Section 1 of 3:  Recommended Photos/Videos/Reading

Global (in English) Greater China (in English) Greater China (in Chinese)
What Je Suis Charlie Has Become Scott Sayare, The Atlantic
A Definitive New Callas Michael Shae, NYROB
The Pursuit of Beauty Alec Wilkinson, The New Yorker
A Spy in the Machine The Verge
Page 3's Insidious Sexism
The Atlantic
France Arrests a Comedian for his Facebook Comments Glenn Greenwald
Doris and Me Jenny Diski, LRB
Smuggling Cubans Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution
Peter Hesslers China Daily article: how low can they go?  The Peking Duck
News Assistants: The Unsung Heroes of Journalism in China Matt Schiavenza, The Atlantic

Pril Jaune  Fluide Glacial
The Etymology of Umbrella Revolution Chapman Chen
The New Lion Rock Spirit -- How a Banner on a Hillside Redefined the Hong Kong Dream Yuen Chan, Huffington Post
Did the Senkakus Sink Sony? China Matters

宋家父子看「雨傘運動」 馮睎乾,蘋果日報
我讀《宋淇傳奇》  馮睎乾

Section 2 of 3:  Brief comments

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

(South China Morning Post) Hong Kong University student magazine Undergrad talks of revolution. January 31, 2015

A university student publication that was criticised by the chief executive for discussing Hong Kong independence remains defiant in its latest issue, which publishes an article that talks about "revolution" against the Communist Party.

In a pseudonymous article on Friday, a writer for the University of Hong Kong student publication Undergrad said that after the non-violent Occupy Central protest failed to bring about changes, Hongkongers, facing "destruction", should think about a revolution to defend the city's autonomy.

"The Chinese Communist Party wants to destroy the consciousness of Hongkongers. One country, two systems is dying," the writer, whose pen name read as "Leung Sun-yeung"- similar to the name of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying - said. "Hongkongers have nowhere to turn - either they fight the war and start a revolution, or they succumb themselves and be enslaved to the regime." The article did not elaborate on how a revolution should be organised.

Yuen Yuen-lung, editor-in-chief of Undergrad, said the article was submitted to the editorial board before Leung attacked the publication in his policy address two weeks ago. "It was only an individual student's idea. It does not represent the editorial board's view," Yuen said. He said the board had reviewed the article carefully and decided it was acceptable for print, and he was not worried about further comments from Leung.

The board clarified its stance in its editorial, however. It said that the magazine was only engaging in a debate on whether Hong Kong should be independent, rather than taking actions to make the city split from China. "To equate 'discussing independence' to 'taking steps to push for independence' is a fallacy," the editorial said. It also criticised the chief executive for stirring up an attack on students that resembled the Cultural Revolution.

(Apple Daily) Originally appeared in January 2015 issue of Hong Kong University Student Union magazine Undergrad. Localist Revolution, Swear to Defend Ethnic Group. By Leung Sun-yeung.

The Communist Party has ignored the law and pronounced the death sentence on universal suffrage. The Hong Kong Communist authorities has given up any defense and joined the tyrants. When Hong Kong is robbed unjustly, the people of Hong Kong rose up bravely and began the Umbrella Revolution. They blocked the streets to fight for universal suffrage, and made a powerful show of voices. Yet when the Revolution ended, no progress was made on political reform. The warriors were blamed even as the Hong Kong Communists gloated and swore to eradicate the Hong Kong ethnics. Today, as the storm blows, the people of Hong Kong are facing genocide. They can only save themselves through a complete localist anti-Communist revolutin.

The Umbrella Revolution broke out suddenly as the people of Hong Kong rose up to fight the absurd laws. It was clear that the people had turned their backs on the government. From now on, the Communists will rule Hong Kong sternly and restrict the governance by the people of Hong Kong. From the founding of the Communist government, they have adored authoritarian rule and they will not tolerate any breach. In 1989, a number of students went to Beijing and knelt down on their knees to plead for reforms. But they were accused of "planning and conspiring to create disturbances." At the time, the Doves faction led by Zhao Ziyang proposed to acknowledge their mistakes and seek a peaceful solution. But the Hawks faction led by Li Peng refused because it would disrupt party unity. As the student movement spread and the demands were pressed, the petitioning students refused to make any concessions and the party leadership was offended many times. In the end, the Hawks took over to maintain party authority. The military was sent out in a bloody suppression.

After the student movement was over, the Beijing government enhanced their totalitarianism with the Doves and Hawks unifying. They set up three barriers for Hong Kong universal suffrage in order to control the elections. But the people of Hong Kong blocked the roads and slapped them in their faces. From now on, the Communists will act firmly against Hong Kong and actively interfere with governance. Since the Chinese Communist regards universal suffrage as a monster that threatens national security, they will never compromise. The people of Hong Kong will have no breathing room. Earlier, Article 23 was stopped by public opinion. Now that the sounds of revolution are everywhere, the Chinese Communists will surely bring out the evil law to suppress freedom of speech. National education was postponed but not cancelled, and it will surely be back in order to enforce Communist brainwashing and numb the minds of the next generation. Once thought unification is achieved, the Communist Party will run unchallenged and Hong Kong will be completely tamed and become another Macau. The Umbrella Revolution is a crucial moment in the democratization of Hong Kong. It has polarized the political differences between Hong Kong and China with little possibility of reconciliation. The Chinese Communists want to destroy the sense of Hong Kong sovereignty. Since One Country, Two Systems is no longer viable, the people of Hong Kong have nowhere to retreat to. Unless they back up to the corner and rise up to give battle, they will become slaves.

At the start of the Umbrella Revolution, there was a fear among the Hong Kong people about a repeat of the June 4th incident. Even as they resisted, they were careful to take the Communists' feelings in consideration and did not call this a Revolution. Instead, they mislabeled this as a Movement and dwarfed themselves. A revolution involves a fundamental change in the political system. The reason why the Umbrella Revolution is a Revolution is that it has completely transformed the political, economic and social models of Hong Kong and completely rid itself of Communist control. Hong Kong is defined in terms of itself after a complete de-colonization. History tells us that revolution do not have to involve bloodshed or violence. Yet the pessimists have spewed out a lot of nonsense to mislead the people and underplay the fundamental systemic changes and the revolutionary theme of defending Hong Kong against the Communists. They did so in order not to touch on the nerves of the Chinese Communists, thinking that they will get the Communists' respect in return. But they are deceiving themselves. As the Chinese Communist mouthpieces have often said, the Umbrella Revolution is an attempt to seize power and that makes it a political struggle. This is quite accurate. At this moment, the defense of universal suffrage and autonomous rule is not just a battle of ideas -- it is Localism versus the Communism, it is a naked political struggle between the Hong Kong people and the Chinese Communist wherein the people of Hong Kong will retake their self-rule rights from the Chinese Communists.

But during the negotiations, certain people gave up the idea of a Revolution. They confined themselves to certain ideals and attempted to use moral values to appeal to the bandits of the tyranny. This was unspeakably stupid. Since the Communists have ignored the Constitution and gave no concessions on universal suffrage, they have declared war on the people of Hong Kong. They want the people of Hong Kong to yield to them. They even think "peace, reason and non-violence" is an attack on the Communist Party. The road blocking by the people of Hong Kong was interpreted by the Communists as a betrayal of both China and the Communist Party. But when the people of Hong Kong want self-determination, they subconsciously want to exclude the bandits. Therefore, we are deceiving ourselves if we think that this was not a Revolution. Localism means resisting the Communists; resisting the Communists means Revolution. As long as you don't call it properly as Revolution, you cannot break through the psychological barriers against acknowledging that we are defending Hong Kong and resisting the Communist. In which case, all resistance is futile.

During the Umbrella Revolution, the demonstrators clashed with the police in the streets. This is no longer civil disobedience; this is civil resistance. The so-called civil disobedience uses illegal methods to protest injustice, adheres to peace and principles, and ultimately accepts legal responsibility for the actions in order to highlight the rule of law. During the Umbrella Revolution, there were many street clashes. When the enemies advance, we retreat; when they retreat, we advance. Our shield formations work like a trained army. Although the pan-democrats called for people to turn themselves into the police, many resisted all the way until they were arrested whereas very few followed civil disobedience and turned themselves in. Two hundred thousand persons blocked the streets of Hong Kong and clashed with the police. This has gone far beyond the ideas of civil disobedience, and gave birth to the idea of civil armed resistance.

When peaceful resistance has reached a dead end, armed resistance is the only choice. In the Occupy Mong Kok area, the masses made their own defense tools and organized their shield formations to counter police violence. In the battle of Lung Wo Road, someone attempted to throw bricks in retaliation. In the assault on the Legislative Council building, the demonstrators used metal barricades as assault weapons and opened the curtains for civil resistance. Anthropology professor James Holston characterized this as "insurgent citizenship." Civil resistance is the exercise of this from of civil right. Meanwhile civil disobedience as the ultimate step in "peace, reason and non-violence" has proven to be a total failure. Over the course of history, peaceful resistance was successful because the enemy was elected by the people and therefore subject to oversight. Human rights leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King started civil disobedience campaigns against democratic countries such as Great Britain and the United States. They won because their opponents still had moral values. John Rawls believe that civil disobedience applies to democratic countries, with the the implication that it is not applicable to totalitarian countries. But the Hong Kong Communist authorities are the puppets of the huge Beijing regime led by the Chinese Communist Party. It would be sheer fantasy to expect these bandits to listen to public opinion and be impelled by their moral values to correct themselves. Civil disobedience is a theory that restricts the imagination of popular resistance. More importantly, we are not disobeying. Only slaves will follow the orders of the Chinese Communists. We are resisting a tyranny, because the enemy wants to invade our homeland. When civil disobedience cannot resolve the problem, the masses will naturally follow the part of civil resistance.

When you negotiate with bandits, you must be fearless. You collect your bargaining chips by gaining military advantage. You would be a loser if you act politely. Giving up self-defense is not resistance. Not retaliating will not bring victory. This is common knowledge in game theory. Freedom does not come from kneeling down; it is obtained by standing up. The people of Hong Kong cried for democracy but they hope that freedom would fall upon them without any cost. This is wishful thinking. The Ukrainians rose up to defeat their president. Their revolutionary leader Yuriy Lutsenko once said: "We have two possibilities -- either we all go to jail or we gain total victory." The Taiwanese people were oppressed, but they were enlightened about democracy through the February 28th incident and the bloody Formosa incident. Eventually, they attained progress for Taiwanese democracy. The people of Hong Kong do not have to follow the paths of others. But in the face of tyranny, they must stand up strong, because cowardice can only lead to eternal destruction. Civil disobedience seeks public justice, but civil resistance defends the rights of the ethnic group. The former is a moral concept but the later pertains to actual localist interests. This is not a battle of ideas. It is the final battle to defend the Hong Kong ethnic group and the homeland.

Social orderliness and rational resistance have gained international acclaim for the Umbrella Revolution. But apart from this, the whole battle was an utter loss. The Umbrella Revolution exploded in an astonishing fashion, but it continued to tame itself. The residues of the Occupy Central ideas were resurrected, and pan-democratic leftwards gained a spiritual victory. This was a sore spot in the entire revolution. The people of Hong Kong believe in peace and they respect orderliness. They did not expect to block the road to resist. But once peaceful rebellion turned out to be useless, society could only give birth to alternative resistance other than orderliness in order to take revenge against the authorities. When freedom is lost and the people want change, radicalism will spread across the city.

Recently there have been a number of unnamed actions in society, such as graffiti on walls or setting public properties on fire. They seemed to be cathartic, but they bear the symbolic significance of destructiveness. The authorities need to be aware of that. The rise of radicalism is a warning for the authorities. When alternative resistance becomes routine, the people will raise their resistance thoughts higher and be more amenable to the use of force. The reason why radicalism among citizens is scary is that the law enforcers will be facing enemies everywhere. If the authorities allow this to ferment. Today it is property destruction, tomorrow it become arson. Radicalism will spread rapidly and become the beacon for the next eve of revolution.

Right now, "Peace, reason and non-violence" has nowhere to go. The authorities have turned a deaf ear to public opinion. It was a stalemate. At this moment, the people turned from defense to offense, and use a more active manner to express their discontent and used threats to force the authorities to respond. This is a temporary solution. The reason why the Umbrella Revolution spread like wildfire was not because of civil awakening, but it became as a disturbance. In late September, the Federation of Students/Scholarism made the call to charge into Civic Plaza and clashed with the police. The masses questioned whether the government used violence legally and sympathized with the student resisters. Therefore, they showed up to give their support. A stone caused a thousand ripples.

In history, uprisings always began with just a few people. They gathered popular support because the people also wanted to resist tyranny. One million Hongkongers showed up to protest the 1989 massacre. Today, the Hong Kong people rose up and started the Umbrella Revolution because they were touched by the sight of tear gas and bleeding students. They were not touched because they were agreed to be arrested passively, or else the July 2nd rehearsal would not have so few participants. Today, the Hong Kong people may not think that their backs are against the wall. But as Lu Xun said, "There was no road on the ground at first. But after enough people walked on it, the road appeared." The pioneers blazed the trail and the latecomers consolidated the ground. The masses will always trail the rebel army. Only after the rebel army successfully take over the city will the people come out to shout and cheer.

When setting out to war, the first thing is to steady troop morale, and then gather popular support. But even if we don't have popular support, it will only mean that we are weak in terms of public opinion. It won't affect our mission. But if troop morale is low, then no one will lead the charge and no one will provide support, and the battle is lost. Mass revolution depends on mass excitement. At a time of great emotional excitement, the Federation of Students/Scholarism refused to set more people out to take advantage of the victory. Instead they held their grounds and sought popular support. As a result, they betrayed the frontline warriors many times. This was an error in judgment. The people of Hong Kong must be clearly aware that this is a popular Localist war to defend Hong Kong sovereignty and resist Communist sinofication.

In the past, June 4th has restrained the Hong Kong identity, leading to 25 years of misguided resistance. The Umbrella Revolution has re-aligned the direction of Hong Kong democracy. In this age of resistance, many warriors have risen up and they will eradicate the listlessness of the leftards. After the 1989 student movement, June 4th had hijacked the Hong Kong democracy movement and left behind the imprint of Greater China thinking. The June 4th evening assemblies of the past 25 years released a great deal of political energy. The tyrants had committed murders and the people will not relent. Unfortunate, this Greater China focus is too lofty and ends up being masturbatory. If the Umbrella Revolution did not reach its goal, then it is a failure. If it became a happy resistance, then it is a shame. There were three Occupy areas, and the split between the "valiant resistance" and "peace, reason and non-violence" routes were evident. When Mong Kok was sadly taken, the occupiers still fought to the end. When Admiralty and Causeway Bay were happily disbanded, it was dispirited resistance. This means that the Localists will need to shoulder the important mission of leading the anti-Communist revolution. Resistance can only end as either success or failure. Slogans such as "Umbrellas will continue to be present" and "We'll be back" are just mental masturbation. Although the Revolution has not yet succeeded, the Umbrella Revolution has already set up a spiritual totem pole for Localist revolution. It is time to re-establish the resistance notion of popular revolt and eradicate any Greater China thinking. The next wave of anti-Communist, anti-colonial revolution is ready to take off. Sun Yat-sen said: "Because of love, therefore revolution." Those who love Hong Kong will clear the listlessness out of Localist resistance and save themselves in a dangerous time.

To defend out self-determination means declaring war against the Chinese Communists. Even if the armies of the authoritarian regime march into out city, we will not abandon democracy and become obedient citizens. " We would rather die than live under injustice. History will render justice to the people of Hong Kong as to who was right and who was wrong in this.

Internet comments:

- Stop talking nonsense about armed rebellion and ethnic cleansing. You can start by cutting up your mainland Home Return Permit card along with your Hong Kong ID card and passport which are issued by the People's Republic of China to you in order to demonstrate your indomitable faith in a new Republic of Hong Kong. Or are you going to say that you are going to "pocket your Hong Kong ID first" for convenience until a new one is issued after the Revolution?

- The underlying tone of this essay is highly undemocratic. It gives no concern whatsoever about the majority opinion. Instead, it says that the masses are just sheep who will meekly follow the valiant warriors. It does not matter what the majority thinks, because they will eventually get around to thinking your way. But how do you run a mass movement when the masses are against you?

- If the Umbrella Revolution were an authentic revolution, these school kids would shit in their pants. Compared to the true expert revolutionaries such as Deng Xiaoping who saw millions die in their cause, the pan-democrats and the students are child's play. Are you ready to let millions die? Or, are millions willing to die for your cause?

- Here is the Hong Kong population history:
1931: 864,117
1941: 1,600,000
1951: 2,013,000
1961: 3,133,131
1971: 3,950,000
1981: 4,986,560
1991: 5,647,114
1999: 6,840,600
Here is the Hong Kong population by place of birth according to the 2011 Census:
Hong Kong: 4,278,126 (60.5%)
Mainland China/Macao/Taiwan: 2,267,917 (32.1%)
Elsewhere: 525,533 (7.4%)
The explosive growth in population cannot be explained in terms of normal birth/death rates. Instead, there was a massive influx of mainland Chinese (mainly of them illegal) in the early years. Among those who are 65 or over, more than 70% were born on the mainland. The young people today are their grandchildren.
So what is this Hong Kong ethnic group thing? Or do senior citizens get no say in the new democracy?

- What is the definition of a genuine Hongkonger? A permanent resident? Born in Hong Kong? A New Territories aborigine? And how many of these Undergrad editors have Hong Kong aboriginal status? Reminder: the Hong Kong aborigines are the Che people who occupied Hong Kong from the new Stone Age through the end of the Song Dynasty. Their Lantau Island rebellion was squashed and the survivors fled to the mountainous regions of Guangdong.

- Twenty years ago, Martin Lee said that the fate of the Hong Kong people was similar to the Jews being handed over to the Nazis. The result? We are still here today. This is just the same old story, but some people still get excited over this sort of thing. There are so many pro-democracy fools.

- I have just the right name for the new nation: "Great British Hong Kong Islamic Fundamentalist Radical Democratic Alliance Free United Front Genuine Universal Suffrage Nation." And Wan Chin will become the Great British Hong Kong Islamic Fundamentalist Radical Democratic Alliance and Free United Coalition of Genuine Universal Suffrage Nation's transitional government's President, Grand Marshall and commissar of the Public Safety Guidance Committee.

- From the days when Hong Kong was part of the Chinese empire to its days as a British colony, there have never been any universal suffrage. But the Hong Kong people were not exterminated. But now we can have one-vote/one-person but still blocking a few Chinese traitors from running, then all of a sudden the Hong Kong people are about to be exterminated. And we need a twenty-something-year-old dude to inform us to tell us that we are being exterminated?

- (EJ Insight) "Peter Mathieson, president and vice-chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, said he felt a little surprised at Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings criticism of Undergrad, a magazine published by HKUs students union, am730 reported Wednesday. Leung hit out at Undergrad in his policy address this month, criticizing articles in the magazine as promoting independence for Hong Kong. However, Mathieson said Leung has freedom to say what he wants and decide what to put in the policy address. He said he believed that Leung was just expressing his opinion and did not mean to stop students from giving comments."
Peter Mathieson also said that he did not read the said articles, probably because he doesn't read Chinese. He should get someone to translate them for him, so that he doesn't talk out of ignorance.

- If the Hong Kong people can constitute a separate ethnic group, then what about the Hong Kong Island-Kowloon-New Territories ethnic groups? Should they also get sovereignty, self-determination and self-rule?

- Ethnic cleansing was carried out earlier on when the New Territories aborigines were displaced by mainland migrants (including . The same thing happened to American Indians and Australian aborigines.

- My advice to this author: If you are sick, you should visit a doctor. Reminder: it is not enough to visit a doctor -- you need to remember to take the medication.

- I really tired of reading about Hong Kong independence. Actually, I really want to listen to your ideas about improving people's livelihood. You keep saying that everything will fall into place as soon as we get civil nomination for the Chief Executive election. But what is it that you are proposing that can only be accomplished with civil nomination and not otherwise possible without it? I totally don't get it. You would make a much better case if you try.

- These students keep saying that CY Leung is creating polarization. Yet this is what they do all the time. If you don't support Hong Kong independence, they say that you support the Communist regime. They can have their freedom of speech. If you hold an opposite view, they will tell you to shut up. What kind of democracy is this?

- If all you do is blow hot air, you can spare me. If you are truly valiant like you say, you should be attacking the People's Liberation Army barracks NOW! Please remember that when you are in prison, you don't get to access Facebook!

- The fact that this sort of rubbish keeps being printed shows that freedom of expression is alive and well in Hong Kong.

(Wikipedia) Internet Article 23.

Internet Article 23 (網絡23條) broadly refers to a set of proposed ordinances regulating the internet in Hong Kong. Under debate is the legality of derivative works popular on the internet, including doujin drawings, kuso, parodies, and the modification and adaptation of the lyrics in Hong Kong. Because of the upsurge of derivative work, the Hong Kong Government has amended related legislations in order to regulate the Internet, as well as legislation extending coverage to the existing network of Internet users. The name "Internet Article 23" comes from the controversial Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 on national security that detractors say would curb personal freedoms.

Many people believe that related regulations will let the derivative work bear criminal responsibility easily, including the modified or adapted song or pictures. As a result, it strived to public opposition. Due to the opposition, the Government shelved the amendment in May 2012. By July 2013 the Government launched a consultation once again in order to let people discuss on how this type of "parody works" can be exempted from criminal responsibility.

(Ming Pao) http://news.mingpao.com/ins/撐警聯盟上載人質惡搞圖 雙學泛民全上榜-支持者留言:全部斬首!/web_tc/article/20150127/s00001/1422346042178

Whereas ISIS has released many videos of beheadings to cause worldwide fear, the Hong Kong Alliance to Support Our Police Force convened by Leticia Lee treat this as a joke. The Alliance released a photo based upon an ISIS photo of hostages, but with the heads replaced by Hong Kong people such as Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow; Occupy Central founders Chan Kin-man and Benny Tai; Scholarism convener Joshua Wong; Legislative Councilors Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Wai-yip, Raymond Wong, Lee Cheuk-yan, Cheung Chiu-hung, Alan Leung Ka-kit; Next Media founder Jimmy Lai, etc.

Internet comments:

- A Support the Police organization is publicly advocating terrorism. They want all dissidents put to death. The international community should be concerned that Hong Kong pro-government organizations are advocating ISIS terrorism.

- The individuals in the modified photo have not been convicted in court as terrorists. In the photo, these individuals are depicted as hostages to be executed. This shows that the Support the Police people are advocating terrorism by executing innocent hostages.

- Hong Kong Law Cap 575 s 11: Prohibition of false threats of terrorist acts: (1) A person shall not communicate or make available by any means any information he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of causing alarm to the public or a section of the public by a false belief that a terrorist act has been, is being or will be carried out. Although I know that the police won't enforce this law, I know that this Support the Police organization supports terrorism in violation of the law.

- I know that one is presumed not guilty until convicted in court. I was merely pointing out the perpetrator may have broken the relevant law(s). I was certainly terrified myself when I saw that photo. This is the definition of terrorism.

- Speaking of presumed not guilty until convicted in court, here is a modified photo based upon the movie Prison On Fire.

Lester Shum, Alex Chow, Leung Kwok-hung, Martin Lee, Benny Tai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho (back row), Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai (front row) have not been convicted of any Occupy-related charges. Therefore, it is wrong to post this false information onto the Internet because it may cause alarm to a section of the public.

- Well, sweetheart, I don't remember you guys getting too upset when this photo of Chief Executive CY Leung and Police Commissioner Tsang Wai-hung did the rounds. You probably had a good chuckle too. The words are: "Get those these two to swap hostages: Please join ISIS to eliminate evil for the people of Hong Kong."

That photo is based upon the ISIS photo of two Japanese hostages, one of whom has reportedly been executed and the other one is waiting out a deadline.

Whereas when the Yellow Ribbons had great fun in modifying photos for their purposes, they get riled when criticized and accused their critics of stifling artistic creation. But now someone else has modified a photo to make fun of them, they get pissed and throw a tantrum. By the way, the number of parody photos made of government officials is many more than of members of the opposition.

- (Hong Kong First blog)

Remember how they brainwashed young children to pose with a knife sticking into an effigy of CY Leung?

- You wouldn't think it's funny if those people were really kidnapped by ISIS. That's why you don't joke about this sort of thing.

- Why would ISIS travel from Iraq to Hong Kong to kidnap these jokers? Do you think the Hong Kong government will pay USD $1 billion each for their ransom?

- Do you really think that modifying a photo equates terrorism (in the sense of ISIS)?

- Interesting that the Yellow Ribbons is now insisting on the rule of law.

Here is a TVB screen capture of an Occupy Mong Kok demonstrator announcing: "I feel that the law comes second". This means that if the law is on your side, then the law reigns supreme and must be strictly followed because society falls apart otherwise; if the law is not on your side, then your personal wish reigns supreme and the law takes a walk.

- So the Yellow Ribbons are clamoring for Article 23 to be implemented. I am fine with that if that's fine with them.

- (SCMP) 'One country, two internets', and why we need to protect it. By Lokman Tsui. November 21, 2014.

Late on Tuesday, a small group of people charged the Legislative Council building and broke a glass panel. Reports indicate they did so because they feared the passing of Internet Article 23. The original Article 23 is of course the controversial national security bill that provoked half a million Hong Kong people to protest in the streets in 2003. So what exactly is Internet Article 23, and should we be concerned?

Internet Article 23 is actually more than one bill. Lawmakers and advocacy groups use it to refer to at least two different regulations, both with the potential to seriously undermine the free and open internet we enjoy in Hong Kong.

One is the Copyright Amendment bill, a much needed update to the otherwise outdated copyright bill. But many fear that it will punish citizens for remixing original content with social or political commentary as parody or satire. To understand why people are concerned, you only need to take one quick look online or walk by the Occupy areas: among the many art pieces, one of the most popular is a life-size cutout of president Xi Jinping holding a yellow umbrella that many people take selfies with.

The other regulation in question is the Computer Crimes Ordinance. Originally intended to battle computer fraud and hacking, it has been drafted in such a way that it has serious potential for abuse. The most recent case involves the arrest of a citizen for inciting others to commit an offence. His crime? Posting a message on an online forum asking others to join him in the pro-democracy protests; the original post has been removed and the police have so far declined to comment on the specifics of the case.

Lets not forget what is at stake. We only need to look across the border to see a tightly monitored, closely controlled internet where citizens have to watch what they say to each other, even on seemingly private messenger apps such as WeChat. Then they might find themselves at a dead end if they try to find out what is going on; Sina Weibo and Baidu have been filtering search results for Hong Kong students, Hong Kong tear gas and true universal suffrage. And because people started sharing yellow umbrella pictures, Instagram is now the latest member to the club of global internet platforms that are blocked in China, joining Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, amongst others.

In contrast, we have a free and open internet in Hong Kong. Anyone can share their story and decide for themselves what is meaningful or not; no longer does a small and powerful elite determine this for the rest of society. Lets be clear: a free and open internet doesnt mean that people can say whatever they want without any consequences; all countries regulate speech to some extent. But it does mean that the conversation is open and inclusive: whether you are a yellow, blue or red ribbon supporter, you dont have to ask anyone for permission to speak.

Whether you agree with the protesters or not, it is undeniable that they have breathed new life into a conversation that most people had given up on, a conversation about the future of Hong Kong and the status of one country, two systems. Sometimes we disagree or even yell at each other, but thats what it means to have a honest, frank and real conversation, warts and all.

To my knowledge, the Hong Kong government hasnt censored anything related to the protests. This is surely a good thing. But if the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is that our "one country, two systems" setup isn't sacrosanct or set in stone. That is why I am asking all of us to keep a close eye on one country, two internets and to make sure we preserve and protect the free and open internet in Hong Kong.


Support for a pan-democratic threat to vote down electoral reforms tabled by the government in the legislature remained at just under half of the Hong Kong public, in a comparison of two polls commissioned by the South China Morning Post more than four months apart.

About 46 per cent of the 907 respondents polled last week backed lawmakers in voting down the government proposal on how to elect the chief executive in 2017 if it is based on Beijing's restrictive framework. In September, before Occupy Central began its civil disobedience campaign, 48 per cent wanted lawmakers to reject the reform package. Researchers say the difference is statistically insignificant.

On Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan's plan to resign from the Legislative Council to trigger a de facto referendum on reform, over 55 per cent gave it the thumbs down. The weight of public opinion in favour of a less-than-ideal version of universal suffrage is seen as the government's last hope of persuading pan-democrats to support its reform package. But more than nine in 10 of 180 respondents who considered themselves "pan-democratic" said Legco should say no to the government.

Meanwhile, 43.3 per cent believed a recent debate on Hong Kong independence would make it harder to attain universal suffrage, as opposed to 26.6 per cent who said it would not.


The public appears split right down the middle over a novel idea to allow them to reject all the names on the ballot paper as a way to declare the 2017 chief executive election void. Out of 907 respondents in a survey commissioned by the South China Morning Post, 29.4 per cent disagreed with the so-called "blank vote" proposal put forward by Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, while another 29.6 per cent agreed with the idea. When their preferences were broken down by political affiliation, pan-democrat voters were the least enthusiastic about the idea, with 40 per cent of them rejecting it. While more than a third of pro-establishment respondents liked the plan, they were outnumbered by those in their camp who opposed it, at 38 per cent.

Under Chen's proposal, the ballot paper would include a choice alien to Hong Kong's current electoral practice: a none-of-the-above option. Under a framework set by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, voters will get to choose between two or three chief executive candidates who have received majority backing from a 1,200-member nominating committee. Under Chen's proposal, if at least 50 per cent of voters choose none of the above, the election will be declared void. The aim is also to exert pressure on the nominating committee to ensure the two or three candidates it puts forward are electable.

The poll, conducted by Chinese University's Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, found that 31.6 per cent of respondents were "50-50" or "neutral" about the proposal. "I think a lot depends on the views of the 50-50," Chen said, commenting on the findings. "Whether they would prefer going ahead with universal suffrage rather than having the proposal voted down by the Legislative Council."

The University of Hong Kong scholar, who sits on the NPC's Basic Law Committee, noted that it was "significant" that nearly 30 per cent were firmly against his proposal. This suggested they may be resolutely opposed to any preselection by the nominating committee and just want an outright rejection of the reform package. Chen said the findings also suggested that pan-democrats' usual supporters were unsure about whether or not to approve the 2017 plan, given the split in opinion.

People aged under 30 and university graduates were the least inclined to give a positive yes to the academic's plan, while people aged 50 and above were most likely to say a definite no to the proposal.

(Wen Wei Po) January 27, 2015

The Shopping Revolutionaries were disappointed in the failure of the Occupy Movement and therefore resorted to harassing Mong Kok citizens and shops for their own amusement. They are now attempting to start a war of Shopping Revolutionaries versus Counter-Revolutionaries to cause more trouble.

On early morning Monday, a number of Shopping Revolutionaries were gathered near Sai Yeung Choi Street and Shan Tung Street. Two men criticized and infuriated the Shopping Revolutionaries. This led to verbal arguments and then a chaotic street fight. As the saying goes on the Internet, "Having a video gives the truth (conversely, not having a video means no truth unless proven otherwise)." According to the SocREC video (see #138 below), a female Yellow Ribbon Shopping Revolutionary threw herself onto the two men while screaming obscenities close to their ears. The two men retreated. The woman then screamed "Sexual molestation" while throwing her body at the "molester." During the chaos, male Shopping Revolutionaries shouted "He is hitting people!" even as they are the ones who threw sucker punches at the two men. The woman then grabbed the "molester" by the collar and screamed: "He molested me!" All the while, the Shopping Revolutionaries kept punching the two men. Eventually the Shopping Revolutionaries held the two men by force. The two men asked the female shop assistant to call the police.

This shows that the radical elements are trying to start a war of Shopping Revolutionaries versus Counter-Revolutionaries to cause trouble. Recently, the Hong Kong Tactic Team Facebook page provided an online manual on how to deal with Blue Ribbons.

(Facebook screen capture)

[Against HK Government - Tactic Team System]
[War: Attack Blue Ribbons]
[Directed against all Blue Ribbon forums or activitiies]


[List of tools]
- Gloves (to avoid leaving fingerprints behind)
- Disposable outer wear (to avoid leaving clothing fibers)
- Surgical masks (to conceal the face)

- Directed against all Blue Ribbon and related organizations' forums or activities
- The action group shall not provoke the Blue Ribbons during the activity in order not to raise alertness
- After the activity, follow them in groups of three to four persons (one to two if the persons are trained in martial arts)
- Target the men who had been obnoxious, loud and up front
- Follow them to a safe area before taking action
- Focus on attacking their joints and faces, so that they cannot participate in future activities
- The timing has to be less than 3 minutes, with someone keeping watch
- The watcher should have arranged to give a certain signal in case of police presence
- If the situation permits, take photos for display on the Internet

- The Blue Ribbons have received directives to escalate their actions
- Many unilateral attacks have taken place recently
- The police wastrels show bias on their behalf
- Protect the safety of all the activists who stand out in the open

- Change your outer wear afterwards
- Recommended to leave the area afterwards
- During the process, we should remember that the Blue Ribbons are oppressing The People for pay. Therefore, the action members should rob their possessions, such as wallets and mobile phones. The mobile phones can serve more purposes later, but you must be careful about GPS tracking.

- Some of the actions have already been taken by action people
- Do not worry about day/night, because the action depends only on the location and not the time
- Common knowledge about the joints (knee caps, elbow joints)
- Common knowledge about nerve points (collar bones, back of the knees, above the hips)
- Or choose to use street thug methods by pushing them to the ground (such as stepping on the back of their feet and then shoving them), and then using the method that the Black Cops used in the Dark Corner (of Tamar Park).

Chinese University of Hong Kong student Queenie Chung had left Scholarism more than two years ago. On the day before yesterday, she went with her mother to visit the mainland. She was refused entry. On her Facebook, she recounted what happened: "They scrutinized every book, every piece of paper, each receipt, each photocopy. They wanted me to explain what these were." She had to open her iPad to look at the photos and communications. Her telephone records were examined. In the end, she was told: "Miss Queenie Chung, you engaged in unlawful activities in Hong Kong. We believe that you will affect the social order in mainland China ... therefore you are refused entry and you will be sent back immediately.

Chung said that she was able to enter in July and September last year. But she was refused entry on the day before yesterday. "I don't know what I did." She did not get an answer when she asked the Public Security officers. They only said: "We are acting in accordance with Chinese law and procedures." Chung believes that the only reasonable explanation was that she had been a Scholarism member previously.

Chung joined to found Scholarism in 2011. She acted as the convener. In June 2012, she left Scholarism to study for the Bachelor degree in Education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Chinese language education). She is a fourth year student. Her course requirements include studying putonghua at the Beijing Normal University in the certificate program.

In consideration of her personal future, Chung deliberately avoided participating in the student and social movements. She is not a member of either the Hong Kong Federation of Students or Scholarism. When she went to the Occupy areas, she wore surgical masks to avoid recognition. She declined all interview requests. Nevertheless she could not avoid the fate of being blacklisted. She will contact her school to see if it is possible to communicate with the mainland authorities to let her finish her studies this summer.

Internet comments:

- This girl is playing the tragedy card now. Before this happened, she was so arrogant and boastful. Remember that she took part in halting housing developments in northeastern New Territories. And yet the most important issue for the Hong Kong people is housing! How can the government provide more housing when people like Queenie Chung wants to prevent housing developments?

- She can go ask Jimmy Lai to compensate her for the four lost years.

- Queenie Chung has the nerve to admit that she adopted a low profile the past two years in the hope that people will forget who she was and what she did. In the classical Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs (later adopted by Hollywood as The Departed starring Matt Damon and Leonardo Dicaprio), an underworld character said the classic line: "When you get involved in the underworld, you expect to have to pay later 出得嚟行, 預咗要還架!." This line applies perfectly to Queenie Chung. What else could she expect?

- Girl, you made a huge mistake. The mistake was not to join the student movement, or become a social activist. The mistake was to major in Chinese language studies. You are a Hongkonger, and not a Chinese. There is no reason to learn Chinese, and certain no reason to learn to speak putonghua fluently. In the new Republic of Hong Kong, we will all speak Cantonese only. She should drop this degree and pick another major, such as Hong Kong History. The new Republic of Hong Kong will be needing teachers of its own history.

- One of the greatest successes of Scholarism was to stop national education in Hong Kong schools. So why is Queenie Chung studying Chinese language studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and polishing her putonghua at Beijing Normal University (the mother of all brainwashing institutions)? Shame on her.

- Good, she can drop out of school and join her comrades to sleep in the streets. She will be able to devote herself full-time to building the new Hong Kong City-State.

- In the 2015 Chief Executive's Policy Address, CY Leung said that: "The Education Bureau will renew the curriculum in science and mathematics and renew the curriculum of Chinese history and world history, in an attempt to reinforce students' interest in China and broaden their global outlook. Subsidies will also be given to primary and secondary students to go on at least one exchange trip." SCMP reports: "Joshua Wong Chi-fung, founder of pro-democracy student group Scholarism, said the policies were no different from "brainwashing education", referring to the shelved national education curriculum. Wong believed participating pupils would be shown only the beautiful side of the mainland." This being the case, then why is Queenie Chung going to study at Beijing Normal University?

- Queen Chung is a selfish bitch. She said that she was concerned about her personal future, and therefore withdrew from activism (at least publicly). Well, thousands of other students were never told about such considerations and leaped right into the fire. Shouldn't Queenie Chung (or at least some grownup) tell them first?  Queenie Chung is Hong Kong's version of Chai Ling -- she tells other people to charge while she splits (叫人冲  自己鬆 ).

- This is weirder than weird. For more than two years, she hibernated in the hope that people will forget her. But now she is getting featured in a news story in <Apple Daily>. The pendulum has just been swung from one extreme end to the other extreme end. If there was a faint chance of the working back channels, there is absolutely none now (short of a full confession to admit her sins).

- For the sake of freedom, democracy, human rights and universal suffrage, a little sacrifice is worth it. I personally did not go out to Mong Kok for two months. LOL!

- Queenie Chung dropped out of Scholarism in 2012. But was she really completely out of action? She said that she visited the Occupy area(s) while covering her face up to avoid recognition. That means that she did go there for an unknown number of times. In short, she admits to participating in an unlawful/unauthorized assembly. Since she broke the law, she can't complain that there is no "reasonable explanation" for refusing her entry. Who shows if she doesn't arrive in Beijing and wants to start a Shopping Revolution. Besides, Scholarism considered government oppression to be a "supreme honor." But so happened now to this "supreme honor"? Why doesn't she proudly wear it on her head?

- What an excuse for Scholarism to organize yet another demonstration in front of the China Liasion Office to protest Queenie Chung's current problems! Or else they can organize the Chinese University of Hong Kong students to go on strike to protest the unreasonable demand of studying putonghua before granting a degree in Chinese language studies!

- Let's see if I understand -- she is leveraging <Apple Daily> to beg the Communists to let her complete her degree so that she can return to Hong Kong and occupy Central? And become a teacher to brainwash the next generation according to her brainless ideas?

- If Queenie Chung loves democracy so much, she should go to America, home of the Statue of Liberty. But she should remember that if she opposes the American government, she may find herself blacklisted and refused entry. International standards, so to speak.

- I think that this whole story was made up by <Apple Daily> for propaganda purposes, just like so many of their so-called reporting nowadays. Putonghua fluency can be tested in many ways at many places (e.g. Taiwan). It cannot be true that only Beijing Normal University has the sole authority to certify. If it were true, they would be overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of certification-seekers. <Apple Daily> just exploited Queenie Chung for another anti-China story.

- That photo of Queenie Chung is completely different from how she looked when she was with Scholarism.  The Chinese border guards would not have been able to recognize her based upon the photo. (Left photo now at 112 pounds; right photo back then at 184 pounds).

Delivering a petition to a government official in better days.

Whatever else, she has good potential to become spokesperson for a diet plan.

- Dear Ms. Chung
(1) The young people of Hong Kong often insist that "People in Hong Kong cannot make a living, so that only resistance can liberate us". Since Ms. Chung you have have chosen the path of resistance, there is no going back.
(2) You think that by "keeping a low profile over the past two years," the Chinese government will pretend as if nothing happened. Are you being as "very silly and very naive" as that other Ms. (Gillian) Chung (see Sex Photos Gate).
(3) You stated clearly: "Even if you went down to the Occupy areas, you made sure that you covered yourself up to avoid being filmed and you do not accept interviews." This means that you admit that you participated in unlawful acts. What is wrong with the Hong Kong/Chinese government "acting in accordance with the law"?
(4) Scholarism often says: "We are unafraid of political suppression. The more the suppression, the greater the glory." Given that being suppressed is a "supreme glory", why do you have to consider the calculations for your own future? As a former Scholarism spokesperson, isn't this "telling others to charge while you sleep well"?
(5) Many Yellow Ribbons have been arrested and/or prosecuted. But you "want to skip aside in consideration of your own future," are you letting down you comrades who are paying the price?

- Dear Queenie, we wish you every day will be like today, every year will be like this year! 祝你年年有今日 歲歲有今朝 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVp2Obho5jc . Or Cliff Richard singing Congratulations.

Last night, the number of Mong Kok Shopping Revolutionaries increased to almost 200 persons from the usual 20 or so. The Shopping Revolutionaries gathered around Shan Tung Street and Sai Yeung Choi Street South. They raised yellow umbrellas and they marched around Sai Yeung Choi Street, Dundas Street and Nathan Road. They chanted their demonstration slogans. At around midnight, they went through their last roundtrip and ended up across the Bank Centre on Sai Yeung Choi Street.

Many clashes took place among the police, the Shopping Revolutionaries and counter-demonstrators. In one incident, some Shopping Revolutionaries got into an argument with two men. The two men said that these Shopping Revolutionaries were "useless." Physical shoving ensured during which one female Shopping Revolutionary claimed to have been sexually molested by a man. There were physical fights that spilled from Sai Yeung Choi Street into The Body Shop, scaring the store attendants. The police arrived to stop the fighting. Two men claimed to be injured and wanted to receive medical treatment. But the Shopping Revolutionaries surrounded the ambulance at the corner of Argyle Street and Nathan Road. There was more turmoil and the police used peppery spray. Three men and two women were detained by the police.

YouTube videos

Internet comments:

- This is the reason why there should be a Basic Law Article 23 for National Security.

- I am more and more convinced that the Shopping Revolutionaries and the counter-demonstrators are all Blue Ribbons who want to persuade the public why Article 23 must be enacted. Do not call me a conspiracy theorist. There is no other explanation for this Shopping Revolutionary -- it is entire pointless otherwise.

- Did you see how ugly that female Shopping Revolutionary was? I wouldn't molest her even if she paid me.

- The government's priority is to provide more support for mental patients who run amok in the streets every night. How else can you explain people who shop after the shops close?

- What did the female sales assistant at The Body Shop think when the men started to wrestle on the floor of her shop?

- This is not the first time that the Yellow Ribbons have wrongfully charged someone with sexual molestation. See the case of the Hee Kee Crab General boss.

- The technique of women throwing their bodies at men and screaming "Sexual molestation" is time-honored, well-established.

For example, here is this May 2013 video of Federation of Students demonstrators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXYdirwsDY.
6:11 Male student in grey t-shirt shoves female student in white t-shirt towards a uniformed policeman in human chain. High-pitched female shrieks.
6:55 Female student in black t-shirt keeps pushing policemen, shrieking and filming with one hand.
7:57 Male student applies bear bugs to two female students. Female screaming: "Sexual molestation."
9:11 Female students elbows female police officer in chest and the latter tumbles down.

As another example, here is Legislative Councilor Tse Wai-chun being accused by Lam Yi-Lai for sexual molestation. The evidence? At 0:40, Lam thrusts her chest at Tse and there was contact.

This technique is not an exclusive right for democrats. Here is Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung being harassed by a woman at a campaign rally.

- So is this the much ballyhooed New Umbrella Generation? These people want to take over the government and they will make life better for everyone?

In the SocREC video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMSrXFXz4os, two men who ought to be Blue Ribbons took advantage of physical pushing to sexually molest a woman. They were arrested by the surrounding people who gave taught them a proper lesson.
In this video segment, the first important point to catch my eye is not about the bravery and valiance, but I wanted to know who those persons telling the spectators to "ignore them" and "just move ahead" are.
Of course, those who have occupied Mong Kok before are aware of the existence of the Kin-tai Village people plus one or two "uncles" who have close ties with the leftards. These dickheads still adhere to the "Peace, Reason and Non-violence" principles and the "human chain" method. Whenever they think the Blue Ribbon are in danger, they act as if they are police wastrels.
In addition, the "true brave and strong ones" showed everybody that you cannot use words to restrain these human wastrels. Instead you must use "reasonable force" to make them scram. And someone showed everybody the true use of the "umbrella."
This then is Mong Kok, and these are "normal people."
As an aside, some people are concerned that this undisguised video may be used by the police wastrels.
According to the law, any "unoriginal video file" which cannot be proven not to have been edited cannot be presented as court evidence. Furthermore, the people in the action were very clever, because they used sexual molestation as the theme so that the entire incident is normalized. Therefore, the risk is low.
Alright then, at this moment, do you women know what to do in the resistance movement?
And you men, do you know how to coordinate with the women?
And the Blue Ribbons, do you know how to respond?

- Here are the screen captures from the SocREC video. Those listed are Shopping Revolutionaries. When Hong Kong gets the democracy that these people want, this is how they will be dealing with dissidents:

The three co-founders of Occupy Central got a glimpse of the authorities' case against them yesterday as they were shown video clips and articles they wrote, which police say are proof they "incited" people to take part in the pro-democracy mass sit-in.

Benny Tai Yiu-ting, 50, Dr Chan Kin-man, 55, and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, 71, were arrested when they went to police headquarters to assist the investigation. They were released after three hours of interrogation, refusing to be bound by bail. No charges were laid against them and police reserved the right to prosecute.

The trio are among the 30 activists, including students and politicians, who have been arrested so far for their roles in the pro-democracy sit-ins that paralysed several major roads in the city for 79 days.

Tai, asked if he was worried about a politically motivated prosecution, said: "I have faith in Hong Kong's rule of law. "If we break the law we are willing to bear the legal consequences, but if we did not do so, we do not worry."

Last month when they turned themselves in, the trio admitted to "taking part" in a September rally, but not to other alleged offences. They remained silent throughout yesterday.

Apart from allegedly inciting others to take part in an unauthorised assembly, the trio were also arrested on suspicion of organising and convening the assembly as well as taking part in it. They were shown 48 videos featuring themselves in the protests. Tai's landmark article that floated the idea of Occupy Central for the first time, published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal in January 2013, was presented to him as evidence.

(Oriental Daily)

... before the Occupy Central trio entered the police station, Benny Tai was asked about the implications of state vice-president Li Kai-yuan saying that the anti-Occupy struggle still "has many good shows to come," he replied: "You have to ask the state vice-president." Then he said that the pro-democracy movement" will also have "many good shows to come" because success will come through persistence. He explained that he does not have the exact timing and actions to sustain the "series of good shows" in the pro-democracy movement yet. But he said that once the political reform issue is turned over to the legislature, street actions will be coordinated and the trio will cooperate with others.

(Oriental Daily)

Recently the police has been carrying out arrests by appointment for those who organized and participated in the Occupy Movement. Critics say that these actions are publicity stunts. Yesterday police commission Tsang Wai-hung denied this. He said that when the police privately contacted the individuals, the entire process is confidential. That is to say, the police will not tell the press or anyone what they have done. Tsang said: "It should clear that whoever told you that they have been invited to go down to the police station are the ones who are putting on a show."

(Oriental Daily)

The Occupy Central trio are saying that there will be "a series of good shows" to come. This struck fear into the businesses which were affected by the Occupy Mong Kok and Occupy Causeway Bay movement. They were afraid that "tragedy" will revisit them.

Mong Kok has been un-Occupied for about two months, and the Nathan Road stores are gradually recovering to their old selves. But the shopkeepers still have psychological scars inside.

Mr. Kwok runs a pharmacy on Nathan Road. He said that his monthly business used to be HKD 1.2 million. During the two months of Occupy Mong Kok, business dropped to half and his regular customers wouldn't come. He is still afraid: "Business is gradually rising. I definitely don't want any Occupy movement!"

Mr. Han is a Chinese restaurant manager in Mong Kok. He doesn't want to see the Occupy Movement again. Back then, he had to close early by two hours each day. "More than a dozen banquet bookings had to be canceled. Thankfully, the restaurant also owns the place and so we don't have to pay rent."

Ms. Chan runs a handicraft store in Causeway Bay. During the Occupy period, she lost around 70% of her business and was almost unable to pay her rent. The landlord gave a 20% rent reduction this month and the next. As Valentine's Day approaches, she is receiving orders for her line of products. But she is worried about the return of the Occupy Movement: "Many of my customers come here by car. If there is an Occupy Movement, they won't come. Then I will be ruined." She said that the students are using the wrong method for civil disobedience because it is hurting people's livelihood.

Ms. Ip runs a jewelry store in the same Causeway Bay mall. Her store has been in business for only two months, so she did not go through the Occupy baptism. But she thinks that business has not been good: "I need to make around forty to fifty thousand a month to pay rent. But my new stores has no customers old or new. I wonder if I can last."

Mrs. Yeung works at a cosmetics store. She said that business is far from having recovered. "I used to make HKD 7,000 a day at the peak. For the past two months, I have made only several hundred dollars a day." She thought that student demands should not interfere with businesses.

Internet comments:

- The police privately contacted the Occupy Central to come down to the police station to assist in an investigation. Of course, Benny Tai calls a full press conference in front of the the police station and posed for commemorative photos with smirks on their faces and plenty of hand waving ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax1gNNhYaf8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax1gNNhYaf8 )

How grotesque get this get?

- These shopkeepers are so selfish. All they care about is earning enough money to pay rent. Their customers are mainlanders buying gold jewelry, infant milk powder, cosmetic products, etc. When China collapses, all their customers won't come anyway. So these shopkeeper are better off moving to northeaster New Territories and grow organic cabbages and potatoes.

- I see that the Three Stooges are back in the limelight again. They were wrong on every prediction before, but that doesn't mean that they can't be right this time. But how would you bet?

- The last action that Benny Tai called for was for interference with normal government service. An Internet user responded by paying his tax bill with 9,280 separate checks. Well, in this Facebook age, putting some faked photos of stacks of paper on the Internet and getting a few thousand Likes is treated as a genuine revolutionary step forward. But what about self-immolation? Human bombs? Car bombs? Of course the high-quality Hongkongers are too busy to do those sorts of things.

- Speaking of bounced checks:

On January 13 2013 Benny Tai wrote: "Civil disobedience is an unlawful action and all participants must swear beforehand that they will accept responsibility for their crimes." On January 24 2015, Benny Tai said: "Nobody wants to be arrested without reason."
In October 10 2014, Chan Kin-man wrote: "As long as the charges are reasonable, the Occupy Central trio and others will not rebut at court and will not hire any lawyers. On December 3 2014, the Occupy Central trio went to the police station in the company of 10 lawyers to turn themselves in. On January 23 2015, Chan Kin-man said that he would consult with lawyers as to whether he will post pail. On January 24, 2015, Chan Kin-man said that he will fight the charge of "inciting others to participate in an unauthorized assembly." As for the other two charges, Chan said that the will consult with his lawyers.

- Wise people use their mouths, for the stupid fools actually to follow what they say. The "series of good shows" to come will simply be more young wastrels being clobbered on the head by the police. When will you ever see Benny Tai, Alan Leong or Emily Lau charging the police defensive line?

- When Uncle Benny goes to prison after being convicted on incontrovertible evidence, he will be seeing "a series of good shows." (See the movie trailer Prison on Fire).

Around 20 Love Hong Kong members set up a street station in Mei Foo to distribute flyers. The denounced the "black hand"/"financier" of the Occupy Movement Jimmy Lai for giving the pan-democrats large amounts of money in order to paralyze the government and the legislature. They also criticized Occupy Central founder Benny Lai for making multiple secret donations to the Hong Kong University. They urged to government to quickly enact the Basic Article 23.

About 15 minutes later, several Civic Passion members and other spectators began to shout: "Hong Kong independence" "I am a Hongkonger" and other slogans. They also raised yellow umbrellas as well as "I want genuine universal suffrage" banners. They got into arguments with the Love Hong Kong people. There were verbal arguments and physical jostling. More than 10 police officers came and separated the two sides. Later the two sides dispersed on their own.

(Wen Wei Po)

Yesterday at 3pm, Love Hong Kong set up a forum to discuss Basic Law Article 23 legislation. Love Hong Kong convener Anna Chan pointed out that many Hongkongers know that Next Media founder Jimmy Lai is closely connected with the American Central Intelligence Agency and made money with the help of foreign forces. Then Lai got into "black gold" politics in Hong Kong. She said that the various opposition parties took the money to wreck havoc in Hong Kong, including filibustering the legislature and running Occupy movements to block the streets. She says that Hong Kong should enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation to stop the foreign forces from starting a "color revolution" in Hong Kong and disturb social peace.

Within five minutes after Anna Chan began her speech, a number of Civic Passion members started yelling to interfere with her speech. Civic Passion member charged up to the dais to prevent other speakers from speaking. They kept cursing Anna Chen and other participants with foul language. It was chaos. Then some Civic Passion pushed over a number of seats and triggered physical jostling. The police intervened and set up a human wall to separate the two sides. The scheduled forum became a screaming session between the two sides. The Civic Passion members then brought yellow flags, yellow umbrellas and yellow "I want genuine universal suffrage" banners printed by Apple Daily. Love Hong Kong responded by broadcasting the national anthem and waving the national and Hong Kong SAR flags.

The two sides stood each other off for almost 2 hours, with isolated physical jostling. But the police kept control of the situation. The scheduled forum could not be held. At around 530pm, both sides began to leave. Afterwards, citizens said that if Civic Passion have disagreements, they should express their views on another occasion instead of causing trouble at forums with different viewpoints.

Here are some videos from the scene:

(Oriental Daily)

On Thursday, a group of people from the Hong Kong financial sector placed a 1/4-page advertisement on page 25 of The Asian Wall Street Journal. The advertisement is addressed to President Xi Jinping (cc: Zhang Dejiang, Zhang Xiaoming and Carrie Lam) and contains ten requests to the Communist Party of China from the People of Hong Kong (Financial Sector). Hedge fund manager Edward Chin Chin-kin of the Hong Kong Finance Monitor placed the advertisement while the Eighth Asian Finance Forum is being held in Hong Kong.

(for text)

(Daily Mail) Hong Kong financiers challenge China in newspaper advert. January 22, 2015.

A group of pro-democracy financiers in Hong Kong took out an advert in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday challenging China to respect the city's autonomy and introduce free elections. The advert which appeared in the newspaper's Asia edition takes up a quarter page and lists "10 requests" to the Chinese Communist Party. They include asking it to "refrain from interfering in the administrative affairs of Hong Kong" and to "establish a system of genuine universal suffrage" as well as defend the city's freedoms.

The advert comes as tensions remain high after more than two months of rallies for fully free leadership elections ended in December, when protest camps were cleared. Pro-democracy campaigners want the government to scrap political reform plans which they say would only deliver "fake democracy".

Beijing has pledged that the city can elect its own leader for the first time in 2017, but says that candidates must be vetted by a loyalist committee. Hong Kong authorities insist that reforms to grant universal suffrage in the leadership elections must stick to China's strict parameters.

"Three years ago, I was just like any other trader in Hong Kong. I didn't care about politics... but things have changed so much it is important for finance people to speak up and to stand together to fight for true democracy," said hedge fund manager Edward Chin of new group HK Finance Monitor 2047, which took out the advert. He added that a letter outlining the 10 points would also be sent to Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The campaign group -- which consists of 70 finance workers -- grew out of a previous band of financiers and bankers who supported the Occupy Central campaigners who first galvanised support for civil disobedience over the election proposals.

The group's reference to 2047 in its title comes from the Sino-British joint declaration, signed before the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China in 1997, which says that Hong Kong's economy, freedoms and way of life will be protected for 50 years.

The advert appeared on page 25 of the Thursday edition of the Wall Street Journal and was flagged as a "political advertisement". "The economy is being hindered by the lack of democracy here," said corporate governance activist David Webb, who is also part of the campaign group. "Hong Kong has to start looking at whether we're going to... preserve the current systems that we have, or whether we are now on the slippery slope of erosion and assimilation and absorption into the mainland system."

The advert comes two days after the city hosted the Asian Financial Forum which saw high-profile international figures including finance ministers gather at Hong Kong's convention centre.

Internet comments:

- Who the hell is the Hong Kong Finance Monitor? And by what right have they signed the letter "from the People of Hong Kong (Financial Sector)"? Well, here is a big Fuck You to the Hong Kong Finance Monitor people who are hiding behind a Facebook page. Do not claim to represent The People again! You are just "some anonymous dickheads who claim to be from the Hong Kong financial sector.

-  Well, this appeal is clearly tainted by a certain bitterness as judged by the list of recipients: Xi Jinping (President of the People's Republic of China), Zhang Dejiang (chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee; Zhang Xiaoming (Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong); Carrie Lam (Chief Secretary, Hong Kong SAR). Absent is CY Leung (Chief Executive, Hong Kong SAR). Why is he important? Please check the "5-Step Process of Constitutional Development": Steps 1 and 4 require action by the Chief Executive, not the Chief Secretary. The Hong Kong Finance Monitor cannot pretend not to know. This is just a pointed (and pointless) slight of CY Leung as being irrelevant in the process. No, CY Leung is important because he has the ability to obstruct progress.

- "Point #1: Fulfill its promises made in the Sino-British Declaration ..." But if the United Kingdom's Foreign Office has nothing to complain about with respect to the current state of Hong Kong re- the Sino-British Declaration, what are these "Hong Kong financial sector people" complaining about?

- "Point #2: Establish a system of genuine universal suffrage that conforms to international standards ..." How many more times does it have to be repeated that the genuine universal suffrage defined as "civil nomination" is not adopted in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc. There is no international standard. Invoking "international standards" sounds great, but it does not bear scrutiny.

- "Point #4: Allow Hong Kong to continue to operate under a fair, just, and open business environment. Prevent monopoly by persons of organizations of special privilege in various industries." This is NUTS! The whole perceived problem here is that Hong Kong does not have a fair, just, and open business environment, so how can you ask for Hong Kong to continue to operate its existing way? We are talking about the Hong Kong business environment being distorted by the real estate hegemony and you want them to continue to operate? Anti-monopolistic laws under the name of anti-competitive laws can be business killers too. Don't be too sure about what you ask for, because the evidence is ambiguous.

- "Point #5: ... Maintain and enhance Hong Kong's position in the international finance community so that it retains its competitive edge attracting high quality professionals and talents from all over the world and from various industries and sectors." This is easy said than done. First of all, Hong Kong's standing depends not just on itself but also on the outside world. When economic conditions are unfavorable, nothing the Hong Kong SAR government do will matter. Secondly, whenever government sets policies to meddle in economic and financial affairs, the consequences are not always predictable. That is why some people believe in laissez-faire

- "Point #8: ... preserve Hong Kong's uniqueness as a melting pot of Eastern and Western cultures." This is going to stir up plenty of emotions. First question, do you plan to continue to permit 150 mainlanders to move to Hong Kong each day (and hence bring in more eventual pro-establishment voters)? Or will you stop the influx of these "locusts." Second question, do you plan to give citizenship status to the three hundred thousand Filipina/Indonesian domestic helpers which would entitle them to housing and welfare benefits? Or do you continue to treat them as second-class people to be paid a pittance?

- "Point #10: Create and facilitate universal suffrage for Hong Kong which can be leveraged as a blueprint for democratic elections in China to advance China's progress toward democracy." Well, if your Point #1 is to have One Country, Two Systems, then what are you meddling around with that other system. If "the people of China (financial sector)" took an advertisement out in the New York Times to tell Hong Kong how to design a "democratic system," you would be having a fit and telling them to refrain from interfering in the affairs of Hong Kong.

- These ten points are just a bunch of sugar-coated homilies. These are all good things to have. But to say this is like saying that your mother is a woman. If you do get into the specifics, it always becomes murky. For example, Point #9 says to "Safeguard Hong Kong's reputation for maintaining a strong anti-corruption culture in government and business. Eliminate all perception and possibility of growth of a bribery culture ..." But the current big bribery case has to do with the vast amounts of donations that media magnate Jimmy Lai donate to various pan-democratic legislators, political parties and Occupy Central leaders. If the Independent Commission Against Corruption takes a hard line, then those investigated will refer to Point #4 about freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, creation, and all kinds of freedom enshrined in the Basic Law and relevant international conventions." So what would you like them to do? If the ICAC won't pursue these cases, then they violate Point #6: "Safeguard the spirit of the rule of law and judicial independence."

(Memehkdotcome Facebook)

Last night at around 10pm, there was an incident on Sai Yeung Choi Street (Mong Kok) in which a person was injured. Outside the Broadway Cinema on Sai Yueng Choi Street South, a suspected "Blue Ribbon" used a kitchen knife to chop a Shopping Revolution man. According to information from the scene, the "Blue Ribbon" used a knife to chop the man's head and ear and blood streamed out. The police rushed over and force the injured man down on the ground so that he was bleeding on the knee. The suspect took off, and more than ten policemen lost sight of him.

According to the eyewitnesses, the police did not immediately put the injured man on the ambulance. Instead, they took the man into the police van for interrogation. They are worried that the police deliberately let the suspect go. They said that "there was no reason why several dozen policemen could not chase the suspect down."

(Dash Hong Kong FB)

(January 21 23:50) There was a knife attack incident last night on Sai Yeung Choi Street (Mong Kok) near the Broadway Cinema. According to eyewitnesses, someone attacked a Shopping Revolution man at 21:45. The Shopping Revolution man was chopped on the head and fell to the ground while the perpetrator fled. The injured man was subdued by more than ten policemen, handcuffed and taken to the hospital.

(Passion Times) Mong Kok Blue Ribbon slashes Shopping Revolution member. January 21, 2015.

Last night there was a knife slashing incident in Mong Kong. A bloodied knife was left at the scene.

The incident occurred around 1030pm outside the Broadway Cinema in Mong Kok. Allegedly a Blue Ribbon was unhappy with the Shopping Revolutionaries and took out a kitchen knife to injure a Yellow Ribbon. Afterwards more than ten policemen pushed a man onto the ground and successfully subdued him. But information from the scene said that the police had subdued the Yellow Ribbon who was chopped by the knife.

Ricky Chan (City University of Hong Kong) Five minutes ago, a brave man has his head broken.

(Kris Cheng's Facebook)

(Apple Daily) January 22 00:09

<Apple Daily> received information from Legislative Council Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats) that the information from the scene was that last night outside the Broadway Cinema on Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok), a suspected "Blue Ribbon" man charged into a crowd of Shopping Revolutionaries and chopped one of the man. The injured person was sent to Kwong Wah Hospital for emergency aid. He has two bloody gashes on the head, and he has been arrested by the police.

According to the information, the injured person is nicknamed "Loud Voice Guy." More than 10 policeman at the scene subdued him and pressed him on the ground for 15 minutes. The slasher fled the scene. Leung Kwok-hung quoted information from the scene that prior to the incident, a group of Blue Ribbons who had been around Mong Kok for a long time harassed a group of Shopping Revolution women and caused arguments.

The police has set up a police cordon around the scene. A knife believed to be the attack weapon was left at the scene. It was stained with blood.

(Apple Daily) January 22, 2015 00:12

(Revised content)
Last night around 11pm, there was a suspected knife slashing incident outside Broadway Cinema in Mong Kokg. More than 10 policemen subdued a 33-year-old mainland man with red fluid on his body. A suspected bloodied knife was also found at the scene. A large number of policemen have sealed off the scene.

The police investigated and then arrested a man on suspicion of possession of an assault weapon. They believe that the red fluid on his body is fake blood plasma used in movies. Afterwards, the man claimed to be uncomfortable and he was escorted to Kwong Wah Hospital. The medical doctor did not find any signs of injured man, who admitted that the kitchen knife belonged to him and that he had poured the red fluid on himself. The police will follow up on the case.

According to information from the scene, Shopping Revolutionaries were chanting slogans at the time when 6 to 7 Blue Ribbons charged out to kick and punch people. A large number of policemen arrived to mediate, during which time the suspected knife slashing incident occurred.

(Ming Pao) January 22, 2015 01:29

With respect to the alleged knife chopping incident opposite Broadway Cinema on Sai Yeung Choi Street South (Mong Kok), no injured person was found either at the scene or hospitals. According to information, a man who was covered with red fluid (believed to be red paint) was intercepted by the police across Broadway Cinema. He attempted to resist and a knife fell out. A number of police officers subdued him eventually. Afterwards the man was handcuffed and taken to the hospital for inspection.

According to the Police Public Relations Branch, at around 11pm last night across the Broadway Cinema on Sai Yeung Choi Street, there was a man with red fluid on his body and a knife in his hand. The police subdued him together and took him down to the hospital for examination.

(Oriental Daily) January 22 2015

On Sai Yeung Choi Street South where Shopping Revolutionaries congregate, a blood-covered man holding a knife caused a scare of "Blue on Yellow" knife-slashing attack. At around 10pm last night, a mainlander man claiming to be a Yellow Ribbon got into an argument with certain anti-Shopping Revolution people on Sai Yeung Choi Street South near Soy Street. He got emotionally excited. He was drenched in red fluid all over this body, he wielded a knife and he screamed that he was being chased and slashed by the Blue Ribbons. Police officers at the scene got very concerned and rushed over to ask him questions. But they did not see any signs of an attack and there were no wounds on his body. So they subdued him and took away his knife. The police also found an empty bottle, which caused suspicion that he poured fake red blood plasma on himself. The man was arrested on suspicion of possession of an assault weapon. The man was taken to the hospital for examination. But a large group of Shopping Revolutionaries were upset and went down to the hospital to demand the police release the individual.

According to the information, this 20-something-year old man had arrived in Hong Kong from the mainland on a two-way pass. He had previously stayed in the Mong Kok tent area and claimed to be a Yellow Ribbon supporter. On the night of the incident, more than 30 Shopping Revolutionaries gathered on Sai Yeung Choi Street. Anti-Shopping Revolutionary people got into an argument with the man, and the man later came back with a kitchen knife in hand and red dye over his body. He claimed to have been chopped by the Blue Ribbons. A large group of people demanded the police enforce the law. The police searched the man and found a yellow ribbon and some banners in his backpack. They also found a plastic bottle carrying red fluid and a paper knife cover in the stairwell of a nearby building. Therefore they suspected that the man staged this knife attack incident to cause chaos. But since the man claimed to be injured, the police escorted him to Kwong Wah Hospital for a medical examination. About 30 people went down to the hospital to support the man. They also appealed on the Internet for others to come down. Some people actually believed this and went down to the hospital to demand the police release the person.

A group of Yellow Ribbons gathered outside Kwong Wah Hospital

Legislative Councilor Leung Kwok-hung rushed over to Kwong Wah Hospital late at night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyxSdsYwp-k Video news coverage from Apple Daily
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXlMMmG627s Video news coverage from HK VOX POP

Internet comments:

- I don't care who did the slashing, because I only care that the victim is a Yellow Ribbon! He fucking deserves it! Why don't the Mong Kok shopkeepers get together and arrange to chop all the fucking Yellow Ribbon bastards at the same time. Making a living comes first, the rule of law comes second. How about that?

- "Once again the fucking Blue Ribbons are causing trouble in Hong Kong. If they like the mainland so much, why don't they all move and live in the mainland?"  Oh, please! The Blue Ribbons wouldn't exist but for the Yellow Ribbons. It is because the fucking Yellow Ribbons have aggravated the vast majority of the citizens, some of whom have decided to stand up for their own rights.

- Blue Ribbon openly slashed a person and fled
There are police everywhere but such incidents continue to occur
Not a moment more to wait, we have to establish our own civilian self-defense squads!

- The arrested man is a mainlander who came to Hong Kong on a two-way pass. Therefore, he is a Blue Ribbon by definition. This was a Blue on Blue attack. The Yellow Ribbons have nothing to do with this sort of violence, because they adhere strictly to the principles of "Peace, Reason, Non-violence and No Foul Language."

- The original <Apple Daily> report read: "晚上11時許,旺角百老匯戲院外發生斬人案,據現場目擊者表示,懷疑一名「藍絲」人士用菜刀斬傷「黃絲」人士。大批警員立即趕到現場,10多名警員追着一名持刀男子,然後將他按在地上。現場發現一把染血菜刀。" (Last night around 11pm, there was a knife slashing incident outside Broadway Cinema in Mong Kok. According to eyewitnesses at the scene, a suspected "Blue Ribbon" person used a kitchen knife to chop a "Yellow Ribbon" person. A large number of policemen rushed to the scene. More than ten policemen pursued a man and held him down on the ground. A blood-soaked knife was found at the scene." These people must have ribbons etched on their foreheads. How can eyewitnesses know for sure who is a Yellow Ribbon or Blue Ribbon?

- This is so sad for the Yellow Ribbons. For about a couple of hours, they thought that they have an ironclad story to satisfy their own sense of righteousness. Injustice, victimization, etc. Then the story got blown away and they can't masturbate anymore. So sad.

- If someone slashed a Shopping Revolutionary, then it is more probable to be a local resident who couldn't sleep for months due to the slogan chanting downstairs, or a shop keeper whose clients are scared to come because of precisely this kind of violence.

- I saw the story broke out originally on the Internet discussion forums. It went something like: "A Blue Ribbon has just slashed a Yellow Ribbon in Mong Kok"; "I heard about this because I happened to be at Kwong Wah Hospital"; "They said the Blue Ribbon chopped the Yellow Ribbon right on the scalp." ... Well, I keep a healthy skepticism on Internet claims. Then <Apple Daily> came out with their instant news report. Well, I keep a healthy skepticism on <Apple Daily> news reports. Then <Oriental Daily> came out with their news report, and everything became clear. Pity the fools who heard the Internet appeal and rushed down to Kwong Wah Hospital to demand the immediate release of a brave warrior who was attacked by the Blue Ribbons and wrongfully arrested by the police.

- Here is the basic rule in Internet commentary/punditry: Do not follow the preceding vehicle too closely, because you may crash. When you see a story like this one, your brain should flash a big warning signal about so many unsubstantiated details. You need to wait, or you risk looking foolish afterwards.

- Yet another Yellow Ribbon nutcase. Actually there have been many Yellow Ribbon nutcases before -- people who open umbrellas indoors in a shopping mall or at a graduation ceremoney; go shopping after the shops are closed; sing birthday songs to everyone who disagree with them; etc. For video evidence, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMAPPFmdC0E .

- The Yellow Ribbon bosses must be running low on money. During the Occupy period, they hired people to sleep in the streets and they paid triad gangs as guards at very good wages. After the end of Occupy, they hired aunties and uncles to lead the smallish Shopping Revolution walkabouts at moderate wages. Now they have outsourced to a mainland man to stage a show in a thoroughly unprofessional manner in worse than minimum wage?

- <Apple Daily> and <Oriental Daily> are both making their stories up, because I personally witnessed the whole thing. I witnessed the injured person being chased by five to six policemen. He raced down Soy Street from Tung Choi Street towards Sai Yueng Choi Street South, and then he was knocked down in front of the money exchange shop and subdued. The entire process lasted less than 5 seconds. I did not see any knife.

- You people have no appreciation of performance art whatsoever. This event was a performance delivered by a renowned mainland performance artist as recorded by the <Apple Daily> reporter and aided by a cast of supporting actors of the long-run Shopping Revolution show.

Bonus videos of Yellow-Blue-Police actions in Mong Kok on January 21-22, 2015.

(Wikipedia: List of awareness ribbons) Many advocacy groups have adopted ribbons as symbols of support or awareness. Ribbons, particularly those of a single color, may refer to more than one ribbon. Examples:
Yellow ribbon - U.S. support for military forces, suicide awareness, etc.
Blue ribbon: Peace, colon cancer awareness, freedom of speech online, etc.
Green ribbon - mental health awareness, support public school students/teachers, etc.
Red ribbon - HIV/AIDS awareness; heart disease awareness, etc.
Purple ribbon - ADD/ADHD awareness; domestic violence awareness.
Orange ribbon - Opposition to cruelty against animals; etc.

(Douban) The meaning of various color ribbons:
Red ribbon: HIV/AIDS awareness
Yellow ribbon: Help to find a missing relative (see Tony Orlando and Dawn: Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree); prayer and blessing for relatives.
Blue ribbon: Expression of thankfulness, encouragement, care and love.
Green ribbon: Express the support of mental health by the public.
White ribbon: Opposition to male violence against females.
Purple ribbon: Opposition to violence.
Pink ribbon: Breast cancer awareness.
Black ribbon: Stop terrorist activities.

(Yungtingshiting sina.com blog)
Green ribbon: Unlimited hope for healthy lives, which started during the May 12 2012 Wenchuan earthquake.
Yellow ribbon: Rueful, longing, praying and hope for the safety of a loved one.
Blue ribbon: Started by Helice Bridges with the the words "Who I am makes a difference" to encourage people to do something for the world.
Red ribbon: Joining the world together to fight AIDS/HIV
Purple ribbon: Protect and rescue life.
Orange ribbon: Sunshine, love, sacrifice.
Black ribbon: In memory of those who died in the 2004 March 11 terrorist attacks in Madrid, Spain
White ribbon: Stop male violence against females, in the aftermath of the December 6 1989 murders of female Canadian university students.

(Independent) Hong Kong protests: A guide to yellow ribbons, blue ribbons and all the other colours. October 5, 2014.

Yellow ribbons

The original symbol can be seen adorning thousands of lapels in Hong Kong and around the world for people wanting to show support for the movement. Yellow ribbons have also been tied to fences and trees around the city, with protesters using Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree as a protest song. The colour symbolises the campaign for universal suffrage and was previously used in the womens vote campaign in the US in the 19th Century.

Blue ribbons

Protesters and their supporters condemned the police response to the start of the occupation, when unarmed protesters were showered with tear gas and pepper spray by armed officers. But not everyone in Hong Kong agrees with the Occupy Central movement and some have taken to wearing blue ribbons to show their support for police and the authorities instead. The colour of police uniforms, wearers say it represents their wish to return order to the city and reopen the buildings and roads closed by the protests. Blue ribbon wearers have mounted counter-protests in Hong Kong in recent days.

Red ribbons

Less common are red ribbons, symbolising Chinese nationalism and support for the mainlands opposition to the protests. A suspicion of alleged Chinese intervention in Hong Kong and its politics is at the heart of the Occupy Central movement. A former British colony, the city was passed to Chinese rule under the one country, two systems policy in 1997, allowing it to maintain its capitalist economy and political freedoms denied to mainlanders. Chinas equation of patriotism with loyalty to the Communist Party is difficult for many Hong Kongers, who resent its influence on politics and education, while others support the Chinese Government.


Adding to the confusion, there are also reports of green and purple ribbons to show a combination of stances, and ribbons being overlayed on top of each other to call for solidarity and peace after clashes between protesters from opposing camps.

Yellow: I support the Umbrella Revolution
Green: I support both (yellow and blue)
Blue: I support the Hong Kong Police
Purple: I support both (blue and red)
Red: I support China
Orange: I support both
Yellow: I support "F*ck off"

(InMediaHK) The Umbrella Movement: You thought that there are only Yellow Ribbons, Blue Ribbons and maybe Green Ribbons? You are wrong! October 20, 2014.

From top (blue) in clockwise direction:
Blue: Anti-Occupy people
Blue: Detached middle-class people
Blue-green: The Hong Kong Police
Green: Silent ones
Yellow: Love and Peace demosntrators
Yellow: Pan-democratic Legislative Councilrs
Yellow Orange: Radical demonstrators
Orange: Violent radical demonstrators
Red-orange: Undercover demonstrators
Red: Hong Kong Communist government
Purple: Nobility/elite
Red-blue: Pro-establishment forces


Red ribbon: You know what Red stands for. The Hong Kong Communist government ordered the police to forcefully suppress the demonstrators who oppose the political reform package dictated by the Chinese Communists.

Purple ribbon: Throughout history, purple is the color of the nobility, including the DAB, Liberal Party and New People Party who seem to following the orders of the Chinese Communists but are more concerned about stabbing each others' backs.

Blue Ribbon: The various leftist grassroots organizations (such as the Love Hong Kong organizations) pretend to be peace missions, but they are actually redder than red.

Green ribbon: Green is peaceful and natural, so it seems odd that the police should be colored green. The police are law enforcers and politically neutral. The target of the demonstrators is the Communist regime, not the police. So why are the police criticized the most? Reason 1: The police commissioner Tsang Wai-hung is a Blue Ribbon hawk who pushed his subordinates into untenable positions time and again. Reason 2: The police is a "disciplined service". When Brother Number One (=Tsang Wai-hung) is a Blue Ribbon, the rank-and-file officers eventually turn bluish green. The other type of Green Ribbon is the silent majority. They are pathetic because they watch whatever is put on television, they complain sometimes but they never take action.

Yellow ribbon: The Occupy Central trio, the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism belong here. They are the organizers, instigators and promoters of the Umbrella Movement. Also in this group are the pan-democratic political parties such as the Democratic Party and the Civic Party. But why are they hiding behind the scenes?

Orange ribbon: Orange is a dynamic and passionate color. At first, the Occupy Movement preached love, peace and non-violence. But many 'progressive' groups scorned at such leftard behavior. Today there is disagreement between Yellow and Orange Ribbons, each accusing the other side of attempted hijacking.

Red-orange ribbon: If orange is radical, then the red-dyed orange ribbon is even more violent. They show up wearing full gear (body armor, goggles, surgical masks, shields, etc) to fight with the police on the front lines. The police are most concerned about them. Sometimes they forced the police to resort to violent measures. Their radical behavior have created resentment among citizens. This gave room for another kind of undercover agents provocateurs who pretend that they are red-orange ribbon and instigate violent incidents.

(Passion Times) Right now, "Yellow Ribbon" is the synonym for "stupid cunt". January 4, 2015.

Blue Ribbons want order and worship power; Yellow Ribbons think that they are more high-minded and open-minded than Blue Ribbons; they think that they are all the right path. That is hilarious. The Yellow Ribbons miss the orderliness in the Occupy Admiralty area and the peacefulness when there is no escalation. At the same time, they adore the social movement stars on the Admiralty Grand Stage and the power of the organization. The blind faith of both sides are so similar, and no side can claim superiority over the other. Between September 28 and the Admiralty clearance, criticisms aplenty have been hurled at the Umbrella Movement people. The Yellow Ribbons typically rushed in defense with these responses:

Example 1: They have made a lot of contributions
Variation 1: They have made a lot of contributions + What have you done yourself?

Example 2: Fellow travelers are destroying unity!
Variation 1: When unity is destroyed, nothing will be accomplished
Variation 2: When unity is destroyed, who is going to the happiest to see it happen?

Example 3: The Chinese Communists want you to charge at the police. If you charge at them, they will have an excuse for suppression.
All-purpose key: The Chinese Communists want you to do XX. If you do XX, then they will have the excuse to YY.

Example 4: They are only students. Why do you have to criticize them this way?
Variation 1: Did you lead such a big movement when you were still a teenager like them?
Variation 2: They are already overworked, so why do you still want to cause divisions? Who is happiest to see such divisions? (GO TO Example 2, THEN GO TO Example 3, etc in an infinite loop)

From September 28 to now, when people raised questions at the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Scholarism and the pan-democrats about strategies and directions, all the answers follow the above scheme. When the Hong Kong Federation of Students had to answer questions about an individual student union wanting to break off, they asked: "Schism will make the Communist Party most delighted." The Yellow Ribbons do not answer practical questions. In their eyes, there is only one word: Unity. Unity is good, schism is bad. The voices must be identical. The battle line must be uniform.

People can say that some tactic is better (or worse), escalation is good (or bad), dissidents should be silenced (or not) -- the Yellow Ribbons only say: We want unity, we don't want schisms ...

The Yellow Ribbons and "those who support democracy" are contemptuous about people living in communist countries for blindly following the authorities. They think that they have "independent thinking" while other people are frogs at the bottom of the well. In truth, the Yellow Ribbons only have a nicer-looking well. In this well, singing stars sing <Open Umbrellas>, there are art objects, there is inflammatory news reporting, there is the fake gay show of future leaders HEHE (Alex Chow + Lester Shum).

Yellow Ribbons represent an umbrella generation of high education, low intelligence. It is the synonym with "stupid cunt." Furthermore, the color yellow and the umbrella have become symbols and merchandise for us to hold carnivals as a display item at the Stand News blogging platform. In Mainland, they call such people "Stupid cunts"; in Taiwan, they are called "idiots" ...

(VJMEdia) Yellow Ribbon or Blue Ribbon? Actually do you know ...? January 10, 2015.

Simply put, Hong Kong today consists of a group of Yellow Ribbons, a group of Blue Ribbons and a large group of neutral persons. All of the Ribbon people are willing to sacrifice everything to defend their own ribbons, and the positions that the ribbons stand for. So those persons without ribbons are oddities.

Actually, as soon as someone defines himself as Yellow Ribbon or Blue Ribbon, he has already thoroughly lost. I repeat -- whether you are Yellow Ribbon or Blue Ribbon, you are destined to become a loser.

From the first day of the Yellow Umbrella Movement to the last day of the clearance, I observed and listened to all that happened in this age in which good and evil are out of kilter. I remember that on the first day, I served as a volunteer medical worker, and the police tear gas canister headed straight at our rescue station. I cannot forget that day, the wounded people and the crying children.

I am not a Yellow Ribbon, and I am not a Blue Ribbon. I am an ordinary girl. I want to be loved. I am sometimes a slacker. I like to play jokes. I can provide emergency aid. I can launch complaints against police officers who step out of bounds. I can write one after another recommendation to the government. But I don't have a ribbon. Frankly I would rather not have a ribbon.

The ribbon can be used to become an "ally." It is a tool for those who lack faith so that they can gain acceptance and support. When you define yourself as a "Yellow Ribbon," you become the destroyer of the rule-of-law, you are a sinner who hurt society and the interests of others. When you define yourself as a "Blue Ribbon", you are someone who blindly supports a totalitarian government, you are a sinner who advocates using violence to enforce the law.

So you see that as soon as you pin a ribbon on your lapel, you become an unredeemable sinner. Someone is going to come around and evaluate you, obtain updates on your latest information and spent vast amounts of time criticizing just how bad a person you are. Furthermore, it is guaranteed that such criticisms will have high-production values like the TVB television dramas. As for those people who benefit from such exercises, they will be laughing at this show from the back.

(Occupy Central with Love and Peace Manifesto)

This campaign originates from our love and concern for Hong Kong. We believe that a truly harmonious society can only be built upon a just political system. The campaign aims to strive for the election of the Chief Executive by universal and equal suffrage in 2017. Civic awakening determines the success of the movement. Therefore, dialogue, deliberation, authorization by citizens and civil disobedience are all conducive to the reflection and participation of the whole society. We shall be like preachers communicating enthusiastically with different communities to convey the universal values such as democracy, universal and equal suffrage, justice and righteousness. We hope that in realizing these values in the system and society of Hog Kong they are willing to pay a price.

In light of this, the campaign is organized by those who uphold the same conviction and they will strive for realizing this ideal by shouldering the responsibilities collectively. To join the campaign or not is purely a personal decision which should not be directed by any organizations or political parties. The success of the campaign relies on the initiatives of individuals in different communities.


Whoever participating in the campaign should uphold its three fundamental convictions as follows:

(1) The electoral system of Hong Kong must satisfy the international standards in relation to universal suffrage. They consist of the political rights to equal number of vote, equal weight for each vote and no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election.

(2) The concrete proposal of the electoral system of Hong Kong should be decided by means of a democratic process, which should consist of deliberation and authorization by citizens.

(3) Any act of the civil disobedience, which aims to fight for realizing a democratic universal and equal suffrage in Hong Kong though illegal, has to be absolutely non-violent.


The campaign consists of four basic steps: signing covenant, deliberation day, citizen authorization and civil disobedience.


The campaign will put forward the proposal on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 after it is decided in the Deliberation Day and authorized by citizens. If the authorities concerned ignore the democratic demands of the citizens and suggest an election method, which violates the corresponding international standards, we shall at appropriate time carry out civil disobedience acts, including Occupy Central.


There are three ways for citizens to participate in the occupy action:

(1) To provide support to those who carry out the acts of civil disobedience without breaking any law themselves.

(2) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience without giving themselves up to the authorities.

(3) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defense in the trial.


We expect there will be at least ten thousand people who follow their conscience and participate in different aspects of the campaign. Let love and peace occupy Central!

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/index.php?route=occupy/book_detail&book_id=11#sthash.3aZoh5N1.dpuf

This campaign originates from our love and concern for Hong Kong. We believe that a truly harmonious society can only be built upon a just political system. The campaign aims to strive for the election of the Chief Executive by universal and equal suffrage in 2017. Civic awakening determines the success of the movement. Therefore, dialogue, deliberation, authorization by citizens and civil disobedience are all conducive to the reflection and participation of the whole society. We shall be like preachers communicating enthusiastically with different communities to convey the universal values such as democracy, universal and equal suffrage, justice and righteousness. We hope that in realizing these values in the system and society of Hog Kong they are willing to pay a price.

In light of this, the campaign is organized by those who uphold the same conviction and they will strive for realizing this ideal by shouldering the responsibilities collectively. To join the campaign or not is purely a personal decision which should not be directed by any organizations or political parties. The success of the campaign relies on the initiatives of individuals in different communities.


Whoever participating in the campaign should uphold its three fundamental convictions as follows:

(1) The electoral system of Hong Kong must satisfy the international standards in relation to universal suffrage. They consist of the political rights to equal number of vote, equal weight for each vote and no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election.

(2) The concrete proposal of the electoral system of Hong Kong should be decided by means of a democratic process, which should consist of deliberation and authorization by citizens.

(3) Any act of the civil disobedience, which aims to fight for realizing a democratic universal and equal suffrage in Hong Kong though illegal, has to be absolutely non-violent.


The campaign consists of four basic steps: signing covenant, deliberation day, citizen authorization and civil disobedience.


The campaign will put forward the proposal on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 after it is decided in the Deliberation Day and authorized by citizens. If the authorities concerned ignore the democratic demands of the citizens and suggest an election method, which violates the corresponding international standards, we shall at appropriate time carry out civil disobedience acts, including Occupy Central.


There are three ways for citizens to participate in the occupy action:

(1) To provide support to those who carry out the acts of civil disobedience without breaking any law themselves.

(2) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience without giving themselves up to the authorities.

(3) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defense in the trial.


We expect there will be at least ten thousand people who follow their conscience and participate in different aspects of the campaign. Let love and peace occupy Central!

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/index.php?route=occupy/book_detail&book_id=11#sthash.3aZoh5N1.dpuf

This campaign originates from our love and concern for Hong Kong. We believe that a truly harmonious society can only be built upon a just political system. The campaign aims to strive for the election of the Chief Executive by universal and equal suffrage in 2017. Civic awakening determines the success of the movement. Therefore, dialogue, deliberation, authorization by citizens and civil disobedience are all conducive to the reflection and participation of the whole society. We shall be like preachers communicating enthusiastically with different communities to convey the universal values such as democracy, universal and equal suffrage, justice and righteousness. We hope that in realizing these values in the system and society of Hog Kong they are willing to pay a price.

In light of this, the campaign is organized by those who uphold the same conviction and they will strive for realizing this ideal by shouldering the responsibilities collectively. To join the campaign or not is purely a personal decision which should not be directed by any organizations or political parties. The success of the campaign relies on the initiatives of individuals in different communities.


Whoever participating in the campaign should uphold its three fundamental convictions as follows:

(1) The electoral system of Hong Kong must satisfy the international standards in relation to universal suffrage. They consist of the political rights to equal number of vote, equal weight for each vote and no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election.

(2) The concrete proposal of the electoral system of Hong Kong should be decided by means of a democratic process, which should consist of deliberation and authorization by citizens.

(3) Any act of the civil disobedience, which aims to fight for realizing a democratic universal and equal suffrage in Hong Kong though illegal, has to be absolutely non-violent.


The campaign consists of four basic steps: signing covenant, deliberation day, citizen authorization and civil disobedience.


The campaign will put forward the proposal on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 after it is decided in the Deliberation Day and authorized by citizens. If the authorities concerned ignore the democratic demands of the citizens and suggest an election method, which violates the corresponding international standards, we shall at appropriate time carry out civil disobedience acts, including Occupy Central.


There are three ways for citizens to participate in the occupy action:

(1) To provide support to those who carry out the acts of civil disobedience without breaking any law themselves.

(2) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience without giving themselves up to the authorities.

(3) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defense in the trial.


We expect there will be at least ten thousand people who follow their conscience and participate in different aspects of the campaign. Let love and peace occupy Central!

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/index.php?route=occupy/book_detail&book_id=11#sthash.3aZoh5N1.dpuf

This campaign originates from our love and concern for Hong Kong. We believe that a truly harmonious society can only be built upon a just political system. The campaign aims to strive for the election of the Chief Executive by universal and equal suffrage in 2017. Civic awakening determines the success of the movement. Therefore, dialogue, deliberation, authorization by citizens and civil disobedience are all conducive to the reflection and participation of the whole society. We shall be like preachers communicating enthusiastically with different communities to convey the universal values such as democracy, universal and equal suffrage, justice and righteousness. We hope that in realizing these values in the system and society of Hog Kong they are willing to pay a price.

In light of this, the campaign is organized by those who uphold the same conviction and they will strive for realizing this ideal by shouldering the responsibilities collectively. To join the campaign or not is purely a personal decision which should not be directed by any organizations or political parties. The success of the campaign relies on the initiatives of individuals in different communities.


Whoever participating in the campaign should uphold its three fundamental convictions as follows:

(1) The electoral system of Hong Kong must satisfy the international standards in relation to universal suffrage. They consist of the political rights to equal number of vote, equal weight for each vote and no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election.

(2) The concrete proposal of the electoral system of Hong Kong should be decided by means of a democratic process, which should consist of deliberation and authorization by citizens.

(3) Any act of the civil disobedience, which aims to fight for realizing a democratic universal and equal suffrage in Hong Kong though illegal, has to be absolutely non-violent.


The campaign consists of four basic steps: signing covenant, deliberation day, citizen authorization and civil disobedience.


The campaign will put forward the proposal on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 after it is decided in the Deliberation Day and authorized by citizens. If the authorities concerned ignore the democratic demands of the citizens and suggest an election method, which violates the corresponding international standards, we shall at appropriate time carry out civil disobedience acts, including Occupy Central.


There are three ways for citizens to participate in the occupy action:

(1) To provide support to those who carry out the acts of civil disobedience without breaking any law themselves.

(2) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience without giving themselves up to the authorities.

(3) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defense in the trial.


We expect there will be at least ten thousand people who follow their conscience and participate in different aspects of the campaign. Let love and peace occupy Central!

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/index.php?route=occupy/book_detail&book_id=11#sthash.3aZoh5N1.dpuf

This campaign originates from our love and concern for Hong Kong. We believe that a truly harmonious society can only be built upon a just political system. The campaign aims to strive for the election of the Chief Executive by universal and equal suffrage in 2017. Civic awakening determines the success of the movement. Therefore, dialogue, deliberation, authorization by citizens and civil disobedience are all conducive to the reflection and participation of the whole society. We shall be like preachers communicating enthusiastically with different communities to convey the universal values such as democracy, universal and equal suffrage, justice and righteousness. We hope that in realizing these values in the system and society of Hog Kong they are willing to pay a price.

In light of this, the campaign is organized by those who uphold the same conviction and they will strive for realizing this ideal by shouldering the responsibilities collectively. To join the campaign or not is purely a personal decision which should not be directed by any organizations or political parties. The success of the campaign relies on the initiatives of individuals in different communities.


Whoever participating in the campaign should uphold its three fundamental convictions as follows:

(1) The electoral system of Hong Kong must satisfy the international standards in relation to universal suffrage. They consist of the political rights to equal number of vote, equal weight for each vote and no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election.

(2) The concrete proposal of the electoral system of Hong Kong should be decided by means of a democratic process, which should consist of deliberation and authorization by citizens.

(3) Any act of the civil disobedience, which aims to fight for realizing a democratic universal and equal suffrage in Hong Kong though illegal, has to be absolutely non-violent.


The campaign consists of four basic steps: signing covenant, deliberation day, citizen authorization and civil disobedience.


The campaign will put forward the proposal on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 after it is decided in the Deliberation Day and authorized by citizens. If the authorities concerned ignore the democratic demands of the citizens and suggest an election method, which violates the corresponding international standards, we shall at appropriate time carry out civil disobedience acts, including Occupy Central.


There are three ways for citizens to participate in the occupy action:

(1) To provide support to those who carry out the acts of civil disobedience without breaking any law themselves.

(2) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience without giving themselves up to the authorities.

(3) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defense in the trial.


We expect there will be at least ten thousand people who follow their conscience and participate in different aspects of the campaign. Let love and peace occupy Central!

- See more at: http://oclp.hk/index.php?route=occupy/book_detail&book_id=11#sthash.3aZoh5N1.dpuf

This campaign originates from our love and concern for Hong Kong. We believe that a truly harmonious society can only be built upon a just political system. The campaign aims to strive for the election of the Chief Executive by universal and equal suffrage in 2017. Civic awakening determines the success of the movement. Therefore, dialogue, deliberation, authorization by citizens and civil disobedience are all conducive to the reflection and participation of the whole society. We shall be like preachers communicating enthusiastically with different communities to convey the universal values such as democracy, universal and equal suffrage, justice and righteousness. We hope that in realizing these values in the system and society of Hog Kong they are willing to pay a price. - See more at: http://oclp.hk/index.php?route=occupy/book_detail&book_id=11#sthash.3aZoh5N1.dpuf

This campaign originates from our love and concern for Hong Kong. We believe that a truly harmonious society can only be built upon a just political system. The campaign aims to strive for the election of the Chief Executive by universal and equal suffrage in 2017. Civic awakening determines the success of the movement. Therefore, dialogue, deliberation, authorization by citizens and civil disobedience are all conducive to the reflection and participation of the whole society. We shall be like preachers communicating enthusiastically with different communities to convey the universal values such as democracy, universal and equal suffrage, justice and righteousness. We hope that in realizing these values in the system and society of Hong Kong they are willing to pay a price.

In light of this, the campaign is organized by those who uphold the same conviction and they will strive for realizing this ideal by shouldering the responsibilities collectively. To join the campaign or not is purely a personal decision which should not be directed by any organizations or political parties. The success of the campaign relies on the initiatives of individuals in different communities.

Whoever participating in the campaign should uphold its three fundamental convictions as follows:

(1) The electoral system of Hong Kong must satisfy the international standards in relation to universal suffrage. They consisted of the political rights to equal number of vote, equal weight for each vote and no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election.

(2) The concrete proposal of the electoral system of Hong Kong should be decided by means of a democratic process, which should consist of deliberation and authorization of citizens.

(3) Any act of civil disobedience, which aims to fight for realizing a democratic universal and equal suffrage in Hong Kong though illegal, has to be absolutely non-violent.

The campaign will put forward the proposal on the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 after it is decided in the Deliberation Day and authorized by citizens. If the authorities concerned ignore the democratic demands of the citizens and suggest an election method, which violates the corresponding international standards, we shall at appropriate time carry out civil disobedience acts, including "Occupy Central."

There are three ways for citizens to participate in the "occupy action.":

(1) To provide support to those who carry out the acts of civil disobedience without breaking any law themselves;

(2) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience without giving themselves up to the authorities;

(3) To carry out the acts of civil disobedience, give themselves up to the authorities and file no defense in the trial.

We expect there will be at least ten thousand people who follow their conscience and participate in different aspects of the campaign. Let love and peace occupy Central!

(Note) The occupying action means participants taking to the roads in Central to block the traffic. When the police come for their arrest, the first ring of participants, i.e. the hard-core members, will not clash with the policemen and will not hire any lawyer to defend themselves when in court. The second ring of participants will not resist arrest either, but they may hire a defense lawyer. The third ring of participants simply support the first and second rings in a lawful manner, e.g. silent standing by the road, presentation of bouquets, etc. The power of this third ring can be enormous. To some people the most significant power of the movement is to paralyze the financial hub, while some believe that it is to awaken the public to the awareness of social inequality through self-sacrifice.

(Hong Kong University Student Union Undergrad magazine, extra edition October 1, 2014) https://undergradhkusu.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/2014/10/01/學苑10-1號外〈雨傘革命-港人起義〉/ )

The most important historical moment in Hong Kong has arrives. Hope is coming. The people of Hong Kong cannot take a wrong step now. They must recognize the situation, the goals and the tactics.

The situation with the "Umbrella Revolution": There are no leaders; leaders are not needed; be wary of certain groups hijacking the revolution

- The "Umbrella Revolution" is absolutely not the "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" of the Occupy Central trio
- The "Umbrella Revolution" leaders are not the Occupy Central trio
- The "Umbrella Revolution" is a resistance movement spontaneously organized by citizens
- The "Umbrella Revolution" has no leaders, and does not need any leaders
- The "Umbrella Revolution" can easily be hijacked by certain groups
- The "Umbrella Revolution" needs spontaneous actions with high civic quality
- The "Umbrella Revolution" needs the people of Hong Kong to supervise the speeches of the Hong Kong Federation of Students and the Occupy Central trio
- The "Umbrella Revolution" has no leaders, does not need any leaders, but it has to be wary of being hijacked by certain groups
- The "Umbrella Revolution" wants civic quality, not violence
- The "Umbrella Revolution" is being watched by the whole world
- The "Umbrella Revolution" wants peaceful resistance, and when the police use violence, the Chinese Communists will be condemned by the world

The ultimate goals of the "Umbrella Revolution: We want genuine universal suffrage, we insist on civil nomination
- We will not withdraw if police commissioner Tsang Wai-hung resigns
- We will not consider it victory if CY Leung resigns
- The people of Hong Kong want the National People's Congress to rescind its resolution on fake universal suffrage
- The people of Hong Kong want changes in the system
- The people of Hong Kong want a genuine democratic system
- The people of Hong Kong want genuine universal suffrage
- The people of Hong Kong want to eliminate the functional constituencies
- The people of Hong Kong want civil nomination
- We will not withdraw unless democracy returns in victory!

The tactics of the "Umbrella Revolution": guerilla warfare in strongholds, paralyzing Hong Kong for a long time
- Do not concentrate all materials and manpower in one stronghold
- Do not clash physically with the police
- Do not throw objects
- The whole world will be watching this movement
- Images of violent rioters would ruin this civil disobedience movement
- High-quality civil disobedience will make the whole world stand on the side of the people of Hong Kong
- When the police clears one site, the masses will move to other strongholds and run guerilla warfare
- If there are many people, the police cannot simultaneously clear all sites
- After the anti-riot police depart, the masses can return to the original strongholds
- Consolidate the strongholds in Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, and then expand other strongholds
- As this is a protracted war, materials are very important
- People must be organized to collect and guard materials and not permit troublemakers to cause destruction

Footnotes on the "Umbrella Revolution":
- Do not treat this as a carnival
- Do not think that you can eat peanuts (and watch the show)
- Those people without proper equipment should please leave
- Those people who come to join the fun should please leave
- This is the glorious battlefield for the people of Hong Kong
- The only people needed here are the warriors of civil disobedience
- In a protracted war, rumors will certainly appear
- Stop spreading rumors
- Suspicious-looking persons and triad gangsters may infiltrate the movement and cause trouble
- Do not withdraw and leave your fellow warriors helplessly behind

"In absurdist experience, suffering is individual.
But from the moment when a movement of rebellion begins, suffering is seen as a collective experience.
'Rebellion' lets the individual from his solitude. It founds its first value on the whole human race.
I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Albert Camus

Q. What touches you the most in all these years in politics?
A. I decided to participate in politics in July 2005 when I ran for the Legislative Council. Since then, the goal of my career has been to obtain universal suffrage. Over all these years, especially the last ten years, the problem of obtaining universal suffrage is actually the problem of the system of governance in Hong Kong. In the past year, especially the past several months, the political arguments had led to the Occupy Movement and polarized our society. The problems that we face are getting more severe. Right now, it is not just a matter of governance in Hong Kong, but it is also a test of whether One Country, Two Systems can be implemented and realized and whether there will be a trend towards serious divisiveness in Hong Kong. All this will affect the long-term security, stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

Q. What do you mean when you say that while it seems to be a governance problem, it is actually a problem about whether One Country, Two Systems can be implemented?
A. I have been thinking about two problems. The first one is the basic conflict between the cultural-historical backgrounds of Hong Kong and China. There is a conflict, at the very least. The second one is how the Beijing government has handled the issue of constitutional reform. Recently the National People's Congress issued the August 31st resolution. This showed that even though the Beijing government took back sovereignty, its trust of the Hong Kong people is very feeble. For this reason, the Hong Kong people are trusting the Central Government less and less. The Beijing government and the citizens who want democracy in Hong Kong are near the point of breaking up. Therefore, I think that the problem we must face is not just "What political reform?" but "How to repair the damaged relationship between the Central Government and Hong Kong?" If the repair fails, it will cause One Country, Two Systems not to be realized.

Q. You say that the biggest problem is the lack of trust between the two sides?
A. Yes. Of course, there are many factors behind this. In the eyes of the Beijing government, many people in Hong Kong are highly distrustful of the Communists in Beijing, if not just outright hostile. Or perhaps they have their doubts. Because both sides -- Beijing and Hong Kong -- can discern a certain clash of political cultures, they cannot build mutual trust. The problem now is how to repair the fissure between the two sides, so that there is a high degree of trust. If you cannot do this, not only will the political reform fail, but even One Country< Two Systems will fail as well. Hong Kong will longer be the window of China to the outside world.

Q. You say that mutual trust is the first step to achieving political reform. Both sides lack political wisdom now. Do you think that there is no hope even if political reform goes all the way to the finish?
A. I won't try to predict whether political reform will succeed of fail, although right now I think it will surely fail. There are some facts that have to be taken seriously. When the democrats fought for political reform, they strategically lacked the political wisdom to make choices. Before August 31 last year, the Hong Kong democrats insisted on an election method using civil nomination. In the eyes of the Central Government, this method violates the Basic Law, and therefore poses a challenges to the Central Government in terms of system and constitution. One Country, Two Systems was the result of a compromise. I believe that if the Chinese wanted to reclaim sovereignty, they did not have to have One Country, Two Systems. From the Communists' viewpoint, One Country, Two Systems was already a form of compromise.

Q. I heard you once said that the Basic Law was the result of a compromise?
A. Yes, the Basic Law itself is a document about compromise. Compromise means that communism and capitalism, a relatively undemocratic society and a relatively democratic society, a society without rule of law and a society with rule of law, can find a basis for co-existence. This basis is the Basic Law. Beijing think that when someone insists on a nomination method that does not fit the Basic Law, it is a challenge to the compromise from the opposite side of the system. Rejecting the Basic Law is rejecting One Country, Two Systems. If the pan-democrats insisted on civil nomination while the Central Government thinks that this is inconsistent with the Basic Law, then the effort to get it will most likely fail.

Q. Do the pan-democrats have the mindset of: "I am going to ask for a high price first. When you agree to sit down to talk, I will make some concessions"?
A. Unfortunately, when you ask for such a high price, the voters will have high expectations. You will be forced into a situation from which you cannot back off. Last October, I brought out my Preferential Voting proposal and I told my pan-democrat friends that we should not be forcing ourselves into a corner from which there is no backing off. This is our situation now. When we asked for civil nomination, every one of us could still back off. But we missed the chance. In April, we went to Shanghai to see. When we came back, we met with Zhang Xiao-ming, director of the China Liaison Office. On June 22, the day of the so-called electronic voting, all three proposals contained civil nomination. At each of the three events, the pan-democrats could have communicated with the Central Government and seek compromise. On August 31, the National People's Congress announced its resolution. Several pan-democratic part chiefs came to ask me: "Ronny Tong, what happened? How come we thought all along that there was still the opportunity to communicate and negotiate, but the August 31 resolution now means that the gates have been dropped." At the time, I was perplexed: "What can I say to you now? Over the past several years, there were many chances. But each time we did not realize: We were insisting on a proposal that the other side considers to be an unacceptable position. You want to communicate, negotiate and exchange ideas, but both sides never did this."

Q. Would you say that the pan-democrats strategically did not have a full grasp of the situation?
A. Yes. Of course, the Central Government owns the power and they ought to bear the largest part of the responsibility. If the Central Government had adopted a more open attitude and trusted the Hong Kong people more, they could have accepted a reform proposal that was closer to the Hong Kong people's ideal. An example would be my Preferential Voting proposal. Under the framework of the Basic Law and the National People's Congress Standing Committee resolution, we could choose a form of universal suffrage that is acceptable to mainstream Hong Kong opinion.

Q. Did anyone in the pan-democratic camp support your Preferential Voting proposal?
A. The democrats were unwilling to publicly support the proposal that I brought up, even though just about everybody said privately that they could accept it. But they never made any public statements of support. Many people asked me, If the pan-democrats thought that my proposal was acceptable, then why didn't they publicly praise it and fight for it? I think that may be several reasons. First of all, everybody thought that when you negotiate with Beijing, you should ask as high a price as possible. But they often don't know how much and so they didn't get a chance to bring down the price. Secondly, as I said before, the higher your demands go, the greater the expectations of society. Then it is not up to you to back off. The pan-democrats depends on public support. As in the case of the Occupy Movement, even if you don't 100% want the the Occupy Movement to last so long, you reach a certain point that any compromise will not be tolerated by your supporters and therefore you are no longer able to retreat. Thirdly, this has to do with the rise of the radical factions. Since 2008 when Raymond Wong Yuk-man entered the Legislative Council elections, the radical factions have taken the position of attacking the less radical democrats. Please note that I am not the moderate democrats -- I have saying the less radical democrats.

Q. There is a saying that the 2012 elections caused the democrats to feel a setback, and therefore this affected their positions on political reform. Is that so?
A. Yes, the democrats felt very much set back. This affected their positions on political reform thereafter. They are no longer willing to see another setback, so they are forced to follow all the decisions and actions of the radical factions. At the time, the pan-democrats spoke about the need for unity. In reality, the so-called unity means following the radical path. If you draw the line with the radicals, you are breaking up unity. If your goal is to unify for the sake of unity, then you will lose your political judgment because you've let the radicals decide for you. Over the past year, this is why we were able to seek unable to find any way out for political reform.

Q. You have always emphasized that you won't mention international standards for universal suffrage?
A. I have never used international standards to describe the political reform package that we want. We the Cantonese people have a saying: Those with broken teeth don't like broken bowls. That is to say, you should be wary about mentioning what you don't want. Actually, in order to achieve the same goal, you should use a narrative that the other side finds acceptable. I don't say something meets international standards. Instead, I say that we want the right to choose without unreasonable restrictions. Why say "without unreasonable restrictions"? That is why National People's Congress Standing Committee deputy secretary-general Li Fei said. He said, "Our goal is to have an election proposal without unreasonable restrictions." This corresponds to the spirit of meeting international standards. So why won't we use Li Fei's description, but instead we use a narrative that the Communists find unacceptable? The more you say international standards, the more convinced the Central Government that you want to internationalize Hong Kong politics and let the United States/United Kingdom forces intervene. Since they are concerned about those issues, it means that every time that you mention international standards, they will think whether you want the United States/United Kingdom to intercede? If you say that we want to have an election method that offers choices without unreasonable restrictions, then it means the same thing. This is a matter of technique for a political narrative.

Q. So this is your technique as a lawyer?
A. That may be because I am a lawyer. When we go to court, the first thing is to gain some understanding about the judge. Who is the judge? What does he prefer? When I speak on a subject, what is the best way to reach the same end? If you say that the political reform must agree with the Basic Law, I will go with the Basic Law; if you say that it must agree with the National People's Congress Standing Committee's resolution, I will go with it too. Whatever you think acceptable, I will also think is acceptable. This becomes a wise and crafty political narrative. If you know that someone is wary about certain matters but you insist to construct your political narrative that way, then aren't you creating trouble for yourself? One of the reasons why political reform failed is the lack of technique in constructing a political narrative.

Q. You proposed preferential voting more than a year ago. How do you look at your proposal?
A. My proposal for political reform was already hopeless under the August 31 resolution, because the National People's Congress has indicated clearly that the four sectors (of the nomination committee) must be preserved in the same proportion. That is to say, they vetoed my proposal at the same time.

Q. Six months ago, you announced that you are shelving your preferential voting proposal. Is there any possibility for this proposal to be re-introduced?
A. Of course there is. But the preconditions are that the Beijing government thinks it is plausible and the pan-democrats also think it is plausible. It is not a question of withdrawal. Actually, once you have proposed something, how can you withdraw it? The problem is that Beijing won't accept it and the pan-democrats won't accept it. Even if I insist that this proposal be re-introduced, it is meaningless.

Q. Do you think that universal suffrage is not about to come to Hong Kong any time soon?
A. The first problem that Beijing has to face is that it is not determined to build mutual trust with the Hong Kong people. If there is no mutual trust, the problem of universal suffrage will never be solved. In 20007, Beijing made a promise on universal suffrage to the Hong Kong people, and established a timetable and roadmap. The problem is that we are coming to 2017, and we find that the universal suffrage of the Central Government is quite different from that of the Hong Kong people. Beijing thinks that if you have one-person-one-vote, then you have universal suffrage. The Hong Kong people think that nomination is also important besides one-person-one-vote. There is a gap. So I think that if Beijing is determined to build mutual trust with the Hong Kong people to solve the long-term governance problem, I think Beijing should say clearly that they want the Hong Kong people to "pocket the proposal for now" and then what will happen in the long run afterwards. You can't just say: "Trust me. Good things will happen. Genuine universal suffrage will take place later." If there is mutual trust, the Hong Kong people will accept it. Without mutual trust, the Hong Kong people won't accept this kind of talk.

Q. What kind of promise will the Hong Kong people find acceptable?
A. Very simple. Beijing should state clearly that the functional constituencies will be eliminated in 2020; the 2022 nomination thresholds will be lowered; the nomination committee composition will be democratized. If these factors are explained clearly and you want the Hong Kong people to "pocket it first" now, they will consider it. The Hong Kong people are most afraid that when 2020 comes around, they find out that Beijing's idea of universal suffrage for the Legislative Council is different from our idea of it. That is, Beijing thinks that universal suffrage is to let the functional constituencies make the nominates for the voters to cast the votes, and that would be universal suffrage for the Legislative Council. Actually, this method does not follow the Basic Law, wherein Article 68 says that the entire Legislative Council members are elected by universal suffrage, not half of them by universal suffrage and the other half nominated by functional constituencies for citizens to vote.

Q. You said that you have no friends in the Legislative Council and therefore you are thoroughly discouraged. Why do you feel that way?
A. I mean to say that  I say as little as possible about political reform. Anything that I say won't help. But as a legislative, I am still obliged to express my viewpoints. For example, on the blank vote proposal, I see that nobody has talk about the issues related to constitution, politics and society. So I had to come out and say something. That is my duty. Besides, although I share the same goals as other pan-democratic legislators, there is a huge difference in strategy. Faced with the unlawful Occupy Movement, many pan-democrats had reservations inside but they don't dare to stay aloof like I do. So they follow the mainstream to occupy, because it is the safest thing to do. Can I spend my remaining time as legislator in the safest way? Of course I can. I won't say anything. If you want to issue a statement, I will sign my name. That would be easy to do. But I feel that this would betray my most basic principle when I entered politics: I don't want to follow the crowd. I got into politics because I want to give my political ideas and judgment to society. How many pan-democratic legislators hold this kind of attitude when they entered politics? Therefore, I felt isolated and estranged. A legislator should not be considering whether he is standing at the safest place. He should offer his own ideas without any hesitation. You can say that I am stupid, you can say that I don't know how to behave. But this is the reason why Hong Kong politics is so pathetic.

Q. What is your view on the second round of political reform consultations?
A. My view is that there isn't much meaning. It is more meaningful to think about how to repair the fissure between the Central Government and Hong Kong. It is meaningless to make some minor amendments to the National People's Congress' August 31 resolution. Worse yet, it gives the wrong impression that a few minor amendments can solve those major problems. For example, the veto proposal (that is, enough blank votes will cause the nominated candidates not to be elected) was the talk of the town when it was brought up. This created the false impression that the veto proposal can solve our current problems. Our political judgments are completely wrong.

Q. There is some talk that if the political reform package is not passed, then Chief Executive CY Leung will be elected for another term. What do you think?
A. I don't necessarily think so. If there is universal suffrage, then he won't be Chief Executive again. If there is no universal suffrage, then I think the Central Government won't be stupid enough to let him continue for five more years. Right now, the Central Government supports him as a matter of ace. The more the Occupy people call for his resignation, the stronger the Central Government supports CY Leung. If not, then it would look like as if the Central Government is yielding to the demands of the Occupy people. So the Central Government has no choice except to support CY Leung. If the political reform fails, will the Central Government keep CY Leung? I think that a politically wise leadership won't do that. I believe that Beijing is wise.

Q. The second round of consultations on political reform have begun. The government will not make any concessions, and they will be facing the non-cooperative movement. Do you think there will be any results?
A. I think that the non-cooperative movement is a very dangerous decision. It may be acceptable to engage in some non-cooperative actions in the short run to express your dissatisfaction. But if you engage in non-cooperation for the long term, then it will harm society and citizens alike. For example, can we pass the pay raise for public servants before the Lunar New Year? Or double payment for welfare recipients? If you continue to refuse to cooperate, continue to obstruct, then a large proportion of people will be extremely disappointed, even angry, with the pan-democrats. So what good is this to you? You can continue your non-cooperation movement, but you won't bring down the government. More likely, you will bring yourselves down. Therefore, the non-cooperative movement is not a politically smart move.

Q. After the Umbrella Movement, the District Council elections at the end of this year will be unfavorable to the pan-democrats?
A. The District Councils are never the strong suit of the pan-democrats, so it is absolutely going to be unfavorable.

Q. I heard that the Federation of Students and Scholarism are trying to form political parties. How do you assess their ideas on party formation?
A. It is a good thing for young people to want to become interested in politics and participate. But party formation is no so easy. First of all, what is the definition of a political party? You have to have a parliamentary seat first before you can be called a political party. If you don't have a parliamentary seat, you are merely a "pressure group" without a vote inside the system. So if you form a party, you need to have a parliamentary seat first. How do you get a parliamentary seat? You need to have broad support. Not just from one social class or one geographical district, but broad-based support. That is why it is not so easy to form a political party. You say that you look strong when several tens of thousand (or even one hundred thousand) people march in the streets with you. But if you turn these tens of thousands into votes in a parliamentary election, it may not be that impressive. Your hundred thousand demonstrators come from various geographical districts, but you are going to need at least 30,000 votes in the geographical district in which you run in. When you form a party and you get people to run for elections, then you will realize that your goal is not so easy to reach. I have gone through the pains of forming a political party (Civic Party). I know very well that it is not easy to form a political party.

(Oriental Daily) January 18, 2015

Yesterday at 7pm, about 50 citizens responded to an Internet appeal for hundreds of people to join the Ultimate Shopping Revolution on the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian mall. They raised the five-star national flag and the Chinese Communist flag. They also hoisted banners an placards with the words "Oppose Occupy Central, protect CY Leung, support Hong Kong independence". The group disbanded peacefully at 10pm.

This is supposed to be humorous, but some people did not find it funny ...

(Wen Wei Po) January 18, 2015.

The event was organized by the social media group "Genuine Nation/Party Loving Alliance." They said that they are starting the "Hong Kong Red Guard Revolution" and they support CY Leung as the Central Military Commission chairman. Although they appeared to be "patriotic", they also raised placards for "Building the Hong Kong nation" and the British lion flag.

At around 7pm, the group of people gathered at the intersection of Sai Yeung Choi Street South and Nelson Street near the Bank Centre. Some of the demonstrators placed placards that read "Building the Hong Kong nation" and waving the British flag. At around 8pm, the demonstrators marched south in the direction of Yau Ma Tei district.

While the demonstrators marched down the Sai Yeung Choi Street, all the street performers were forced to pause and the spectators had to make way for them. A promotion event for a mobile phone game was canceled. The telecommunications and broadband sales people also had to step aside. Since the demonstrators took over the roadway, the sideways were now jammed with other people.

At first, the demonstrators just marched up and down Sai Yeung Choi Street South. At around 9pm, the organizer announced that the march is "over" and told the demonstrators to disperse. However, the other demonstrators ignored him and continued to march up and down the pedestrian mall. When they arrived outside the Broadway Cinema, they joined the "foul-mouthed teacher" Alpais Lam Wai-sze and others who were handing out yellow balloons with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage." They also pretended to play-act persons with opposite viewpoints to curse each other out.

At around pm, the demonstrators were gathered together with the yellow balloon folks. Entry into the cinema and neighboring clothing stores was impeded. Some stores lowered their gates and closed.

(YouTube video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ztd808Cqyk

 (Stand News https://thestandnews.com/politics/重組1130升級-在沒有英雄的行動裏-上/ ) Part 1.

In late November, Federation of Students executive committee chairman Ivan Law and veteran Tsang Lok-hin contacted the four Admiralty defense marshals. This was the first time that the Federation of Students had reached out to the Admiralty defense team.

There are more than 100 volunteers in the four defensive sectors in Admiralty. The sectors were formed after the police released tear gas on September 28. The volunteers took turn to guard the area on a 24-hour-per day basis and to deploy the metal barricades accordingly. They are unrelated to the Grand Stage (or the Five-Party Platform), and they only coordinate when something happens. The volunteers are alert to everything that happens in the area. When there are conflicts, they are the first ones to face off the police and the anti-Occupy civilians.

During the 60+ days of Occupy Admiralty, the Federation of Students had never set roots down in Admiralty. They merely communicated with individual supply stations. When Ivan Law met with the defense marshals, he came with a message from the Federation of Students -- they want to escalate and that was bound to affect the Admiralty defenders.

This meeting took place less than one week before the planned escalation date.

Escalation was on the minds of everybody. So the defense marshals offered a number of detailed proposals, including locations outside the Occupy areas. But the Federation of Students wanted to target the government. Specifically, they want to lay siege to Government Headquarters. The defense marshals suggested the following plan -- Rapid attacks on Performing Arts Road and Edinburgh Place; rapid transportation of metal barricades to trap automobiles; blockade by a fleet of vehicles on the outside ring; occupation of Lung Wo Road. The "innocent" automobiles trapped in the blockade would serve to impede police clearance. Lo and Tsang took the proposal back to the Federation of Students.

On the night before the escalation, the Federation of Students/Scholarism held the first full action-planning meeting with other civic organizations. Someone pointed out that the students were inexperienced with action, because they only need to block the pedestrian overpass at Admiralty Centre in order to stop government workers from going to their offices. But this proposal was rejected, because "this is not escalation -- the twenty or so persons attending this meeting could have done it by themselves." People had great hopes for the action, and they must not be disappointed. During this meeting, the subject of the fleet of volunteer vehicles did not even come up.

The meeting went overtime. The students and the civic organizations came to the final decision: Block the Admiralty Centre overpass; proceed down the Tamar Park stairwell down to Tim Wah Road and block the Chief Executive's Office. They estimated that the demonstrators will be able to hold up for one day and paralyze the Government Headquarters operations for one day. Lung Wo Road was not even in the plans. Ivan Law characterized this plan as a compromise.

In fact, most of the government workers use the Admiralty Centre overpass to each their offices. The intersection of Tim Wah Road and Lung Wo Road is used for cars which carry the senior government officials. If the goal was to lay siege to Government Headquarters and make it impossible for government workers to go to work, then the Admiralty Centre overpass was crucial whereas Lung Wo Road isn't that important. The Tamar Park stairwell is narrow and can accommodate only several hundred persons. If citizens come out to support, they will necessarily spill onto Lung Wo Road with near certainty.

"We knew that there was a good chance of going onto Lung Wo Road, but we were not properly prepared", so said Ivan Law. He said that the Federation of Students thought that using a fleet of vehicles would make it hard to control. In retrospect, this more complete plan may make things better. But the Federation of Students did not study its advantages and feasibility in detail. In the end, the middle-of-the-road compromise solution turned out to be the one that caused maximum damage to the participants. Throughout, Scholarism was not apprised of this plan.

The meeting ended on the early morning of November 30. Ivan Law went back to inform the defense marshals. The defense marshals' response was: Collective boycott of the action. They said that the students were too naive to call for such a risky action. "The students proposed a proposal that required force to succeed (that is, break through the police line to reach Tim Wah Road). But at the same time, they advocated non-violence."

With respect to this escalation, Ivan Law said: "The students did not have such a big head ... but they wore a big hat that we couldn't wear."

In other words, when Federation of Students' Yvonne Leung said "they might lay siege to Government Headquarters" to the media, they still did not finalize any plans. But newspapers kept citing the information from the Five-Party Platform meetings on the escalation.

Scholarism convener Joshua Wong said that he was pessimistic about the number of participants. He was further discouraged by the negative coverage in the newspapers (including the pro-democracy ones). At the same time, the government was positioning this as a escalation of violence for which the response is violent clearance.

While the intention was exposed, nobody knew the details of the Federation of Students' plan. Ivan Law said that they wanted at first to wait until the moment of declaration before disclosing the details. In retrospect, this had the opposite effect: when the target is unclear, those who were drawn to come all had different agendas and ideas.

Not many people came, which was the pessimistic forecast of the students; but the many fissures among the group was even harder to cope with.

The Action sect leader Alvin Cheng showed up that day wearing body armor. He was ready to man the front line. He recalled that certain Valiant Ones told the Federation of Students that there were too few participants for the plan to succeed, and therefore an alternate plan should be adopted. "Don't try to lay siege. We won't be able to lay siege. Even if we can, we won't be able to defend." But their advice was rejected. Some of the Action people decided not to participate.

Very few Action people showed up in Admiralty. Alvin Cheng said that they were saying that this action was a plot by the Federation of Students/Scholarism to wipe out the Action people in one sweep. That was why many of the Action people did not show up. He himself came for the sake of his fellow warriors.

Another Action person named Johnny watched the orators on the Grand Stage and remarked to a friend -- Here is the script: Escalate; fail; police clear the field; police clear Admiralty the next morning. Afterwards, Johnny and his fellow warriors still joined for the following reason: After the November 18 battle at the Legislative Council, he realized the Admiralty villagers were completely oblivious. "We had to rescue them. They want to die. Are we really going to watch them die? Given the circumstances that day, if there were fewer Action people, they ..."

On that night, even the defense teams who promised boycott eventually showed up in Admiralty. One person was attending Cokenflap and walked out in the middle to return. After all, they had stood guard for more than 60 days and they couldn't rest well.

"Aim at the authorities, lay siege to Government Headquarters." At 9am on November 30, the Federation of Students' Ivan Law announced on the Grand Stage underneath the Admiralty Centre overpass. According to <Apple Daily>, more than 4,000 citizens (including many who wore helmets, goggles and surgical masks) followed the directions to head toward Tamar Park.

(Stand News https://thestandnews.com/politics/重組1130升級-在沒有英雄的行動裏-中/ )

Several Scholarism members stood in front of the metal barricades. One Scholarism female used a megaphone to address the police to demand to know why the pedestrian walkway was blocked and why citizens are not allowed on the sidewalk next to the Chief Executive's Office. She led the demonstrators to chant: "The police give way!" The police commander ordered the police officers to film this female demonstrator and warned her not to "incite" the crowd.

More and more demonstrators gathered at the top of the stairwell. The Scholarism members at the front line shouted on the megaphone, but they did not take any action. They kept checking their mobile phones. After more than ten minutes, they finally issued the order: "We will slowly push towards the police barricades. The police applied large quantities of pepper spray at the demonstrators.

The original plan of the Federation of Students/Scholarism was to advance down the Tamar Park stairway down to the Chief Executive's Office. This is a short flight of stairs which can be occupied fully by one hundred plus persons. But there were thousands of demonstrators. Tamar Park was filled with demonstrators waiting to move up. Meanwhile other demonstrators were amassed on the Lung Wo Road sidewalk opposite the Chief Executive's Office. They confronted the uniformed police. Many of them did not wear any defensive gear.

The assault on the Tamar Park stairway was stalled. But at around 10pm, a large number of demonstrators charged onto Lung Wo Road at the point just across the People's Liberation Army barracks.

At that time, there was only one row of police officers in front of the demonstrators.

On Lung Wo Road near the Legislative Council building, a group of demonstrators quickly set up defensive structures. They kept arguing about the number and placement of the metal barricades, about whether to advance or retreat. Some people yelled: "Bring the metal barricades up." Other people yelled: "We have enough metal barricades." Some demonstrators moved metal barricades over from faraway and then found out that these were not needed. So they tossed the metal barricades on the roadside and said angrily: "(Sigh) This is what happens when there is no commander and only the masses." They also debated over whether they should take private property from a construction site to build barricades. In the end, someone said: "Let everybody do what they feel is right."

The Umbrella Movement characterized itself as: "No commander, just the masses." The disadvantages of the lack of an organization was very obvious during the escalation.

Within the Federation of Students, Scholarism and other civic movement groups, about 30 to 40 people were willing to risk being arrested. But a lot of others were involved in multiple cases already and did not want to be re-arrested. A number of others did not agree with this escalation and did not participate. Apart from the speakers on the Grand Stage at Admiralty Centre, the participating Federation of Students/Scholarism students divide themselves into a dozen teams equipped with megaphones. The frontline teams and the Grand Stage speakers were allowed to be on-the-spot calls, but the important decisions were handed back to the "cloud" (that is, the communication platform) to make. But many of the students were unknown to the demonstrators, and their megaphones were not powerful.

During and after the escalation, the media wanted to know where the leaders of the Federation of Students and Scholarism were. Joshua Wong was out on bail and followed progress via the Internet. He said: "Even if I went, I would have charged and then got arrested. Then I will make a moral appeal ..." His girlfriend was on the frontline, and copped pepper spray and baton. Joshua Wong could only read his mobile phone.

The pro-establishment legislators noted that Joshua Wong and Yvonne Leung were inside the Legislative Council building that night. They condemned the Federation of Students and Scholarism for using the Legislative Council as the command centre for violent clashes. But they don't understand that no physical command center was needed -- the so-called command center was in a "cloud" formed by mobile telephones.

The question was whether the presence of a command structure would have made a difference. The scale of this escalation exceeded anything seen in previous social movements in Hong Kong and was beyond the ability of any organization or individual to deal with. Ivan Law was on the Tim Wah Road frontline. He could only use the emotions of the crowd to make judgments. "In a movement, it is not up to you to decide whether to charge or not." Joshua Wong said that a "command-and-control" organizational structure was a "pretty fantasy." The Federation of Students and Scholarism have to admit that they don't have the ability to command the crowd. "The crowd don't want to be led by you." Wong added that the megaphone is used in social movements to control the situation, but its purpose is more like a shouting battle with the police. But they could not match the Special Tactical Unit. "We couldn't control anything. At most we leave. What can you do?"

On that night, everybody complained that the Federation of Students and Scholarism went missing. They were the organizations that called the escalation, so they should have concrete strategies for leadership. But do the demonstrators really need them to lead?

Paradoxically, apart from clothing, the students have the same speech rights as any other demonstrator. Federation of Students Executive Secretary Nathan Chung was better known. He told the demonstrators not to move bricks to the front line and he was cursed out. It took him a while to convince them. They scorned at him: "We are taking action right now. Why are you debating me?" But there were also some demonstrators who listened to what the students said. When other demonstrators made calls or recommendations, these people ask: "You are not with the Federation of Students/Scholarism. By what right are you commanding others?"

Even if members of the Federation of Students/Scholarism attempted to take command, the result may be less than ideal because they were unfamiliar with the environment in Admiralty. At around midnight, a large police contingent showed up near Harcourt Road. According to the Rodney Street marshal Mary, a Federation of Students member used a megaphone to tell citizen reinforcements to stand behind the wooden pallets on the Eastern Front. But the wooden pallets are feeble and used only as sentry posts. The true defense was the several layers of metal barricades behind. When Mary went up to point out the problem, he was challenged on his identity. Mary was unhappy that these students knew nothing about practical warfare, but they used their megaphones to issue nonsensical orders to the crowd. Mary chased the students away and directed the citizens to stand behind the metal barricades.

Some of the Action people wanted to use the name of Federation of Students/Scholarism to push othe ractoins. After Lung Wo Road was occupied, a dozen or so demonstrators surrounded Ivan Law outside the Chief Executive's Office to ask why the Federation of Students called to charge into the Chief Executive's Office. They said that surrounding the Chief Executive's Office is not an escalation. Ivan Law emphasized that the Federation of Students will not do such a thing. But he also said that he will not stop these demonstrators. "If you really want to charge, I will lend you my megaphone or whatever. But the Federation of Students will do no such thing." The demonstrators cursed Ivan Law out, saying: "Fuck! The Federation of Students is fucking useless." Then they dispersed without making further appeals to other demonstrators outside the Chief Executive's Office.

At the same time, a number of demonstrators came to see the Scholarism members and told them Lung Wo Road cannot be defended successfully. Instead, while the demonstrators were still occupying Lung Wo Road, they should occupy the Legislative Council building instead. The Scholarism members refused. In consideration that the Federation of Students and Scholarism will be held responsible, these demonstrators did not take action on their own.

A demonstrator even told a member of the Federation of Students that he can arrange to bring in a supply of iron pipes to attack the police with. All the Federation of Students had to do was ask.

On the grass area of Tamar Park, many people stood. Some of them wore helmets, goggles and surgical masks, but they stayed aloof and watched. They ignored the appeals "Come and help!" from the young people on Lung Wo Road. The latter were facing the police, but most of them did not wear full gears.

Scholarism member Lam Shun-hin and Federation of Students executive committee member Ivan Law were in charge of the Grand Stage broadcasts that night. After those citizens who were willing to join the front line headed towards Tim Wah Road, several hundred people were left sitting near the Grand Stage. Lam Shun-hin described that he and Law repeated the call for those citizens who are ready to carry out civil disobedience to join the other citizens at the front line many times. He also called for the remaining citizens to blockage the two escalators at the Admiralty Centre overpass, as well as the Lennon Wall stairway in order to realize the blockade of Government Headquarters. But the citizens around the Grand Stage were not responsive. Lam Shun-hin said that he did not expect some citizens to go to the frontlines, but "I never expected that some citizens won't even budge." As 1am neared, many people walked back towards Admiralty Centre to take the last subway home.

At past 2am, Lung Wo Road was almost completely cleared. A group of angry Action people condemned the Grand Stage for only telling citizens to head towards the Eastern Defensive Line and Tim Wah Road but not to reinforce Lung Wo Road. They got ready to dismantle the Grand Stage. The Action people questioned the Grand Stage: "So many people are sitting around! Why can't you call them to action?" But the fact was that Lam and Law had spent all night for the citizens to head to the frontlines, but many citizens continued to sit solidly near the Grand Stage.

The Grand Stage was far away from the front line. Not many people followed the commands. In retrospect, Lam Shu-hin questioned what purpose the Grand Stage served in the action.

When the news that Lung Wo Road was re-taken came, the critics dispersed. The Grand Stage called for citizens to reinforce Lung Wo Road. Eason Chung, who was down at Lung Wo Road, also called for citizens to stay and guard Lung Wo Road.

During the first charge at Lung Wo Road, members of the Federation of Students/Scholarism were present. The second charge at Lung Wo Road was completely spontaneously started by the demonstrators. At the first charge, the police used pepper spray and baton to try to stop the demonstrators. At the second charge, there were no scenes of clashes. The demonstrators re-took Lung Wo Road almost effortlessly.

It came to easy. After Lung Wo Road was occupied, people wondered on the scene as well as the Internet whether this was a police trip.

Everybody knew that the police can clear Lung Wo Road in one fell swoop. The police will come to clear the site, the police will come ... but hour and hour passed and the police did not come. The Lung Wo Road demonstrators were tired after the night's fighting. So they sat down to rest.

Meanwhile the people outside were fearful of a trap. During the first clearance of Lung Wo Road, many of the defense team were injured. The remaining people took the injured for medical treatment. When they got back to Admiralty, they found out that Lung Wo Road had been re-taken. They immediately went to see Alex Chow and Ivan Law, and told them that they should go to Lung Wo Road immediately to tell the demonstrators to retreat in order to avoid another violent police clearance.

According to the defense marshal Big Guy, the Federation of Students and Scholarism called for these people to come and therefore have the "obligation" to look after their safety. He said that the students escalated with insufficient numbers and therefore they should have a withdrawal plan. Otherwise, it would simply be a bloody rout. In spite of what the defense marshals said, the students did not make any decisions. They only decided to guard the Admiralty Centre pedestrian overpass in order to blockade Government Headquarters.

Ivan Law returned to the Grand Stage, and used the microphone to tell the citizens to defend the Admiralty Centre overpass. The Action people who heard his call thought that the Federation of Students was telling people not to support those at Lung Wo Road. They questioned the decision. They angrily tossed helmets, water bottles, etc at the Grand Stage. Ivan Law was hit several times. ""Each one thought that the Grand Stage should be saying this or that ..."

Those who want to retreat said that letting people stay behind on Lung Wo Road is sending them to their deaths. Those who want to defend said that not reinforcing Lung Wo Road is sending those staying there to their deaths. The two sides held their own opinions. One side wanted the students to withdraw from Lung Wo Road. The other side wanted the students to call for everybody to reinforce Lung Wo Road. It was a tug of war.

At one point, the Grand Stage simultaneously ordered "reinforce Lung Wo Road" and "defend the Admiralty Centre overpass." "If those people upon whom you rely know how to divide labor, these commands are not particularly hard to carry out. But the demonstrators do not follow our orders and it is unrealistic to expect them to divide labor. Actually, we know that Lung Wo Road was a trap ... but the movement contains too wide a spectrum of voices. All orders will be criticized by somebody or the other."

"When there are so many friends from different parts of the spectrum within a movement, no organizations can handle any breaking events."

Joshua Wong said that he thought about calling all the demonstrators to withdraw to the Admiralty Centre overpass, but he did not think this was operationally feasible. Even if the Federation of Students and Scholarism make a formal call, some of the demonstrators will not leave Lung Wo Road. It would be tough to "abandon them." Joshua Wong knew that the Federation of Students and Scholarism needed to be responsible to all the demonstrators. "People think that you can call for a retreat and then abandon those who won't. But even those left behind got injured, then maybe they would not be injured if the Federation of Students and Scholarism did not call for a retreat."

As the argument went on, dawn came. The demonstrators opened their eyes to the chilly winter wind. The Tim Wah Road police warned them: "You are participating in an unlawful assembly. Please leave immediately, or the police will use water and pepper stray to disperse you ..." At the time, very few demonstrators were left on Lung Wo Road. The weather was cold, and the police threatened to use a water cannon (which the police explained later was water spray). The demonstrators booed and chanted "I want genuine universal suffrage."

After standing on the Grand Stage with Alex Chow to call the citizens to guard the Admiralty Centre overpass, Scholarism's Oscar Lai joined Lam Shun-hin to proceed to Lung Wo Road. They wanted to discuss retreat with the demonstrators. But it was too late.

The Special Tactical Units had moved towards the demonstrators on Lung Wo Road.

(Stand News https://thestandnews.com/politics/重組1130升級-在沒有英雄的行動裏-下/ ) Part 3.

With the police swinging their batons wildly, the demonstrators retreated quickly without forgetting to seize the backpack of the person in front of them or holding their shoulders. The police call this "grabbing the suspect" while the demonstrators call this "rescuing someone."

The police did not push forward rapidly on the Tamar Park slope. They walked steadily while forcing the demonstrators to back up. They removed the tents along the way. When individual demonstrators threw helmets or water bottles at the police, the police charged up and hit people viciously.

Eventually, the demonstrators were backed up to the Admiralty Centre overpass. A water bottle came from the rear. The demonstrators up front yelled together: "Don't throw objects!" But someone countered: "Leftard! At this moment, you still want to stop others from taking action!"

Even as the police kept pressing step by step, demonstrators were arguing with each other about whether to throw objects.

The Federation of Students and Scholarism did not think that the police would not stop at clearing Lung Wo Road or charging up Tamar Park, but they are now pushing all the way to Admiralty Centre. Indeed, the police could effect clearance anytime. But when this became reality on this morning, everybody was taken by surprise.

While the Special Tactical Unit was chasing and hitting demonstrators, an argument broke out near the Grand Stage. The medical corps volunteers wanted the Grand Stage speaker to tell the people on the Admiralty Centre overpass to retreat in order to make way for the Tamar Park medical corps volunteers and demonstrators who were retreating in this direction. But there was a number of Action people who said that the Grand Stage speaker should tell more people to reinforce the overpass. "Hey, charge up there! Stop the police!"

As the Grand Stage called for retreat, other Federation of Students who have not received the cloud information yet were on the overpass to tell citizens to get up there.

The Lung Wo Road demonstrators were chased over to the Admiralty Centre along with many press reporters. The overpass was filled with people. There were only two escalators to exit, where four people can pass at the same time. The demonstrators yelled: "We are walking!" "We cannot move!" But the police kept pressing, hitting with their batons and using pepper spray.

The Special Tactical Unit moved to the other side of Admiralty Centre and began to remove the banners that had been hanging for several dozen days. The people under the overpass saw it and wondered: "Is this the clearance?"

The Federation of Students, Scholarism, Hong Kong Shield and other social movement leaders gathered around the Grand Stage to discuss. Downstairs on Harcourt Road, people were excited and kept asking: "Now what?" They wanted clear directions from the Grand Stage. Somebody started to throw objects at the Grand Stage. Ivan Law was hit by a water bottle. Some demonstrators were emotionally distraught. Alvin Cheng charged at the Grand Stage and yelled: "All my fellow warriors are either arrested or injured. Who has thought about them?" He was dissuaded by others, but he began to cry.

"This was strategically doomed ... The Action people said that they would not show up. In the end, they could not bear it. This is what hurts the most." Cheng explained later why he was so disturbed at the time.

After some discussions, Alex Chow got on the Grand Stage and called for the demonstrators to defend all existing Occupy areas. At this time, the demonstrators began cursing. The Admiralty Centre overpass was completely cleared. A group of policemen wearing black sleeveless sweaters were laughing on the overpass, with some of them giving the middle finger. When Alex Chow learned about that, he used the microphone to yell: "Police, stop provoking the citizens ..." But it did not achieve the desired effect. The policemen wearing black sleeveless jackets responded with more variations without lessening their smiles.

More than one hundred demonstrators asked the Federation of Students and Scholarism to break out of Central and hit another area to draw away the police. Other demonstrators asked the Grand Stage to tell everybody to leave the Occupy areas. The Grand Stage could only tell the demonstrators to stay calm.

The emergency station inside Admiralty Centre was processing a large number of injured demonstrators coming down from the overpass. After all the demonstrators were evacuated, the demonstrators barricaded the escalators. The police came down the escalators and waved their police baton in threat. A female demonstrators waved her hands and cried out: "Don't hit!" but she did not retreat. A male demonstrators attempted to push a metal barricade up to the escalator. Several police officers yelled at him. The male demonstrator paused, but then continued. The police officers rushed over and grabbed the male demonstrators.

As the anti-riot police officers came down the escalator and charged towards the demonstrators, the Grand Stage could not nothing beyond screaming: "Police, please restrain yourselves!" "Police, don't harm the citizens!"

The police came and went like a swarm of bees. They could not be stopped by the demonstrators or the students. The Special Tactical Unit went through as if there was no defense. On that morning, the police wrought their violence and then left.

"We were doing something that we could not control ... we did not have the ability to do it, but we chose to do it. We don't have a big enough head to wear such a big hat, but we put it on our head."

"(At first) there were some internal dissensions. But after the authorities cleared Mong Kok violently, we felt that we needed to make a response, we felt that we needed to escalate ... actually, we were uneasy during the planning. But the circumstances forced us to do that ..."

What are the "circumstances"? Our reporter asked Ivan Law. He said that apart from the excessive government actions, it was "Internet opinion."

The Action people wanted to dismantle the Grand Stage while the Internet was filled with disappointments over the movement, creating pressure on the Federation of Students/Scholarism. Alvin Cheng thought that the Federation of Students/Scholarism called for an escalation on November 30 as "payback." Ivan Law agreed taht the escalation decision was made in response to the wishes of some of the people. Afterwards, Ivan Law saw clearly the need to communicate with the masses and establish relationships in order to change their thinking. "This is not about doing something and then they will be satisfied."

In retrospect, Scholarism's Joshua Wong and Action person Alvin came up with remarkably similar conclusions. Cheng said that "this resistance model was a new beginning. The people had no prior experience, they could not coordinate and they don't trust each other." Wong said: "The people do not enough understanding and trust of each other, because nobody has ever dealt with such actions."

"It is impossible to be fully prepared before the escalation action, like a general giving commands. The preparations were clearly inadequate. But even if there is a plan, it doesn't mean that the executor has the ability to execute that plan." The Federation of Students/Scholarism called for escalation, but they did not dare to act like the boss at the scene. Is that the case? Our reporter asked. Joshua Wong pondered for a few moments, and corrected our reporter's statement: "The Federation of Students/Scholarism do not know how to be the boss, and they do not have the position of boss either."

The Action people often said that masses spontaneously came after the police fired tear gas canisters on September 28. This was supposed to prove that "No Grand Stage, just the masses" was a good thing. On the day of September 28, there were several tens of thousands on Connaught Road.

"There is a saying that even if more people join the assembly, only one to two thousand persons will be charging. I disagree. If 100,000 persons were there on the day of the escalation, the police setup would be adjusted accordingly. Actually, people tend to make a distinction between the Action people and the Moderates. But the two sides are helping each other."

By 3pm that day, some defense line volunteers were ready to dismantle the Grand Stage, but Big Guy persuaded them not to.

At 8pm that evening, the Grand Stage event began. Volunteers from the defense line, medical corps and supply stations marched to the Grand Stage ready to list all the mistakes that the Federation of Students and Scholarism made last night, and then they would remove the metal barricades in front of the Grand Stage. The group encountered Alvin Cheng who queuing up to speak. In the end, the medical corps volunteers Max and Alvin Cheng went on stage together to explain why the volunteers want to do this.

These two represent groups who were opposed to each other once upon a time. But today, they were getting together to dismantle the Grand Stage.

But Big Guy did not expect that after the two said a couple of sentences on stage, the people downstage could not wait to remove the metal barricades. The other people surrounding the stage called these volunteers "rioters" and "hot dogs." Alvin Cheng insisted on staying on stage. He said: "You can yell 'Shameless' if you like downstage, but that is useless! Why don't you wake up? ... You want real action! Either you come up here and drag me down!" In the end, a middle-aged woman went up and dragged him downstage.

The Grand Stage monitors and workers did not interfere with those dismantling the Grand Stage. After all, the volunteers are the ones who helped to defend. "When the only people who can protect you come to dismantle your stage, you should reflect yourself!"

In retrospect, Ivan Law thought that if the plan that day was for everybody to sit down for the police to remove one by one, they could have stalled for more time. Instead, they were chased off the Admiralty Centre overpass in less than 15 minutes. But this is just hindsight. Besides, Ivan Law who had been hit with water bottles several times that day, knew that "they would beat me up if I said that." But nevertheless this is what he told our reporter.

For Big Guy, he estimated that if the Valiant Ones from Admiralty and Mong Kok got together, they would be about 200 in number. With a perfect plan in which the Valiant Ones stay at the front line and shields are given to everybody, they could have held on for a few more hours before retreating. But the Federation of Students and Scholarism communicated poorly with the Admiralty defense marshals already, much less than the Mong Kong Action people.

"The successes and failures of this movement are both due to absence of leadership. A leaderless movement cannot be broken apart by seizing the leaders. But because there are no leaders, there is no organization to speak off and rifts abound everywhere. This is the main reason for failure ... the Federation of Students is ultimately the student organization which can mobilize the most number of people. So we can't complain. But I would say that the Federation of Students is an inapt leader."

"The times make the hero, but they are not it."

Alan Leong (Civic Party)

(YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hupFSUcRm9E
(Alan Leong) He criticized the book Hong Kong Nation so that it became a tool of political struggle ... an ideological struggle ... this book has sold out ... sold out ... this was a false issue. Nobody in Hong Kong is fighting for Hong Kong independence. I want to ask CY Leung whether he is doing this in order to show that he can maintain stability more and more. But has he thought about if he misled his superiors about the military situation, the consequences will be dire for him?
(CY Leung) Some young students have brought up Hong Kong self-determination, Hong Kong independence, even Hong Kong nation building and establishing a military. I suggest to Legislator Alan Leong that instead of asking questions, why doesn't he state whether he supports those views or not.
(Alan Leong) CY Leung has completely failed to address my question. The students only wrote some essays, and he was so scared that he personally wrote in the foreword and conclusion of the Policy Report. He personally named them to criticize them. Is freedom of expression no longer allowed? Freedom of academic study no longer allowed? Such big reactions to some essays written by young students. Is that a sign of fear?
(CY Leung) Chairman, Legislator Alan Leong has been evasive on whether he supports exposition of the students on Hong Kong. I hope that when Legislator Alan Leong has the time and opportunity, he should let the people of Hong Kong know whether he supports those viewpoints or not. Eh ... as for freedom of expression and freedom of academic study, it has nothing to do with Sections 9 and 10 in my Policy Report.
(Alan Leong) Let me state for the record here that I, Alan Leong, am opposed to Hong Kong independence.

Internet comments:

- CY Leung forced Alan Leong to say what he did not want to say.

- I can't wait to see Wan Chin, Billy Chiu, Gary Fan Kwok-wai and other City-State advocates rip into Alan Leong for selling out "The Cause".

- The Chief Executive also has freedom of expression, and he can surely be allowed to say what he thinks. Criticizing certain views is not suppressing freedom of expression. Banning the publication of Hong Kong University Student Union's Undergrad would be suppressing freedom of expression, but there is no indication that this will happen. Disallowing the Chief Executive to speak out is suppressing his freedom of expression.

- Alan Leong was screwed -- if he says that he disapproves those views, he will be criticized by the City-State wing of the pro-democracy camp; if he says that he approves of those views, he will have violated his oath of office, which is "I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity." That hurts!

- Why would you believe Leong's statement for the record anyway? Wasn't he the guy who said: "Although I oppose the right of abode for Filipina domestic helpers, I support their right to apply for the right of abode." Just another joke.

- Alan Leong said at the Legislative Council: "Nobody in Hong Kong is fighting for Hong Kong independence." Shortly afterwards, someone hang out a banner on a Tai Po pedestrian overpass (via Oriental Daily):

[Hong Kong self-determination]

- (Post852 http://www.post852.com/專訪王俊杰:我贊成港獨/ ) Interview with Keyvin Wong, former assistant editor-in-chief at Hong Kong University Student Union Undergrad magazine)

After Chief Executive CY Leung named Undergrad in his criticism, Keyvin Wong told the media that he edited this publication and the subsequent book to discuss localism and not to advocate Hong Kong independence, and that he has no intention to plot concrete steps for Hong Kong independence. After he stated that, the pro-establishment camp said that this was sophistry while the pro-democracy camp supported his freedom of expression. But others laughed at him for being a coward who dared to do but not to admit it. In response, Wong reiterated that he did not lie -- "he agrees with Hong Kong independence, but he has done nothing with respect to Hong Kong independence."

As for "agreeing with Hong Kong independence," Wong said that he meant: "If there is a vote on Hong Kong self-rule tomorrow, I would use independence among the many options." He said that Hong Kong has a standard language, a clear demarcation of its geographical boundaries, a common economic life and a mindset that rejects Communism. These objective and subjective conditions merge together to from the Hong Kong nation. Therefore, conceptually and emotionally, he agrees with Hong Kong independence.

As for "not taking any practical action to form an organization to advocate Hong Kong independence," Wong said that he realized that there are many constraints in reality and therefore he is not working towards independence at this time, nor is he encouraging others to do so. He emphasized that agreeing conceptually with something does not mean having to come out and advance that thing, because there are many objective conditions that have to dealt with.

So is editing the book Hong Kong Nation and Undergrad magazine a form of "masturbation"? He said that there were two purposes.

The first purpose of the publications is to reaffirm Hong Kong cultural substance, to emphasize the Hongkonger identity, to resist the cultural invasion from mainland China and to prevent Communist infiltration. In addition, Hong Kong nationalism can also provide a moral foundation for democratic rule in Hong Kong -- since Hong Kong is a nation, its people have the right to internally elect their own government leader! This narrative can be used to develop political movements to resist Chinese nationalism and the oppression of "one country."

The second purpose is to establish the theoretical foundation and legitimacy of national self-determination in Hong Kong. He explained: "What if the Chinese Communists collapsed suddenly one day? The Hong Kong people have to need to decide on the future of Hong Kong. They can either continue to follow China, or they can look towards the United Kingdom, or they can become independent. We cannot wait until the last second before thinking, or else we could be absorbed into China as an ordinary administrative area in a flash. We edited the corresponding narratives in order to tell everybody that we are already a nation, we have the right of self-determination and we have the right to pursue independence. I would say that these publications are lifebuoys. Someday when Hong Kong can self-determine, these theories will be useful."

Albert Ho, Democratic Party

(Oriental Daily) (Video)
(Albert Ho) You receive compensation, and this service includes doing something or not doing something. I want to ask you how you can serve two masters as the Chief Executive. As a Chief Executive, you may not be highly paid. But you must do right for the people of Hong Kong. Why did you secret serve a second boss? Secondly, why didn't you declare this paid work to the Executive Council, so that the citizens and the public can supervise you as to whether you have a conflict of interest? Is this serious misconduct by a public service worker? Is your trustworthiness totally bankrupt?
(CY Leung) That was a normal arrangement after leaving a job, as well as a non-compete arrangement afterwards. Two persons whom I don't know have written about it in newspapers. Accounting and management experts. They wrote that this was quite normal. Arrangements after leaving a job and non-competing. I have explained this previously to the Legislative Council.
(Albert Ho) Why did you earn money for doing nothing? You received 50 million dollars from a foreign company. If you say that Jimmy Lai, who is a Hong Kong businessman, donated some money to Occupy Central and that shows that foreign forces are interfering in Hong Kong and manipulating the Occupy Movement, then are you secretly providing service to this Australian company? You are manipulated by the boss behind and you are doing some unspeakable things! Shouldn't you resign?
(CY Leung) Legislator Albert Ho is repeatedly hyping up some issues which has been fully addressed previously. Let me repeat once more -- this was a normal arrangement on job-leaving and non-competing.

Internet comments:

- The problem here was that the previous evidence was that Benny Tai forwarded certain sums of money to the HKU-POP to support research activities in conjunction with Occupy Central. When questioned, Benny Tai said that it came from an anonymous donor. When questioned further, Benny Tai said that the donor was the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, another member of the Occupy Central trio. However, Reverend Chu does not seem to have the personal means of donating hundreds of thousands of dollars. By coincidence, Jimmy Lai donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Reverend Chu. Was that money to Chu funneled to Tai to HKU-POP? The principals would neither confirm nor deny. So it was left hanging. But all of a sudden, Albert Ho came out and said that Jimmy Lai donated money to Occupy Central. This is setting up a bomb off underneath Jimmy Lai, who is also the largest donor by far to the Democratic Party of which Albert Ho is a member. On this day, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Albert Ho to bring in the subject of Jimmy Lai and his donations.

[Jimmy Lai and Albert Ho in happier days]

- Photo of the day: Democratic Party chairperson Emily Lau watching in dismay as her party's Albert Ho blow himself up.

Yes, the next day Albert Ho is on the front page of Oriental Daily: Albert Ho confirms that Jimmy Lai donated money to Occupy Central.

- Albert Ho. Every time that he opens his mouth, he releases a bomb to blow himself and his allies up.

Cartoon character "Big Potato"

- Chinese saying: One is never afraid of an enemy who can shoot as accurately as the gods; instead one should fear allies who are as stupid as pigs.

- Somebody must have tricked Albert Ho in eating the Honest Red Bean Bun before he spoke (Note: In one Stephen Chow movie, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Fw5PHeU54, there is a magical Honest Red Bean Bun which makes the person "spill the beans" for 30 seconds).

- Did Albert Ho do this in revenge for being forced to participate in that de facto referendum by resignation farce?

Lee Cheuk-yan (Labour Party)

(YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e81oAbmPrw)
(Lee Cheuk-yan) He kicked off by criticizing Undergrad. He said that they were talking about self-determination. What I want to ask him now ... after the Umbrella Movement, his reflections on the youth problem are to conduct criticism/struggle campaigns? So that Hong Kong will have a new kind of humans with one country but not two systems? To run criticism/struggle campaigns against young people so that they won't dare say a word. If he really likes to run criticism/struggle campaigns, can he please resign and go back to mainland China to run criticism/struggle campaigns.
(CY Leung) In a society with freedom of expression, everyone has the freedom to express his/her views. That includes offering your opinion after others have offered their opinions. This is not criticism/struggle. Legislator Lee Cheuk-yan, if you want to test me ... with respect to Appendix I of the Basic Law, there is an article on my authority ... that is, after two-thirds of the legislative councilors passed it, the Chief Executive has to give his approval and then the National People's Congress Standing Committee has to pass it. If you want to test my responsibility and sincerity, then will legislative councilor Lee Cheuk-yan please place a YES vote?
(Lee Cheuk-yan) He is not replying to the question. The cow's head does not fit the horse's mouth. He is being asked whether there are more criticism/struggle campaigns after the Undergrad campaign. He says that his criticism/struggle campaign is freedom of expression. Then Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution is the freedom of expression of Mao Zedong.
(CY Leung) Under Hong Kong's constitutional arrangements, the National People's Congress Standing Committee has made its resolution. The Hong Kong SAR government will forward the 2017 Chief Executive proposal to the Legislative Council. I ask legislative councilor Lee Cheuk-yan to vote to support.

- The above video edited out CY Leung saying: "If you vote NO against the universal suffrage proposal, you are the killer of universal suffrage." Here are their facial expressions at that moment.

Lee Cheuk-yan said afterwards that Leung was the killer of genuine universal suffrage whereas he himself is the killer of false universal suffrage.

- This is Lee Cheuk-yan's long-overdue comeuppance. For the longest time, he has been directing criticism/struggle campaigns against others. Everything that happens is: Suppression of freedom of expression; suppression of freedom of assembly; suppression of freedom of this or that; whatever. In fact, there is no other way to describe the Q&A session after the Policy Speech as anything other than a criticism/struggle session.

- The pan-democrats should have walked out with yellow umbrellas in hand instead of asking questions and be shown up.

- This was CY Leung's best performance so far. At this rate, CY Leung is going to win re-election in 2017 (under the same nomination/election committee system, of course).

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM1oxemjOIU Legislative Councilor Lee Cheuk-yan was in fact expelled from the chamber by the chairman for using insulting language. No surprise at all. The surprise was that Lee went back into the chamber and feigned surprise that he had been expelled.

(SCMP) The Chief Executive's 2015 Policy Address

Leung urged the public to be on the alert over any groups advocating ideas of self-determination. He pointed to a cover story about self-determination in last Februarys issue of the University of Hong Kongs Undergrad magazine published by its student union, entitled "Hong Kong people deciding their own fate".

"Undergraduates and other students, including student leaders of the Occupy movement, have misstated some facts, Leung said. We also ask political figures with close ties to the leaders of the student movement to advise them against putting forward such fallacies.

He adds: "The rule of law is the foundation of Hong Kong. The democratic development of Hong Kong must therefore be underpinned by the same.  As we pursue democracy, we should act in accordance with the law, or Hong Kong will degenerate into anarchy."

(SCMP) Gloves off as CY Leung target student 'lies'

In a rare combative gesture, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying hit out directly at student leaders at the start of his annual policy address, attacking them for "putting forward fallacies" concerning nationalism and self-determination for Hong Kong.

Leung slammed students for "advocating independence" in the University of Hong Kong Student Union magazine Undergrad. He also criticised a book published by Undergrad in September last year entitled Hong Kong Nationalism.

Leung started his speech by outlining the key choices that Hong Kong faces in its economic and political development. He explained that under the "one country, two systems" principle, Hong Kong enjoys a "high degree of autonomy" and not an absolute one. Previous policy addresses have rarely tackled Hong Kong's level of autonomy that directly.

Leung went on to say: "The February 2014 issue of Undergrad featured a cover story entitled 'Hong Kong people deciding their own fate' A book named Hong Kong Nationalism was published by Undergrad. It advocates that Hong Kong should find a way to self-determination.

" Undergrad and other students have misstated some facts. We must stay alert. We also ask political figures to advise them against putting forward such fallacies," Leung urged.

That particular issue of Undergrad contained a number of articles dealing with Hong Kong independence. For example, one article dealt Hong Kong's water supply which partially comes from the Dongjiang River in mainland China at this time. The article discussed how many more reservoirs and desalination plants needs to be built at what cost. Another article dealt with Hong Kong's need to have a military force. Currently, Hong Kong has a 6,000-strong People's Liberation Army which is completely financed by the Central Government. Upon independence, Hong Kong will have to have its own military to defend itself.

Let us look at the analysis on the future Hong Kong military force. There are three ways for Hong Kong to become an independent sovereign nation: Option 1: Armed rebellion to establish an independent state. Option 2: Independence with the assistance of foreign forces. Option 3: Political negotiations with the Central Government. Given that Option 3 seems outright impossible, Options 1 and 2 are left.

Option 1: Armed rebellion presumes the existence of a military force which has to be formidable in terms of manpower and armaments. In terms of manpower, it seems impossible to conscript all 7 million citizens to fight a total war. Therefore, the Hong Kong military will be a smaller subset of the population that is either recruited or conscripted. In terms of armaments, the only military weapons immediately are those of the PLA garrison and the light arms of local police. Hong Kong has neither navy or air force. Therefore, Hong Kong independence will depend on a land-based army.

Let's compare Hong Kong with the island-state of Singapore, which has its own armed forces.

Following independence, the British were still defending Singapore, but had announced they would be withdrawing by 1971, due to pressures at home and military commitments elsewhere in the world. This caused considerable alarm locally, particularly among those who remembered the Japanese occupation when Singapore had been defenceless during World War II.

In 1965, Goh Keng Swee became Minister for the Interior and Defence, and initiated the formation of a national defence force, called the Singapore Armed Forces, which was to be established by the time of the British withdrawal. The British agreed to postpone the withdrawal for half a year, but no longer.

Singapore consulted international experts from West Germany and Israel to train their armed forces and equip them. As a small country surrounded by larger neighbours, Singapore allocated a large portion of its budget, around 19%, to defence and this still continues today, having the fourth largest per capita military expenditure in the world, after Israel, United States and Kuwait.

Singapore was especially interested in Israel's model of national service, a factor in its decisive victory in the Six-Day War over its Arab neighbours in 1967. This led to the implementation of Singapore's own national service programme starting in 1967. All eighteen-year-old males would be required to participate in national service and train full-time for two and a half years, and then required to repeatedly come back each year to maintain their skills in order to carry out an effective mobilisation at any time.

That is to say, Singapore bought six years of breathing space (1965-1971) to build up its armed forces from scratch.

Now the article makes the assumption that if the people of Hong Kong are willing to fork over the cash, this army would be formed overnight to defend the new City-State. Presently, no military service is required of Hong Kong citizens. Thus, the Hong Kong citizens have no military training and there is no experienced officer corps to train newly recruited volunteers or conscripts. The only persons who have quasi-military training are the police (and corrections officers), which the City-State advocates regard as 'running dogs' for the tyrants. Can you imagine that the Valiant Resistance Movement would defeat the police in street fighting some day and then promptly hire them back as the new Hong Kong Army to go to war with the People's Liberation Army immediately?

Well, anyway, let's us suppose that this Hong Kong army of 60,000 'valiant' conscripts was formed overnight. Who will they be facing? First of all, there is the 6,000-strong People's Liberation Army garrison in Hong Kong. So the first step is to 'liberate' the PLA, which won't be easy because the latter have the heavier arms (semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, artillery cannons, tanks, etc). Well, anyway, suppose that the local PLA garrison is disarmed (at a bloody cost). The next problem is that the Guangdong Military District will respond. It is estimated that the district has 130,000 army soldiers and another 130,000 navy personnel armed with heavy armaments (including artillery, tanks, destroyers, submarines, attack helicopters, jet fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, cluster bombs, etc). This Hong Kong army will be no match. Maybe you can stop a tank with Molotov cocktails, but you can't stop the bombers from sending the city back to the stone age. In the end, Hong Kong will be taken after a blood battle, and it will be an occupied zone with no possibility of self-rule, ever. Therefore, Hong Kong cannot hope to win by force on its own.

Option 2 explores the possibility of attaining independence with a little help from some friends. The first clusters of friends are those others who also seek independence from China: the Xinjiang independence movement, the Tibet independence movement and the Taiwan independence movement. If all four regions rise up simultaneously to declare independence, then maybe the Central Government cannot respond to everything everywhere. However, these four regions together do not match the military power of the Central Government, and the result may be total Communist dictatorship in all four regions with all pretenses removed thereafter.

In the case of Taiwan which has a strong military (290,000 active personnel and a budget equal to 2.5% of GDP) they have in fact achieved de facto independence. It is not in their interest to start a war with China over Hong Kong, which may invade and occupy Taiwan to impose Communist rule. In fact, Taiwan doesn't even dare pronounce formal Taiwan independence itself, because everybody knows that it means war.

Another possibility is to explore fissures within the Central Government. For example, the Guangdong Military District commanders may be tempted to declare independence from the Central Government. Even if so, who can be sure that they want independence for Hong Kong? Couldn't they have their own designs on Hong Kong for their own kingdom? Hong Kong would be fighting the tiger off at the front gate, but inviting the wolf to come in through the back door as an ally.

Option 2 can also look for friends from outside the China region. However, neither American nor the United Kingdom seem likely to go to war with China to fight for Hong Kong independence. Realpolitik is the name of the game right now.

So it all boils down much ado about nothing. The conclusion of the article is: "Compared to advocating independence elsewhere in the world, Hong Kong independence is even closer to emotional political slogan chanting. Its feasibility and practical implementation have seldom been discussed. This article was written to explore certain empty gaps in the narrative for Hong Kong independence. The purpose here is to bring about contemplation and discussion."

Internet comments (see, for example, http://news.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=24238522&extra=page%3D1 )

- This is even more imaginative than holding a chicken egg in your hand and then fantasizing about how your chicken farm will look like some day in the distant future.

- A university student keyboard warrior sits on the toilet and masturbates happily to his fantasy of an independent Hong Kong City-State.

- I think I will re-post those articles at the mainland Tianya Forum so that the masses of Chinese compatriots will have a good laugh.

- I don't mind people advocating Hong Kong independence, but I do mind people appropriating university resources to brainwash students. A university is a social resource and not personal property. Nobody will complain if you pay your own money to print a few million pamphlets a day to hand out. I would object if the Chinese Communists brainwash students but I don't see that happening now. Instead, you pro-democracy folks are the ones doing this sort of thing every day. How can the people of Hong Kong not be angry at you?

- The mother of the author of this article would be better off giving birth to a piece of BBQ pork than to him.

- These young wastrels think that just because you opened a Facebook group means that you are starting a revolution. And if you get 100,000 Likes, then Hong Kong will be independent already. Of course, they used to think that putting a Yellow Ribbon as their profile picture will bring democracy. This is so lame!

- It is one thing for these students to have their own ideas, but they want other Hong Kong citizens to help them realize their fantasies. If you refuse, they will scream at you for abandoning the next generation. Fucking stupid!

- Of course, the smart people use their pens to write essays and the stupid people will actually try to carry it out.

- Chairman Mao was right to say "A revolution is not like inviting guests to dinner." Instead, the revolution will be just like a game of Counter-Strike. If you hit your X, Y, A and B buttons quickly in the right combination, freedom and democracy will be your just rewards!

- I don't mind at all -- please get all the 1.2 million (according to the HKU-POP poll) Occupy Central participants to join you to attack the Chinese Communists and seize power. Let Hong Kong lead China into a golden age of democracy and freedom. And don't come back until you succeed.

- Hong Kong independence? I should play you this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI78yNFSuT8 about an uncle bitch-slapping the Hong Kong freedom fighter Billy Chiu.

- IQ test: How many Filipina maids does it take to support 1,000 student revolutionaries in the Hong Kong National Armed Forces (to cook, to do laundry, to change bedsheets, etc)? If you get the right answer, you may just succeed.

- CY Leung is sending a clear message to the Chinese Communists -- there are Hong Kong independent activists here, and he will act decisively, including suppressing the various opposing and dissident voices. He is reassuring his bosses: "I am your loyal dog. Please support me all the way." Actually, the students began their self-determination campaign in order to gain more free space. They have no money and they have no military power. Taiwan has a military and they can't even have Taiwan independence! The result of CY Leung's comments is that society rifts will grow deeper and free speech space will be even more restricted. If you are a Hongkonger, you better think about how your people will become mainlanders and all your dissidents will be arrested or 'suicided.' How can you face the next generation?

- Dr. Sun Yat-sen and the Chinese Revolutionary League had no money or arms either, but they managed to pull off the 1911 Revolution to overthrow the Manchu Dynasty. So why can't today's Valiant Warriors do the same?

- Please read your modern Chinese history carefully. None of the armed insurrections succeeded, except in Wuchang (Hubei) where the revolutionaries infiltrated the New Army. In the end, even this insurrection succeeded only because General Yuan Shi-kai switched sides in order to maneuver to become emperor himself eventually. To copy that insurrection, you need a bunch of Valiant Warriors to infiltrate into the People's Liberation Army first. Don't forget that when you are in the PLA, you can't access Facebook anymore! Can you live with that?

- One of the student essays claim that Hong Kong has met the three conditions for independence: a fixed population, a clearly demarcated boundary (well, at least Hong Kong Island if not Kowloon and New Territories) and a political system (the Hong Kong SAR government). In addition, there are Hong Kong Trade Development Council offices in 13 countries already. These HKTDC offices can be converted overnight into embassies/consulates upon declaration of independence. Well, this is nuts! Please check the list of foreign countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan (21 countries such as Burkina Faso, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Belize, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia etc and the Holy See). Just because you have an office in someone's country does not mean they will give you diplomatic recognition. All the other countries have to weight the benefits of establishing diplomatic relations with the Hong Kong Nation against the drawbacks (namely, breaking off diplomatic and other relations with the People's Republic of China). The list of international friends of the Hong Kong Nation will be shorter than the current list of international friends of Taiwan, because some of those wish they could but China won't in order not to put pressure on Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou. But El Salvador and Nicaragua would be gone in a flash if they could, because they have leftist governments who need allies to stop American meddling.

- Someone has suggested inviting the US Seventh Fleet into Victoria Harbour to defend Hong Kong in lieu of the payment of 10% Hong Kong GDP per annum. Well, the US Seventh Fleet may be defending Hong Kong far away offshore, but they surely don't want to be sitting ducks in the harbor. The distance between Victoria Harbour and Shenzhen is 30 miles, which is easily covered by long-range artillery. A barrage of massed artillery fire will wipe everything out in the harbor. There are also threats from aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles etc which can reach the harbor in minutes.

- (Ming Pao editorial) January 19, 2015.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (CE) Leung Chun-ying has stirred up a debate over Hong Kong independence through his policy address. Judging from pro-democracy legislators' reactions, his comments have actually intensified government-people antagonism, making the election of the CE by universal suffrage in 2017 even less likely and the government's governance problems even harder to overcome. However, when asked whether they advocated Hong Kong independence, students failed to give a clear answer, while some legislators denied categorically. This shows Hong Kong independence is a red line even those in the opposition do not dare to cross. From this it is clear that in-depth discussions of the issue of Hong Kong independence will show it is a blind alley. That would free Hong Kong from an entanglement and the central government from a source of worry, so that they can rebuild their mutual trust and again interact with each other constructively.

The idea of Hong Kong independence has in recent years been entertained by only an extremely small circle of people. It is believed to have stemmed from the city-state theory some put forward several years ago. Subsequently, as mainland women had given birth in Hong Kong in droves and North District had been overrun by parallel traders, mainlanders came to be regarded as looters of Hongkongers' resources and disturbers of their lives. Conflicts between the two places emerged, giving rise to nativism. Extremists later launched what they called "anti-locust" campaigns. It was then some on the mainland started expressing worries that Hong Kong might separate from China. But the generality of Hong Kong people regarded those deeds as a few extremists' excesses and dismissed them as silly pranks. The Undergrad essays Leung mentioned and said one must be wary of were published early last year. Until Leung talked about them in his policy address, the views and propositions in them drew little attention and generated little discussion.

When he answered questions put to him on several occasions, Leung said it was necessary to explain clearly the constitutional relationship between Hong Kong and Beijing because the demands students and others had raised deviated from the Basic Law and the applicable interpretations and decisions the National People's Congress Standing Committee had made. If Leung has talked about Hong Kong independence solely for the purpose of warning some against crossing the red line, what he has done is understandable. It is because, if society unwittingly moves towards separatism and, by doing so, triggers a direct Hong Kong-central government confrontation, it will be hard to deal with the situation.

(South China Morning Post) January 12, 2015.

In the first attack at 1.45am two men pulled up outside Lai's home on Kadoorie Avenue before one, wearing a surgical mask and a hood to hide his features, set fire to something protruding from a bottle before throwing it at the gates. The contents of the bottle exploded in flames which were quickly extinguished by security guards.

Five minutes later a similar firebomb was thrown at the gates of Next Media in Chung Ying Street in the Tseung Kwan O industrial estate. The attackers then drove to another entrance and threw another firebomb.

Two cars suspected to have been used in the attacks were later found torched in Chak On Road in Shek Kip Mei, and Sham Mong Road in Cheung Sha Wan. FIrefighters were called to tackle the blazing vehicles and investigators discovered the license plates had been removed.

(Oriental Daily); (Apple Daily, including video); (Bastille Post http://www.bastillepost.com/hongkong/3-%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E4%BA%8B/494864-%E8%AD%A6%E9%95%B7%E7%99%BB%E8%B3%8A%E8%BB%8A%E8%88%87%E7%8B%82%E5%BE%92%E8%82%89%E6%90%8F-%E9%96%8B%E5%9B%9B%E6%A7%8D%E9%81%AD%E6%8E%A8%E8%BB%8A%E5%A4%96%E8%BC%BE%E5%82%B7%E8%85%B3 , including video)

In the third incident, at 5:05am a plainclothes police sergeant spotted a man in his 30's stealing several stacks of Chinese-language newspapers on Tak Man Street, and got into the driver's seat of a deep-blue-colored light van to leave. The policeman jumped into the van and determined that there was a female with dyed blonde hair in the passenger seat. He warned the two to stop, but the van kept going until it came to a sudden stop on Chatham Road South. The policeman got into the van and struggled with the two. A bunch of newspapers fell out of the side door of the van onto the street. The policeman was pushed down on the ground and the van rolled over his right lower leg as it sped away in the direction of Yau Ma Ti district. The policeman fired four shots at the vehicle. The police declined to comment on any possible connection to the two earlier incidents.

(Oriental Daily)

The police have arrested a 33-year-old woman named Lau as the owner of the van involved in the newspaper theft. They have also arrested a 30-year-old woman who is allegedly the female passenger in the van on that night. The police are still seeking the male suspect.

Internet comments:

- I watched the videos. The perpetrators are under-funded because they apparently could not afford to buy petrol -- the flames were so weak! You can a lot more kick out of children playing with wax burning! This is fucking pathetic! Or maybe the money got skimped by the multiple outsourcing suppliers in between?

- I see the usual suspects have all come out to make their statements -- the Journalists Association came out to talk about defending freedom of press; legislator Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said that there is no need to link the case with freedom of press; the Next Media workers union has challenged Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee for evidence that this is not linked to freedom of press; legislator James To Kun-sun said that this is Hong Kong's equivalent of Charlie Hebdo; Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen said that the government will not tolerate such violent incidents and the police will treat these cases seriously; ... The next step is for the Civil Human Rights Front to call for a million-person march to support Next Media.

- The police must have staged this. They were pilloried for their <Hong Kong people, Hong Kong police> campaign to repair their image (see, for example, episode 5 featuring three police women https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPM2MXExyWY). So now they want to make this police sergeant a hero and to make the Hong Kong Police Force invaluable in defense of our freedom. This won't work, because the police will always be police dogs in the eyes of the Hong Kong people. We are now more convinced than ever.

- Xi Jinping must have staged this. He couldn't stand the fact that Apple Daily is so popular in Hong Kong.

- (Wikipedia) False flag (or black flag) describes covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. The only question left is: Who?

- Jimmy Lai must have staged this. He has an appointment with the police on January 21st, when he will be arrested for participation in an unlawful assembly. Therefore, he needs to line up public sympathy on his side first. The incidents are all suspicious -- the two fire bombs were harmless. In the case of Next Media HQ, the fire bomb was tossed on the road instead of on the grounds to make sure that no real damage was caused. In the case of Lai's mansion, security guards are seen to be present so that no real damage can result either. In the newspaper theft, who would be driving a van to steal newspapers that are worth 40 cents per kilogram from recyclers? The penalty for stealing a few newspapers is light, especially compared to assault and attempted murder of a police officer.

- So that was why Jimmy Lai met with the triad Wo Hop To leader "Scarface" Kong! To outsource the staging of the three incidents last night against himself, his company and his newspapers.

- So you ask why every time that something like happens to Next Media, you get a sneaky suspicion. Well, that's because the perpetrators always seem to be holding back, as if they really don't want to cause any damage. Look at the video for the mansion. The guy could have tossed the fire bomb over the wall to reach the house. But no, he throws it down on the sidewalk in front of the gate.

- Chen Shui-bian did it once before and won the presidential election. So can Jimmy Lai. All he needs is to be stabbed next week.

- Stranger than strange to learn that the newspaper vendor said that this thief took copies of Apple Daily as well as Ming Pao, Ta Kung Pao and South China Morning Post. The losses were worth HK$400 to HK$500 to her. She also said that copies of Oriental Daily worth several hundred dollars were stolen last week, but she did not file a police report at the time. What could possibly be the motive for the theft?

- Stealing newspapers from a newsstand? Why bother? They are giving newspapers (AM730, Headline Daily, Metro, The Standard) away for free everywhere, at more than a million copies per day.

- I see that the usual Yellow Ribbons have accused the police of using excessive force by firing four shots at a newspaper thief and apparently missing. Well, the shots were not necessarily fired for theft. They were in defense against a van that ran over the police officer, breaking his lower leg. Okay?

- Apple Daily reports that its horse-racing section sells for as much as HKD 17 in mainland China for bettors, when the price for the whole newspaper is only HKD 6 in Hong Kong. Well, this makes no sense whatsoever. If that horse-racing section costs that much, someone is simply going to buy one copy, scan it, email it to someone in mainland China, make as many copies as needed and make a bundle of money. There is no need to steal printed copies in Hong Kong and ship it across the border.

- (Ming Pao http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E9%BB%83%E7%B5%B2%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E6%A2%AF%E9%96%93%E6%93%B2%E7%87%83%E7%87%92%E5%BD%88%E8%A2%AB%E6%8D%95-%E8%A3%BD%E5%BD%88%E6%89%8B%E6%B3%95%E4%BC%BC%E5%A3%B9%E5%82%B3%E5%AA%92%E6%A1%88%20%20%E8%AD%A6%E6%9F%A5%E9%97%9C%E9%80%A3/web_tc/article/20150114/s00002/1421171400300 ) January 14, 2014. On January 11, there was a fire in a Shum Shui Po bilding in which the residues of the fire bomb and the method were similar to the cases with the Next Media/Jimmy Lai incidents. The police have investigated and detained a 17-year-old secondary school student who lived in that building. The police confiscated some materials that can be used to build fire bombs (namely, 3 liters of alcohol disinfectant, eight white towels and two glass bottles), a metal air gun, two flexible police batons, a self-made flexible knife, an industrial helmet, a V-mask, a notebook computer, etc. Ming Pao reports that this individual is a Yellow Ribbon according to his Facebook. The individual has admitted that he was connected with the Shum Shui Po fire. Based upon the similarity of methods, the police do not exclude the possibility that somebody was experimenting with fire bombs in the building stairwell before using it elsewhere.

(The Sun) The school principal of the 17-year-old student accompanied the parents down to the police station to learn what happened. The school principal said that the student did not necessarily know that playing with fire in the stairwell or concealing a flexible police baton are illegal activities. He believes that the student only wanted to have some fun and not break any laws.

- Every year just before July 1st, someone lights up a small fire in front of Jimmy Lai's house and his supporters says that it is about suppression of freedom of the press. This time, another smaller fire has led to: (CBS News) "Inside China, there has recently been a clamping down on journalists. Just this week in Hong Kong, the home and offices of a prominent media tycoon who supported pro-democracy demonstrations there was firebombed. No one was injured and no arrests have been made, but they do send a message about free speech in the world's most populous country." This is just so predictably tiresome (like Gordon Chang: The Coming Collapse of China: 2012 Edition ... "I admit it: My prediction that the Communist Party would fall by 2011 was wrong. Still, I'm only off by a year.")

Q1. The government's recommended 2017 Chief Executive election method includes a nominating committee following the last election with 1,200 persons coming from 4 sectors. Each Chief Executive candidate has to first obtain the support of more than half the number of committee members with a total of 2 to 3 candidates. The citizens will elect a Chief Executive from among these candidates on a one-person, one vote basis. Do you think this recommendation is a step forward, or backwards, or neither for democracy?
23%: A step forwards for democracy
29%: A step backwards for democracy
39%: Neither forwards nor backwards
9%: Don't know/hard to say

Q2. The ultimate political reform proposal from the government has to be supported by at least two-thirds of the Legislative Councilors. Would you:
56%: Accept the proposal, so that the citizens can use one-person, one-vote to elect the Chief Executive
34%: Oppose the proposal, so that the Chief Executive will be elected according to the old way (by an election committee of 1,200 persons as in 2012)
9%: Don't know/hard to say

Q3. If the government promises that after 2017 (specifically, the 2012 Chief Executive election) there will be a democratized election system, would you:
64%: Accept the proposal, so that the citizens can use one-person, one-vote to elect the Chief Executive
23%: Oppose the proposal, so that the Chief Executive will be elected according to the old way
13%: Don't know/hard to say


(Ming Pao) http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E5%80%982022%E5%84%AA%E5%8C%96%2064%25%E6%92%90%E6%94%BF%E6%94%B9-39%25%E7%A8%B1%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88%E3%80%8C%E4%B8%8D%E9%80%B2%E4%B8%8D%E9%80%80%E3%80%8D/web_tc/article/20150111/s00001/1420915063412

Civic Party chief Alan Leong said that this poll result shows that the citizens' "immunization" shots are inadequate because they were still poisoned by the government. The democrats will have to motivate themselves.

(Sing Tao) https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E6%A2%81%E5%AE%B6%E5%82%91%E6%8C%87-%E8%A2%8B%E4%BD%8F%E5%85%88-%E5%B0%87-%E8%90%AC%E5%8A%AB%E4%B8%8D%E5%BE%A9-044500041.html January 10, 2015

Alan Leong pointed out that under the NPCSC framework for political reform, the citizens have no right to nominate or be elected. This makes it just like North Korean elections. He does not think that the citizens will accept this, and that is why the pan-democrats will surely veto the related political reform proposal. He said that if Hong Kong "pockets" the proposal now, the loss would be more than the gain as the future political reform will move ahead slowly. Therefore, such a mistake will cause "irreparable damage for all eternity."

As to whether the pan-democrats will reverse their position if public opinion polls show that the majority of the citizens want to "pocket it now," Alan Leong replied that this is a hypothetical question which depends on the phrasing of the polling question. He cited earlier a Chinese University of Hong Kong poll in which the proportion who refuse to accept "pocket it now" was relatively high. He thinks that the NPCSC's framework was a political resolution that can be amended.

(Bastille Post; ETnet) January 9, 2015

The Chuhai College of Higher Education Department of Journalism interviewed 1,009 citizens by telephone in December. The sample has 35.1% leaning pro-democrats, 16.7% leaning pro-establishment and 43% neutral.

48.3% of them leaned towards accepting the political reform now while fighting to get more democratic space within the NPCSC framework. 38.5% said that they refused to accept any kind of framework that poses restrictions on the Chief Executive election. Among persons 18-39, the ratio is 47% to 53%.

These results are close to the research results that the various political parties privately conducted. After the police fired tear gas at the start of the Occupy Central movement, the "oppose" led initially in the public opinion polls. After the Occupy Central movement folded, the "accept" is once more back in the majority.

The political parties have publicly announced that they don't want any more public opinion polls. They want the government to put the legislative proposal forward for them to veto quickly. It is believed that they don't want the public support for "accept" to grow and put pressure on them. They clearly don't care about public opinion and they will veto the political reform regardless.

The title of this treatise is 「和理非非」V.S.「勇武派」. These refer to the two main lines within the Umbrella Movement. The terms do not lend themselves to be translated easily, so you will have to read the contents. Every revolution will have different lines (see, for example. V.I. Lenin: On the Two Lines in the Revolution). For the Umbrella Revolution, the westerner will likely perceive only one mainstream line through the designated spokespersons. But those on the inside know that there are at least two major lines in conflict with each other over the soul of the movement.


Different lines within the Hong Kong pro-democracy social movement

(A) The traditional model of social movement: assemble in Victoria Park and march to Government Headquarters

The earliest large-scale movement can be traced to the 1925-1926 Canton-Hong Kong strike. Later, the 1967 Hong Kong riots were also another well-known large-scale social movement in history, even if many people wonder whether this qualifies as a social movement. No matter what, these two major events were the origins of Hong Kong social movements. However, since those events occurred a long time ago, the participants are dead or old, and the Communist influence was heavy, they have no lasting influence on Hong Kong social movements today. After the 1967 riots, the British colonial administration introduced many welfare schemes to pacify the people while praising the police for quelling the riots. At the same time, Communist China changed its Hong Kong policies. As the economy grew, people became more interested in economic development so that radical demonstrations were far and few in between.

In the 1970's the late labor movement leader and pro-democracy spiritual leader Szeto Wah led a series of social movements in peaceful ways, such as holding teachers' strike to obtain decent wages for teachers who hold diplomas. In 1984, there was the Joint Sino-British Declaration. After that, the so-called pan-democrats came into being under the leadership of Szeto Wah and Martin Lee. In 1989, there was the student demonstration in China. When the June 4th incident took place, the Hong Kong people used the "Democratic songs for China" and "One million person march" events to express their support of the student movement and condemnation of the Chinese Communists. After that, the "Assemble in Victoria Park -> March to Government Headquarters/China Liaison Office" model became the basis of the mainstream social movements in Hong Kong. In 2003, half a million persons participated in the July 1st march. This forced the Article 23 legislation to be tabled and Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa to resign. This was an example of a huge success via this model. Each year, Hong Kong holds a New Year's Eve march, June 4th Victoria Park candlelight vigil and July 1st march, rain or shine.

This traditional model seldom emphasizes peace and reason, and the organizers don't even have to demand the demonstrators to act in a restrained manner. Up to 2008, these methods of peaceful demonstration have been effective enough and nobody questioned it. Traditionally, citizens have always thought and seen demonstrations as peaceful and unified. They gather, march and chant slogans at a designated time at a designated location for the government to hear to their opinions.

(B) 「和理非非:和平、理性、非暴力、非粗口」: Peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language

This is a term consisting of four sub-terms: Peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language. These are the terms that represent the principles for moderate pan-democrats and mainstream social activists. The first three terms are generally accepted. The fourth term is usually used only by pan-democrats, of which Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau is best known. In January 2010, Democratic Party vice-chairwoman Emily Lau spoke as the Legislative Council Finance Committee chairwoman that she hoped to deal with the HSR budget discussions in "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language." Emily Lau added this fourth term because she thought that most foul language is insulting to women and therefore inappropriate to use in legislature meetings or social movements. This was the first use of the four items. During the 2011 District Council elections, the Democratic Party was criticized by People Power for voting to pass the 2012 political reform legislation. Afterwards, Emily Lau again emphasized the term to differentiate themselves from the radical democrats. This term gained popularity afterward, and virtually became the nickname for Emily Lau and the Democratic Party. However, some social activists think that foul language is part of the social lives of certain groups of people and not necessarily so objectionable.

The Occupy Central trio had been promoting 「和理非」 (peace, reason and non-violence) but they did not emphasize not using foul language. This became the common ideal of the Occupy Movement. Before the Umbrella Revolution broke out, the students adhered to "peace, reason and non-violence." But on the night when the Umbrella Revolution broke out (September 26, 2014), the students charged into Civic Plaza. Some critics wondered if that action violated the principles of "peace, reason and non-violence." The Federation of Students and Scholarism defended themselves by saying that "not a single thing was damaged, not a single person was injured, and therefore this is still non-violence." But as the Umbrella Revolution got more heated, the Occupy people unavoidably got into various degrees of clashes with the police and anti-Occupy persons. The principles of "peace, reason and non-violence" got seriously challenged. On one hand, the people outside have doubts based upon what they are seeing. On the other hand, some people inside can no long support the principles based upon what they are experiencing. Yet until the Occupy Admiralty area got cleared on December 11, the Grand Stage speakers, the Federation of Students, Scholarism and the various mainstream moderate pan-democratic parties still held up the three principles of "peace, reason and non-violence." They reminded the demonstrators not to charge at the police, and they condemned some of the behaviors of the demonstrators. This drew the hostility from the opponents of the principles. Even now, the two sides are still cursing each other out on the Internet. And with Benny Tai saying that "peaceful non-violent methods are pass," the future of the principles of "peace, reason and non-violence" is very much in doubt here in Hong Kong.

(C) 「勇武派衝擊、包圍、佔領」Valiant ones: charge, surround, occupy

The origins of "Valiant ones" is uncertain. But the most likely source is Lingnan University Associate Professor Wan Chin. On May 25, 2011, the newspaper AM730 carried a column titled <I am reasonable, therefore I am valiant and forceful> by Wan Chin. He wrote:

"Peace, reason, non-violence" are the restraining bonds on an uprising, as if the determinant of peace and reason has to be non-violence. Once you use force, it is no longer peace and reason anymore. For the weak, force is the undeniable final weapon apart from peaceful resistance ...

The rulers of Hong Kong and the media which abet their rule categorize valor, bravery or defensive force as "violence" which is then equated with irrationality. This is terrible brainwashing which is done by linguistic implanting. The words valor, bravery and militarism are annihilated and replaced by "violence." Meanwhile, when the police enforce the law, the government and media describe it as "applying minimal force", so that it is using force and not employing violence ...

If you are facing the oppression of the authorities and you uphold justice and forge bravely ahead ("Even if there are thousands before me, I shall still go"), you are valiant ...

Do not say "peace, reason and non-violence" anymore. Say instead "peace, reason and valor." When you are facing a powerful and unreasonable tyranny, you have the right to use force. Even if you are not wielding knives and spears, you must clog the wheels of the tyrants and stop the normal operation of society, so that the tyrants learn their lesson and the citizens will wake up.

Afterwards, Wan Chin explained the term 'valiant' many times. Internet social activists also began to use the term 'valiant'. Soon people began to link 'valiant' and 'resistance' to form 'valiant resistance' which has the same meaning as it does today -- When the government uses force, we will use a corresponding level of force to defend ourselves. We will actively seek viable methods in street resistance in order to apply direct pressure on the government, including using force to charge at defensive lines, destroy buildings, surround and occupy places in order to achieve the goals of the resistance. The core members of the "valiant resistance" will follow the two principles of "applying force as a means of resistance" and "pursuing direct and practical means of realizing the goal instead of using the traditional social activists' way for citizen awakening and moral pressure." During the Umbrella Movement, certain demonstrators call themselves "valiant ones" and they acted independently of the nominal student leaders. They established and defended the Occupy Mong Kok area and they took Lung Wo Road. They became well-known, and the term "valiant resistance" and "valiant ones" became known to common citizens.

Although the term "valor" originated in 2011, Hong Kong's first valiant resistance took place in the campaign to preserve the Star Ferry Pier in late 2006. At the time, the demonstrators broke through the demolition workers' and police lines twice and they occupied the demolition site with many physical clashes. But the scale of the clash was small and the outside reaction focused on the preservation issue instead of the mode of resistance. In January 2010, the valiant resistance method gained more attention during the anti-HSR protests. The young demonstrators charged at the police lines many times during that month. They broke through the police-delineated demonstration zone, they blocked the LegCo parking lot, they fought the police over metal barricades, etc. They shocked the mainstream society and even the social activists. As the police began to place more restrictions on demonstrations, popular discontent was mounting and the traditional demonstration were losing effectiveness, valiant resistance became more common. During the four July 1st marches between 2011 and 2014, the organizers called for the marchers to be "peaceful" and "reasonable", but the valiant ones broke the police line many times to open the roadway and expand the march. After the marches, the valiant ones stayed behind to lay siege on the Government Headquarters, the Chief Executive's Office or the Government House, or occupy major thoroughfares in the Central district. There were many frontal clashes with the police.

Prior to the Umbrella Revolution, objectively speaking, the valiant ones were mainly the members and supporters of Civic Passion and People Power, some of whom are young people (mostly university students). Therefore, the actions of the valiant ones were directed and led mainly by those two political parties. Once the Umbrella Revolution broke out, the police escalated their use of force and the demonstrators upgraded their defensive prowess in corresponding manner. This endowed the demonstrators to act valiantly. During the two events that started the Umbrella Revolution (the charge into Civic Plaza and the charge onto Harcourt Road) both involved charges at police lines. Inevitably, the demonstrators recognized that charging can make a material difference. Besides the students had become "valiant." The other demonstrators thought that they must be as good as the students and they also wanted to protect the students. The increased application of force by the police made the the demonstrators more determined to arm themselves or even defeat the hated police. Following the calls by the Hong Kong City-State supporters, Civic Passion and the HK Golden Forum guys, many person showed up in full protective gear (including helmets, goggles, knee pads, shin pads, arm guards, gloves, shields etc). They were now mentally and equipment-wise close to being "valiant." When the Federation of Students called for a siege of Government Headquarters on November 30, there were 5,000 persons heading that way according to Apple Daily. Four battles took place that night. Afterwards, many demonstrators and Internet users criticized the Admiralty Grand Stage of failing to support the demonstrators. Thus, during the latter stages of the Umbrella Revolution, the valiant ones have become a major force among the demonstrators.

The clashes and arguments between the "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" supporters and the "valiant resisters"

(I) 民主唱K嘉年華Democratic karaoke carnival

After the June 4th incident in 1989, assemblies and marches became the mainstream model of social activism in Hong Kong. Inspired by the "Democratic songs for China" event, the June 4th candlelight vigil each year involves mass singing of democratic songs such as <Flower of Freedom>, <Blood-dyed Glory>. This trend has filtered into other types of assemblies, which have the singing of various songs in support of democracy and freedom, such as Beyond's <The sea is wide, the sky is empty> and <The glorious years>, and the song <Who has not waken up yet?> adapted from the song <Do you hear the people sing?> in the musical <Les Misrables>. Many other assemblies and marches have demonstrators coming with costumes and exhibition materials to capture media attention. Some people even performed street theater, dancing etc.

Some people think that singing can boost the morale of demonstrators. Furthermore, packaging through singing can make the solemn political demands more appealing to the audience. But other people (mainly the valiant ones) think that "singing + performance" is just a "karaoke carnival" which can get more exposure but will not gain any material chips for the resistance movement. Worse yet, this will weaken the will of the people who have merely entertained themselves and felt good about themselves. The term "Democratic karaoke carnival" appeared long before the Umbrella Revolution, as People Power, Civic Passion and the Hong Kong City-State supporters scorn at this form of resistance.

During the Umbrella Revolution, the 9.28 police tear gas attack caused large numbers of citizens to come to the scene in support. After the situation stabilized, the Admiralty Grand Stage, the Civil Human Rights Front, the Federation of Students, Scholarism and other organizations called the people to join in singing and wave their torch-lit mobile phones. At the same time, there were many artistic objects in the Occupy area, and people constructed study rooms, archives and movie-watching areas. These activities were strongly criticized by the valiant ones. They think that the Admiralty area had become a vacation zone: "Everybody come and play, sing karaoke, feel good about yourselves ... how can this be like resistance?" They accused the "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" supporters for creating this fake resistance and betraying those demonstrators who were fighting daily against the police and anti-Occupy people in Causeway Bay and Mong Kok.

(II) 邊個衝,邊個就係鬼 Anyone who charges is an agent provocateur

Since the HSR demonstrations in January 2010, charging the police line became noticed by the Hong Kong social activists. Initially the demonstrators had little prior experience of clashing with the police. They were frequently small in numbers and clumsy in techniques. Therefore few results were achieved. The general impression for the public was that "they are troublemakers," "they are putting on a show," "this is useless," "very radical" and so on. But as the police began to place more restrictions on assemblies, clashes became the only method to fight for reasonable space to demonstrate. No matter what the mainstream demonstrators think, or whether the "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" supporters object, the many New Year's Eve and July 1st demonstrators have benefited from the valiant ones who expanded the demonstration space. From that point on, charges at police lines took place regularly during social movements.

During early and late stages of the Umbrella Revolution, charges at the police lines were almost a daily occurrence. It has been said that the Umbrella Revolution itself came from such a charge. Hence the saying: "Do not forget the initial charge 勿忘初衝". On September 26, the students charged into Civic Plaza. On September 28, the citizens charged onto Harcourt Road, and then Wanchai, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay. This was how the Occupy areas were built. The battle of Admiralty contained many episodes of charging on Lung Wo Road and around Government Headquarters. Yet, the first assault on Lung Wo Road was highly criticized by the "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" people. They not only refused to support, but they asked at the scene, from the Grand Stage and on the Internet for the charges to withdraw. They even formed human chains to prevent more demonstrators from charging onto Lung Wo Road. After several of these charges, the saying "Anyone who charges is an agent provocateur" became widely circulated among the demonstrators and the Internet and gained ascendancy. This led to a period in the middle of the Umbrella Revolution in which the situation developed into a stalemate and the clashes turned into negotiations instead.

Whether to charge the police or not is the subject of heated debates among the Occupy people. The valiant ones think that people "should not forget the initial charge," meaning that the Umbrella Revolution itself rose out of a charge. Faced with the overwhelming superiority of the police force, it is necessary to open up new battlefields (attack in place of defense) in order to run the police down until they collapse and then the government has to compromise. At the same time, it was necessary to seize certain strategic areas (not the Harcourt Road-Tim Mei Road-Lung Wo Road outer perimeter) that are heavily policed. For example, in Taiwan, they seized the parliament and gained a huge bargaining chip. By contrast, the "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" supporters think that using overwhelming force to charge at police lines is only going to make the police raise their level of force and cause more demonstrators to be arrested and/or injured. At the same time, the non-violent image of the Umbrella Movement (which those supporters refuse to call the Umbrella Revolution) would be tarnished and this will give the government the excuse to clear the sites.

(III) 左膠之謬 The retardism of the leftards (=leftist retards)

"Leftards" is a deprecatory term for certain leftist activists in Hong Kong. The leftist social activists support the re-arrangement of the traditional social order which is based upon wealth, position and power into a more egalitarian society. In Hong Kong, some leftist activists are thought to be impractical and therefore given the deprecatory name "leftard", which is a combination of "leftist" and "retard." Very often, this is used to refer to instances such as: "call out the masses and end up doing nothing"; "chanting slogans for democracy, but really intent on monopolizing the social movement"; "composing a beautiful scene that will be touching to the audience"; "turning the social movement into a romantic moment for lovers"; etc.

As distinct from traditional Marxist leftists, the Hong Kong leftist social activists believe that it is not necessary to use armed revolution or direct political struggle to transform society. They believe that they can use moral appeals, showcase practice, propaganda/education, dialogue and other methods to make more citizens awaken until a majority is reached. Then injustice will be eradicated and a democratic society can be easily built. The Hong Kong leftist social activists believe in the power of the masses, and the goal of their efforts is frequently to gain more popular support. It is one of their core beliefs that any action that is unpopular with the people will never succeed no matter how appropriate it was towards achieving the goal. This explains why they adhere to "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" -- most Hong Kong people still cannot accept excessively radical resistance because they still love the idea of "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language". So it is enough to involve "love and peace" as a moral appeal. Even if no material results were achieved, it was enough for people to approve it. "The democratic karaoke carnival" did not shake up the authorities, but the picture was pretty and some viewers may be moved enough to support democracy. And that suffices.

Yet, their theory of social activism ignored a cruel reality in contemporary Hong Kong -- most citizens regard making money as far more important than fighting for democracy and justice. The so-called middle-of-the-roaders are supportive of social movements, but they seldom go to the front lines to join the resistance. The HKSAR government led by CY Leung is cold-blooded and merciless, while the Chinese Communist Central Government is getting tough on their Hong Kong policies. Even if the leftist social activists can get more support from the moderates, the latter will have to choose between their own livelihoods and fighting against government suppression. Very few of them will be able to pose a material threat to the authorities. The feeble political expression of these people means that they cannot pose any material threat beyond public opinion. And the Chinese Communists have shown time and again that they don't buy into public opinion. The leftist social activities believe too much in the ability of themselves and the people of Hong Kong. They know that they can spend time to propagandize to wake people up. But they forgot that the Chinese Communists also spend the time to colonize Hong Kong and use the state propaganda apparatus. Every day, 150 people arrive in Hong Kong from mainland China. There is also the stability-maintaining nature of the media. There is also large infusions of mainland capital into Hong Kong. Every day, the Chinese Communists gain more control of Hong Kong, and this has to be faster than the growth of influence of the pan-democratic mainstream political parties. Pessimistically but realistically, the Chinese Communist will exercise full ideological control in Hong Kong before 2047, just like in neighboring Macau. Even the most optimistic speculation would not be the pro-democracy forces overcoming the Chinese Communists. The retardism of the leftards is the discrepancy between the common imagination and the reality of how to build a democratic society.

(IV) 勇武興邦,可乎?Can the valiant ones build a City-State?

The valiant ones are mostly opposite from social activists. Some of them (such as Wan Chin) don't even care about public opinion, and therefore they have been called fascists. They only care about the ultimate goal. If they can attain democracy, they are willing to abandon certain principles. A common characteristic of the valiant ones (and this distinguishes them from the leftwing social activists) is that they believe that the HKSAR Government and the Chinese Communist Central Government don't (and have no need to) listen to the Hong Kong people. As long as the Hong Kong people do not substantively affect government operations or hurt Chinese Communist interests in Hong Kong and they only talk about their political preferences, the governments won't care at all. For this reason, they give the name "Hong Kong pigs" to the majority of moderate citizens and "leftards" to the leftist social activists who stick to principles. The style of resistance by expression political opinions cannot shake up the governments. "The city is dying" and time is the main enemy for Hong Kong democracy. That is why they are willing to use violence, even if this will lose popular support and put themselves at risk. They feel that time is running out, and they must achieve results as quickly as possible.

Will the valiant ones build a state? Valiant resistance is not perfect. The Central Government possesses more than enough military power for a bloody suppression. Besides, if public opinion goes against the valiant ones, they will become political rioters hated by everyone. Yet the valiant ones look across at the pan-democrats and note: "The thirty-year war of resistance," for the latter has used "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" for thirty years since the 1984 Joint Sino-British Declaration" with not much to show for. "Peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" have monopolized social activism for thirty years, and history has shown that it has limited effectiveness. By contrast, the valiant resistance has never been in leadership position before the Umbrella Revolution. Even though the valiant resistance managed to gain ascendancy at one point during the Umbrella Revolution, the mainstream still tilted towards "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language" in the end. To be fair, one cannot say that a caged cat cannot catch mice. But since the grey cat has not been able to catch any mice for so many years, why not let the yellow cat out of the cage to try?

(extracted from DarkKeiKei.blogspot.hk)

It must be admitted that a fatal flaw of the resistance movement is the lack of numbers. A movement has to have the numbers in order to become powerful. Apart from cultivating an elite of valiant resisters, it is also necessary to provide a gradual path to popularize the resistance. Thus, the general stages of such a path are:

Become interested in -> Beginner level -> Intermediate level -> Advanced level -> Elite status.

As you go up the ladder, the number of persons at each level necessarily decrease.

In the context of the resistance movement, the stages are:

"Hong Kong pig" -> Pay attention to politics -> Demonstration march -> Assembly -> Stay and defend -> Resistance -> Valiant resistance

I support valiant resistance, but there has to be a process by which a "Hong Kong pig" evolves into a "valiant resister." If you curse out anyone who adheres to "peace, reason, non-violence, non-foul language," you will chase away many of those have so far progressed to join demonstration marches and assemblies.

So just keep spreading the message of valiant resistance. Those who are capable of thinking and who frequently read information from the Hong Kong City-State may even grow up and become valiant resisters.

A Commercial Radio FM 88.1-90.3 radio interview with Alvin Cheng of Student Frontline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvuFOdVFRQ

(Cheng) I don't think resistance is too radical. That is, we advocate ... we believe that those people who advocate peace, reason and non-violence ... such as Professor Benny Tai ... they have rehearsed before that even if the police strike them with batons, they will sit on the ground and use their numbers to draw out the police arrest action. But I don't those leaders doing this right now. At the same time, I don't see how they can call out that many number of people. Under these circumstances, why not consider using another method of resistance?

(Interviewer) Can you be a bit more concrete? I have spoken to for some time, and I think that it has been very somewhat abstract. You keep saying ... it depends on the actual situation ... it depends on the actual situation. Can you talk concretely about the clearances on Wednesday and Thursday. How will you act?

(Cheng) Yes. Yes, if the police kept using batons to bash heads, then we think ... if some people on the frontline raised shields to protect everybody, then there is absolutely no problem.

(Interviewer) Is this defensive in nature? Or will it be offensive by attacking their line of defense?

(Cheng) I think it is mainly defensive.

(Interviewer) But you won't attack or charge at the police line of defense?

(Cheng) That is, we will not actively attack them.

(Interviewer) What is meant by "actively attack"?

(Cheng) If the police escalate the violence ... under certain circumstance, you have to defend  yourself and you use minimal force. We think that's okay.

(Interviewer) That is, you don't exclude that if the police use force ... you won't oppose your members about throwing objects at the police. Is that what you mean?

(Cheng) Maybe it should be put this way. Eh ... in theory, we won't object because we don't want anyone to stop us. The problem now is that the many people who insist on "peace, reason and non-violence" have not insisted all the way. It depends on the actual situation. For example, if the police charge up and if someone can stall them by throwing objects and gain some space for the people behind to retreat, then I don't think there is any problems.

(Interviewer) Why?

(Cheng) Because the so-called "peace, reason and non-violence" and "resistance with force" are like two legs that walk together.


(Cheng) Of course, we don't want to be arrested. When Joshua Wong was arrested the first time in Civic Plaza, there was plenty of social reactions. But you look at the whole Umbrella Revolution so far. Hundreds of people have been arrested. Society no longer thinks that being arrested is any big deal. Under these circumstances, we don't think being arrested has any moral appeal for more people to come out and we should protect ourselves.

(Interviewer) But you are willing to be arrested not to make an appeal. You want to assume responsibility for your own actions.

(Cheng) Eh ... because I think if you protect your identity, then later ... I believe that the Umbrella Revolution is only the start of a new way of resistance. If I say my useful body to be used later, I fully feel that there is no problem.

(Interviewer) So how will you be responsible for you actions this time?

(Cheng) I have already been arrested. So I feel that I have discharged my responsibility.

Some videos on the problems mentioned in the above treatise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzPMLm7DqGg In this video, the demonstrators use foul language to curse a very passive police force. The YoutTube user titled this video "The media won't show you this."
0:32 Go away, police! Your mother was unfortunate to give birth to you!
0:37 (mass chorus) Trash! Trash! Trash! Trash! Trash! Trash!
0:45 Damned policemen!
0:48 Fuck your mother, evil cop!
1:06 Crawl inside (the garbage can)!
1:10 Fuck you!
1:32 The police are shameless! Shameless! Shameless! Shameless! Shameless! Shameless!
1:41 Eat shit! Shameless!
2:09 (A policeman gestures and speaks) I can't fucking hear you! Your mother!
3:28 Fuck your mother!
3:32 Fuck your mother!
4:55 Stinking cunt! Stinking cunt! Madam, your husband doesn't fuck your cunt! He won't, fuck your mother!
5:30 I fuck your mother!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzjl5gcSzTE Using a megaphone to scream obscenities by the character known as "The Painter."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i2p7K8ZnYQ Internal contradictions within Occupy Mongkok at 22:30 on October 3, 2014. One group of masked men said that they are locals who need to wear masks to disguise their identities. Their leader offers to provide his Facebook to establish his bona fides. And then a melee broke out up the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=errkX80HjNg International contradictions within Occupy Mongkok at 04:05 on October 4, 2014. Fight breaks out at 0:27. Crowd shouts "Cool it! Cool it!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t2U9AFXQWs More on the Mong Kok carnival
0:05 Playing table tennis
0:25 (Player) The Occupy Central method is a little bit different from the Occupy Mong Kok method. Over here, common folks have the style of common folks.
0:34 (Objector) Resistance is not play. Resistance is not play, mister.
0:50 Playing mahjong
1:10 Eating hot pot meal
1:26 Discussing theory ... "I don't want the reporters to film this, so can we disperse?"
1:54 Sleeping in the streets to play with mobile phones
1:55 Altars dedicated to Lord Guan and Jesus Christ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpbXwL7wnQ Top ten ugliest behaviors during Occupy Central movement.
0:29 #10. Street soccer
0:41 #9. Telling MTR workers that a subway exit cannot be opened; telling a TVB news reporter to stop news gathering ... "You eat shit, TVB."
0:58 #8. Insulting the police. "Fuck your mother!"
1:13 #7. Verbal abuse with foul language about their private body parts and their family members for those who dared to express their opinions -- actress Jinny Ng, actor Aaron Kwok, actress Olivia Cheng, Hong Kong Exception Youth Association chairwoman Lo Po-man, singer Barbara Fei, Lam Chiu-ying, etc.
1:56 #6. Occupy Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories
2:21 #5. Challenge the Hong Kong judicial system and completely dismissive of the Police Force.
2:31 #4. Ignorant idiots who ask stupid questions. Video is of a woman who wants the police to arrest a man who threatened to expose his private parts ...
3:21 #3. Speaking nonsense. Man: "The triads cooperate with the police. They attacked the students together. They didn't care about molestations. They attacked the peaceful Occupy Central people. I really witnessed it at the scene. They were all very restrained. Whenever somebody got hit, everybody raised both hands. But the attackers kept hitting. The police kept watching on the side. They called on the police to make arrests. They delayed for five hours without doing anything. The attackers charged for several streets and they still won't make arrests.
4:09 #2. Poor English-language skills of university students.
6:00 #1. Blocking the streets and indirectly interfering with people making a living.

(SCMP) Democrat Albert Ho will quit to spark de-facto Hong Kong political reform referendum. January 9, 2015.

Democratic Party heavyweight Albert Ho Chun-yan confirmed this afternoon that he plans to resign from his super lawmaker seat to trigger a de-facto referendum on the citys political reform. Speaking at a 3pm press conference, Ho announced that he would ask his party to approve his resignation after he voted against the government's political reform package.

Ho said that he was resigning so that Hongkongers could have a chance to express their anger about the national legislature's August 31 decision that while Hong Kong can pick its leader by popular vote, it must choose from a slate of two or three candidates backed by half of a 1,200-strong nominating committee. That committee has to be modelled on the 1,193-member Election Committee which nominated and picked Leung Chun-ying as chief executive in 2012. Ho also demanded that the government relaunch the "five-step" political reform process.

His resignation would trigger a by-election in which more than 3 million voters would be eligible to participate. The pan-democrat candidate would be expected to run a campaign based on restarting the citys political reform outside the restrictive framework laid down by Beijing for the chief executive election in 2017, making it a de-facto referendum on the matter. The by-election could take place about four to six months after Ho's resignation.


At the height of the Occupy Central movement, Ho had been urged by student leaders to resign to trigger a de-facto referendum on whether the political reform should be relaunched. There was also debate among pan-democrats over whether the de-facto referendum should be triggered by the resignation of one super lawmaker or five lawmakers from each of the geographical constituencies. However, pan-democrats said there would be a risk that the Legislative Council could pass the governments electoral reform proposal if five of the camps lawmakers resign. Ho had indicated that he would be willing to resign if the student leaders agreed to retreat from the protest sites, but the students rejected the idea.

(Bastille Post) January 9, 2015.

Let's remind ourselves about the discussion of the de facto referendum by resignation. It was last October when the Occupy Central movement seemed to be stuck even as mass fights broke out in Mong Kok. A bunch of pan-democratic "uncles" (as Scholarism's Joshua Wong calls them) including Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee, Albert Ho, etc thought that things were getting awry. They were worried that the Occupy Central movement would be kidnapped by the Federation of Students and Scholarism and be turned into a huge negative assets for the pan-democrats in future elections. They wanted to rein in the Federation of Students and Schoalrism. So they came up with a brilliant idea by proposing a platform that included the Federation of Students, Scholarism, the Occupy Central trio and the pan-democratic political parties. This was their way of seizing back the decision-making power of the students.

At first, the students refused to play. Jimmy Lai's friend Archbishop Joseph Zen publicly criticized the students and forced the pan-democratic platform to be formed. It was in this platform that the pan-democrats proposed a de facto referendum which permitted the Occupy Movement to have a way out. But the students said that while the referendum should go ahead, the Occupy Movement must not be stopped. The two sides ended up in a deadlock.

Now that the Occupy Movement is over and done with, Albert Ho has proposed the de facto referendum by resignation again. It is not know whether he came up with this himself, or it was the joint idea of a bunch of pan-democratic uncles. The most vexing thing is that the resignation would occur after the Legislative Council vote on the government proposal for political reform, and not before. There can be only one explanation -- the fear of losing.

All these issues had been discussed within the pan-democratic platform last year. The concern was that the pro-establishment camp may not play along, in which case the by-election will be a one-sided, low-turnout affair just like the 2010 that will be waste of time and money. So how can you get the pro-establishment camp to join in? Well, you can make this an enticing bet holding the by-election before the vote and promising to abide by the result of the by-election and vote accordingly. That is to say, if the pro-establishment camp wins, the pan-democrats will vote YES; conversely, if the pan-democratic camp wins, they will honor the win of the people and vote NO. At this time, the public opinion polls are showing that about half the people support the passage of the proposed political reform package, more than the opposition. Therefore, Albert Ho has no confidence in winning. Therefore, he is going to resign after the vote.

Albert Ho merely discussed this with his Democratic Party, and did not discuss this with other pan-democratic political parties. This makes people think that the Democratic Party must have certain election calculations. During the Occupy Movement, the Democratic Party did not have a lead role, but it certainly got some of the negative baggage. They must be worried that they will routed in the 2015 District Council elections and the 2016 Legislative Council elections. This de facto referendum triggered by Albert Ho's resignation will ensure that Albert Ho and the Democratic Party will appear on television every day during the time between his resignation and the by-election itself, and play the leading role in challenging the government.

(Post852) January 10, 2015

Three calculations on Albert Ho's planned resignation:

1. When the political reform package is vetoed, Albert Ho and the other Democratic Party honchos will have fulfilled their "solemn promise" to do just that. Through the de facto referendum after his resignation, they will go into the local communities for a campaign to overturn the 8.31 resolution and re-start the 5-step process for political reform.

2. But if the political reform package is actually passed, Albert Ho and and the Democratic Party honchos will issue the sacred call for the pan-democrats, the Federation of Students/Scholarism and the Occupy Central trio to go into the local communities in sorrow, to fight to overturn the 8.31 resolution and re-start the 5-step process for political reform.

3. The fellow travelers such as pan-democrats, the Federation of Students, Scholarism and the Occupy Central trio all have reservations about this decision, so that it may never be realized. In that case, Albert Ho and the other Democratic Party honchos can claim immunity from accountability because they have certainly tried their best but unfortunately their fellow travelers would not support them.

(Post852) January 10, 2015

At the press conference, Albert Ho was repeated asked about why he did not resign before the political reform was voted upon. He said: "Is Beijing or the HKSAR government saying today that if we win the referendum, then they will rescind the 8.31 resolution? This is not the case now." In other words, Albert Ho does not believe the de facto referendum can overturn the 8.31 resolution.

Albert Ho added: "If that is not the case, then it can only leave one to room to imagine. But there is also the possibility of losing, which gave the people to chance to demand the 'take it now' proposal. I don't think I should do that." This is very confusing. Simply put, he may lose the referendum in which case people will imagine that the people of Hong Kong want the 'take it now' proposal (that is, this is the mainstream opinion). In that case, the political reform package will be passed.

The inspiration of this discussion may have come from Jimmy Lai. On December 3, 2014, Jimmy Lai was a special guest on an Internet radio station along with Lee Wing-tat and Albert Ho. On the issue of de facto referendum by resignation, Lai told Ho passionately: "If you win, you gain only a feather. If you lose, you destroy the lives of me and my descendants! How you going to commit hara kiri is you lose?" Thus, Jimmy Lai thinks that even if the referendum is won, the 8.31 resolution won't be overturned. That is, you gain only a feather. Conversely, if the referendum is lost, it proves that the people of Hong Kong prefer the 'take it first' option and thus deliver the fate of Hong Kong away.

So why bother with the resignation? Three reasons:

1. To inform the people of Hong Kong that the Democratic Party will not change course, and thus repair their image;

2. To inform the HKSAR Government and the China Liaison Office that the Democratic Party will not deliver its votes, and therefore reduce the pressure;

3. To plan for the District Council elections. Ho said in his opening statement: "I hope that the de facto referendum that comes the by-election after my resignation ... will let the forces of democracy will reach into the communities from this Umbrella referendum to continue and evolve into a community movement." The political reform package will be voted upon in June. Albert Ho will resign immediately. The by-election will be held in October. The District Council elections will be held in November. In terms of timing, it is easy to change his opening statement into a version for private consumption as: ""I hope that the de facto referendum that comes the by-election after my resignation ... will let the Democratic Party will reach into the communities from this Umbrella referendum to continue and evolve into a District Council election campaign."

In the theory of public choice, politicians are just like business people because they always try to "minimize costs" and "maximize profits." The Democratic Party are the tops among the pan-democrats in this field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3-CUvfW0uU (INT News Channel, Albert Ho's press conference in English) Mixed reactions over Albert Ho's "good intentions"

Internet comments:

- Fuck, this is like the guy who stands on the roof ledge and threatens to jump. But you wait six hours and he still hasn't jumped yet. You are also tempted to urge him to get it over with so that the police can unblock the road for you to go home.

- Why wait? Why not resign immediately during the 3pm press conference today? Time to hang out a "I want genuine resignation" banner?

- Erica Yuen Mi-ming, chairperson of People Power, said that Albert Ho's resignation must not lead to another Democratic Party candidate to replace him. Instead, the job should be filled by a member of the Federation of Students or Scholarism who would be more popular. However, Albert Ho is a Super District Councilor and therefore his replacement must be one of the District Councilors. At this time, none of the members of the Federation of Students or Scholarism are District Councilors. Therefore, Yuen suggested that the resignation should be made by five regular legislative councilors, one each from the five districts in the manner of 2010. In that case, the members of the Federation of Students or Scholarism can run in those five districts because the election is open to aged 21+ Chinese citizens who do not have dual citizenship elsewhere (thus excluding Lester Shum of the Federation of Students).

- That press conference is unclear about what the situation is. According to some reports, Albert Ho and the Democratic Party have decided that he will resign after the Legco vote. According to other reports, Albert Ho has merely indicated his intentions to the Democratic Party which may decide otherwise. If the latter is true, then this is yet another farce (right up there with the fake hunger strike and the Beijing trip to talk with Xi Jinping/Li Keqiang).

- The last time, the cost for the 5-district de facto referendum by resignation cost the taxpayers a grand total of $159 million. This time, it is going to cost the same. The last time, the voter turnout was 17.1%, which set a historical low by a wide margin. This time, the voter turnout is likely to be even less because the purpose of a referendum is missing after the Legco vote (one way or the other). So this is yet another expensive fiasco.

- Remember Albert Ho Chun-yan was caught browsing sexy girlie photos during a Legislative Council session on the proposed government budget in February 2014? As a result, his nickname is "AV Yan."

Maybe Albert Ho wants to retire anyway to dedicate all the time to browsing sexy girlie photos? After all, "AV Yan" will not be re-elected in 2016 anyway. And he barely squeaked by in the District Council election to gain eligibility. He will be wiped out in the 2015 District Council election anyway, and that would eliminate his 2016 chances before even reaching the gate.

- During the press conference, Albert Ho made it clear that the Democratic Party will veto the proposed political reform if it is within the framework of the NPCSC's August 31st resolution. Furthermore, this is a matter of principle, which means that they will veto no matter what the public opinion is. That is why they are the "democratic" party -- the people don't get a say, because the Democratic Party has made all the decisions for them without needing their concurrence.

- This is yet another resignation show. By the time LegCo votes on political reform, it will be July 2015. Albert Ho resigns and the by-election takes place in November-December 2015. Before you know it, 2016 arrives and it is time for the new LegCo elections in September. What is the point about squeezing in a few months for the replacement?

- Is this what Jimmy Lai ordered the Democratic Party to do? After all, Jimmy Lai is the biggest donor to the Democratic Party to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.

- Albert Ho seems to be saying that his purpose was not to sway the Legco vote on the proposed political reform. Rather it is to force the government to restart "5-step process of constitutional reform." The 5-step process consists of (see http://www.2017.gov.hk/en/liberal/faq.html)

Step 1: The CE to make a report to the NPCSC as to whether there is a need to amend the two electoral methods,

Step 2: A determination to be made by the NPCSC as to whether the electoral methods need to be amended,

Step 3: the resolution on the amendments to be introduced by the HKSAR Government to the LegCo, and be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all members of the LegCo,

Step 4: consent to be given by the CE to the motions endorsed by the LegCo, and

Step 5: the relevant bill to be reported by the CE to the NPCSC for approval or for the record.

At this time, Steps 1 and 2 are completed. Step 3 is forthcoming. If there is failure to obtain a two-thirds majority support from all Members of the LegCo on the resolution to amend Annex I to the Basic Law, the method used for selecting the CE of the previous term will be used as the method for the selection of the Chief Executive of the next term.

In a restart of the 5-step process, Step 1 is that the CE makes a different report to the NPCSC on the amendments, one that satisfies the pan-democratic camp (such as including civil nomination of the CE). Step 2 will likely result in the NPCSC sending back the very same political reform package back. After all, the August 31st resolution was made by the NPCSC by considering what was deemed to be important from its viewpoints (issues such as sovereignty, national security, etc). Step 3 would mean yet another LegCo veto vote. Nothing happens except for the time lost.

As it stands, if the LegCo vetoes this time, the next round will be 2019 at the earliest. Pretty soon it will be 2047, the year when One Country Two Systems becomes One Country, One System and all this will be irrelevant.

- At the press conference, Albert Ho Chun-yan was accompanied by Democratic Party legislative councilors James To Kun-sun and Sin Chung-kai. Noticeably absent was Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing. When asked whether this meant that Lau did not support the action, Ho replied that Lau wanted to maintain neutrality because she had to chair the Central Committee meeting and the General Members meeting to discuss this action. It is more likely that the Democratic Party wanted to test the waters at this time, with the option of the Democratic Party overriding Albert Ho's decision if things don't work out.

- It is wishful thinking on Albert Ho's part to define the by-election as a referendum on whether to re-start the 5-step process. Other persons may re-define the by-election. For example, Wong Yeung-tat, Civic Passion, People Power etc may position this by-election as a referendum on whether the traditional peace, reason and non-violence approach is still workable now. As another example, what is a 34-year-old pretty female CPA with zero political party background and a single anti-Occupy position were to run as a referendum on whether the people of Hong Kong want more Occupy activities in the future.

- Actually, the government has some leeway as to when to schedule the by-election. Maybe Albert Ho wants to resign in June and have a by-election in October, just before the District Council elections in November. But the government can very well schedule the election for December. Or maybe Albert Ho wants to resign in February and have a by-election (=de facto referendum) in early June, just before the LegCo vote on political reform. But the government can very well schedule the by-election for July, just after the LegCo vote. There is nothing in the election rules that the by-election must take place exactly four months after a resignation.

- For this so-called "de facto referendum" forced by a resignation, the first and only rule is "Don't vote." If you object to the by-election, or the candidate, or whatever, you should not vote. Last time, about 570,000 voted, of which 20,000 were blanks. The organizers claimed that the 20,000 were also supporters because they participated regardless of their revealed preference. Therefore, if you vote this time, you will be counted by the organizers as their supporters. In conclusion, don't vote and let them rationalize the low voter turnout (last time, they said 570,000 was a pretty good number, even though it as only 17% of the electorate and a historical low turnout by a wide margin).

(Oriental Daily) December 21, 2014

This morning, a banner was found hanging down from the pedestrian overpass at the intersection of Argyle Street and Yim Po Fong Street leading to the MTR East Rail's Mong Kok East station. The banner was yellow in color with the words "Kind mother ? Holding weapons" and an umbrella drawing in black. The banner measured 2 feet by 20 feet.

(Oriental Daily) December 26, 2014

At around 11pm, a pedestrian spotted a banner hanging down from the pedestrian overpass at the intersection of Argyle Street and Yim Po Fong Street leading to the MTR East Rail's Mong Kok East station. The banner was royal blue in color, with the British national flag and the words "Nation Building for Hong Kong City-State." The banner measured 2 feet by 10 feet. The banner was visible to all traffic going down Argyle Street towards Kwun Tong. The police were notified, and the matter was turned over to the relevant department.

(Oriental Daily) January 9, 2015

At 5:15am, a citizen drove down Princess Margaret Road in the Ho Man Tin district and spotted a banner hanging down from the Pui Ching Road overpass in the Hung Hom direction. The banner was yellow in color with the words "I want genuine universal suffrage" written in black. The banner was about 2 meters by half a meter in size. Because the banner was hanging over an expressway and may fall down anytime, the citizen called the police. The relevant department was notified to remove the banner.

Early morning yesterday, a citizen drove by the intersection of Argyle Street and Yim Po Fong Street and spotted a banner hanging down from the pedestrian overpass leading to the MTR East Rail's Mong Kok East station. The banner was yellow in color with the words "I want genuine jail time" written in black. The banner was about 3 meters by 1.5 meters.

The last item is amusing, because someone wants the Occupy people to serve "genuine jail time" for breaking the laws during the Occupy Movement. Hanging banners is a tactic which anyone can use, as long as they have time and money. The efficiency of this tactic is poor, because all banners (regardless of message content) are quickly removed on grounds of public safety and in accordance with existing laws on banner displays in public.

Related links: (SCMP) Authorities should rein in banner activists. February 25, 2013; (SCMP) Banners have no place on Hong Kong's streets. April 1, 2013; (SCMP) Removing Falun Gong banners 'breached right to free speech' April 4, 2014.

Over the past few days, I have heard pan-democratic legislators say that even if public opinion reversed completely, they will not change their voting intentions with respect to public opinion. When they say "public opinion," are they referring to the opinion of the entire citizenry of Hong Kong, or the preferences of those who voted from them? Most public opinion polls seem to say that if there is no choice, then more than half of the Hong Kong people would rather accept universal suffrage with screening as opposed to remaining in the same place.

Of course, this "more than half" includes the solid votes for the pro-establishment camp as well as middle-of-the-roaders who want the Occupy Movement to stop, life to return to normal and accept the deal reluctantly.

Therefore, my understanding is that the so-called "public opinion" that the pan-democratic legislators are talking about is that of those diehard democrats who stick to their principles and will not compromise no matter what.

But these diehard democrats are decreasing in numbers. The pan-democratic legislators should think about whether they are representing a small group of pan-democratic voters, or the citizens of Hong Kong? Suppose the majority makes an unjust choice. Will they respect the democratic process of "the minority obeying the majority"?

Actually, in human history, there has been many unjust decisions. For example, the American laws on black slavery were clearly unjust, but it was accepted in the "democratic" society of that era.

The pan-democratic legislators know clearly that they won't gain anything by fighting. But do they want to be leaders? or followers of public opinion? If they want to follow public opinion, they should obey the wishes of the majority of Hong Kong people. If they want to be leaders, they should come up a set of viable theoretical backgrounds, proposal and strategies. More importantly, they need to lead in front of, not behind, the masses.

To be leaders, they must be more willing to sacrifice than any citizen or student. There was a movie in which a general said that he is the first to step on the battlefield and even if besieged by several thousand enemies, he will be the last to leave. Such is a leader.

Internet comments:

- Ricky Wong has given us an enlightening insight on public opinion, which is given by the equation:

"Public opinion" =

Opinion of

[All the people in Hong Kong
- those who always vote for the pro-establishment camp
- those middle-of-the-roaders who are willing to compromise]

= Opinion of

[Die-hard democrats who stick to their principles and never compromise no matter what]

Only the "democratic" opinions count. All else is just "floating clouds", as the Chinese saying goes.

- If these are the criteria to become a leader, then Ricky Wong is certainly no leader. On October 20, 2014, he wrote that he was personally afraid and ashamed. If he participated in an unlawful assembly and found guilty, he would lose the right to be the director or chairman of a company listed on the stock market, as well as being barred from having a telephone or telecommunications license. He said that he is a gutless businessman who can only consider the interests in front of his eyes. He said that many other grown-ups are like him, being afraid to do what they think is right.

- The pan-democratic legislators were seen in the first days of the Occupy Movement to condemn police violence. Then they disappeared from view. But on the final day when Admiralty was cleared, they showed up to be arrested en masse just outside the zone covered by the court injunction. Of course, if they got arrested inside the zone, they could be convicted of contempt of court and lose their esteemed job positions (and the ability to practice law for the legal professionals).

Here is one example: Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, former Legislative Councilor and founding leader of the Civic Party.

(Apple Daily) On September 9, 2014, the title of this news story is: "Audrey Eu: I will participate in Occupy Central on the front lines我會喺前線參與."

(INT News Channel) On December 11, 2014 at 17:30, Audrey Eu was arrested peacefully by the police for participation in an unlawful assembly and walked through a corridor lined with photographers who want to take photos of these Martyrs of the Umbrella Revolution. And nobody ever wondered who made the seating arrangement to insure that the VIP's could sit together in front to assist the media to carry out their work efficiently as well as making sure that the nobodies go away.

The front lines in between the start and finish? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fii-R8Y64K4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDjopRam-Oc, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDPbblAV0bI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuZl6xOkZ1k, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_JTIX-pTkQ  etc. I don't see Audrey Eu in any number of such videos. In these times, if Audrey Eu were to walk down the street, she would be cursed out by random strangers who recognize her, for such is the unpopularity of her ilk.

- Bad behavior was not limited to the pan-democratic legislators. The worst belonged to the professors, religious leaders and students. The Occupy Central trio started the whole thing with an entire set of theory and then disappeared when that theory crashed. The students were good at improvising daily news bulletins but their messages were incoherent and impractical. For the final assault on Government Headquarters, they called others to charge and sat in the Legislative Council building to watch TV and eat instant noodles. Thus, those who led in front during the Occupy Movement were the fools who were deceived by the students. Those who left last were the pan-democratic legislators who came in for the photo opportunity of being arrested.

Nathan Law (Federation of Students committee member): "The battle last night made me deeply aware that some people 'stayed behind to defend at the last moment' and not 'stayed behind to defend up to the last moment'."

(Local Press) Communist China and HK Government Declare War on Localists. January 7, 2015

After the Occupy Movement, Andy Tsang Wai-hung, Commissioner of the Hong Kong Police Force, announced that the Hong Kong Police will complete the investigation concerned within three months and arrest all major and minor leaders of the Movement. On 5th January this year, they began to call up key activists of the occupation movement and invite them to help with the probe, claiming that they will then be arrested. Apart from senior members of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), Scholarism, and political parties of pan-democrats, Organised Crime and Triad Bureau also phoned the scholar-critic, Dr. Wan Chin, on the morning of 6th January, and invited him to go to Wan Chai Police Station and to assist in the investigations at 4:30 pm on 19th January.

This incident shows that the Hong Kong Police and the Hong Kong Government has formally declared war on the Localist Movement as headed by Dr. Wan Chin. Chin is well-known for his work, A Theory of Hong Kong City-state, and his Facebook posts. The localist movement and localist discourse has stimulated wide discussions among Hongkongers and triggered off vociferous criticisms from pan-democrats. Mainstream mass media also either overtly or covertly block localist voices.

Dr. Wan Chin has only appeared in person in the occupied regions a couple of times, quite different from leaders of HKFS, Scholarism, and pan-democrats. On those occasions, Chin mostly made public speeches and advised the public as to how to cope with emergencies. Chin has always focused on propagation of theories and is therefore satirically nicknamed by his opponents keyboard fighter. The OCTBs announcing in advance the arrest of Chin indicates that the localist movement as led by Chin has already risen to the surface and become the target of suppression by the punitive apparatus of Communist China.

(Sing Tao) January 7, 2015

Various Occupy Movement participants received telephone calls from the police yesterday to assist in investigations. Among them is Wan Chin, who is considered the Grand Teacher of the Localist movement. During the Occupy Movement, Wan Chin seldom appeared in the Occupy areas. Most of the time, he used the Internet to give directions.

In October, he wrote on Facebook: "Switch from defense to offense ... the various groups gather together to attack. With passersby mixed in, the Special Unit troops won't be able to lay their murderous hands on them ... the people of the Hong Kong State must win a huge victory over the Special Unit troops. Please remember these six keys to Mong Kok street fighting: waste; disguise; cover; ambush; surprise attack; quick escape. It is time to repay them. After we win the battle, Hong Kong shall be ruled by us."

According to information, the police has gathered evidence that Wan China had used the Internet to call for people to manufacture their own shields and batons. He even went down to Mong Kok to demonstrate how use the shield. The police will be arresting him for "inciting others to participate in an unlawful assembly."

Here is a YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp9IkCrVXXQ in which someone has made a cartoon off Wan Chin's demonstration on how to wield a shield that was made out of a suitcase.

Wan Chin Facebook entry on November 26, 2014: "Wan Chin: At the Grand Battle of Mong Kok, the shield formation will be waiting. With robust shields, the numbers can be powerful. Without the shields, the numbers will just be the casualties who got hit." 874 likes.
Alex Siu: Able to predict like the gods.
Ho Kuen Ma: Reportedly confiscated by the enemy troops.
Wan Chin: How can defensive weapons be confiscated? If the Special Unit troops want to confiscate your helmet, would you obey?
SO HO: Grand Teacher, you get awarded a merit.
Gigi Weng: We may need long and short shields. The long shields to defend the lower body, the short shields to defend the body up close!
John Shaka Chung: Grand Master, you donate your suitcase to Mong Kok!
Pang Cheuk Sum: We haven't see the suitcase shield yet. Is it useless?

(The Standard) Pan-democrat fury at 'twisting' of opinion. January 7, 2015

Student leaders and pan-democrats accused the government of "twisting" public opinion and wrongly concluding that it is the common aspirations of citizens to see the implementation of universal suffrage in the 2017 chief executive election based on Beijing's framework.

The pan-democrat lawmakers said they will boycott the second round of public consultation on political reform to be launched today by the SAR government.

(South China Morning Post) Hong Kong government submits report surrounding Occupy protests to Beijing. January 7, 2015.

The government report supposedly reflecting Hongkongers' sentiments on Beijing's rulings on political reform has been dismissed by pan-democrats as "economical with the truth".

Pan-democrats yesterday accused the government of intentionally distorting public views with the "unsubstantiated" conclusion that "it is the common aspiration" of Hongkongers to have universal suffrage in 2017 "as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and [Beijing's rulings]".

They vowed to veto any reform proposals based on the rulings in August by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, which they claimed would not allow Hong Kong "genuine universal suffrage".

The report, which is mainly a summary of events and protests related to the August 31 ruling, was submitted to the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office yesterday and was also made available online.

"The office has noticed the development and changes in situations in [Hong Kong], and the central government understands the views of different sectors," an office spokesman said, adding that the August 31 decision was conducive to national interests and that "its legal effect is undoubtable".

In an odd move, however, the government report carries a disclaimer, saying it had only collected materials "in the public domain". It did not "verify the accuracy" and "shall not be held responsible" if anyone incurs any legal liability in using the report. It also said it "cannot guarantee" all opinions were included.


(South China Morning Post)

The government's public sentiments report would only be graded a "pass" if the compilers were primary students, the city's leading pollster said in a scathing attack on a document he said failed to analyse the causes of the political impasse.

Dr Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the University of Hong Kong's public opinion programme, said he was disappointed by a report that mostly described what had happened since the central government laid down a stringent framework for political reform in August.

"We welcomed the government's idea to compile a public sentiments report with a hope that it could explore the ways forward to ease the political deadlock, but it fails to meet that objective," said Chung.

He said it failed to acknowledge that the mass civil disobedience movement last year originated from its first-round reform consultation report to Beijing that had disappointed many democracy supporters.

While a government spokesman said the report had "reflected truthfully the events related to constitutional development" from August 31 to December 15, Chung said it did not compare which incidents could better reflect the views of Hongkongers.

"If the compilers of the government's report were only primary school level, I could still grade them a pass," Chung said.

One notable omission from the report was the stripping of former Liberal Party leader James Tien Pei-chun of his seat on the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in October after his calls for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to step down.

Tien said his remarks on Leung should have been included. "The call was based on the fact that Leung had failed to govern properly; the report should tell Beijing that Hong Kong has become ungovernable under Leung's administration."

(Ming Pao)

Lester Shum, deputy secretary-general of the Federation of Students: The Report did not respond to the citizen demand for genuine universal suffrage. It is all rubbish, like students filing news clippings. The Report did not include any reporting about the Chinese violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It will not help to resolve the political debate. It will only provoke more civil anger.

Joshua Wong, Scholarism convener: I find the Report very regrettable, because it kept narrating what happened before but did not provide any analysis by the government on political reform. This is worse than a secondary-school student report on general knowledge.

Tam Yiu-chung, DAB chairman: The Report was fair and balance, but the Central Government will not change the NPCSC's August 31st decision as a result of this Report.

Lam Kin-fung, Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong: The Report was unbiased and reflected the situation in Hong Kong. But even without this Report, the leaders in Beijing are very aware of the situation in Hong Kong.

James Tien, Liberal Party: The Report should have reported that I was dismissed because I brought up the issue of failure of governance by CY Leung during the Occupy Central period. The Report did not reflect the situation now. The Report did not point out the failure of governance by CY Leung, and it did not dare to say that CY Leung's governance is successful either.

Alan Leong, Civic Party head: The Report claimed in its concluding remarks that "it is the common aspiration of the Central Authorities, the HKSAR Government and the people of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the CE election in 2017 in Hong Kong as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretation and Decisions of the NPSCS." The people of Hong Kong this kind of proposal. CY Leung and the Central Government may agree, "but do not drag the citizens of Hong Kong into it."

Lee Cheuk-yan, Labour Party chairman: The government's Report was very perfunctory. It raped public opinion and misstated the will of the Hong Kong people. The NPCSC's decision did not follow the Basic Law at all, but the Report did not mention this at all. This failed utterly to reflect the feelings of the people of Hong Kong.

Sin Chung-kai, Democratic Party: The Report did not analyzed the causes of the entire Occupy Movement. It seemed to be a chronology. The government should have its own analysis about why the Movement came about.

Joseph CW Chan, Hong Kong University Political and Public Administration Science Department professor: The Report may not have too much value for future political reform, but it will definitely draw comments from many people.

(Apple Daily)

Discrepancy between Report and the facts
- The Hong Kong people want genuine universal suffrage: The Report said that the citizens want to implement universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law and the NPCSC's decision, but the fact is that the HKU-POP polls showed that 36% think that the NPCSC should withdraw its decision while 34% think it shouldn't. [Correction (not by Apple Daily): This is one of many polls that are listed in the Report. Do all polls lead to the same conclusion? No.]
- 9/28 tear gas used to disperse demonstrators: The Report said that the police used more force after the warning failed to have effect, and fired tear gas canisters to disperse the masses, but the fact is that the police fired 87 tear gas canisters and raised the warning banner "Disperse or we fire."
- Seven policemen suspected of assaulting Ken Tsang: The Report said that a television station recorded several plainclothes policemen allegedly assaulting an arrested demonstrator. The police were concerned that several of its officers "used improper force" and the seven policemen officers were suspended the next day. The fact is that the television station filmed the seven policemen assaulting Civic Party member Ken Tsang in a dark corner of as much as four minutes.
 [Correction (not by Apple Daily): The film was four minutes long, but the portion on physical assault was less than 30 seconds]

(Speakout.HK) The Report on the Community and Political Situation must not contain any feelings.

The HKSAR government has turned in a detailed Report on the Community and Political Situation to the State Council's Hong Kong-Macau Affairs Office. The contents included no analysis and no position. This drew serious criticisms from the Legislative Council pan-democrats and the radical student organizations. We can debate whether a report on public opinion should contain an analysis. But I disagree with the pan-democrats' charges of "laziness", "lack of feeling" and "raping public opinion."

It is anticipated that the pan-democrats would denounce the Report as worthless. Civic Party chief Alan Leong couldn't wait to reiterate that the pan-democrats will veto any political reform proposal that follows the NPCSC's framework.

Senior barrister Alan Leong complained that the government was "lazy" and the Report "lacked feelings." But he forgot that the Government will start the second round of consultations tomorrow. If this Report contains "feelings," then wouldn't the pan-democrats say that the consultations are fake because the government has already taken a position on matters?

To be fair, the pan-democrats have already said that they will boycott the second round of consultations. Therefore, such logical confusion is understandable. But apart from the issue of the second round of consultations, it would be hard for any government report to contain feelings.

As everyone knows, the Occupy Movement came about because some citizens refused to accept the NPCSC's decision and used illegal methods to force the Central Government and the HKSAR Government to accede to their demands. The HKSAR Government cannot override the decision that the NPCSC made in accordance with the Basic Law. Therefore, political reform in Hong Kong is both a political issue and a legal issue. The HKSAR Government can only act in accordance with the law. It is also right that its reflects public opinion without any feelings or positions of its own.

Apart from "lack of feelings," the pan-democrats also accused the government of "raping public opinion." This accusation is based upon the concluding remarks that "it is the common aspiration of the Central Authorities, the HKSAR Government, and the people of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the CE election in 2017 in Hong Kong as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretation and Decisions of the NPCSC."

The pan-democrats think that the "people of Hong Kong" do not accept the decision and framework of the NPCSC. But the facts are that the various public opinion polls conducted by the various universities show that public opinion has been seesawing back and forth between "accept" and "reject". The "Accept" has been more than 40%, sometimes more than 50%. Although this is not an overwhelming majority, it is incorrect to say that the government is "raping public opinion."

I understand that many citizens would like to see the government come up with an analysis and conclusion about the political reform and the Occupy Movement. This is not asking too much. But the government has to consider all the factors. The second round of consultations is about to begin, and it is reasonable for the government to use a matter-of-fact style to write this Report. Instead of dancing to the tune of the pan-democrats, why not actively participate in this round of consultations and open a wide road to democracy under the existing laws?

(Bastille Post)

I find it more or less funny that the media should take the reactions to the Government Report seriously.

Many people have forgotten how this report came about. Let's go back to its history. In the midst of Occupy Central, the Federation of Students and Scholarism accused the HKSAR Government of hiding the facts from the Central Government, and this led to the NPCSC making its August 31 resolution.

More and more respected middlemen came out to mediate, including university vice-chancellors. They told the government that the students wanted to withdraw too, but they needed a face-saving way. At first, the government refused to play. Eventually, they agreed to hold a dialogue with the Federation of Students. Through the middlemen, the two sides agreed that the compromise steps would be a Report on Community and Political Situation and a multi-party platform on political reform. During the televised dialogue, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam disclosed these two measures. But the students thought that they outperformed the government officials and decided to reject the government proposals and continue with the Occupy Movement.

So these two measures were orphans that were forgotten by most people. The Occupy Movement rolled on until it ended with the court injunctions and the failure of the Federation of Students/Scholarism to lay siege to Government Headquarters.

After the Occupy Movement ended, the government had to decided whether to carry out those two measures. They couldn't admit that those two proposals were the result of a secret negotiation which became void after the deal was called off. Of the two measures, writing the Report was easier than building a multi-party platform. If the Government couldn't even produce a report, the outside world might say that the Government reneged because they won't know that the students broke their promise first. So the Government wrote this report ...

(Ming Pao) Sentiment Report. January 8, 2015.

THE GOVERNMENT has released its "Report on the Recent Community and Political Situation in Hong Kong" (sentiment report), which it has submitted to the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO). Having 158 pages, it is largely a chronicle of what happened in the 79-day Occupy movement. Some momentous events are given such scanty treatment in it that one may be worried that a future reader of it may not be able to understand thoroughly what caused and what came of the gigantic mass movement Hong Kong saw after the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) had made its August 31 decision. Because of the prevailing political atmosphere, one may say the government just went through the motions of preparing the report and submitting it to the HKMAO after its fruitless dialogue with the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS). The report is of little political significance.

It is proper for the government to have just gone through the motions. First, it has made good a promise it made the public. Second, it has avoided arousing controversy by refraining from doing any analysis or making any comments. Third, it has avoided making things more unfavourable to the second round of constitutional-reform consultation. This is most important because, constitutional reforms remaining acutely controversial, it would do society no good at all for the report to add fuel to the flames.

That said, many find certain statements in the report unsatisfactory. For example, it says in conclusion, "It is the common aspiration of the Central Authorities, the HKSAR Government and the people of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the [Chief Executive] election in 2017 in Hong Kong as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretation and Decisions of the NPCSC." It is not clear from the report whether the "relevant Interpretation and Decisions" include the August 31 decision. If they do, will "common aspiration of the people of Hong Kong" not sound questionable? If few Hong Kong citizens objected to the August 31 decision, the gigantic mass movement would not have taken place.

Furthermore, the report, which is an official chronicle of what happened during the Occupy movement, does not seem to stand the test of strict criteria of history. Certain parts of it seem too crude to represent the truth.

The government had regard to so many political considerations in preparing the report that it does not meet the "factual record" requirement of history. The mass movement certainly makes an important chapter of the history of Hong Kong. To be responsible to history, the government should commission an independent team of historians to find out what happened in Hong Kong during the movement and make a factual account of it lest important pieces of information should be washed away by the torrent of time and, as a result, the truth should be blurred. Furthermore, during its dialogue with the HKFS, the government said not only that it would prepare a sentiment report but also that it would set up a platform on which people from all sectors could explore with it possible post-2017 constitutional arrangements. The pressure generated by the Occupy movement has disappeared, but it is a good idea to create a platform for dealing with constitutional-reform controversies through dialogue. Constructive interactions between the government and the public on the dialogue platform will hopefully bring about positive results. In the second round of consultation, the government should keep the "dialogue platform" option and positively try to carry it out.

Internet comments:

- I see that the usual suspects such as Alan Leong and Lee Cheuk-yan are saying the Report does not reflect the feelings of the people of Hong Kong. Presumably Leong and Lee know the true feelings of the people of Hong Kong. I don't remember telling them about how I feel. How did they get to represent me? And this is not just this time, but this is what they and their ilk do all the time.

- The Chinese word for 'democracy' is 民主. means "people" and 主 means "master." That is supposed to mean that the people shall be their own masters. In Hong Kong, this is taken to mean the "pan-democrats" shall be the masters of the people. Therefore, they can go around saying "the people this" and "the people that" for whatever they selfishly want for themselves.

- Unfortunately, the most anticipated part of the Report was absent. That is, I was hoping for a disclosure of foreign influence in the Occupy Movement.

- They complained that the Report did not detail the assault of Ken Tsang Kin-chiu by seven police officers. Well, the case is still pending and one major reason is that Mr. Tsang has not cooperated with the police to identify the attackers. And such details should include how Mr. Tsang poured urine on the police from above.

- Passion Times is upset that the leader of Civic Passion Wong Yeung-tat is not getting enough coverage in the Report. In fact, the Report has zero mentions of Civic Passion and Wong Yeung-tat. The fact is that Wong was arrested and charged with 59 counts of unlawful assembly, which is many more than some of the others mentioned. Instead, the Report mentions people like the Occupy Central trio and archbishop Joseph Zen turning themselves in to the police.

- The Report did not note that Shatin District Police Commander Franklin Chu King-wai hit passersby on the neck and the waist without cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8lYP-IvLLI  . In addition, Chu had handcuffed a cameraman in Chater Park during a police clearance operation in on April 25, 2002.

- Oh, wait, the Report did not include the Scholarism hunger strike in which Joshua Wong sneaked in glucose and Pocari on the side! And of course, the Report would not mention that those who instigated the siege of Government Headquarters hid while their supporters got clubbed and pepper-sprayed by the police. Therefore, this Report is useless.

- The Report is mostly a chronology of events and a compilation of public opinion polls. The government does not include its own analysis and interpretation, for which it is being criticized. If the government included its own analysis and interpretation, it will be criticized even more harshly, because it won't fit somebody's own analysis and interpretation somewhere sometime.

- They complained that the Report omitted the dismissal of James Tien from the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Well, the purpose of this Report was to inform the central government leaders about what really took place here, as if they know nothing. Do you think that those leaders were unaware that the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference voted to oust James Tien? What do you think the CPPCC is?

- I agree with Lee Cheuk-yan that the Report was perfunctory. It lacked certain important events, such as this cashier's order made to Lee Cheuk-yan which he pocketed:

Nor did the Report contained the public demonstration for the ICAC to investigate the 'donations' received by Lee Cheuk-yan:

- Alan Leong does not represent me. The Occupy people claimed to represent the people. But instead they trampled upon the right of others and build their own happiness on top of the pain and suffering of others. They do not represent the people.

- The democrats refer to public opinion, but they are only referring their own opinions. The only people that they will listen to is their supporters. They will ignore all other opinions. The democrats do not consult public opinion; they manufacture public opinion. They do not represent public opinion.

- Even elementary students could have written the Report by cutting and pasting news clippings? Yes, even kindergarten kids can rip the report up by hand like these Legislators did. So why are we paying these clowns $100,000 per month to do it?  They don't show up for work most of the time (unless there is a photo-op like this one).

- Why argue about this anymore? Let the Legislative Council quickly take a vote, and the pan-democrats will reject the CE election proposal. Then we will go back to the same old system in 2017. That's all. That's what everybody wants anyway.

Enough about what other people are saying! Go read the thing yourself at Report on the Recent Community and Political Situation in Hong Kong.

(The Standard) First Wave of Occupy Central charges loom. January 6, 2015.

More than 30 Occupy movement figures are expected to be arrested for inciting, organizing or joining unauthorized assemblies, a police source said. And those people, the source added, comprise only the first wave of protesters to be charged.

The Occupy Central trio of Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Chan Kin-man and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming will be charged with organizing unauthorized assemblies. Chan, however, said yesterday none of them had been called up by police.

Key figures from the Federation of Students such as secretary-general Alex Chow Yong-kang, deputy secretary-general Lester Shum and general secretary Eason Chung Yiu-wa are also on the list provided by the source. Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok of the University of Hong Kong, Lingnan University's Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Tommy Cheung Sau-yin, the Chinese University Student Union president, will also be charged with organizing unauthorized assemblies.

"More than 30 people will be arrested. Those who played key roles will be charged with inciting, organizing or taking part in illegal assemblies," the source said. "We have collected evidence and we will take action at the appropriate time. They can't flee."

Cheung wrote on Facebook that he is prepared to be arrested and that it is "the mission of this generation." He said he felt honored to be arrested because he was authorized by CUHK students to fight for genuine suffrage.

Scholarism convener Joshua Wong Chi-fung and spokesman Oscar Lai Man-lok will also be charged, though Lai said no one from their group had been asked to assist in a police investigation.

Most of the pan-democrats who joined the movement including the Labour Party's Lee Cheuk-yan and Cyd Ho Sau- lan, the Civic Party's Alan Leong Kah- kit and Kenneth Chan Ka-lok, the League of Social Democrats' Leung Kwok-hung and People Power's Albert Chan Wai-yip and Raymond Chan Chi- chuen are also likely to be charged.

The Neo Democrats' Gary Fan Kwok-wai is likely to be charged with inciting and organizing an unauthorized assembly. Media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying will be charged with joining an unauthorized assembly. Sin Chung-kai said no Democratic Party lawmaker had been called up or arrested so far.

But the source said charges are in the works for former Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Wing-tat, People Power's "Fast Beat" Tam Tak-chi, Civic Party's Tanya Chan Suk-chong, Confederation of Trade Unions' Mong Siu-tat and Civil Human Rights Front's Johnson Yeung Ching-yin. Other protesters also said they had received calls from police asking them to report to a station within a set period.

The League of Social Democrats' Tsang Chun-ying and the Labour Party's Kwok Siu-kit were called to assist in a police investigation. Other protesters such as Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, former Democratic Party chief Martin Lee Chu-ming, Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee and Cantopop star Denise Ho Wan-see are expected to be charged later.

(Sing Tao) January 5, 2015

Labor Party's Lee Cheuk-yan said that he received the phone call from the police and that the "settling the accounts after the autumn harvest" has formally begun. With respect to the possible punishment for crimes, he said that he was psychologically prepared to accept it. However, he is undecided as to whether to admit guilt to all the charges. He said that he was willing to accept the charge of "participation in an unlawful assembly," but he may choose to object to other charges such as "organization" or "incitement."

(SpeakOut.hk) January 5, 2015

... Like many citizens, I want those Occupy persons who have not carried out "civil disobedience" in full to "pay their bills" soon and be accountable to those innocent citizens who were affected. From the day when the 70-day-plus Occupy Movement ended to now, fewer than 100 persons have turned themselves in to the police. Apart from the fewer than 300 persons who stayed and got arrested by the police in Admiralty, many more have dodged paying their bills. Among these are some who adhered to "peace and and non-violence", but also many "rioters" who have attacked the police violently and broken into construction sites to steal construction materials in order to build road barricades.

As the police carried out their second wave of law enforcement, Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan has rushed out to criticize this "settling of accounts after the autumn harvest." Some of those who led and guided the Occupy Movement questioned whether the police charges are based upon political considerations in order to suppress the pro-democracy movement, etc. In the face of these allegations, citizens should keep their cool and ask: "What is the problem with settling the accounts after the autumn harvest?" After all, shouldn't the police file charges only after a crime was committed?

Those who criticize the police for settling accounts after the autumn harvest should ask themselves, "Have I violated the relevant laws?" Next they should ask, "Why does democracy equate lawbreaking?" Ignoring for the moment crimes such as blocking roads and stopping traffic, should the police make arrests and file charges when people try to fight for democracy by means of violence, theft and destruction of public property?

Actually, most of the Occupy people claimed to be carrying out "civil disobedience." So far, they have only carried out the first half by breaking the laws. As for the second half about accepting the responsibility, they won't mention a word. Worse yet, some legislative councilors from the legal field even claimed that "civil disobedience" does not require pleading guilty to crimes. Their behavior is disgusting enough, but it also highlights the need for the police to file charges. Otherwise, citizens may get the incorrect message that criminals can stay beyond the reach of the law. When no charges are filed in the face of overwhelming evidence, it would be "politics first, law enforcement second." That is not what the normally law-abiding people of Hong Kong want to see.

Settling accounts after the autumn harvest, politically motivated criminal charges, civil disobedience ... Hong Kong has been vexed by this kind of political vocabulary for two years already. Today, Hong Kong must find a way out of these subjective and irrational feelings. All these incorrect comments by the Occupy people are ultimately designed to gain even more political bargaining chips, even if they have to mislead people. An obvious example is the so-called "settling of accounts after the autumn harvest." Clear-minded citizens should know that.

(Bastille Post) January 6, 2015.

... According to information, the police are filing charges based upon the roles that people played during the Occupy Movement. For those who participated in major decision-making, or led the volunteer teams, or supervised the materials stations, there will be three charges: "convening and organizing an unlawful assembly," "inciting others to participate in an unlawful assembly" and "participating in an unlawful assembly." The Occupy Central trio, the eight core members of the Federation of Students and Scholarism and Neo-democrats' Gary Fan Kwok-wai will be charged on this basis. For those who stood on the grand stage in Admiralty to direct demonstrators to act, there will be two charges: "inciting others to participate in an unlawful assembly" and "participating in an unlawful assembly." Seven pan-democratic legislative councilors will be charged on this basis.

According to an analysis, the police have acted firmly and politely. Firmly refers to their speed. The police could choose when to act. They could have waited another two or three months. But they chose to act now, right before the second round of consultation on political reform begins. This meant that the government has no high expectations to come out of the consultation process. Politely refers to the fact that the police did not arrest people at their homes. Instead they made appointments to go to the police station to assist in investigations and stating that an arrest is possible.

According to the analysis, whether the police will act tough depends on the number of arrestees and the related charges. If they prosecute hundreds, even thousands, then this is a large-scale operation. If the police only arrested a hundred or so of those who are clearly inciters or organizers, then this is a small-scale operation. At this time, it seems that the latter is more likely to be the case.

In addition, the likely charge of "convening and organizing an unlawful assembly" is not a major crime. More serious would be the Hong Kong Crimes Ordinance (Cap 200) Section 9 on "sedition."

Q1. There are signs that the tent area outside the Legislative Council building is expanding. What are the concerns?
38%: Full clearance should take place as soon as possible
22%: Revival of Occupy Central
18%: No worries
12%: Long-term Occupation that will extend to other areas
10%: No opinion

Q2. Certain radical groups are running mobile Occupy movements through "buying things" and "carol singing." What is your assessment?
41%: Disturbing public order
26%: The Hong Kong government will be sorry if they don't take immediate decisive action
14%: No worries
11%: The original meaning is already lost
8%: No opinion

Q3. The Hong Kong government delayed enforcing the law and did not do a thorough job. What are the problems?
44%: The Occupy people are unafraid and continue to make trouble
22%: They are timid and indecisive
18%: They left unsolved problems behind with endless consequences
8%: No big deal
8%: No opinion

Q4. The Hong Kong government will be carrying out the second round of consultations on political reform. What should the authorities if the Occupy Movement occurs again?
51%: Absorb the lessons and resolutely clear the sites and arrest the lawbreakers
20%: Prosecute the lawbreakers as soon as possible
9%: They must ensure the rule of law
8%: No big deal
12%: No opinion

Q5. If someone re-starts the Occupy Movement, what will be the impact on Hong Kong?
46%: Destroy the rule of law and the economy
22%: Governance will be stalled
14%: Hong Kong will be severely hurt
9%: No big deal
9%: No opinion

Q6. The Occupy Central mastermind and financier Jimmy Lai has still not been charged. What is the concern?
40%: He should be arrested as soon as possible to eliminate the problem
24%: The mastermind may try again
19%: The Occupy Movement will never end
9%: No big deal
8%: No opinion


Civil disobedience: Refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something

Resistance: Refusal to accept something new or different; effort made to stop or to fight against someone or something.

Rebellion: An effort by many people to change the government or leader of a country by the use of protest or violence

Insurgency: A usually violent attempt to take control of a government.

Uprising: A usually violent effort by many people to change the government or leader of a country.

Revolt: Violent action against a ruler or government

Revolution: The usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one

(The Atlantic) Don't Call Hong Kong's Protests an 'Umbrella Revolution'  By Chris Yeung. October 8, 2014.

Rewind to September 22. Im at a students rally marking the beginning of a five-day class strike at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to protest limits Beijing has imposed on the citys ability to elect its chief executive. The class strike is being led by the Hong Kong Federation of Students, and also at the rally are representatives of another group, Occupy Central With Love and Peace, which last year started discussing a sit-in in Hong Kongs business district. Occupy Central leader Chan Kin-man tells me he has already set his sights on the post-Occupy democratic movement, and discusses a social-media strategy aimed at achieving universal suffrage. Its clear that the movements long-running battle for democracy will continue well after the dust of Occupy has settled.

The original plan is to host a democracy banquetthe codename for a civil-disobedience campaign comprising students and other activistsin Central on October 1. Chan and his fellow organizers expect that more than 10,000 people will stage sit-ins on the roads, their arms linked in solidarity. They also expect that by October 3, police will start breaking up the human chain and send the demonstrators to detention centers. The activists have vowed to face jail rather than resist arrest. The point, says Chan, a sociology professor at Chinese University, is simply to pressure Beijing to fulfill the promise it made after the British handed sovereignty over the city back to the Chinese in 1997to allow true democracy in Hong Kong.

Fast-forward to today, when the protests appear to be settling into the long-term struggle Chan envisioned. The events that unfolded after those class boycotts have caught everyone by surprise, shocking the city, Communist Party leaders, and the worldas well as the student movement and Occupy organizers themselves.

The initial plan started to fall apart on September 26, when a clash between students and police at the end of their strike triggered a mass protest outside the governments headquarters, a 10-minute walk from Central. On the morning of September 28, Benny Tai, another Occupy leader, declared that the sit-in at Central would start early.

What happened thereafter was an unscripted pro-democracy movement. But it was anything but an umbrella revolution, as the Western media have now dubbed the protests. Most local media outlets, such as the South China Morning Post, have avoided the term, continuing to refer to the protests as Occupy Central, the Occupy Central conflict, or even the political reform storm. When local media have referred to the umbrellawhich became the default icon of the Occupy movement internationally after demonstrators used umbrellas as defense against polices pepper spraythey have referred not to an umbrella revolution, but to an umbrella movement or umbrella democracy movement.

The key leaders and supporters of Occupy have similarly refrained from likening the protests to a revolution. Joshua Wong, leader of Scholarism, a high-school students group that has played a key role in the democracy movement, said at an October 4 rally: We are not seeking revolution. We just want democracy. Lester Shum, the deputy head of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, said: This is not a color revolutionthe term widely applied to movements that led to the overthrow of three governments in the former Soviet Union in the early 2000s. A group of academics has issued a separate statement insisting that the protests are not a revolution.

This attempt to remove the label revolution from Hong Kongs pro-democracy protests is deliberate, and came after Chinas official media gave its early verdict on the demonstrations. In one of a series of editorials carried soon after the Occupy protests began, Chinas official Peoples Daily warned that any intention among a small number of people to hold a color revolution on the mainland through Hong Kong would be a daydream, even while Chen Zuoer, formerly a top official in the Chinese governments Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, explicitly called the Occupy Central protests a Hong Kong version of color revolution.

Indeed, where the notion of the protests as a revolution has taken hold in Hong Kong itself, it has mostly been in pro-Beijing, pro-establishment circles. For example Cheung Chi-kong, a close advisor to Hong Kongs pro-Beijing Chief Executive CY Leung, has cited the spread of the protests beyond Central to the busy tourist shopping districts of Mongkok and Causeway as evidence that the movement is verging on revolution. The Chinese-language Sing Tao Daily News said in an editorial: They demand the downfall of Leung Chun-ying. It is close to an attempt to overthrow the regime. There are already signs of color revolution.

Beijing has adopted the term revolution to paint the protesters as extreme, and Western media in their haste to brand the movement have embraced the same term. But the idea of revolution had never even occurred to many ordinary citizens of Hong Kong. Nor did the protesters have any intention of toppling the government as a whole, or remaking Hong Kongs relationship with China, when they chanted the slogan Leung Chun-ying step down. These calls for his downfall were instead a response to a specific incident, and emerged only after police ordered the use of tear gas to break up a crowd of protesters on September 28. Despite his unpopularity, Leung was not a target of the Occupy movement when it began. Even after the tear-gassing incident, Leungs office and the government headquarters were not on the list of sites to be blockaded until Leung rejected a list of the students demands, including an apology from the Chinese National Peoples Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), Chinas highest governing power, for limits it placed on direct elections in Hong Kong, and Leungs resignation.

Some student leaders have since revised their demands to focus less on Leungs resignation than on negotiations about political reform. They are aware of the danger of rubbing Beijings most sensitive nerve through talk of revolution.

The protest leaders, and Hong Kongs people more generally, seem resigned to the reality that independence is not a real option for the city. Like it or not, the one country, two systems setupunder which Hong Kongs government is highly autonomous except in defense and foreign relationsis still the best possible option. Importantly, the Basic Law, the post-1997 constitution under which Hong Kong is governed, says that the territorys chief executive and all members of the legislature should ultimately be elected through universal suffrage. It does not specify a timetable. Citing a host of concerns, uppermost among them national security, Beijing has insisted that candidates clear a high bar to ensure that Hong Kongs chief executive loves China, loves Hong Kong, and will not harm the interests of the nation. Many Hong Kongers are adamant that Beijings fears are unfounded, arguing that they are smart enough not to elect a chief executive who would confront the central government. They want a fair electoral system that gives them real choices on the ballot. Freedom of choice, they insist, is an integral part of the values of freewheeling, capitalist Hong Kongnot to mention the law that governs it. Protesters demands that the NPCSC withdraw its August 31 ruling on universal suffrage may well look revolutionary from Beijings perspective, but the protesters are hardly demanding an overthrow of the citys political system.

Below the pedestrian bridge connecting Hong Kongs government headquarters to a transit station, I saw a banner emblazoned with the words Do you hear the people sing?a reference to the theme song of Les Misrables, the musical based on Victor Hugos epic about post-revolutionary France. Occupy Centrals organizers have embraced the song and have said they are trying to get Beijing to listen. But Hong Kongers are not the same as the Parisians who fought to seize power from their rulers in the 18th and 19th centuries. They are clamoring for the right to elect their leaders. No more. No less.

The Chinese Communist Partys leaders seem to view the pro-democracy protests as an act of defiance, if not rebellion. By branding them as a revolt, they are anxious to send a clear warning to Hong Kongs people: Dont play with fire. But calling Hong Kongs pro-democracy movement a revolution risks misreading the nature of the protests. Worse, the language of revolution obscures the real democratic aspirations of Hong Kongs people, prolonging political restlessness in the city and exacerbating the perennial strains in mainland-Hong Kong relations.

Joshua Wong's Facebook: Recently many people kept claiming that someone is starting a "revolution" in Hong Kong. Last night, Lester Shum responded during the discussion forum that ended at 3am. I think that it deserves our reflection: "For those who insisted that there is an Umbrella Movement at this time, I want to ask two questions: Firstly, Are you willing to die for the Umbrella Revolution? (One person present raised the hand). Secondly, are you willing to spend 50 years in jail for the Umbrella Revolution? (Nobody raised the hand). If you can't do either, you are not psychologically prepared to start a revolution, and you must find some other way out for the movement besides a revolution.

(Memehk) Recently Scholarism's Joshua Wong was interviewed on Internet radio about what happens after the Umbrella Revolution. He talked about "revolution" and made some statements:

Do you really think that you are carrying out a revolution? You don't lack the money to buy arms. A revolution requires arms. In Hong Kong, you cannot even buy a gun. So what armed revolution is this? Where do you get the money to buy arms? If you are not psychologically prepared to die, you shouldn't say that you are carrying out a revolution.

(vjmedia.com.hk) It is time for Joshua Wong to read books -- do you know about the Velvet Revolution? By Chan Ngan-ming (Hong Kong University Undergrad Magazine deputy editor-in-chief)

In November, Federation of Students leader Lester Shum proposed a strange theory about "revolution" which Joshua Wong approved of in his Facebook. This let to strong rebuttals from various commentators. More than one month later, Joshua Wong has compounded his error by saying that "the revolution requires arms. In Hong Kong, you cannot even buy a gun. So what armed revolution is this?" This debate is unimportant because it only reflects Joshua Wong's lack of basic historical knowledge and vision. But since more and more Hong Kong people consider Joshua Wong to be an opinion leader, it is necessary to correct him.

First of all, Joshua Wong thinks that a revolution is necessarily a violent revolution which requires arms. If only he had heard about the Velvet Revolution, he would know that he is wrong. The Velvet Revolution took place in Czechoslovakia in 1989 when the Communist regime was overthrown for a democratic system without any large-scale violence. Scholars often contrast the peaceful evolution of the Velvet Revolution with violent revolutions. The Velvet Revolution is a revolution without requiring arms. Is Joshua Wong saying that the Velvet Revolution is not a revolution?

Moreover, according to Joshua Wong and Lester Shum, all dynastic changes in Chinese history are "revolutions." Since the Qin and Han dynasties, was the country won by force each time? Were all these people psychologically ready to die as Lester Shum asserts, or do they possess the so-called arms that Joshua Wong talks about? Isn't this ridiculous? T.T. Meadows pointed out opposing a tyrant is an act of rebellion, whereas a revolution involves overthrowing the political system. In China, the dynastic changes always preserved the monarchy, so they were at most rebellions. T.T. Meadows thinks that the main point about a revolution is the "replacement of the political system" and not what Joshua Wong think as a "means" (such as the use of violent arms). This explains why the Velvet Revolution is a revolution. Joshua Wong only looks at the revolution through the "means" and has not employed other viewpoints. This shows that his narrow knowledge is restricting his thinking.

Actually, it is not controversy-free to use the terms "Umbrella Revolution" or "Umbrella Movement." It is just that the views of Joshua Wong and Lester Shum revealed their logical confusion and lack of knowledge. It is a shame on the people of Hong Kong to regard them as opinion leaders. All along, Joshua Wong has counted on commonsense to make judgments. He can bring simple narratives for the public to accept, and this is his strength. But he can only deal with clear-cut issues in which right and wrong are cleanly defined. In the more complex local issues, such as "the debate over limiting social welfare benefits," he was unable to grasp the issues. During the 79 days of the Umbrella Revolution, I have not heard any perceptive remarks coming from Joshua Wong. Most of time, he just shouted slogans. Joshua Wong's greatest contribution during the Umbrella Revolution was to announce the charge into Civic Plaza. His seemingly huge contribution is mostly via the flattering reporting by the foreign media.

Joshua Wong can manipulate the media, and that is his forte. But when the Hong Kong people treat Joshua Wong as an opinion leader, they are being stupid. The road to political reform is a long one. Lu Xun said: "Actually, there were no roads on the earth before. After more people walked on the earth, the roads appeared from all the walking." But the problem here is that if we unthinkingly raise Joshua Wong to become a leader high and above us and we follow his path, we will only be reaching a dead end. If so, then the Hong Kong people deserve it.

Internet comments:

- Revolution or Movement? That is the question.
At first, you claim to be starting a revolution. Then when the adults asked you what you are up to, you quickly denied it and said that this was just a Movement of some kind. When the Central Government classified this movement as counter-revolutionary, you firmly denied it. When the Central Government decided that this was only an internal conflict, you bounced back and proclaim an Umbrella Revolution. This is split personality!
At first, you say that Hong Kong matters should be dealt with by the Hong Kong people themselves. Then you wanted to go to Beijing to meet with the Central Government leaders?
At first, you called for CY Leung to resign. Then you were reminded that overthrowing the Chief Executive and his government is calling for a revolution. So you hold a televised with the same government. But when you went down to the Occupy Admiralty stage, you demanded CY Leung to resign again.
What do you really want? Only heaven knows!
Can you please straighten your own head out before you mobilize people?

- The Velvet Revolution is not going to take place in China, nor will any version of Color Revolution. The Chinese Communists have guns, tanks, jet fighters, bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs. They will use it to defend their rule. Even if you have the money and you buy a couple of black-market handguns in Hong Kong, your violent revolution will be suppressed because the military imbalance is overwhelming.

- The status of Joshua Wong is strange. He is not a middle-school student anymore, but he insists on representing all middle-school students through Scholarism. His grades were not enough to be admitted by the major universities. He is enrolled at the Open University, but he clearly hasn't been attending class. Clearly that was an arrangement of convenience to maintain a student status. His lack of scholasticism shows when probed on the details of the issues. He lacks basic knowledge of Chinese and Hong Kong history, political science and legal theory and practice. He has not read up on hunger strikes, and that is why he thinks it is okay to sneak in glucose/Pocari on the side. He has no working experience, and that is why he has no idea about people's livelihood. When he is pressed, he talks about "The people of Hong Kong this" and "The people of Hong Kong that" even as the people of Hong Kong ponders whether they ever delegated him the power to represent them.

- So it's dog-fight-dog time. This was long overdue, because why should the elite students at Hong Kong University be outshone by a dyslexic middle-school dropout?

-Dog-fight-dog, but they don't touch on the commonality between the Federation of Students and Scholarism. The student leaders from the two groups -- Joshua Wong, Alex Chow, Lester Shum and Yvonne Leung -- all disappeared from sight on the night of the siege of the Central Government Office. They are good at calling others to charge, but they will hide in the rear while claiming "division of labor."

- From the moment that I saw Joshua Wong needing to read his mobile phone for which slogan to chant next, I knew that he was a puppet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55Vt1xd-8OM Of course, he has the audacity of accusing CY Leung of reading a prepared speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIcz9MqRRgY . He said, "The people of Hong Kong needs a Chief Executive, now a news reader. If you want to read a speech, I can just read the script. You are not willing to hold a direct dialogue with the masses." But when CY Leung met with Joshua Wong, the latter only harangued him passionately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwgaCP1GQds. It is impossible to hold any rational discussion with this person.

- I've figured what went wrong with the Occupy Movement -- all their nominal leaders are ugly looking, starting with Joshua Wong who looks like the re-incarnation of the River Child. Is this the face of the future of Hong Kong?

- Thanks to these student activists this time, a whole generation of university graduates over the next few years will find their employment prospects severely restricted. Employers are going to avoid hiring new university graduates.

- "Young Person of the Year", as selected by The Times (London):

If it reflects badly on the people of Hong Kong to regard Joshua Wong as opinion leader, then what does this say about the foreign media?

(AM730) By Shih Wing-ching. December 30, 2014.

Recently Hong Kong people have found that the central government officials are putting more emphasis on "One Country" and less so on the need to maintain "Two Systems". At the same time, the Central Government thinks that some people in Hong Kong are using the "Two Systems" to challenge the authority and government of "One Country." It is unfortunate that "One Country, Two Systems" has gone from the original design for unification into opposition. Yet, this is unavoidable.

Deng Xiao-ping designed "One Country, Two Systems" to deal with the return of Hong Kong to China. 1997 was a historical time limit which the Chinese government had to face. There was no other choice other than taking Hong Kong back inside the boundaries of One Country. Mrs. Thatcher went to Beijing and wanted to exchange sovereignty for governance. Deng Xiao-ping replied decisively that both sovereignty and governance will be taken back and that the United Kingdom will have no role in Hong Kong after 1997.

At the time, China had just began its opening. It was not economically developed and its standard of living was much lower than Hong Kong. If Hong Kong were to be taken back into One Country, its people would not be to adapt. Besides, China has a socialist system while Hong Kong has a capitalist system. The two systems are incompatible. China and Hong Kong legal systems are completely different. So it would be hard to unify the two.

The people of Hong Kong were afraid that China would unify by force. So a wave of immigration took place. Deng Xiao-ping knew that if the problem of return was not handled right, the wave of immigration would turn into a wave of fleeing/escaping, in which case the return of Hong Kong to China would be a face-losing international affair.

To assuage the people of Hong Kong Deng Xiao-ping accepted the reality of things and let Hong Kong maintain its capitalist economic system and its British common law under One Country. This was "One Country, Two Systems."

Yet, Deng Xiao-ping only promised that things would not change for fifty years. Anyone can see that "Two Systems" was a stop-gap measure so that Hong Kong can be transferred back to China. The ultimate goal was towards "One Country" and not towards separation.

The ideal development in these fifty years would be for the Chinese economy to develop rapidly so that the standards of living become close gradually. At the same time, the Chinese political system should progress sufficiently that the basic rights of people are better protected and greater freedom is available. In this way, "One Country, Two Systems" can transition into "One Country, One System." By that point, Hong Kong will have completed its return to China.

But some people in Hong Kong don't agree with this path. They don't trust the Chinese Communists. If they leave it up to the Chinese Communists, Hong Kong would lose everything and its people would become obedient citizens at the mercy of the Chinese Communists. To prevent the Chinese Communists from carrying out this plot, they fight communism with democracy and they emphasize localism. They have built a formidable anti-establishment camp.

The Occupy Movement showed that this anti-establishment force has taken roots within the younger generation. The Chinese government is very concerned and therefore trying to tightening its Hong Kong policies. To the Chinese government, the Two Systems are there to serve One Country and never to oppose it. If the Chinese government was forced to choose between the two, they would give up Two Systems and keep One Country.

From this viewpoint, the strategy of the anti-establishment camp is not smart. Using Two Systems to oppose One Country will only accelerate the arrival of One Country.

(AM730) By Shih Wing-ching. December 31, 2014.

Some readers thinks that the people of Hong Kong does not have to agree with my essay yesterday because the viewpoint on One Country, Two Systems only represents that of the Chinese Communists, whereas the people of Hong Kong have the right to hold a viewpoint that is better suited for their own needs. Some readers even suspect that on account of my business interests in mainland China, I had to explain the policy on behalf of the Chinese Communists and help in the unification campaign.

Those who know me better know that I am not someone who changes his beliefs for material benefits. I will not say what I don't believe for the sake of my business. I explained the original ideas behind One Country, Two Systems not to help the Chinese Communists, but to help the people of Hong Kong recognize their own situation. Only by understanding the constraints in time and space can a truly viable path be found.

Theoretically, everybody has the right to make individual choices. But social choices cannot be decided by an individual. It cannot even be democratically decided by people in a local region. During the American Civil War, the southern states declared that they wanted to leave the Union. The Union government led by President Lincoln disagreed. In the end, the south was defeated and the north imposed unity on the south by force.

The United States of America runs on a federal system. When a state joins the Union, it can no longer declare independence at will. China runs a centralized government which authorized One Country, Two Systems in Hong Kong. If the people in Hong Kong wants to do something else, that would be challenging the political authority of the central government and objectively equivalent to going for independence. You can disagree with the viewpoints of the central government, but that doesn't mean that the central government will change its viewpoints to yours.

The reality is that under the existing political framework, the National People's Congress has the right to interpret the Basic Law in Hong Kong. The National People's Congress can even declare which Chinese laws are applicable in Hong Kong. Under the existing political-legal system, local government cannot overturn the decisions of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. And the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR ultimately has to be appointed by the central government.

Under these circumstances, the Chief Executive can only be someone who is acceptable to the central government. Any future political system must also be acceptable to the central government. If you want civil nomination and prevent screening by the central government, you must overthrow the governing rule of the Chinese Communist Party in China. That is to say, you must start a revolution.

Can the people of Hong Kong start a revolution? The impact on social order of a revolution is much more than civil disobedience with everybody paying a heavy price. During the Occupy Central period, most people can even endure the inconveniences to normal daily life. So how do you expect them to undertake a revolution?

The reality is that most people in Hong Kong live relatively stable lives. They don't want to overturn everything and then have to start over again. There is really zero chance of success in any fight with the Chinese Communists. That is why some people would rather accept their fates than choose revolution.

I don't like to accept my fate. But the choice is not about my own future. Instead it is about the fate of Hong Kong as a whole. I can only follow the will of the majority. When I was a young man, I was a fervent revolutionary. As I grow older, I accepted the fact that the people have the right to choose not to undertake a revolution. An open society does not require that everyone has to be a revolutionary.

Internet comments:

- This reflects what most middle-class and middle-aged people are thinking. Young people talk loud, but as soon as the police arrives, they flee. What revolution?

- It is okay with me if some people want to have a revolution. But please don't drag everybody else into it!

- If the siege of Government Headquarters was taken to be the revolutionary moment, then it was a total defeat. Four thousand masked attackers got chased away by 200 Special Tactical Unit (Blue Team) members. How is this revolution ever going to succeed?

- Relay hunger strikes with Pocari on the side do not make a revolution. Revolution is about assassinating government officials, bombing government offices, attacking police stations to seize guns, imposing martial law, storming the People's Liberation Army garrison, confiscating down China-capital banks and emporiums, sealing the border crossings, arresting all pro-China politicians, shutting down all pro-China media, sending all mainlanders to concentration camps, etc. Do you see that happening?

- Shih Wing-ching was a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary in his youth, having taught at a pro-Communist China middle school for eight years. In 1976, he switched beliefs to the free market theology and founded the Centaline real estate agency to make a bundle of money. So anything he says along these lines is going to be suspect on account of his business interests. He makes disclaimers all the time but that can't change the facts.

- If you want to run a revolution, you need to have as many people on your side as possible. Who would be your most powerful ally? Would you believe -- the Hong Kong police? Instead of winning them over, you are too busy cursing them as police dogs, throwing objects at them, putting your hands up while kicking them, shining camera lights in their faces, making them chase you around, harassing their families, etc. You've simply assured their unending antagonism.

- If you want to overthrow the Chinese Communists, then a few million Hong Kong sissy citizens won't be able to accomplish it. You need to mobilize the mainland citizens to join your revolution. Oh wait, you are too busy antagonizing mainlanders by calling them greedy, selfish and boorish "locusts." It gets to the point that most mainlanders now have a poor opinion of the Hong Kong brand of democracy. You were either completely uninterested in promoting democracy or completely unaware of the implications of your tactics.

- Shih Wing-ching should actually be happy with the Occupy Movement. Instead of instability triggering a real estate market crash, housing prices actually continued to rise with no end in sight.

(SCMP) Student leader Alex Chow tells how he copes with parental pressure. By Joyce Ng. October 28, 2014.

It's not just politicians who are piling the pressure on student leader Alex Chow Yong-kang - he's also getting it in the neck from his parents.

The 24-year-old Federation of Students chief has become a household name and won a host of admirers since heading a class boycott that escalated into the start of the Occupy Central movement. But his family isn't entirely convinced, he revealed in an interview with the Post.

"I would describe my parents as pro-establishment moderates," Chow says, smiling. "They bombard me with phone messages and send me articles that call for a halt to Occupy." Just yesterday, his father, who works overseas, sent him an article by Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, in which the legal scholar urged the students to stop the occupation. "I won't reply to his message. I feel so much pressure!" Chow says, noting that his parents worry about his health, as well as the risk of waning public support.

(The Standard) 'Come home safe, son'  December 12, 2014

Parents' affection for their children knows no bounds. That's exactly what Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang got from his parents even after he was arrested last night, together with other democracy activists, at the Admiralty occupy zone. In a brief, but touching message, the parents told their son via WhatsApp that they love him, support his beliefs and "need you to be home safe".

(Ming Pao http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E5%AE%B6%E5%A2%83%E5%AF%8C%E8%A3%95%20%E5%91%A8%E6%B0%B8%E5%BA%B7%EF%B9%95%E6%9B%B4%E8%A6%81%E8%B5%B0%E5%87%BA%E4%BE%86-%E7%88%B6%E6%AF%8D%E6%96%99%E8%BA%AB%E5%AE%B6%E8%BF%91%E5%84%84%20%E4%BC%81%E6%A5%AD%E8%81%983600%E4%BA%BA/web_tc/article/20141229/s00002/1419789573814 . December 29, 2014

During the early stage of the Occupy Movement, somebody posted the family information of some of the individuals in the Federation of Students, Scholarism and Occupy Central. Our reporter investigated and found that the parents of Alex Chow owns four properties in Hong Kong worth at least HKD $60 million, without counting their clothing manufacturing business. Our reporter visited the Longkang (Shenzhen) factor of Chow's parents. The factory had floor space of over 10,000 square feet, with several hundred square feet containing sewing machines to manufacturing clothing. On that day, more than 10 sewers were at work. The rest of the space was used as an office with clothing samples. The workers said that the Chows were on business in the United States and they are rarely in Shenzhen. Our reporter visited the Fo Tan (Hong Kong) office, which is 300 square feet in area with two workers present. The workers said that the Chows were in the United States. According to the company website of the Chows' clothing manufacturing company, they hire 3,600 persons across the world in mainland China, Bangadesh and Vietnam.

Alex Chow said that his parents' business has been booming in recent years. He does not deny that he does not have to worry about food and lodgings. But he emphasized that he lives a frugal life. He does not use a chauffeur. Instead he takes a regular bus and a school bus, and he takes the MTR to the Occupy Admiralty area.

(InMedia.HK) By Alex Chow. December 30, 2014.

The media is a public tool. What is the use to the world of reporting on my personal family background? What is the use of that towards attaining a just political system? Those who know me that I protect my family when I go interviews and dialogues. Yet, this tabloid investigation has landed on page A3 of a newspaper. I don't understand the reason.

I am glad of my parents' unbounded care for me during this past period. As a child, I am grateful. But this report has vexed my family greatly, and also damaged my trust in the media. The revelations about personal background creates pressure in the same manner as an authoritarian government oppresses individual and intimidates citizens from political participation. This Ming Pao report is no different from how the pro-China newspapers supposedly published personal information on the movement leaders.

This report came from the Ming Pao investigative reporting team. This team's previous reports included the high-priced sale of 39 Connaught Road, the illegal construction inside CY Leung's home and the Land Department officials buying farmland for profit. They acted as watchdogs on behalf of citizens and received praises. I think this is what the public wants them to concentrate on investigating. I hope that the frontline reporters will fight off the pressure and defend this public tool. Please do not permit this sort of thing to recur.

Internet comments:

- If you want to start a revolution, you better be prepared about the eventuality that people will get into your personal life sooner or later. Look at Taiwan's Sunflower Movement student leader Chen Wei-ting, whose past included multiple occasions of sexual molestation. He should never have tried to enter the election.

- In China, they despise the Rich Kids (second generation of wealthy people) who race around in Lamborghinis, use drugs and chase young models. In Hong Kong, they adore the Rich Kids (second generation of wealthy people) who blocks streets, demands the Chief Executive resign and tells the Prime Minister to meet him.

- When the stick falls on someone else's head, you obviously don't feel the pain. When the stick falls on your head, you find it very painful because they are intruding upon your privacy. But you have gotten to a point where your name is better known than the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR or even the Premier or President of the People's Republic of China. Of course, the Hong Kong reporters have the freedom and right to report on you. As long as they tell the facts without distortions or smears, what is the problem? If you find this disturbing, you should not get involved in politics.

- He wants fame, but he is afraid of pain.

- When it is convenient, he brings his parents into his narrative by telling about their supportive Whatsapp messages. Now it is inconvenient, he does not want the media to mention his parents. Double standards?

- "I am a Hongkonger 香港人,I appreciate what he's doing for us... along with thousands and thousands u saw on TV. Don't speak for me he's given up a lot for our future I hope you don't have children otherwise u are an irresponsible parent.  Don't be too short sighted."
Rejoinder#1: "
If he does something that could ruin HK's economy, would you say the same thing ?"
Rejoinder#2: "
As I said, he's rich and he doesn't care about the money. If the movement makes him lose his master or future, he still can stick with his rich parents and have a great life ."
Rejoinder#3: "What the fxxk? Who is this Chow guy? Why is he representing me? Please tell him that this wiener of mine is waiting to be sucked. Sit and spin, and I will feel better afterwards."
Rejoinder#4: "
Did any HKger ask for his assistance ? No ! Most of us don't want him to do anything in view of his poor capability and knowledge. He doesn't represent any HKger when he steps outside his campus."
Rejoinder#5: "
Sorry,  I don't agree with you. Instead, most of the HKgers want his help."
Rejoinder#5: "At least not including me."

- What is so bad about revealing Alex Chow's family is worth more than $100 million? He will now have even more girls falling upon him.

- If this guy is so rich, why doesn't he offer some of the wealth to compensate those small businesses in Mong Kok and Causeway Bay which lost money during the Occupy period?

- It is time for some media outlet to run an undercover investigation about whether Alex Chow's parents are running sweat factories which exploit workers. This is the socially responsible thing to do. If they run the same investigation on someone else, nobody will care. If it is the parents of Alex Chow, they may be shamed into rectifying their operations.

- No wonder he is so naive about things. He has no idea how regular people live. He has no idea how Occupy Central has affected people's livelihood.

- Ming Pao is turning current affairs reporting by investigative reporters into entertainment reporting by paparazzi. That much is true. But what the hell is pro-Occupy Apple Daily/Next Magazine then? This is what they do all the time.

- Ming Pao is useless. Why are they revealing this after the Occupy Movement is over? Why didn't they tell us when the Occupy Movement first started?

- If the Guangdong Public Security Bureau canceled Alex Chow's Home Visit Permit, they already have a file on him including his family background. They don't need any Ming Pao report to know what his parents do. If they wanted to do something, his parents' Home Visit Permits would have been canceled without no reason needed to be given.

- I am appalled by the Ming Pao report. Alex Chow is not a public servant. He has no power. His family wealth has nothing whatsoever to do with the social movement in which he is personally participating. As Lester Shum said, "The press is a public tool of society. I am perplexed by Ming Pao would switch their investigation target from those in authority to those without authority."

- Alex Chow's parents got the right idea. Instead of basing their business in China which would lead them vulnerable to political pressure due to the absence of rule of law, they diversified to Bangladesh and Vietnam. Other Hong Kong business people should follow their example, and invest in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia, India and the like. There is more future in those places than in Communist China. Better yet, the Chows can move their factory to Hong Kong and create 3,600 job positions! It will be a win-win situation.

- Very soon, Alex Chow's parents will find their mainland Chinese business being subject to multiple inspections for labor conditions, environmental conditions, health/safety conditions, business registration, tax audits, etc. And even if they close their mainland business and move all operations to Bangladesh and Vietnam, they will lose their clients who are threatened with the loss of access to both Chinese suppliers and markets. Once upon a time, Next Media chairman Jimmy Lai ran the very successful Giordano clothing chain in China. Then he found that business registrations were not being automatically reviewed. No registration meant store closure. He got the message and divested himself from the company in order to save it. It is commonsense that if you want to do business, you should not get into politics.

- It is important to know about the business conditions of Alex Chow's parents. After all, we need to know whether he is going to be vulnerable to pressure on his parents. If so, then his calls to assault or withdraw from Government Headquarters will always be suspect.

- Oh wait, lots of people are saying that Ming Pao is now allowed to report on certain subjects. This is strangling freedom of speech, freedom of the press and editorial independence. Somebody please tell the Hong Kong Journalists Association to issue a statement to denounce the Federation of Students for restricting freedom of the press!

- Alex Chow first said that Chief Executive CY Leung was elected by only 689 persons of a election committee of only 1,200 persons/organizations. Therefore, Leung is illegitimate. However, it is fair game to dig out all the secret shenanigans of Leung, such as the illegal construction inside his home, his daughter Leung Chai-yan's application with a modeling agency, his payout from an Australian company before he entered the Chief Executive election, etc. But Alex Chow anointed himself to represent all of the people in Hong Kong to face down the Hong Kong SAR government and the Central government to get genuine universal suffrage for them. This means that Alex Chow is both more representative and important the th illegitimate CY Leung. But the media is not allowed to delve into Alex Chow's family life?

- Martin Niemller's famous saying: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me." First, the Occupy Movement people came for the Police by identifying their names, homes and contact information, and Alex Chow did not speak out because he was not a policeman. Then the Occupy Movement people came for the anti-Occupy leaders such as Robert Chow and Leticia Lee by looking up their citizenship status, police records, financial statuses and business associates, and Alex Chow did not speak out because he was not an anti-Occupy person. Then the press came for Alex Chow and reported on his parents' business and Alex Chow is whining. He would have gotten much more sympathy and support if he had spoken up against that threat to take "one arm and one leg" of the daughter of the policeman.

(Oriental Daily, Oriental Daily) December 29, 2014.

At 6am in the morning, a yellow "I want genuine universal suffrage" banner appeared again on Lion Rock Peak. It is likely that somebody climbed to the peak early in the morning and hung the huge yellow banner on the cliff. The banner was spotted by citizens in the morning and reported to the police. The police went to the scene and turned the matter over to the relevant authorities (Fire Department and/or Civil Air Service). On October 23 and December 13, the same type of banners were hung on Lion Rock Peak. At the time, the authorities dispatched a helicopter to lower firemen on the peak to remove the banners.

At 7am this morning, the police went to the scene to examine the banner, which was approximately 2 meters by 8 meters. At around 9pam, the Fire Department dispatched its High Angle Rescue Team (HART) by helicopter to the peak. Team members use ropes to climb down the cliff and removed the ropes with cutters while carefully pulling the banner up. The removal was completed in about two hours. The banner was turned over to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department.

(SpeakOut.HK) Based on a column by Hui Shui-kee in Sky Post,

The Hong Kong "democracy fighters" can be characterized as being oblivious to public safety and indifferent to the safety of other persons and their properties because they only want to express their political demands. We don't even have to talk about the 79 days of the Occupy Movement. The repeated hanging of huge yellow banners on various mountains in Hong Kong is an extreme example of selfishness.

First of all, these Hong Kong mountains are within Hong Kong country parks. According to CAP 208A Country Parks and Special Areas Regulations, Regulation 10 (1) "No person shall, within a country park or special area except in accordance with a permit in writing granted by the Authority (a) display any sign, notice, poster or advertisement." Regulation 20 (1) Any person who contravenes regulation 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13(3) commits an offence and is liable to a fine at level 1 and to imprisonment for 3 months, and where the offence is a continuing offence to an additional fine of $100 for each day during which the offence has continued. Therefore, this is an illegal act under Hong Kong law.

Secondly, the act was carried by several individuals in the middle of the night. Cliff climbing is dangerous, all the more so in total darkness. This puts a number of people in some danger. Furthermore, this is a large banner. If it is blown away by strong winds, who knows where it will fall? For example, if such a banner were to fall onto a busy highway, it may cause traffic accidents. Just imagine how you would react if your front windshield was suddenly covered by a yellow banner! This is not what anyone wants to see, including the perpetrators.

Thirdly, the banner has to removed by members of the Fire Department. The Fire Department has no political position, and they do whatever is required of them. In this case, a banner was hung in a country park against the law, and it becomes their duty to remove it. They would do the same whether this banner says "I want genuine universal suffrage" or "I support the police!"  They ride the helicopter to the peak, lower themselves down the cliff by rope and carefully remove the banner. What if an accident should happen to them? How are the perpetrators going to deal with their conscience?

(Possible anti-Occupy banners from left to right: "The law ranks number two"; "Actress Chan Fa-lai ranks number one"; "Stopping Earth from spinning"; "The Great Cultural Revolution"; "Kindergarten brainwashing"; "Death to Alex Chow"; "No thanks to your Shopping Revolution" ... all these banners will be removed by the Fire Department in the same way.)

Chief Executive CY Leung has stated on numerous occasions that Hong Kong needs a democracy based upon the rule of law. How many times have the "pro-democracy activists" broken the law? Which one of these are evil laws that should be obeyed. "Thou shalt not block public roads"? Well, do you think that it should continue to be disobeyed even after genuine universal suffrage is realized? "Thou shalt not hang banners down mountainsides"? "Thou shalt not write graffiti"? "Thou shalt not destroy public property"? Irrespective of your political stance, the aforementioned laws are designed to maintain social order and peace. You have the right to express your political demands, but it cannot be at the expense of hurting the interests of others or putting their safety at risk.

We must condemn all law-breaking actions. If someone hangs up a banner "I support the government" illegally in a country park, we will condemn them. If someone writes political graffiti in a public place, we will condemn them. This is not a political issue. This is about social responsibilities. A democracy that was achieved through (1) ignoring the rights of others (2) ignoring the safety of others (3) refuseing to accept any responsibility (4) destroying the rule of law (5) breaks down social ties and (6) only satisfying one's own selfish needs may be what some people want, but it is ultimately merely mob rule by terrorism and not democracy at all.

(Apple Daily) December 30, 2014

At the Hong Kong University Student Union on campus, a number of photos about the Occupy Movement are posted on the windows. The Union is also being used to store materials moved from the Occupy Movement sites before clearance took place. This has attracted a number of visitors who look at these photos. This morning, two of these photos have the words "Rubbish" written on them, one in Chinese and one in English.

According to a female student, these photos have been posted almost one month. The graffiti appeared only recently. She said that there were many visitors to the campus after the MTR West Island Line  began running. Apart from mainlanders, some anti-Occupy people were undoubtedly there. Each time these people passed by the Student Union, they would start cursing. "This morning, a bunch of uncles looked at the Occupy materials and cursed." She urged the other side to respect others. "If they don't like it, they don't have to come. If they come, they should respect us. They should respect the Student Union."

Internet comments:

- So it is okay for you people to occupy public areas, block people from driving, prevent people from going to work, write graffiti, and hang banners everywhere to express your opinions, but it is not allowed for other people to express their opinions? Well, nobody will respect someone who doesn't respect others!

CNN's Maggie Wong says: "It reads from left to right (yellow) long live Hong Kong democracy, Leung Chun Ying may forever ... (Wiped-- usually the first two words are followed by 'criminal'). The top green words mean "death won't (be) worth pitying."

- I would have supported you people if only you know how to respect other people.

- The Hong Kong University student said: "If they don't like it, they don't have to come. If they come, they should respect us. They should respect the Student Union." By the same logic, "If you don't like Hong Kong, you don't have to stay. If you stay, you should respect us. You should respect the majority of the people of Hong Kong."

- What is wrong with stating the facts? You are trash! As students, you are always pursuing the truth. Therefore you should support those who state the truth.

- You students always say that CY Leung should reflect upon the criticisms against him, because there is truth in them. Why don't you reflect on why people are calling you students "rubbish," "trash" and "young wastrels"? There is some truth in those names.

- Hong Kong University Station should be renamed Hong Kong University Rubbish Collection Station.

- We respect trash, because trash can be used for landfill or recycling. But you young wastrels are even more useless than trash. I would not have written "rubbish." I would have written "worse than rubbish."

- Oh, no! This is a terrible thing to happen. Quick, call the police for help! Let them locate and prosecute the perpetrators! Rule of law must be observed in Hong Kong! It is our one true core value!

- What a brilliant coup! We call on all Hong Kong citizens to converge on the Hong Kong University Student Union and express our political demands in the same manner! Let us occupy the Hong Kong University Student Union instead. We will demand (1) the Federation of Students withdraw their demand for genuine universal suffrage; (2) the Federation of Students apologize to the people of Hong Kong; (3) the Federation of Students executive committee and the Hong Kong University vice-chancellor resign immediately. They can obtain a court injunction and we will ignore it just like they did. If they can do it, so can we.

- At the opening ceremony of the MTR West Island Line, Hong Kong University student representative Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok showed up and shouted slogans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUPglVWciZo). Is that respecting those who came to celebrate the occasion? If she doesn't like it, she didn't have to go. If she went, she should show some respect. Thus spake the Hong Kong University student quoted in Apple Daily. And it is not as if Yvonne Leung opposed the MTR project, because she was later found to enjoy riding the line (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbnyoU5fmI8).

- When you sing Happy Birthday to drown out your opponents, how much respect were you showing them? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfO4kJ5Br0I)

- The Hong Kong University students must not remove those words, because they would be silencing dissident voices. These citizens are carrying out civil disobedience and they must not be politically suppressed.

- Is this the final joke of the year 2014? That is, the Occupy Movement dickheads want to talk about "respect."

On the day when the Federation of Students/Scholarism launched the action to surround Government Headquarters, one video clip was widely viewed. When the police cleared the area, a female demonstrator was struck on her chest by a police baton from behind. We located the principal named Ah Yan. She recalled that she was hit on the rib. The pain was so intense that she could not breathe. Fortunately, a citizen took her to the hospital treatment.

25-year-old Ah Yan works for a marketing company. She actively participated in various Occupy activities. Initially, she stayed in Admiralty. Because her company was close to Mong Kok, she switched over there. On the night when the students called for the escalation, she was supposed to have dinner with friends. But she heeded the students' call and went to the scene.

When the police first cleared the area in the area, she twisted her lower leg when she ran. A friend helped to reach the temporary aid station on the Lung Wo Road curbside. The two were worried about being chased by the police. The aid workers said: "Don't worry. We are giving out emergency aid. They won't bother us."

During that time, a large number of the so-called Blue Team emerged from the tunnel onto Lung Wo Road. Ah Yan witnesses people throwing debris tat the police and heard people yelling: "The police are beating people." So she took out her mobile telephone to take videos. "I sat quietly. I did not take any provocative action." Suddenly, a Blue Team member hit her left rib from behind with a baton.

Ah Yan immediately experienced pain and difficulty in breathing. A media outlet filmed her shouting excitedly at the police. She explained that she felt very angry at the time: "I am rendering emergency aid. Why are you hitting me?" A citizen drove her to Ruttonjee Hospital for treatment. The doctor said that her rib was not injured, but she experienced shortness of breath because the baton hit her left diaphragm.

A media outlet caught her on video, and that video was widely viewed. Some Internet comments created a lot of pressure for Ah Yan. For example, "If you value your body so much, you should not be going to demonstrations. You can't even endure one hit. If you go out there, you should expect to be hit." She said that she was unable to sleep after the attack. She did not go back to the Occupy area.. "Maybe only the principal can understand this. I felt pressure when I read the HK Golden Forum and other pages."

Almost one month later after the incident, Ah Yan has decided to accept our interview request. "It is more important than my personal feelings. Everybody should pay attention to the matter of police violence." She is considering whether to seek help from the organizations which are monitoring the police and hold the police responsible.

Relevant videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNDZS9du2aU at 0:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM-sjRgNqLM at 1:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBk4GVifiaA at 1:45

Internet comments:

- Typical Kong girl routine: 又要威又要戴頭盔 -- she wants to grab the limelight, and yet also wants to play safe.

- She screamed to the police that she was rendering emergency aid. But she is filmed holding a mobile phone. How do you render emergency aid through a mobile phone? P.S. Or maybe she was just taking a selfie to tell her Facebook friends that she was at an exciting place?

- She told the police that she was rendering/providing emergency aid. Then she told Ming Pao that she was receiving emergency care on her lower leg. What gives?

- She showed up at a place like that and she admitted that she was participating in the assault on Government Headquarters. Now she wants to play the role of the innocent passerby who got attacked by the police. Who is going to sympathize with her?

- I despise CY Leung as much as anyone else. I walk down the street and no policeman hits me. You sit down, you play with your phone and you get hit by a policeman. What is the difference between us? You broke the law and I didn't.

- The Yellow Ribbons said that the policeman committed sexual assault by hitting her breasts. Now she comes out to say that she was hit on the ribs. Does her breasts extend down to cover her ribs?

- Here is another rioter now seeking public sympathy. The students called for an assault on Government Headquarters and she heeded the call. The police announced that they were going to clear the area of people who were in an unlawful assembly. The police raised warning flags innumerable times. And now she says that she doesn't know why the police would hit her!?

- Don't blame the police. Blame the Federation of Students/Scholarism instead. They decided to make the call to get you people to charge at the police line, in order to prove that violent tactics don't necessarily work. The experiment was a complete success, as the hypothesis was confirmed. But during the experiment, some of the guinea pigs got injured. Don't expect the students to give you any help -- they said that you knew what the consequences were you went in. They even gave you a telephone number for volunteer lawyers. Of course, if you are charged with a violent crime such as assaulting a police officer, they won't help you.

- What is the matter with this forum? Why is the opinion almost completely one-sided against her?

On December 10, Legislative councilor Gary Fan Kwok-wai (Neo Democrats) proposed legislation on "Hong Kong Priority". Although the proposal was voted down, the idea of Localism has come into the Legislative Council.

It seemed reasonable that Hong Kong people should receive priority in Hong Kong. The Chief Executive has proposed a policy of housing priority to the Hong Kong people to live on Hong Kong land. Over the past few years, the issue of population sustainability has also been brought up in Beijing and Shanghai. In the Occupy Movement the Localism activists used "Hong Kong pigs" to describe those who don't support them and "Leftards (=leftist retards)" for those social activists who insist of holding up universal values. This means that the Localism activists may be defining Hongkongers differently than others.

It doesn't matter what you want to say, but the policy must have a clear definition. Only if there is clear definition of Hongkonger can the policy be implemented. Or else people may wake up a day and find themselves no longer be Hongkongers. Therefore, we must look at how the Localism activists are defining Hongkongers.

Legally, anyone who has resided in Hong Kong for seven years or more is a permanent resident of Hong Kong. Maybe Gary Kwok meant this, but this won't please the Localism activists. In December last year, the People's Daily described new mainland immigrants to Hong Kong as the "New Hongkongers." The Localism activists were outraged. Former Central Policy Unit consultant Joseph Lian used "dilution" to describe how the new immigrants are impacting the idea of a Hongkonger. Thus, the legally correct Hongkonger may not be accepted by the Localism activists as one of their own.

On February 17 this year, Johns Hopkins University Department of Sociology associate professor Hung Ho-fang published a newspaper article titled "What is the Chinese people?" He believes that the definition of the Chinese people wavers between racial nationalism and civic nationalism. His views are worthy of consideration but they will only create more problems with respect to defining a Hongkonger.

Racially, there is nothing controversial about saying that the Hong Kong people are mostly Chinese. A sub-classification is by province of origin. There are innumerable home associations in Hong Kong. Apart from the mainstream Cantonese, there are also significant numbers of Chiu Chow, Hakka and Fukienese in the business community. There are also significant numbers of Shanghainese in politics. If the Localism activists screen by province of origin, they will filter out many of the elites. Besides, even though the Cantonese dialect is one of the key Localism characteristics, the Localism activists do not want many of the Cantonese speakers (because they are recent immigrants). Therefore, it will hard for the Localism activist to define Hongkonger by racial nationalism.

Using civic nationalism to define Hongkonger is very appropriate for a city of immigrants. The best way to do this is an oath of loyalty and acceptance of the constitution. Such are the requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen in the United States of America. But many Localism activists oppose the Basic Law which they want to amend all the time. So they cannot pledge allegiance to the Basic Law. In 2004, the mainstream pan-democrats proposed the "core values of Hong Kong" but this was not broadly accepted. People said that in a diversified society such as Hong Kong, the "Central district values" of the elites are completely different from the "Mong Kok district values" of the grassroots.

Stepping back, even if the Hong Kong values actually exist, its contents are dubious. Before the 1970s, the notion of Hongkonger was not widespread and the related values did not exist. After the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, that new culture is also rejected by the Localism activists. Therefore, the Hong Kong of the Localism activists exist only in the years between 1980 and 1997. Ironically, this was the period in which large number of mainland immigrants came to Hong Kong and brought labor and economic power.

To regard these two decades as an eternal era whose values must be defended is debatable. Since 1997, changes have occurred in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world through revolutionary information technology. Values about human societies have changed as a result.

If the golden days of Chris Patten's term as governor in Hong Kong were to be revived today, it will certainly be criticized. If the Localism activists think that the ideal situation is to restore life during the British colonial era, they won't be able to avoid the political model of the British colonial administration. They will lose the moral high ground of seeking democracy.

Self-identification is a constructed concept. Whether such a concept can be broadly welcomed and received is the key issue. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia constructed a supra-national identity, but they failed in the end. The United States of America is a nation of migrants, but national conflicts still exist and self-identification is still evolving.

Most people can accept the concept of being a Chinese person. So there must be some rationale for that. Similarly, the concept of being a Hongkonger must have some rationale. But being a Hongkonger does not require one to give up being a Chinese person. That is why people are glad to be both.

Localism activists are probably all Hongkongers, but the Hongkongers are not all Localism proponents. The worst thing is that the Localism activists think that they are the only Hongkongers. It may give them pleasure to curse others as "locusts," "Hong Kong pigs" and "leftards," but when an identity excludes more than half the local population, it is not operationally viable.

When you cannot even define a Hongkonger, how can you define which policy gives priority to Hongkongers? Before bringing up more legislative proposals, can the Localism activists please clarify whom they consider to be Hongkongers?

More at Occupy Central Part 2.


Occupy Central Part 1, Occupy Central Part 2
Brief Comments
Blog Posts

Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com

        Blogroll   Press