(v4.0)

[This website collects certain news and commentary on Hong Kong politics, society and culture. English-news sources exist in abundance, such as South China Morning Post, Hong Kong Free Press, Reddit on Occupy Central, etc). This websites provides transcriptions/translations from Chinese-language sources, including both mainstream media (Hong Kong newspapers, television and radio) and social media (Facebook, YouTube, blogs, discussion forums).]

Five men accused of carrying glass bottles and throwing bricks and stones at police during last year’s Mong Kok riot denied charges of rioting on Friday. The District Court is expected to hear testimony from three senior officers who claimed to have witnessed three of the men throwing bricks, before they chased and arrested them. The two youngest defendants allegedly appear in police footage carrying glass bottles at the front line.

The case centred on clashes between police and 100 protesters – most of them wearing face masks – at the junction of Soy Street and Fa Yuen Street at about 6.45am on February 9, where the two groups were separated by burning objects.

Assistant director of public prosecutions Derek Lai Kim-wah said some people were seen waving objects like sticks, while others used bricks to hit railings.

Delivery workers Chris Yung Tsz-hin, 18, and Law Ho-yin, 20, and worker Lin Yun-faat, 25, were jointly charged with one count of riot as prosecutors observed they were often seen together on the front line. Leo Chan Siu-kwan, 47, who is unemployed, and travel agent Sung Kwan-wo, 27, each face a separate count of the same charge.

All pleaded not guilty.

Judge Frankie Yiu Fun-che noted that the case rested on three questions: whether there was an unlawful assembly or a riot at the time; whether the defendants were present; and whether they participated.

Prosecutors will summon 15 witnesses. The court heard all five men were arrested in Mong Kok that morning on charges of unlawful assembly and assaulting police. But three of them deny having been at the alleged crime scene, while another defendant demanded prosecutors prove the scene amounted to a riot.

Opening his case, prosecutor Lai took the court through a bundle of stills from police footage to show all five had been present. “At the centre of the photo were [Yung and Law],” he said as he flipped through the album. “We invite the court to compare whether the two men in the photos were the ones sitting in the dock now.”

Videos played in court showed police issued repeated warnings for protesters to disperse. On another occasion, protesters were seen hurling objects at police before turning to run, prompting officers to rush forward.

Inspector Wang Lam testified that some of the objects hit his colleagues’ shields. “We had to avoid the flames and flying objects when we advanced,” he recalled. “I was hit three times, on my left forearm, chest and left thigh.”

(Silentmajority.hk) May 12, 2017.

Yesterday the third defendant 47-year-old unemployed man Leo Chan Siu-kwan was late by 10 minutes. Frankie Yiu Fun-che asked Chan's Senior Counsel Randy Shek about it. Shek said that the defendant was held up by traffic problems. The judge said that the case involves several defendants, so that the trial gets held up if one of them is late. If the defendant should be late again, his bail will be revoked in order to guarantee that he will be in court on time in the future.

(Wen Wei Po) May 12, 2017.

In the opening statement, the prosecutor said that there were about 100 persons gathered at the intersection of Fa Yuen Street and Soy Street at the time. Most of these people wore surgical masks and held glass bottles and bricks in their hands. There was a pile of garbage on flames which generated a lot of smoke.

Among the five defendants, defendant #1 Yung Tsz-hin and defendant #2 Law Ho-yin stood in the front, holding glass bottles in hand, while defendant #5 Lin Yun-fat held a brick-like object in this hand.

At 710am, the police took action to disperse the crowd. Defendant #5 Lin Yun-fat threw a brick at the police. Senior inspector Li Ka-chim saw it, gave chase and made the arrest. Other police officers saw defendant #3 Chan Shiu-kwan and defendant #4 Sung Kwan-wo threw bricks at them and then fled. The officers subdued and arrested them.

The prosecution showed videos that lasted about 50 minutes, including the videos taken by the police and another video downloaded from the Internet. Chan Siu-kwan and Sung Kwan-wo cannot be seen on the videos, so their case will be based upon the testimonies of the police officers. In these videos, the police repeatedly told the crowd to disperse to no effect.

There was one video in which the man believed to be defendant #4 Sung Kwan-wo being arrested with blood streaming down his face. The police arrested him for throwing rocks at their colleagues. The man believed to be defendant #3 Chan Siu-kwan yelled "I am open and fair. Film me!"

(Oriental Daily) May 15, 2017.

Inspector Wong Lam was cross-examined today. He said that he saw citizens filming alongside the persons in the gathering. Periodically some persons in the gathering also filmed. The Senior Counsel said that when the police dispersed the crowd, there were persons who threw objects as well as persons who were merely filming. Wong said that he couldn't see who was who.

Senior Police Officer Lee Yiu-hung testified that he was on duty at 5am in Mong Kok. He manned the police line near the Bank of China office on Nathan Road. Some rioters threw rocks at the police and set off fires in the streets. Lee and his colleagues used shields to protect themselves and issued verbal warnings. More police reinforcements arrived. Lee and his colleagues pushed the police line to Soy Street near Tung Choi Street. At 8am, Lee and his colleagues intercepted five suspects. Lee arrested defendant #1 Yung Tsz-hin. On Yung's mobile phone, Lee found photos of the unlawful gathering and arson.

Under cross-examination, Lee said that defendant #1 showed him the mobile phone. Lee saw one or two photos showing an unlawful riot. However, Lee does not know whether defendant #1 took those photos or someone else forwarded them. The Senior Counsel for defendant #1 said that defendant #1 told the police that "I just finished eating and I want to take a bus/minibus" and he walked down this street "because there was no other streets opened." Lee said that defendant #1 said that he wanted to find transportation and there was no other way to go, but Lee said that there was no mention of having just eaten.

Another senior police officer Chik Kin-fai said that he manned a police line at Soy Street and Tung Choi Street. Five men looking frightened came at them and tried to sidestep the police line. Chik went up to stop and check them. Defendant #2 told Chik: "Earlier I and my friend were watching people throw rocks and set off fires." Defendant #2 showed two video clips and some photos. One video showed a taxi being destroyed and the other showed several individuals destroying a road sign.

Sergeant Chiu Cheuk-wai testified that at around 7am, he took part to break apart the crowd. Chiu and his colleagues charged from the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street down Soy Street. People threw bricks and glass bottles at them. Chiu saw defendant #3 wearing black cap and grey-colored checkered jacket,  throwing a brick in the direction of a police officer to the right of Chiu and then fleeing into Sai Yee Street. However, defendant #3 was tripped by another person. So Chiu went up to subdue defendant #3. At the time, defendant #3 said: "I have nothing to do with this. I only came here to watch." The defendant's lawyer said that when the  brick-throwing man turned into Sai Yee Street, he would have been out of Chiu's line-of-sight. Chiu disagreed. He said that there was a low concrete curb with a bamboo screen on top at the corner and his line-of-sight was never obstructed.

(Oriental Daily) May 16, 2017.

Sergeant Chan Pak-kan testified that he was on the police line at the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street at around 7am. At the time, 80 to 100 persons were gathered at Fa Yuen Street about 30 to 40 meters away. There was a damaged taxi plus burning fires between the two groups. Some people cursed the police as "Evil Police."

Chan said that he saw defendant #4 Sung Kwun-wo standing on a railing. Sung wore a green jacket, blue jeans, had short hair which was "Gel'd very high." Sung cursed the police: "May the whole families of the Evil Police die!" Then Sung got off the railing and threw a brick at the police. He missed. Chan pointed at Sung and told him not to throw any bricks.

Police officers charged to disperse the crowd. Chan followed them. At the intersection of Sai Yee Street and Soy Street, Sung was subdued by several police officers. He broke free at one point, ran a few steps and was quickly subdued again. Chan went up to offer assistance. At first, Sung was face down on the ground. Then he sat up with blood streaming down his face. Chan believed that Sung was injured in the back of his head. Chan arrested Sung.

On cross-examination, Chan said that the testimony of Chan (namely, shouting "May the whole families of the Evil Police die", Sung throwing a brick when the police advanced and Chan telling Sung not to throw bricks) was not supported by the videos taken by the police. Chan admitted that the videos did not show these details, but he denied that he lied.

The defense said that Chan's notebook, the oral statement and the court testimony contained discrepancies. Chan corrected and said: Before the police pushed forward to disperse the crowd, defendant #4 did throw a brick once. Afterwards defendant #4 was seen carrying a brick in his hand, but Chan did not see him throw it. After the police advanced, the defendant #4 threw another brick.

The defense said that defendant #4 was beaten by 6 to 7 police officers while being subdued. Chan said that his vision angle allowed to see only one police officer hit defendant #4 once. Chan is not sure how many police officers took part.

Internet comments:

- Here is the on.cc video that was submitted into evidence. A screen capture from that video shows some people holding glass bottles in their hands.

- Here are some photos from the on.cc news report. Was there an unlawful gathering or not? Was there a riot or not? What do your lying eyes tell you?

- The argument is not to deny that there was a riot somewhere sometime that night. The argument is whether there was a riot at the precise moment when the defendant was arrested. A short while before that, glass bottles were raining on the police and fires were ablaze in Fa Yuen Street. There was a riot. Then came a short lull. The police organized, charged and arrested certain individuals. Was there a riot anymore?

- (Oriental Daily) Sergeant Chiu Cheuk-wai testified that at around 7am, he took part to break apart the crowd. Chiu and his colleagues charged from the intersection of Soy Street and Tung Choi Street down Soy Street. People threw bricks and glass bottles at them. Chiu saw defendant #3 wearing black cap and grey-colored checkered jacket,  throwing a brick in the direction of a police officer to the right of Chiu and then fleeing into Sai Yee Street. However, defendant #3 was tripped by another person. So Chiu went up to subdue defendant #3. At the time, defendant #3 said: "I have nothing to do with this. I only came here to watch." The defendant's lawyer said that when the  brick-throwing man turned into Sai Yee Street, he would have been out of Chiu's line-of-sight. Chiu disagreed. He said that there was a low concrete curb with a bamboo screen on top at the corner and his line-of-sight was never obstructed.

- Unclear? let Google Map help you. You are running down Soy Street chasing after a suspect 30 meters ahead. The suspect reaches the cross street Sai Yee Street and turns left. Do you lose line-of-sight of him?

(SCMP) May 11, 2017.

Hong Kong’s annual pro-democracy march on July 1 may be unable to start at Victoria Park because a pro-Beijing group celebrating the 20th anniversary of the city’s return to China has been given priority.

Au Nok-hin, convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, queried the decision by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, which is responsible for allocating the venue.

The front applied for use of the six football pitches at the Causeway Park as it has done since 2004.

“A department member of staff called us yesterday telling us that they would allocate the football pitches to another group based on an internal guideline, which said if two groups applied for using the same venue at the same time, consideration would be based on the ‘nature of the organisation’,” Au said on Wednesday. The department had yet to approve the use of the lawn, which would accommodate a much smaller crowd.

It is widely understood that President Xi Jinping will be in Hong Kong that day to mark the anniversary.

“Is the government trying to shut out opposing voices when the state leader is in town? Is it only allowing celebrations but no demonstration? I don’t rule out political factors are in play,” Au said.

The group given use of the park’s six football pitches is the Hong Kong Celebrations Association, which is composed of 40 pro-Beijing groups, including business chambers and the Federation of Trade Unions. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Zhang Xiaoming, director of Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong, are the honorary ­patrons.

The front has used pitches at the park, which can accommodate tens of thousands of people, as the starting point for marches since 2004.

The pro-democracy marches, which have been held since the 1997 handover, became increasingly significant in 2003 after drawing 500,000 protesters against the introduction of a ­national security law and in the wake of severe acute respiratory syndrome.

The front submitted its application for renting the pitches on the earliest possible date, three months in advance in April. However the department said the association submitted its ­application to hold a science expo on March 15, before that of the front.

Au said the pro-Beijing association had always leased the pitches in the morning, and the front occupied the area for the march in the afternoon. Now the association has applied to occupy it in the afternoon too – obviously they planned to kick us out,” Au said.

Tam Yiu-chung, honorary president of the association, said it was reasonable to grant the ­venue to his group because it was “representative”. “The march can always go elsewhere,” he said.

A police insider said the leisure department had sought security advice from the force about the application and there had been no objections. A police spokesman said: “Police earlier received a department’s request for comments regarding an organisation’s plan to hold activities at Victoria Park on July 1. Police have already replied to the department.”

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 11, 2017.

The organisers of Hong Kong’s annual July 1 democracy rally have questioned the government’s explanation that the protest’s starting venue – Causeway Bay’s Victoria Park – has already been promised to a pro-Beijing group.

The Civil Human Rights Front announced on Wednesday afternoon that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) rejected its application because the Hong Kong Celebrations Association – a charity – has “priority consideration.”

Responding to HKFP’s enquiries, an LCSD spokesperson told HKFP that it accepted the Association’s request in accordance with its published guidelines, since the Association is a registered charity and the Front is not. The department received an application from the Association on March 15 to hold a science and technology exhibition named “Innovation Drives the Achievement of Dreams” from late June to early July at Victoria Park’s six football pitches. 

The spokesperson said the exhibition is part of a series of events celebrating the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China. She added that the Front applied for use of the six football pitches, the central lawn and the bandstand under the organisation Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union on April 3 – but neither the Front nor the Union are registered charities. “If the union chooses to stage an activity at the central lawn and bandstand areas of Victoria Park, the department will reconsider its request,” she said. “[The department] will take into account factors such as the flow of people, traffic and public order, and consult other government departments for their opinions.”

At a press conference on Thursday, Front convener Au Nok-hin agreed that charities have priority over regular organisations, but questioned whether the activities described by the LCSD would be related to charity at all.

“The purpose of the Association’s activity this time is clear: it’s to celebrate the handover,” said Au. “How is celebrating the handover related to charity? Is it donating any money to disadvantaged communities? We don’t see that at the moment.”

“The nature of the activity is an innovation and technology exhibition. How is innovation and technology exhibition related to charity?” he asked. “There is no way [the Front] can use a registered charity to organise the July 1 rally, because charities cannot organise political rallies.”

Au also questioned why the Association was allowed to apply as early as March 15, when the Front was prevented from doing so until April. “We told the LCSD before our New Year’s rally that we wanted to apply for July 1, but officials told us not to talk about it so soon, as the LCSD does not consider applications over three months beforehand.”

He asked the LCSD to clarify its claim that the Association had booked the Victoria Park football courts in late June. “When we speak about a ‘late’ period in a month, we usually mean after the 20th day. So when you say the LCSD received an application on March 15 for an event on [June] 20, then this will not have fallen within the three-month timeframe for application.”

As the park has been the rally’s traditional stating point for many years, Au said there could be “factors of uncertainty” if people went there and discovered it was holding an exhibition. “We don’t want to add all this trouble to the police and the public,” he said. “We don’t have a clear Plan B.”

Au said the Front applied for the use of Victoria Park’s central lawn and bandstand areas again on Wednesday. He said he would also reach out to the Association to try and coordinate their activities together.

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) May 12, 2017.

Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that they have been able to procure the Victoria Park soccer fields as the starting point of their demonstration marches over the years. Thus the rejection of their application this time is unprecedented. He questioned whether the decision was based upon "political considerations" of not wanting citizens to protest against the government. He said: "Only the government officials are allowed to celebrate the handover, but the citizens are not allowed to march."

As long as the Civil Human Rights Front stay within the law, nobody is going to stop them from demonstrating or marching. But the Civil Human Rights Front cannot force the government or other organizations to reserve Victoria Park for their own exclusive use. In this case, the Civil Human Rights Front made procedural mistakes (both in terms of the timing of the application and the identity of the applicant). But they blame the government and others for having nefarious purposes.

Actually, why must the Civil Human Rights Front march start off from Victoria Park? Why can't it be Kowloon Park? Tin Shui Wai? Is Victoria Park their exclusive domain? Is the true slogan: "Only the Civil Human Rights Front can march, but nobody else can celebrate the handover"?

The reason why the Civil Human Rights Front seemed so upset is that they want to hype up the July 1st march. At the present time, people are sick of the political fights. Everybody knows that it will be hard to mobilize supporters to come out to march. So instead of reporting five times the number of participants, they might have to report ten times as many. They are using the Victoria Park venue issue to generate the sense of tragedy and mobilize their supporters.

- Demosisto Facebook

First time since the transfer of sovereignty
July 1st march not permitted to assemble in Victoria Park
This year I will definitely march!

- In his press conference, Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that Chief Executive elect Carrie Lam has been talking about a Great Reconciliation on one hand, but she is not letting the Civil Human Rights Front using Victoria Park on the other hand. Therefore Carrie Lam is insincere about the Great Reconciliation.

- Eh, first of all, this supposes that the Chief Executive-elect is already interceding with the Leisure and Cultural Services over the permission to use a sports facility. If so, Carrie Lam must be a very busy beaver with a million things to micro-manage when in fact none of these government departments are reporting to her as yet.

- If Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam intercedes now and asks Chief Executive CY Leung and the Hong Kong Celebrations Association to let the Civil Human Rights Front use the Victoria Park soccer fields on the afternoon of July 1st, do you think that the Great Reconciliation will be even an inch close? The nature of the July 1st march is an anti-government demonstration march. Why would Carrie Lam be interested in assisting these people to inflame hate against her incoming administration?

- Why does Au Nok-hin talk as if the Civil Human Rights Front has presumptive rights on the use of a public sports facility? Over the years, the Civil Human Rights Front talk about fighting for democracy, justice and human rights. But it seems that they behave more like a hegemon that everybody else has to bow to.

- Democracy? Cheng Yiu-tong pointed out that more people want to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the handover than march against Carrie Lam. Justice? Please read the guidelines of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department on booking sports/recreational facilities. Human rights? All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.

- (Leisure and Cultural Services Department) Guide to the booking procedure for use of non-fee charging recreation and sports facilities.

Three-month in advance

Recreation and sports facilities may be reserved three months in advance for championships, leagues, and training events promoted or organized in order of priority by –

(a) Community Tai Chi Clubs under the LCSD Community Tai Chi Club Scheme at their regular training/practice venues and time.

(b) Subvented non-governmental organisations registered with Social Welfare Department and charitable organisations registered with the Inland Revenue Department.

(c) Affiliated clubs of National Sports Associations, registered with Certificate of Incorporation under the Companies Ordinance; or Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance.

(d) Government departments (including trading fund departments), public/statutory bodies organising departmental/public functions.

(e) Bona fide associations and corporations (including government staff clubs/unions) and offices of District Council members, may also apply for use of recreation and sports facilities. To qualify as bona fide associations and corporations, applicants should be registered with Certificate of Incorporation under the Companies Ordinance; or Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance.

Bookings shall be made three months in advance (e.g. bookings for sessions in May 2015 should reach the booking office between 1 to 31 January 2015).

- The Hong Kong Celebrations Association is in priority category (b) as a charitable organisation registered with the Inland Revenue Department. The Civil Human Rights Front filed under the Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union which is in priority (e) as a bona fide association with a Certificate of Registration of a Society under the Societies Ordinance. (b) has higher priority than (e).

If you upset the priority system and take (e) over (b), then you are destroying rule-of-law.

- How would you choose? The Hong Kong Celebrations Association or the Ap Lei Chau Community Trade Union?

The only thing that Ap Lei Chau is famous for is Leung Chung-hang's claim that "republic of China" is pronounced as "re-fucking of Chee-na" in Ap Lei Chau.

- "Bookings shall be made three months in advance (e.g. bookings for sessions in May 2015 should reach the booking office between 1 to 31 January 2015)." That means bookings for July 1 2017 should reach the booking office between 1 and 31 March 2017. The Civil Human Rights Front submitted their application on April 3 2017. That is to say, they were late.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Au also questioned why the Association was allowed to apply as early as March 15, when the Front was prevented from doing so until April. “We told the LCSD before our New Year’s rally that we wanted to apply for July 1, but officials told us not to talk about it so soon, as the LCSD does not consider applications over three months beforehand.”

The Front was not prevented from applying until July. They were told in January to apply three months beforehand. Unfortunately, the guy can't even count three months.

The Guide said:

Bookings for May 2015 should be made in January 2015

Let me walk you through to July 1st 2017:

Bookings for May 2017 should be made in January 2017
Bookings for June 2017 should be made in February 2017
Bookings for July 2017 should made in March 2017

I think that this question is too easy even for the Primary 3 Basic Competency Assessment (BCA) test. But Au Nok-hin and the rest of the Civil Human Rights Front leaders think that the answer is April 2017.

- Au Nok-hin knows very well that there is no possible judicial review. The Guide by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department clearly states the timing and the priority scheme.

They could have filed their application on March 1, but it would be harder to move up the priority list. Subvented non-government organisations and charitable organisations cannot engage in political activities.

- Why did they use the Ap Lei Chau Community Union to apply? Because Au Nok-hin is a member of that organization and a Southern District Councilor, and he wants to give the organization as well as himself a boost. Yes, it is known as nepotism.

- Here is the weirdest part: Au Nok-hin started off with questioning what kind of charitable organization the Hong Kong Celebrations Association is. Once he realized that he does not have a Plan B for the July 1st march, he proposed that the Hong Kong Celebrations Association yield the soccer fields to the Civil Human Rights Font on July 1st as a gesture of Love and Peace. Bwaaaahhhhh!

- You said that they were Dark and Evil before, so how are they going to find Love and Peace in their hearts? Beyond their essential nature, you have just slapped them a minute ago and now you want them to make you happy? An apology and some nice words would be in order first.

- (Ming Pao) Civil Human Rights Front convener Au Nok-hin said that if the Hong Kong Celebrations Association refuse to let them use Victoria Park, their march will have starting points that "bloom like flowers everywhere", including East Point Road, Great George Street and the Central Library.

- Au Nok-hin also urged participants not to clash with other persons. This is saying the opposite -- he wants clashes to show that denying the Civil Human Rights Front has bad consequences, so they will get Victoria Park next year.

- (Sing Tao Daily) May 13, 2017. Hong Kong Celebrations Association executive chairman Cheng Yiu-tong refused to lend space to the Civil Human Rights Front, saying that there could be fights between the two groups. Au Nok-hin re-emphasized that they are not using force to use Victoria Park because the Civil Human Rights Front does not have exclusive rights there. They are presently negotiating with the police to use multiple starting points in Causeway Bay. As for Cheng Yiu-tong saying that the science/technology expo of the Hong Kong Celebrations Association includes exhibits of Chinese space technology and performances by robots, Au Nok-hin said that it is sad that the exhibitors are being used as political pawns.

- I believe that the use of the facilities should be awarded to whoever ranks higher on the priority list and applies on time. The Hong Kong Celebrations Association ranks higher on the priority list and applied on time. The Civil Human Rights Front ranked lower on the priority list and applied late. If the Leisure and Cultural Services Department awarded the use of the soccer fields to the Civil Human Rights Front, it would be a clear political decision in which they contravened all the rules and procedures that they announced beforehand.

- The Civil Human Rights Front is asking the Hong Kong Celebrations Association to lend them parts of the soccer fields for their July 1st march. Suppose Au Nok-hin rents a Leisure and Cultural Services badminton court for 60 minutes next Tuesday, but some guy comes along and said that they want to use half of the court. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE UNIVERSAL VALUES. Would Au Nok-hin agree?

- Au Nok-hin felt that it was a political decision to let the Hong Kong Celebrations Association use the soccer fields. The supposition is that the Civil Human Rights Front has always used the Victoria Park soccer fields on July 1st afternoons and therefore any other decision must be political. But what if they were to hold the Homeless World Cup in Victoria Park? Will the Civil Human Rights Front still insist that this was a political decision? Will these homeless people be called political henchmen?

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 8, 2017.

Independent music venue Hidden Agenda was raided on Tuesday night by police, hygiene and land officials, who demanded it to stop operating as a performance venue.

The raid took place during a concert by Canadian and Hong Kong bands Braids and So It Goes. A Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) official posed as a concert-goer, and purchased a ticket as evidence that the venue held performances without a place of public entertainment licence.

The concert went ahead successfully after the disturbance. “Not even the police or the so-called government can ruin tonight for us,” said So It Goes on Facebook.

Hidden Agenda has only opened at its current Kwun Tong location – the fourth in its history – since December, following a HK$500,000 public fundraiser. It returned its previous venue to its landlord after receiving multiple warnings from the Lands Department, which said that it had violated the terms of its land lease.

It now operates officially as a takeaway food stall, after successfully obtaining a food factory licence from the FEHD. It does not have a place of public entertainment licence, as it is located in an industrial building.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 8, 2017.

Hong Kong independent music venue Hidden Agenda was raided on Sunday night, leading to the arrests of a reported seven people – including British and American performers and venue founder Hui Chung-wo.

Concert-goers live-streaming the incident said that Immigration Department officials raided the venue after the concert was over under the suspicion that overseas performers did not possess work visas. They demanded to conduct an investigation on the premises. Police later received a report of fighting. Officers with riot shields and police dogs responded.

The evening’s concert at the Kwun Tong industrial building venue featured British band This Town Needs Guns and US act Mylets, as well as Hong Kong group Emptybottles.

Hidden Agenda claimed that seven arrests were made: Hui, another venue staffer, a member of the audience, all three members UK outfit This Town Needs Guns, and the sole member of Mylets – an American. Police confirmed that Hui and another staffer had been charged with obstructing a police officer, and a third staff member was charged with common assault.

Live-streaming videos showed Hidden Agenda founder Hui dragged out from a crowd of people by several police officers. He later sat down on the floor, demanding to have his injuries examined – but was then taken away in a police van.

A police spokesperson told HKFP that they were called to the scene at 11:49pm to attend to a case of fighting involving over 10 people. The spokesperson said that two people were injured, and that there were still some 30 to 40 people at the scene as of 1:00am. “Police have the situation under control,” she said.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vNI2xMG99c

Internet comments:

- TTNG Facebook

First of all, we would like to thank our fans for their love and support, Hong Kong Legislators and legal team for their assistance and the media for their concern. After being held in custody for a few hours, we have been released on bail. We will head back to the UK and the USA respectively on Tuesday 9th of May and Wednesday 10th of May, and will be returning to Hong Kong to report back to the Immigration Department on 5th of June.

After last night’s event, we have learnt that it is extremely difficult for musicians to thrive in Hong Kong. It requires an incredible amount of strength and passion to persevere. Hong Kong as we know as an international city with freedom and diversity, should give greater room for creative works and performance to flourish.

That said, we shall not be discouraged, instead we will continue to travel and share our music with the world. We sincerely hope that we will be welcomed by more fans and music lovers rather than law enforcers at our possible future performances in Hong Kong.

Thank you for your support! We are so grateful for how helpful and supportive everyone has been to us. We are thankful for the kindness and compassion everyone in Hong Kong has shown to us.

- TTNG, Mylets

- (Discuss.com.hk)

Load of shits. 
No one is privileged! 
Abide by the LAW. Get  the proper visa then do whatever LAW allowed!
Fucking lawless POMs go  home!

- Hidden Agenda's Facebook

- (Oriental Daily) Here is a photo from inside the "takeaway food stall":

- Did the police overreact with several vanloads of police officers and even a canine?

 (Oriental Daily) At around 11pm, the Immigration Department officers identified themselves and wanted to take the bands and the organizer named Hui away. There was pushing and shoving. More than 100 audience members were in an uproar. An Immigration Department worker was injured in the back and knee. The Immigration Department workers called the police.

Should the police have just sent two patrolmen down to the scene to see what is going on? What kind of force should they send after a report from Immigration Department workers saying that they are being surrounded and assaulted by a mob of over 100 persons?

- (Passion Times) At around midnight, a 22-year-old woman was robbed by a man of her mobile phone and bank cards by a man on the pedestrian overpass on Kwun Tong Road in Ngau Tau Kok district. She was then taken nearby and raped.

Comment: The police were too busy raiding Hidden Agenda. Therefore the robber/rapist was able to work unimpeded. Therefore it was the police's fault.

- I think that you have the story completely wrong. What happened was that the police had full patrol coverage of the Kwun Tong district including Ngau Tau Kok. Suddenly at 11pm, the HA staff began to assault the Immigration Department workers. All police officers on patrol were dispatched to the scene of a potential riot. As a result, the other areas were not patrolled for a brief period of time. The robber/rapist was able to work unimpeded. Therefore it was HA's fault.

-  First, there was a visit from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. Next, there is a visit from the Immigration Department. Who's coming next? My bet is on the Fire Services Department checking for fire code violations.

- On the afternoon on the next day, two Fire Services Department workers and the Kwun Tong Organized Crime Unit showed up at Hidden Agenda. It is not known what, if anything, they found. Of course, once the public suspects that the venue does not meet the fire code for holding an event with hundreds of participants, the fire department would be delinquent if something happens later.

- (SCMP) Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has defended the arrest of several foreign musicians and an indie club’s founder, saying the city’s rules on immigration and safety at industrial buildings must not be ignored. He said: “Our policy of revitalising industrial buildings has been a success, but our policy does not mean that you can use the industrial buildings however you like. We must consider the safety of the buildings’ users, for example the bands and the audience they attracted.”  He added that the government had stopped other unlawful use of industrial spaces in the past, even in buildings under the revitalisation programme. “Under our immigration policy, anyone who comes to work in Hong Kong must obtain a work visa,” he said.

- The Immigration Department and the Hong Kong Police Force were very unfair in how they dealt with HA and its guests. They claim that they were enforcing the law. But based upon prior cases in common law, they are selectively lenient here.

(China Post) April 8, 2016.

Hong Kong authorities have sentenced Taiwanese model Cindy (星野優) to two months behind bars for working illegally, Hong Kong's Sing Tao Daily (星島日報) reported on Thursday. Cindy, whose real name is Tang Tzu-han (唐子涵), had appeared in the early episodes of variety show "Blackie's Teenage Club" (我愛黑澀會) and went on to a career in sensual photography.

A court in Hong Kong's Sha Tin District has sentenced Tang to two months in prison for working in Hong Kong without a permit, according to the Sing Tao Daily.

The newspaper reported that Tang, 32, arrived in Hong Kong on April 1 for what she said was a three-day photo shoot. At 7 p.m. the same day, Tang and the Japanese model Tomomi attended an event held by a Hong Kong photography association in a hotel room, the report said. They were apprehended by an undercover border official and sent to authorities for questioning, according to Sing Tao Daily.

According to Hong Kong media, Tang had expected payment of NT$8,000 for participating in the event. Entering Hong Kong to work without a permit is subject to a fine of up to HKD$50,000 (NT$209,000) and up to two years behind bars.

In the case of the three members of TTNG and one member of Mylets, they are clearly illegally working. But they are allowed to continue to travel for their tours while on bail.

- Fact: If these four individuals are mainland Chinese citizens, the standard treatment for working illegally and violating the condition of stay would be two months of jail followed by immediate expulsion with a lifetime ban against re-entry.

- The case has been elevated to government suppression of the culture industry. Let me understand this: when the Immigration Department goes after musicians with no work visas, they are suppressing the culture industry. So when the Immigration Department inspectors go to construction sites to check for illegal workers, they are suppressing the construction industry. When the Immigration Department inspectors go to restaurants to check for illegal dishwashers, they are suppressing the catering industry. When the Immigration Department inspectors go to round up mainland prostitutes, they are suppressing sex.

- (HKG Pao) The Civic Party rushed over to take media attention on this case. First of all, legislator Jeremy Tam showed up at the scene to "provide assistance," made a live broadcast from the scene, questioned whether this was suppression and challenged government policies on industrial building and work visas. Next, legislator and party chief Alvin Yeung wrote on Facebook that the government is suppressing the culture industry. Legislator and barrister Tanya Chan represented some of the arrestees. Tam and Chan also faced the media at the Legislative Council building to challenge what the Immigration Department and Police did.

Based upon what these Civic Party is saying, anyone who is in Hong Kong for cultural purposes does not need to have a work visa. The Immigration Department acted as a result of a tip that HA was hiring musicians without work visas. What the Civic Party is saying that as soon as the Immigration Department realizes that these people are musicians, they should have walked away. Let me put ask another question: The four musicians are British/American; what if they were mainland Chinese musicians? Will the Civic Party be so hot on defending the rights of mainland Chinese musicians to come to play in Hong Kong for pay without work visas?

- According to a Immigration Department investigation director, this was an ordinary law enforcement action. But this one was hijacked by a political party with ulterior motives so that the case is being packaged with politics. The result is the demoralization of the frontline Immigration Department workers, and the destruction of public trust in law enforcement.

This Immigration Department investigation director emphasized that the four foreigners did not have work visas, and this is a violation of the Immigration Ordinance. If these foreigners wanted to work, they should apply for work visas from the Immigration Department. The process takes four to six weeks, and there are ways of expediting the process. But in the current case, the arrestees do not have these work visas.

- A question for the Civic Party lawyers. Music has no borders, and therefore musicians should be able to cross borders at will to play their music to audiences in different nations. Does that mean that a Hong Kong band can travel to the United Kingdom or United States and play their music without bothering with things like work visas?

- Here is the UK Border Agency on Entering the UK as an entertainer or an artist. And they haven't even gotten into the small matter of taxes yet.

- On the same day, there was another case of a business being busted by a Customs Department undercover agent. A complaint was lodged against a certain restaurant for false advertising. An agent went and ordered Abalone Fukien Fried Rice and took a sample back for laboratory analysis. There was no abalone in the food. Today, the restaurant manager faced the press and acknowledged that they broke the law in order to increase profits. The restaurant was fined $5,000.

Why doesn't HA have the courage to admit that they broke the law?

- Are you pretending to be stupid here? The answer is so simple. If you engage in false advertising, you will fined a few thousand dollars. If you confess and apologize properly, the publicity would be worth a lot more than the fine. But if an employer hire workers with no work visas, the workers go to jail for 2 months and the employer goes to jail for 3 months. These penalties are unbearable. So this is when rule-of-law goes out of the window/down the toilet.

- If you want the Gold Standard of how to apologize if you must, then the unanimous choice is Leon Lai. No amount of money can buy that amount of goodwill.

- The Immigration Department said that HA had previously applied successfully for work visas for their foreign musicians. So it is not as if this was impossible. But in this case they got lazy and decided to take a chance.

- On next Wednesday, Hidden Agenda has scheduled the Finnish band Insomnium to play. According to the organizer, they are undecided as to whether or not to proceed.

- The case of TTNG/Mylets is worse in that HA never even bothered to apply for work visas. A much better defense would be something like: "We applied in November and we haven't received any response one way or the other." HA just doesn't fucking care!

- (Headline Daily) May 11, 2017.

What can HA do? They should not ignore the law and do whatever they want, as in hiring foreign bands without worrying about work visas or holding concerts without worrying about property use restrictions or doing whatever they want because someone is willing to play music and others are willing to pay to listen. What can HA do? Since some legislative councilors support them, they should ask these legislative councilors and other music fans to fight for more public performance space.

As for those legislative councilors who are so sharply critical of the government, they should know the facts first before they speak. How many people were present at the concert? If several hundred people are squeezed into one industrial building unit, are there safety problems? When the government revitalize an industrial buildings, should they ignore all land use restrictions in the books? Can any and all activities be allowed in these industrial buildings? Legislative councilor Tanya Chan said that "it is hard to say whether the four foreign musicians were working commercially or engaged in cultural exchange, and that the government is trying to eliminate the space of survival for performance arts in industrial buildings. But this concert charges admission fees, so is this still purely cultural exchange?

Today, it is the easiest thing in the word to criticize the government. It is cost-free. But if Tanya Chan and Jeremy Tam really wants to help local performance groups and musicians, they should not stop with just voicing some support. They should pressure the government to provide more performance venues for musicians. If HA wants to a space for survival, they should ask these legislators to apply pressure on the government. This is better than hiring illegal workers to hold unlawful concerts.

- Indie music concerts must have low admission prices and therefore not very profitable. The way to make money is to rent improper venues and get expelled. That will allow you to solicit donations in order to locate another (improper) venue and repeat the cycle.

- Well, the Immigration Department is not omnipresent. How would they know that you have foreign visitor-musicians playing for you? Somebody must have lodged a complaint with them. Once the complaint is logged, they must investigate. And if the investigation supports the complaint, they must take action. So who lodged that complaint? People who hate HA? or HA themselves?

- It used to be that an employer hires illegal workers and promises to pay at the end of the month. When the end of the month approaches, the employer gives an anonymous tip to the Immigration Department to arrest the illegal workers and deport them. The now departed workers do not get the money owed them. Employers do so because they are not penalized under the old law. Under the current law, employers face huge penalties. For example, in the case of the Taiwanese/Japanese models, the two girls got 2 months in prison and the two employers got 3 months in prison.

- This event had more than 100 persons in attendance. The entrance fee is $280 (advance booking), $380 (walk-in), $200 (student). This means that Hidden Agenda took in more than $30,000 this night. That may seem a lot to a person, but this is not a lot when divvied up among the organization which has to pay rent, utilities and salaries and the three bands (TNNG (HK), Mylets (USA), Empty Bottles (HK)).

- Some dudes were playing music at a private concert. What makes you think that they are 'working'?

CAP 115 Immigration Ordinance

Section 17N Presumption

Any person who is found at a place where employees are in the employment of an employer shall, unless evidence is adduced that he is lawfully employable, be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary -

(a) to have entered into a contract of employment to be employed by that employer; and
(b) to be an employee of that employer

Section 41 Breach of condition of stay

Any person who contravenes a condition of stay in force in respect of him shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in conviction to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 2 years.

Under this ordinance, the prosecutor does not need to have the contracts or the payments in evidence. It is up to the defendants to prove the contrary.

- (Hong Kong Immigration Department) Don't Employ Illegal Workers

Q1. What should an employer do before employing a person?
A. The law requires an employer to take all practical steps to ensure that the job seeker is lawfully employable. If the job seeker is not holding a Hong Kong permanent identity card, the law requires an employer to inspect the job seeker's valid travel document.

Q9. Can I employ a visitor?
A: No. You can't.

Q10. How to identify a visitor?
A. They should not have a Hong Kong identity card. The immigration stamp/landing slip on their travel documents has the word 'Visitor'.

Q11. What are the penalties if an employer employs a person not lawfully employable?
A. The employer is liable to a maximum fine of $350,000 and three years' imprisonment.

Q12. What are the penalties if an employer fails to inspect the job seeker's identity card and, if the job seeker does not have a Hong Kong permanent identity card, his/her valid travel document?
A. The employer is liable to a maximum fine of $150,000 and one year imprisonment.

- Of course, nowadays in Hong Kong, the law is optional for pro-democracy activists.

- Time for the United States government, the United Kingdom government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to pay serious attention to the plight of these British and American citizens being politically persecuted in Hong Kong!

- Facebook comments


Huanwai Poon:
  Fuck your mother, government
  You have been busting Hidden Agenda
  as long as the movement to activate industrial buildings has been going on
  You said that they are unlicensed but that was actually a problem with the procedure
  You sent in undercover agents
  Now you want to charge them over working visas
  Fuck, there are plenty of mainlanders in Mong Kok
  They sing with their songs with music systems and they set up a tin cup before them
  Why don't you go arrest them?
  They keep busting HA each time
  Any clear-eyed person would know what this is about

Smart Dum
  Brother you are right.
  The entire Sai Yeung Choi Street is filled with mainlanders making money with song and dance
  They block the street
  I don't see the Immigration Department jews stopping them

Trinity Hui
  Agree!

- This is all talk and no action! Why don't you guys call up the Immigration Department and report that there are persons illegally working on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall? Once the complaint is logged in, the Immigration Department will have to investigate. Perhaps they will arrest all those mainland middle-aged singers and dancers, along with the French jugglers, South American pipe players, American rappers, etc. Then Mong Kok will be the domain of the "Mental Patients" In The Umbrella Revolution.

- It is said that Hidden Agenda's hidden agenda is the renaissance/revival of industrial buildings for civic use. Once upon a time, Hong Kong had a manufacturing industry. After the opening of China, all manufacturing activities have move to mainland China due to the significantly lower costs up there. So industrial buildings in Hong Kong are under-used right now. Hidden Agenda is showing us how to use the industrial buildings to promote local art and culture.

- What kind of excuse is this? How are you different from triad gang lords who rent a floor in an industrial building, convert it into a bar, sell liquor and hire mainland girls (on two-way visitor permits) as 'companions'?

There are gray areas as far as zoning and licensing go. Given the history of HA, you have to know that before this. But when the relevant departments come in, you behave just like triad gangsters. This is not the model example to set in the renaissance/revival of industrial buildings in Hong Kong.

- What about the United States? (Musical America)

A lot of artists and their managers balk at the U.S. visa process for artists. I understand. It’s illogical, inane, impractical, unpredictable, arbitrary, and expensive…and those are just the high points. Nonetheless, it’s the one we’re stuck with.

The “easy answer” is simply that “it’s illegal.” Artists are not permitted to perform in the U.S. without an artist visa (most often, either an O or P), regardless of whether or not tickets are sold, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or who pays the artist, regardless of whether or not the performance is for a 501(c)(3), regardless of whether or not the performance constitutes “training” or is “educational”, and regardless of just about any scenario you can conceive of. What you are really asking is: what are the consequences for breaking the law and what are the odds of getting caught?

Both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and United States Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) have been increasingly scrutinizing artists over the last year or so. As a result, artists who have previously managed to perform illegally in the U.S. in the past without the proper artist visa are now being caught with ever greater regularity—resulting in significant consequences for both the artists as well as the presenters and venues who allowed them to perform. Last year, a violinist who had been performing in the U.S. for the past five years without a visa was caught and is now banned from the U.S. for three years. I am aware of a conductor who was turned away at the border when the immigration official discovered that he was coming to perform by “googling” his name. Another artist was advised by his management to enter the U.S. on a visitor visa to perform a promotional tour for a new album, was detained at the airport for 5 hours, and then refused entry. His ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges have been revoked and he must now visit a U.S. Consulate any time he wants to enter the US—even as a visitor. Even more significantly, a management company was caught submitting a fraudulent visa petition to USCIS and is no longer allowed to serve as a petitioner for its own artist’s visas. Large presenters, venues, and festivals are being audited with increasing regularity to determine whether or not all artists have proper artist visas.

The consequences for employing an artist illegally are the same as for any employer who employs an illegal alien. Theoretically, this can include anything from fines and economic penalties to criminal prosecution. However, from a practical perspective, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice lack the resources to prosecute and investigate every venue or presenter who facilitates an illegal performance. This is why most enforcement tends to be focused on the artist at the time of entry. After the artist has entered the U.S., it’s much less likely that DHS would discover the performance unless there is an audit or the performance is reported to them. Audits are much more likely to occur either in the case of larger institutions or employers who already employ foreign workers in other capacities or in the case of prominent or significant venues or performances which are more likely to garner media attention.

In short, whenever a venue contemplates employing an artist without a proper visa or an artist contemplates performing with a proper visa, it’s akin to running a red light. It’s illegal under any circumstances. Whether or not you get caught depends on whether or not there is a camera or cop at the intersection. Whether or not it’s advisable depends on the circumstances and how lucky you feel.

- (Silentmajority.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 10, 2017.

In our times, there is a descriptive term known simply as "MK." When you say that somebody has that "MK" feel, you mean to say that this person wears the cheap clothes available in the Mong Kok district which are vulgar and tasteless. Typically that person has dyed blonde hair and speaks vulgarly.

When someone says that you are very "MK", it is not a compliment. It is derogatory.

Recently I watched our legislator Tanya Chan (Civic Party) and I cannot help but add: "You're very MK!" Raymond Wong is no longer at the Legislative Council, but Tanya Chan has taken his place as gangster Big Sister.

When Chan speaks, she does not sound like the senior barrister that she is. Instead she is aggressive and abrasive like a gangster Big Sister, as if she was ready to pull out a butcher knife to chop you into minced meat.

On this day, our Big Sister showed up with several foreigners in tow.

Earlier the Immigration Department sent inspectors to the Kwun Tong industrial building to monitor the musical performance organized by Hidden Agenda. An English band was suspected of illegally working and thus breaking their condition of stay. The Immigration Department inspectors were assaulted and called the police for assistance. Seven persons were arrested.

As senior barrister, Chan led fellow legislator Jeremy Tam and solicitor Bond Ng to stand before these illegal workers and decry the Immigration Department/Police for unreasonable law enforcement and 'suppression the culture industry.' I am confused! Every day, the Immigration Department is arresting the fake mainland Chinese monks for violating their conditions of stay when they beg in the streets. So why does the Honorable Legislator Chan stand in front of the monks and protest against the Immigration Department for suppressing freedom of religion! Could it be that arresting foreigners means suppression, but arresting mainland Chinese means justice.

The English band TTNG and the American singer Mylet came to Hong Kong on tourist visas and worked illegally at an unlicensed venue which was charging admission fees. It is evident that these are criminal acts. But our senior barrister legislator called this law enforcement "suppression" by the government. How in the world did senior barrister Tanya Chan ever got her bar license?

When Chan first entered politics, she stood by the roadside on the Peak and bowed to the voters every morning. At the time, she had long hair, wore glasses and looked refined and smart. As a senior barrister, she impressed the elite living on the Peak. So she got elected.

At the time, it was Audrey Eu who discovered Tanya Chan, because she spotted talent in political theatrics. Actually Chan had entered the Miss Hong Kong Pageant in 1992, but she did not qualify. This shows that she has always been looking for her own theater.

On this occasion, our gangster Big Sister led some foreign illegal workers and showed her mantle. She had the form, but she lacked the reasons. Besides Chan has her own problems, as she is being charged with Public Nuisance for the 2014 Occupy Central. Chan's theater moved from the Peak to Mong Kok and may just move to Stanley (prison) soon.

- (Oriental Daily) May 10, 2017.

Legislative councilor Chan Chi-chuen (People Power) denounced the Lands Department for protecting and colluding with rural gangsters. The Audit Commission had also criticized the Lands Department for not effectively dealing with illegal occupied government lands. He said that Hidden Agenda had asked the Lands Department for approval as an entertainment venue many times but were rejected even though they meet the fire code requirements. Therefore Chan Chi-chuen is proposing to cut off the entire funding for the Lands Department.

- Bizarre. HA moved into the present location for just over a month. According to Chan Chi-chuen, HA had applied multiple times for an entertainment venue already. If HA has just high efficient for filing applications, then why didn't they apply for work visas for TTNG/Mylets?

- District Councilor/Umbrella Soldier/Hong Kong Monitor Clarisse Yeung Suet-ying appeared on radio:

Hidden Agenda has elevated cultural exchange with so many different kinds of music, so many different kinds of song types. For example, I have never heard of this group Math Rock from England. When different kinds of music come to Hong Kong, it will stimulate the cultural earth of our Hong Kong.
The government has done so many things. HA moved four times. This time, there were even undercover agents. The ferocity of law enforcement is amazing to behold. They are being heavily oppressed. We have always wanted to engage in cultural activities in an open and proper manner.

- But has HA founder Hui Chung-wo always done things in an open and proper manner? Here is a photo from the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day 2016, showing some masked men threatening a cameraman for television station TVB (attention: Hong Kong Journalists Association.

Can you say "Hui Chung-wo"?

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 6, 2017.

The police have decided to increase the use of body-worn video cameras. By 2021, every frontline uniformed police officer will be equipped with one.

Undersecretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu said the use of body cameras can help with investigations, relevant prosecution work and trials. “Last year, in 90 per cent of the cases when the camera was on, the subjects stopped over-reactive behaviour and became calm when being video-filmed – it reduced confrontations,” Lee said at a Panel on Security session at the Legislative Council on Friday.

The Security Bureau said that by March 31 this year, the police have recorded a total of 724 clips with the cameras in 493 incidents, from which 172 clips were used in investigations or submitted as evidence. It said in a case of assaulting a police officer and a case of obstructing a police officer, relevant footage served as important evidence for convictions.

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017.

Pro-Beijing lawmakers have proposed a bill against insulting law enforcement officers in Hong Kong, which if passed would stipulate a maximum penalty of one year in prison.

Legislators Priscilla Leung, Junius Ho and Horace Cheung hope to amend the city’s Public Order Ordinance to prohibit insults against officers from five government branches: the Police Force, the Customs and Excise Department, the Correctional Services Department, the Immigration Department, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Announced Friday afternoon, the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017 would criminalise uttering abusive or insulting words, behaving in a disturbing or insulting manner, or exhibiting a disturbing or insulting slogan against law enforcement officers. The trio hope to stipulate two categories of punishment. For regular breaches, offenders could be summarily convicted and handed a maximum monetary penalty of HK$2,000. For “repeated and malicious” breaches, offenders could be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. They could be handed a maximum monetary penalty of HK$5,000 and spend a year behind bars.

Explaining the background to the proposal, Leung said that the “atmosphere of hate” towards the police force since the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests necessitated a law against insulting officers. She claimed that hatred of police officers has not only been manifested during large-scale protests, but also in day-to-day incidents such as issuing traffic tickets or enforcement on the MTR. “We hope to provide our law enforcement officers with a working environment where they can be respected and have dignity,” she said. “Our proposal is a response to constant calls [for the law] in society.”

Internet comments:

- (eInvestigator) Police Body Cameras: Do They Reduce Complaints of Officer Misconduct?

Pros to Police Body Cameras

Following is a list of the advantages for both cops and citizens:

  • The necessity to record every interaction with residents is bound to minimize complaints about police officer behavior and the unnecessary use of force, because interactions are captured for everyone to see. Both officers and citizens may tend to be more restrained, knowing that their words and actions are being captured.
  • Use of the cam while on-duty provides hard video evidence of decisions made by officers in high intensity situations.
  • Video recorded by body cams protect any false accusations, misconduct, or abuse against officers.
  • Increases transparency and accountability of officers.
  • May help prevent and de-escalate confrontational situations between officers and civilians.
  • May help provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.
  • Video footage captured may help speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of situations. This may lead to a reduction in court expenses due to an increase in pre-trial plea bargains or possibly an increased rate of convictions. Cons or concerns to police body cameras

Following is a partial list of the cons and disadvantages:

  • According to early versions of policies governing their use, law enforcement officers must physically activate the camera when they exit their patrol car. The recording equipment must be manually activated when interacting with civilians or recording statements during investigations. However, officers decide when to activate the camera, and for how long the footage is stored, and if and when should it be made accessible to public. For example, the camera can be deactivated when interviewing a victim of sexual assault, to maintain the victim’s privacy.
  • Privacy issues are of concern for both cops and civilians. How to deal with those concerns is still being evaluated. Use of body cameras may prevent people from coming forward as credible witnesses to help assist with investigations, due to fear of retaliation or fear of public exposure.
  • Technological issues related to the cameras may prevent proper functioning at times. This could be due to a dead battery, damaged components, obstructed lens, and other problems. This could result in personnel missing important witness statements or crucial behavior by officers or citizens.
  • The equipment is expensive. Potential costs involved in their use include the cost of the device itself, ongoing maintenance, and costs associated with storing and maintain the video footage and recorded data that is collected. In addition, costs would be associated with cataloging and retrieving footage in response to subpoenas, investigations and public information requests.

After looking at both the advantages and disadvantages, it becomes apparent that the pros of using the devices outweigh the cons. Given the recent officer-involved shootings and brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, South Carolina and Baltimore, Maryland, we are likely to see departments quickly begin adopting their use.

 [SPOOF] (The Onion) April 9, 2015.

Following several high-profile civilian deaths at the hands of police officers, many Americans have called for the mandatory use of body cameras by law enforcement as a means of curbing the excessive use of force and providing clear accounts of officers’ actions. Here are some of the pros and cons of body cameras for police officers:

PROS

  • Provides accurate record of where police were when they turned off their body camera
  • Helps to reinstate trust between Americans and surveillance
  • Unlimited footage of police officers breathing heavily during a foot chase
  • Turning camera askew allows officers to record beatings with stylish Dutch angles
  • More things to watch
  • Finally gives Americans glimpse at what it’s like to turn on that siren and gun it straight through a red light

CONS

  • Major invasion of privacy for police officer and man he has in chokehold
  • Costs money that could be used on machine guns and armored vehicles
  • Police brutality might lose its mystique
  • Those could be anyone’s arms bashing citizen with nightstick
  • Distracting to officers who must now shift focus to cinematography and mise en scène
  • Is still only going to be the irrefutable video evidence’s word against the police officer’s

- This video was posted today. The background is that somebody reported to the Water Supplies Department about a case of suspected theft of service. WSD workers were sent out to the location to investigate. At this point, an old man came out of the house and stopped the WSD workers, who summoned the police. The video began at this point. Several policemen worked together to subdue the man on suspicion of obstructing public service workers from carrying out their duties. The man rolled on the ground and screamed: "Police assaulting people!" A middle-aged woman interceded and pushed a policeman, who arrested her for assaulting a police officer.

- There were seven to eight police officers in this video taken by a citizen. If the police officers all wore body cameras, there would not be any doubt as to what happened.

- If the man and the woman did not resist violently, there was no reason why the police have to arrest them and file plenty of paperwork afterwards. If the man and the woman never stole water, they should have let the WSD workers do their work and leave after finding nothing.

- (Oriental Daily with video) April 30, 2017.

On April 29, 2017 outside the Sheung Shui MTR station, a private car stopped at a bus stop to let a mother and her son off. Two policemen approached to issue a ticket for this traffic violation. First up, the mother argued with the police. The police told her that she can leave. So she said "That sounds better" and then she left. The police proceeded to write the ticket. The male driver launched an obscenity-laced tirade. The man laughed at the police for having no other skills or knowledge and are destined to walk the beats the rest of their careers. The police said calmly, "Yes, and that is why we are issuing a ticket to you."

This video was taken by a third party. If the two policemen wore body cameras and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017 was passed, would the man still behave that way?

- Here is a classical video from several years ago:

0:01 Unknown male voice: I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. I did not wear a safety belt. Right now I am leaving in my car. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. Right now I am letting you issue a ticket, dickhead!

0:12 Unknown male voice: You issue a ticket to me! I fuck your mother! Do you think that I cannot afford to pay? Your mother's stinking cunt! Huh! You are a beggar! I fuck your mother!

0:22 Unknown male voice: Your mother's stinking cunt! What is your police ID number? I am going to lodge a complaint against your mother's stinking cunt. I fuck your mother! You dickhead!

0:30 Unknown male voice: Are you issuing a ticket to me? Dickhead! Do it!

0:38 Unknown male voice: You are sticking out a beggar's tin cup and hoping to get some food. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt! You do it!

0:48 Unknown male voice: Be fucking quick about it! Right now I am letting you write the ticket! I fuck your mother!

0:55 Policeman: You calm down.

0:55 Unknown male voice: Me calm down? I fuck your mother! I haven't gotten out. You say that you want to issue a ticket to me. I haven't gotten out. You say that you want to issue a ticket to me.

0:57 Policeman: Be more civilized.

0:57 Unknown male voice: hat the fuck is there to be civilized about? I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. I fuck your mother! Dickhead!

1:07 Unknown male voice: Unknown male voice: Go ahead and write up the ticket. Do you think that I can't afford to pay? I can even pay in cash. Your mother! I am giving you cash now. How are you going to take it? Fuck your mother!

1:19 Unknown male voice: Your mother's stinking cunt. What the fuck is the matter with you writing a ticket for $320. Why don't you erase it, dickhead? Fuck your mother! Do you think that I cannot afford to pay it?

1:32 Unknown male voice: Fuck your mother! You four-eyed dog. Fuck you! You are being insulted now and you don't even know what the fucking matter this is. Fuck your mother's stinking cunt.

1:40 Unknown male voice: What is your fucking ID number I fuck your mother! You are rank-and-file. I fuck your mother's stinking cunt. You are rank-and-file. ID starts with 5. I fuck your mother. What the fuck do you know? Your mother's stinking cunt. You are a rank-and-file policeman. Remember that.

2:09 Unknown male voice: Fuck you mother! You take such a long time to fucking write a ticket. Fuck your mother's stinking cunt. You don't know even known how to make money when it is there for the making. Your mother's cunt. You are really something. A wastrel. Fuck you mother.

2:29 Unknown male voice: Write faster, dickhead. Fuck your mother. In a hurry, bastard!

2:42 Unknown male voice: Be fucking quicker. I am in a hurry. Hey, four-eyed dog. Be fucking quicker. Fuck your mother.

2:59 Policeman: You are wearing a safety seat belt.

3:00 Unknown male voice: Yes, that's why I am being ticketed. I am getting out right now. I want to take a stroll. You say that I don't wear a seat belt. This is clearly a false accusation. I am lodging a complaint.

3:11 Policeman: Did you move the car?

3:12 Unknown male voice: I did. But I did not turn on the lights and I did not move the car.

3:12 Policeman: The car was moving.

3:12 Unknown male voice: How many such cases will you catch a year? I don't want to fucking waste my time to argue with you. Right now, I am paying the money to you. $320. Do you think that I cannot afford to pay in cash? Fuck your mother!

3:21 Policeman: Okay. It does not matter.

3:22 Unknown male voice: You are a sergeant, sir?

3:23 Policeman: Don't use obscene language, mister.

3:24 Unknown male voice: I am lodging a complaint against him.

3:25 Policeman: Mister, calm down. It does not matter.

3:26 Unknown male voice: What am I calming down for?

3:27 Policeman: Calm down a bit.

3:28 Unknown male voice: I didn't even fucking get out on the road. Fuck you!

3:30 Policeman: Police work in accordance with the law.

3:31 Unknown male voice: I did not even get on the road and you say that I did not wear a safety seat belt.

3:33 Policeman: My colleague saw you. I saw you. Earlier you drove the car out ...

3:35 Unknown male voice: I did not wear a safety seat belt. I did not get out of the roadway, brother! I only drove for five feet.

3:38 Policeman: Your car was in motion. This is not an issue of whether you crossed the street or not.

3:41 Unknown male voice: How many cases each year are there people who drive like this? You start the car and then you move ahead, right? Why arrest only me?

- Is Public Order (Amendment) Bill of 2017 going to pass?

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017.

As a private bill, it must be voted in by over half of the 35 legislators in both the functional constituencies and the geographical constituencies. The pro-democracy opposition camp holds over half of the seats in the geographical constituencies, while the pro-Beijing camp holds most of the seats in the functional constituencies. However, the distribution of seats may change following the government’s bid to disqualify pro-democracy lawmakers, and ongoing prosecutions related to the Occupy protests and the desecration of the national flag.

Actually, legislators Priscilla Leung, Junius Ho and Horace Cheung are probably hoping for the pro-democracy legislators to veto the bill. Previously, the Hong Kong Police Rally in support of seven of their colleagues had a turnout of 40,000. So this bill will force the pro-democracy legislators to take sides: Are they for or against the Police? If all 27 pan-democrats vote against the Bill, it means that they support the insulting of police.

- Furthermore, these incidents will continue to take place. Every time that another video shows up, people will be reminded that the pro-democracy legislators think this is okay.

- Already the pro-democracy legislators seemed to be resigned to the reality of police body cameras. If they object, everybody will think that they don't want their own lawbreaking actions be captured irrefutably on video.

- (SCMP) Proposed law to protect police against insults is laughable. By Alex Lo. May 9, 2017.

I have the greatest respect for our police force, especially for their remarkable restraint and overall professionalism during those terrible three months of the Occupy protests in 2014.

Still, it’s hard not to find the grandstanding by pro-government lawmakers laughable. Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Junius Ho Kwan-yiu and Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan have called for legal amendments to make insulting law enforcement officers punishable by up to three years in jail along with a heavy fine under the Public Order Ordinance.

The Security Bureau has already said there is no plan to introduce any such amendments. As a practical matter, the lawmakers have no hope of passing such an amendment bill as it would require at least half of the members of the Legislative Council in the geographical constituencies to support it. The pan-democrats – who are in the majority in the geographical sectors – would simply vote it down, and in this case, be perfectly justified to do so.

But perhaps more importantly, there are already laws that provide safeguards such as for police officers to charge those trying to prevent them from discharging their duties. It’s already a criminal offence to assault or resist a police officer.

When insults become excessive and prevent police officers from doing their job, they can always make an arrest. The reason why they often don’t do it is that they are trained – unlike many police departments overseas – to de-escalate a confrontation and resolve it peacefully. That’s proof that our officers are generally well-trained and disciplined, not that they are being hampered by a lack of safeguards.

In any case, the issue is not being neglected. The police force will be introducing the use of body cameras in phases. Almost 1,400 such cameras are already in use by officers in the Emergency Units, the Police Tactical Unit and several police districts. About 270 more will become available in the coming months. By 2021, it’s expected that every frontline officer will be wearing one.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) May 13, 2017.

The Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2017, a draft prepared by three pro-government legislators who want to make it illegal to insult a policeman, makes riveting reading. The trio of drafters are all lawyers. One of them, indeed, teaches law in a local university. But the Bill is gibberish.

You do not have to take my word for it. The thing is quite short. Here it is, in its lovely entirety:

Leaving aside the merits, if there are any, of the new offence, what bothers me is that three people licensed to practise law in Hong Kong, one of whom habitually teaches it, could come out with something so nonsensical. They have reportedly submitted it to the Law Draftsman section of the Department of Justice, where it must have occasioned a great deal of mirth. In fact I imagine the professional law draftsmen are rolling on the floor laughing.

The poor drafters couldn’t even get past the title without making a mistake. It is not an “offence against insulting a law enforcement officer” that we are dealing with here. The offence IS insulting a law enforcement officer. The title would make sense if it said “Offence of insulting…” or if it started “Prohibition on insulting…” – as it is it is meaningless.

The next subsection is the most important one, because it defines the new offence. Unfortunately this does not make sense either because a vital word has been omitted. That word is “who”. The standard way of constructing the definition of an offence is to say that “a person who” does whatever we now wish to criminalise “commits an offence”. If you miss out the “who” you finish up with a non-sentence: “a person acts… commits an offence.

Somebody seems to have fallen asleep between sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), because after our ban on a miscreant who utters, or a miscreant who behaves, we suddenly find a miscreant exhibiting.

Subsection (2) is a standard piece of legislative boilerplate. An unkind observer might speculate that as the vital “who” is still present here the whole paragraph was lifted from some existing ordinance. Subsection (3) on the other hand was clearly composed without help, and as a result is dangerously ambiguous. I suppose the writers intended it to mean that on a second conviction for the same offence the upper limit on the penalty should be higher. But the “repeatedly” or “in repetition” bit could be subject to another interpretation. Saying “fuck your mother” once qualifies for the fine, twice for the jail sentence.

This brings us to subsection (4) where, once again, the intention is clear but the writing is not. What are we to make of the curious mixture of tenses. The person “knows” that the victim “was” a law enforcement officer. Is this supposed to cover retired policemen as well?

In fact if this were passed as it is – which mercifully is highly unlikely – the question of who is or was a law enforcement officer might well give some difficulty. Policemen, obviously. I suppose this phrase was intended to cover other uniformed guardians of the government, like Immigration and Customs Officers. How far can it stretch, one wonders… Environmental Hygiene inspectors, traffic wardens, meter readers, Legco security guards, private security guards employed by the government, park attendants… your watchman? But not, presumably, firemen. Connoisseurs will also be surprised by the inclusion of “disturbing” as a punishable quality of behaviour or slogans. Many of us are no doubt quite happy with the idea that our policemen should not be insulted. But disturbed?

Overall this is such a shoddy piece of work that it would hardly be acceptable coming from a student. The most senior drafter was actually Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG Mei-fun, SBS, JP, as the official Legco guide has it, adding the stunning afterthought that besides representing the fortunate electors of Kowloon West the honourable lady is an Associate Professor in the City University Law School.

In support we have Horace Cheung (DAB: Hong Kong Island) who is a solicitor trained at the City University Law School. Also on my list of lawyers from whom I would not now buy a used draft bill is Junius Ho, another solicitor, trained in England.

But let me make it clear that I am not complaining about the English. It is unfair and inconsiderate to chide local politicians for any deficiency in their English language skills. The language of local politics is Cantonese. Lawyers, though, need to know that law draftsmanship is a specialised skill and if they haven’t got it they shouldn’t fake it. We can perhaps have a useful debate on whether it should be a criminal offence to insult a policeman. This is not the place to start.

Congressional-Executive Commission on China.
Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover
May 3, 2017, 9:30am-11:30am

Opening Statements: Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Christopher Smith

Witnesses:
The Rt. Honorable Lord Patten of Barnes CH: 28th Governor of Hong Kong, 1992-1997
Martin Lee: Barrister, founding Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, former Member of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law and former Member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (1985-2008)
Joshua Wong: "Umbrella Movement' Leader and Secretary-General, Demosisto
Lam Wing Kee: Founder, Causeway Bay Books, one of five victims of the forced disappearance of Hong Kong booksellers
Ellen Bork: Writer

(SCMP) May 4, 2017.

The commissioner for the foreign affairs ministry has accused Hong Kong’s most high-profile democracy campaigners of attempting to meddle in China’s internal affairs at a US congressional panel on Wednesday night.
The campaigners urged the US to take a tougher stance against Beijing in order to protect the city’s freedoms.

Student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, one of the leaders of the Occupy protests, attended the session in Washington, along with veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming and Lam Wing-kee, one of the Hong Kong booksellers who went missing and later turned up in the custody of mainland Chinese authorities.

The city’s last British governor, Chris Patten, joined them as the Congressional-Executive Commission on China was told that the “high degree of autonomy” promised to Hong Kong had decayed over two decades of Chinese rule.

The two-hour session was meant to help the commission assess Hong Kong’s situation, two decades after its handover to China.

Commission chair Senator Marco Rubio and two of his colleagues are also sponsoring the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which seeks to, among other steps, punish officials in mainland China and Hong Kong whom the US government holds responsible for suppressing the city’s basic freedoms. Those officials could have their assets frozen in the United States or be barred from the country.

Wong urged US President Donald Trump’s administration to keep an eye on developments in Hong Kong. He cited recent court cases against pro-independence lawmakers as evidence that freedom of expression was under threat. He said US support was important for their fight for full democracy in Hong Kong.

Patten accused Beijing of having failed to honour its promises under the pre-handover agreement it signed with the UK and the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, to allow greater democracy in Hong Kong, and warned the US government that this could reflect the way China would deal with its other international obligations.

“If China can’t even handle the reasonable democratic aspirations as it promised to do for the people in Hong Kong, it doesn’t give one a huge amount of confidence about its ability to handle wider issues,” Patten said, speaking from London by video link.

Patten urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to take the opportunity of visiting Hong Kong for the 20th anniversary of the handover to reassure Hongkongers that Beijing would still honour its promises. He also cited the city’s recent chief executive election as an example of Beijing’s “interference”, claiming that popular candidate John Tsang Chun-wah was not favoured by Beijing because he advocated dialogue with the opposition pan-democratic camp.

Lee shared Patten’s views and urged the US to raise its concerns about Hong Kong’s autonomy with Beijing. “President Xi Jinping must be told that the eyes of the world are on China, and on Hong Kong,” Lee said.

Referring to his run-in with mainland Chinese authorities over smuggling banned books across the border, Lam also urged the US Congress to keep up its interest in Hong Kong issues through such hearings that “would be beneficial to people like me”.

Rubio’s Hong Kong act dates back to late 2015 after the mysterious disappearances of Lam and his fellow booksellers at the Causeway Bay Books store caught international attention. But a subsequent partisan gridlock in Congress saw the bill temporarily taken off the legislative calendar. It is now back on the agenda.

A spokesman for the Congressional-Executive Commission on China said: “It is not a hearing to consider legislation, but to consider how best to proceed with legislation the [commission] chairs have already offered – the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. “For that purpose, we are seeking information about the guaranteed freedoms and high degree of autonomy promised Hong Kong in international agreements.”

A spokesman for the foreign affairs ministry’s commissioner in Hong Kong expressed strong objection against the panel for what he called a blatant attempt to meddle in the affairs of China and Hong Kong. “Hong Kong matters are purely China’s internal affairs. China opposes any foreign government interfering in Hong Kong affairs in any way,” he said. “The hearing confused wrong and right and [is a] blatant attempt with ulterior motives to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.” The Chinese government is determined to uphold the “one country, two systems” principle as promised in the Basic Law, the spokesman added.

Veteran China-watcher Johnny Lau Yui-siu said such hearings would not exert any pressure on Beijing. “[The congressional hearing] is just a political show for the US congressmen to tell the US voters that they are doing something,” Lau said. “The Trump administration is unlikely to make a fuss about pressuring Beijing because of Hong Kong affairs. Trump has already said that he wants to maintain a good relationship with Xi Jinping as Xi appears willing to help on North Korea.”

Pro-establishment legislator Gary Chan Hak-kan said: “From the people the US commission has invited to speak, you can already tell what kind of conclusion the US congressmen would get. [Wong, Lee, and Lam] would like to have the world believe that everything in Hong Kong has deteriorated after the handover – no democracy, no human rights, no freedoms. If Hong Kong’s situation was that bad, they might not have had the chance to go to the US to speak against the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.”

(Hong Kong Free Press) May 4, 2017.

Pro-Beijing newspapers have accused Hong Kong democracy activists of betraying the “Chinese race” by “inviting the US government to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.”

The attacks came after former colonial governor Chris Patten, pro-democracy figures Martin Lee, Joshua Wong and Lam Wing-kee, and writer Ellen Bork gave testimonies on Wednesday in relation to Hong Kong’s political situation at the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

Beijing mouthpiece Ta Kung Pao called Lee and Wong “old and young race traitors” on Thursday’s front page. “Various sectors of society restate that the US should not comment on the affairs of other territories,” the paper wrote. It also ran an anonymous commentary calling Wong “ignorant and ugly.” It said: “It is obvious that Americans are using Wong to attack the One Country, Two Systems policy and the central government, but he is happy about his role as a political clown manipulated by others.”

Meanwhile, the Global Times wrote: “Hong Kong independence advocate Joshua Wong has been condemned as a race traitor after defaming the One Country, Two Systems policy in the US and begging for attention from the US government.” The two papers, as well as Oriental Daily, all criticised the activists of “badmouthing” Hong Kong in front of the international community.

Chris Patten hit back at Beijing’s consistent argument against foreign interference in Hong Kong. He cited the bilateral Sino-British Joint Declaration, which guaranteed semi-autonomy to Hong Kong for 50 years. “China is supposed to keep its word to the people of Hong Kong, and Britain has every right to interfere in that,” he said during Wednesday’s hearing. He also criticised the British government for not being “very robust in drawing attention to breaches – whether large or small – in the undertakings of both the letter and spirit made by China.” “I’ve always felt that we – and I blame myself a bit, but I blame [the] British government over a long period of time – I’ve always felt we let down the generation before Joshua Wong,” the former governor said. “And I hope we won’t let down Joshua Wong’s generation as well.”

Wong, meanwhile, urged US democrats and republicans to work together to defend human rights in Hong Kong. He vowed that Hongkongers will continue resisting rule by the Chinese Communist Party and fighting for the right of self-determination.

“The Father of Hong Kong’s democracy, Martin Lee, is turning 79 years old this year, after four decades of struggle,” the 20-year-old activist said. “I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to see democracy?”

(Coconuts Hong Kong) May 4, 2017.

Former governor Chris Patten, democracy activists Joshua Wong and Martin Lee, and Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee called on the United States to safeguard Hong Kong’s autonomy yesterday during a US Congressional hearing.

The democracy advocates had been invited to speak to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and assess Hong Kong’s development in the 20 years after the handover.

ppearing through video teleconference, Patten criticized China for breaching the Joint Declaration by . Referring to China’s assertion that “what happens in Hong Kong is nobody else’s affair”, Patten stressed that the Joint Declaration was an international treaty and thus of international interest.

“It’s perfectly clear that Hong Kong has not been given what it was promised by the new sovereign power.” As an international trading and economic hub, Hong Kong’s government and balance between its economical and political freedom was “plainly a matter of considerable interest to the rest of the international community”, Patten said. “Britain has every right to interfere.”

“If China can’t even handle the reasonable democratic aspirations it promised to do of people in Hong Kong [in the Joint Declaration], it doesn’t give one a huge amount of confidence to its ability to handle wider issues.”

He went on to criticize the Hong Kong government for “cutting off” any dialogue with the pro-democracy movement, using as an example Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam, whom he accused of showing no interest in negotiating with student protest leaders during the mass Occupy rallies of 2014.

Patten called on Chinese president Xi Jinping “to put people’s hearts and minds at rest” during his anticipated visit for the handover celebrations and reassure Hongkongers that the city’s autonomy and way of life would remain unchanged until 2047.

Meanwhile, Wong, one of the leaders at 2014’s Occupy movement, said that “One Country, Two Systems” would be no more if China’s grip on Hong Kong continues to tighten. Wong spoke of “massive political prosecution [sic]” to “pave the way” for the 20th handover anniversary celebrations. “The government intends to disqualify democratically-elected lawmakers in the opposition camp […]. Unfortunately, Hong Kong remains far from a democracy after the Umbrella Movement.”

Wong called for support from the Trump administration, saying that support from the U.S. was crucial to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp. “Some people may think [the movement] is a failure because we can’t achieve the goal of universal suffrage, but I am here to tell you today that the spirit of the movement is in the heart of Hong Kong people. That’s why I have been trying to gather more support at the international level by strengthening our collaboration around the world,” the student activist said.

“I started my fight for democracy six years ago when I was 14. The Father of Hong Kong’s Democracy, Martin Lee, is turning 79 years old this year, after four decades of struggle. I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to see democracy?” he added.

Lee, a veteran pro-democracy activist, former legislator and esteemed lawyer, said the “two systems” part of “One Country, Two Systems” wouldn’t be fully realized until Hongkongers become the “masters of our own house” by winning the right to democratic elections.

The barrister also highlighted a warning made by China Liaison Office’s legal chief Wang Zhenmin over the weekend, in which he said further calls for independence would threaten the existing “One Country, Two Systems” policy, describing the statement was “deeply unwise” as it would undoubtedly spark further protests.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China monitors China’s human rights and rule of law developments. The Commission proposed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2015 after the disappearance of Lam and his fellow booksellers.

Beijing mouthpieces Ta Kung Pao and the Global Times, as well as local newspaper Oriental Daily, immediately commented on the hearing, calling Wong and Lee “race traitors” who had “badmouthed” Hong Kong and accusing the United States’ of malice for inviting them to speak at Congress.

Internet comments:

- (Global Times) May 4, 2017.

On May 3, the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China held a hearing in Washington on the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. Martin Lee Chu-ming, founding chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, student activist Joshua Wong and Causeway Bay bookseller Lam Wing-kee turned up at the hearing. Hong Kong's last British governor, Chris Patten, joined them via video stream.

Wong uttered the attention-grabbing words that the "one country, two systems" model will be turned into "one country, one system" eventually. Mainstream Hong Kong society is furious about these people's attendance at the US hearing.

The issues of Hong Kong and so-called human rights have become marginalized in Sino-US relations. The administration of US President Donald Trump has not even mentioned them when dealing with Beijing.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told State Department employees in a speech on Wednesday that pushing human rights abroad "creates obstacles" to US interests. Sometimes, values have to take a back seat to economic interests or national security, he noted. Apparently, the US is a bit tired of its diplomatic maneuvering on human rights issues.

There are too many committees in the US Congress and lawmakers have to pick something to do their job, with hearings about human rights becoming the easiest ruse as it is considered politically correct.

People like Wong are fanning new flames in the US. But such hearings are politically insignificant. They can neither affect the policies of the US government nor create waves in Hong Kong. Most mainstream US media did not even bother to report it. It is just a fuss made by some local Hong Kong media.

The Hong Kong government is obliged to solve Hong Kong's own issues. When it is out of the local government's reach, the central government will come to help. The West lacks the legality, resources and strength to manage Hong Kong affairs. Some Westerners always make indiscreet remarks or criticisms about Hong Kong, but these only have limited impact. They are reduced to playing dirty ideological tricks.

From the Occupy Central movement to the failure of its political reforms, Hong Kong had experienced the most chaotic times. The central government has also adapted to the changes.

But Hong Kong continues to develop. The extreme opposition forces failed to put pressure on China by messing up Hong Kong. The law will bring them to account, and Hong Kong affairs will develop in a virtuous manner.

Perhaps this is how the "one country, two systems" model functions. Hong Kong needs to develop in a diverse and free environment. The country also needs development. People like Wong will continue to make trouble, but if they bring actual harm to the country, the law will have the final say.

- The title of the hearing was Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover. It was not Will One Country Two Systems Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover. Joshua Wong is with the political party Demosisto, which lists 'self-determination' on its policy platform. But as far as the Central Government, 'self-determination' is just another name for independence. The title was thus chosen because they don't accept One Country Two Systems.

- (Bastille Post) May 4, 2017.

When Chris Patten came to Hong Kong last year, his main theme was Hong Kong independence. He said that Hong Kong independence was impossible, and it was shameful and rash to lump Hong Kong independence with democracy. He criticized the two disqualified legislators Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for turning their oaths of office into child's play.

But at the US Congressional hearing, his emphasis was about the British government's failure to make China implement One Country Two Systems and guarantee freedom, democracy and autonomy in Hong Kong.

- So Chris Patten will tell people whatever he thinks that they want or need to hear.

Donald Trump is now the President of the United States (POTUS). During the campaign period, he criticized China sharply on many fronts. But after meeting with Xi Jinping last month, Trump has decided that Xi is a "good person" who can help with North Korea. Under such circumstances, it seems unlikely that the s.417 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 will go anywhere.

- Predictgov puts the chances of s.417 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 being passed at 16%:

This is better than the 1% that was given to the defunct Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2016.

- The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2017 is toothless insofar as human rights and democracy in Hong Kong goes. It all depends on what POTUS thinks is in his own best interest. At this point, POTUS needs Xi Jinping to deal with North Korea.

The first part requires some Department of State person to write a report "on conditions in Hong Kong that are of U.S. interest." This person will simply write up whatever the President wants.

The second part requires the Department of State to "certify to Congress annually whether Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify separate treatment different from that accorded to China in any new laws, agreements, treaties, or arrangements entered into between the United States and Hong Kong." The report will be whatever POTUS wants. Congress cannot override the certification.

The third part requires to "the President to identify persons responsible for: (1) the surveillance, abduction, detention, or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong; and (2) other actions suppressing basic freedoms. The President shall freeze the U.S.-based assets of identified individuals." The president will simply state that he hasn't been able to identify any such persons.

The fourth part states that "entry, work, or study visa applicants who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the basis of the applicant's arrest or detention or other adverse government action taken as a result of participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process." This may cover Joshua Wong and Martin Lee, who will eventually stand trial for unlawful gathering and incitement of unlawful gathering during Occupy Central. But it won't cover Lam Wing-kee.

Is the Act going to force Hong Kong to have universal suffrage with civil nomination to elect the Chief Executive and Legislative Councilors? No.

Is the Act going to stop Basic Law Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong? No.

Is the Act going to re-instate Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching as legislative councilors? No.

Is the Act going to stop the judicial review against the oaths of office of the DQ4 legislative councilors? No.

You can cycle through the other important issues and the answer will be NO.

- It would be simple if POTUS is actually worried about the best interests of the United States. But he appears to be more concerned with the best interests of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump's business deals in China ...

- The Act is toothless because it punishes Hong Kong for what China does. All those persons in China responsible for oppressing Hong Kong face no repercussions. Bad things will only happen to Hong Kong when preferential economic treatment by the United States are removed.

If such is the line of attack, how about going even further?

- Tourist/business visas from Hong Kong to the United States will be stopped unless there is universal suffrage with civil nomination.

- Travel ban to United States citizens to Hong Kong will be issued if a Basic Law Article 23 (National Security) bill is proposed.

...

- Martin Lee's statement to CECC:

"We are merely asking that China uphold its pledge to let us freely choose our leaders by universal suffrage, and exercise the “high degree of autonomy” promised in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration as a condition of the handover of Hong Kong."

- Under the August 31st 2014 framework, Hong Kong would have been able to choose the Chief Executive in 2017 via universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote). But the pan-democrats vetoed the bill on the grounds that the candidates were not chosen by the universal standard of civil nomination.

If Senator Rubio and Congressman Smith asked Lee to explain this 'universal standard' that they haven't heard of, they will find that the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa and more than 150 other countries around the world are not using this 'universal standard.'

- (Oriental Daily) May 4, 2017.

Americans are like this. They don't want to mind their own business, but they like to mind other people's business. Twenty years after the handover, the US Congress is holding a hearing, with the old Chinese traitor Martin Lee and the young Chinese traitor Joshua Wong being invited to testify. It is easy to predict what the US Congressional leaders want to hear.

If the Americans genuine care about Hong Kong, they would have invited representatives from different sections of the political spectrum. The reality is that they were only interested in what these several guys have to say. This proves that the hearing was malevolent and provocative by design in order to make life awkward for the Hong Kong and Beijing governments. Since the handover, there have been many troubles in Hong Kong. Most of them suggest that Next Media chief Jimmy Lai is behind them, with the money being handled by an American assistant with military intelligence background.

The difference today is that the United States is no longer what it used to be, and neither is China. During the election campaign, Donald Trump talked tough about taking action against China. After the Sino-American summit meeting, Trump heaped praises on Xi Jinping as "a respected leader." This was surely disappointing to those Chinese traitors in Hong Kong.

This is no longer the era when Americans can do whatever they want. Chinese traitors no longer have it easy, because the payout is rapidly diminishing.

- (Ta Kung Pao) May 4, 2017.

At the hearing, congressman Steve Daines (MT) expressed great "concern" over the political future of Chief Executive candidate John Tsang. Chris Patten said that it was hard for him to comment, because as the former leader of the British colonial administration, his endorsement of Tsang would be "the kiss of death."

- (Ta Kung Pao) May 4, 2017.

Lam Wing Kee's testimony was delivered in Cantonese with an interpreter giving a simultaneous interpretation in English. Clearly the audience could not follow his story. A 10-minute break was held so that Lam could regroup. After the break, the interpreter read off the written statement in English. So this was a joke. The session was scheduled to go from 930am to 1130am, but it was over by 1100am.

- (Silentmajority.hk) May 6, 2017. Martin Lee and Joshua Wong took their show to Washington DC to get help from the United States for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Will the United States threaten to impose severe economic sanctions against Hong Kong (yes, against Hong Kong) and thus make the Central Government capitulate and allow the universal standard of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination in Hong Kong?

Rita Fan is the sole Hong Kong representative on the National People's Congress Standing Committee. She said that she has not heard a single suggestion at the National People's Congress, including the Standing Committee as well as the Hong Kong delegation to withdraw the August 31st resolution. Today Rita Fan said that the appearances of Martin Lee and Joshua Wong had consolidated the determination that the August 31st framework must be adhered to. This means that as long as the pan-democrats oppose the August 31st framework, there is no point in discussing constitutional reform. Instead of wasting time on that issue, Hong Kong will be better off dealing with livelihood issues.

- United States: 8,000 families in Flint (MI) still have to pay their water bills even though the water is poisoned. If they don't pay, the banks will repossess their homes. The problem has been going on for three years without any solution.

Hong Kong: The Hong Kong government immediately provided free drinking water as soon as lead was detected in water, and immediately worked on to correct the problem as well as seek responsibility.

What do we want a foreign government that does care about civil rights and people's livelihood to interfere in Hong Kong? Are these people telling lies for the sake of their own political careers, or American dollars, or green cards?

- The testimonies of Martin Lee and Joshua Wong contained numerous falsehoods. They are well-known to be false in Hong Kong, but they may fool a few Congressional representatives.

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) Martin Lee spoke about the Hong Kong Police cracking down on peaceful demonstrators. In Hong Kong, we have seen many, many acts of violence. Should the United States use the threat of economic sanctions against Hong Kong to force the release of all those charged with these types of violent crimes?

- (HKFP @ YouTube) Joshua Wong spoke of the government attempting to disqualify pro-democracy legislative councilors. Here is legislative councilor Lau Siu-lai's oath of office. Should the United States use the threat of economic sanctions against Hong Kong to force the Hong Kong government to accept this type of oath?

(SCMP) May 4, 2017.

The number of Hongkongers trying to emigrate to other parts of the world reached a three-year high last year, according to the latest government data. Figures released by the Security Bureau show 7,600 Hongkongers applied for a certificate of no criminal conviction (CNCC) for outward immigration purposes – 8.6 per cent more than in 2015 and 10 per cent more than in 2014. The last time so many locals applied to leave the city was in 2013.

The United States remained the most popular destination for Hong Kong residents, with 2,800 applying for immigration visas. It was the highest number of US applications in the past five years. Meanwhile, Australia and Canada attracted 2,100 and 1,000 applications respectively.

Although the figures provide a rough estimate of the number of Hongkongers emigrating, the government noted that not all successful CNCC applicants obtained immigration visas.

Goldmax Immigration Consulting director Benny Cheung said social, political and financial pressures had caused an increasing number of locals to seek greener pastures.

“There are three catalysts: the national education protest in 2012, the Occupy movement in 2014 and the Mong Kok riots in 2016. We received a surge of inquires soon after the incidents emerged.” Cheung said.

He believed skyrocketing property prices and issues surrounding the education system were also key reasons for so many residents choosing to leave.

Cheung said Taiwan had also surfaced as a favoured relocation destination. “It is close to Hong Kong, with similar language and culture, and the spending is relatively lower,” he said.

Figures released by Taiwan’s National Immigration Agency, show 1,086 Hong Kong residents were granted residency permits last year

.Internet comments:

- They pick through the data and found something to support an existing prejudice. Here is some more data.

(Oriental Daily) May 4, 2017.


Estimated number of persons who applied to immigrate by year.
Columns:
(1) year
(2) total number
(3) to United States of America
(4) to Australia
(5) to Canada
Source: Security Bureau

Do you think that there has been a huge surge in out-migration?

- Here is the lede from the front page of the SCMP website. This is literally true, of course. But the lede would not work if you show the data for the past 7 years.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) May 5, 2017. There are even more years of data here, and the text is: "The Security Bureau has estimated that 7,600 Hong Kong people migrated overseas in 2016. The figure was the highest over the past three years. In 2006, more than 10,000 people moved away from Hong Kong. After that year, the figure remained between around 7,000 and 9,000 each year. In 2011, 4,000 were estimated to have moved to the US, the highest number in more than 12 years."

- Ah, I completely know how to read this table. The lowest figures for the United States column occur between 2012 and 2016 when CY Leung was the Chief Executive. The highest figures occurred between 2005 and 2011 when Donald Tsang was the Chief Executive. This proves that CY Leung has done a great job in Hong Kong, much more so than his predecessor who drove people away. I wonder which newspaper will let me write this data-supported story ...

- I have another story: "Canada no longer favored by Hong Kongers." In 2005, the number of applicants to Canada was 1900; in 2016, the figure fell down to 1000! Wow!

- As for the figures on Taiwan, here are the statistics from the National Immigration Agency (Taiwan):

Hong Kong/Macau residents
Year Residency Permanent
Residency
1991 271 3703
1992 868 820
1993 953 1246
1994 2246 1576
1995 1750 1548
1996 1710 1678
1997 1839 1541
1998 1389 1323
1999 1769 1081
2000 1369 1185
2001 1305 726
2002 1580 535
2003 1694 488
2004 1773 502
2005 1643 592
2006 1682 481
2007 1984 484
2008 2421 519
2009 3109 568
2010 2736 498
2011 2447 504
2012 3169 643
2013 4574 575
2014 7506 697
2015 6339 891
2016 5829 1273

[Note: The data from years 1992-2015 grouped Hong Kong with Macau. The year 2016 separated Hong Kong from Macau, showing that 4,057 Hongkongers got residency and 1,086 got permanent residency.]

So do you think that this is a shock to the population structure of Hong Kong?

- Hong Kong, population 7.3 million, had 4,057 residency permits and 1,086 permanent residency permits in Taiwan for 2016. That is, 68 out of every 100,000 Hongkongers went to reside in Taiwan.

Macau, population 600,000, had 1,772 residency permits and 187 permanent residency permits in Taiwan for 2016.  That is, 327 out of every 100,000 Hongkongers went to reside in Taiwan.

The more interesting demographic question is just what is driving these Macau citizens to flee to Taiwan, more so than Hongkongers?

What are their equivalent traumas of National Education, Occupy Central and Mong Kok riot?

Relevant link: Yellow Journalism.

- The Security Bureau merely publishes the number of those who applied for a certificate of no criminal conviction (CNCC), most probably in order to apply for an immigrant visa to elsewhere. Application does not automatically mean approval. So what is the number of visas?

Here is the number of Immigrant Visas issued by the United States in March 2017 for Hong Kong S.A.R.:

Visa Class Issuances
CR1 7
CR2 1
EW3 1
F11 3
F12 2
F21 1
F24 1
F31 3
F32 2
F33 4
F41 16
F42 13
F43 28
FX1 1
FX2 1
FX3 1
IR1 8
IR2 2
IR5 8

That's a total of 103 for the month of March 2017.

For Fiscal Year 2016, the immigrant visas issued in Hong Kong S.A.R. were:

321 immediate relatives
1 special immigrant
903 family preference
83 employment preference
51 diversity immigrants
1359 TOTAL

At this rate, how quickly will the population of Hong Kong be depleted?

Why is this a news story? Is the news really that slow today?

- Let me see. If you lose 1359 persons each year out of 7,300,000, the population will dwindle to zero in 7,300,000 / 1,359 = 5,372 years. As John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."

- You still haven't figure out why this is a news story? Are you stupid or what? The answer is clearly that the story is being pushed by immigration agencies! Of course, they want to help you to apply to immigrate to the United States. They get paid their fee whether you are approved or not. So the important thing for them is that you should apply!

- (Oriental Daily) May 5, 2017. At the Wanchai Police Headquarters office where the applications for certificates of no criminal conviction are processed, we asked citizens why they came.

Mr. Lee plans to immigrate to Canada next month. He and his wife have been planning this for almost two years, and he has other families over there. He said that housing prices in Hong Kong are too high, "working people cannot afford to make the down payment." He thinks that it is hard to live in Hong Kong. Mr. Lee also said that the political environment in recent years is bad, with the various legislators not looking after the interests of the people. Mr. Lee has lost hope for the political prospects of Hong Kong and therefore he has decided to immigrate.

Mr. Wu works in the healthcare field. Her children are going to study in England, so she has decided to move her entire family over there. She has been planning this for five to six years. She decided to do this after the political chaos in the past several years. She said that she lost confidence in Hong Kong after the failure of the constitutional reform. She said that the fake asylum seekers and new Chinese immigrants are taking away resources from taxpayers like herself. She believes that it will be easy for her to adapt in England.

Mr. Hui works at a hair salon and thinks that he wants to be anywhere except here. "Every Hongkonger is unhappy." He said that the filibustering at the Legislative Council makes people want to leave.

Mr. Kwok works in the human resources field. He has not planned to immigrate and he is trying to develop his career. But if should have children later on, he will consider immigrating, because the education system in Hong Kong is not good for the next generation.

- On one hand, some people say that they are leaving because there is no FREEDOM/DEMOCRACY in Hong Kong, because the new Chinese immigrants are stealing the resources of Hong Kong, because schoolchildren are being brainwashed in school, because Hongkongers risk being kidnapped by Chinese national security agents, etc.

On the other hand, other people say that they are leaving because rule-of-law has been displaced by lawlessness (people can occupy the streets for 79 days and face no charges), because the Legislative Council is only interested in filibustering to sabotage governance, because the radicals want to destroy the Hong Kong economy by occupying/rioting in order to fight for non-issues such as self-determination/independence, because your children raised here may become wastrels and non-competitive, etc.

Background: VOA Prominent Communist Party Critic Guo Speaks With VOA China Service April 20, 2017.

(Apple Daily) May 2, 2017.

Ever since VOA interrupted its special interview with Guo Wengui, Apple Daily has interviewed him Wengui multiple times already. On April 23, Guo told Apple Daily that Chinese Ministry of State Security and the Chinese Public Security Bureau have multiple locations in Hong Kong to conduct surveillance, monitoring and eavesdropping of democrats and anti-China forces in Hong Kong. These locations include the Chinese Resources Building, the China Liaison Office, the former Xinhua News Agency, a club in Causeway Bay as well as other locations in Fotan, Taikoo Shing, etc. Guo said that, if required, he can provide the detailed addresses. He knows because he used to have ties with the Ministry of State Security.

Guo Wengui said that the Ministry of State Security has 200 to 300 plainclothes agent working at these locations. They break Hong Kong laws and violate One Country Two Systems. The mobile telephones of all several million people in Hong Kong are monitored by them.

Guo Wengui said that the former Ministry of State Security deputy minister Ma Jian was in charge of activities in Hong Kong. One of his underlings named Gao was the director in charge of monitoring the anti-Chinese democrats in Hong Kong. After Ma fell, Gao was seized back to China and tortured to death. Guo said that Gao told him privately that they were eavesdropping on the numerous Occupy Central people in Hong Kong.

Today Guo Wengui told Apple Daily that there is a safe house in Causeway Bay which is used to house those who are temporarily seized. "The people of Hong Kong knows nothing about this. Other people have put the knife to your necks and entered your bedroom, but you still want to listen to them talk about One Country Two Systems! The Hong Kong government is pretending that they don't know anything! I used to cooperate with the Ministry of State Security. Therefore I know best. They can seize the Hong Kong assets and properties of the Hong Kong suspects at will. Xiao Jianhua, Che Feng and others were like that. Lawless! Because you Hongkongers are kind, naive and patient, you have been used by these thieves. Hong Kong has become a city in which the Chinese law enforcement agencies can commit crimes at will under the slogan of One Country Two Systems!"

Guo said that he was taken to those locations by car. Therefore he will have to ask the driver about the exact addresses.

Internet comments:

- Next Media has been firing and hiring reporters like crazy? What is the deal?

The job specification for the new hires are: "Familiar with various social media platforms. Enjoys carefree creative writing."
That is to say, they are ditching the eggheads who believe in leftist retardism such as journalistic ethics and they are collecting creative writers with unbridled imagination.

- The reporter who wrote this particular report interviewed Guo Wengui and then failed to ask some very basic questions. But at least the reporter did not fill in the details in creative fashion.

For example, the person is in charge of monitoring anti-China democrats in Hong Kong is named Gao. Gao what? If the guy is so close to Guo that they can freely discuss these national security matters, shouldn't Guo know more than the family name? There is nobody to protect here, because Gao has been tortured to death already. And if Guo provides a full name, then the reporter can check whether a person by that name was ever a director of the Ministry of State Security.

- The "interview" was not conducted by normal telephone service. Instead, it was through voice messages over whatsapp, which gives the interviewee plenty of time to decide what to say and what not to say. The reporter cannot press further on an issue.

- According to Wikipedia, in the late 1960's, the Xinhua News Agency purchased a building on Queens Road East in Happy Valley to serve as its office building. On January 18, 2000, the Xinhua News Agency building was renamed the China Liaison Office. In 2001, the China Liaison Office moved to The Westpoint on Connaught Road West, Sai Wan district. The former location on 387-397 Queens Road East in Happy Valley became the four-star hotel Cosmopolitan Hotel in 2004 and then the Dorsett Wanchai Hong Kong hotel since 2016. So how many rooms in this hotel is the Ministry of State Security renting? Are there cheaper and less conspicuous choices? Do you have to tell all hotel workers and guests that floors 8 through 10 are restricted access areas at which the elevators won't stop?

- A club in Causeway Bay? Can Guo Wengui be a bit more specific? The Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club? The World Trade Centre Club? The Hongkong Japanese Club? But, no, it is just some 'club'.

- A club is going to have all sorts of people coming and going, including club members and their guests, employees and delivery persons. Why would you co-locate this with a surveillance centre with several hundred eavesdroppers? What is the explanation for these suspicious-looking mainlanders with military crew cuts going in and out of the fingerprint-locked door on the side?

- Everybody knows that the surveillance centers are located on top of Mount Parker, Hong Kong Island and Beacon Hill, Kowloon. They have to be located on high points. If you are located in Sai Wan or Causeway Bay, how can you monitor the signals in New Territories or Hong Kong Island south? The white-topped building structures on top of Mount Parker and Beacon Hill are secured facilities with private access roads. The cover is that they are Civil Aviation Department facilities operating Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR), but everybody knows that they are eavesdropping centers where the workers live and work.

- The China Resources Building? Wouldn't you want a surveillance/eavesdropping operation be located not in the same building as the Consular Department of the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FMCOPRC)?

- A safe house in Causeway Bay to keep detainees? Why do you want this to be located in the middle of Hong Kong Island? Someone will see you come and go at all times of day. Who are the hooded persons being taken in or out? One telephone call about a suspected kidnapping and the Hong Kong Police come rushing in. Why not Stonecutters Island? Or Shek Kong Airfield? Or Stanley Fort? Even if some Hong Kong citizen is known to be held inside these other facilities, the Hong Kong Police cannot enter and search because they belong to the People's Liberation Army Ground Force.

- If Guo Wengui really knows about the safe house in Causeway Bay, he can tell Apple Daily where it is and they will stake it out, gather sufficient evidence, publish it and then Guo Wengui's credibility will be solid hereafter. But he doesn't.

- In the first paragraph, "Guo said that, if required, he can provide the detailed addresses. He knows because he used to have ties with the Ministry of State Security." In the last paragraph, "Guo said that he was taken to those locations by car. Therefore he will have to ask the driver about the exact addresses." Well, here is a driver who knows much more about Chinese lawbreaking activities in Hong Kong than Guo Wengui. Find him already! He is the bigger story!

- "They can seize the Hong Kong assets and properties of the Hong Kong suspects at will." What? Does this mean that they can modify transaction records/land records at the Housing Department/Land Registry to take over your house at will without needing your agreement? If so, and they are thieves as Guo Wengui called them, then why don't they steal everybody else's houses/lands already?

- Specifically, Guo Wengui spoke of 房產賬號 (account numbers of real estate property). That is to say, Guo believes that as soon they know the 'account number' of someone's apartment, they can take possession. The Apple Daily reporter was uncurious about this extraordinary development in the Hong Kong real estate sector.

- Once they get the account number of your real estate property, they can use the Tianhe 1 supercomputer to crack the password on that account. Once they go in and change the password, you will be locked out of your real estate property forever. If you call the police to say that someone has stolen your real estate property, they will tell you that, as far as they are concerned, the owner of the property is whoever holds the password. This is what I understand Guo to be saying.

- Neither Guo Wengui nor the Apple Daily reporter understand the theory/practice of surveillance.

The analogy is with the surveillance camera systems. There are hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras around Hong Kong. There is no need to hire several hundred thousand workers to monitor these cameras on a real-time basis because nothing interesting is happening more than 99.99% of the time. The recorded videos become of interest only after something has happened (e.g. a robbery committed outside a convenience store, a row of motorcycles being set on fire, etc). Then the recorded videos are retrieved for the relevant time-space coordinates in order to learn what happened.

In like manner, it may be the case the government is siphoning all communications (text messages, whataspp messages, emails, telephone calls, etc) into a huge database. But they are not going to hire several hundreds of thousands of workers to process the data on a real-time basis because nothing interesting is happening more than 99.9999% of the time. The recorded data become of interest only when someone becomes a person of interest. Then that person's data history is retrieved from the database and that person and those whom he/she communicates with are monitored on a real-time basis.

There is no need to scare the population by telling them that the Chinese Communists (or the US National Security Agency) are monitoring everything that everybody says. It is neither feasible nor necessary for the Chinese Communists/NSA to do so.

- In the longer Next Weekly interview, Guo Wengui goes to explain how the corrupt Chinese government officials are implementing a plan to infiltrate Chinese people into Hong Kong. Guo does not seem to have made up his mind as to what conspiracy these corrupt Chinese government officials are running.

On one hand, the theory is that these corrupt Chinese government officials are greedy moneygrubbers who want to steal money from China and Hong Kong.

On the other hand, the theory is that these Chinese government officials want to destroy Hong Kong and therefore they have this whole plan of sending large number of Chinese immigrants into Hong Kong to dilute and divide Hong Kong's population and thus destroy the Hong Kong economy.

So why in the world are people like Ma Jian getting two apartment units in Tai Koo Shing from Guo Wengui as bribe, and then trying to destroy the Hong Kong real estate property market at the same time?

If Ma Jian and his ilk wants to destroy Hong Kong, shouldn't he told Guo Wengui to get him some apartments in Thailand or somewhere else?

- (SCMP) May 2, 2017.

A group of journalists at US ­government-funded broadcaster Voice of America (VOA) had been suspended after they were involved in an interview with Chinese fugitive tycoon Guo Wengui last month, one of the reporters said on Tuesday.

In a written reply to the South China Morning Post, the broadcaster confirmed the suspension of VOA Mandarin service chief ­Sasha Gong Xiaoxia and four ­other Mandarin service employees over the interview, but denied it had anything to do with the US or Chinese governments.

It said the decisions were “based on the journalistic principles of verification, balance and fairness that are standard industry practice and apply universally to all VOA services. There was no input whatsoever from the US government ... Pressure from the Chinese government played no role in any decision-making.”

Here is an example of the problems in that report:

(VOA) April 20, 2017.

“What I am going to show you are conversations I had with Mr. Fu Zhenhua,” Guo told VOA Mandarin Wednesday, “and what did he instruct me to do as the head of the national anti-corruption group.”

Fu Zhenhua is a top official of the Ministry of Public Security. “He tried to threaten me, to extort $50 million from me and already got $1.5 million U.S. dollars from me,” Guo said. “As long as I give him $50 million, he would guarantee the safety of my family members, they would release my employees, my family members, my brothers, my wife and my daughter. And also [he] would guarantee the safety of my assets. In addition, I would need to help him access some information.”

Chinese officials had expressed concerns to VOA about the interview beforehand, but declined repeated offers to rebut his claims during or after the segment aired. In the past, Guo has made allegations of secret businesses controlled by senior Chinese leaders or their families. He outlined more details in Wednesday’s interview, which have not yet been substantiated.

“He [Fu Zhenhua] instructed me to look for information on Wang Qishan,” Guo said. “He [Fu Zhenhua] said he was doing this on behalf of President Xi Jinping.” Wang Qishan, known as China’s anti-corruption tsar, is a senior leader of the Communist Party of China and the secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

“He [Fu Zhenhua] asked me to look for [information on] Secretary Wang Qishan and his relationship with Hainan Airlines. Secretary Wang Qishan’s nephew has stocks in Hainan Airlines,” Guo told VOA. Hainan Airlines is one of the largest airlines operating in China. “The wealth of Hainan Airlines after mergers and acquisitions, as we see in the past two or three years, involves almost a trillion” RMB, Guo said.

VOA cannot verify those accusations made by Guo.

At least VOA was forced to add that last sentence. But Apple Daily has no compunctions about publishing the interview with Guo Wengui in which no verification has been conducted and obvious questions are present.

When VOA cannot verify those accusations made by Guo, it has to be concerned that VOA are being used as a tool by a known corrupt person Guo Wengui to attack known anti-corruption Chinese fighters such as Wang Qishan.

- “The journalistic principles of verification, balance and fairness that are standard industry practice and apply universally to all VOA services" does not just mean letting Guo Wengui have his say and then inviting a Chinese government spokesperson have equal time for a rebuttal. It means that VOA has to do some due diligence to verify Guo's assertions. If and when this is a live broadcast, and Guo seems to be getting unhinged on some of his allegations, what would VOA do?

- Are there Chinese Ministry of State Security agents in Hong Kong? Of course, there are. There has to be. Hong Kong has agents for the CIA (USA), SIS/MI6 (UK), GRU (Russia), BND (Germany), DGSE (France), ASIS (Australia), Mossad (Israel), National Intelligence Service (Republic of Korea), Research and Analysis Wing (India), etc. Why wouldn't there be Chinese Ministry of State Security agents here?

(Oriental Daily with video) May 2, 2017.

The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council met today to discuss the allocation of HK$6 billion from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau to be injected as capital stock in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

A legislator pointed out that there was a mistake in the government's documents. Finance Committee chairman Chan Kin-por ruled that this was merely a typographical error and refused to reject the document. Legislator Leung Kwok-hung said that Chan Kin-por was unfair. He said that legislators are "eggheads" (in English) who are bullied by the "dickhead" (in English) government officials. Pro-establishment legislators said that this was vulgar language. Chan Kin-por demanded that Leung retract what he said. When Leung refused, Chan ejected him from the meeting.

Leung refused to leave. Chan decided to call a 5-minute adjournment. When the meeting was resumed, Chan Kin-por denounced that saying "dickhead" is setting a bad example for children and causing embarrassment among ladies. Chan ejected Leung once more. But the pan-democratic legislators formed a circle around Leung and defended him. In the end, Chan decided to adjourn the meeting for the day.

At the same time, someone thought that Chan Kin-por used vulgar language himself, wherein the sentence directed at legislator Cheng Chung-tai, wherein the sentence "If you speak any further, I will stop you from speaking" came out as "Fuck, you speak any further, I will stop you from speaking."

Afterwards, Leung met with the press. He said that his use of "dickhead" was inoffensive. He said that the chairman could have asked him to retract, or rule that the term should not be used in a Legislative Council meeting. Leung said that "dickhead" corresponds with "egghead" and the chairman should not associate it with other meanings. He said that the ruling was inexplicable. He said that if Chan found it offensive, he should point that out directly. He said that Chan ordered him to leave without explanation. Leung said that when a word has multiple meanings, the chairman should ask the legislator just which was the intended meaning instead of just ejecting him.

Leung said that "Dickhead' refers to a stubborn, unreasonable person, or a fool. He said that a committee chairman should have intelligence and knowledge, and it is important to know about culture, literature and human behavior. He said that Chan is hysterical in his effort to support the government. He called on Chan to take a break, visit a psychiatrist and let the vice-chairman take over meetings.

Chan Kin-por said that he rarely objects to vulgar language. Although his English is not good, the language here was clearly vulgar. Many female government officials told him that they were offended. Therefore Chan had to deplore the behavior.

As for the charge that he also used vulgar language, Chan said that he might have slurred. His situation is different from deliberately saying and repeating vulgar language. He apologized for his pronunciation and promised that he will speak properly in the future. He emphasized that he would never be so shameless as deny that he used vulgar language.

Internet comments:

- Leung Kwok-hung was adamant that "dickhead" is not vulgar language. He also said that "dick" is not vulgar either, and he tells people to look up the dictionary.

(Merriam-Webster) Dickhead

usually vulgar
: A stupid or contemptible person.

origin and etymology
: dick (penis) + head

(Wikipedia) Dick

Dick is an English language euphemism used for a variety of slang purposes, some generally considered vulgar. It is used to refer to the penis, and by extension as a verb to describe sexual activity. It is also used as a pejorative term for individuals who are considered to be rude, abrasive, inconsiderate, or otherwise contemptible. In this context, it can be used interchangeably with jerk, and can also be used as a verb to describe rude or deceitful actions. Variants include dickhead, which literally refers to the glans.

- In 2001, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published guidelines that summarized instances in which a number of media outlets had violated indecency laws when using the word "dick" in a sexual context. These included, for example, the State University of New York's WSUC-FM, in Cortland, New York, which in 1993 was fined for broadcasting a rap titled "I'm Not Your Puppet", which referenced "shoving my dick up this bitch's behind" in one lyric, and stated in another, "I pulled out my dick, popped it in her mouth, and she sucked it".

- More English lessons from Leung Kwok-hung:

(HKG Pao) May 6, 2017.

Yesterday morning at the Security Committee meeting, the subject were the legislator councilors who were denied entry into Macau. Leung Kwok Fung talked about Macau Chief Executive Fernando Chui Sai On: "The figurehead of the Macau ... that is, the leader ... he is a shithead ... that is, a foot!" He continued: "Will Chui Sai On be allowed to enter Hong Kong? Of course not! He is a figurehead, he is a shithead! Let me repeat once more. Anyone who won't let people in is a shithead!"

Yesterday after at the Financial Committee meeting, the allocation of funds to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was the subject. Leung Kwok-hung challenged the committee chairman Chan Kin-por: "If you have to apologize for a slip of the tongue, you should not be the chairman, brother. What will happen if you use vulgar language frequently?" Then he rattled off a list of English 'head' nouns: "Dickhead, thickheaded, shithead, warhead." Chan ignored this persistent effort to get ejected, and made Leung Kwok-hung sat through the entire meeting and thus earn his pay.

- (Oriental Daily) May 6, 2017.

At the afternoon meeting of the Finance Committee, Leung Kwok-hung wanted to bring up again his motion on Tuesday to adjourn. He said: "I won't say that you are a dickhead. I will say that you are thickheaded, but I don't know if you can be a shithead or perhaps a warhead. You cannot be like a dickhead, you must not use a warhead to shoot someone. Listen to this lecture!" On this occasion, Chan Kin-por did not respond at all, and made no ruling on what Leung said. When Leung finished, Chan went on to ask the next legislator to speak.

At the previous meeting, Leung used vulgar language and Chan expelled Leung. In the end, that meeting was called off ahead of schedule. Perhaps Chan got smarted and refused to be baited anymore.

- What 'head' has not been used by Leung Kwok-hung yet?
Airhead
Blockhead
Bonehead

Butthead
Cementhead
Dunderhead
Fathead
Fuckhead
Hammerhead
Knucklehead

Lunkhead
Meathead


Hong Kong Independence
Hong Kong National Party
District Speech
Date: April 30
Outside Serenade Chinese Restaurant, Hong Kong Cultural Centre
Time: 430pm-530pm

(Wen Wei Po) May 1, 2017.

About 20 masked Hong Kong National Party members showed up outside the Serenade Chinese Restaurant outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre to prepare to get the speech going.

Several Leisure and Cultural Services Department workers informed Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin that the location had been rented to other groups already and asked Chan to leave.

Chan Ho-tin said that he will move his event to the harbor front opposite to the Tsim Sha Tsui clock tower. The masked individuals then moved their equipment to Pier 4 and set up again.

The Leisure and Cultural Services Department workers informed Chan that they are in violation of the regulations on venue activities. Chan said: "You must be joking." Then they ignored the LCSD workers and went ahead. The LSCD workers called the police, who came but did not do anything. The speech finally began at 530pm and lasted for about one hour.

In his speech, Chan Ho-tin said that this is the first speech given by the Party. There were many obstacles, but they managed to provide "political enlightenment" for the citizens. The theme of the speech today is that about the housing crisis. Twenty years after the handover, "the Chinese kept coming to rob the resources of Hong Kong so that citizens have no hope of ever owning a house."

Internet comments:

- The Hong Kong National Party said beforehand that they expect less than 50 people to attend. The photos and videos show lots of people, but there seem to be many more HKNP workers (20 of them) and plenty more reporters. However, the event drew lost of media coverage. Unfortunately the media had no interest in what Chan Ho-tin had to say. So how many citizens were "enlightened" today?

- Masks for everybody? Why are you so afraid of advocating Hong Kong independence? The Falun Gong people are much more courageous than you.

- They are suffering from a case of mass infection of "Hong Kong independence poison" and therefore they wear surgical masks to stop the germs from spreading.

- When you take your dog out for a walk in the street, you have to put a muzzle on it. When you take your independence advocate out for a speech in the street, you have to put a mask on him.

- When Hong Kong triad gangsters want to make a show of force, they put on gloves and chew on drinking straws.

- If you mom spots you on television news, she is going to cut off your allowance and then you will have to get a real job.

- The Localists have a favorite saying: "We are born in a time of chaos and the people cannot make a living." That is why We the People have to rise up and overthrow the tyrants! The problem is that they look like well-fed compared to other people in places such as Afghanistan or Syria. In the case, Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin looked pretty well-kept, doesn't he?

- The theme of today's talk was the housing crisis, because citizens despair that they will ever own their own apartment. Chan Ho-tin has his own housing problem.

(Wen Wei Po) April 29, 2017.

The Hong Kong National Party is most active in raising money. Earlier this month, the group tried to get the City University Student Union to sell their pro-independence accessories, but the school's administration and student union council vetoed it. At this time, the Hong Kong National Party rents a 1,000-square-feet unit in a Tuen Mun industrial building for about $150,000 per annum. But recently they have been checking with property agents about switching to a smaller unit. At present, the two Hong Kong National Party leaders Chan Ho-tin and Jason Chow Ho-fair have no steady jobs and are living with their families in public housing units. According to neighbors, Chow does not seem to have to work: "He goes out late in the day as if he had just woken up. He saunters around downstairs while p laying with his mobile phone. He looks 100% like a 'young wastrel'."

Chan and Chow's housing problems are due to their refusal to get proper jobs. They have never worked since graduating from university. They may have figure that advocating independence may be more lucrative than a regular job, but perhaps the election of Donald Trump has stopped the money flow.

- Why do these people seem to have so much in resources without having to work? There are two opposite theories. On one hand, they are getting money from the CIA/National Endowment for Democracy to start a Color Revolution. On the other hand, they are getting money from the China Liaison Office to destroy self-determination/independence through acts of gross incompetence to justify the government crackdown.

- The obstacles that the HKNP encountered during this event were due to the fact that they could not obtain corporate registration. Their application was rejected because the stated purpose of the group contravenes the Basic Law. Without corporate registration, they cannot obtain an event permit from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department.

- Chan Ho-tin said that he was exercising the citizen's freedom of expression. This means that he does not need to apply for any event permits. Do regular citizens need 20 people to carry equipment (backdrops, flags, sound equipment, etc) to exercise their freedom of expression? Is that what they have at the Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park (London)?

- The Chinese Communist Party won China by using guns and ammo. If the Hong Kong National Party wants to win Hong Kong, they must use guns and ammo too. But if all they do is deliver speeches to "enlightenment citizens" into donating more money to them, then they are just swindlers.

- On this same day, there is another incident that increases the fear among Hongkongers. But the Hong Kong National Party and other Localists have no intention of doing anything.

(Wen Wei Po) May 1, 2017.

The area around Wong Chuk Street and Maple Street in the Sham Shiu Po district, Kowloon has a lot of recycling centers that hire part-time South Asian workers to move materials. The business is controlled by several Indians with triad backgrounds. Recently some Pakistanis have moved into the area to compete for the business. This has led to conflicts.

At around 7pm on April 16, several South Asians quarreled outside a convenience store on Wong Chu Street. There was a fight and one person was injured by a glass bottle smashed against his head.

At around 10pm on the night before yesterday, the two sides decided to "discuss" at the Maple Street soccer field. More than a dozen Indians showed up first, some of them carrying golf clubs. Shortly afterwards, about 40 Pakistanis showed up in cars and by foot. Without saying anything, they charged onto the soccer field with knives, metal pipes and glass bottles. The Indians fought back with golf clubs. The fight spilled onto Cheung Sha Wan Road and Wong Chuk Street.

The Indians were outnumbered and began to retreat. The Pakistanis pursued and threw objects at them, including handcarts by the roadside. Citizens fled and passing cars braked. The police received multiple emergency calls.

The police showed up in force with batons and shields. The two parties immediately dispersed. A large number of weapons and broken glass shards were left on the soccer field, pavements and roads. The police searched for the combatants. They arrested five injured Indians on Cheung Sha Wan Road and Lai Chee Kok Road. 

- Why won't the Hong Kong National Party do anything about the South Asian fake asylum seekers stealing the resources of the Hong Kong Nation? Because those guys have golf clubs, metal pipes and knives! It is far less risky to beat up Chinese grannies, pregnant women and small children.

- (SCMP) China’s bewildering focus on a fringe group spooks Hong Kong, deters investors. By Peter Guy. May 1, 2017.

Athenian statesman Themistocles said: “I cannot fiddle, but I can make a small town into a great state.”

The Hong Kong of the ’80s and ’90s held out that hope of becoming a great global city state of business, but today it is dragged down by internecine and nonsensical political strife.

Despite victories on the constitutional and judicial fronts over separatists and independence agitators, Wang Zhenmin, legal chief of the central government’s liaison office, said the “one country, two systems” policy under which Hong Kong is guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for half a century might be scrapped if it became a tool to confront Beijing.

Wang warned that autonomy could diminish if Hongkongers continued to challenge national security. “The more Hong Kong fails to actively defend the sovereignty, national security and development interests of the country in accordance to the law, the more wary the country might be on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the ‘two systems’. There would be less room for its autonomy,” he said.

For a city trying to evolve into a new, digital economy, any threats to creative thought are bad for business and for attracting the freest thinkers.

Few dispute that an independent Hong Kong is a wildly impractical idea. But I wonder what would happen if an imaginative writer like myself produced a book, video game and movie version of Tom Clancy’s Op-Center and replaced the plot with a story about separatist Hong Kong student leaders working with US Navy Seals and CIA operatives to take over the city in an astonishing coup?

Even though America has been destroyed numerous times in box-office hit films, my idea would be so comically and realistically subversive that I might be invited for a booksellers’ long weekend in China.

My point is that applying the communist dialectic playbook for purges to free civil society like Hong Kong only frightens the local and expatriate populace and foreign businesses for the simple reason that there are so few separatists or independence seekers among us.

Warnings of foreign anti-China forces making use of a post-transition Hong Kong as a subversion base for China-containment purposes are not useful in confronting the most important economic challenges we are facing.

By magnifying the unworkable ideas of a small group seeking something that is impossible, China only stokes doubt in investors. Many foreign and local businesspeople are quite simply bewildered at the amount of unrelenting wailing and frothing over a tiny group of independence seekers.

Throughout its history, Hong Kong has always managed to find its economic balance and usefulness to China and the world. Adaptive, pragmatic and audacious locals and foreigners always doubled down their bets and prospered after the 1967 riots, the 1970s oil crisis, the 1984 Joint Declaration and all the property crashes and bank failures in between. Hong Kong now must find its fulcrum in the 21st-century melee.

So without any constraints, chasing the ghouls of separatism only feeds the propaganda machine that is not looking for the truth, but a story. The central government appears to be pursuing Hong Kong independence insurrectionists with the same religious zeal that the Holy See pursued apparitions of the Virgin Mary during the Renaissance.

Ultimately, Wang’s remarks, parroted by local officials, are discouraging and dispiriting for the business community that absolutely, not relatively, depends on the Basic Law. Such threats disenfranchise Hong Kong people by saying they cannot truly be Chinese citizens.

- "For a city trying to evolve into a new, digital economy, any threats to creative thought are bad for business and for attracting the freest thinkers." It is in the interest of Hong Kong to evolve into a new, digital economy with the freest and most creative thinkers. What is the interest of Beijing? Do they need Hong Kong as a new digital economy? No, they don't because the new Silicon Valley is already in Shenzhen. What do they need? Protecting sovereignty, national security and development interests.

- "Few dispute that an independent Hong Kong is a wildly impractical idea." Why don't you tell it to Chan Ho-tin? Maybe the idea is impractical, but he is bent on talking about it (in order to raise more money so that he can talk even more about it).

- "Wang’s remarks, parroted by local officials, are discouraging and dispiriting for the business community that absolutely, not relatively, depends on the Basic Law." The Basic Law? Let us start with Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." You are tossing out the Basic Law if you support independence/self-determination.

- When the LCSD worker told Chan to stop, he said: "You are joking." What does that mean? Chan means to say that he is a citizen of the Hong Kong Nation, and therefore the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China are not applicable to him.

- If and when Chan Ho-tin starts something like the Mong Kok riot, it will be much more discouraging and dispiriting for the business community than Wang's remarks.

- (ETnet.com.hk) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. May 2, 2017.

A few days ago, the pro-Hong Kong independence Hong Kong National Party of 20 masked persons led by Chan Ho-tin held a discussion forum outside Serenade Chinese Restaurant, Hong Kong Cultural Centre with Hong Kong independence banners in front of several dozen reporters.

This is the first time I have ever seen an event in which both speakers and attendees were masked.

It is bad enough to have a public speech on Hong Kong independence. Worse yet, this event holders never applied for a permit to hold a public meeting. Chan Ho-tin said that it was because the Hong Kong National Party had not been able to register as a social group, and therefore cannot applied for a permit from the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. According to the news reporters, many LCSD workers and Cultural Centre workers asked the Hong Kong National Party to leave because the location was rented to other parties. However, the individuals in mask paid no attention, and continued to raise their banners and set up their audio system. The workers had to summon the police.

Amazingly, the police were unable to to do anything to them. So the speech took place under the watchful eyes of the police and the LCSD workers. The so-called rule-or-law seemed to have gotten out of hand nowadays.

When a group of lawless people publicly engage in unlawful behavior, the law enforcement agents and property managers can only watch them even though their numbers are several times more.

If the group of people were triad gangsters using megaphones to recruit new members, do you think that they would be arrested immediately?

If the group of people were unlicensed itinerant vendors who say: "Yes, I don't have a license", "No, they wouldn't issue a license to me in this location", "Do you think I want to do this?", "CY Leung has lousy policies" ... do you think that they would be arrested immediately.

Arrest is a certainty in the two examples above. So why are Chan Ho-tin's masked gang allowed to operate freely? Are you afraid that they may get upset? Or are you worried about the several dozen reporters with cameras in hand?

But if those were triad gangsters who brought reporters with them, would you hesitate?

I remember that a frontline police commander telling me during Occupy Admiralty: "The orders from above are that our first commandment no matter what happens is: Don't create scene. Simply put, we have to hold back. As soon as you arrest someone, you create a scene."

We may consider that to be a strategy during the Occupy Central period. But when you are forbidden to "create a scene" in everyday matters, then we will never ever have peace.

Reference: The Revolution Begins Today...


The Nine Heroes/Martyrs

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2017.

Police have arrested up to nine activists on Thursday – they are expected to be charged with participating in unlawful assembly and for public disorder following a protest five months ago against an impending Basic Law interpretation by Beijing.

Avery Ng Man-yuen, the chairman of the League of Social Democrats, was charged with two counts of inciting disorderly conduct in a public place, according to a Facebook post by his party.

The others arrested include:

They were unable to contact Victor Wong Hon-leung, a former deputy secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students. Reports said he has been arrested as well.

Demosisto and the League of Social Democrats said they expected they would be charged with unlawful assembly and public disorder, among other possible charges.

Internet comments:

- Why elevate to the level of a systematic White Terror political persecution? Go review what happened on that day (see, for example, the 9:28 long summary TVB news report the next day). Was there an unlawful gathering? Yes, there was, by any standard. So can we let the courts decide whether the accused were culpable?

- Was this a breach of peace? Did the passengers in the trams have cause to be afraid? Are they prevented from going home?

- (NOW TV) Legislative Councilor Nathan Law said that these arrests are politically motivated oppression which won't help to mend social divisions.

If you arrest and prosecute the people who breached the peace, it is a political decision that won't help to mend social divisions. But if you won't arrest and prosecute them, it is also a political decision which won't help to mend social divisions.

So what kind of society do you want? A rule-of-law society in which all lawbreakers are arrested and prosecuted irrespective of political beliefs? Or a rule-of-man society in which some lawbreakers cannot be arrested and prosecuted because of their political beliefs?

- Avery Ng: "The police are using anti-triad methods against me."

If three or more triad gang members get together and breach the peace, the police arrest them for unlawful gathering under the Public Order Ordinance.
If three or more pro-democracy activists get together and breach the peace, the police must not arrest them for unlawful gathering under the Public Order Ordinance.
What does this mean? It means that the social group known as "pro-democracy activists" is above and beyond the law. They enjoy special privileges that others don't. Is this democracy?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 27, 2017.

Beijing mouthpiece Wen Wei Po raised eyebrows after it “predicted” the arrests of several pro-democracy activists on Thursday. The report was apparently compiled hours before the actual arrests took place. On page A5 of its Thursday edition, Wen Wei Po said it had an “exclusive” scoop, reporting that as many as ten activists would soon be arrested for their participation in the November protest.

“We learned that police will launch a new round of arrests today, at the earliest” it wrote. “Nearly 10 people will be arrested, including the leader of a political party and active members of new opposition groups. They may face charges such as organising and participating in an unlawful assembly.”

- “Does this mean police are teaming up with Beijing-backed papers? Don’t police owe an explanation to the public?” said Tommy Cheung, who is facing prosecution for his leading role in the 2014 pro-democracy movement. Activist Joshua Wong of the Demosisto party also urged police to explain how the pro-Beijing paper obtained the information.

- Well, you cannot go ask Wen Wei Po where they got their information from, because protecting a source is the foundation of freedom of press. Even the Journalists Association/Reporters Without Borders will concur.

- And now we come to this fact of life: Nowadays Wen Wei Po is much more readable and informative than Apple Daily. Most of the time, I skip when I see an Apple Daily story because I think that it is more likely fictional than not. But Wen Wei Po has some interesting exclusive stories that turn out to be accurate afterwards.

- A good starting point is to ask legislators Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong and Lam Cheuk-ting about how they got their information on the ICAC investigations of Chief Executive CY Leung's UGL deal.

- Leaking an arrest ahead of time gives the target persons the chance to run to the foreign consulates to seek political asylum. So the police must plug the leak.

- (Wen Wei Po) April 28, 2017.

Our reporter waited for many days. Finally at 730am yesterday morning, we saw a group of plainclothes policemen arrived downstairs of where Avery Ng lives. About half an hour later, two officers brought down the blue-suit-dress Avery Ng to the gate. At this time, three other officers waiting outside the building went up to Avery Ng, issued the standard caution and checked identification.

This scene drew the attention of security guards and residents who approached to observe. Whereas Avery Ng is known to be the articulate, brilliant and valiant General in front of the media, he now seemed nervous and unresponsive to the questions from the police. He thought for a while before he answered. When he saw people pointing at him and discussion among themselves, he seemed very embarrassed. He lowered his head as if he wanted to evade something. Some residents who did not know him asked: "Who is that?" Other residents who knew about him said: "Hey, General, why do you look so lame?"

Soon, the police officers completed the preliminary procedure and directed Avery Ng to go with them to the parking lot. Ng took out his mobile telephone and seemed to be calling a friend to tell him about the arrest. Finally, the two policemen escorted Ng into the van. At this moment, it began to rain heavily. An old man suddenly said: "Time's up!"

Now this news report seems to imply that Wen Wei Po had patiently staked out Avery Ng's residence for quite some time before detecting signs that an arrest was imminent.

- (Apple Daily) On Facebook, Yau Wai-ching wrote "Even though we may have thousands and thousands of different ideas, we have an even larger common enemy." She wrote that only tyrannical regimes push people to protest in the streets. The ordinances on public order and unlawful gathering refer to "breach of peace." Who is responsible for breaching the peace? "The protestors or Chinese Communist tyranny? The answer is almost self-evident." The essay said that organizations such as Youngspiration, Demosisto and League of Social Democrats will not be spared by the tyrants, and therefore they must all rise up and oppose the tyrannical regime. "Holding illusions about the authoritarian regime will ultimately result in being used up and discarded."

- Photographic evidence in support of Yau Wai-ching's thesis: 'Chinese Communists' digging out bricks from the pavement to throw at Hong Kong citizens.'

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Human rights watchdog Amnesty International has urged the Hong Kong government to stop its “orchestrated” campaign to prosecute dissidents, following Thursday’s surprise arrests of nine activists over their participation in a protest last November. “The repeated use of vague charges against prominent figures in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement reeks of an orchestrated and retaliatory campaign by the authorities to punish those that advocate for democracy in Hong Kong,” said Mabel Au, director of Amnesty International Hong Kong. She said the government attempted to discourage participation in peaceful protests through the prosecution of activists. “The Hong Kong government should be protecting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” she added, “but instead it appears intent on intimidating people who are challenging the authorities.”

- More photos of pro-democracy activists exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly in Hong Kong that night.

- What is the relationship between lawmakers and law?

25 Hong Kong pan-democratic Legislative Councilors sign a letter
to strongly condemn the CY Leung government for prosecuting in accordance with the law the rioters who have broken Hong Kong laws.

- Hong Kong University Students Union Facebook

Since the winning of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor in the Chief Executive Election, the de facto communist regime of Hong Kong has started persecution against the dissidents of the government. The slaughters of rebels are coming one after another. The crackdown begins with the police launching arrests of the participants of the Umbrella Revolution, including Chan Suk Chong, Lee Wing Tat, Wong Ho Ming, Cheung Sau Yin, Shiu Ka Chun, Chung Yiu Wa, Tai Yiu Ting, Chan Kin Man and Chu Yiu Ming. Elected Legislative Councillors Leung Chung Hang and Yau Wai Ching have also been arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and attempted forced entry into the conference room of the Legislative Council. It is undoubtedly legitimate for Legislative Councillors to enter the conference room and participate in the meetings, and thus, the decision made by the President of the Legislative Council Leung Kwan Yuen that the two could not enter the room was already sheer absurdity in the first place. The government has gone as far as charging the two in order to suppress opposing forces. Participants of the demonstration against the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People’s Congress including Lam Shun Hin and Lam Long Yin have also been arrested yesterday morning. The Students’ Union condemns such attempts by the government to terrorise our people for it is merely creating a reign of terror through the state apparatus in order to subjugate us to the authoritarian rule of the puppet Chief Executive.

It is alarming that the activists facing the suppression all have very different positions in the political spectrum, implying that in the future no one can be promised to be safe and immune. We must now eschew our unrealistic expectation on the government that it genuinely hopes to ‘heal the social divide’ and ‘communicate constantly’. People with various political views, be it supporting independence, self-determination or universal suffrage, will all be labelled as separatists by the government. We must not succumb to the abominable regime, but at the same time, we know our future will be rife with woes and obstacles. To those who simply want to enjoy freedom and rule of law but have yet to take concrete actions to fight for them, remember, no man is an island entire of itself, so do not ask for whom the bell tolls – it is now tolling for every one of us.

The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
28 April 2017

(Schoolmates who will be or who have been arrested please contact the Students’ Union and we will provide all possible assistance within our capacity.)

- (Ta Kung Pao) April 28, 2017.

What happened on that night in November last year? The Civil Human Rights Front organized a demonstration march to protest the National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law. The demonstrators gathered at Shelton Sports Ground in Wanchai and marched towards the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan. During the march, people can see the pro-Hong Kong independence banners including "Hong Kong is not China." and the British Dragon-Lion flags. Therefore some people considered this demonstration march to be a show of force by the pro-independence people.

When the marchers arrived at the China Liaison Office, some of them deliberately provoked the police by charging at the metal barricades.


[In this photo, the police were content to stay behind two rows of metal barricades to keep the demonstrators on the sidewalk and off the roadway in order to let vehicular/tram traffic continue to run on Connaught Road West. The demonstrators (including at least two of the arrestees) are charging and pushing at the barricades). This is Occupy Sai Wan in which the demonstrators will occupy the roadway, stop all traffic and prevent the police from clearing the road.]

More people arrived and the demonstrators went on the roadway to paralyze traffic on the road. Some policemen were violently attacked and sustained injuries. The demonstrators clearly came prepared because they carried umbrellas and masks. They even began to dig out bricks from the pavement. The Hong Kong University Students Union provided lots of bottled water. So this was a pre-meditated pre-planned violent attack.

... We must be clear on two things.

Firstly, is legal responsibility applicable only on the basis of political position? Citizens are very clear on this. If you break the law, you bear legal responsibility. This is true no matter who you are. If former Chief Executive Donald Tsang has to go to jail for his crime, then why should 'pro-democracy' activists be spared for their misdeeds? If you let the convicted Mong Kok rioters go, then it implies impunity for all future 'pro-democracy' riots.

Secondly, was this pre-planned political persecution? The basis for this statement is a single newspaper article, which clearly stated that it was "speculation" without any substantive details (no WHO, WHEN, WHAT, WHERE, HOW). Once Franklin Chu and the Nine Men/Women were arrested, speculations were rampant about who's next: the Occupy Central trio? Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for the clash at the Legislative Council? Occupy Sai Wan? etc. They are likely targets. Even now, speculations are rampant about who's next next: Jimmy Lai for Occupy Central? Joshua Wong and Nathan Law for the Zhang Dejiang visit?

There is a Chinese saying about the rule-of-man: 「只許州官放火,不許百姓點燈」 ("The provincial government officials are allowed to set off fires, but the common folks are not even allowed to light a lantern"). The pan-democrats have updated this saying: 「只許泛民暴力衝擊,不許警方依法拘捕」("The pan-democrats are allowed to charge violently, but the police cannot even arrest them in accordance with the law.").

- (Ta Kung Pao) April 28, 2017.

With respect to being arrested by the police, the arrestees questioned whether this was "politically motivated prosecution." They said that they are being oppressed for trying to defend democracy in Hong Kong blah blah blah.

The police made these arrests in accordance with the law. On that day, what the League of Social Democrats and Demosisto members did outside the China Liaison Office was seen by eyewitnesses and television viewers. The case against them will be based upon videos and testimonies from eyewitnesses. If there was no evidence against them, the police would not have arrested them, the Department of Justice would not have prosecuted them and the court will not rule against them.

It is true that the nine were politically motivated when they violently charged at the China Liaison Office in order to protest the NPCSC interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. But they are being prosecuted for breaking the law, not for their politics. Claiming "political persecution" won't get them off.

- (NOW TV) 1:55 League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen called on the demonstrators to hurdle the metal barricades and get on Connaught Road West. The police raised the red flag again and arrested Ng. Many people tried to prevent that. The police swung batons against those who tussled with them. After a wrestling match, the police took Ng away.

Repeated at at 3:13.

- (Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) May 6, 2017. On November 6, 2016, the Anti-Basic Law Interpretation demonstration march set off at 330pm from Luard Road (Wanchai) to the Court of Final Appeal. Some of the demonstrators continued to march to the China Liaison Office. Since there was no application for this part, the police set up a temporary demonstration area outside the Kwan Yick Building. But some of the demonstrators insisted that they must demonstrate right outside the China Liaison Office.

At this time, Avery Ng suddenly sat on the top of the metal barrier and used a megaphone to say, "We have more numbers than the police. We can just climb over like this. It is blocked ahead." After he said that, defendants Dickson Chau Ka-faat and Sammy Ip ignored the police warnings and climbed over the metal barriers. The police approached Avery Ng and attempted to pull him down to arrest him. Defendants Chau and Ip held onto to Ng from the other side. A police chief inspector swung his baton at the arms of Chau and Ip. The two attempted to seize the baton but failed. It is alleged that Chau hit the police chief inspector twice in the face.

Ng is charged with two counts of incitement of others to create public nuisance. Ip is charged with one count of unlawful gathering and one count of obstruction of police business. Chau is charged with one count of assaulting a police officer and one count of obstruction of police business.

- (Oriental Daily) April 28, 2017.

League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen will be a busy beaver on the next few days. On May 5 at 230am, he will appear in Eastern Court for the Occupy Sai Wan case. On the morning of May 5, he will appear in Eastern Court for a pretrial hearing for common assault because Ng allegedly threw a sandwich at Chief Executive CY Leung on Legislative Council voting day. On May 8, he will appear in court again lodging a complaint at the ICAC and then telling the press afterwards.

Is this political persecution against the chairman of a dissident political party? Take a look at the evidence.

Case #1 Occupy Sai Wan: Videos taken by various news outlets show Avery Ng using a public address system to tell everybody to breach the police barricades and took the leap himself first.

Case #2 Legco election: Videos taken by various news outlets showed Avery Ng tossing an object in the direction of Chief Executive CY Leung.

Case #3 ICAC investigation: Videos taken by various news outlets of Avery Ng telling everybody about what he did down at the ICAC.

There is reasonable cause in each case. Should these cases be nullified because the defendant happens to be Avery "The General" Ng Man-yuen, chairman of the League of Social Democrats?

- If I brought a bunch of people to crash into the LSD offices, Avery Ng would call the police to have me arrested and charged.

- If I tossed a sandwich at Avery Ng, he would call the police to have me arrested and charged.

- If I filed a frivolous complaint at the ICAC against Avery Ng and tell the press about the juicy details, Avery Ng would expect the ICAC to have me arrested and charged.

- Favorite derivative art on the Internet

 

- (Silentmajority.hk) May 1, 2017.

With respect to the arrests of Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, their former assistants and the nine Occupy Sai Wan men, Joshua Wong (Demosisto) got on radio and declared that the police had "washed the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」) before the new Carrie Lam administration takes over.

Joshua Wong must have watched too many Hong Kong gangster movies, but he never bothered to find out about the true background of the term "wash the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」). He thought that he was making a brilliant criticism on the police, but he ended up becoming a joke.

What is "wash the peaceful ground" (「洗太平地」)? Back in 1894, there was a major outbreak of bubonic plague ("Black Death") in Hong Kong. The most seriously hit area was around Tai Ping Shan Road (=Peaceful Mountain Road) in the Sheung Wan district. The government took rigorous steps to stop this outbreak. They used germ-killing water to clean the Tai Ping Shan Road area, and they fumigated every house with sulfur. The bubonic plague was stopped. Thus, 「洗太平地」refers to a thorough cleaning to eradicate the problems. Years later, the term would be used to refer to the police going into an area and sweeping all illegal activities (gambling, prostitution, drug abuse) in order to bring peace back.

So when Joshua Wong said that the Hong Kong Police is acting to "wash the peaceful ground", he is acknowledging that his political allies are causing trouble in Hong Kong in the same way as "bubonic plague" and "gambling/prostitution/drug abuse). Such being the case, the Hong Kong Police is doing the right thing by getting rid of these vermin.

Reference: "I Have Sworn My Oath" (2016/11/02); Epoch Times news report

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 26, 2017.

Ousted lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang have been arrested for allegedly participating in an unlawful assembly. Police visited them at their residences on Wednesday morning and took them to the Central Police Station at around 7am, their office said. The duo was transferred to the Police Headquarters in Wan Chai and then sent back to the Central Police Station. A legislative aide to the duo was also taken to the Central Police Station, according to their office. Under the Public Order Ordinance, the offence carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison upon conviction on indictment, or a HK$5,000 fine and three years in prison upon summary conviction

Internet comments:

- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance Section 18 Unlawful Assembly

(1)When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(2)It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if being assembled, they conduct themselves in such a manner as aforesaid.

(3)Any person who takes part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of the offence of unlawful assembly and shall be liable—  (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

- Youngspiration Facebook

Youngspiration received information from Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching at 7am this morning that the police have come to their homes and arrested them. At this time, they are being detailed at the Wanchai Police Headquarters. We have arranged for lawyers to assist them. We will post any new information as soon as possible.
[9:45 update] The charge is "unlawful gathering." The former legislator aides of the two are being brought to the police station.


We will absolutely not give up - Youngspiration

This morning, Sixtus "Baggio" Leung and Wai-Ching Yau of Youngspiration, their assistants and a few volunteers, were arrested by the Hong Kong Police.

In this grave hour, Youngspiration wishes to send a message to all Hongkongers and all freedom-loving people in this world: Over and over again, Hongkongers have tried to find a peaceful way to achieve what was promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which is to achieve democratic autonomy in Hong Kong, but it has been in vain. If we have to use one word to describe actions of the PRC government and its puppet in Hong Kong, we would say: EVIL. Pure evil of authoritarianism, which persecutes every dissenting voice, is against all values that Hong Kong holds dear.

There maybe dark days ahead, there maybe more arrests and legal challenges, but we shall struggle against evil on the streets, in the courts, within the community, and on every media platform.

With God's help, we shall prevail.

- The unlawful assembly did not refer to the attempt at administering the oath to themselves in the large chamber. That meeting was adjourned and moved into a conference room on the second floor. This is when the incident began:

(Oriental Daily) November 3, 2016. The surveillance videos at the Legislative Council showed Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang leading more than a dozen legislator aides down in two elevators. When they arrived on the second floor, they shouted "One, Two, Three, CHARGE!" and charged towards the conference room. At the time, there were fewer than 10 security guards outside the conference room. They were punched and kicked by these 16 attackers. Most of the injured security guards suffered bruises and sprains.

Justice means that the security guards should not suffer their pains and injuries in vain.

- Tough shit to the security guards! They are being highly paid at $34.50 per hour, and this comes with the job. Besides this is a grave matter of right-and-wrong, and little people like them always get crushed along the way. We need Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang to be out in the street leading the Valiant Resistance movement!

- Legislative Councilor Lam Cheuk-ting (Democratic Party) said: 「香港是法治之區,任何人都不可以凌駕法律之上,『我哋喺立法會有任何抗爭行動,都應該文明、和平方式去進行。』」"Hong Kong is a place with rule-of-law. Nobody can be above the law. Any resistance action at the Legislative Council should be conducted in a civilized and peaceful manner."

- Why is the SCMP story titled "Disqualified pro-independence Hong Kong lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung arrested"? When elected, Yau and Leung were lawmakers-elect. They do not officially become lawmakers until they take their (properly administered) oaths of office. They never did. They are "disqualified lawmakers-elect."

- Because they never officially became lawmakers, Yau and Leung are not covered by the 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."

Article 78: "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall not be subjected to arrest when attending or on their way to a meeting of the Council."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Two weeks after the incident, the High Court ruled that the oaths of Yau and Leung were invalid, thereby disqualifying them from the legislature. Baggio Leung argued that they were still lawmakers before the ruling. He described the charge of unlawful assembly as “bizarre, unreasonable and unacceptable” on the basis that lawmakers are entitled to attend meetings to fulfill their duty.”

- Reference: Leung/Yau are Out! (2016/11/15) High Court  statement (HCMP 2819/2016)

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

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

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

...

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

So what is the status of Yau/Leung before October 15, 2016? Are they Legislative Council members. According to BL104, they aren't until they have taken their oaths. If they take part in meetings, what are the restrictions? It seems clear that they should not be allowed to vote because any bill passed with their votes will easily be nullified. It is less clear whether they should be allowed to speak. If they can't vote and they can't speak, what is the point of their presence?

- Yau/Leung's other argument is that they brought their own megaphone and administered the oaths to themselves in the meeting hall in which the Legco president Andrew Leung was present at the time, so they are officially lawmakers. When they tried to enter the conference room, the security guards blocked their way in violation of Basic Law Article 78. That was why Yau/Leung told the security guards that they are going to sue the security guards who are carrying out an illegal order from their supervisors.

- If they had to bring their own megaphone to administer their own oaths, it means that they agree that they are not officially Legislative Councilors yet. If they believe that they already are, they should just attend the meeting.

- A number of other legislators (Chu Hoi Dick (Land Justice League), Nathan Law (Demosisto), Shiu Ka-chun and Claudia Mo (Civic Party)) tried to lead the way for the DQ2 (Leung/Yau). Under Basic Law Article 78, there official lawmakers cannot be arrested because they were attending a meeting of the Council. But while they cannot be arrested during a meeting, they can be arrested and charged afterwards! An example is the 2-week sentence for Raymond Wong Yuk-man for throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung during a Legislative Council meeting.

- Raymond Wong Yuk-man was once caught traveling in the first-class carriage of the MTR without paying for the surcharge. He explained: "I am on the way to the Legislative Council." This is invoking Article 78.

- Article 77 and 78 does not mean that Legislative Council members can do whatever they want during meetings. For example, if one of them brings in a pound of C4 explosive and set it off to kill half the people in the meeting. Is he protected from prosecution under Article 78 forever afterwards?

- Some are arguing that Leung and Yau are Legislative Council members as soon as the election results were made official. If so, why do you need to have Basic Law Article 104?

When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

Is Donald Trump the American president as soon as the Electoral College electors are done with their voting? Or does he have to be sworn in by the Supreme Court Chief Justice first?

- If the oath is unnecessary, then why is it there?

- The evidence is incontrovertible on unlawful assembly. The only suspense is what kind of sentence will be imposed by the magistrate. If the magistrate says 80 hours of community service, it will be another blow to confidence in the judiciary.

- Time for another round of crowdfunding. Please remember to give more money more frequently to Youngspiration. The future of Hong Kong depends on your doing so.

- On the Internet, people don't give a rat's ass about the finer legal points. The two major issues and one minor issue of interest are:

(1) When Youngspiration reported that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were arrested by the police at 7am, people wanted to know the where and how. The police won't say. The favorite guess is that the two were at their love nest in the Kam Lok Mansion penthouse, Wanchai (see Leung/Yau are Out!). Their own version is that three Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officers went to Leung's residence and four Organised Crime and Triad Bureau officers went to Yau's residence.

- More information! (Oriental Daily) April 27, 2017. Yau Wai-ching reported her residence to be a high-floor apartment unit in Kam Lok Mansion, Wanchai. The OCTB went to the building that morning. Two officers knocked on Yau's apartment door and explained their purpose. Yau said that she needed time to change clothes. The officers waited outside the apartment. Yau came out and left with the officers.

Other officers were posted in the ground-floor lobby and the roof. Half an hour later, Leung Chung-hang was found walking up to the roof in bare feet. His shoes were left in the hallway. He was arrested by the officers. Throughout all this time, the officers waiting down in the lobby did not see Leung entering. So only Leung knows where he was. Leung reported his residence to be in Aberdeen.

(2) When are Leung/Yau going to give back the $1.9 million advance expenses that they received from the Legislative Council?

(3) (Hong Kong Free Press) He added that he and Yau were politically targeted because technically “unlawful assembly takes place every day.” He gave the example of Tuesday’s football match at Mong Kok stadium where Chinese football fans unfurled an anti-Hong Kong independence banner. “That was also unlawful assembly, and they harassed a lot of Hong Kong people,” Leung said.

- This is called switching subjects to confuse the issues.

- Quiz: In Guangzhou versus Hong Kong, how many security guards were assaulted and taken to the hospital?

- There were 5913 spectators at the match. Guangzhou Evergrande was given 350 tickets in accordance with the standard rules. Why are 5,000+ Hongkongers scared of 350 Guangzhou'ers? How are they going to "valiant resist" the People's Liberation Army and attain nationhood?

- (HKG Pao) April 27, 2017.

Yesterday Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching came out from the police station and met with the press. They did not seem to have received much support afterwards from various sectors in society. The pro-establishment camp were obviously all for law-and-order, rule-of-law, etc. Even the Democratic Party said that legislators should be civilized and non-violent. Raymond Wong Yuk-man was too pre-occupied fighting with Civic Passion and Wan Chin. Demosisto and League of Social Democrats are reluctant to be allied with the pro-independence Leung/Yau. So Leung and Yau had to go to Facebook themselves.

Yau wrote on Facebook to explain that she is not afraid. I have to scratch my head as to what she was saying. Fortunately, everybody knows that what Yau writes is immaterial. The important thing was that she posted a photo of her in shorts. Whereas she previously covered up her short chubby legs, this photographer managed to present her legs in the best possible way. As a result, Yau accomplished her mission.

By comparison, Leung Chung-hang wrote a long-winded essay to get the support of localist/self-determination groups. "Please do not believe that you can stay above the fray. Whether you want democracy, defend rule-of-law, guard freedom, oppose colonization, want self-determination/independence, etc, it is the same to the murderous Chinese Communist tyrannical regime. We all want to limit the powers of the tyrants. We all want to take over the powers of the tyrants. We are all enemies of the tyrants. Unless you plan to surrender and go over to the Communists, we are otherwise the same. We cannot afford disunity ... In the face of darkness, we must be even stronger and more determined. We believe that we will meet again on the day of the final battle."

- The day of the final battle? Here is Leung Chung-hang last seen at the Battle of Sai Wan outsprinting everybody else to grab a taxi and leave. You would be a fool to follow into any battle.


The battle begins ...
Help me get a taxi!

(EJ Insight) April 25, 2015.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has barred hikers and other unauthorized people from entering Por Lo Shan, a hiking trail in Tuen Mun that is under its control, as it undertakes a clearing of illegal farms in the area covered by the Tsing Shan Firing Range.

On Monday morning many hikers who arrived at Por Lor Shan, more popularly known as the Mini Grand Canyon, were turned away by PLA officers stationed at the entrance, Apple Daily reports.

According to hk01.com, the PLA put out notices in the area warning that intruders could face prosecution. Three PLA soldiers guarding the entrance told disappointed hikers that they were clearing out illegal farms inside the Tsing Shan Firing Range. The soldiers made no comments when asked whether people entering the area would be arrested or whether they were reopening the Tsing Shan Firing Range.

A man surnamed Tsang, who had come all the way from Sha Tin, said he comes to Tuen Mun twice a week to take care of his grandchild, and uses the occasion to visit the Mini Grand Canyon for its beautiful scenery. He said the new PLA restriction would not stop him from walking up the mountain, but this time he would use a small trail from Leung King Estate. He said he was not worried about getting caught and arrested.

Another hiker, Mr. Liu, arrived at the area around 6 a.m. on Monday, using his mountain bike. He said he came before the PLA soldiers arrived, and he did not know the range had been closed down until he was leaving the area. Liu said the firing range is suitable for mountain bike training because of its terrain, adding that he once saw the Hong Kong mountain biking team train in the area.

Another hiker surnamed Tung said he was able to hike up the mountain via a small trail at Leung Tin Au, but warned that the trail was slippery and dangerous. He said he had met PLA troops patrolling the area who told him the place was declared off-limits to hikers.

(Oriental Daily) April 25, 2017.

The three People's Liberation Army soldiers posted at the gate said there are almost 30 illegal farms up the hill. These people grow vegetables, peppers, pineapple, papayas, honey and even dogs. One person had even built a wooden shed with all the daily amenities.

A number of citizens learned about the closure only when they arrived at the gate. Some people criticized the People's Liberation Army for preventing them from making their exercises. Other people supported the People's Liberation Army. 72-year-old Mr. Tse criticized the illegal farmers: "Some people take over public land for personal profit. They dig out so much soil that landslides are possible." Mr. Woo said: "They should not be planting. They chopped down all the trees in order to make a clearing to grow their stuff."

Internet comments:

- The Tsing Shan Firing Range is one of 18 sites covered in CAP 245B Military Installations Closed Areas Order.

CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance section 28 Prohibition on entering or leaving closed area without permit.

(1)Subject to subsection (2), any person who—

(a) enters or leaves a closed area save under and in accordance with a permit issued under section 37; or

(b) contravenes any condition to which any such permit is subject, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 2 years.

If you like this, get the Legislative Council to amend CAP 245 according to your wishes.

- There is a metal gate on the road with a sign that reads: "Military Closed Area/No Trespassing." Which part don't you understand?

- Why the interest in Por Lo Shan? Thanks to a television program segment: https://youtu.be/syGS1SVVLKY including scenes of military exercises with live rounds. Nobody went there previously, because it is in a remote corner of the region. The television program gave it so much publicity that the place looks like Mong Kok on weekends.

- "Dangerous Road/No Trespassing": Hundreds of people ignoring the danger.

- No, the publicity actually began last September. (HK01) At 2am, the police received reports about a fire at the Tsang Shan Firing Range. When they got there, the found 11 men and women between the ages of 20 and 25 playing with candles.

- (Apple Daily) Our reporter went to observe the small trail from Leung King Estate up to the mountain. There are steps that lead up, but the trail is very steep and requires the use of a hiking pole.

- (Apple Daily) Some citizens asked the PLA soldiers to pose for photos. The soldiers were cooperative. But as the Apple Daily reporter took photos/videos, they also recorded the proceedings.

- Why kind of soldiers are these? They are undisciplined and unarmed. How do they expect to fight the US Marines who will coming to liberate Hong Kong?

- (Apple Daily) Citizen responses:

Citizen Mr. Tsang said that the plants were flowers planted by the hikers away from the trail. "I really enjoy the fragrance of the flowers and the songs of the birds when I like." Mr. Tsang does not think that they should remove the plantings. Mr. Tsang said that he will try to go up will tomorrow through the small trail from Leung King Estate. "I am not afraid of being arrested. Even if I come across the PLA, I will explain why the citizens want to hike this mountain. I hope that they can re-open the place."

Citizen Mr. Liu said that he came at 6am to ride his mountain bike at the Tsing Shan Firing Range. "Few people ride bikes at the Tsing Shan Firing Range. That is why I choose to go there." Mr. Liu does not think that the illegal farming was serious. "Please don't ban people from coming."

Citizen Mr. Chiu said that he wanted to go to the Grand Canyon but the PLA soldiers persuaded him to turn back. He said that he won't hike there for now. "Who knows what happens if they arrest me? It is very dangerous."

- I once tried to talk from Por Lo Shan to Pak Nai. I came up to an illegal farmer, and the guy told me to turn back because it was his farm. This time, I really have to say that I support the People's Liberation Army!

- Under Hong Kong common law, if the owner of a piece of land does not evict an illegal squatter for 12 years, the land becomes the property of the latter. It will then cost you millions to relocate them.

- The issue does not appear to be about illegal farming. This is a firing range carries some danger. What if you come across unexploded ordinance? Or what if you build a secret house in the forest and suddenly live rounds come showering down?

- Don't you remember the famous sayings of the Tai Mo Shan woman? "Our lives belong to ourselves and we are free to do whatever we want" and "It is the job of the Police/Fire Departments to rescue us if we can get into trouble."

- Por Lo Shan literally means "Pineapple Mountain." In Cantonese, "pineapple" is the colloquial term for a "bomb." So there are plenty of bombs to be found on Por Lo Shan. When you go to Pineapple Mountain, you should expect to step on a pineapple.

- Incidentally, your personal injury insurance policy does not cover anything sustained in a restricted military area.

- If a Hongkonger gets injured in this military closed area, he is going to blame the government/PLA for warning him about the dangers.

- And they still want to go hiking there ... (info.gov.hk) March 27, 2017.

Firing practice will take place at the San Wai/Tai Ling Firing Range and the Tsing Shan Firing Range next month (April).
 
For their safety, people are advised to leave the firing area before firing takes place and not to enter the area within the period of firing. Red flags or red lamps will be hoisted at the firing areas before and during firing practice.
 
Following are the dates and times for the firing practice sessions in April 2017: 

Date Time
April 1 (Saturday)
April 3 (Monday)
April 5 (Wednesday)
April 6 (Thursday)
April 7 (Friday)
April 8 (Saturday)
April 10 (Monday)
April 11 (Tuesday)
April 12 (Wednesday)
April 13 (Thursday)
April 18 (Tuesday)
April 19 (Wednesday)
April 20 (Thursday)
April 21 (Friday)
April 22 (Saturday)
April 24 (Monday)
April 25 (Tuesday)
April 26 (Wednesday)
April 27 (Thursday)
April 28 (Friday)
April 29 (Saturday)
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm
8am-9pm

- The site was a firing range from the days of the British colonial administration. Here is a 1987 television commercial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgCSfeGHS8 telling people to stay away from the firing ranges. Here is a video of an October 2016 joint army-navy-air force exercise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpHTcqjLps

- Back in the British colonial days, their barracks have signs in Chinese: "This is a guarded area. You must stop if you are ordered to half, or else you will be shot." (此乃保衛地區,一聞喝令即須停步,否則將受槍擊)

- (Oriental Daily) In fact, the People's Liberation Army is studying whether they should open the Tsing Shan Firing Range to the public. But there are issues such as clean-up.

- Lots of public places are banned to the public. For example, you go to a public restroom and there is a sign: "Closed: Maintenance in progress." Will you exercise your right as a member of the public to charge in and do you business?

- Time for the Localists to organize a 10,000-person march to the Tsing Shan Firing Range and dare the People's Liberation Army to shoot us all!

- Don't be silly! Por Lo Shan has little or no mobile phone coverage, unless you are paying for roaming charges using the Shenzhen signal towers. What is the point of occupying Por Lo Shan if you cannot post photos/videos onto Facebook.

There are also no electricity of any sort on the mountain, so you cannot recharge your mobile phone batteries. There are no 7/11 convenience stores on the mountain either, so food and water have to be brought up. So someone has to haul a diesel-fuel electricity generator plus lots and lots of bottled water and sandwiches.

- Exercise of the sovereignty of the new Hong Kong Nation begins with the reclamation of the 18 military installations currently under the control of the Occupation Army. Actually, Tsing Shan is a bit faraway.  There are other more convenient sites. For example, there is a People's Liberation Army barracks at 1A Cornwall Road, Kowloon Tong right across the Baptist University. Even closer, there is a residential building guarded by PLA soldiers on Bonham Road just around the corner from Hong Kong University. Why don't our Valiant Warriors start with these?

More at Occupy Central Part 8


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 (501-600)
Occupy Central Part 7 (601-700)

Occupy Central Part 8 (701-)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com