said he attended the event because he had thought TVB would not broadcast the match live. He said he came solely to watch the sports game and support the local team.

Convenor of political party Youngspiration, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chun-hang, also joined the crowd to support the Hong Kong team. I just passed by, he said. He said he did not believe the night would descend into chaos. Its just Hongkongers supporting Hongkongers, he added.

At times the crowd chanted: We are Hong Kong.

- You read through the entire SCMP report and you won't find out who won. This is further evidence that politics trumps sports. But in case you are actually interested in the match outcome, here it is. It was over in under 40 minutes.

Resistance Live Media video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMfuJE5_w9s
SocREC video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoHWc044lU

(Wen Wei Po) August 13, 2016.

The location was in the middle of bustling Mong Kok. Many citizens stopped to watch a few moments and left. Many said: 「搞乜鬼,阻住晒!」(What are they up to? Obstructing people!" Several dozen Hong Kong Indigenous and ProgressUST members and supporters sat on the ground and cheered whenever the Hong Kong team scored points. They also chanted: "Go Hong Kong!" and "We are Hong Kong!" Some pro-independence people also waved placards for Hong Kong independence. The Hong Kong team lost by 2-0 and the event was over in less than one hour. Lydia Lam said that the attendance was "more than expected." She said that she will hold more such events in the future to increase awareness of Hong Kong identity.

South China Football Club chairman Wallace Cheung said that these organizations are hijacking the sporting events and their spirit to support Hong Kong and oppose the Chinese team. He said that it is perfectly okay to support the Hong Kong team, but this should not be simultaneously linked to opposing the Chinese national team. This is clearly politics hijacking sports, as was the case when Hong Kong and China played each other in the FIFA World Cup qualifying rounds.

Cheung said that the Olympics are held in order for persons of different races and skin colors to come in and compete fairly in order to spread friendship, concern and peace. It is not intended to send hatred, war and killing. Cheung said that the fondness of the people of Hong Kong for their own team is being hijacked by the "false localists" as if Hongkongers are saying that they are not Chinese and thus increase conflicts between Hongkongers and mainlanders.


Apple Daily: Many localist organizations organized a live broadcast in the Mong Kok street of the mixed doubles Hong Kong-China badminton match. 150 Hongkongers were drawn to the scene to cheer for the Hong Kong athletes. Although the Hong Kong team lost of China, the atmosphere was warm and excited. After the match, the citizens chanted slogans such as "We are Hong Kong" (in English) and "Hong Kong is awesome" aloud.

- Where do they get their 150 from? They included all the reporters and photographers. Of course.

- I watched the videos carefully. There were about 60 persons seated on the ground. Those outside the group are mostly reporters and photographers, because they are looking at the audience and not at the screen. Even if you count the number of standing spectators, there can't be more than 100 persons.

- Ten times as many people were out at Morse Park (Wong Tai Sin) trying to capture Pokemon GO virtual creatures.

- Oops, they forgot to count the 300 policemen.

- Excuse me, my English skills not so good. Please explain me meaning of "We are Hong Kong"?

- (SCMP) Lydia Lam Hin-hei, co-organiser and convenor of the University of Science and Technology student group ProgressUST, denied accusations that they tried to incite conflict. Irrespective of whether we held this event or not, there have to be identity conflicts, she said. Many people really feel they are Hongkongers instead of Chinese and want to support the Hong Kong team.

- "Many people really feel that they are Hongkongers instead of Chinese." True enough. But it is also true that some people think that they are Chinese instead of Hongkonger, or Chinese Hongkonger, of Hongkonger Chinese, or Hongkonger of Chinese descent, etc.

"Many people want to support the Hong Kong team." True enough. But it is also true that some people support the Chinese team, others support the American, Australian, British, French teams etc and still others only support the best athletes and not any specific teams.

But using the 'and' is questionable. One can feel like a Chinese Hongkonger or a Hongkong Chinese or a Chinese and still support the Hong Kong team. One can support the Hong Kong team without giving a damn about artificially created identities.

Besides Hongkongers have scorned at the lack of individual freedom in China because of the social pressure for all Chinese to support the Chinese (whether in sports or anything else). Why do Hongkongers want to do exactly the same thing to themselves? Please allow some room for people who feel that they are Hongkongers instead of Chinese to appreciate the best athletes wherever their countries of origin.

- Given that the match was a 30-minute blowout, should TVB have broadcast it live?  And did it please the street audience to see the Hong Kong team being blown away by the Chinese? Do they think that TVB should broadcast all the events in which Hong Kong athletes participate? Do they think that the people of Hong Kong must see Geoffrey Cheah finish in 32nd place in the preliminary round of the 50m freestyle swim instead of Almaz Ayana (Ethiopia) breaking the longstanding 10,000m track record?

- Cable TV sports commentator Lee Tak-nang:

Somebody has called for an assembly in the street to watch the mixed doubles badminton game. I found it regrettable and disappointing.
Just ask yourselves: Are you really there to support the Hong Kong athletes?

Athletes are very simple people. They need to concentrate on both their training and competition.
When they know that their participation is being tied to political goals, it will only be disruptive. There cannot be any positive meanings.

At this moment, Hong Kong has freedom of speech. I know that I cannot stop any such activity.
But I want you to think about the innocent athletes who have worked for so many years to get this possibly once-in-a-lifetime chance to compete.

How could you use the athletes as your political tools? Can your conscience live with it?

Please think this over. If you want to pillory, criticize and vent, come at me. Please leave the athletes alone.

- (SCMP) August 13, 2016.

Olympian Chau Hoi-wah did not share the sentiments of her supporters back home.

We are friends of China and all the players and others around the world, Chau said. I dont think people should politicise sport.

Asked if she felt the rally organisers were using her for political gain, Choi said: No, theres nothing we can do about it. People are free to do what they want.

Women's Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Results

Preliminary round: Pool B

August 6: Netherlands defeated China 3-2 (25-23, 21-25, 18,24, 25-22, 15-13)

August 8: China defeated Italy 3-0 (25-21, 25-21, 25-16)

August 10: China defeated Puerto Rico 3-0 (25-20, 25-17, 25-18)

August 12: Serbia defeated China 3-0 (25-19, 25-19, 25-22)

August 14: United States defeated China 3-1 (22-25, 25-17, 25-19, 25-19)

- China lost the match against the Netherlands because they couldn't handle the booing from the Brazilian fans. As soon as the booing came, they committed unforced errors. China just could not handle the pressure.

- This is embarrassing as China simply could not handle any of the traditional volleyball powers (Netherlands, United States and now Serbia). They only managed to beat the minions Puerto Rico and Italy, and squeezed through to the Knockout Stage as the fourth and last qualifier with a losing record of 2-3.

- As the fourth and last qualifier in Pool B, China will meet the top qualifier Brazil in the Knockout Stage. Brazil is also the host country. So we can expect the cowardly Chinese to make a quick exit in the next match.

Quarter-finals

August 16: China defeated Brazil 3-2 (15-25, 25-23, 25-22, 22-25, 15-13)

- In the middle of this game, China lost its composure once more and made many unforced service errors. But it was Brazil that gave the match away with unforced service errors in the end. The Chinese were lucky, because they don't deserve to win.

- In the next match, China will meet the Netherlands who defeated them on the first day. So the Chinese will make an exit, albeit later than expected.

Semi-finals

August 18: China defeated the Netherlands (27-25, 23-25, 29-27, 25-23)

- Although the scores seemed close, China always looked to be in control. The Dutch never looked like they could string together a series of consecutive points to win a set.

- In the gold medal match, China will meet Serbia which won by 3-0 in the preliminary round. So China will get a silver medal, which exceed expectations for a team of cowards who couldn't handle the pressure.

- Unfortunately, the United States was upset by Serbia in the other semi-final. It would have pleased me greatly to see the United States wipe out China in the final.

- The Americans lost? I am not so sure yet, because Team America can always file an appeal to the International Olympics Committee to disqualify the Chinese and let the Americans play for the gold medal instead (see Women's 4x100m relay).

- Hey, track and field is a contact sport (see Liu Xiang versus Dayron Robles) -- except when Americans are touched.

Gold medal match

August 20: China defeated Serbia 3-1 (19-25, 25-17, 25-22, 25-23)

- China settled down after the first set, and cruised through the next three sets. The Chinese changed tactics to handle the taller Serbian players.

- If you can't defeat China in the field, you can always insult them with the incorrect flag. How else can you explain that this happened again?

- He who laughs last, laughs longest.

- "He who laughs last, laughs longest," so goes the idiom. Chinese coach Lang Ping said that her team persisted through the matches that begun at 9am or 10pm. She said, "Those who persist get the last laugh."

- Lang Ping is a naturalized American citizen who once coached the US National Team to defeat China in the 2008 Olympics. Therefore China is hiring an American to coach them. Any glory belongs to America.

- Lang Ping may have coached the US National Team but she was and still is a Chinese citizen. It is the Americans which hired a Chinese coach to help them in 2008, so the glory of that 2008 silver medal belongs to China.

Badminton: Men's Singles

Gold medal: Chen Long (China)

Silver medal: Lee Chong Wei (Malaysia)

Bronze medal: Viktor Axelsen (Denmark)

Fourth place: Lin Dan (China)

- The most interesting part is that all four of them speak Chinese!

Here is Viktor Axelsen being interviewed on CCTV5 in putonghua after losing to Chen Long in the semi-final. He has only been learning putonghua for a couple of years. He started to learn in order to communicate directly with other players and to understand Chinese strategy. He is popular in China and has a weibo account.

Here is Lee Chong Wei speaking perfect putonghua on CCTV. He was also interviewed speaking perfect Cantonese on TVB. And then there is the part that really upsets Hong Kong localists:

When the Chinese national anthem was played, Lee Chong Wei sang along. Quelle horreur!

(EJ Insight) Why Olympics will no longer serve to promote patriotism in HK. By SC Yeung. August 9, 2016.

The Olympic Games used to be an effective tool for the authorities to promote patriotism in Hong Kong.

There was a time not too long ago when Hong Kong people felt mighty proud when Chinas national anthem was played as the countrys flag was raised during the medal awarding ceremonies.

When Chinese athletes visited the territory after their rich harvest of gold medals in Sydney Olympics in 2000, they were welcomed as conquering heroes in the city.

But in the current Rio Olympics, Hong Kong people dont seem to display that kind of national fervor anymore.

Instead, many even sniffed at Chinas delegation for not winning medals on the first day of the games, and accused local media of showing bias in favor of the Chinese athletes in their coverage.

On social media, Hong Kong netizens say they prefer to watch the games on foreign cable channels because they could not stand the local coverage which displays blind loyalty to the Chinese team.

For example, Television Broadcasts, the exclusive Olympics broadcaster in Hong Kong, chose to broadcast a womens volleyball match involving Chinas team but failed to air a womens table tennis game in which a Hong Kong athlete was playing.

Many Hong Kong netizens accused TVB of trying to promote patriotism by focusing on Chinese athletes while failing to cover events where Hong Kong athletes were competing.

On the first day of the games last Friday, Chinese shooter Du Li, a gold medal hopeful, was defeated by her US rival.

Many were bewildered when local media came up with this headline: China lost its first gold medal on the first day of the games.

Thats ridiculous. It implies that China was supposed to win the gold medal but didnt. The simple, undeniable fact is that the honor didnt belong to any player until the competition ended.

Local netizens made fun of the headline by posting a crime report, saying that Du lost her gold medal in Brazil and urged the police to investigate the case.

On Monday, Hong Kong netizens tried to balance the local medias heavily biased coverage by posting news stories on gold medal winners from Taiwan, Vietnam and Kosovo.

There is also the mystery about the flawed version of the Chinese flag that was raised during the medal ceremonies in the first few days of the games.

The blunder drew the ire of Chinese people, who immediately assailed the games organizers for committing what appeared, based on their virulent reactions, to be an unpardonable sin.

CCTV anchor Cui Yongyan was among the first to point out the mistake, saying that the Chinese flag cannot have such an error.

When the error was still not corrected the following day, Cui wrote on his Weibo account: The first gold medal ceremony was moving, the national anthem was pleasing to hear, but the flag still had a small defect, the same as before. I dont want to keep obsessively, compulsively bringing this up, but this is the national flag. Its something you have to pay particular attention to This is a concept that even primary school students should be able to understand.

The reaction from Hong Kong was comparatively moderate. Its probably because Hong Kong people did not allow patriotism to get the better of them.

After all, if there was anyone to blame its the officials in the Chinese delegation who should have checked all the preparations and paraphernalia to be used before the games.

Then theres the rivalry between Chinese swimmer Sun Yang and his Australian rival Mack Horton.

Horton made an issue of Sun testing positive for a performance-enhancing drug in 2014 and splashing water in his lane during a training session.

Sun, after losing to Horton in the 400 meter freestyle event, proclaimed that he is still the king of the 1,500 meter freestyle event.

Meanwhile, Chinese state media quickly came to Suns defense, calling Australia uncivilized and Britains offshore prison.

So much for the Olympics being a showcase of sportsmanship and world camaraderie.

All this trash talk is not doing any good to Chinas image as a rising world power.

And such an attitude certainly doesnt provide a good example for Hong Kong youngsters, or promote patriotism in the city.

Chinas performance in Rio wont serve to remove the anti-mainland sentiment that has grown in the city.

Beijing itself has fostered that negative sentiment by pushing the national education curriculum, by refusing to allow genuine universal suffrage in the 2017 chief executive election, and by implementing various measures that undermine the citys core values.

Many Hong Kong people simply dont care how Chinese athletes perform as a whole in the Olympics.

In fact, their interest in the games have gained a wider perspective. They appreciate the participation of refugees in the games and the victory of North Korea and Kosovo in some of the events.

Before the Olympics kicked off in Brazil last Friday, Home Affairs Secretary Lau Kong-Wah said the government would invite some of Chinas gold medalists to the city to share their joy with the Hong Kong public, as well as to receive prizes from local sponsors.

About 16 years ago, such a gesture would have been well received by the public.

But now, many Hong Kong people suspect that the Chinese athletes would only be used by the administration to support the pro-establishment candidates in the Legislative Council election next month.

If at all, the Olympic Games are helping Hong Kong people understand and appreciate the wonders and diversity of the world, but the government seems to want to limit our vision to China.

Okay, you get the idea that nobody in Hong Kong cares about the Chinese Olympians. But then I read this:

(Oriental Daily) August 22, 2016.

The Chinese Olympics gold medalists will visit Hong Kong August 27-29. Performance tickets went on public sale this morning. There 5,700 tickets for three shows. Each ticket costs HKD 20 and each citizen is limited to purchasing 2 tickets per person. At the Hong Kong City Hall, there were 800 people queuing up at 9am. At the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, there were 500 queuing up at 9am. By noon, they were all sold out at these two venues as well as at the Sha Tin City Hall. By 1pm, Tuen Mun City Hall had sold out as well.

Mr. Lee was first in line outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre. He said that he began at 11am the previous day. He said that that he wants the tickets for his parents who loves table tennis. He said, "It is worthwhile. Nothing else matters when your parents are happy."

- You can talk all you want, but the body is the most honest.

- I don't understand why the American team was not invited to come here. After all, they won the highest number of medals. I really want to see Ryan Lochte and company. And I want the US Women's 4x100m relay team to run a solo race in Hong Kong too.

- Well, you can try to invite the American team. They will probably ask for $100 million in appearance fees, and that would be what you call a White Elephant Image project.

- Or they could have invited the Japan team instead. I love that Ai Fukuhara chick!

- Why? Because she speaks putonghua with a cute Northeastern accent that was acquired from her apprenticeship with the Liaoning provincial team.

- (EJ Insight) August 23, 2016.

The LCSD began selling 5,700 tickets for the events, offering them at HK$20 each, with counters put up at the Hong Kong City Hall, Sha Tin Town Hall, Tuen Mun Town Hall and the Hong Kong Cultural Centre in Tsim Sha Tsui.

The tickets were sold out within hours after the counters opened at 10 am Monday. Many people began queuing up Sunday night itself, with some mainlanders also making special trips to Hong Kong to snap up the tickets, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported. Some scalpers sought to make a quick buck, putting the tickets on sale on the Taobao online platform as much as 1,000 yuan (HK$1,165).  

Expressing concern over such activities, the LCSD is said be collecting evidence and forwarding it to the related departments for follow-up action. The department pointed out that people who failed to obtain the tickets can still watch the demonstration events live on TV.

The final list of participating gold medalists will be known after the Chinese Olympic Committee takes a decision. According to Sing Tao Daily, swimmer Fu Yuanhui, who won the hearts of many people with her candid remarks following her Olympic success, is among the confirmed participants in the Hong Kong events.

- Who is coming to see the Chinese gold medalists? Of course, there are the Chinese patriots. But most Hongkongers are pragmatic. They like the Chinese women's volleyball team because of its indomitable spirit irrespective of their national origins. Conversely, if that team sucks, nothing can make the Hongkongers come out to watch them.

- But we have to wonder where the valiant warriors will be. The invasion of the gold medal locusts was clearly arranged by the Central Propaganda Department to brainwash the people of Hong Kong. Shouldn't the valiant warriors guard the gates, keeping Chinese citizens out and arresting Hong Kong residents for being traitors? But then you have to look at the numbers. When a Chinese tourist comes around with luggage in tow, the ten valiant warriors will surround and harass. Even when Hong Kong students hold a debate competition, the ten valiant warriors show up to heckle because the Chief Secretary is a guest of honor. But now we have a Communist propaganda show with 5700 attendees who queue up all day and all night to pay $20 to buy tickets. Will they put up with the efforts of the ten valiant warriors to stop the show?

 (SCMP) August 10, 2016.

More than 60 per cent of the University of Hong Kongs students would vote for the citys independence in a recent poll, up from 37 per cent just two years ago.

That was according to Undergrad, the universitys student magazine, which interviewed 385 students from June to July on their political views.

The poll also discovered that while 43 per cent of the students still believe in Beijings one country, two systems policy is the most suitable political framework for the city, the figure has decreased by 25 percentage points compared to two years ago.

Now, 41 per cent say independence is the best system for Hong Kong, compared to only 15 per cent in 2014 however, when asked if a vote on Hong Kongs independence was held tomorrow, 61 per cent said they would vote in favour, even if Beijing would not recognise the result. Sixty-five per cent said they would vote for independence if Beijing did recognise the decision.

When asked if they would support an armed revolution to achieve Hong Kongs independence, 31 per cent said yes while 50 per cent said no. This question was asked for the first time this year.

The revelations came amid a political storm triggered by election officials disqualification of Hong Kong Indigenous leader Edward Leung Tin-kei, an HKU student, and five other localists from the Legislative Councils September poll because of their pro-independence stance.

Asked which political figure could represent them, Leung came first with only 9.9 per cent, while radical lawmaker Wong Yuk-man and Civic Partys Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu came second and third with 3.6 per cent and 2.6 per cent respectively however, 71.7 per cent said no political figure could represent them.

Asked which political group could represent them, Leungs Hong Kong Indigenous came first with 19.2 per cent, while the Civic Party came second with 12.5 per cent 44.7 per cent said no group could represent them.

Forty-eight per cent of the respondents identified themselves as supporters of the localists, while 25 per cent said they are pan-democrat supporters - a drop from 61 per cent in 2014. The localists were not an option in the poll two years ago.

In January last year, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying hit out directly at university student leaders at the start of his annual policy address, attacking them for advocating independence in Undergrad. He also criticised a book published by Undergrad in September 2014 entitled Hong Kong Nationalism.

The opinion poll results were published in the latest issue of the magazine, which also contained several articles arguing for the citys independence.

Asked if it is necessary to participate in political activities and express opinion in a peaceful, rational and non-violent manner, 48 per cent said no, while 41 said yes. It was a sharp contrast to the results in 2014, when 76 per cent supported the peaceful, rational and non-violent principle, and only 21 said the otherwise.

Internet comments:

- Undergrad said that 385 students were interviewed. Fine, but there is no description of methodology. Here are some methodological questions:

- Is a sample size of 385 adequate? If 31% out of 385 said that they support an armed revolution to achieve Hong Kong's independence, then the 95% confidence interval is plus/minus 5% (that is, between 26% and 36%). However you look it it, this is a big number.

- Who are these 385 students? Were they randomly selected from the undergraduate population such that their responses can be said to be representative? Or were they selected from a non-random sample? For example, did the pro-independence Undergrad editors just tell their friends to fill out this survey questionnaire?

- What was the response rate? Did they send out 20,000 emails and got only these 385 back? If so, there could be a self-selection bias caused by the content of the survey. (see, for example, Hong Kong By The Numbers).

- Undergrad said that the 385 students had been 'invited' to participate. So this is not going to be a random sample.

- (Oriental Daily) August 9, 2016.

According to Hong Kong University Student Union's publication Undergrad, 385 HKU students were interviewed June-July. 60% of the interviewees support Hong Kong independence, which is 24% higher than 2 years ago. 41% think that the best Hong Kong political system is Hong Kong becoming an independent nation. 31% said that they support armed revolution to achieve Hong Kong independence. 34% believe that Hong Kong will become independent.

When asked which methods of resistance should be used, the students ranked from high to low: labor strike; occupying major government buildings; blocking major roads; class strike; tossing petrol bombs; attacking major Chinese Communist political figures in Hong Kong; throwing rocks/garbage; self-immolation; hunger strike. The methods best suited for Hong Kong are labor strike; occupying major government buildings; assembly/demonstration, etc.

- Why is class strike ranked not so highly? When they tried it early this year Hong Kong University Student Strike, they got fewer than 300 student strikers. If they call for yet another class strike, there will be even fewer people. The problem is that a class strike costs the students in terms of lost time and money. If you miss too many classes, you will have to repeat the courses and pay for board/tuition.

- Why is labor strike ranked so highly? Because it doesn't cost the students anything if the whole city goes on strike indefinitely. The students don't work and they don't support their families.

- So it is peculiar that they rank occupying major government buildings/roads so highly. It is easier to occupy a government building/road. You mobilize 200 people and you can charge in to take over any building or road. That is the not the problem. The problem is how long you intend to stay. If you stay for a long time, it means that you cannot attend class and therefore it will cost you just like the class strike.

- Attacking major Chinese Communist political figures in Hong Kong? How is this going to achieve Hong Kong independence? The major Chinese Communist political figures (such as China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming) are just small fries in the Chinese Communist hierarchy, which reflects Hong Kong's lack of importance in their eyes. Throwing paper airplanes at them would be a joke. Throwing petrol bombs to kill them would put the Chinese Communists into an anti-terrorism mode with no concession ever to be given (as was the case with 9/11 in the United States).

- Self-immolations and hunger strikes aren't going to happen either, because they will be very very costly to the students. So this leaves throwing petrol bombs, rocks and garbage as the only concrete action let. And how is that going to bring in Hong Kong independence?

- (SCMP) Lesson for Hong Kongs politicians: this is how you do a hunger strike. By Londen Lhatoo. August 12, 2016.

We have hunger strikes here in Hong Kong too, but, by contrast, theyre feeble publicity attempts by veteran and budding politicians who are prone to separation anxiety when theyre kept away from food for too long.

Our so-called hunger strikes can be farcical exercises in futility, with the concept of marathon fasting morphing conveniently into a relay system, in which participants working in shifts pass on the starving baton to reinforcements while they take a break to tank up.

Remember student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fungs indefinite hunger strike during the Occupy protests of 2014? It lasted all of four days, and he gave up citing strong doctors advice and extreme physical discomfort. Government officials sat it out, smug in the knowledge that it would never get to the stage where they would be forced to the negotiating table.

Democratic Party heavyweight Albert Ho Chun-yan, no pun intended, also staged an indefinite hunger strike for universal suffrage in 2014. It lasted all of 100 hours as a bout of diarrhoea combined with a mild headache prompted him to throw in the towel and pick up a plate.

This is not an attack on the heroes of the pan-democratic camp. At least they try to go hungry in the name of democracy on occasion. Their pro-establishment rivals should try it, too for health reasons if not for politics. The amount of fasting involved in the cases of Wong and Ho was probably good for them in terms of detoxification.

My Muslim friends do it all the time as part of their faith. They tell me it rejuvenates your body and helps you think clearly.

- What is this armed revolution that they like to talk about? Why don't we concretely draw out a scenario with a call-to-arms?

- Of course, you start with physical training. Here is the Civic Passion video:
https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1045853305450032/

And here is the Hong Kong garrison of the People's Liberation Army in hellish training:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qk4Iu2ij10

- Armed revolution is not some activist trying to jump on stage and seize the microphone to yell slogans; it is not someone throwing an egg at someone else. Armed revolution is Syria. Are you ready for it?

- Hong Kong independence should start with Hong Kong University independence whereby all university decisions should be made by university people without any of those outside Council members. This begins by Hong Kong University giving up the subsidies from the University Grants Committee and let students pay with their own money.

- But this isn't the same. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government subsidizes the universities through the University Grants Committee to the tune of $200,000+ per student per year. By contrast, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government is subsidizing the central government each year (for example, by buying Dongjiang River water).

- But this isn't the whole truth. The central government also subsidizes the Hong Kong Special Administration Region in many ways. For example, the People's Liberation Army garrison is paid for by the central government. Places such as Taiwan or Singapore spend 2%-3% of GDP on military expenditure. Hong Kong spends nothing itself.

- The title of this edition of Undergrad is 帝國瓦解 香港解殖 (The dissolution of the Empire, the decolonization of Hong Kong).

If you know that the odds of an armed revolution is nil, then you need to go to Plan B where everything is going to be handed to you on a plate. Instead of having to vanquish the 2 million People's Liberation Army in the battlefield, the Chinese Communist regime will collapse on its own. What used to be known as the People's Republic of China will dissolve into many small nations (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, etc). So we are all going to sit around to wait until that happens. Meanwhile we will write more essays for Undergrad and ask for more donations more frequently.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 12, 2016.

The Hong Kong National Party has published a booklet to dispel certain popular misunderstandings about the feasibility of Hong Kong independence. For example, Hong Kong can import food from other countries and obtain water through desalination plants.

A big question is: How do you become independent without an army? Is it all over when the China sends the People's Liberation Army over? Previously the problem with the pro-Hong Kong independence advocates is that they still want to avoid war. In truth, the complex urban terrain of Hong Kong with the large number of residential buildings and foreign-owned commercial buildings is very suitable for ambushes and guerilla warfare.

"Hong Kong can counter-attack by increasing the costs for China. We must hit back at Chinese interests in Hong Kong. We must not hesitate to sacrifice 100 of our own in order to kill 1000 of them. In any case, Hongkongers have nowhere left to go unless they immigrate overseas. Instead of letting the future generations become Chinese minions, we should seize the chance and fight the final scorched-earth battle."

"A battle is not necessarily two armies facing off each other. It can be an endless number of ambushes. It may be that the family get together to have dinner at home and then everybody go downstairs to set fires to cars in the streets. They can force the People's Liberation of Army to abandon an entire district and use carpet bombing to kill everybody and destroy every building. That is one way to weaken the enemy. Everybody should let their creativity run free. There are many ways to conduct war."

- "Force the People's Liberation Army to use carpet bombing to kill everybody and destroy every building in the district ..." I hope that includes you and your entire family.

- "Sacrifice 100 of our own in order to kill 1000 of them ..." There are only 2,000,000 PLA soldiers. So if 200,000 Hongkongers sacrifice themselves, the entire PLA will be wiped out and victory will be ours. But they will probably drop a nuclear bomb long before then to send Hong Kong back into the stone age and uninhabitable for several hundred thousand more years. That's unfortunate, but it was worth a try.

- "The family gets to have dinner at home and then goes downstairs together to set fires to cars in the street ..." Afterwards, the neighbors set up a watch group to look after their properties. When you try to do the same the next time, your entire family will be nabbed by an angry mob and hung from the lampposts.

- Actually I don't mind as long as you set your family car on fire.

- They don't need carpet bombing. All they need is one low-tech barrel bomb dropped from a helicopter onto Sai Yeung Choi Street Street, Mong Kok district.

- (SCMP) August 10, 2016.

On Tuesday, HKUs Public Opinion Programme also released their latest poll on Hong Kong peoples view on Taiwans independence.

Only 43.9 per cent object Taiwans independence, a new low since the survey started in 1993. Just over 28 per cent support Taiwans independence, down from 35 per cent five months ago a net rating of minus 15.3 percentage points, a new low since 1994.

- These respondents are just the spectators who bring along their beer and peanuts. If Taiwan declares independence, they will just watch the show and they have no personal stake in the outcome.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 8, 2016.

Pro-independence Legislative Council election candidate Chan Chak-to, one of the few members of the camp who was allowed to run, has defended his stance once again at an election forum for the Kowloon East geographical constituency.

The election forum hosted by Commercial Radio on Monday started off with a question from the hosts asking about candidates stances on independence. Chan said: I support Hong Kong independence its the only way out.

He said he was very worried that returning officers may take action against him, but he denied that he made a false declaration in pledging to uphold the Basic Law. Is it violating the Basic Law to discuss independence or to advocate independence? Can a common citizen violate the Basic Law? It should not be possible.

Chan advocates independence after 2047, when the Basic Laws promise of unchanged capitalism and way of life expires, the Kowloon East Community group candidate said.

Is it a problem to talk about independence after 2047? I dont see any [problems], he said. Before 2047, we should have a wide discussion to let Hong Kong people understand[Chans time was up before he could finish his sentence].

Chan, who recently started speaking out about his stance, was confirmed as a candidate after five were rejected for supporting independence or a return to the UK, in view of which returning officers considered them unable to genuinely uphold the Basic Law.

Pro-Beijing camp candidate Patrick Ko Tat-pun, of the Voice of Loving Hong Kong, claimed that Chan was breaking Hong Kong law.

After this programme ends, I can consider reporting you to the police station, Ko said, saying that Chan broke his pledge, and that inciting independence was a violation of the Basic Law.

Chan was then questioned by the Federation of Trade Unions Wong Kwok-kin in a brief encounter.

Wong: You speak Chinas Cantonese language, you use Chinese characters, you have Chinese blood, your ancestors roots are in China how would you achieve independence?

Chan: I am a Hongkonger I dont know why you want to link me with China in any way.

Wong: But you speak Mainland Chinas Cantonese language of the Guangdong Province, Mr. Chan.

Chan: China uses Mandarin now they are now different from us.

Wong: Guangdong Province uses Cantonese.

Chan: Then what about Guangdong independence? Are you supporting Guangdong independence?

Wong: Dont stray from the topic when we are talking about Hong Kong independence do you know where your roots are?

Chan: My roots are in Hong Kong. I was born in Hong Kong The Communist Party is the one forgetting about its roots. Why did the Cultural Revolution happen? It happened in order to eradicate the Chinese culture of the past.

Wong: Dont try to blame others

Chan: Yes, I am using Hong Kongs culture

Wong: What culture does Hong Kong have? The culture of Hong Kong is based on Chinese culture.

Chan: So you think Hong Kong has no culture?

Wong: Dont stray from the topic I know you are pro-independence and Ill just stop here.

Previously, Chan said he will send a blank election mailout to voters in his constituency as he expected any pro-independence wording to be censored.

- (Oriental Daily) August 8, 2016.

This morning, Chan Chak-to attended a Kowloon East radio forum and said that a public opinion poll showed that 17% of Hong Kong citizens support independence. He said that the 19 years of One Country Two Systems has seen freedom, democracy and rule of law being destroyed in Hong Kong. "Hong Kong independence is actually the most reasonable option."

In the afternoon, Ko Tat-bun (Voice of Loving Hong Kong) went to the Wong Tai Sin Police Station and reported that Chan Chak-to signed a pledge to uphold the Basic Law and support the Hong Kong Special Administration Region of the People's Republic of China but his speeches for Hong Kong independence are opposite to the pledge. He asked the police to follow up on whether Chan made a false statement to the returning officer of the Registration and Electoral Office. Ko also said that he will complain to the Registration and Electoral Office to either demand Chan retract his speech, withdraw or cancel his candidacy.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 9, 2016.

At the Kowloon East radio forum, Paul Tse Wai-chun said that Chan Chak-to was evasive in his position on Hong Kong independence. He quoted Chan's essay from last year in which Chan said that Hong Kong independence can only be realized if they can destroy Hong Kong's economy. He asked Chan whether he still feels the same way. Chan said that he never wrote any such and accused Tse of smearing him. Chan said that Hong Kong independence is possible because Hong Kong is powerful enough to cause the Chinese Communist regime to fall.

Wilson Or (DAB) said that One Country Two Systems is the best option for HOng Kong. He said that Hong Kong independence will destroy Hong Kong's economy and smash the "rice bowls" of the citizens. He said that the same public opinion poll showed that 70% of the citizens are opposed to Hong Kong independence. He said that this shows that the citizens know that it is their duty to maintain national unity. He asked why Chan wants to advocate Hong Kong independence against the wishes of the citizens.

Chan agreed that Hong Kong independence does not have a broad base of support. He said that he only wanted to bring up the issue for public discussion. Chan asked Or a hypothetical question: "If more than 50% of the people support Hong Kong independence, will you also support it?"

- (Wen Wei Po) August 9, 2016.

At the radio forum yesterday, Chan Chak-to said that he is counting on the Registration and Electoral Office to disqualify him as a candidate. "As Chan Chak-to look more likely to win, the odds of disqualification grow bigger." On August 5, he rebutted those who accused him of taking up Hong Kong independence "suddenly." Chan said that citizens used to think that all pro-Hong Kong independence advocates are nutcases. But then Edward Leung Tin-kei showed up and "everybody suddenly discovered that all those who advocate independence are normal. Edward Leung has set everyone on fire and independence is now unstoppable."

Senior Counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah said that said the Legislative Council Ordinance Article 42(B) Section 4 empowers the Returning Officer to void a nomination as late as the the day before the voting.

Nathan Law's Facebook

Nathan Law is running for Legislative Council in Hong Kong Island district. We are not backed by any big financial interests and we refuse to bow down to those in authority. Faced with huge campaign expenses, we need the support of citizens. Demosisto urges citizens to donate and support Nathan Law's campaign effort.

$888 per person to support Number 8 candidate Nathan Law.

- Fuck your mother, you beggars at Demosisto have no end to your greed! You raised $1,600,000 already to run in two districts. But you said that you needed $2,000,000 and so you are running in one district now. That is to say, you have a surplus of $600,000 that you aren't saying where it goes. But now you come aground to beg for every more money? And where has Scholarism's $1,200,000 gone?

- Nathan Chung as a licensed beggar


Donate $888 each to help Nathan Law buy his first apartment

(Tai Kung Pao) July 31, 2016.

After Chan Ho-tin was ruled ineligible for the Legco elections, a number of radical localists began a concerted effort to locate the particulars of the New Territories West Returning Officer at the Electoral and Registration Office of the Electoral Affairs Commission. They posted a photo of the Returning Officer Alan Law Ying-ki and sought his home address and details of family members. They warned Law's family to "watch where they step when they go outside."

Some of them mistook the New Territories East Returning Officer Cora Ho Lai-sheung to be the New Territories West Returning Officer who invalidated Chan Ho-tin. They asked: "Does anyone know where Cora Ho and her family lives? Does she have children? Where do they attend school? Are her parents all dead already? Where do they live (if still living)?"

(SCMP) August 6, 2016.

The fallout from the disqualification of a localist leader seeking to run in next months Legislative Councils elections took a worrying turn on Saturday when the returning officer responsible received a threatening letter with a razor blade enclosed.

Police also arrested a second suspect a Chinese University student over online threats made against returning officers.

Police did not name the election officer targeted in the letter with the blade, only confirming that a woman had reported receiving the threat at her Sha Tin office on Sheung Wo Che Road. The address is that of Cora Ho Lai-sheung, the returning officer who invalidated Hong Kong Indigenous member Edward Leung Tin-keis candidacy for the polls on September 4.

The letter contained words that constitute a threat, police said, without providing further details. The case is classified as one of criminal intimidation after a preliminary inquiry. No arrest has been made.

Leungs candidacy was rejected even after he had agreed to drop his advocacy of independence for the city and signed an additional declaration reinforcing his acceptance of Hong Kongs status as an alienable part of China. He was one of six localist aspirants who were disqualified recently.

Saturdays threatening letter comes after angry netizens launched a tirade of abuse via social media against Ho and fellow returning officer Alan Lo Ying-ki, who disqualified the Hong Kong National Partys Chan Ho-tin, for their decisions.

Los picture and contact details were posted on Facebook by one user who then called on people to condemn him. Others encouraged people to seek out and publish Los home address and further information on his family.

The government quickly condemned the online attacks, insisting returning officers were only doing their duty and acting within their powers.

Following the arrest of a 22-year-old man on Wednesday, police detained a 19-year-old student on Saturday.

The suspect, surnamed Cheng and a member of Chinese Universitys student union, had his home in Yuen Long raided and his mobile phone and his computer seized on Saturday morning by police.

Cheng was arrested on suspicion of accessing his computer with criminal or dishonest intent, and allegedly posting numerous threats to harm returning officers personal safety on social media, senior inspector Jethro Chiu Kin-yip said.

The suspect threatened to use violence against the returning officers, Chiu said, declining to name the victims. Police respect freedom of speech, but the virtual world is not a lawless world. Most laws used in the real world are also applicable to the virtual world.

The student was released on bail and is to report back to police early next month.

The disqualification of pro-independence candidates by Legco returning officers has sparked criticism and doubts over the officials role, with lawyers claiming the administration had given the civil servants power to exercise political screening of candidates.

(Wen Wei Po) August 7, 2016.

On August 3, Facebook user Pat Siu Chit wrote: "Right now if petrol bombs are not thrown, or government officials are not assassinated, or evil policemen are not killed or nobody else dies, then the government isn't going to pay any fucking attention to you ... Really, my friend tells me that."

On August 4, Pat Siu Chit wrote: "Bomb, assassinate, kill, death, Registration and Electoral Office returning office. My friend says so, ok?" On the same day, he wrote: "Put to death, Law XXX (=New Territories West retuning office Alan Law); blow away, Ho XX (=New Territories East returning office Cora Ho). Fucking catch me, Evil Police, $10,000 per person!" Then he wrote: "I want to publish the home addresses of these two bastards. If you have it, please send me a message."

On August 5, Pat Siu Chit wrote: "I am using a computer dishonestly to kill the entire familes of Law and Ho, because they harmed all of the people of Hong Kong!" Yesterday he forwarded a news story about the police arresting a 19-year-old for threatening a returning officer and he commented: "Hey, there are so many warriors! Not need to be fucking afraid, because I am still here! Let's fucking make this even bigger!" He added hashtags of "#Burn Law and Ho to death", "#Kill the Evil Police", "#Kill you and then set you on fire."

Then he went on to insult the police: "Is it fucking nice to become a police canine? ... I am formally challenging you! Watch it!" His hashtags included "#Set police station on fire," "#assassination", "#police living quarters," "#disaster falls on family," "#you won't die easy", etc.

A comment from another Facebook user: "If I see Returning Officers Law and Ho in the street, I would feel that those two are threatening my life and property. Therefore out of self-defense, I will fucking waste them. Is that alright? ... In Hong Kong, self-defense is not a crime."

(Wen Wei Po) August 7, 2016.

The arrested Chinese University of Hong Kong student is a 19-year-old named Cheng. He will be a third-year student majoring in risk management. On August 2, he posted at the CUHK Student Union Facebook under "Hong Kong Communists naked interference in election, they have brought it upon themselves for a reckoning." He said that he will find a way "to hire assassins to send the three Retuning Officers to see the Lord of Hell." He said that he is unafraid and if they want to arrst him, he won't wear a helmet.

On the same day, the same person forwarded a Civic Passion member's post: "This woman shall be cursed forever ... her destruction will be the minimum punishment. She should be sent to jail ... When the people can make her unable to sleep or eat well, to want to jump off the boat, to want to quit, then opposing the government is working ... we must proceed to harass the front line public servants. That person also said to "get into deepweb to hire an assassin to send her to see the Lord of Hell."

The same person also forwarded Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward Leung's post and wrote: "I have always felt that certain people should be directly put to death without trial. Those dickheads at the Registration and Electoral Office are good examples.

(SCMP) August 9, 2016.

A returning officer who disqualified localist hopefuls for the Legislative Council elections was sent powder in the mail which contained Aids, anthrax and semen on Tuesday morning four days after she had received a razor blade via the same means.

Investigators later suspected that the substance in the letter sent to Sha Tin district officer Cora Ho Lai-sheungs office on Sheung Wo Che Road was just flour.

(SCMP) August 18, 2016.

Two returning officers who disqualified localist hopefuls for next months Legislative Council elections received threatening letters on Wednesday, the third and fourth such instances in two weeks.

The letters to Cora Ho Lai-sheung and Alan Lo Ying-ki, the returning officers for the New Territories East and New Territories West constituencies respectively, were sent to their offices in Sheung Wo Che Road in Sha Tin and Hing Fong Road in Kwai Chung on Wednesday.

The mailings contained their pictures, a note with the word dead written in Chinese, and some hell money. Hell money is a form of joss paper is usually burned as an offering to someone who has died.

Both officers alerted police on Wednesday.

Police in the New Territories South crime unit are investigating all four cases. No arrests have been made so far.

Internet comments:

- Civic Passion member Joe Ho's Facebook

New Territories West Returning Officer Alan Law Ying-ki really deserves to have his whole family dead. Don't tell me that you are just doing your job. You have the right to say no!
You can have a way out, or else it can be a disaster.
Otherwise I will curse you out day and night. When you step into the street, your feet will be run over by a car and you will be crippled for life; your parents will be hit by strokes, they will remain conscious but all four limbs will be immobile; your children will get cancer and have to undergo chemotherapy/radiation therapy until they waste away down to 35 pounds in body weight.
Do my curses work? I cursed someone to the effect that he won't live past this year, and now he is fucking dead! All of England knows that!
You don't believe me? You can look it up yourself. The obituaries were published in Hnog Kong too.
Watch your step!

- Wanted poster for Returning Officer Cora Ho Lai-sheung, including katana, gun, bullets and a Union Jack flag.

- What is the big deal about receiving a death threat letter with a razor blade? It has happened many times before.

(Associated Press/Agence France Presse) August 23, 2006.

An outspoken Hong Kong legislator was mailed a death threat containing a razor blade, it was revealed yesterday, days after a vicious attack on another pro-democracy lawmaker.

Leung Kwok-hung (梁國雄), a radical Marxist nicknamed "Long Hair" for his waist-length tresses, was sent the letter, peppered with swear words and criticizing his political activities, his assistant Foo Wai-lok said.

The letter, postmarked July 18 but only opened on Monday, warned Leung that if he did not commit suicide within three days, he would be tracked down in the Legislative Council. "We have received a lot of threatening letters like this in the past, but we have never been threatened with a razor blade," Foo said. Leung is currently away in Europe.

Two weeks ago Audrey Eu (余若薇), a leader of the pro-democracy Civic Party, also received a mailed death threat along with a razor blade.

(New York Times) August 13, 2014.

Chan Kin-man, a prominent Hong Kong democracy activist, receives many anonymous threats. He has gotten a razor blade in the mail and messages like: Hunt and Kill Traitors! Sophisticated hacking attempts occur daily, often from email addresses belonging to friends or students. Some threats are unprintable, about what the sender would like to do to Mr. Chans mother.

This guy sent it to me twice, said Mr. Chan, sitting in his office at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where he is a sociology professor, pulling out a letter from a folder. He also likes my mother. Big fan of my mom.

He laughs, wryly.

Therefore the two Returning Officers Law and Ho should just shut the fuck up.

- In the United States, you can threaten anyone ("I'm gonna kill you ...") with the sole exception of the President of the United States.

(Wikipedia) Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".

A literal reading of this law is that while you must not threaten the President himself/herself, you can threaten to kill his family. Such speech is guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

- In the United States of America, the President is elected by universal suffrage with civil nomination. Therefore he is entitled to special protection because he/she represents The People. In Hong Kong, the Chief Executive is not elected by universal suffrage with civil nomination. Therefore Basic Law Article 27 on freedom of speech allows the people to threaten to kill him, his family and anybody else. That is what the Law says. If the court rules different, I will apply for legal aid to file another judicial review.

- Sending letters with razor blades is a universal value.

(CNN) November 24, 2010.

The FBI and University of California at Los Angeles police are investigating a new round of threats from anti-animal research activists who claimed to have sent AIDS-tainted razor blades and a threatening message to a research professor, a university spokesman said Tuesday.

The university said law enforcement officials confirmed that UCLA neuroscientist David Jentsch received a package at his home containing razor blades and a threatening note.

In a phone interview with CNN, Jentsch said the activists have been "using various tactics to get at me."

"They started with incinerating my car," he said. "They have participated in monthly demonstrations outside of my house. Usually the threats are general, this one was very specific. "They said they were going to cut my throat, and they named one of my students.

"I'm not afraid. I'm angry. It's so ridiculous in our society that people do this just because they don't like what you do," he added.

Jentsch provided an account of the threat.

"About a week ago I was going through my mail in my kitchen and I opened a letter and razor blades spilled out on the floor. It was the first sign something was nefarious," he said. "The letter inside contained quite specific and heinous acts of violence to kill me."

He said the letter was signed by the Justice Department, which he described as a group "loosely aligned with the Animal Liberation Front."

"The major reason [no one has been arrested] is because the Animal Liberation Front has no official membership. Their spokesman calls from underground and claims to not know any of its members," Jentsch said.

Jerry Vlasak, an animal rights activist, said he does not know who targeted Jentsch but he says he understands why the researcher was targeted.

"He does not have the right to go home to feel at ease. Try to look at it from the perspective of the innocent beings that he is doing this to," Vlasak said.

- (Headline Daily) Here is a photo of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Risk Management student named Cheng. He had this photo taken and published with his name and department to show that he is unafraid.

What exactly have they been teaching him at Risk Management? Why would anyone hire him to manage their risks?

- (Headline Daily) August 4, 2016.

On July 30, the Internet user nicknamed "Fat Choi" posted: "Either throwing bricks or throwing rocks or throwing bombs, I am psychologically prepared ..." Then he used foul language to curse out Alan Law Ying-ki. Yesterday morning at 730pm, the police went to an apartment in Yau Tung Estate, Sau Kei Wan district and arrested a man named Choi. They took away two mobile phones and one tablet. They found a telecommunications company employee card on Choi, but the suspect declined to say whether he works there. On the Internet, Choi claimed to be a 'young wastrel' and is studying at a non-existent university.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 8, 2016.

Here are the pan-democrats having their say on the act of sending threatening letters with razor blade enclosed.

Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) said: "I am working at the street booth. I am very busy." After many requests for a response, Lam finally said: "Everything should be in accordance with the law. I will not comment on individual incidents."

Kwok Wing-kin (Labour Party) said that any criminal threat is wrong. But he said that the burden of proof for criminal threat is very stringent, so the police are using "dishonest use of computer" to charge people instead because it is easy to convict. So if the police thinks that this was a criminal threat, they should investigate it as such. However, since the case has proceeded to the judiciary, Kwok won't comment further.

Andrew Cheng Kar-foo (former Democratic Party member) said that any threatening behavior is not good, because expression of opinions should be made through legal means and it is wrong to push the law. At the same time, he hopes that the government can understand why young people think this way and get to the root of the problem (namely, why are some people not allowed to run in the election?). Cheng said that the Returning Officers are public servants, so citizens should be holding their supervisors responsible instead.

Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu (Civic Party) said that some people are upset with the Returning Officers deciding themselves that certain persons cannot enter the elections. He said that some citizens are more upset than others. Therefore the government should solve the problem at the root instead of forbidding citizens from expressing their opinions.

Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre) said that the whole affair is a case of political oppression of opinions. However, citizens should look after their own personal safety because it is not worthwhile to ruin their futures.

- The short summary: It's alright to mail those threatening letters with razor blades enclosed. Why? Because FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY/HUMAN RIGHTS/UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE/RULE OF LAW.


Defend Democracy, Take Back Sovereignty
Details of Assembly
Location: Tamar Park
Date: August 5
Time: 20:00-22:00

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 4, 2016.

In a speech to supporters, the convener of the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party Chan Ho-tin asked followers planning to attend the partys rally on Friday to dress well in order to change the image of independence advocates. Chan emphasised that the rally itself will be absolutely peaceful.

Come dressed like office ladies and businessmen in Central, that will be good, he said during a Facebook live session on Thursday. The image of independence advocates should not be a group of thugs or losers. We are people who do big things, we are people with a good image a lot of us are professionals.

Chan called the rally after five hopefuls, including himself, who advocated independence or a return to the UK were banned from running in the upcoming Legislative Council election, creating questions of whether the election regulatory body has lost its neutrality in doing so.

The rally, with the theme Defend Democracy, Retake Sovereignty, will be hosted at Tamar Park in Admiralty between 8pm and 10pm on Friday. Speakers include the five rejected candidates, localist commentators, and a video clip from Billy Fung Jing-en, the former president of the University of Hong Kongs student union, who is out of town.

Many anticipated more radical action than a peaceful rally, but Chan said during the live session that with rumours that 2,000 police officers will be present, along with the forces improving strategies and equipment, such radical action may not achieve anything.

We need to assess the number of people we have, he said. Luckily there may be thousands. But will it be tens of thousands? I have reservations.

Chan said hypothetically, if the movement can bring more than 100,000 people out on the streets, he would not stop people from taking action, but this was not the case in reality. We have to be realistic about our numbers I would say we dont have the numbers to take big actions, he added.

The partys big announcement at the rally is about long term plans, not about spontaneous radical actions that will soon be controlled by police forces, said Chan.

We are talking about taking back [the governance of] Hong Kong. We are not purely opposition groups that create scattered resistance on the streets and then start a riot, Chan said. What will happen after you overthrow the government in a riot? You still cannot govern it. We have a lot to prepare for at this moment we dont have enough strength.

Its like baking a cake, Chan added. You have to think about sifting the flour, beating the eggs, pouring the milk, stirring the cream, making them look good baking is only the final step.

Chan has applied for a letter of no objection from the police, although it has yet to be approved. He said it will be an absolutely peaceful, rational, non-violent rally, adding that his party is preparing a stage and equipment.

Some urged Chan to switch the venue to Mong Kok, but he pointed out that Edward Leung Tin-kei and Ray Wong Toi-yeung of Hong Kong Indigenous were barred from the area due to a court order after charges for rioting in February.

You have to realise that [the clashes in Mong Kok] happened due to many factors it wasnt organised by us. If we force it to happen again, wed cause a lot of people to be arrested, he said.

(Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2016.

Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party) announced on Facebook live broadcast that the five persons whose nominations were invalidated (namely, Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous), Nakade Hitsujiko (City-State), Chan Kwok-keung, Alice Lai (Conservative Party)) are invited to attend the rally tonight. He said that this was just a rally for pro-independence elements and therefore he did not expect to see too many people there and not much being done.

However, he mentioned at least 6 times that if tens of thousands of people show up, then "he won't tell people to go home," "we won't stop just like that," "anything is possible", "people should improvise", etc. He said that he wants to form the pro-independence elements into a formidable force that can "take over Hong Kong."

Meanwhile other Facebook pages are calling people to take concrete action. One Facebook user named Cheung Sam wrote: "When the Hong Kong Communists ousted Chan Ho-tin and Edward Leung, we become aware that there will be a unprecedented situation when the Revolutionary Army of Hong Kong fights the Hong Kong Communists. It will be N times more violent than the February 8th Mong Kok riot. Don't be afraid. I told you previously that February 8th represented our minimal level of force. But today is August 2. Just wait and see."

Cheung Sam also posted reminders how to join the Hidden Army, by disguising identities on the Internet, communicating among the various teams, not making unnecessary sacrifices and protecting oneself carefully.

(Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2016.

A Facebook page titled "I am a fifty-cent ganger I am a mole" has been published a number of posts urging violence.

After Edward Leung's nomination was invalidated, the Facebook user wrote: "The next step, all the localist supporters and members should do everything possible to stop the elections, no matter how lowly and bloody. All voting stations, candidates, voters and workers can be your targets. Nobody other than the police will try to stop you. You don't need to carry any moral baggage."

The page also presented ways of disarming the police. "Simply put, petrol bombs work with certainty." "What good are demonstrations? If you can set road blocks as you march and then you go home before you reach the destination."

As for Ko Tat-bun (Voice of Loving Hong Kong) being slapped during the Election Affairs Commission briefing, the Facebook user wrote: "Good slap. This is a good start. The next time, he should be beaten up so badly so that he has to be hospitalized/stored in a coffin." Apart from Ko Tat-bun, the page also targets Joshua Wong Chi-fung (Demosisto). "It is essential that we destroy Joshua Wong by whatever means possible."

Previously Edward Leung had said that pro-independence supporters are low-class Hongkongers. This Facebook page wrote: "On Independence day, we must eradicate all those who oppose Hong Kong independence or otherwise suggest that independence must fail. If we don't do this, Hong Kong will fall again within ten years." A user added: "We don't have to wait for independence before we eradicate them. By the way, we should eradicate the leftist retards, Hong Kong pigs, and Hong Kong traitors too."

The Facebook page said that, after independence, the people of Hong Kong will be classified into 'residents' or 'citizens.' Only citizens will be allowed to join the government or given guns.

(SCMP)  August 5, 2016.

Hong Kong independence advocates banned from next months Legislative Council elections vowed at a defiant rally on Friday night that they would press on with their cause and campaign for wider public support.

The gathering, dubbed the first pro-independence rally in Hong Kong, went peacefully at Tamar Park outside the government headquarters in Admiralty.

About 2,500 people, mostly the young and some middle-aged, took part, monitored by about 500 police officers on the ground with another 500 on stand-by at police stations.

Five of the six disqualified pro-independence candidates attended the rally. Taking centre stage from among them was high-profile Hong Kong Indigenous member Edward Leung Tin-kei.

Referring to the stage backdrop reading Hong Kong Independence in Chinese characters, Leung said: This is the first time that these four characters ... have appeared in Tamar Park and so many Hongkongers came out. This is a historic moment.

He said he could not utter those words himself because he would launch a legal challenge against his disqualification.

The University of Hong Kong philosophy student called on the crowd to continue the cause, speaking of revolution.

We need to usurp power and reclaim the power we deserve. Hong Kongs sovereignty doesnt belong to [President] Xi Jinping, the Communist Party, the Chinese or local governments the sovereignty always belongs to the people, Leung said.

You might associate it with bloodshed, jail or suppression ... But revolution is a change from the bottom up. Would you ask Beijing and the Hong Kong government to change from top down and give us democracy? Impossible.

The independence movement would take time to win hearts and minds, Leung said, citing the 1911 Chinese Revolution which took 16 years to materialise. Leung noted that a recent public opinion poll found 17 per cent supported their cause. We need to win more support and one day we will be the mainstream, he said.

Leungs candidacy was invalidated even after he signed an additional declaration agreeing to drop his independence stance, with a returning officer telling him that she did not trust he had genuinely changed his stance. Leung is challenging the decision.

Chan Ho-tin, convenor of the Hong Kong National Party and another disqualified candidate, said his ultimate aim was to have his camp govern the city, but he stopped short of saying how they would achieve that goal.

The 25-year-old engineering graduate from Polytechnic University said he envisioned a quiet revolution with people infiltrating the government and police force.

A woman attending the rally said she hoped Hong Kong could become independent so there would be no more Chinese Communist Party interference in the city affairs. She supported the use of violence to enforce change because otherwise the Communist Party will not listen.

Also in the crowd was a public hospital nurse, who said he was motivated to attend by the disqualification of Leung.

Some candidates are deprived of the right to run and their supporters are deprived of the right to choose, he said.

At the end of the rally, Chan called on people to support him by voting for him in the September elections in their own ways.

Asked by reporters whether he meant voters should write down his name on ballot paper, Chan said it was up to the voters to decide.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 6, 2016.

At what is dubbed the first ever pro-independence rally on Friday, the convenor of the Hong Kong National Party called for supporters to infiltrate different sectors for the sake of the movement.

The rally at Tamar Park, near government headquarters in Admiralty, ran its course peacefully. It was attended by over 10,000   according to Chan Ho-tins estimation. Thousands chanted Hong Kong Independence at the event. Ho said it exceeded his expectations.

I hope you can infiltrate all the government departments, the police force we need to learn their ways, we need intelligence this is very practical, he said. You can see that the pro-Beijing camp has their own doctors and lawyers same for the pan-democratic camp. We dont have them yet, but they are coming soon itll be our world.

Only if we study well, can we build Hong Kong and govern it in the future, Chan added.

We absolutely support and encourage the promotion of Hong Kong independence in secondary schools and universities, he said. Chan said he hoped that independence advocates can lead all of the university student unions. Well give whatever support we can.

The rally was attended by five former candidates in the Legislative Council election, including Chan himself, who were disqualified by returning officers who doubted that they would genuinely uphold the Basic Law.

Edward Leung Tin-kei of localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, who received more than 66,000 votes in a February by-election but was barred from running in the upcoming one, spoke of a revolution started by independence advocates.

We have to take back power, take back the rights we should have. The sovereignty of this society does not belong to Xi Jinping, the central government, the communist party, or the Hong Kong government, but to Hong Kong people, he said.

You may say revolution will cause bloodshed, will fail, will have sacrifices if the government does not crush your revolution, that means your revolution is useless and not a threat to the government. You should be happy we are creating a threat.

What is a revolution? It is bottom-up change. A top-down change is only a reform do you still expect the Hong Kong government to reform from the top down, to give us democracy? Its impossible.

Chan also called for independence supporters to vote for him, even though his candidacy was rejected. Do not vote with tears for those who do not support Hong Kong independence, he said. Originally I would appear on a ballot on September 4 but it doesnt matter use your own way to vote for me.

But he did not directly answer how voters should vote for him, only saying that people can submit empty or invalid ballots. He added that he would not encourage people to break the law and mutilate ballot papers. Chan said he will continue his election campaign and continue to urge people to vote for him.

The police said 2,500 attended the rally at its peak.

Videos:

SocREC Part 1 and Part 2. Complete version of the Hong Kong National Party rally in Tamar Park

Internet comments:

- Since all five candidates from Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State got their nominations validated, they see no reason to show up at a pro-independence rally for the invalidated nominees. Since the pro-independence elements won't welcome the traditional pan-democrats (Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats, People Power, etc), the latter won't show up either. So the only people who show up will be the valiant ones.

But will this be July 1st 2016 Demonstration March redux with just a few people showing up outside the China Liaison Office?

- If there are more reporters than demonstrators, then can always be some melodrama to draw media headlines. How about Chan Ho-tin lead the way to set fire to his ID card and passport, which are issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China? This will be Day One of the Hong Kong Republic which has its own ID cards and passports!

- On Day Two, Chan Ho-tin will announced that the temporary government is imposing a poll tax on every living thing in Hong Kong ...

- Yes, taxes are payable in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to be converted by the temporary government into Hong Kong Republican joss paper money.

- The elections will be held and campaigns have to be run. Even if Edward Leung is out, he has a surrogate Baggio Leung (Youngspiration) still running. So the sniping continues.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2016.

Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State went all out against Hong Kong Indigenous' Plan B in Youngspiration. Wong Yeung-tat's wife wrote on Facebook: "Hong Kong Indigneous transferred their money and other assets to Youngspiration in violation of political ethics. This is the same thing that Scholarism tried when they wanted to transfer their assets to Demosisto ... Of course, you should vote for Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State. Before you vote you should the kind of persons the candidates are."

Hong Kong Indigenous clarified on Facebook: "Recently a photo on the Internet suggests that Hong Kong Indigenous is transferring its assets over to Youngspiration. This has generated queries from some of our supporters." They said that they intended to raise money publicly only after Edward Leung's nomination is validated. Therefore they have not raised any money for the Legislative Council to date. They intend to raise money soon for their Plan B. They said the only channel for receiving donations is their Internet radio station Channel-I, and that money is earmarked for meeting daily expenses for the organization.

The general trend is that Civic Passion supporters said that Edward Leung was a nobody, but Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State supported him during the New Territories East Legco elections and allowed him to gain 60,000 votes. But now Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State wants to field their own candidates in all five districts, with Wan Chin running against Edward Leung in New Territories Esat. Now that Edward Leung is out, Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State wants Leung's political inheritance for themselves.

- At this time, both Wan China and Baggio Leung have poor support rates, far behind Edward Leung. So whatever Hong Kong Indigenous does, it seems like a loser of a cause for both of them.

- Why kind of Plan B is this anyway? At the Election Affairs Commission briefing, Edward Leung jumps on a chair, raises his middle finger and yells: "Barnabas Fung, you eat shit! Fuck your mother!" Then he leaves huffing and puffing. Meanwhile the Youngspiration candidates are busy smiling and taking selfies to post on Facebook.

- Why do you want Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State to withdraw from the election to show solidarity with Chan Ho-tin (National Party) and Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous)? Just so they can clear the path for Hong Kong Indigenous' Plan B Youngpsiration to take more selfie photos?

- (Apple Daily) August 5, 2016.

Yesterday on Facebook, Chan Ho-tin repeated that he wanted to hold a 'peaceful assembly' to hand out pro-Hong Kong independent leaflets plus 1,000 books which were supposed to be campaign literature for Hong Kong independence. Chan said that he told the police that 1,000 will attend and he heard that there will be 2,000 police present, "two policemen for each participant." He also said that the police will be filming people on the Admiralty pedestrian overpass.

Chan said that this "assembly of peace, reason and non-violence" may not go well with localists who advocate violence. Nevertheless, this is necessary for a pro-independence political leader to go through the transition. He said that the pro-independence localists are still stuck in social activism whereas they should be getting ready to take over the government.

- (The Stand News) August 5, 2016.


Hong Kong National Party rally, more than 10,000 persons claimed to have attended.
Edward Leung: Take back Hong Kong sovereignty, the revolution will necessarily be bloody, do not speak to the government about ethics/morality

- Chan Ho-tin said that he wants the independence movement to get ready to govern. But he promptly goes on to claim an attendance of 10,000+. How is anyone going to trust you to govern? When you cite a GDP figure for the past quarter, how can they trust you? When you present your budget? The number of days of remaining food/water?

- You don't understand. Chan Ho-tin only wants to be the next President; he is not interested in governing. As Donald Trump is showing us, presidents don't have to talk responsibly.

- If not Chan Ho-tin, then who will govern for the Hong Kong National Party? As Donald Trump said, he does not have to concerned about the details because he will leave those to the experts that he will hire. And his experts will be better than any previous ones.

In this case, though, the existing government cannot be trusted to govern anymore. So foreign experts will be brought in. For example, the Hong Kong Police cannot be expected to continue to police, much less than defend the nation. The Hong Kong National Party can import Israeli mercenary soldiers to do the police/military work. At USD 50,000 per month for 10,000 Israelis, they will do a good job. They may not speak Cantonese, but they will let their Uzis do the talking. (Note: They have to be paid in USD because nobody will accept payment in HKD after independence).

- (Cable TV) August 5, 2016.

The participants took up more than half of Tamar Park. Some people said that they do not support independence, but they came because they were protesting the decision by the Returning Officers of the Registration and Electoral Office to invalidate the nominations of six candidates. One participant brought her six-year-old and four-year-old sons because she wants them to learn how to protect their homeland.

- Previously during BREXIT, a number of voters voted to LEAVE not because they really want to leave the European Union but because they were casting a protest vote against business as usual. When LEAVE won over REMAIN, they are the ones who wanted another vote taken.

- (HKG Pao) August 5, 2016.

Unlike other events, the dais at this even was not elevated and there was no designated press area. Therefore, the camera crews set up in front of the stage and thus block the views of the audience. Chan Ho-tin went up to the press and told them the almost 20 cameras surrounded the stage in a crescent shape and blocked the views of the audience. He asked the camera crews to move aside. They refused. So Chan said publicly: "Will the camera crews move aside after filming? There are many Hong Kong citizens behind you."

Some of the participants began to hurl obscenities at the press. "Fuck your mother!" "Reporters, I fuck your mother!" "I didn't come here to look at your backsides!"

Do not expect the Journalists Association to make any comments about the any interference to news gathering or threats to journalists. That's because this was a "pro-democracy" rally and everything about "Democracy" is necessarily good.

- Important announcements by Chan Ho-tin:

(1) Fully support and assist the promulgation of information on independence within the various universities and secondary schools
(2) Fully support the infiltration of pro-independence elements into the student unions of the various universities
(3) Actively infiltrate the organizations (such as government, police) of the other side in order to obtain intelligence
(4) The students should study hard so that they can government Hong Kong in the future
(5) Actively promulgate Hong Kong independence in various sectors of society. In the future, we should participate in and enhance the alliance of various forces
(6) With respect to the election, we must not vote for the pro-unification factions with tears in our eyes
(7) Use your way to case your vote for Chan Ho-tin (you know what I mean)

- Apple Daily Facebook: Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward Leung Tin-kei: "China is a hooligan country. Why are you talking about ethics/morality with them for? The meaning of the assembly today is that the resistance will begin this very moment."

Well, at every single rally, you say that "Resistance is beginning this very moment." When will it ever really happen? What is your definition of resistance? Some people think that it is the French Resistance. Others think that it is Civil Disobedience. Your definition is so far seems to be about holding rallies to announce that resistance is beginning this very moment (P.S. Donate more money (cash or Paypal only))

- Civic Passion members Wong Yeung-tat and Cheng Kam-mun put aside their squabbles with Hong Kong Indigenous and Hong Kong National Party to make an appearance at Tamar Park. At least they didn't push aside Chan Ho-tin, seize the microphone and ask for donations.

Meanwhile People Power legislator Raymond Chan Chi-chuen was not seen. This is probably because he is busy with raising campaign money. He wants $1,000,000 coming from 10,000 donors at $100 per person.

Meanwhile People Power legislator Raymond Chan Chi-chuen was not seen. This is probably because he is busy with raising campaign money. He wants $1,000,000 coming from 10,000 donors at $100 per person.

- (Ming Pao) August 6, 2016. Many of the attendees were cautious. Whenever reporters snap photos, they put on surgical masks or use the pamphlets to cover up their faces. Some of them told the photojournalists not to take close-ups and used obscene language to curse.

Secondary School sixth-year student Chan said Hong Kong under Communist Party rule has become rule-of-man with a bleak future. Therefore Hong Kong should become independent. He has no concrete plans, but he thinks conditions are ripe for Hong Kong to become independent. For example, Hong Kong can build desalination plants to get water and import food from overseas. He said that the key is to obtain international public opinion support which will increase the political costs for Chinese Communist oppression. As for a bloody outcome, he said that independence is not a sure thing but he is willing to give up his life for Hong Kong independence.

Secondary School fifth-year student Tong said that the Hong Kong government is destroying Hong Kong core values. She thinks that the only way out is to leave the Chinese Communists and become independent. She said that she does not know how to deal with Chinese Communist suppression. But she thinks that "Sports Hong Kong" and "Youth Army" are good ideas. "No matter how violent it gets, I will take part if it is worthwhile."

- No matter how violent? First of all, you can study history to see what the tolerance of the Communists is. How much violence are they willing to deal with to maintain integrity of territory?

(July 6, 2009)  The Urumqi Mass Incident - Part 1  A mass incident occurred in Urumqi (Xinjiang) on July 5, 2009.  This page covers the media reports on July 5-7, 2009.

(July 8, 2009)  The Urumqi Mass Incident - Part 2  This page covers the media reports on July 8-10, 2009

(July 11, 2009)  The Urumqi Mass Incident - Part 3  This page covers the media reports between July 11 and September 1, 2009.

(September 2, 2009)  The Urumqi Mass Incident - Part 4  This page covers the media reports on September 2, 2009 and later.

You have to go way beyond this to move them.

- Look at all the separatist movements in China.

Taiwan is physically separated from mainland China by the Taiwan Straits. The population is 23 million. It has a standing army of 290,000 (see Wikipedia) with 2,800,000 reserve personnel. The public opinion polls say that as much as 60% of the population wants independence/nationhood. Taiwan has a treaty with United States/Japan to defend it against Chinese invasion. Taiwan has elected three pro-independence presidents (Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, Tsai Ying-wen) before. But there is still no Taiwan independence.

Tibet is to the far west of China. It has a population of more than 3 million plus another 100,000+ in exile. The Dalai Lama is an internationally famous political leader and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. There have been many uprisings in Tibet, the latest being in 2008. More than 100 Tibetans have killed themselves by self-immolations, about which the Dalai Lama is neutral. But there is still no Tibet independence.

Xinjaing is to far northwest of China. It has a population of more than 21 million. There is leadership in the World Uyghur Congress, which describes itself as a nonviolent and peaceful movement. There have been many uprisings, most of which are small local terrorist attacks (possibly from extremist groups such as ISIS and ETIM) with the largest being Urumqi in 2009. But there is still no Xinjiang independence.

Hong Kong is contiguous with mainland China. The population is 7 million, of which one-third are Han people born in mainland China. It has no standing army. It has no unified leadership/government for independence in Hong Kong or in exile. There are no defense treaties with the United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. No foreign navy will sail into Victoria Harbor to provide protection due to the threat from land-based cruise missiles and heavy artillery guns from across the border. There have not been any large-scale uprisings/terrorist attacks with many casualties. There have not been any self-immolations, except for the one in the movie Ten Years. Nobody has died from a hunger strike, because Hongkongers will only do relay hunger strikes (four hours of hunger strike per shift).

Compared to the situations in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, Hong Kong is clearly a long way from being close to independence.

- Locke Chan's Facebook

I was present at the assembly last night. I am not trying to pouring cold water but my sense was that this group of young Hong Kong independence politicians are not ready even in terms of speaking or working the crowd. Even the Edward Leung that others have praised so highly was just so-so. I came because I was angry and upset. But this assembly has left me disappointed (and therefore I left early).

When people see several thousand persons present, they see good prospects for Hong Kong independence. But I wonder how many of those attendees actually support Hong Kong independence? Or did they come because they were angry like me? Or because they support those whose nominations were invalidated? More importantly, how long will the "good visions" last? As I recall, the 500,000 persons on July 1, 2003 gave us the same "good visions"! 500,000 persons! We felt good, but what happens afterwards? Have things become better or worse in Hong Kong more than a decade later?

I think Hong Kong independence is one path, but we cannot count on these young people. I want to see leaders who are more capable and charismatic to lead the way to Hong Kong independence. More effort should be put to establish organizational and popular foundations. There needs to be more and larger discussions of Hong Kong independence. Otherwise the so-called Hong Kong independence will remain just a "good vision." It will only be temporary respite or an act of resistance by young people. It won't get anywhere, it won't happen.

If you disagree, you can unfriend me. Thanks.

Q1. Which is the issue that you are most concerned about?
27.0%: Political system and governance
21.9%: Land/housing
13.6%: Economic development
9.3%: Healthcare/hygiene
7.4%: Education
5.7%: Labor and employments
1.9%: Environment/conservation
5.4%: Others
8.0%: No opinion

Q2. What is the main reason for how you decide to vote?
30.%: Past job performance
18.0%: Political beliefs
16.8%: Political party affiliation
16.7%: Political platform
5.9%: Image of the candidate
1.8%: Coordination/strategy
4.1%: Others
5.4%: No opinion

Q3. How likely are you to vote?
54.5%: Definitely yes
19.2%: Most likely
3.9%: Most unlikely
1.0%: Definitely not
5.2%: Undecided
16.2%: No opinion

Note: Candidate lists may not match final nominations.

District Council (second) functional constituency:
20.6%: James To Kun-sun (Democratic Party)
17.2%: Starry Lee Wai-king (DAB)
7.8%: Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood and Street Worker's Centre)
6.0%: Wong Kwok-hing (Federation of Trade Unions)
5.5%: Holden Chow Ho-ding (DAB)
5.2%: Sumly Chan Yeun-sum (Civic Party)
4.1%: Roy Kwong Chun-yu (Democratic Party)
2.3%: Paul Zimmerman (independent)
2.0%: Kwan Wing-yip (Neo Democrats)
1.7%: Ho Kai-ming
1.4%: Chan Kwok-keung
26.3%: Undecided/no opinon

Hong Kong Island:
15.1%: Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee (New People's Party)
12.5%: Tanya Chan (Civic Party)
11.3% Ricky Wong Wai-kay (independent)
10.2%: Cheung Kwok-kwan (DAB)
6.3%: Cyd Ho Sau-lan (Labour Party)
4.8%: Hui Chi-fung (Democratic Party)
4.5%: Kwok Wai-keung (Federation of Trade Unions)
2.1%: Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion)
2.0%: Chim Pui-chung (independent)
2.0%: Nathan Law Kwun-chung (Demosisto)
0.9%: Baggio Leung (Youngspiration)
0.4%: Gary Wong Chi-him (Path of Democracy)
0.3%: Lau Kar-hung (People Power/League of Social Democrats)
27.6%: Undecided/no opinion

Kowloon East:
14.0%: Wu Chi-wai (Democratic Party)
13.0%: Wilson Or Chong-shing (DAB)
11.9%: Jeremy Tam Man-ho (Civic Party)
8.6%: Wong Kwok-kin (Federation of Trade Unions)
6.5%: Paul Tse Wai-chun (independent)
6.2%: Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion)
3.2%: Tam Tak-chi (People Power)
2.5%: Oscar Lai Man-lok (Demosisto)
2.3%: Shi Tak-loy (independent)
1.5%: Wu Wai-shan (Labour Party)
1.0%: Chan Chak-to (Kowloon East Community)
29.5%: Undecided/no opinion

Kowloon West:
14.2%: Claudia Mo Man-ching (Civic Party)
12.1%: Ann Chiang Lai-wan (DAB)
9.3%: Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute)
7.8%: Helena Wong Pik-wan (Democratic Party)
7.0%: Leung Mei-fun (BPA)
6.7%: Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration)
6.0%: Tik Chi-yuen (Third Way)
5.7%: Tam Kwok-kiu (ADPL)
2.8%: Mak Ka-chun (independent)
1.9%: Lau Siu-lai (Democracy Groundwork)
0.3%: Avery Ng Man-yuen (League of Social Democrats)
26.2%: Undecided/no opinion

New Territories East:
12.0%: Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu (Civic Party)
7.8%: Lee Tsz-king (Liberal Party)
6.8%: Edward Leung Tin-kei (Hong Kong Indigenous)
6.5%: Elizabeth Quat (DAB)
6.4%: Chan Hak-kan (DAB)
5.8%: Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats)
5.0%: Christine Fong Kwok-shan (independent)
4.8%: Cheung Chiu-hung (Labour Party)
4.4%: Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)
4.2%: Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party)
3.9%: Chan Chi-chuen (People Power)
3.7%: Tang Ka-piu (Federation of Trade Unions)
3.5%: Eunice Yung Hoi-yan (New People's Party)
1.5%: Hau Chi-keung (independent)
0.8%: Wan Chin (City-State)
0.6%: Liu Tin-shing (independent)
22.3%: Undecided/no opinion

New Territories West:
13.2%: Michael Tien Puk-sun (New People's Party)
9.8%: Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party)
8.6%: Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party)
7.5%: Chan Han-pan (DAB)
7.1%: Alice Mak Mei-kuen (Federation of Trade Unions)
6.5%: Leung Che-cheung (DAB)
6.2%: Raphael Wong Ho-ming (People Power/League of Social Democrats)
5.9%: Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL)
5.7%: Andrew Wan Siu-kin (Democratic Party)
4.8%: Junius Ho (independent)
4.2%: Wong Yun-tat (Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre)
4.0%: Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion)
1.6%: Chu Hoi-dick (Land Justice)
1.6%: Chow Wing-kan (Liberal Party)
0.6%: Edwin Cheng (independent)
0.4%: Wong Chun-kit (Youngspiration)
12.4%: Undecided/no opinion

Note: Candidate lists may not match final nominations.

Hong Kong Island:
Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee (New People's Party)
Judy Chan Kapui (New People's Party)
Tanya Chan (Civic Party)
Ricky Wong Wai-kay (independent)
Cheung Kwok-kwan (DAB)
Kwok Wai-keung (Federation of Trade Unions)

Kowloon East:
Jeremy Tam Man-ho (Civic Party)
Wu Chi-wai (Democratic Party)
Wong Kwok-kin (Federation of Trade Unions)
Wilson Or Chong-shing (DAB)
Paul Tse Wai-chun (independent)

Kowloon West:
Leung Mei-fun (BPA)
Cho Wui-hung (BPA)
Claudia Mo Mang-ching (Civic Party)
Helena Wong Pik-wan (Democratic Party)
Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute)
Ann Chiang Lai-wan (DAB)

New Territories East:
Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party)
Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu (Civic Party)
Cheung Chiu-hung (Labour Party)
Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)
Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats)
Elizabeth Quat (DAB)
Chan Hak-kan (DAB)
Andrew Cheng Ka-foo (independent)
Christine Fong Kwok-shan (independent)

New Territories West:
Michael Tien Puk-sun (New People's Party)
Wong Wai-shun (New People's Party)
Chan Han-pan (DAB)
Leung Che-cheung (DAB)
Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party)
Alice Mak Mei-kuen (Federation of Trade Unions)
Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party)
Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL)
Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion)

District Council (second) functional constituency:
James To Kun-sun (Democratic Party)
Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre)
Starry Lee Wai-king (DAB)
Hung Lin-cham (DAB)
Wong Kwok-hing (Federation of Trade Unions)

Totals: 17 pro-establishment; 16 pro-democracy; 2 independents

Hong Kong Island:
Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee (New People's Party)
Judy Chan Kapui (New People's Party)
Tanya Chan (Civic Party)
Ricky Wong Wai-kay (independent)
Cheung Kwok-kwan (DAB)
Kwok Wai-keung (Federation of Trade Unions)

Kowloon East:
Jeremy Tam Man-ho (Civic Party)
Wu Chi-wai (Democratic Party)
Wong Kwok-kin (Federation of Trade Unions)
Wilson Or Chong-shing (DAB)
Paul Tse Wai-chun (independent)

Kowloon West:
Leung Mei-fun (BPA)
Cho Wui-hung (BPA)
Claudia Mo Mang-ching (Civic Party)
Helena Wong Pik-wan (Democratic Party)
Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute)
Ann Chiang Lai-wan (DAB)

New Territories East:
Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party)
Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu (Civic Party)
Cheung Chiu-hung (Labour Party)
Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats)
Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats)
Elizabeth Quat (DAB)
Chan Hak-kan (DAB)
Andrew Cheng Ka-foo (independent)
Christine Fong Kwok-shan (independent)

New Territories West:
Michael Tien Puk-sun (New People's Party)
Wong Wai-shun (New People's Party)
Chan Han-pan (DAB)
Leung Che-cheung (DAB)
Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party)
Alice Mak Mei-kuen (Federation of Trade Unions)
Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party)
Frederick Fung Kin-kee (ADPL)
Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion)

District Council (second) functional constituency:
James To Kun-sun (Democratic Party)
Leung Yiu-chung (Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre)
Starry Lee Wai-king (DAB)
Hung Lin-cham (DAB)
Wong Kwok-hing (Federation of Trade Unions)

Totals: 17 pro-establishment; 16 pro-democracy; 2 independents

(Oriental Daily) August 3, 2016.

The Registration and Electoral Office has disqualified six pro-Hong Kong independence persons from running in the Legislative Council elections. Afterwards, there was a big-character poster on the Chinese University of Hong Kong Democracy Wall to the effect: "Registration Electoral Office, I fuck your mother" together with the photo and other information on Returning Officer Cora Ho Lai-sheung (including her name, position, office telephone number and address).

The Chinese University of Hong Kong said that they respect the freedom of speech of students, but they do not tolerate obscenities and personal attacks. They called on students to show respect to others when they express their opinions.

Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union vice-president Poon Chi-kin said that the union does not restrict students on the usage of language in expressing their opinions. Poon said that the relevant statement had been ripped off by persons unknown and that the Student Union strongly condemns this destruction of property. Poon also said that he can understand why fellow students are angry because the Hong Kong Communist government has been oppressing the Hong Kong race recently.

Internet comments:

- CUHK Secrets #CU3781


As soon as I saw the photos of the big-character wall poster about the Registration and Electoral  Office, I immediately rush over to sign. But the only left was the name "Electoral and Registration Office" plus the information on the Returning Officer. So I can only use a hand-written version (of "I fuck your mother").

- Well, at least this CUHK student did not write: "Registration and Electoral Office fucked you mother").

- CUHK Secrets $CU3761

Does anyone know that one of the committee members of the Registration and Electoral Office is our vice-chancellor Professor Fanny M.C. Cheung?

- (Sing Tao) August 4, 2016. The CUHK student representatives published an open letter to demand that vice-chancellor Fanny Cheung resign from the Registration and Electoral Office immediately. They said that Cheung is a social scientist and the head of the CUHK Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies must know that an open election is an indicator of a civilized society. Because the Returning Officers invalidated the nominations of six persons, they said that this was political oppression. This is particularly so in the case of Edward Leung in which the Returning Officer refused to believe that he genuine reversed his position. Therefore, if Cheung genuine wants people to believe that there are universal values in life, she must make the right choice to resign from the Registration and Electoral Office. Otherwise she will be a part of the political oppression and become a sinner whom the CUHK Student Union will be ashamed of.

- I completely support the CUHK SU resolution. By the way, when the HKU Council voted not to appoint Johannes Chan as vice-chancellor for academic affairs, why didn't the HKU SU demand that all council members (including their own Student Union president) resign from the council effectively immediately? Please explain because I am confused.

- If the 'pro-democracy' council members all resign, this will leave the council filled with only 'pro-establishment' members.

- (Oriental Daily) August 4, 2016.

As much as the Electoral and Registration Office deserves to draw criticisms, do university students have no opinions beyond posting obscenities? It is time to bring back foul-mouthed singer "The Prince of Temple Street" Wan Kwong's famous song Why Use Obscene Language?

- Imagine that in 1978-1979, they only put up posters with "Deng Xiaoping fuck your mother" during the Democracy Wall Movement in China.

On December 5, the most famous posters of the Democracy Wall, "The Fifth Modernization: Democracy and Others" written by Wei Jingsheng, was posted on Democracy Wall. This long article strongly criticized the undemocratic practice of Mao and Deng. It also emphasized that (1) the history of Germany, Russia and China proved that anti-democracy was the cause of the poor living conditions of the people; and (2) the political system of Yugoslavia would be a good model for bringing economic wellbeing to the people.

Wei Jingsheng thought that Yugoslavia would be a good model for China. What do the current HKU/CUHK students think is a good model for Hong Kong? Note: "Fuck your mother" is not a model.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 4, 2016.

When I was a student, the University Democracy Wall was a solemn place. Despite occasional dregs, those who dared to post on Democracy Wall usually have strong opinions and visions. Young intellectuals-to-be such as ourselves can only admire and respect those long essays on the Democracy Wall.

Earlier generations of Democracy Walls were even more magnificent. They started revolutions and formed public opinions. Nobody posted "The food in the canteen is so awful" and other low-level complaints. We are all intellectuals and we realized the the Democracy Wall is there to disseminate knowledge. Therefore we knew enough to keep the minor complaints to the proper channels and settle personal grudges elsewhere.

Therefore, I have always thought that the quality of a university can be seen as soon as you stand before its Democracy Wall.

A few days ago, at my alma mater Chinese University of Hong Kong's Democracy Wall, there were these words: "Electoral and Registration Office, I fuck your mother." Next to it was an A4-sized paper with a color photograph of Returning Officer Cora Ho Lai-sheung along with her office telephone number and address.

An obscene phrase and a threat. Such is the substance of the Democracy Wall at a university today. Such is the quality of university students nowadays.

The Democracy Wall has its regulations: there shouldn't be any foul language, any personal attacks, any obscene contents and any libelous statements against others. When you want to say something, you include their student/staff ID, your department and your class year. This is the spirit of responsibility of the big-character poster.

What kind of view is conveyed by an obscene phrase? It means that you don't know how to reason and you only know how to curse and threaten. When the taxpayers give each university student $250,000 in subsidies per year, they are actually feeding hooligans instead of bringing up intellectuals.

Of course, foul language is not exclusive to the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Earlier, the Hong Kong University Democracy Wall carried a big-character poster from what seems to be a medical students: "We will take back our medical sector. Arthur Li fuck your mother!" Last year the Baptist University Student Union removed "articles cannot contain foul language and obscene contents" from its Democracy Wall regulations because this will lead to a freer speech.

The collapse of order begins at the Democracy Walls at the various universities. As a CUHK alumnus, I am hereby lodging a formal complaint with CUHK vice-chancellor Joseph Sung. If the university continues to ignore such talk and actions, the angry alumni will boycott donations, boycott all activities connected to the university, refuse to hire CUHK graduates ... etc. If you don't dare to teach them, society will do it for you.

- Reprise: Democracy Wall, inside the Hong Kong University campus

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

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

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

- There were two other banners on the same Democracy Wall, and both were problematic as well. The one above says: "我們的杏林﹐我們會奪回來" which "We'll take back our medical sector." This makes zero sense, because they really wanted to say "我們的翰林﹐我們會奪回來" which means "We'll take back our academic world." So this was either a typographic error or else the writer doesn't even know the difference between the two terms).

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

- Here is the HKU student Tsz Hou Li who posted those words:

He said: "Those who know me all know that I don't use a lot of obscene language. But in this case, I have nothing to add."

Tsz Hou Li wants Arthur Li to fuck all your mothers. Arthur Li is 70 years old; if he has to fuck the mothers of the several tens of thousands of students, teachers and staff members at Hong Kong University, he will surely die from exhaustion. This is very clear and Tsz Hou Li does not need to add anything more.

- (Oriental Daily) According to the rules for the HKU Democracy Wall, obscene language and/or personal attacks are now allowed and the HKU Students Union has the right to remove any offensive items. However, these posters have been there for four days already in apparent violation of the rules. HKU SU president Althea has not responded to our inquiry about the posters. The HKU administration said that the Students Union is in charge of the Democracy Wall and they respect the autonomy of the Students Unions in dealing with such matters in a responsible and tolerant manner.

- Of course, the HKU administration is clearly being sarcastic here. Allowing the posters to stand for four days is neither responsible nor tolerant.

- The fascinating thing is that they are completely oblivious to the negative impression created by the illiteracy and infantilism as exhibited in these posters. Or perhaps the Student Union officers know, but they want to hang out Tsz Hou Li out to dry.

- (Oriental Daily) August 4, 2016.

Following the obscene insults against HKU Council chairman Arthur Li over at the Hong Kong University Democracy Wall, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Democracy Wall followed suit with an obscene insult against the Returning Officer of the Registration and Electoral Office. These two best-known universities of Hong Kong are competing not for academic accomplishments; they are competing to become the most boorish and uncouth university in Hong Kong.

When a forest is huge, there are all sorts of birds. If a certain member of an institution for higher education prefers to be uncivilized, then it is a waste of time to talk to him about the principles of democracy. For example,  it is useless to tell him about Lu Xun's "Insults and threats are surely not combat." In truth, even insults come in different levels of quality. Low-quality insults center solely around the reproductive organs. High-quality insults do not even have to contain any obscenities. Here are some examples of high-quality insults:

"As soon as you step outdoors, the birds disappear from the mountains and the people disappear from the streets."

"After hanging around with you for some time, I want to be around dogs instead."

"I wanted to bite you, but I am Muslim."

"I look at your class ranking, and I can tell how many people are in your class."

"No wonder your mother said that she was better off giving birth to a piece of BBQ pork than to you. On closer look, your mother was right. You are really not as good as a piece of BBQ pork."

I really wish that when university students use obscenities, they should watch what that does to their image. They may receive a reply such as: "Please do not use your organ of excretion to speak to me, because that is being extremely impolite. Thank you."

(EJ Insight) August 2, 2016.

Edward Leung Tin-kei (梁天琦), a prominent member of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous, has seen his bid to run for a seat in the upcoming Legislative Council election get rejected by local authorities. Leung was disqualified by a returning officer even though he had signed the controversial new declaration form introduced by the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC), according to RTHK.

The young political activist had sought to run for a seat in the New Territories East constituency, the same place where he fought a by-election earlier this year. Though he lost the February by-election, Leung won a lot of attention as he secured more than 60,000 votes, pointing to the growing appeal of his political platform. 

Leung had earlier advocated Hong Kong independence, but signaled a change of stance last week when he agreed to sign a declaration to uphold the Basic law and accept Chinas rights over Hong Kong. Despite that, his application was rejected, as the returning officer apparently had some misgivings.

The EAC last month introduced a new rule under which all election candidates must sign a new declaration to uphold the Basic law the citys mini-constitution and recognize that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China. Anyone who fails to do so could face disqualification, the election watchdog warned. Critics have slammed the new rule as a kind of political censorship aimed at stopping people with pro-independence leanings from participating in the September Legco election.

Leung said he hasnt been given any reason for the rejection of his candidacy.

Apart from Leung, another localist candidate James Chan Kwok-keung (陳國強) was also denied permission to run in the polls, RTHK reported Tuesday. However, Baggio Leung Chung-hang (梁頌恆) of Youngspiration, was accepted as a candidate. Hong Kong Indigenous had announced earlier that it will support Baggio Leung if Edward Leung is barred from the election.

(Hong Kong Free Press) August 2, 2016.

In a decision made by the returning officer, she stated she could not accept that Edward Leung Tin-kei truly changed from his past stance of advocating and promoting Hong Kong independence.

Leung, of Hong Kong Indigenous, was barred from the Legislative Council election on Tuesday, only hours away from the briefing for confirmed candidates.

In hopes of being able to run in the election, Leung distanced himself from past statements, media reports, and his old Facebook page, which advocated Hong Kongs independence.

Leung received an email on July 22 asking whether he still supported Hong Kong independence after submitting his application to run for a seat in the New Territories East constituency. In a reply on July 28, he said the answer was a resounding no.

Mr Leung has not provided sufficient reasons or evidence to prove that the media reports on his advocacy for Hong Kong independence were not true, wrote Cora Ho Lai-sheung, returning officer of the New Territories East constituency. She added that the law did not prevent her from considering materials that are, or may be, hearsay statements.

Ho also wrote that it was impossible for Leung to be ignorant of the existence and contents of his old Facebook page, but he has never pointed out that the pages Hong Kong independence content was not coherent with his views.

Mr. Leung used the [safe] version to describe the new Facebook page, showing that Mr. Leung used the contents of the page to try and obscure his real political views, Ho added.

Ho wrote that Leung did not express that he no longer supported Hong Kong independence between July 22 and 28, and that he only stated his opposition in his reply on July 28. Ho also cited Leungs statements during a press conference on July 28.

Leung said then: The regime does not want me to enter the Legislative Council even if I have to crawl inside, through whatever means, I need to join it. I must stand for election in September and win and be a lawmaker.

I think [the statements made by] Mr. Leung mean that he will use whatever means to enter the Legislative Council, including claiming not to advocate Hong Kong independence anymore; if he becomes a legislator, he will continue to advocate and support Hong Kong independence, Ho wrote.

Thus, Ho said she could not accept that Leung has truly changed his stance. Because he did not intend to uphold the Basic Law, his candidacy was rejected, she said.

A statement from Hong Kong Indigenous said the reply from Ho was naked political and thought censorship. The function of the Electoral Affairs Commission is to coordinate election affairs  it has no power and legal basis to censor the political views of candidates, it read. It also pointed out that Leung was allowed to participate in the LegCo by-election in February in which he received more than 60,000 votes but was unable to join the one in September.It is utterly ridiculous, it added. The group said it will lodge an election petition and judicial review to overrule the decision.

(SCMP) August 2, 2016.

Hong Kongs election watchdog on Tuesday rejected localist leader Edward Leung Tin-keis bid to run in next months Legislative Council polls, setting off a chorus of complaints about political screening of candidates and raising doubts about the watchdogs neutrality.

With Leungs rejection, a total of six candidates for the September 4 polls have had their nominations invalidated by returning officers over their advocacy of the citys independence from China.

There were chaotic scenes at a briefing for validated candidates by the Electoral Affairs Commission on Tuesday night as protesting pan-democratic and localist hopefuls disrupted the session. The commission was forced to cut short the briefing, and police guarding the venue removed the protesters.

As protesters tried to storm the speakers stage, Demosisto chairman Nathan Law Kwun-chung was seen being pushed to the ground. He later sought medical treatment at United Christian Hospital for leg injuries and planned to file a police report, suspecting he had been manhandled by a plainclothes officer. The election commission condemned the violent acts of the protesters.

Leung, a member of Hong Kong Indigenous, was expected to have a high chance of winning a seat, considering his strong performance in a Legco by-election in February. He slammed the rejection of his candidacy as a decision made under rule of man, not rule of law. The returning officer doesnt want to believe what I say in black and white and concluded that she simply doesnt believe that I am genuine in what I say, he said. Is she a worm in my mind?

He went on to claim the elections were being manipulated by the government, and that he would submit an election petition to challenge the rejection the day after the Legco polls. He later went into the briefing as a guest and swore at election commissioner Barnabas Fung Wah as he spoke.

Leung, a Hong Kong University philosophy student, was an open advocate of independence until last week, when he was forced to clarify his stance before his candidacy was decided. He made a complete U-turn to accept a controversial change to election rules and signed a confirmation form reinforcing his acceptance of Hong Kongs status as an inalienable part of China. The form is an additional requirement to the standard declaration form to uphold the Basic Law.

Whats causing confusion is that 42 lists of candidates from the pan-democrat and localist camps have been approved even though they refused to sign the new form.

In a 12-page reply, returning officer Cora Ho Lai-sheung, with the advice of the Department of Justice, attached media reports on Leungs past remarks about independence, and even his own Facebook posts. She included a transcript of remarks Leung had made at a press conference after signing the confirmation form.

What Mr Leung means should be: in order to enter Legco, he would take whatever means, including stopping advocating Hong Kong independence; and once he becomes a lawmaker, he will continue to advocate independence, she wrote. I therefore do not trust Mr Leung genuinely changed his previous stance for independence.

A government spokesman denied political censorship, insisting that returning officers were acting lawfully to ensure the elections would be run in accordance with the Basic Law. The justice department said it had taken into account candidates right to stand for elections when advising returning officers.

Letter from Returning Officer to Edward Leung Tin-kei

Videos:

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1040623149306381/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chuckyboyboy009/videos/1795124450735135/
Localists vs. localists outside the Election Affairs Commission meeting.

- While the League of Social Democrats/People Power/Demosisto leftist retards charge the stage to seize the microphone and, more importantly, be filmed by the news media, Wong Yeung-tat was bemused from the position of his throne.

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chuckyboyboy009/videos/1795007810746799/ Wong Yeung-tat vs. localists

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1040560225979340/ Edward Leung gets on chair to raise middle finger and scream obscenities ("You eat shit" and "Fuck your mother").

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1040553939313302/ Localists surround candidate Junius Ho

Leticia Lee vs. Alvin Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1040606739308022/

- They are so close to each other that the question inevitably arises: Are they going to kiss each other?

- Candidate Ricky Wong asked: "Am I at the right place?"

- How about some Valentine embellishment for this match made in heaven?

Ko Tat-bun (Voice of Loving Hong Kong) being assaulted by a masked man https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1040623149306381/
See also Oriental Daily http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160802/bkn-20160802225817075-0802_00822_001.html
Oriental Daily https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1040718712630158/

SocREC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxexa0QpT8s Lau Siu-lai was carted out of the meeting hall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zN9RT2CQlk Nathan Law was taken out to the ambulance

Internet comments:

- (TVB) Edward Leung: "Today in Hong Kong, there are two types of people. One part is called Hongkongers. They enjoy their rights under the Basic Law. But there is other part of Hongkongers. About 17%. They are lower-class Hongkongers. This 17% of Hongkongers have no right to find someone to represent them. This 17% of Hongkongers do not have the right to elect. This 17% of Hongkongers do not have freedom of speech, because when they bring up the political views in their minds, they are censored and suppressed. Their political rights are deprived. Therefore in Hong Kong today, there are more than 1 million lower-class Hongkongers. The Basic Law cannot protect them. When you ask us to uphold this Basic Law, you deprive us of the right to vote under Article 26 of this Basic Law, freedom of speech under Article 27. Is this a society of rule-of-law? This is such a society which wears a coat of rule-of-law but is actually running rule-of-man. Hong Kong is completely manipulated by the Chinese Communists. Such is Hong Kong today. When tyranny becomes reality, what else can I do? Revolution is our duty. This is the only way. As long as we are under the rule of Chinese Communists, I cannot enter this Legislative Council. This is reality. What else can I do?"

- As long as this is the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, the Basic Law will work this way. Whether Edward Leung files a election petition or a judicial review, the ultimate authority is the National People's Congress Standing Committee and the same outcome will result. If Edward Leung wants a different outcome, he should set up a parallel government of the Hong Kong Republic which can appoint its own officials, enact its own legislation, levy its own taxes, raise its own national army, etc.

- When the election season started, Edward Leung talked up Hong Kong independence because that is his base. When the Returning Officer sought clarification about this apparent violation of Basic Law Article 1, Edward Leung made a 180-degree turn to embrace the Basic Law. After the Returning Officer nevertheless invalidated the nomination, Edward Leung made a 180-degree turn to call for armed revolution. Edward Leung changes his face faster than a Sichuan face-changing opera even though he is from Hubei province, People's Republic of China.

- It is argued that if Edward Leung was allowed to run in the New Territories East by-election earlier this year, then he should be allowed to run in this election as well because his advocacy ofn Hong Kong independence has always been the same.

There is a story about a friend. He was going to cross the street and came up to a red pedestrian stop light. However, there were no cars coming as far as the eyes can see. About a hundred other pedestrians began walking and my friend followed them. When he got to the other side, a police officer called him over and issued a summons to him. My friend complained that none of the other pedestrians were fined. The policeman told my friend to complain to the judge.

So my friend took time off from work and made a special trip to court and tried to talk to the judge. The judge cut him off and asked: "Was the light red at the time? Yes or no?" My friend said: "Yes." The judge asked: "Did you cross the street while the red was light? Yes or no?" My friend said: "Yes." The judge said: "Go over there and pay the fine. Next case!"

The point is not how many others were caught, or how often you did it before without being caught. The point is what happened this time was against the law. "Yes or no?"

- (Bastille Post) At the court trial, a 60-something-year-old taxi driver was accused of charging a foreigner a fee for two small hand-carry suitcase. After the prosecutor presented the case, the taxi driver immediately pleaded not guilty and excitedly that he has been charging such fees for even the smallest piece of hand-carry luggage for more than 40 years without ever being prosecuted. Therefore he accused the government of abusing its authority.

The magistrate got very upset and immediately told the taxi driver to shut up. The magistrate explained that each court case is handled independently. Never having been charged for the same thing previously is not an excuse for this offence. "You may not have been prosecuted before for many reasons: maybe nobody complained, or maybe the police did not have the manpower, or whatever. But just because you were not prosecuted before does not mean that you must be excused for this time. Each case will be dealt with independently by the court depending on the evidence that is presented for the case.

- Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen has explained that Edward Leung's position on Hong Kong independence was fuzzy during the by-election, but it became gradually very clear leading up to this election.

- (Bastille Post) In the case of Wan Chin, his articulations on Hong Kong independence after filing the nomination papers were very ambiguous. The Department of Justice reviewed what he said and wrote and thought that the evidence was too weak. Therefore Wan Chin's nomination was validated.

- (Speakout HK) Senior counsel Ronny Tong said: "Nobody believes that Edward Leung is not pro-independence. So why do you insist that the Returning Officer must belief it?" That is the true test, rather than 12 pages of minutiae.

- In the courtroom, is the judge reduced to asking the defendant: "Did you do it? Yes or no?" If the answer is no, then the defendant has to be released?

- While the pan-democrats charged the stage, the Youngspiration candidates took selfies to post on Facebook:

Afterwards, Yau Wai-ching apologized about the disrespect shown to the victims.

- What is the meaning of "being valiant"? (Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2016.

- Traditional pan-democrats only know how to get in front of the camera. What else do you know?

- In front of the camera, you put on an act. Behind the camera, you tell people to go to hell.

- I only know for certain that all those who charge onto the stage are running in the election. What the fuck good would it do for Edward Leung if he also charge onto the stage and actually beat the fuck out of Barnabas Fung.

- What good does it do to jump on stage today? Where the fuck were you during all the other times? Why do you only show up when an election is on?

- Ultimately, being Legislator Council is just a job for them. They are not really fighting back at anything.

---

- So these are the valiant ones? Even their much-despised leftist retards are more valiant.

- Where the fuck were those valiant Hong Kong independence warriors? Where did they go?

- Edward Leung was very valiant today. He got on a chair, raised his middle finger and yelled: "Barnabas Fung, you eat shit! Fuck your mother!" No act can be as brave and courageous.

- (Oriental Daily with video) August 2, 2016. The Election Affairs Commission briefing for the candidates was delayed for 15 minutes because the security guards clashed with the candidates beforehand. Each candidate was entitled to bring two others but some candidates apparently brought more than two. This caused some candidates to be angry at the security guards and they clashed. Chairman Barnabas Fung started to speak but pan-democrats started yelling "We oppose political screening" and "We want fair elections" and held up banners that said "Self-determination by the people of Hong Kong." But other persons yelled back "Shameless to disrupt public order!" Eventually the police removed the pan-democrats.

Photos of people rushing the stage:

- (Cable TV) August 2, 2016. The Election Affairs Commission meeting began amidst protests. After chairman Barnabas Fung introduced the regulations, Edward Leung left. When Fung was done speaking, Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats) rushed onto the stage to seize the microphone. Members of People Power and Demosisto also charged onto stage while the workers tried to stop them. Fung left under escort while the police removed many persons from the meeting venue. Some of those who stayed behind stood on their chairs to quarrel. After about 20 minutes, the speeches by the ICAC and Hong Kong Post representatives were canceled and they began to draw candidate numbers. When it came to New Territories East, Returning Officer Cora Ho directed the drawing. The pan-democrats demanded to know why she invalidated Edward Leung's nomination but the workers blocked them and took them away. The media were kept away from Barnabas Fung and Cora Ho. The meeting was quickly over.
More from Cable TV

- (SCMP) The Civic Party condemned the disqualification of the six pro-independence candidates, calling it political screening and accusing the election watchdog of deviating from the principle of political neutrality.

Let it be noted that the Civic Party stop short of saying that it is a universal right to stand for election, including those who advocate overthrowing the constitution/separatism/armed insurrection/etc.

- American History: Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that before presidents can assume their duties they must take the oath of office. The completion of this thirty-five-word oath ("I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.") ends one president's term and begins the next.

- Time for another White House petition.

It won't make a difference, but signing it will make you feel good.

- (Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) August 5, 2016.

- We support the United States sanctioning China.

- Why not ask the American imperialists to take back sovereignty of Hong kong.

- I hope that President Obama can help us with one last thing -- use a nuclear bomb to fucking flatten Beijing. He should kill as many as possible. It would be best if they all fucking die, so that they cannot cause any more harm.

- Ten fucking nuclear bombs to kill 1 billion people.

- What is wrong with seeking American help? In recent world history, which revolution did not have foreign involvement?

---

- Americans? They are fucking useless. There have been many White House petitions already. Has the White House ever done anything? Please tell me.

- What do Americans care? Do you think that they could be bothered?

- I know that you did this in order to declare yet another spiritual victory over the Chinese Communists.

- Why the fuck should you get the Americans involved? Hongkongers should depend on themselves. My advice to you is not to be too "pan-democratic" by running over the Americans for every little thing.

- Just nonsense. If you have to run to the Americans over eligibility to run in an election, how can you ever hope to become independent?

- The whole point of Localism is that the locals should decide local affairs. That is why there are groups such as Tuen Mun Affairs for Tuen Mun People, Hung Hom Affairs for Hung Hom People, etc.  If this is a Hong Kong issue, then it is a Hong Kong affair for the Hong Kong people. Okay?

- (Bastille Post) August 2, 2016.

Firstly, this will trigger street resistance. Hong Kong Indigenous gained fame with the Lunar New Year's Day riot in Mong Kok. So they will surely attempt to start street resistance. The question is just how many traditional pan-democrats and other localists will go into the streets with them.

But why did the Election Affairs Commission go after Edward Leung but not some of the other radical localists? Everything depends on the evidence. What a person says before the election counts less. What really counts is after the person signs the standard form about upholding the Basic Law. If the person persists in advocating Hong Kong independence, he will be invalidated. So some of the other radical localists clamped up after they submitted their nomination forms, and they got their nominations validated. Now that they are on the inside looking out, it is rational for them to make a show to support Edward Leung but they won't be caught either supporting Leung on Hong Kong independence or throwing bricks in the streets.

Secondly, the government consulted Queen's Counsels in the United Kingdom beforehand. There are many precedents from the 1970's with the Irish Republican Army. For example, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams was rejected as a parliament candidate for cause. So the government goes in well-prepared, in addition to knowing that the National People's Congress Standing Committee is there to interpret the primacy of Basic Law Article 1 over Articles 26 and 27.

Thirdly, there are 24 candidate lists for the 9 seats in New Territories East. Based upon the previous HKU-POP poll, Edward Leung was ranked third with 8.3% support. He could have secured a seat. But now that he is out, the ninth-ranked traditional pan-democrat and the tenth-ranked radical localist stand to gain most. This is a zero-sum game, where the pro-establishment camp can't benefit from.

Fourthly, the agenda has just moved from "Anybody  but CY Leung" (ABC) to something else. Instead of the pro-establishment candidates being pushed whether they support the re-election of CY Leung, the pan-democrats will be asked whether they support Hong Kong independence.

Fifthly, the candidates cannot advocate Hong Kong independence openly. If they do so, they may be charged with making a false statement to the Election Affairs Commission.

- 120-lb weakling Nathan Law (Demosisto) tried to rush the stage but came out at the losing end. He wants to file a complaint against someone whom he thinks is an undercover police officer.

- (Bastille Post)

Hong Kong Bar Association ex-chairman Edward Chan King-sang said that the government wants to replace judges by government officials when they let the Returning Officers invalidate nominations because they thought that the candidates did not sincerely support the Basic Law. Chan said that making a false oath is a criminal offence which should be decided by a judge and not a government official.

Edward Chan is being disingenuous here because he is switching issues. The original issue is the Returning Officer determining whether the candidate is filing accurate information. The switched issue is the judge determining whether a person has made a false oath.

In any case, assuming that Chan is correct, then the Returning Officer becomes a rubber stamp with no authority whatsoever. If a candidate shows up before the Returning Officer. On one hand, he is signing the document to pledge support of the Basic Law. On the other hand, he is setting a copy of Basic Law on fire and saying "Here! I am fucking supporting the Basic Law!" According to Chan, the Returning Officer can do nothing except to validate the nomination. The only recourse for the government is to charge the candidate with making a false oath. The court trial may be scheduled for years later. Even if the government wins, the Legislative Council have to vote by at least 2/3 to disqualify one of their own members.

The point is that even in a judicial review, the judge is not going to decide in place of the Returning Officer. The case will be based upon whether the Returning Officer has exceeded his authority under the law. There is no intention to make the court responsible for making all executive decisions.

In the Orwell Prize winning book Rule of Law by Tom Bingham, it was pointed out that judges work with the law on a daily basis and they may not be qualified in other domains (such as running elections) in which they have to make decision. So when the Parliament passes laws to authorize a certain government official to make certain decisions. The Parliament does not want to let a certain judge to make that decision on his own.

Bingham makes it very clear that the judge will only decide whether the decision by the government official is in accordance of the law. The judge will not make that decision for the government, as Chan suggested.

- (SCMP) Lawyers are not the sole arbiters of who should stand in Legco elections: its a matter for us all. By Alex Lo. August 6, 2016.

Oh, the arrogant presumption of some lawyers.

This week, all 30 members of the legal sub-sector of the 1,200-strong Election Committee that picked Hong Kongs leader in 2012 criticised the government for banning individuals from entering elections based on their political stance. In a joint statement, they claimed returning officers were not empowered to make such a subjective and political decision.

So far, six pro-independence activists have been barred from running in next months Legislative Council elections. The decisions by the returning officers were of course political, but that doesnt mean its illegal, as those lawyers have claimed. As for their being subjective decisions, the lawyers criticism is just incoherent. How is it subjective if those activists have said they advocate independence and returning officers believe they do?

The case of Hong Kong Indigenous Edward Leung Tin-kei appears to present a problem, because he has on record claimed he has renounced his independence stance. But no one believes he has done so, least of all his supporters. He is lying through his teeth while winking at us.

Those decisions by the returning officers are of course political because the issue of independence for Hong Kong cuts right to the very foundation of our constitutional order. The Basic Law stipulates one country, two systems but expressly states that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.

Everything else flows from these two stipulations, including the rule of law, an independent judiciary and an executive-led government.

Should we allow those who seek the overthrow of our constitutional order and government system to serve as legislators? Reasonable people may and do disagree on this point. But it is such a fundamental question that it concerns all Hong Kong citizens, not just those self-important lawyers who claim special expertise in this matter.

It has been argued that those secessionists are not seeking independence now, but only after 2047 when one country two systems will have come to an end.

If thats really the case, why are we tearing ourselves apart over something decades away? Clearly whatever they say, our young secessionists want to bring that date forward, which again means undermining our government system.

They may want to start a revolution, but we are not obligated politically, legally and morally to let them wreak havoc. Quite the contrary.

- (Kinliu) August 5, 2016. In the Rule of Statutory Interpretation under Common Law, the most basic rule is the Literal Rule. However, if a literal rule leads to an absurd result, then the literal meaning can be altered under the Rule Against Manifest Absurdity (The Golden Rule).

Here is one example. In Smith v Hughes (1960), the English law prohibited solicitation for prostitution purposes in streets and public places. But two female prostitutes set up in an apartment and hailed pedestrians from the verandah. They were arrested and convicted, after which they appealed on the grounds that they were not in the street at the time. The court of appeals ruled that the Literal Rule led to an Absurd Conclusion, because the purpose of the law was to make sure that pedestrians do not get harassed by prostitutes. So if the pedestrians are harassed, then it does not matter where the prostitutes were standing at the time.

Applied to Legislative Council Ordinance CAP 542 s. 40: What requirements are to be compiled with by persons nominated as candidates:

(1) A person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a constituency unless (Amended 25 of 2003 s. 23)

... (b) the nomination form includes or is accompanied by-

(i) a declaration to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

The Literal Rule would say that the nominee is only required to go through the formality of signing a piece of paper but can otherwise go about advocating Hong Kong independence (thus contravening Basic Law Article 1) and overthrowing the HKSAR government.

Is this Manifest Absurdity? Did you think that the spirit of the Legislative Council Ordinance was to collect a piece of paper to be filed away by the Returning Officer? Or was it to prevent those who oppose the System from entering the System and destroying it from within?

- (HKG Pao) August 6, 2016. Alvin Cheng Kam-mun was one of the first to sign the confirmation form. Today at the radio forum for Hong Kong Island Legislative Council candidates, Cheng declared that Hong Kong independence has always been his position. He said that public opinion polls showed that 17% of the people of Hong Kong support independence. Therefore, either you prosper with the trend or you will be destroyed.

- (HKG Pao) August 7, 2016. The "King of Judicial Reviews" Kwok-cheuk-kin has filed for a judicial review over the decision of Electoral Affairs Commission Barnabas Fung. In his brief, he said that New People's Party legislator once served under the British colonial administration in which she pledged loyalty to the United Kingdom. Therefore she does not support the People's Republic of China. However, she was allowed to enter the Legislative Council elections. This should mean that Chan Ho-tin and Edward Leung should both be allowed to run. Kwok said that the Registration and Electoral Office should not be making such decisions, which should be left to the voters.

- The Returning Officers were not concerned about what happened before the nomination period, because people can always change their minds. They were concerned about what happened after the nomination papers were filed. If you sign a pledge but you continue to advocate Hong Kong independence, there would be a problem about the validity of that pledge.

- (Ming Pao) August 10, 2016.

Hong Kong Indigenous' Edward Leung was just one step away from entering the Legislative Council when he was shut out because of his pro-Hong Kong independence stance. Leung said that he is worried about his future, because he is already a "Double NO young wastrel (NO school and NO job)." He has no idea what he can do. "I have given up the idea of being an elected represenative."

Within six months, Leung went from an unknown student of philosophy at Hong Kong University to become a Localist star. He said: "Being a public figure is very irksome." This is because he has to look after three images: the public image, the Facebook image and his true personal self.

After the Lunar New Year riot in Mong Kok, people think that Leung's "resistance without any bottom lines" means that he is cold-blooded. "But I am not", he said. He said that he did not want to see people shed blood or go to jail. He said that some revolutions are peaceful.

After being shut out from the elections, Leung said: "When tyranny becomes reality, revolution becomes a duty." This gave the impression that he wants to start an even more radical round of resistance. "I never wanted an armed revolution to come. I don't want to see blood spilled. I don't want to see martyrs. I don't want things to happen when they are not necessary." At the time of the Mong Kok clash, Leung said that the old methods of resistance could not budge the authorities an inch and nobody else was willing to use more radical methods to apply pressure on the government. "If there is no one else, then we at Hong Kong Indigenous will do it."

As for "resistance without any bottom lines," Leung recalled that he was asked "Do you have any bottom lines?" after a certain function. "At the time, I took a look at him and I said 'No, I don't have any bottom lines as a pesron.' This became our main political stance afterwards."

Leung said that he recognized the importance of local district work. He said that ideology alone is not enough. He says that they need to deliver results in the local districts and improve the lives of citizens in order to prove that they are not just trouble-making young wastrels. At the moment, Hong Kong Indigenous lacks the local work experience, and so they may work with other organizations to fill this gap.

- Here is the mystery. If Leung says that he is a "Double NO" young wastrel, did he graduate or not? Previously, he listed himself as a fifth-year undergraduate student in the department of philosophy at the Hong Kong University. Did he graduate his year? Or was he kicked out of school due to non-attendance/failing grades?

- (Ta Kung Pao) August 10, 2016.

Hong Kong Indigenous' Edward Leung Tin-kei told the media that he entered the election in order to seize political resources. A legislator takes in more than $10 million in resources over the four-year term. If he doesn't seize it, some other political party will seize it.

Although Leung claimed that his "resistance without any bottom lines" was a random quote, the fact that he was shouting that slogan during a rally for his New Territories East by-election in February and he has stated the same stance during many past inerviews.

(SCMP) July 30, 2016.

A member of the separatist Hong Kong National Party has been disqualified from running in next months Legislative Council elections, sparking speculation that others who hold pro-independence views could be disqualified.

Chan Ho-tin, whose candidacy was invalidated by the citys election watchdog on Saturday, is one of a number of localists who refused to sign a recently introduced additional declaration form which reinforces acknowledgement that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China. Those who oppose it see the controversial requirement as a tool to censor political thought and suppress the right to stand for election. Its validity is already the subject of a legal challenge by three potential election candidates.

Chan said he would fight back by seeking both a judicial review and a future election petition.

The National Party is honoured to become the first party to be banned from joining a democratic election by the government due to political difference, the party wrote on its Facebook page as it announced the latest development. It urged other parties that support democracy to boycott the election as the move has violated the Basic Law.

A government spokesman backed the invalidation decision made by the returning officers who have the duty as well as power to make those decisions according to the relevant electoral laws. Independence [of Hong Kong] is inconsistent with the constitutional and legal status ... stipulated in the Basic Law, as well as the established basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong, he said. Upholding the Basic Law is a basic legal duty of a legislator. If a person advocates or promotes the independence of the HKSAR, he cannot possibly uphold the Basic Law or fulfil his duties as a legislator, he said.

The Electoral Affairs Commission said its officers had made the decision in accordance with the law, and the watchdog would not comment as it did not have legal powers to make such a decision.

About 100 people joined a rally in Tamar park to support Chan on Saturday night.

Separately, a group of pan-democrats held a gathering outside the Chief Executives Office to protest against Chans disqualification.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 30, 2016.

The government said the nomination of a pro-independence Legislative Council election candidate was invalidated as he cannot possibly uphold the Basic Law or fulfil his duties as a legislator. Chan Ho-tin of the Hong Kong National Party was notified by the Electoral Affairs Commission on Saturday of the decision.

The Returning Officers have the duty as well as power to make those decisions according to the relevant electoral laws, a government spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said that the returning officer for the New Territories West geographical constituency decided Chan did not comply with section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap 542).

The section states that the nomination form for candidates includes a declaration that they will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The candidate cannot possibly comply with the requirements of the relevant electoral laws, since advocating or promoting independence of the HKSAR is contrary to the content of the declaration, the spokesperson said. Decisions made by the Returning Officers are aimed to ensure that the LegCo election is held in strict accordance with the Basic Law and other applicable laws in an open, honest and fair manner.

There is no question of any political censorship, restriction of the freedom of speech or deprivation of the right to stand for elections as alleged by some members of the community, the spokesperson added.

Chan, in response, tore apart the letter from the Electoral Affairs Commission in front of reporters on Saturday. It is a piece of rubbish, he said. Because we didnt bow down to the Peoples Republic of China, they did not let us run, he said. As long as we dont admit to be Chinese, they wont let us enter the Legislative Council.

He said the legislature is officially pronounced dead after the new political censorship measure, adding that people should boycott it. He also urged Hong Kong people to join him at Admiralty on Saturday evening to express their anger towards the decision.

Chan said the party will write to the United Nations and the UK government to raise the incident to an international level. He will file a judicial review and election petition to challenge the decision. Pan-democratic parties will stage a protest outside the Chief Executives Office at 7:30pm on Saturday protesting against Chans disqualification.

Internet comments:

- (TVB) July 30, 2016. In his press conference, Chan Ho-tin said that he was angry not for himself, but for the several hundreds of thousands of voters who rights to vote for Hong Kong independence have been deprived. At 0:57, Chan tears up the letter from the Returning Officer of the Registration and Electoral Office.

- (HKG Pao) July 30, 2016. Chan Ho-tin said that the government walked right into a trap and has triggered a constitutional crisis. The Hong Kong National Party will write to the United Nations and the United Kingdom to protest. They will raise the affair to the "international level." They will file an election petition so that "the forces of Hong Kong independence" can enter the system. Chan Ho-tin also called on citizens to demonstrate in Admiralty. He said that the Hong Kong National Party is organization "a major action" but he cannot divulge what it is yet.

What can possibly happen as a result of the Hong Kong National Party writing a letter to the United Nations and the United Kingdom?

China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and can veto any vote on anything. So this is a waste of time for everybody concern. Who is going to take up this case? If the United States does so because it wants to pique China, how does it respond to the identical issues in Puerto Rican independence? Furthermore, the Hong Kong National Party argues that Hongkongers are a different race from the Chinese. This just beggars belief. Even better cases such as Xinjiang or Tibet independence get nowhere, and the Hong Kong case is even worse than the Taiwan case.

The United Kingdom is a party to the Sino-British Joint Declaration. If you want the United Kingdom to act on the basis of this Declaration, you must accept its contents, which includes:

1. The Government of the People's Republic of China declares 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 that it has decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997.

2. The Government of the United Kingdom declares that it will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997.

3. The Government of the People's Republic of China declares that the basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong are as follows:

(1) Upholding national unity and territorial integrity and taking account of the history of Hong Kong and its realities, the People's Republic of China has decided to establish, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong.

(2) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government.

(3) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged.

(4) The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally. Principal officials will be nominated by the chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for appointment by the Central People's Government. Chinese and foreign nationals previously working in the public and police services in the government departments of Hong Kong may remain in employment. British and other foreign nationals may also be employed to serve as advisers or hold certain public posts in government departments of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(5) The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.

(6) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will retain the status of a free port and a separate customs territory.

(7) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will retain the status of an international financial centre, and its markets for foreign exchange, gold, securities and futures will continue. There will be free flow of capital. The Hong Kong dollar will continue to circulate and remain freely convertible.

(8) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will have independent finances. The Central People's Government will not levy taxes on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(9) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may establish mutually beneficial economic relations with the United Kingdom and other countries, whose economic interests in Hong Kong will be given due regard.

(10) Using the name of "Hong Kong, China", the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may on its own maintain and develop economic and cultural relations and conclude relevant agreements with states, regions and relevant international organisations. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may on its own issue travel documents for entry into and exit from Hong Kong.

(11) The maintenance of public order in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be the responsibility of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(12) The above-stated basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong and the elaboration of them in Annex I to this Joint Declaration will be stipulated, in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, and they will remain unchanged for 50 years.

The Declaration accepts the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong effective July 1, 1997. Does the Hong Kong National Party accept this? If not, how can they move the United Kingdom to renounce the Joint Declaration and promote Hong Kong independence instead?

Article 3 section 5 talks about "rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law."

Isn't it interesting that they do not mention "the right to vote and the right to stand for election in accordance with law" (which is covered by Article 23 of the Basic Law after the handover only)? Why didn't they? Because the British did not grant Hongkongers the rights to elect or stand for election as either the Governor (=Chief Executive today) or the Legislative Council.

- (HKG Pao) July 30, 2016. The Hong Kong National Party called on all political parties that support democracy to boycott the Legislative Council.

Here is the analysis on the three possible outcomes:

(1) All 'pro-democracy' political parties and candidates withdraw from the Legislative Council elections, and all 'pro-democracy' voters refuse to cast any votes. The Legislative Council election will be held. The voter turnout will be lower than usual, but probably higher than the 17.5% of the 2010 by-election (a.k.a. de facto referendum). The entire Legislative Council will be filled by pro-establishment legislators. Over the next four years, they will proceed to pass all manners of legislation without any filibustering. Thus, we will see Article 23, Copyright (Amendment) Bill, etc. By the time that they are done, Hong Kong will be just like mainland China.

(2) Some 'pro-democracy' political parties and candidates withdraw while some others remain in the race. It is doubtful that those who REMAIN will pick up all the votes for those who LEAVE. The Legislative Council election will be held. The voter turnout will be lower than usual but higher than Scenario (1) above. The Legislative Council will have a veto-proof pro-establishment majority. Over the next four years, they will proceed to pass all manners of legislative with some filibustering. Thus, we will see Article 23, Copyright (Amendment) Bill, etc. By the time that they are done, Hong Kong will be just like mainland China.

(3) None of the 'pro-democracy' political parties will withdraw because anyone who quits will lose both ways. Firstly, they will lose any chance to be in the Legislative Council and nobody will remember them four years from hence. Secondly, they will lose on all the issues that they are concerned about (Article 23, etc). Conversely, if they remain in the race, they stand to gain the votes of those who quit.

Rational people will take (3). But who says politicians are rational? (Reference: they vetoed the Chief Executive election bill in 2015)

- The exclusion of Chan Ho-tin means that the Legislative Council election is no longer in line with the international standard of "universal suffrage with civil nomination." If the pan-democrats insisted on this international standard for the Chief Executive election, they must surely insist the same here. Right? Do you see them quitting the race in protest?

- What do you think the pan-democrats do? Why do you ask? Don't you know that the Pople is Catholic?

The pan-democratic Legislative Council candidates held a photo-op opportunity for the media during which they posed with banners saying "Oppose political screening" and "Defend fair election." The usual suspects were present: Cyd Ho, Ip Kin-yuen, Leung Yiu-chung, Helena Wong Pik-wan, Claudia Mo, Jeremy Tam, etc. Afterwards, they went home to prepare for more campaign activities tomorrow.
(SOC-Rec) https://www.facebook.com/socrec/videos/1446386872054906/

- Their point is that the Legislative Council is in recess already, so that they can no longer pursue the matter in any official capacity. But if you re-elect them in September, they can come back and demand to know just how CY Leung ordered the Returning Officers of the Electoral Affairs Office to do his bidding ... So don't forget to vote for them (P.S. More importantly, don't forget to donate money to them).

- When the pan-democrats issued a statement to strongly denounce CY Leung, they mentioned the case of "an individual candidate" instead of Chan Ho-tin by name. Fuck your mother! Has Chan Ho-tin become He-who-must-not-be-named?

- (Wen Wei Po) July 31, 2016. The pan-democratic parties (Labour Party, Civic Party, Democratic Party, Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre, ADPL, League of Social Democrats, People Power) gathered outside the Chief Executive Office to protest. They said that a candidate should not be denied for his political views, for that would be political censorship that interferes with a fair and just election.

After their own show, they proceeded to Tamar Park. When they got there, they shouted slogans such as "We oppose political screening, we defend a fair election." League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung led the chanting. When the demonstrators already there objected to the pan-democrats hijacking their assembly, Leung countered with: "Drop dead, valiant one!" "Go home, four-eyed guy, valiant one." Then someone yelled out: "The principal Chan Ho-tin is here himself!" But the pan-democrats ignored Chan. People Power chairperson Erica Yuen even rammed her banner against Chan and said: "Excuse me, please." Leung also told Chan not to enter the election. There was a shouting war of words between the two sides. The scene got chaotic for a while.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 1, 2016.

- Leung Kwok-hung told Chan Ho-tin to 'drop dead'? I fuck your mother, move aside! If you have any sense of shame, you would retired. And who the fuck are you, Erica Yuen? The pan-democrats went down to Admiralty to exploit the situation and she even told Chan Ho-tin, "Excuse me, please make way!"

- If the pan-democrats have courage, they should boycott these elections.

- Brother Chan Ho-tin is magnificent. He offered his own blood so that other politicians can have their blood-soaked steamed bun. We must remember this moment, we must remember the faces of each and every one of them.

- How far can one go to exploit the halo effect? They went to a funeral and covered up the name of the deceased while saying that they are doing something for him.

- Chan Ho-tin was in Tamar Park while you people were at the Chief Executive's Office. You march down to Tamar Park and you act as if Chan Ho-tin was not there. You even told Chan to make way for your entourage. Fuck your mother, may your whole families all die!

- We should be throwing bricks at these pan-democratic bastards. We must purge internally first before ousting the outside forces.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 1, 2016.

After the traditional pan-democrats finished with their usual ritual of tossing paper airplanes at the Chief Executive's Office, they marched down to Tamar Park. At the time, Chan Ho-tin thought that the pan-democrats came to support him, so he put away his half-eaten bun. But the pan-democrats acted as if they never saw him. People Power chairperson Erica Yuen even asked him to make way.

The Localists yelled at the pan-democrats: "Drop dead!" "The person who is politically persecuted is over here. Why do you just barge in and run into people?" "You say that you are against screening. Here is the first victim. Have you said anything on his behalf?"

Leung Kwok-hung said: "Did I say nothing? I am walking over to him right now and say something to him! ... I can't tell him that he cannot run. I am not the one who told him!" Leung pointed at a young Localist supporter and said: "Kid, drop dead, valiant one! I am standing right in front of you. Be valiant! Go home, four-eyed kid, valiant one!"

After Leung was steered away, the young Localist shouted "Fuck your mother!" League of Social Democrats member Tsang Kin-shing followed: "Why are you fucking someone's mother? Why are young men fucking people's mothers?" Neighbourhood Workers Service Centre legislator Leung Yiu-chung told the young man to forget it. As the League of Social Democrats and People Power supporters leave, they told the localists: "Go assault the Chief Executive! Go intimidate the Chief Executive! Why intimidate ordinary citizens! Is that what localists are fucking good for?" "Remove your masks! Fuck you mother!" "Civic Passion signed the confirmation forms!"

Traditional pan-democrats even accused Chan Ho-tin of exploiting his own case. They said that he refused to go with the team. "We invited him to participate in our march but he refused and came out on his home. It is clear that who is exploiting who here!"

- (Wen Wei Po) August 1, 2016.

Apart from the traditional pan-democrats, other Localists also drew ire because they also refused to join the boycott.

- Soon it will be the turn of the Four-eyed Guy Edward Leung!

- Faced with such injustice, Hong Kong Indigenous is still sticking to issuing statements.

- What is the difference between localists issuing statements and traditional pan-democrats issuing statements? You hold a peaceful assembly and you disperse peacefully after making a couple of remarks. And you show up in small numbers too. Please state your position on the boycott!

- You fools! How does the fate of the Hong Kong National Party fucking matter to Hong Kong Indigenous?

- I am disappointed. Why hasn't the brick-throwing started yet?

- When are Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State going to quit the election in response to the call of Chan Ho-tin?

- And when localist Chan Ho-tin was ejected from the field, did the other localists rally to his side? At Tamar Park, the following persons were nowhere to be found:
Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous)
Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous)
Baggio Leung (Youngspiration)
Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration)
Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion)
Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion)
Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion)
Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute)
Wan Chin (City-State)
...
When the going gets tough, the tough gets going ...

- One vote less for Chan Ho-tin means one vote more for the other localists.

- Chan Ho-tin was the first to go. Previously, it was rumored that three of them will go. Next on the list was Alvin Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) who signed the confirmation form but stated publicly that he will continue to push for Hong Kong independence. Later he said that those views were personal and not applicable to his campaign platform. The third one was Edward Leung Tin-kei, who disavowed everything that he said before just so he can get into the Legislative Council. He even said that everything on his Facebook was done by other persons who made posts that didn't represent his own views.

- At Tamar Park, a massive turnout of several dozen persons showed up to chant "Hong Kong independence" in support of the Hong Kong National Party.
https://www.facebook.com/socrec/videos/1446403212053272/

- At Tamar Park, the demonstrators engaged in the usual activity -- quarreling among themselves (more specifically, wearing masks while fucking each others' mothers) . Here is League of Social Democrats legislator Leung Kwok-hung:
https://www.facebook.com/socrec/videos/1446386872054906/
This is the fatal weakness of the Hong Kong National Party. Chan Ho-tin might be selling his case as one in which "the people of Hong Kong" have been deprived of their rights to vote for him, but how many people actually pay any attention to him?

- Chan Ho-tin's Facebook

Here is how Chan Ho-tin explained the low turnout at Tamar Pack tonight: there was another event organized for Pokmon GO users on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok) pedestrian mall to support Hong Kong independence.

(Oriental Daily) Here are the five Pokmon GO users who showed up in Mong Kok. That's all five of them. When asked whether they heeded the call to support Hong Kong independence, they said: "I don't know." They held up placards saying "The Heavens destroy China" and "Chinamen, go back to China!"

YouTube: Five Little Monkeys Jumping On The Bed

- The Chinamen are already in China, because Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China under Article 1, Basic Law.

- Mong Kok is just not the right place for Pokmon GO users to look for virtual creatures. Meanwhile here is the mob scene in Morse Park (Wong Tai Sin district). They should have called for a rally at Morse Park and then they will be able to count everybody there as supporters of Hong Kong independence.

- (Tai Kung Pao) July 31, 2016.

At the Facebook of the Hong Kong National Party, they announced that the "armed revolution" will be started. Some of the comments were:

- Since democratic election has failed, revolution is the only option left. The evil-doing authorities must pay the price.

- We must be psychologically prepared to throw bricks, rocks, bombs, whatever. Are we prepared to die for the revolution? Of course we are.

- Today in this history of Hong Kong, peaceful resistance has formally ended.

- Petrol bomb assemblies will formally commence.

- It is time to start an armed revolution.

- There is no option left except for revolution.

- I really look forward to the Great Hong Kong Riot.

- May the whole family of New Territories West Returning Officer Alan Law Ying-ki die.

- He will die. It is certain that he will die.

- I hope that his family doesn't get caught up. But it is hard to predict accidents.

- His family should watch their step when they go outside. By the way, it doesn't mean that they are safe if they stay home.

- Those who deprive other of their democratic/human rights do not deserve personal safety for themselves and their families.

- We must go after not just this bloke, but the entire Electoral and Registration Office hierarchy from this guy up.

- We can no longer wait for Hong Kong independence. Apart from the judicial review, we should think about how to bring this to the international level. We should see whether we can push public opinion to force all those legislators who don't want pre-screening of candidates to boycott this election. We should make this as big a deal as possible.

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube)

Chan Ho-tin: This was political censorship because in accordance to the requirements of the law, I had already taken an oath in front of him. I also signed the declaration.

Radio host: But the key is that you filled out the thing ... but do you really uphold the Basic Law? Every part within it?

Chan Ho-tin: I disagree. I do not accept it. We advocate the elimination of the Basic Law. Actually as long as you have signed the document, you have signed it. He should not proceed to assess how sincere you were when you signed it.

Radio host: At the moment when you signed it, did you sincerely support the Basic Law?

Chan Ho-tin: Of course not.

- This is enough to make your spin!

- (HKG Pao) When asked whether he supported the Basic Law when he signed the document, Chan Ho-tin denied that he supported the Basic Law. He said that he did it for political expediency and that he wanted to eliminate the Basic Law. He cited Confucius: "When you are forced to the table, not even the gods will mind." He said that legally speaking, he supports Basic Law once he signed the document. It is therefore unreasonable for the Returning Officer to scrutinize his thoughts now.

Chan Ho-tin also said that "Hong Kong person" and "Chinese person" identities cannot co-exist. He said that Hongkongers can only think that they are Hongkoners only and not Chinese. If a native-born Hongkonger feels that he is Chinese, then he is only a potential Hongkonger whose racial consciousness has not yet awaken.

- How many generations of Chan Ho-tin's family were native-born in Hong Kong? At some point, they must have come to Hong Kong from somewhere in China.

- There is no such thing as the Hong Kong race.

Merriam-Webster definition of race: a breeding stock of animals; a family, tribe, people or nation belonging to the same stock; a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics; an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.

- The only Hong Kong race is the ones organized by the Hong Kong Jockey Club in Happy Valley and Sha Tin.

- Nakade Hitsujiko's Facebook

The Electoral and Registration Office wants the pro-Hong Kong independence candidates to support the Basic Law? Alright, no problem. But they better not fucking regret it.

After filing my nomination, I will show how to support the Basic Law on one hand and joining foreign forces on the other hand. I will get the international community to intercede on the issue of sovereignty in Hong Kong for the second time. I will invite the American army to enter Hong Kong where they will be guided by young localist people all the way to Beijing in order to force the Central Government of our neighboring country to eliminate Basic Law Article 1. Basic Law Dafa is good, you will be safe if you agree to guide the way.

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

Pro-independence candidate Nakade Hitsujiko was barred from running in the upcoming Legislative Council election as the returning officer said he believed the Hong Kong city-state advocate does not uphold and does not intend to uphold the Basic Law.

Nakade, an IT specialist who changed his name from Chung Ming-lun last year, was nominated to run in the New Territories West constituency. He has signed the declaration on the nomination form and the controversial new confirmation form that he will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR.

But he still received a query from the returning officer as to whether he will continue to support Hong Kong independence. Nakade replied that the Hong Kong he advocated independence for did not mean the Hong Kong SAR but the rough physical area that was often called Hong Kong.

The independence I proposed is a full-sovereignty independent country formed from the land generally called Hong Kong or reformed from the existing political body, he wrote.

Or depending on feasibility and practical situation, I would switch to advocating for forming or reforming from the existing political body a political body of a pseudo-sovereign country, meaning pseudo-independence.

Nakade also mentioned in the reply that one of the options for the pseudo-independence of Hong Kong was to legally move the Hong Kong SAR to the moon by an order issued by China after China claimed sovereignty over the moon  so that the physical area Hong Kong could form a new entity not bound by the Basic Law.

But the returning officer of the New Territories West constituency Alan Lo Ying-ki rejected his idea, stating that the Hong Kong Nakade mentioned clearly means or includes the Hong Kong SAR.

Thus, I believe Mr Nakade Hitsujiko in fact advocates and promotes the independence of Hong Kong SAR and the formation of a full sovereign country from the Hong Kong SAR, Lo wrote.

Lo wrote that Nakade did not make a declaration in accordance with section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance, and thus his nomination was invalid.

The section states that the nomination form for candidates includes a declaration that they will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Nakade said on social media that the decision was a breach of power of the returning officer.

He added that he will bring the incident to the attention of the US Consulate General in Hong Kong and the US Congress. One of his policies was to form civil diplomacy ties with other countries.

He also said he will look into the cases of other candidates who were banned from running and contact them to seek common ground for cooperation.

- I can do the work for the lazy media and the US Consulate for them.
Question: "What was the United States' response to Nakade Hitsujiko's complaint about being banned to run in the Legco elections?"
Answer: "We have not received a complaint from Nakade Hitsujiko."
Question: "How would the United States respond if such a complaint comes in?"
Answer: "We do not answer hypothetical questions. We will answer if and when it actually happens."

- You should realize that the US Consulate cannot answer generically with "Everybody who wants to run should be able to run, because the people should have the chance to decide for themselves." Why not? Bernie Sanders.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 4, 2016. Here is a way of civil disobedience to protest against these elections.

According to Facebook user Benson Tsang under the title "Seriously speaking, not joking," the electoral laws do not restrict the maximum amount of time allowed for a voter to cast the vote. Therefore, "each of us could stand at the booth and think for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, even one hour and we would be breaking any laws. If after careful consideration and we still stamp the wrong candidate, we can ask for a new ballot and think all over again."

Tsang said: "The list of candidates is very long. As responsible voters, we should understand the policy platforms, faces and gender of each and every candidate. If you are religious, you can bring a Bible or Scripture to the booth and pray for guidance." Tsang emphasized that as soon as the voter steps into the voting area, nobody can interfere with him anymore. "On voting day, we don't have to hurry. We should be thinking slowly! Remember to vote together and fulfill our civic duties!"

Other Internet users came up with other ideas too. Some said that they will stop senior citizens from voting. Others said that they will keep stamping the ballots incorrect to get replacements until the station runs out of ballots. Another said to consult chemists to see what chemicals can be dropped into the ballot box to destroy all the ballots.

Singer Denise Ho forwarded Benson Tsang's post but said: "I am not inciting people" and "I am only forwarding this because it seems so cute." She said: "Casting a ballot is a very solemn matter. So you should obviously carefully decide whom to vote for. You must think this through very thoroughly and carefully. This is about civic duty, right or not? ... But I really don't have any opinion. You should decide for yourselves. You are grownups, right or not?"

Sha Tin Communist Network chairman Ventus Lau Wing-hong said that if two to three voting stations were suddenly blockaded by large number of citizens such that the voters cannot enter to vote, then the elections must be held all over again." He said that the Hong Kong Police do not have the manpower to station large number of policemen at all voting stations. "So if some voting stations are down, the entire election will have to be done again." He said that that such action is criminal "and you shouldn't do this if you can't deal with the consequence."

Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union executive Wong Yu-kiu forwarded the information and wrote: "It is not hard to paralyze the voting stations in this fake election. Civic disobedience, fearless and dauntless."

- Passion Times

Ultimatum from Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/City-State to the Chinese Communists

It was a stupid decision by the Returning Officer to invalidate Chan Ho-tin's nomination for political reasons. We are promoting Constitution Amendment by the People and Permanent Continuation of the Basic Law. This is our the last time that we will offer a choice to the Chinese Communists and the Hong Kong government. This is a choice for peaceful reform. If you reject this choice, it means that you have chosen bloody revolution. We will go with you all the way to the end.

This is the last opportunity that we are  giving you, so that the Hong Kong Communists can break through the dilemma in Hong Kong. This is the last opportunity to maintain stable development in Hong Kong and China. If you want a dead end, I swear to you on this day that I will fucking give it to you.

Wong Yeung-tat

- As Chan Ho-tin himself says, he has two more legal options: a judicial review before the elections or an election petition after the elections. If he gets his way before the elections, his name may be placed on the candidate list. If he gets his way after the elections, new elections may be called. Is that a good thing?

A political party has spent a certain sum of money to campaign and win seats in the Legislative Council. If new elections are mandated, they have to do this again. The conventional view is that they may be out of money. The more realistic view is that they would love to have another opportunity to get even more donations.

Here is the case of "Teacher Siu Lai" Lau Siulai:

(Wen Wei Po) July 30, 2016.

Recently, Lau Siu-lai posted on her Facebook that she needed to raise $300,000 in one week to pay to mail pamphlets to voters. In order to skirt the requirement of reporting the names/addresses of donors who give $1,000 or more, she wrote: "In order to reduce the amount of administrative work and let the supporters engage directly into the election campaign, I call on everybody to donate $999."

Baggio Leung (Youngspiration) countered on Facebook: "Let me provide you with an estimate. This year, Youngspiration has reserved less than $40,000 for the election pamphlets. For $300,000, we would be able to have gold-plated characters on our pamphlets." Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) also wrote on Facebook: "We have to print many more two-sided A3-paper tri-fold pamphlets in New Territories East and we are spending less than $200,000. Kowloon West has a lot fewer voters. How many pages does she intend to print?"

Another Internet user questioned: "The government is paying for the postage of one mailing. How can you need so much money? You must be swindling people to donate." Lau Siu-lai responded: "The printing costs is 60 to 70 cents per copy. Together with the labor costs for folding at 25 cents per copy, this means the cost if 80 cents per copy. There are 470,000 voters in Kowloon West, and we are only sending one copy per home."

But another Interner user did a calculation: "470,000 / 4 * 0.8 = %94,000. Democracy warriors rake in plenty of money. She is making $200,000 in profits!" Lau Siu-lai posted the pricing documents but nothing can stop the Localists. They reminded her that large amounts of money sent into an account may arouse the suspicion of the bank; someone even said that they are filing a police report about "illegal fund gathering."

- (SCMP) July 31, 2016.

A second pro-democracy localist candidate was disqualified from running in Hong Kongs upcoming Legislative Council elections after he did not pledge to uphold the citys mini-constitution.

The invalidation of Yeung Ke-cheongs candidacy in Kowloon West came just one day after Chan Ho-tin, convenor of the Hong Kong National Party, was banned from running by the Electoral Affairs Commission for violating Basic Law, the citys mini-constitution since its handover in 1997.

Yeung, of the Democratic Progressive Party, was positioned second on a candidate list with Jonathan Ho Chi-kwong in Kowloon West. Hos nomination was validated, but Yeungs was not.

The returning officer has affirmed Hos candidacy. I was disqualified as I deliberately stated that I would not uphold the Basic Law and thus did not sign the relevant statement, Yeung wrote on his Facebook page on Sunday.

Both Ho and Yeung did not sign the additional declaration form introduced by the commission weeks ago reinforcing acknowledgement that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China. Yeung also refused to sign the standard nomination form required by the Legislative Council Ordinance.

Section 40(1)(b) of the ordinance states that a persons candidacy will not be validated unless his nomination form includes a declaration that he will uphold the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Instead, Yeung submitted to the watchdog a separate statement asserting that the citys mini-constitution no longer applied to Hong Kongs current situation and thus it would be difficult for him to sincerely uphold it.

I fully understand such a move does not comply with the requirement laid out by section 40 of the relevant ordinance and could ban me from running, Yeung wrote in the statement he submitted to the commission. But I think the relevant legal clauses have violated basic human rights and freedom of speech and unreasonably limit my right to run. On this basis I will launch a judicial review.

Reference: Hong Kong Democratic Progressive Party

- Do not be conned by Yeung Ke-cheong, because he is just a clown who is pretending to be politically suppressed. The statement that he did not sign is the one stipulated in Legislative Council Ordinance Article 40(1)(b) which is required of every candidate. It is not the additional confirmation form. Therefore Yeung Ke-cheong should be disqualified under the law. Do not be conned.

- (HKG Pao) August 1, 2016. According to a Sing Tao columnist, the Returning Officers are still scutinizing the cases of Alice Lai (Conservatives) and Sha Tin District Councilor Chan Kwok-keung. The latter had written directly to the Returning Officer about the intention to continue to promote Hong Kong independence. Meanwhile Alice Lai had already took part in a Hong Kong Island forum.

At the Hong Kong Island forum, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said that the United Kingdom often legislate (e.g. the BNO 'passports') to exclude Hongkongers. "They don't want us to live over there." Alice Lai said that "Hong Kong became a British colony in 1882. In addition, in 1872, Hong Kong turned from a non-autonomous entity to become ... so it should be listed among non-autonomous entities."

To which Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said: "Will you remember the right dates, okay?" The host had to intercede and said that Alice Lai meant the 1842 Nanking Treaty.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee asked Alice Lai whether she agrees with the "high real estate price" policies during the British rule of Hong Kong, leading to the current situation. Alice Lai said that the people of Hong Kong wanted to develop light manufacturing industries and therefore the factories moved to mainland China. This forced the British government to push up real estate prices in order to collect enough taxes. Regina Ip Lau Suk-kee said that the high real estate prices refer to residential units and not industrial lands; meanwhile the industrial base of Hong Kong moved to mainland China during the 1980's and 1990's and high real estate prices exists already.

Breaking News: Edward Leung, Alice Lai and Chan Kwok-keung were invalidated. Here are the particular details for Alice Lai.

- (Oriental Daily) August 3, 2016. Alice Lai and several supporters went to the British Consulate to ask the United Kingdom to intercede. She said that the Causeway Bay Books affair and the invalidation of pro-independence candidates showed the Chinese Communists have violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration. They presented a petition which was received by a security guard. Then they left peacefully.

(SCMP) Hong Kong journalists held in Shenzhen 'because magazines have mainland subscribers'. June 8, 2014.

Two Hong Kong journalists were detained in Shenzhen for "operating illegal publications" because they sold political magazines to two subscribers and to casual buyers on the mainland, a lawyer for one of the pair said.

Veteran journalist Wang Jianmin, a publisher of two Chinese-language magazines in Hong Kong, New-Way Monthly and Multiple Face, and his colleague Guo Zhongxiao were detained by police on May 30, Wang's lawyer, Chen Youxi, confirmed yesterday.

Shenzhen police announced the arrests a week ago but did not name the two.

Observers said the charge was merely an excuse to crack down on external publications critical of state leaders. The two publications are among a raft of political gossip magazines popular with mainland visitors to Hong Kong for their wild speculation about power struggles, corruption and the secret lives of leaders.

Chen said Li Daoyan, another lawyer from his firm who will defend Guo, visited both men on Thursday. They tried to apply for bail, but were turned down.

No trial date for Wang and Guo had been set, as the authorities were still collecting evidence, Chen added.

Guo, 38, was born in Hubei province and is a Hong Kong permanent resident, while Wang holds Hong Kong and US passports. But he entered Shenzhen using his home-return permit, according to Chen.

Wang, a graduate of Xiamen University, joined Yazhou Zhoukan, a popular magazine in Hong Kong, in the mid-1990s. He left in 2007 and established New-Way Monthly in 2010 and Multiple Face in 2012. Guo worked in Shenzhen before joining Yazhou Zhoukan in 2004. He resigned last year to rejoin Wang.

(SCMP) Hong Kong journalists plead guilty to running illegal publication business in mainland China. November 6, 2015.

A pair of Hong Kong journalists behind two political affairs magazines have pleaded guilty to running an illegal business in Shenzhen in a case that underlines the legal risks facing reporters who straddle the border.

Publisher Wang Jianmin and editor-in-chief Guo Zhongxiao appeared before Nanshan district court yesterday.

Prosecutors said their company National Affairs Limited, registered in Hong Kong, had earned HK$7 million through the publication of two magazines, New-Way Monthly and Multiple Face.

Both are printed in Hong Kong but copies are sent to eight people on the mainland, all friends of the publisher, the defence said. The mainland audience accounted for 66,000 yuan (HK$80,600) of total revenue, less than half the 150,000 yuan minimum needed to raise the offence to the level of running an illegal business. The prosecution wrongly counted Hong Kong revenue as part of the mainland business to make their case, lawyers argued.

Wang, 62, and Guo, 40, are Hong Kong ID holders but were living in Shenzhen when arrested in May. They made weekly, sometimes daily, trips across the border. In his statement to the court, Wang said: "The trial was fair and I'm grateful for the [Communist] Party's and the government's education." Guo said: "We published unverified news and have tarnished the image of the party and the government."

Guangdong province's print and broadcast regulator said the magazines were "illegal publications" not registered on the mainland but nevertheless sold to local readers. Wang's wife, who helped send copies of the magazines via the post, as well as a freelance contributor from Henan province also pleaded guilty to operating an illegal business before the same court.

Sentencing is expected later. Mainland customs is responsible for overseeing the importation of media and regularly stops books or monthlies that touch on political topics.

Chen Nansha, the defence for Wang, argued that under "one country, two systems", publications in Hong Kong should be protected by Hong Kong laws, and the two magazines were legal in Hong Kong.

Li Daoyan, Guo's lawyer, argued Guo only edited the magazine and was not involved in the business. "If editing a Hong Kong magazine in Shenzhen is a crime, do all journalists on the mainland who work for overseas news organisations face the same risk?"

(SCMP) In echo of missing booksellers case, Shenzhen court jails two Hong Kong journalists for running illegal business. July 26, 2016.

A pair of Hong Kong journalists behind two political affairs magazines were jailed in Shenzhen yesterday for running an illegal business, the same charge that landed five local booksellers in trouble last year.

The two were imprisoned a month after one of the five booksellers, Lam Wing-kee, returned to Hong Kong to make explosive claims about being taken away after crossing the border into Shenzhen and put through eight months of mental torture.

Publisher Wang Jianmin, in his 60s, was jailed for five years and three months, while editor-in- chief Guo Zhongxiao, 41, was sentenced to two years and three months. They had pleaded guilty in the Shenzhen Nanshan District Peoples Court last year. Guos lawyer, Xia Qianhai, said his client would be released next month, since the pair were arrested in May 2014.

The two Hong Kong identity card holders were living in Shenzhen when they were nabbed. Prosecutors said their company, National Affairs Ltd, which was registered in Hong Kong, had earned HK$7 million through the publication of two magazines, New-Way Monthly and Multiple Face. The two publications specialised in rumours and gossip about the Chinese leadership before they were suspended in April 2014, according to their website.

The defence argued that the two magazines mainland readers only accounted for 66,000 yuan (HK$80,600) of total revenue less than half the minimum 150,000 yuan minimum required to justify prosecuting someone for running an illegal business. Under mainland Chinese law, if an illegal business operation involves less than 250,000 yuan, the jail term will be below five years.

It was understood that Guo was convicted without the judge actually determining the amount of his illegal earnings a rare occurrence, according to mainland lawyers. The publications were printed in Hong Kong, and copies were sent to only eight people on the mainland, all friends of the publisher, the lawyers had said.

In a statement, Lam Wing-kee said: [The sentence] shows that Beijing is trampling on the one country, two systems principle ... Hong Kong must express its strong protest.

Hong Kong Journalists Association chairwoman Sham Yee-lan described the verdict as a blow to the freedom of speech, publication and press in Hong Kong. The jail terms were very heavy. The publications were in fact printed in Hong Kong by registered companies here, she said. It appears that the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown on such publications. She said the Hong Kong government had a responsibility to offer help to its citizens.

Human Rights Monitor director Law Yuk-kai said: Freedom of publication is protected under the Chinese constitution and Hong Kongs Basic Law.

(TIME (AP)) China Sentences Two Hong Kong Journalists to Prison For Up to Five Years. By Amanda Calvo. July 27, 2016.

Four people, including two Hong Kong journalists were sentenced to up to five years in prison by a Chinese court Wednesday, accused of running an illegal business after mailing copies of their political magazine across the border into the mainland, reports the Associated Press.

The sentencing follows the high-profile disappearance of five Hong Kong booksellers, who were detained in China on the same charges, and whose case sparked concerns that Hong Kongs status as a semi-autonomous territory was being eroded.

Magazine publisher Wang Jianmin, 62, was sentenced to five years and three months and editor Guo Zhongxiao, 40, was given two years and three months, reports the South China Morning Post. The pair were reportedly detained back in 2014 in the southern Chinese city Shenzhen. The identity and reasons for conviction of the other two people remain unclear.

Wang and Guo published New Way Monthly and Faces, magazines concerning the dealings of the Communist Party of China. Wangs lawyers maintain the two men were not running a mail-order business, but rather, they had sent eight copies of the magazine to friends in the mainland. The two had pleaded guilty to the charges last year.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association and Independent Commenters Association expressed concerns over the sentencing, saying the verdict was another attempt by Beijing to target Hong Kong publishers and clean the origin of mainland political gossip in Hong Kong.

One of the missing booksellers, Lam Wing-kee, returned to Hong Kong last month and delivered a surprise press conference, detailing his capture, eight-month detention and mistreatment at the hands of Chinese authorities.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Shenzhen court jails two Hong Kong journalists for sending political magazines to China. July 26, 2016.

Wang Jianmin and Guo Zhongxiao, two veteran Hong Kong journalists, were sentenced to jail terms on Tuesday by a Shenzhen court for running an illegal business two political magazines published in Hong Kong.

Wang was sentenced to five years and three months in prison, while Guo was jailed for two years and three months. Wang was also found guilty of two other charges: bid-rigging and bribery. They pleaded guilty in a trial in November last year.

Both Wang and Guo, originally from the mainland, were arrested in May 2014 in Shenzhen, where they lived. They were accused of earning around HK$7.8 million through publishing the New-Way Monthly and Multiple Face magazines, some of which were sent to the mainland.

The magazines were published by the National Affairs Limited company registered in Hong Kong in 2007 by Wang and Guo, who had both acquired the status of Hong Kong permanent residents. The magazines often reported the internal political struggles of the Chinese Communist Party.

The defence lawyer of the two journalists said during the trial at Shenzhens Nanshan District Court that the magazines were printed in Hong Kong and legally published in Hong Kong. According to the lawyer, their earnings from mainland sales were only 66,182 yuan (HK$76,923), and the two magazines were only sent to eight people on the mainland, reported Initium Media.

Their lawyer argued that the business involved less than 150,000 yuan (HK$174,327), the minimum amount required for the illegal business offence, and they had not seriously disrupted the market, another requirement for the offence.

Wang, also a US citizen, was the publisher of the magazines. Guo acted as an editor. He did not participate in operations on the business and publishing side and did not know about the eight readers on the mainland, their lawyer said during the trial.

The lawyer also argued that Guos work in Shenzhen was no different from a foreign journalist reporting in China, though the prosecution said there was a difference between writing an article and completing the editing of a magazine.

Guo may be released soon, as he has already been detained for two years and two months.

Before running their own magazines, Wang and Guo worked for the Hong Kong magazine Yazhou Zhoukan, which focused on political issues in East Asia.

Wangs wife Xu Zhongyun, who helped send the magazines, was sentenced to a year in jail, suspended for two years. Liu Haitao, a freelance writer for the magazines, was sentenced to two years in jail, suspended for three years.

They also pleaded guilty. None of them will file an appeal, according to Initium.

(Hong Kong Free Press) China denying access to jailed Hong Kong journalist and naturalised American, says US. July 28, 2016.

The US State Department has confirmed that its diplomats were unable to meet with Hong Kong journalist and US citizen Wang Jianmin, who was jailed by a Chinese court this week after his arrest two years ago.

Spokesperson John Kirby said at a daily press briefing that the State Department has repeatedly asked Chinese officials for permission to visit Wang also known as James Wang since his arrest on May 31, 2014. The department has also asked to attend his trial, which took place in November.

Those requests have all been denied, said Kirby. Were going to continue to request access to Mr. Wang so that we may provide the appropriate consular services.

Wang, 62, was accused of running an illegal business in China. Two magazines that he founded and published in Hong Kong were sent to eight readers on the mainland and earned profit, the Shenzhen court found. The magazines often reported the internal political struggles of the Chinese Communist Party.

The court also found Wang guilty of two other charges: bid-rigging and bribery. He was given a jail sentence on Tuesday of five years and three months, along with a fine of 200,000 yuan (HK$233,059).

Guo Zhongxiao, 41, the chief editor for the two magazines, was sentenced to jail for two years and three months and fined 50,000 yuan (HK$58,265).

Their lawyer argued during the November trial that the business involved less than 150,000 yuan (HK$174,327), the minimum amount required for the illegal business offence, and that they had not seriously disrupted the market, another requirement for the offence.

Both Wang and Guo were originally from the mainland but became Hong Kong permanent residents. Wang is also a naturalised US citizen.

Chen Nansha, Wangs lawyer, was cited by the New York Times as saying that Wang entered China from Hong Kong using local travel documents and not his American passport.

American citizens who do not use their US passports to enter China cannot receive consular protection in the country, according to the US State Departments website.

The sentencing came after a Hong Kong publisher was convicted in 2014 for smuggling ordinary goods after planning to publish a book on Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and the Causeway Bay Books incident, in which five booksellers went missing before reappearing on the mainland confessing to running an illegal business.

The League of Social Democrats marched to the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan on Thursday morning in support of Wang and Guo.

Along the way, they chanted that Hong Kong should have press freedom and demanded the release of the pair.

(EJ Insight) HK must stand up to China over jailed journalists: Lam Wing-kee. July 27, 2016.

The government should lodge a strong protest with mainland authorities over jail sentences handed by a Chinese court to two Hong Kong journalists, said bookseller Lam Wing-kee, who returned to Hong Kong last month after an 8-month detention in China.  The jailing of the journalists marks another violation of the one country, two systems principle, which Hong Kong cannot afford to ignore, Lam said. Accusing Beijing of trying to curb free speech and press freedom in Hong Kong, Lam said the Hong Kong government must act to preserve the rights of local citizens.

The comments came after two veterans in Hong Kongs publishing industry were given jail terms by a Shenzhen court Tuesday on charges that they operated an illegal business that sent political magazines to the mainland. 

Wang Jianmin, 62, publisher of two political affairs magazines New-Way Monthly and Multiple Face, was sentenced to five years and three months imprisonment by the Nanshan District Court, while Guo Zhongxiao, 41, editor-in-chief of the magazines, was given two years and three months in jail.

New-Way Monthly and Multiple Face, which began publication in 2010 and 2012 respectively, had gained a reputation for revealing the innermost secrets of the Chinese regime.

The publications specialized in chatter about the Chinese leadership even as authorities in Guangdong and other provinces in southern China began cracking down on illegal and harmful publications from Hong Kong and Taiwan since May 2010.

Wang and Guo, who are both Hong Kong permanent residents, pleaded guilty in November last year after they were taken away from their homes in Shenzhen in May 2014. They had been detained in the mainland since.

Shenzhen prosecutors accused the duo of selling illegal magazines to mainland readers. Guos wife told the Hong Kong Economic Journal that there is nothing she can do but accept the court ruling.

But bookseller Lam, who made explosive revelations last month about his long detention in China, said the Hong Kong government should not just sit and watch in the wake of the latest developments. 

If the government doesnt lodge a strong protest over the jailing of the Hong Kong residents, it will suggest that the Basic Law, which is based on the 1984 Sino-UK Joint Declaration aimed at preserving Hong Kongs autonomy, has lost its meaning, Lam said.

Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan, who has been helping Lam since the latter returned to Hong Kong on June 14, also urged the government to take the initiative and not remain idle with regard to the case of the two jailed journalists. It is worrisome that Hongkongers are now under risk of being prosecuted in the mainland for actions that are considered legal in Hong Kong, Ho said.

The Independent Commentators Association and the Hong Kong Journalists Association have also expressed concern about the journalists detention. Beijings selective suppression of publications will jeopardize freedom of press in Hong Kong and the publics right to know, they said, calling on China to respect the one country, two systems.

(Committee to Project Journalists) China sentences Hong Kong publisher, editor. July 28, 2016.

The Committee to Protect Journalists today condemned the convictions and prison sentences by a mainland Chinese court of Wang Jianmin and Guo Zhongxiao, the publisher and editor, respectively, of two Hong Kong magazines, alongside an editorial assistant and the publisher's wife.

The Nanshan District Court in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, today sentenced Wang Jianmin, publisher of two Chinese-language magazines in Hong Kong, New-Way Monthly and Multiple Face, to five years and three months in prison on charges of operating an illegal business and on bribery and corruption charges in relation to his other business, in the natural gas industry. The court sentenced Guo Zhongxiao, editor of the two magazines, to two years and three months in prison.

Wang and Guo, who have been imprisoned since May 2014, said they would not appeal, the U.S.-government-funded broadcaster Radio Free Asia reported. The time they have already served will count against the remainder of their sentence, and Guo is scheduled to be released next month.

Liu Haitao, an editorial assistant at the magazines, was sentenced to two years in jail, suspended for three years. The court sentenced Wang's wife, Xu Zhongyuan, who helped mail the magazines to the mainland, to one year in prison, suspended for two years. Guo, Liu, and Xu were all convicted of operating an illegal business, according to the South China Morning Post.

The two publications specialized in publishing insider information and speculation about Chinese political elites before authorities detained Wang and Guo and the magazines ceased publishing, according to their websites. In an editorial at the time of their arrest, the Hong Kong- and Taiwan-based newspaper Apple Daily described Wang's magazines as "close" to the political factions of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin and former Vice-President Zeng Qinghong. CPJ believes the corruption charges against Wang are in retaliation for his activities as a publisher.

Under China's "one country, two systems," residents of Hong Kong are entitled to civil liberties, including freedom of speech and of the press, that have traditionally supported a flourishing industry for books on Chinese politics that are banned on the mainland. But Hong Kong's once-vibrant publishing industry is increasingly under pressure.

"Chinese authorities apparently are not content with tightly controlling information on the mainland--they are trying to restrict what is published in Hong Kong," said CPJ Deputy Executive Director Rob Mahoney. "We call on Beijing to stop harassing and jailing journalists like Wang Jianmin and Guo Zhongxiao and to allow citizens free access to any news media."

Prosecutors said Wang's company, National Affairs Limited, had made more than 7 million Hong Kong dollars (US$900,000), including 66,000 Chinese yuan ($10,000) in sales from the two magazines in mainland China. Defense lawyers disputed this, saying copies of the magazines were sent to only eight people on the mainland, according to press reports. But at a November 5, 2015, hearing, the three journalists and Wang's wife pleaded guilty to the charges against them, Hong Kong newspapers reported at the time.

Guo, originally from the mainland, is a Hong Kong resident. Wang holds passports from Hong Kong and the United States. China does not recognize dual nationality.

In the past couple of years, Hong Kong-based publishers and journalists have been detained, journalists have been physically attacked, and self-censorship is on the rise, amid increasing influence from Beijing.

Over the course of the last months of 2015, five employees of Mighty Current, a Hong Kong publishing house that specialized in publishing and selling books about China's political leaders, went missing. They later reappeared in mainland China, and were televised saying that they had illegally sold books to customers in mainland China. Lam Wing-kee, one of four booksellers subsequently released, told reporters upon returning to Hong Kong that he had confessed under duress. One of the five people to disappear, Gui Minhai, is still missing.

On May 8, 2014, Hong Kong publisher Yao Wentian, who was preparing to release a book critical of Chinese President Xi Jinping, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for "smuggling ordinary goods" to Shenzhen. His family told CPJ at the time of his detention that Yao believed he was bringing bottles of paint over the border for a friend.

Internet comments:

- (EJ Insight) HK must stand up to China over jailed journalists: Lam Wing-kee. July 27, 2016.

The government should lodge a strong protest with mainland authorities over jail sentences handed by a Chinese court to two Hong Kong journalists, said bookseller Lam Wing-kee, who returned to Hong Kong last month after an 8-month detention in China.  The jailing of the journalists marks another violation of the one country, two systems principle, which Hong Kong cannot afford to ignore, Lam said. Accusing Beijing of trying to curb free speech and press freedom in Hong Kong, Lam said the Hong Kong government must act to preserve the rights of local citizens.

(Wen Wei Po) July 28, 2016.

Lam Wing-kee is trying to mislead people. He said that this case makes people wonder whether freedom of speech is being restricted in Hong Kong. This is false. According to the indictment document, Wang Jianmin and Guo Zhongxiao did most of the pre-production work on the two magazines in mainland China. Wang Jianmin was responsible for planning the editing, printing and distribution. Guo Zhongxiao was responsible for writing, editing, layout and cover design. When Guo was done with the copy, he used the Internet to send it over for Wang to go over. Afterwards Wang would send it along to a printing house in Hong Kong to print. Between September 2012 and April 2014, more than 284,000 copies of the magazines were distributed with a retail value of HK$ 7,797,000. The indictment document also pointed out that the Wang couple knew that the magazines cannot be sold on mainland China, but they used Wang's dual-plate (Shenzhen and Hong Kong licenses) vehicle to secretly import the magazines into mainland China for faster distribution to the mainland readers.

It is precisely the fact that Lam Wing-kee is still spouting his nonsense publicly that proves that One Country Two Systems is alive and well. There is no extradition agreement between Hong Kong and mainland China, and that is what allows Lam Win-kee to come out and spout his nonsense even though he is a wanted fugitive on mainland China.

- The numbers don't make sense. The defence lawyer said that the earnings from mainland sales were only 66,182 yuan (HK$76,923), and the two magazines were only sent to eight people on the mainland. Therefore the average revenue per customer is 66,182 / 8 = 8,352 RMB. Can you get that kind of money selling some magazines?

- The numbers make sense if the eight persons (friends or relatives) are distributors. If the prosecution said that 284,000 of the magazines were distributed with a retail value of HK$7,797,000, the average retail price per magazine is 7,797,000 / 284,000 = $27. However, a part of the money goes to cover the mailing costs and another part of the money goes to the distributors. The defence lawyer is minimizing Wang and Guo's returns by saying that they only made 76,923 / 284,000 = HK$ 0.27 per magazine, whereas the prosecution is maximizing their returns that the total retail value is $7,797,000.

Table 1. How important are these social values? (0=very unimportant, 10=very important)
Average scores:
Freedom of press: 8.49
Social harmony: 8.57
Democratic development: 7.61
Economic development: 8.26
Judicial independence: 8.84
National interests: 7.07

Table 2. Do you support or oppose One Country Two Systems after 2047?
45.1%: Very supportive
24.4%: Somewhat supportive
21.7%: So-so
3.2%: Somewhat opposed
2.8%: Very opposed
2.7%: No opinion/refused to answer

Table 3. Do you support or opposed direct governance of Hong Kong by China after 2047?
5.8%: Very supportive
8.0%: Somewhat supportive
23.4%: So-so
19.1%: Somewhat opposed
40.1%: Very opposed
3.6%: No opinion/refused to answer

Table 4. Do you support or oppose Hong Kong independence after 2047?
6.2%: Very supportive
11.2%: Somewhat supportive
22.9%: So-so
19.0%: Somewhat opposed
38.6%: Very opposed
2.1%: No opinion/refused to answer

Table 5. Do you think that Hong Kong independence can happen in the foreseeable future?
53.3%: Completely unlikely
27.9%: Not very unlikely
13.0%: So-so
1.8%: Somewhat likely
1.9%: Completely likely
2.2%: No opinion/refused to answer

Table 6. What is your impression of these political groups? (0=very negative, 10=very positive)
Average scores
Localists: 3.45
Pan-democrats: 4.53
Pro-establishment camp: 4.00

Table 7. Do you agree peaceful and non-violent principles should always be upheld in the fight for constitutional reform?
49.6%: Very much agree
21.7%: Somewhat agree
22.0%: So-so
3.5%: Somewhat disagree
2.4%: Very much disagree
0.8%: No opinion/refused to answer

Table 9. How much do you trust the Hong Kong SAR government? (0=completely distrust, 10=completely trust)
Average score = 4.43

Table 11. How much do you trust the Central Government? (0=completely distrust, 10=completely trust)
Average score = 4.33

Table 13. How much do you trust the Hong Kong Police? (0=completely distrust, 10=completely trust)
Average score = 5.93

Table 15. What is your view of future developments in Hong Kong society? (0=very pessimistic, 10=very optimistic)
Average score = 4.81

Table 17: Have you considered immigrating overseas?
16.4%: Yes, I have considered it
3.3%: Yes, I have seriously planned for it
1.3%: Yes, I am doing it right now
78.4%: No
0.4%: Don't know
0.2%: Refused to answer

(SCMP) July 22, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 22, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

Althea Suen: I strongly issue this request


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


Althea Suen: Because the school has no obligation or responsibility


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of forcible entry

- Democracy Wall, inside the Hong Kong University campus

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

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

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

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

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

- (SCMP) Rational debate overtaken by use of the F word. By Alex Lo. July 28, 2016.

Many big-character posters from the Cultural Revolution era might be vile and vicious, but usually a good deal of thought had gone into sending those messages of denunciation and character assassination.

Judging by some of its current posts, the same cannot be said about the big-character wall on the campus of the University of Hong Kong. It has been dominated by messages that say, and I quote: Li Kwok-cheung, f*** your mother.

The only thing you can surmise from the message is that some students are angry at Professor Arthur Li, the chairman of the university council. Beyond that, its not clear what they are angry about and why; or what Li has done that has provoked their anger or whether its just his being council chairman at all.

People of my generation like to think university students are budding intellectuals. This, at the very least, means being able to state an argument clearly, and express and articulate your emotions. Otherwise, why bother with higher education and waste taxpayers money? You can just spend the rest of your life saying f*** this and f*** that without having to articulate an idea and defend it rationally.

I am not saying those students who post swear words cant articulate and state a rational argument. In fact, I am pretty sure they could if they wanted to. But in todays political climate, they are not obligated to and certainly feel no shame in not doing it.

HKUs student union is supposed to police what is being posted on the big-character message wall. But it has done nothing, thinking that taking down those messages would amount to censorship. I suppose thats HKU student leaders understanding of freedom of speech. An academic staff association chairman said they might be inappropriate but very understandable, linking the messages to the arrest of Billy Fung Jing-en, the former HKU student union head, over his alleged role in the siege of a council meeting in January chaired by Li.

Such encouragement and understanding from peers and professors alike!

These days, in public forums and the legislative chamber, arguing means swearing and shouting louder than your opponent. Debate and deliberation are pass.

Why waste time arguing when you can just swear?

- Here is the HKU student Tsz Hou Li who posted those disgraceful words:

He said: "Those who know me all know that I don't use a lot of obscene language. But in this case, I have nothing to add."

Tsz Hou Li wants Arthur Li to fuck all your mothers. Arthur Li is 70 years old; if he has to fuck the others of the several tens of thousands of students, teachers and staff members at Hong Kong University, he will surely die from exhaustion. This is very clear and Tsz Hou Li does not need to add anything more.

- (Oriental Daily) According to the rules for the HKU Democracy Wall, obscene language and/or personal attacks are not allowed and the HKU Students Union has the right to remove any offensive items. However, these posters have been there for four days already in apparent violation of the rules. HKU SU president Althea Suen has not responded to our inquiry about the posters. The HKU administration said that the Students Union is in charge of the Democracy Wall and they respect the autonomy of the Students Unions in dealing with such matters in a responsible and tolerant manner.

- Of course, the HKU administration is clearly being sarcastic here. Allowing the posters to stand for four days is neither responsible nor tolerant.

- The fascinating thing is that they are completely oblivious to the negative impression created by the illiteracy and infantilism of the students as exhibited in these posters.

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

- (Kinliu) Who is going to pay for Billy Fung's legal bill? That is an interesting subject which the media has not reported on so far.

So far it is known that senior barrister Linda Wong (Civic Party) is handling the case. If Wong does this pro bono, then all it proves is that the Civic Party was behind the disturbances at Hong Kong University. If Wong charges for her services, then the legal bill will be considerable.

Will Hong Kong University pay the bill? That is unlikely. After all, Hong Kong University called in the police and provided the information for them to file the charges against Billy Fung. They can't possibly pay for the legal fees in order for Billy Fung to prove that he is innocent.

Will the Hong Kong University Students Union pay the bill? At the time, Billy Fung was the HKU SU president. But was he acting as the HKU SU president represent the student body or an individual? If the HKU SU pays a million dollar legal bill for Billy Eng, is that fair? Did the students ever consent to have their dues spent to defend someone who brought ignominy to their university?

Will Billy Eng pay the legal bill himself, with the help of his family? That could be very costly to family finances and harmony.

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

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

- (Oriental Daily) July 26, 2016. Last night, the Shue Yan University Student Union posted on Facebook that their president Joe Yueng was ambushed by four likely "undercover police officers" outside the Main Building. The four men also robbed Yeung of his mobile phone. The Student Union said that the four men began loitering around 7pm. Yeung thought that the men were acting in a suspicious manner, so he went up to check their identities. One of them pretended to be a student but could not produce an ID. So this man suddenly fled. The other three persons grabbed Yeung's mobile hpone and fled.

The Shue Yan University exterior affairs vice-president Liu Chun-sing confirmed that Joe Yeung was robbed of his mobile phone and is now giving a statement at the North Point Police Station. Liu said that the four men not only loitered around the grounds, but also kept taking the elevators up and down. During this time, a student heard one of the men speaking on the phone and saying "Someone has gone up to the second floor." The second floor is where the Student Union office is located. Therefore Liu suspected that the four men were targeting the Student Union. Liu said that when Yeung went up and took out his mobile phone to film them, the men fled while taking the mobile phone.

Why did these men look as if they are "undercover policemen"? Liu said: "They wore crew cuts, they wore sport shirts and they spoke as if from scripts. So they look like undercover policemen." Why were these men interested in the Student Union? Liu said that he does not know. He said that the Student Unions has not organized any controversial events recently.

But Yeung's statement to the police did not mention that these four men look like undercover policemen.

More about Joe Yeung: Seizing the Flag on Internet Article 23; Rubbish!; More on Rubbish!

- A simple formula?: Crew cut + sport shirt + scripted speech = undercover police

- Have you watched any triad gangster movies? Do you know what an undercover cop looks like?

- Is a student union president authorized to demand citizens show him their ID's? Even the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has no authority to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(South China Morning Post) July 15, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 15, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EJ Insight) July 15, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EJ Insight) July 18, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SCMP) July 23, 2016.

The election hopes of Hong Kong independence advocates hang in the balance as the best known figure in the camp on Saturday asked for more time to respond to government questions on his stance.

Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous made the plea after the Electoral Affairs Commission gave him 24 hours to say whether he was continuing to push for independence.

As the deadline fell at 11am, Leung told the media: I wrote in reply asking for more time due to the legal complexities. As it was a weekend, I could not reach my solicitor and barrister to discuss the requisite legal research.

The Hong Kong government has been trying to stop pro-independence politicians from taking part in the Legislative Council elections in September. Candidates must sign a new declaration form pledging allegiance to three Basic Law articles that effectively make independence calls unconstitutional. Leung has not signed this but he did sign the traditional form that Legco members would uphold the Basic Law.

This was not enough to satisfy election officials and on Friday they sent him an email that asked: Do you admit that, even though you signed the declaration ... you are in fact continuing to advocate and push for Hong Kong independence?

Another likely candidate, Avery Ng Man-yuen, said he would seek a judicial review on Monday to challenge the governments new rule. He suspended his electioneering to follow the judicial process.

At issue is whether using a persons past remarks to determine his or her eligibility to become a Legco candidate is in breach of the constitutional provision on the right to stand in an election.

Defending the governments move, Legcos outgoing president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing said it would be impossible for someone who calls for Hong Kong independence a fundamental challenge to the one country, two systems principle to qualify as a lawmaker.

For Leung, however, the election officials scrutiny amounted to political screening, saying that their email referred to news reports in which he had stated his views. Well, actually I also shared a song in support of the Basic Law on my Facebook, Leung said. Why didnt they use it as proof of my political stance?

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 23, 2016.

A localist candidate for Septembers Legislative Council election has encountered yet another challenge after receiving an email from the returning officer asking for his stance on the independence of Hong Kong, in order to determine whether his nomination would be accepted.

Do you admit that, although you signed the declaration upholding the Basic Law and pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong S.A.R. on the nomination form, you in fact still continue to advocate and promote Hong Kong independence? the email, sent to Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous, said. It was sent at 11am on Friday he was allowed 24 hours to answer.

Leung said it was clear political censorship. At around 10:50am on Saturday, he asked for the deadline to be extended until Wednesday morning, as it was a complicated legal issue and he has yet to be able to discuss it with his barrister.

Leung said the email included several news clippings and social media posts from his group which stated his stance on Hong Kong independence. The clips state that he had said he will promote the idea even after joining the Legislative Council.

Leung added that he called the returning officer 11 times but she did not pick up.

The Peoples Republic of China and the Hong Kong S.A.R. do not want to see a candidate advocating independence entering the LegCo, he said.

Asked whether the incident will increase his chances of getting elected, he said he was not optimistic.

I dont even know whether Ill be able to run  whether it will bring benefits, I dont know how to answer, he said.

Leung said his solicitor told him he could do two things, including a judicial review after his nomination was rejected, but when the judicial review is approved, the election will have ended its also a question as to whether it will [even] be approved.

My lawyer told me it was the first time Hong Kong since its establishment carried out political censorship regarding candidates political ideals in an election, he said.

Another option was to lodge an election petition to challenge the result.

He remained tight-lipped at a press conference on Saturday regarding his stance on independence, as he said the returning officer was targeting all of his statements.

He also called off plans to print promotional materials, as it may be costly should he be barred from standing for elections.

But Leung said that he has the freedom to talk about the future of Hong Kong after 2047 even after he declared he would uphold the Basic Law, as it was not clearly laid out in the mini-constitution. The agreement which safeguards the citys autonomy from China is set to expire in 2047.

(SCMP) July 26, 2016.

The High Court will hold an urgent hearing on Wednesday to decide whether to allow a legal challenge to a new election rule targeting independence advocates.

Candidates preparing to run in Septembers Legislative Council elections on Monday filed two separate applications for judicial reviews, arguing that the citys election watchdog had acted beyond its powers.

Three aspirants are racing against time to get a court decision before the nomination period for candidates ends on Friday.

In a related development, two more localist candidates received inquiries from the Electoral Affairs Commission about their stance on independence.

Radical localist leader Edward Leung Tin-kei and two pan-democrat candidates, Avery Ng Man-yuen and Chan Tak-cheung, challenged the legality of the commissions new confirmation form, which asks candidates to specifically acknowledge three parts of the Basic Law that state Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.

The new requirement is a supplement to the standard declaration which asks candidates to pledge they will uphold the Basic Law in general.

The applications filed by the trio urged the court to declare the new form illegal, as a result of the election watchdogs misinterpretation of the law and acting beyond its powers.

Returning officers, they argued in the writs, were not legally entitled to determine whether candidates were bona fide in signing their nomination forms, because their duties were confined by the law to ensuring only that the nomination form included the usual declaration, and that it was signed.

They also argued that although officers had limited legal power to invalidate a candidates application, the power lay largely in procedural matters, such as the nomination form not being completed or the candidates failure to pay deposits.

If those officers are allowed to make inquires on how genuine the candidates are with the declaration, it is tantamount to empowering the returning officer to ascertain the political view of the candidate in order to determine whether he is validly nominated, the writs continued.

They likened the new measure to asking candidates if they supported same-sex relationships or Article 23 of the Basic Law, which requires the city to enact its own version of national security legislation.

Leung, who is required to reply to the commission on Tuesday, said he would ask the court to clarify the law urgently. After he submitted his nomination last week, signing only the standard declaration, he was approached by a returning officer by email, asking him to clarify whether he would continue to push for the citys independence.

League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen noted that although his party did not advocate independence, it doesnt mean we cannot speak out for [Leungs] right to take part in an election.

The Hong Kong National Partys Andy Chan Ho-tin was contacted for follow-up inquiries.

Localist Alvin Cheng Kam-mun, who signed the new form unlike Leung and Chan also received a follow-up inquiry from the electoral office on Monday night.

An officer asked him to clarify his position on independence, attaching media reports of his recent remarks. Cheng said he would seek legal advice before making a response.

The Democratic Party said two of its candidates who did not sign the new form were told their nominations were validated. The Civic Party said one of its candidates who did not sign it was also accepted.

Internet comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- (Oriental Daily) July 24, 2016. It is understandable that the pro-Hong Kong independence advocates would oppose and refuse to sign the pledge of loyalty. But nobody can be more stupid than the mainstream pan-democrats who refuse to sign while saying that they oppose independence." They said that signing the pledge means tacit acceptance of a pre-screening system that will cause the loss of Hong Kong core values. Today you sign this against Hong Kong independence, tomorrow you may be required to sign to support the Communist Party. So they would rather lose the nomination than sign.

In this case, the pan-democrats are playing the old pressure game against the Hong Kong government. For the constitutional reform, the government wanted universal suffrage while pre-screening the candidates. The government pleaded for support from the pan-democrats, who vetoed the bill so that the government could not get what it wished for. In this case, the government does not want the pro-Hong Kong independence advocates to get into the Legislative Council. If the pan-democrats say that they won't run either, that is quite fine by the government. If the pro-establishment camp gets a veto-proof majority in the Legislative Council, they will be passing new laws on Chief Executive election, Article 23 national security, etc as quickly as possible. So do not kid yourself that the pan-democrats can apply any pressure on the government in this instance.

- Normally speaking, there would be an international outcry if the pan-democrats are prevented from running in the election. However, this case is very clear cut here. Not even the United States will accept a candidate who vows to overthrow the Constitution/Bill or Rights, nor will the United Kingdom accept a candidate who vows to overthrow the Queen.

- (Wen Wei Po) July 24, 2016. Youngspiration convener Baggio Leung said that they have not received any queries from the Returning Officer about whether they support Hong Kong independence of not. Leung said that the Youngspiration's platform only mentions "Hong Kong self-determination by the people of Hong Kong" and not "Hong Kong independence."

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

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

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

- (Bastille Post) If a candidate says that he supports Hong Kong independence, it is very likely that his nomination will be rejected by the Returning Officer. If a candidate says that he does not support Hong Kong independence but nevertheless continues to make those kinds of statements along the campaign trail, his candidacy may be rescinded and he may also be charged with making a false statement.

Why is the Returning Officer asking the candidates about whether they support Hong Kong independence or not. The reason is that the government wants to gather the evidence in the event of a court fight. If the government cites third-party statements (such as television news reports), they need to put in a lot of effort to solidify the evidence. But if the candidate makes a direct statement to the Returning Officer, then this is direct evidence already.

- Extra! Extra! Edward Leung has just castrated himself! (Ming Pao) Edward Leung has just set up a special Legislative Council election Facebook page which he characterized as "putting on a helmet." The Facebook began with a photo of a copy of the Basic Law and a statement: "I, Edward Leung Tin-kei, declare clearly that I will support the Basic Law and I pledge loyalty to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." The Facebook includes the details of the press conference and quickly drew 5,000 LIKE's within 30 minutes. He has purged all the previous contents in his Facebook, including statements supporting Hong Kong independence.

A Facebook post is not a formal response to the query from the Returning Officer. Furthermore, the question is not about the Basic Law or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Government. The question was specifically about support for Hong Kong independence as indicated by three specific previous instances. With respect to the instances, the formal response would have to be either "No, I didn't make those statements" or "Even if I did make those statements, I repudiate them now because I no longer support Hong Kong independence."

If the Returning Officer accepts his formal response and hence his nomination as a candidate, he will no longer be able to speak about Hong Kong independence as long as he is a candidate and, if elected, as long as he is a Legislative Councilor. Thus, Edward Leung has castrated himself!

- (Wen Wei Po) July 24, 2016. Specifically, the Returning Officer asked Edward Leung: "Even though you signed the nomination form that you support the Basic Law and you pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administration Region, do you deny that you are still continuing to advocate and promote Hong Kong independence in fact and deed?"

- (Wen Wei Po) July 24, 2016. Here is the summary of the 3 previous news reports for which the Returning Officer wanted Edward Leung to address:

(1) Hong Kong Indigenous' Edward Leung who advocates and supports Hong Kong independence claimed that he will not sign the pledge without legal advice. He speculated that there are two outcomes. One outcome is that his lawyer will tell him not to sign but the Electoral Affairs Commission will require him to sign. In that case, he will sign and also file a judicial review. He said that he advocates and supports Hong Kong independence and he is willing to bear the consequences of being deprived from entering the election.

(2) Hong Kong Indigenous' Edward Leung denounced the government for making those who advocate Hong Kong independence compromise and be subdued; he said that Hong Kong Indigenous is seeking legal advice. If he doesn't have to sign, he won't. He emphasized that even if elected, he won't change his position of advocating Hong Kong independence.

(3) His team of lawyers has begun to study the new arrangements of the Electoral Affairs Commission and discuss whether the government has a legal basis for so doing. If the team of lawyers advise that he does not have to sign but the Electoral Affairs Commission insists all the same, he will still sign but he will file a judicial review at the same time. If the team of lawyers advise that he must sign, he will sign but still persist on supporting Hong Kong independence.

- (Wen Wei Po) July 24, 2016. During the press conference, Edward Leung was asked repeatedly whether he still advocates and promotes Hong Kong independence. He said that he "needed to get legal counsel first" and at this stage, he "will not answer, he cannot answer and he does not dare to answer."

Will he put aside Hong Kong independence for now in order to retain his eligibility? He said that this was a matter of human character. "Should I persist with my ideas and refuse to compromise and then retreat gloriously and lose? Or should I endure the ignominy in order to give myself a chance? I am looking at this dilemma. As for the formal answer, I will have to consult my lawyer first."

- Edward Leung makes the argument that Article 5 of the Basic Law allows for Hong Kong independence after 50 years.

Basic Law Article 5:

The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.

In the light of Basic Law Article 1:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China.

All this means that it will be re-evaluated 50 years later whether the capitalist system and way of life shall remain in Hong Kong. There is nothing about sovereignty because Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China.

Merriam-Webster dictionary: inalienable -- Impossible to take away or give up; incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred.

The Free Dictionary: inalienable -- That cannot be transferred to another or others.

- Why did Deng Xiao-ping allow for a re-assessment after 50 years? Because it is possible that Hong Kong and mainland China will have converged economically and culturally by then, in which case having Two Systems is merely cumbersome. 19 years have already elapsed. The more likely situation in 2047 is that Hong Kong will be a third-tier city economically within China (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin will be first tier; Ningbo, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Xiamen, Zhuhai, Qingdao, Shenyang, Xi'an, Wuhan, Nanjing, Dalian will be second tier; Hong Kong will be the economic peers of the likes of Kunming, Guiyang, Nanning, Nanchang, Changchun, Yantai, Tongshan, Guilin, Liuzhou, Haikou, etc).

- By 2047, Raymond Wong Yuk-man (born in 1951) will be 96 years old [That is, if he is still alive.] Edward Leung Tin-kei (born in 1991) will be 56 years old. Joshua Wong Chi-fung (born in 1996) will be 51 years old. What do they have to wait until 2047 before they can get this so-called Hong Kong independence? Because in the interim they will get paid $93,000 a month plus another $100,000+ allowance a month as Legislative Councilors. In fact, they don't want Hong Kong independence to come too soon -- they will lose their jobs and they will be held accountable for all the unforeseeable consequences.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

For the past 19 years after the handover, we have been referring to these people as Legislative Councilors. Thus, we have forgotten that their full titles are supposed to be Legislative Councilors of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. When you shorten the title, you are discarding the true identity, history, duties and origins of these people.

Thus, when Electoral Affairs Commission chairman Barnabas Fung required all Legco candidates to fill out a pledge to confirm that they support the Basic Law, and specifically the article about Hong Kong being an inalienable part of the People's of Republic of China, we are finally coming to state correctly that this is an election for the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. If the candidate does not accept that Hong Kong is a part of China, then they are running in the wrong election.

The sub-text is understand by all the pan-democrats, and that is why almost all of them refuse to sign. They know if they sign, it will come back to haunt them later on.

This is brilliant on the part of the government. If you don't sign, you won't be able to run in the election; if you sign, you are reneging on all your previous talk about independence, self-determination, autonomy, etc. Weren't you saying that you don't want China? Didn't you set the copy of the Basic Law on fire? So why are you down on your knees? Could this be about the job that pays $93,000 a month for which you will give up your grand beliefs?

- (HKG Pao) July 25, 2016. At the RTHK City Forum, Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president Ernie Chow gave his views. He said that the law says that as long as a potential candidates files a nomination form and the deposit, he will be in the election. If someone thinks that the signed pledge is a false statement, "then please follow through with the legal process and let the Justice Department prosecute him and wait for the court to render a verdict." He said that "the executive branch cannot override the judiciary branch by letting the Returning Officer alone determine whether a person has made a false statement and hence deprived him of his rights." Chow said that the Chinese Communists own sole responsibility for the rise of Hong Kong independence sentiments and armed resistance.

- This same Ernie Chow said that since he did not consent to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, he is not obliged to pledge loyalty to the Basic Law. Neither did he consent to the Crimes Ordinance, so he is not obliged to stop robbing, killing and/or raping.

- The Civil Rights Act in the United States was enacted on July 2, 1964. By Ernie Chow's logic, any American born after that date is not obliged to obey it because they were not born yet and therefore never consented to its enactment.

- Better yet, the Bill of Rights which was ratified in 1791. No living Americans (or their parents or their grandparents) were born yet, so there is no duty for any American to obey it either.

- And this is the person that the students of the Chinese University of Hong Kong elected to represent them ...

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) Ernie Chow: If this force for Hong Kong independence cannot get into the Legislative Council, we will be compelled to use armed force to take back out future ...

But the next part is hilarious. Firstly, Ernie Chow said: "The people of Hong Kong has never had the obligation to obey the Basic Law." He was asked: "You don't support the Basic Law, right?" Chow said: "Yes."

One minute later, Ernie Chow invoked the Basic Law to rebut someone: "Article 22. Article 26. The right to vote and the right to be elected in accordance with the law. Article 27. The freedoms of speech and press. Article 23. The personal freedom of the people of Hong Kong cannot be violated."

So the argument of these young people is always that they cannot be arrested because their rights are guaranteed by the Basic Law. Even though they enjoy the rights of Basic Law, they have no obligation to obey the Basic Law themselves.

- In like manner, many of these people do not recognize the Hong Kong Special Administrative Government which they said are an Occupation Force for the Chinese Communists. However, they want to run in the elections to compete for seats in the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region of the People's Republic of China.

During the Japanese occupation, any Chinese person who assumes a government position is called a traitor.

- (SCMP) July 25, 2016.

Under Article 40 of the Legislative Council Ordinance, candidates should be allowed to run if they declare they will pledge to uphold the Basic Law and promise allegiance to the special administrative region. Signing the standard declaration form should suffice. There is no additional requirement, such as the confirmation form introduced by the election authorities.

- But that is not the main purpose of the confirmation form. Whether there is a confirmation form or not, the public focus is now on Article 1, Article 12 and Article 159(4) within the Basic Law. The point is this: If a candidate signs the standard nomination form to pledge to uphold the Basic Law but nevertheless goes around delivering speeches about Hong Kong independence throughout the campaign, can the Returning Officer overturn his/her candidacy?

- As events unfold, it seems that people have misunderstood the purpose of the confirmation form.

James To (Democratic Party), Roy Kwong (Democratic Party) and Sumly Chan (Civic Party) did not sign the confirmation form, but they have already been told by their Returning Officer that their nominations have been validated. Therefore, signing the confirmation form is not a sine qua non.

Alvin Chen Kam-mun (Civic Passion) signed the confirmation form, but the Hong Kong Island Returning Officer has sent him an email marked "Urgent." It was noted that after filing the nomination papers, Cheng publicly stated his support for Hong Kong independence/nation-building and said that he will continue to articulate these proposals at the election forums. Furthermore, Cheng stated in a July 20 election advertisement that Hong Kong can only become independent with a new constitution from the people. The Returning Officer demanded Cheng to give a written reply as to whether he will advocates and promotes Hong Kong independence/nation-building, and the decision to validate depends on Cheng's reply. Cheng said that he will seek legal advice before he replies.

Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party) did not sign the confirmation form, but the New Territories West Returning Officer has sent an email asking him about his stance on Hong Kong independence as articulated publicly many times in the past. Chan said that he will seek legal advice before he replies.

So the government is focusing on the candidates' positions about Hong Kong independence rather than whether they signed the confirmation form or not. Once the confirmation form was sent out, the candidate must know about Article 1, Article 12 and Article 159(4). It is the knowledge that is important, not the signature. The candidate can no longer plead ignorance.

What are the options of Alvin Cheng/Chan Ho-tin?

Option 1: "Yes, I support Hong Kong independence and I will continue to talk loud and clear about it." The Returning Officer will have good grounds to invalidate the nomination.

Option 2: "No, I do not support Hong Kong independence and the press misunderstood/misreported me in the news clippings that you sent me." The Returning Officer may just validate the nomination, but because you made such an explicit statement to the Returning Officer, you cannot go back on it later.

Option 3: "I decline to answer this question because the Retuning Officer has no authority to ask it." The Returning Officer will have good grounds to invalidate the nomination based upon your prior statements . You can file a judicial review if you so choose.

- In the event of a judicial review, both sides will surely debate about Basic Law Article 1, Article 26 (the right to vote/the right to stand for election) and Article 27 (freedom of speech, of the press and of publication). In the worst case, the Hong Kong SAR Government will ask the National People's Congress Standing Committee to interpret the Basic Law conclusively. According to Basic Law Article 158:

(1) The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

(2) The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall authorize the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to interpret on their own, in adjudicating cases, the provisions of this Law which are within the limits of the autonomy of the Region.

(3) The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also interpret other provisions of this Law in adjudicating cases. However, if the courts of the Region, in adjudicating cases, need to interpret the provisions of this Law concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government, or concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region, and if such interpretation will affect the judgments on the cases, the courts of the Region shall, before making their final judgments which are not appealable, seek an interpretation of the relevant provisions from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress through the Court of Final Appeal of the Region. When the Standing Committee makes an interpretation of the provisions concerned, the courts of the Region, in applying those provisions, shall follow the interpretation of the Standing Committee. However, judgments previously rendered shall not be affected.

(4) The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall consult its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region before giving an interpretation of this Law.

- Some of the refuseniks act under the belief that when Legislative Council Ordinance CAP 522 S.40 says that:

What requires are to be compiled with by persons nominated as candidates

(1) A person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a constituency unless

(a) a deposit has, in the manner prescribed by regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (Cap 541), been lodged by or on behalf of the person with the Returning Officer concerned; and

(b) the nomination form includes or is accompanied by-

(i) a declaration to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administration Region; and

(ii) a declaration as to the person's nationality and as to whether or not the person has right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China; and

(iii) a promissory oath given by the person to the effect that, if elected, he or she will not do anything during his or her term that results in his or her ...

(2) The person must sign the declarations.
(3) The deposit is to be of such amount as is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.

it means that the sole job of the Returning Officer is to run off the check list and file the papers away. Imagine what if the Returning Officer reads in the newspapers that Candidate X is a permanent resident of Canada even though the declaration says no. This is a clear violation of the eligibility regulations. Shouldn't the Returning Officer make an effort to investigate?

- According to the legal advice given to Edward Leung, the Returning Officer does not have the authority to question his political views, because there is no explicit statement as such. Neither does the Returning Officer have the authority to question a candidate about his right of abode elsewhere, because there is no explicit statement as such either. The Retuning Officer is only tasked with ensuring that the candidate has paid the deposit, has promised to uphold the Basic Law, has no right of abode elsewhere, etc, which loops back to the same thing.

- (Kinliu) Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party) replied to the Returning Officer before the deadline. First of all, he said that he refused to state whether he supports Hong Kong independence or not, because the Returning Officer has no authority to ask. That's fine, because the Returning Officer will go by all that Chan had said in the public record. Secondly, he said that if his nomination is invalidated, it means his right to run for election and the citizens' right to vote for him will be deprived. As a result, he will call on the people to go into the streets to resist.

- Go into the streets and resist? So far, this so-called Hong Kong National Party only has two persons who dare to show their faces in public.

-  (Wen Wei Po) July 27, 2016.

Previously Alvin "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion) had signed the confirmation form. The Returning Officer sent him an email about certain pro-Hong Kong independence statements that were reported by the press. On the day when he announced his candidacy, he shouted out slogans such as "Build the Hong Kong nation!" Cheng replied that the platform for Civic Passion is "constitution from the people" and "permanent extension of the Basic Law", which cannot possibly be in violation of the Basic Law. When he shouted "Build the Hong Kong nation!", it was merely his own personal position which has nothing to do with the Civic Passion platform. In this election, Cheng said that he does not intent to promote Hong Kong independence or nation-building as a candidate.

Cheng also said that his so-called "Hong Kong nation-building" is based upon Wan Chin's City-State Self-Rule in which Hong Kong has its independent judiciary, currency and political system; the international community accepts Hong Kong as a nation-state member; and Hong Kong maintains a federation relationship with China in a way that is consistent with Hongkongers government Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.

Meanwhile Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute) said that he is not a revolutionary and he only wants to amend the constitution. Wong said that he has never said that he supports Hong Kong independence, but he won't oppose young people advocating Hong Kong independence.

Meanwhile Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party) said that he has formally replied to the Returning Officer. He said that the Returning Officer is only responsible for making sure that the nomination process and has "no right" to screen the candidate's political position or whether his pledge was sincere. He said that the political viewpoints and qualifications of the candidates are left solely for the people of Hong Kong to decide and not for the Returning Officers. Therefore he refused to reply whether he continues to promote Hong Kong independence. Chan continued to say that he still supports Hong Kong independence and the dismantling of the Basic Law. "Hong Kong must leave China." He said that if he is deprived of the right to run for election, then the citizens' right to vote will also be deprived. He does not exclude the possibility of a judicial review, or even organizing the people to go into the streets and resist.

- (SCMP) July 27, 2016.

The High Court on Wednesday refused to immediately hear the first legal challenge to controversial new electoral rules targeting independence advocates.

High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said he saw no urgency in dealing with the legal action before the nomination period ends on Friday.

The candidates were able to submit nominations without confirmation forms, Au said.

Au was handling two separate applications filed on Monday for judicial review of the election watchdogs new measure.

A number of candidates had also had their nominations validated without submitting the confirmation forms, Au added.

One of the cases was filed by independence advocate Edward Leung Tin-kei who is eyeing a seat in New Territories East; and the other by two pan-democrats, Avery Ng Man-yuen and Chan Tak-cheung. Both relate to the new confirmation form that the Electoral Affairs Commission is asking all candidates to sign when submitting their nomination for the upcoming Legco election.

In addition to the standard declaration asking candidates to pledge to uphold the Basic Law, the new form require Legco hopefuls to specifically acknowledge three parts of the constitution which stipulate that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.

Many candidates from the pro-democracy camp have refused to sign the form, criticising it as a type of political screening.

A number of localist candidates, including Leung himself, have been asked by returning officers to further clarify their stance on Hong Kong independence after submitting their nomination.

Outside court on Wednesday, Leung told media that todays ruling might mean he had exhausted judicial measures. When asked whether he would sign the new form, Leung said he had not made up his mind.

Avery Ng and Chan Tak-Cheung said they would not sign the form.

- (The Stand) Why did judge Au Hing-cheung turn down the request? It was because Edward Leung could not demonstrate immediate damage. Leung's argument was centered on the confirmation form. But Au observed that nobody has been disqualified for not signing the confirmation form so far; in fact, some candidates who didn't sign have already been notified that their nominations have been validated.

- (The Stand) Edward Leung said that he has supported the Basic Law from day one, in that he believes that everyone has the right to stand for election.

Well, he means to say that he selectively supports those articles that he likes, such as Article 26 about the right to vote and the right to be elected in accordance with the law. But he refuses to be pinned down on Article 1, which says that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. Everybody knows that by now. At every campaign forum hereafter, he will be asked if he supports Basic Law Article 1.

-

Edward Leung: "If this regime does everything possible not to want us to enter this election, not to want us to win, not to want us to enter this Legislative Council -- I don't want them to succeed. The more they don't want me to win, the more I want to win. The more they don't want me in this Legislative Council, the more I want to be in this Legislative Council. What if they don't want me to enter by normal means? I will use my own method to get into the Legislative Council."

- This is getting to be incoherent rambling. What can Leung be talking about when he speaks of using "his own method"? Throw bricks and set off fires like he did in Mong Kong on Luna New Year's Day? How is that going to get him into the Legislative Council?

- When you talk about Revolution, you mean to overthrow the System/Establishment. The Legislative Council is part of the System/Establishment, because the legislative councilors and their aides get paid by the government. Your presence there merely legitimizes what you say is an illegitimate regime.

- (Wen Wei Po) July 28, 2016. Avery Ng said that he was disappointed with the decision of the High Court judge. He said that he originally planned to enter New Territories East with Chan Tak-cheung on the same list. Due to the legal controversy over the confirmation form, Chan will no longer be running. So Avery Ng will be the sole League of Social Democrats candidate and he won't sign the confirmation form.

What does that mean? It meant that Avery Ng said not to sign whereas Chan Tak-cheung said to sign. There was a difference of opinions, leading to a parting of ways. But of course they cannot bring themselves to admit something this simple.

- (Wen Wei Po) July 28, 2016. Yesterday, Wan Chin filed his nomination for the New Territories East Legco election. He signed the confirmation statement. He said that he did so "in order to leave a record" of the fact that he had been "subjected to political persecution." He said that once Communist China collapses, the central government vanishes and Hong Kong becomes independent, there will be a temporary President/Governor who will hold a Nuremburg-style trial to go after all who persecuted Wan Chin before. He told the people over at the "Election Secret Agency" to be "careful" and he used putonghua to chant: "Be careful, because you will not be spared when the day of political reckoning arrives."

- Eek! An inmate has escaped from the Castle Peak Psychiatric Centre!

- Full-treatment video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iWqwl0FVZtM

- (Wen Wei Po) July 29, 2016.

Edward Leung said that the Returning Officer cited certain news reports and Facebook posts which are hearsay statements. Edward Leung had previously filed the Facebook pages as campaign promotions. Today Leung denied any connection to these statements, and he accepted no responsibility. He said that his Facebook page was not administered by himself. As of July 23, he has purged all  previous Facebook information that is inconsistent with his current position and he now has a brand new Facebook. He has also filed to cancel the previous Facebook pages as campaign promotions.

When asked multiple times whether he will mention during and after the election campaign, Leung only said: "I will not leave any excuse for the government." With respect to the questions from the Returning Officer about his political positions, his reply in English used only the present tense. "I have only one goal -- to enter the election and win to become a parliamentarian."

- BREXIT was based upon the promise by the politicians that there will be a windfall of 350m going from European Union dues to National Health Service. Furthermore, no more refuges will come to the United Kingdom. No sooner was the referendum over than the same politicians said that this was a lovely misunderstanding and that no such thing will occur.

Everybody lies, but politicians lie more often. If you believe 10% of what Edward Leung says, both your eyes will go blind.

- (Bastille Post) July 28, 2016.

The information is that the key demarcation in time is the moment when Edward Leung submitted his nomination papers. Everything that he said before cannot be taken to represent his true views. But everything that he said afterwards is certain. After all, the candidate has promised to uphold the Basic Law. The confirmation form is merely a reminder, for which it is unimportant whether the candidate signs or not. The key is what the candidate said after the nomination papers were submitted.

In the case of Edward Leung, he gave media interviews and posted on his Facebook that he will insist on supporting Hong Kong independence.

In the case of Alvin Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion), he said that he did not want to promote Hong Kong independence during this election but supporting the "building of the Hong Kong nation" is a realization of "One Country Two Systems, which is Hong Kong governed by Hongkongers with a high degree of autonomy."

In the case of Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party), he said that the confirmation form won't affect his continuation to talk about Hong Kong independence. In fact, it helps to promote the subject.

According to information, these the nominations for these three persons may be invalidated because they support Hong Kong independence after submitting their nomination forms in which they promised to uphold the Basic Law (including Articles 1, 12 and 159(4)).

- (SCMP) One-country declaration was ill-conceived but useful. By Alex Lo. July 30, 2016.

So, its official. You can agitate for Hong Kongs independence and still run in Septembers elections for the legislature.

The latest news is that one-time secessionist Edward Leung Tin-kei has taken a U-turn and signed a candidacy declaration acknowledging the city is an inalienable part of China.

But surely the real story is not whether he is lying about his political stance or has suddenly seen the light. Its really about three other radical localists who have stuck to their guns on fighting for independence and refused to sign the one-country declaration. Yet, all three Kenny Wong Chun-kit and Yau Wai-ching, both of Youngspiration, and Kowloon East Communitys Chan Chak-to have been cleared to run in September.

So you can say the governments exercise in forcing potential Legco candidates to declare their position on one country has been ill-conceived and misguided. But it has not turned out to be political censorship. Officials on both sides of the border probably realise screening out candidates this way will open a whole new battlefront and possibly create a political crisis. But at least now we know who the real secessionists are and who will say anything just to get elected.

As much as I find independence for Hong Kong an absurd and dangerous proposition, I have a newfound respect for those three. They stick to their political belief, however misguided, and refuse to compromise. Not so their former localist colleague Leung.

He has now declared, in his own words, a resounding no to the question as to whether he supports independence for Hong Kong.

Maybe I am too hasty and cynical. Its possible Leung has finally realised the absurdity and futility of trying to separate Hong Kong from the rest of the country. But, if thats the case, hasnt he just nullified his whole raison dtre as a Legco candidate? Why is he even standing for election when he has nothing to offer voters?

It seems clear he will say anything to get into Legco. He has said so himself: I will do whatever I can to be elected. I must stand for election and be a legislator.

The funny thing is, he could have expounded extreme localism and still be cleared to run in September. And no one would have questioned his integrity.

- (SCMP) July 30, 2016.

On Friday, Hong Kong Indigenous and Youngspiration joined hands and Youngspiration convenor Sixtus Baggio Leung Chun-hang pulled out of his groups election list in New Territories West and applied to run in Leungs constituency, New Territories East, along with a former member of Hong Kong Indigenous.

Explaining their move, Hong Kong Indigenous spokesman Ray Wong Toi-yeung said if Edward Leungs bid were rejected, then his group would focus all its resources on the backup list.

Baggio Leung said he still sincerely hoped that Edward Leung would be able to run. If Edward Leungs candidacy is validated, we will use all possible legal means to help him become elected, he said, adding that independence would not be a part of their election platform and that the duo would not sign the new confirmation form.

Since [my original candidacy] in New Territories West was approved, I cannot see how [the returning officer] can use another set of standards to reject my candidacy in New Territories East, he said.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. August 9, 2016.

If everything in the world has to be decided by a judge, then there will never be enough judges around to get everything done.

Example 1: A student applies to be admitted into a Secondary School. The application states that the student studied at the DBS Primary School. The school worker found that the DBS Primary School transcript appears to be forged. So the student was told: "We are not accepting this transcript. You have been disqualified."

Example 2: A person comes to apply for a job at a company. His resum states that he graduated from Chinese University of Hong Kong. The company secretary checks with the Chinese University of Hong Kong and found that the applicant had only attended but did not graduate there. So the applicant was told: "We are hiring university graduates and  you are not qualified."

Example 3: A person entering a building is stopped by the security guard at the front desk. The person claimed to be the tenant in Apartment 28B. The security guard knows the people who live there and this person is not one of them. The person also cannot produce any proof of residence. Therefore the security guard refused to let the person enter.

Each of the gatekeepers are carrying out their duties. They are exercising their administrative authority. Such authority exists in every organization, every department and every place with people around.

It is the duty of the Returning Officer to check the status of each nominee. If someone fills out that they are Oxford University PhD's or the chairman of a listed company and the Returning Officer found out that the information is false, can his person be disqualified? If not, then why bother with appointing Returning Officers?

Some day, a convicted rapist will file nomination papers. He will insist that he has no criminal records. If the Returning Officer looked up the news reports of his conviction and disqualified him, will people think that the Returning Officer is protecting the people's right to vote? Or depriving the right of the rapist to run for election?

Judges are supreme. But judges can mind everything under the sun. If everything in the world has to be decided by judges, this is not the rule of law -- this is the rule of the judges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step two: criticise the ruling, then ignore it.

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

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

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

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

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 14, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

(Hong Kong Economic Journal Insight) July 14, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videos

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- (International Court of Justice)

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

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

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

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

- (Discuss.com.hk forum)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Question to the US State Department? Are the following rocks or islands under the principles enunciated by the Permanent Court of Arbitration? If they are rocks, why does the US have 400,000 square kilometers exclusive economic zones for them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Theresa May elected as the new Prime Minister by universal suffrage of 65 million voters? No!

Was she elected by a vote among the 150,000 members of the ruling Conservative Party? No!

Did the 650 Members of Parliament elect her? No! The electors were the 330 Conservative Party Members of Parliament.

There were only two candidates. When the other candidate withdrew, May was automatically elected without even a vote of confidence.

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

Does any Hong Kong pan-democrat criticize this British style of democracy as being distinctly inferior to what they vetoed in Hong Kong? No!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Cable TV) June 11, 2016.

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Wen Wei Po) July 11, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet comments:

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

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

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

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

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

(Oriental Daily) July 13, 2019.

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

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

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

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

(Reuters) March 5, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More at Occupy Central Part 6


More at:
Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5
(401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6
(501+)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com