(v4.0)

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

(SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Hong Kong witnessed one of the most significant mass demonstrations in its history last night when 33,000 serving and former police officers held a show of support for colleagues who were jailed for assaulting an activist during the 2014 Occupy protests.

The mass rally, held on a soccer pitch at the Police Sports and Recreation Club in Kowloon Tong, was described by one officer in attendance as the largest-ever single gathering of police officers the world has ever seen.

The last time the citys police were involved in a such a large-scale display of discontent was almost half a century ago, in the bad old days of the 1970s. That was when thousands of officers took to the streets to protest against the setting up of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

However, last nights show of discontent which was closed to the media stood in stark contrast to the often ill-tempered nature of the 1970s protests. The massed ranks of mostly former police officers were out to register with a disciplined dignity their condemnation of what they believe to be the harsh and unjust treatment of seven colleagues by the citys judicial system.

The remarkable scenes, with many turning up in white as a mark of solidarity, followed the jailing for two years of seven officers for assaulting Occupy activist Ken Tsang, 41. The sentencing sparked an outpouring of condemnation by police officers and sections of the public, who complained that the courts were being far more lenient by comparison with Occupy protesters who broke the law.

Another officer at the rally, which included a significant number of family members of serving and ex-police officers, said: This is not a protest against the courts or Hong Kongs judicial system, nor an attempt to undermine the rule of law. It is a deep and heartfelt expression of genuine support for our colleagues and their families, who we feel have been unfairly treated and whose actions came out of a time of highly charged political emotion and stress.

Prominent among those who made an appearance was former security minister Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, now a candidate for the city top job, along with National Peoples Congress deputy Maria Tam, who took to the stage and addressed the crowd, calling for assistance for the families of the seven jailed officers. Other personalities attending included lawmakers Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Elizabeth Quat and Junius Ho Kwan-yiu.

Despite Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chungs sympathy for the jailed officers and earlier plea for public understanding of their predicament, none of the force s top brass turned up. It is believed that only serving officers up to the rank of chief superintendent took part. Asked if the top brass were also in attendance, an officer at the meeting said: No, only up to Chief Superintendent level.

The huge turnout threatens to escalate an already significant chorus of criticism aimed at District Court Judge David Dufton and the judiciary as a whole.

Photos:

Videos:

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692757550929523/ An unprecedented crowd walking from the intersection of Nathan Road and Boundary Street towards the Police Sports and Recreation Club

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692764564262155/ Lining up outside to get into the Police Sports and Recreation Club

Good News Hong Kong https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1425423544198244/ Lining up to enter the Police Sports and Recreation Club building

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692748297597115/ Panoramic shot of crowd on field.

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692789934259618/ Taken from the middle of the crowd on the field.

HK Current Affairs Summary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfbDO_QIcZU View from the podium

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) February 22, 2017.

The organizers said that there were 33,000 persons at the peak, with 22,000 in the grass field and another 11,000 persons indoors.

- The organizers (the Junior Police Officers Association (JPOA), the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association (HKPIA), the Hong Kong Police Superintendents' Association (HKPSA), Overseas Police Inspectors Association) had anticipated a turnout of 5,000. They got a lot more.

- Here are the Yellow Ribbon predictions for the rally that will take place later in the day. (Apple Daily) February 22, 2017.

Yesterday police officers issued calls via Whatsapp groups to attend the rally organized by the four police associations. A police sergeant cited the case of the bus drivers sticking to the traffic rules to avoid traffic violations: "Are we police officers even less united than bus drivers?" He said that there are 24,000 junior police officers. "It is impossible that 10,000 of them are working the middle shift!" He emphasized that if fewer than 10,000 people show up today, people will look down on them. He said that everybody must show their unity. "We need more than 20,000 to show our force! We cannot have even one fewer. Let us get everybody to go!"

- The biggest previous police demonstration (5,000 strong) in Hong Kong history until tonight ...

(Ming Pao Canada) October 27, 2014.

On 28 October 1977, thousands of police officers and their relatives held an angry demonstration against the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Some of them even stomped into the ICAC building, injuring several ICAC officers.

1. Background

Corruption was rampant in Hong Kong in the 1960s and 1970s. For instance, people who needed medical treatment might not get it if they would not tip the ambulance crew, and citizens had no choice but to offer bribes when they applied for public housing or school places.

But it was police officers that were most unscrupulous. Lowly-paid police officers on the beat demanded bribes from shops and stores, while their superiors amassed great fortunes by putting up police positions for sale.

2. The establishment of the ICAC

The establishment of the ICAC was triggered by the furore over Peter Godber, who was a Chief Superintendent of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. Discovered to have amassed no less than HK$4.3 million, he fled to Britain to the outrage of Hong Kong citizens. To address their anger, Murray MacLehose, who was then governor of Hong Kong, set up the ICAC to handle complaints about corruption.

That led to discontent among police officers, as corruption had been so widespread among them that basically policemen of all ranks could be convicted. The two sides increasingly came into conflict, as ICAC officers repeatedly made high-profile arrests in police stations, much to police officers' anxiety. This culminated in the 1977 clash.

3. The clash

Around 5,000 people who were police officers or their relatives descended on the Hong Kong Police Headquarters on 28 October 1977, demanding that Brian Slevin, who was then Commissioner of Police, address the "low morale" among them resulting from the ICAC's actions. About two hundreds of them made their way to the provisional headquarters of the ICAC in Admiralty. They clashed with ICAC officers, injuring five of them.

4. The decision of pardon

The colonial government was faced with a tough decision. Should the ICAC press on with (繼續) its investigation of corrupt police?

Immediately after the clash, Governor MacLehose convened an emergency meeting with Jack Cater, who was then ICAC Commissioner, and some senior officers of the police and the British Forces in Hong Kong. MacLehose reportedly thought of having the forces to deal with the situation. But the military disagreed, arguing that it would do Hong Kong no good to pit the military against the police.

Having weighed up the pros and cons, MacLehose announced on 5 November 1977 that all those who were suspected of bribery but had not been charged as of 1 January 1977 would be pardoned. The police were appeased, at the expense of the morale of ICAC officers.

- Because the police did not say "Death to Judge David" or "Death to Ken Tsang" tonight nor did they say that it was alright for the police to beat up citizens, there was nothing much to criticize about. Therefore the incident 40 years ago was brought out, with the comparison that the police were rotten and corrupt back then just as they are today.

Well, of course, things are not always equivalent. For example, 1997, the senior police officers were mostly British, such as Peter Godber.

- You can't reason with Yellow Ribbons:

When you talk to them about the Law, they want to talk to you about democracy;
So you talk to them about Democracy, but they want to talk to you about Civil Rights;
So you talk to them about Civil Rights, but they walk to curse your mother out;
So you curse their mothers out, but they use physical force to attack you;
So you use physical force to fight back, but they summon the police;
So you summon the police, but they assault the police;
So the police fight back, but they want to talk to you about the Law.

- Only 33,000 people showed up. Hong Kong has a population of 7,300,000. So that means 7,300,000 - 33,000 = 7,267,000 approved of the 2-year-sentences against the seven Evil Cops. Since Hong Kong is a democracy, the majority wins.

- Buddy, this is a closed-door meeting. Attendance is restricted to current and retired police officers and their families. The Hong Kong Police Force has an establishment (as at 2017-01-31) of 29,377 disciplined officers supported by 4,579 civilian officers.  At any time of day, about 1/3 of the police force is on duty. So this is a huge turnout of off-duty and retired police officers.

- The demonstration will have a huge impact on the theory/practice of Hong Kong independence. Everybody knows that a newly independent Hong Kong Nation is going to need an army. So many people make the assumption that the paramilitary Hong Kong Police can be quickly upgraded into an army of 35,000 soldiers. The demonstration today showed that the Hong Kong Police cannot be trusted! If war breaks out with the neighboring county (=Cheena), the Hong Kong Police will probably stand with the People's Liberation Army. So now it is back to the drawing boards to figure out how to raise a completely new Hong Kong Nation army.

- Civic Passion has the right idea! All Hongkongers must begin to build themselves up physically. We must all begin to do weightlifting, jogging, swimming, pushups, basketball, volleyball, soccer, marathons, iron man, war games, etc.

- Sports? We got bad news today. (SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Chan Yuen-ting said she was hoping to learn a lot as she became the first woman to manage a team in the AFC Champions League quite what she and her Eastern team took away from a brutal 7-0 humbling across the Pearl River Delta in Guangzhou only they will know.

If dont concede a penalty and have a man sent off in the first three minutes when youre playing a team worth at least 10 times yours was lesson one, lesson two might have been furthermore, dont have another man sent off with almost an hour still to play.

Chan and Eastern and likely the majority of Hong Kong football fans given that the opposition was from the mainland had been hoping for a similar brave, backs-to-the-wall performance as that delivered by the Hong Kong national team in their two World Cup qualifiers against China in 2015.

On those nights, almost everything went right for Hong Kong. In Tianhe Stadium, in front of 38,000 and against Brazilian World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolaris expensively-assembled six-times-in-succession Chinese champions, everything went wrong, immediately.

We have learned a very valuable lesson today, insisted Chan, just 28 and the first woman ever to coach a team to a title in a mens professional league.

Of course losing the game is a very big disappointment, but we learned we need to adjust our mentality as soon as possible [to compete in the Champions League].

After the red card everything changed, all our tactics and plans had to be changed. And in a competition like this the pace is quite different from that we encounter in Hong Kong its our debut and naturally well make mistakes.

Ricardo Goulart got Guangzhou off the mark after Wong Tsz-ho was sent off from one of Guangzhous first attacks, Australian referee Christopher Beath judging he had used his hand rather than his head in clearing a goal-bound shot off the line.

Chans plan to frustrate Guangzhou and their 40 million-worth of Brazlian talent was thus torn up and out the window with her players barely warmed up. To their credit, they held out for nearly another 20 minutes despite incessant pressure.

Wang Shangyuan added the second from close-range after Eastern goalkeeper Yapp Hung-fai failed to divert a corner to safety, and moments later, Guangzhou won another penalty; Goulart surprisingly let compatriot Alan take this one, and Yapp saved.

Liao Lisheng did make it 3-0 just after the half-hour, tapping in after Goulart waltzed through Easterns defence and squared the ball across the six-yard box for him, and with Eastern praying for half-time it got even worse.

Wong Chi-chung brought down Alan on the edge of the box and if that looked harsh, the referees decision to show him a second yellow was even tougher but Eastern were down to nine.

With Guangzhou on a 3 million yuan bonus for every goal scored there was no danger of them letting up.

The second half was little more than a nice extension to Guangzhous pre-season in this their first competitive match, an interesting training exercise with Scolaris side essentially playing 2-4-4 and Eastern desperately trying to keep them at bay.

Liao added another immediately after the restart, Alan made it five with a stunning long-range strike, Wang too got a second, and former Tottenham midfielder Paulinho ensured all the Brazilians got on the scoresheet with another fine strike for the seventh.

- Because there were 38,000 persons at a single location, the Internet was overloaded and people could not send out their Whatsapp messages and Facebook posts.

- Maria Tam Wai-chu and Leung Che-hung have promised to use their foundation (APO Relief Fund Limited) to raise money to help the seven policemen. Given the level of response today, they can easily raise several tens of millions. If each of the 38,000 persons give $1,000 on the average, it would be $38 million already. And then there is the general public as well.

- It will be one to three weeks before APO Relief Fund is ready to accept donations. However, HKG Pao has announced that they will donate $100,000. Not to be outdone, tycoon Lam Kin-ngok said that he has pledges of $5 million already from his friends. Legislator Peter Shiu Ka-fai (Liberal Party) donated month of his salary ($95,180) too.

- National People's Congress's Hong Kong delegate Maria Tam Wai-chu is a founder of the Junior Police Officers Association. She said that her banker friends said that they will hire the seven policemen as soon as they get out of jail. She said that although people are upset, they must respect the judicial system in Hong Kong and refrain from criticizing the court verdict.

- This event is a closed-door affair with ID checks for current and retired police officers and their families at the gates. No ID, no admission. The organizers know exactly how many people came through the gates. This is unlike the Civil Human Rights Front which counts everyone on the street as being part of their demonstration march.

- According to Hong Kong Free Press, "an HKFP journalist was earlier ejected from the rally."  We need the Hong Kong Journalists Association to come out immediately with a forceful denouncement against this restriction of freedom of press as well as the right of the people to know.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Pan-democrats react:

In a Facebook post, pro-democracy ex-lawmaker Cyd Ho cited Paragraph 34 of Chapter 6 of the Police General Orders: "A police officer shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his/her duties, or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere."

"How many people are here because of comradeship, but have forgotten justice, the rule of law, social responsibility and humility as a public servant?" asked pro-democracy lawmaker and Occupy activist Nathan Law on Facebook. "If moral education lags behind identity politics, there will only be left with hatred."

Fellow pro-democracy lawmaker Lau Siu-lai wrote: "As law enforcement, [they are] unwilling to accept sanctions from the law... this is the true danger to peace in society!"

- (Ming Pao) Legislators Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick cited Paragraph 34 of Chapter 6 of the Police General Orders as well as Section 7 of the Public Order Ordinance. They demanded to hold a special Legislative Council session.

- Duh, why are they citing the law? They have told us many times before that when it comes to matters of great right and wrong, people should and must engage in civil disobedience of the written law.

- As with all Blue Ribbon demonstrations, there are the obligatory photos showing the mounds of trash that they create, plus the obligatory interview with the street sweeper who has to clean up the mess.

(Oriental Daily)

Here we go ... oops ... sorry ... my bad ... these photos were the mess that Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and friends left outside the China Liaison Office in early November 2016 to protest the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.

Ah, here is the photo of the field at the Police Sports and Recreation Club after the rally. True to being a Disciplinary Service, the Hong Kong Police took their own litter away. Nothing can be seen. So this photo will not be published tomorrow in the newspapers, because it failed to denigrate the Police.

- The TVB reporter thought that the most important question of the day was to ask the the organizer whether they were holding an unlawful assembly.

- CAP 245: Public Order Ordinance. Section 18. Unlawful assembly

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

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

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

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

So, do you "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace" will occur? I mean, if they clean up all the trash after them, who knows what else they might do!

- (Wen Wei Po) Senior Counsel legislator Alvin Yeung (Civic Party) responded to a media question and said that assemblies in private locations do not violate the Crimes Ordinance. For example, nobody ever applies for a permit to hold a wedding banquet with 50 tables for 600 persons.

- Centaline Property Agency holds its annual company dinner at the Wanchai Convention Centre with 300 tables for more than 3,000 persons. We must remember to check whether they received permission from the Police Commissioner to do so.

- (Wen Wei Po) January 4, 2012. The Lion Clubs International District 303 (Hong Kong & Macao, China) held a banquet for 600 tables for 6,000 persons. More than $2 million in charity donations was raised for needy persons.

Sorry, according to the pan-democrats, all those in attendance are participating in an unlawful assembly and must be taken downtown for photos, fingerprinting and statements. The Secretary of Justice will then seek legal advice from retired British and Australian judges to decide to prosecute or not.

- The Civil Human Rights Front said of the police explanation that it was a private meeting of association members. So if the police don't need an application, neither should any other organization. Therefore the Civil Human Rights Front is considering changing the July 1st demonstration march into a general membership meeting without needing to application.

- Duh, the two police organizations held the meeting inside Police Sport and Recreation Centre whereas the Civil Human Rights Front assemble in Victoria Park and march in the streets.

- Whatsapp message:

A call went to the Sham Shui Po Police Station about the police did not apply for a letter of no-objection for their assembly tonight. Here is what the police officer on duty said: "Sir, this meeting is for members only. This is not your unlawful assembly. This is a meeting of our members. Only members are admitted. Not everyone is allowed in. You cannot enter. If you hold a party inside your home, you don't have to apply for permission."

- Hong Kong University Faculty of Law senior lecturer Cheung Tat-ming said that this assembly was clearly an assembly under the definition of the Public Order Ordinance. The police responded yesterday that the meeting was professional/business in nature, being a meeting of the members of certain professional associations.

- Every day, elementary/secondary schools in Hong Kong begin with general assemblies. If there are more than 500 students in the school, the police commissioner must be notified. Also when the Hong Kong University Convocation hold their Extraordinary General meetings to vote (#314 and #388), did they remember to notify the police commissioner first?

- (Wen Wei Po) According to the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association, the event was announced as a general membership meeting. Based upon past experience, they expected at most a few hundred people to show up. In the end, tens of thousands of members showed up unexpectedly. "Current and retired police officers and their families can participate. We have no reason not to allow them to come in."

- The point about Unlawful Assembly is that not every assembly (such as a wedding banquet) is unlawful just because the organizers did not apply for police permission. It is about what is happening during that assembly. The newspapers will be filled with commentary about how the police are trying to justify beating a handcuffed suspect, that they are attacking the verdict, etc. Those who say that have not actually listened carefully to what was actually said.

The slogan of the day is: "爭公義、還法治" (fight for justice, restore rule of law). It was not: "Kill Judge David."

Here is a summary of the key points from the rally.

  • Half the Hong Kong Police force showed up today on three days' notice
  • Express deep sadness at seven colleagues being sentenced to jail
  • Two directions for future actions: How to support the seven colleagues and the future direction of the Hong Kong Police
  • Applied for and obtained permission to raise funds from within the police force to support the seven colleagues to appeal the court verdict
  • Tam Wai-chi has promised to arrange support
  • The seven colleagues are concerned that various extraneous actions may affect the appeal process
  • Will try to get dignity for the police
  • Various colleagues have been treated unfairly (such as being insulted) in the line of duty, but they cannot talk back
  • It is unfair to be sent to jail for trying to maintain law and order
  • Will try to seek legislation to protect the dignity of the police
  • Will write to the Chief Executive to ask for such legislation
  • Thanks to the many Legislative Councilors who came today to show their support for the Hong Kong Police
  • All official actions will be announced by the Junior Police Officers' Association

- Here is the Apple Daily A1 front page headline:

Half of the Police support seven criminals; 33,000 persons in a show of force; "We want our colleagues come back out not guilty."

When did they say that?

- (Bastille Post) Former Independent Police Complaints Council member Edwin Cheng said that the police senior brass should do a better job at reassuring the ranks that the case of the seven policemen was an isolated but unacceptable incident. "Matters of right and wrong must be made clear" and "It is not a good thing to hold a large assembly to let off steam."

Cheng said that police officers must not criticize judges. He said: "If you don't like other people to call you Evil Police, then why are you saying Dog Judge?" He said that everybody should respect the appeal system and that it was a bad thing for persons within the same system to attack each other.

- There are so many gems here.

The case of the seven policemen is unacceptable -- at which point during the assembly did anyone say that the seven policemen innocent? Or should be set free? or that torture is justifiable?

It is not a good thing to hold a large assembly to let off steam -- what, if anything, did Edwin Cheng have to say about Occupy Central?

Police officers must not criticize judges -- at which point during the assembly did anyone criticize Judge David Dufton or any other judge? Or say "Dog Judge"?

Those things and many more things were said by someone or the other on Facebook. But why is that being attributed to the police rally?

- Look at this video: https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/1236355193116765/ A man on the podium shouted "Fuck your mother!" A citizen can "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace" will occur when someone screams "Fuck your mother!" at you.

- The man was only illustrating what the police have to put up with during Occupy Central. These yahoos have unlawfully blockaded the streets and prevented traffic to go through. When the police show up, the yahoos scream "Fuck your mother!" into the faces. Even though the police can "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace will occur", they have to put up with it because their orders are to do nothing. So the screaming continues day after day after day.

- Already people have distorted this scene as the attendees saying "Fuck your mother" to Judge David Dufton. Are these people lazy and naive? Or was it intentional distortion?

- Here is another gem: Message to the police: "How can we trust you if you shout Fuck Your Mother in unison in public?" Eh, the speaker was merely showing what they had to put up with during Occupy Central. Message to Occupy Central people: "How can we trust you if you shout Fuck Your Mother in unison in public?"

- (HKG Pao) Among the guests/observers at the event were legislators Junius Ho, Leung Mei Fun and Eunice Yung. Because they work in the legal field, Yellow Ribbons are writing to the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong against them for creating undue pressure on judges and perverting the course of justice. They said that the "Fuck your mother" chant by tens of thousands of attendees was directed against Judge David Dufton. Even if the three did not make that chant, their acquiescence showed that they were supportive of the criminal threat against the judge. Therefore the three should be permanently disbarred.

- If what these three did was creating undue pressure on judges, then what about the pan-democrats' demands on the status of the DQ4 legislators Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-wai and Yiu Chung-yim? Was that also undue pressure on the judges? Perverting the course of justice for a case scheduled to be heard?

- The assembly by the off-duty and retired police officers pertains to certain Hong Kong core values. Firstly, the organizers are Junior Police Officers Association and the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association. These are trade unions just like the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, Motor Transport Workers Union, etc. Under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 27,

Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

What do trade unions do?

(Your Article Library) Trade Union Functions: Top 6 Main Functions Performed by Trade Unions

(1) Increasing co-operation and well-being among workers
(2) Securing facilities for workers
(3) Establishing contacts between workers and employers
(4) Trade unions working for the progress of the employees
(5) Safeguarding the interests of the workers
(6) Provision of labor welfare

At this assembly, the union members were discussing (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6). They wanted protection in a hostile work environment, and they wanted to help seven fellow union members and their families. What is wrong with that?

Article 27 also guarantees freedom of speech. At this membership meeting, members were allowed to speak if they choose. Their speeches were not pre-censored. A couple parts of those speeches were controversial. The two organizing police groups and the Hong Kong Police said that those speeches do not represent their institutional positions. That is all. This happens every day in Hong Kong -- just take a look at the standard disclaimer on the editorial pages of all the newspapers.

Secondly, under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 35,

Hong Kong residents shall have the right to confidential legal advice, access to the courts, choice of lawyers for timely protection of their lawful rights and interests or for representation in the courts, and to judicial remedies.

The seven policemen have the right to appeal their sentences to the relevant courts of appeal. About 20% of all cases are reversed on appeal. Just look at Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who keep appealing and appealing, and they won't accept their fates even after all appeals are exhausted.

- (SCMP) Hong Kongs crisis of confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement. By Yonden Lhatoo. February 23, 2017.

Hong Kong, we have a problem. And its a serious one that threatens the very foundations of our city.

On Wednesday night, some 33,000 serving and former police officers and their supporters held a rally that one attendee described as the largest-ever single gathering of police officers the world has ever seen. The last time our city saw its finest in such distress and open defiance against the establishment was back in the 1970s when the Independent Commission Against Corruption was set up to tackle rampant bribery among the force. A mass purge of corrupt officers caused such resentment among the ranks that angry policemen even tried to storm the ICAC headquarters in protest.

This time, the catalyst is the jailing of seven officers who punched, kicked and stomped on a hog-tied activist in a dark corner of Tamar Park at the height of the Occupy protests of 2014. The assault, captured by television cameras, sparked outrage in a city where men in blue are usually expected to be perennial pacifists.

Look up videos depicting police brutality in far more advanced democracies and this particular incident could be a walk in the park by comparison, but we hold our police force to higher standards, and those seven officers deserve to go to jail for what they did.

But understand where their supporters are coming from. More than two years after thousands of protesters blocked roads and broke multiple laws for 79 straight days in the name of democracy, this is the net result of justice so far: seven police officers behind bars and slaps on the wrist for everyone else. Not one of the leaders of the movement has been punished.

Throughout the Occupy protests, frontline police officers were not only forced to stand by and watch people break the law with impunity, but also expected to protect the lawbreakers from irate members of the public whose livelihoods were affected by the road closures. Nobody was sure what was right or wrong any more.

Another ugly fallout from the jailing of the magnificent seven as some have dubbed them is the backlash against the judiciary.

The British judge who put them behind bars has been vilified and subjected to threats and racist abuse online, contempt of court be damned. One lawmaker, protected by parliamentary privilege, even branded the judge a white skin with yellow heart, a play on the colour symbolising the Occupy movement and the racist insult yellow skin with white heart for Asian people with Western values.

Its not only our police force thats at the crossroads. The ICAC itself is causing consternation after a stunning revelation during the trial of former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, who has been jailed for 20 months for misconduct in office.

A High Court jury could not reach a verdict on a bribery charge against him, but it emerged that a key figure named by the prosecution, Bank of East Asia boss David Li Kwok-po, was not even approached by the ICAC during its 44-month investigation.

The graft-busters director of investigation explained in court that it was because they did not expect him to cooperate. Seriously? This is the ICAC were talking about, with its supposedly sweeping mandate to go after tigers and flies alike, in keeping with President Xi Jinpings (習近平) national anti-corruption drive.

Never in my judicial career have I seen a man fallen from so high, the presiding judge said when he sent poor Donald to jail.

And never in my journalistic career have I seen this city facing such a crisis of confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement, the pillars that prevent us from sliding into certain ruin.

- Here are some of the digressions and deflections:

(Oriental Daily) February 23, 2017.

Legislator Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) asked why half of the Hong Kong Police did not show up for work and went instead to a "private party." Cheng wants to know, "Is there redundancy?"

- The Hong Kong Police work in three shifts (early, middle and late). What those who work the early and late shifts do during their off-duty time is their personal business.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 23, 2017.

Lawyer Kevin Yam of the Progressive Lawyers Group told HKFP that the discussion of criminalising contempt of police is worrying. Police already have a range of powers at their disposal to deal with anyone who is obstructing with the exercise of their functions, he said, adding that existing laws such as common assault could be used against people who make threats against officers.

Yam said the proposed law could violate constitutional rights such as freedom of speech. He said that while the offence of contempt of court aims at protecting judicial independence a pillar of the rule of law it is unclear how the [proposed] legislation has any deeper purpose beyond making police officers happy.

This is not a legal issue but a political issue the only way you can deal with the issue of the dignity of police is by restoring public confidence in the way police exercise their powers, he said. [The legislation] is unnecessary and provocative. It is going to make things worse, and possibly unconstitutional.

Andrew Shum Wai-nam of the watchdog Civil Rights Observer also said that pushing for the criminalisation of insulting police would heighten public distrust in the force. He urged the government to consider the unions suggestion with great caution.

Right now the police-community relationship has sunk to a new low and is facing gridlock, he said. The public image of the police is also at a new low. Yesterday, many officers turned up for the rally to support the seven convicted officers you can see they stood very firm.

He said the pressing issue for the force management is to resolve the gridlock and restore public confidence in the police. There is no justification for the management to continue shielding the convicted officers and to refuse to be answerable to the public, Shum said. This will hurt their professional image. It will be no good to them.

- Kevin Yam and Andrew Shum want to normalize Eat Shit Sister.

(SCMP) February 23, 2017.

In a latest twist to the row over the jailing of seven policemen for assaulting an Occupy activist, the Israeli consulate has weighed in to rebuke a comparison of the tribulations of officers with the persecution of Jews.

The analogy was made by a speaker at the forces mass gathering on Wednesday, where 33,000 serving and retired officers and their relatives came together to show support for the seven. Officers took turns taking the stage to address the crowd. One speaker was filmed comparing insults officers had received with the Nazi persecution of Jews during the second world war.

A video recorded by Chinese-language news outlet Apple Daily captured the speaker addressing the crowd, saying: Its like were now in the second world war. We are Jews facing the persecution of the Nazis, arent we? The crowd then shouted yes in response.

A statement by the Israeli consulate said: Without relating to the trial of the seven police officers, the alleged statement at the rally that made a reference to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany is inappropriate and regretful. We wish no further comparison will be made to the Jewish Holocaust.

In response, Joe Chan Cho-kwong, chairman of the Junior Police Officers Association which was the organiser of the event said: The association expresses regret if any participant in Wednesdays gathering expressed views that offended anyone, any community, or any country.

A police spokesman said the speech did not represent the forces position and that the force did not agree with the remarks.

- (German Consulate General Hong Kong)

Concerning the widely reported remarks of a Hong Kong police officer comparing the Hong Kong police to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, we would like to comment as follows:

The reported reference to the Holocaust shows a regrettably insufficient knowledge of historical facts.

The Jewish population in Germany was persecuted by the State and all its organs during the Nazi dictatorship and millions lost their lives.

Therefore the comparison between the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and police officers convicted for an abuse of power is utterly inappropriate.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Apparently the crowd agreeing to the one on stage for the Jews analogy has no idea what happened in WWII, has no respect to countless valuable lives lost before suffering horrible deaths in holocaust, but only to blindly boost their self-serving "morale" (instead of Virtue) which they argue is necessary for them to function effectively (and getting paid for "the job done"). This is outright humiliation, not only to the Jewish people, but also to all Hongkongers for we have a police force with a leadership unwilling to admit and apologize for the wrongdoing of their subordinates, and say and did nothing to correct their twisted and dead wrong values among the force.

- Yes, the Hong Kong Police speaker was wrong in using the Jews analogy. The Hong Kong Police are more like Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories.

- In Hong Kong, we have freedom of speech. But that does not mean that we can exploit or distort the Holocaust. However, we are entitled to exploit, distort and even deny the Nanking massacre, Comfort women, etc. And, above all, we must not forget the 2,000+ students who were killed by tanks on Tiananmen Square. So please continue to give your money to the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China so that the June 4th incident can be vindicated.

- (HKG Pao) Of course, Yellow Ribbons don't know when to stop. When the anti-Semitism campaign failed to gain momentum, four Yellow Ribbon media outlets (The Stand, HK01, 852 and InMedia) simultaneously published an essay by the blogger "Kursk" (who teaches Liberal Studies at the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan) which included this paragraph:

Following the surrender of Nazi Germany, many (German) soldiers that participated in the holocaust massacre in the concentration camps never reflected much on their crimes. They felt that they were merely following orders and therefore felt no moral remorse or that they were wrong.
On Feb 22, over one thousand (actual number was over 38,000) police officers turned up to support the seven policemen, what were they thinking? Did they not also feel that the seven policemen commit no wrong?

An inquiry to the German Consulate General drew this response:

We are not yet aware of such web media articles, but any comparison between the HKPF and Nazi perpetrators of the holocaust is, of course, equally inappropriate. From all sides, resorting to Holocaust comparisons in this incident is completely out of proportion and we recommend to anyone involved in these discussions to study first what happened in the Holocaust and then carefully consider their remarks.

- As expected, the Yellow Ribbon media will only report on the first statement from the German Consulate General but not the second one. The four Yellow Ribbon media outlets which carried the article originally had no response; Apple Daily and Ming Pao were stone silent; TVB, NOW TV and Cable TV were sent the relevant materials. But all of them are silent.

(Hong Kong Free Press) After staging a ludicrous rally in support of criminals, the police now think they should be above the law. By Richard Scotford. February 23, 2017.

We certainly live in crazy times. One would have thought that the recent jailing of seven police officers for beating up a hog-tied detainee for all the world to see would be something everyone would want to put behind them. But no. Not the Hong Kong Police Force. In a show of force, not seen since 1977, when they objected to the ICAC investigating corruption within their ranks, they filled a football pitch full of supporters.

Dressed in white, as though someone had died, they chanted that they would fight for justice. They compared themselves to Jews in World War II and declared they would lobby for a new contempt of cop law, to stop people insulting them. They claimed it was time to claw back their dignity, but conversely, it left many in Hong Kong shocked at what they were witnessing. Could it be true that so many people, charged with maintaining the law misunderstand our legal system and their responsibilities so profoundly? Or as one netizen remarked: These people have just staged a farce for the civilized world!

The Police General Orders prohibit the police from engaging in political rallies. And in a shameless attempt to pretend the event was not, the media were not allowed into the venue, even though there were politicians on stage, speeches, dress codes and chanting. The meeting was a political rally by anyones measure, other than the polices own proclamation.

Some officers who spoke to the press rambled about supporting the families of the officers in prison. Or they said that the deed was wrong, but the sentence was too high. Both of these ideas make no sense and fly in the face of what one should expect from a supposedly, professional, disciplined Police Force, untainted by corrupt thinking.

Judges dont just pull sentences out of thin air. They base them on strict, prescriptive guidelines with precedents gathered over time. Where the rule of law exists, everyone is equal in front of the law, even the police and the reality is, this is what the thousands of police found so unpalatable, just like in 1977. Deep down they think that the law shouldnt apply to them. And, if it does, it should be lenient because of the sacrifices they think theyre making. The law is not, as many of the protesting police seem to believe, a comparative exercise in values and beliefs that can be applied selectively and politically. It most certainly is in China, but not in Hong Kong, yet.

The fact that the officers received the heaviest sentence out of everyone who was involved in the 2014 Occupy reflects the serious nature of their actions. The sentences cannot be mitigated downwards because others received lighter sentences for smaller infractions. The seven officers who went to prison are criminals; this is not a matter of opinion, its a legal fact. And if a Police Force, en masse, supports criminals then the publics confidence in them will plummet.

A disciplined Police Force does not have the luxury of nuance on such matters if it wants to maintain any semblance of integrity across society. In 1977, the police had little credibility with large swathes of the public because they had lost sight of what their role in society was. Likewise, 40 years later, Hong Kongs Police Force has become highly politicized, and their rally was the culmination of them struggling to understand why they could have been treated so badly by the courts when they have served one faction of society so diligently.

Wednesdays police rally will be marked in history as the coming-out of The Force as a self-serving, factional block in Hong Kong politics, with their own demands and expectations. Like a spoilt, petulant child, not content with having an astronomical budget to buy anything they desire: HK$18.5 billion. They will now begin to apply political pressure, through their proxies in the legislature, to push for a contempt of cop law to make them infallible. We should all fear such a law. Its already been made very clear that our Police Force rejects that it should be confined by its own regulations or the courts. How much more audacious do you think they will become when they are above criticism?

- "Judges dont just pull sentences out of thin air. They base them on strict, prescriptive guidelines with precedents gathered over time. Where the rule of law exists, everyone is equal in front of the law, even the police."

Here are a few goodies from the judges on just this day that provide amusement for Hong Kong Internet users.

- (Oriental Daily) A male teacher at a Tung Chung elementary school was mad at a 10-year-old male student with reading/writing disability for not handing in homework and grabbed the boy's neck and squeezed him until he cried out in pain. The parents of the boy called the police. Today, the male teacher was found guilty of two counts of common assault. The magistrate said that there were the letters from the former and current school principals, teachers and students testifying that the teacher is a rare education talent. Therefore she sentenced the teacher to 80 hours of community service and wished him a great future in teaching.

- (Oriental Daily) 50-year-old unemployed mentally ill Lam Siu-yip assaulted an 80-year-old fellow patient at the Kowloon Hospital Psychiatric Ward. Lam was charged with manslaughter. At the time, Lam told the nurse that he had committed assault. The defense thought that the statement was ambivalent and does not amount to a confession. The prosecutor agreed. The judge said that in the absence of further details, Lam may have been hallucinating at the time. As a result, the prosecutor said that no further evidence will be offered and the judge rescinded the charge.

- (Oriental Daily) 55-year-old security guard Chan Hon-fu walked into the Hang Seng Bank in Cheung Kwan O, smashed two bottles of paint thinner and held up two knives to stage a robbery. The bank called the police who arrested Chan. Today, Chan was sentenced to 3 years 4 months in jail. In 1999, Chan lost his job and attempted suicide. He was diagnosed to suffer from mental depression. In 2004, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. But since the medication caused insomnia and listlessness, he decided to cut down his intake on his own. Two psychiatrists recommended that Chan be hospitalized. But the judge said that this was out of the question because robbery is a serious crime. The judge said that because Chan threw the paint thinner and wielded two knives at the bank tellers, the starting point would be 7 years in jail. Because Chan was mentally ill, the sentenced was reduced to 5 years. Because Chan pleaded guilty, the sentence was further reduced by 1/3. Therefore the final sentence was 3 years 4 months.

- (Oriental Daily) In 2013, the appellant Lo Sing-lok was caught with 1 kilogram of cocaine. Lo claimed that his friend asked him to hold a bag in which there was a photo album. He did not suspect that the photo album contained drugs. Lo was arrested. He claimed that the police dragged him into the restroom, assaulted him and told him to give a statement according to their instructions. He was taken down to Police Headquarters where he was assaulted again. He was then taken to a room in which a videotaped statement was made.

During the trial, the presiding judge told the jury that Lo's statements were not credible: "How can this possible?" and "Can everything be a coincidence?" Lo was sentenced to 21-1/2 years in jail. Lo filed an appeal. Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge had misled the jury, not only in how he discussed the evidence but also in the derogatory tone which was prejudicial and unfair. Therefore, a retrial has been ordered. By the way, the presiding judge at issue was Woo Kwok-hing, currently running to become the Chief Executive on the basis of his vast experience as a judge.

- (Oriental Daily) [This trial is ongoing, but people can't wait to read the verdict/sentence.] 50-year-old married taxi driver Lee Kwok-ming got back togehter with his mistress and began to sexually molest her two daughters. He forcibly kissed the 12-year-old (X). He coerced the 17-year-old (Y) into sexual intercourse many times in order to complete a Taoist religious ritual to save her younger sister. The court was shown a number of mobile phone messages to Y: "You and I are destined to be together," "You and I are lovers in our previous lives," "Y loves me, but she could not break open the shackles of morality", "The Chinese government was behind the the Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot; if there is a guide missile that can destroy China, I would press the button", "I don't have any political positions, but I support freedom and democracy and I attend the June 4th assembly." Lee asked if Y would marry him. Y replied "How is that possible?" She told him that he does not want to have sexual intercourse with him again.

In court, Y testified that Lee once showed up with two wooden sticks. Lee said that these were Filipino magic wands. Lee hit himself on the chest six times and said that this was because Y told her boyfriend that Lee has magical powers. Y said that "Lee did not make any noise as he hit himself; he rolled his eyes and looked as if he was about to throw up." Y said that there was a time when X, Y, her mother and Lee sat naked on the living room floor to say prayers. Y wanted to object, but her mother forced X and Y to comply.

- (HKG Pao) Recently a magistrate said during the trial of a male nurse assaulting a patient: "Nobody would ever think that they could be attacked by the medical staff at a hospital." He was made fun of because he was stating the obvious.

Along came a series of imitation statements along the lines of "Nobody would ever think that the dog would eat their homework." Sensing a good opportunity, Yau Wai-ching jumped in and said: "At the same time, nobody would ever think that they could be attacked by the police." She was trying to take a dig the seven policemen but somehow she found herself the target of a string of scathing statements:

"Nobody would ever think that ex-legislators would be so fucking stupid"

"Nobody would ever think of not paying back the money that they owe"

"Nobody would ever think that there would be consequences with playing games at the Legislative Council"

"Nobody would ever think that if they threw a brick at the police, the police would fight back."

"Nobody would ever think that you actually a brain in order to think." ("If you have a brain,  you wouldn't got yourself disqualified").

- (info.gov.hk) December 11, 2013.

Following is a question by the Hon Mrs Regina Ip and a written reply by the Secretary for the Civil Service, Mr Paul Tang, in the Legislative Council today (December 11):

Question:

Quite a number of public officers have relayed to me that while on duty, they are often provoked by some members of the public using abusive language or obscene gestures. As there is no specific provision under the existing legislation criminalising the act of insulting public officers on duty, they can only put up with such behaviour in silence, which has aroused negative emotions and resulted in very low morale among them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective numbers of cases in the past five years in which the authorities invoked section 23 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) and section 36 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) to institute prosecutions against persons who had resisted or obstructed a public officer or police officer in the execution of duty; and among such cases, the number of convictions; and among the conviction cases, the number of those involving defendants who insulted public officers or police officers with abusive language or behaviour;

(b) given that there is an offence of "insult" under the Penal Code of Macao, and the penalty will be heavier if a public officer in execution of duty is the subject of an insult (i.e. "aggravated insult"), whether the authorities will make reference to such legal provisions and study the introduction of legislation to prohibit any act of insulting public officers on duty; if they will not, of the reasons for that;

(c) given that it is currently stipulated in section 139 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) that "any person who wilfully obstructs, resists, or uses abusive language to, any person acting in the execution of his duties under [this] Ordinance, or under any order or warrant made or issued thereunder, shall, in any case for which no other provision is made by [this] Ordinance, be guilty of an offence", whether the authorities will consider using this provision as a blueprint and enacting legislation to prohibit the use of abusive language to other public officers on duty; if they will not, of the reasons for that; and

(d) of the training, emotional counselling and support currently provided for frontline public officers in handling situations of being insulted while on duty?

Reply:

President,

(a) The numbers of prosecutions and convictions under section 23 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) and section 36 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) from 2008 to 2012 are set out in the Annex.

We do not maintain statistics on the number of cases where public officers were verbally or behaviourally insulted by the accused.

(b)and(c) Under the existing laws of Hong Kong, the mere act of verbally abusing or insulting another person or a public officer does not normally constitute an offence. However, if a person, in the course of verbally abusing or insulting another person or a public officer, goes further to commit certain crimes, such as using threatening, abusive or insulting words against a public officer with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, the authorities may consider invoking section 17B(2) (Disorder in public places) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) to take action against him/her. In addition, if anyone threatens a public officer with any injury to the person, reputation or property of such public officer, with intent to alarm such officer; assaults a public officer; damages any public property; or resists or obstructs a public officer in the performance of his/her public duty, the relevant departments may, depend on the circumstances of the case, consider invoking the following legislation to take action against him/her:

i. section 24 (Certain acts of intimidation prohibited) or section 60 (Destroying or damaging property), Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200); or

ii. section 36 (Assault with intent to commit offence, or on police officer, etc.), section 39 (Assault occasioning actual bodily harm) or section 40 (Common assault), Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212); or

iii. section 63 (Penalty on person assaulting, etc. police officer in execution of duty, or misleading officer by false information), Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232); or

iv. section 23 (Resisting or obstructing a public officer or other person lawfully engaged in a public duty), Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), etc.

As a matter of course, in determining whether prosecution should be initiated, the authorities should consider the actual circumstances of each case, including the behaviour of the offender and the relevant legislative requirements. We consider that public officers are adequately protected under the existing laws and it is not necessary to enact separate legislation. While we have no plan at the moment to legislate separately against the act of insulting public officers, we will keep the situation in view.

(d) Civil servants are to serve the community and are committed to carrying out their duties with professionalism and efficiency. They should not be subject to abusive and insulting language. We appeal to members of the public to appreciate and respect our colleagues as they discharge their duties impartially and lawfully. The Civil Service Bureau (CSB) will continue to take measures to alleviate stress experienced by colleagues, including the provision of a safe workplace, training courses and hotline counselling service. These will help them handle conflicts, manage stress and maintain emotional well-being for coping with the challenges in their work. Currently, more than 3 000 colleagues attend relevant training courses organised by the Civil Service Training and Development Institute each year. As regards the stress management hotline provided by the CSB, the service includes telephone and face-to-face counselling, referral to appropriate bodies for follow-up, and the provision of relevant thematic seminars. Many departments are also providing suitable counselling services having regard to their operational situation. Furthermore, we will continue to promote the civil service commendation schemes, which give recognition to colleagues with outstanding and dedicated performance, with a view to bringing the message across to the public that civil servants are serving the community with professionalism and impartiality and should deserve respect.

- Sample video of insulting the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i75dsuk0bY

- The Junior Police Officers' Association wants to enact legislation that criminalizes the insulting of police officers. Alan Leong (Civic Party) responded that if the police want the citizens to respect them, then they need to enforce the law professionally and fairly -- criminalizing insults won't make the citizens respect you otherwise.

- I am completely in agreement with the argument by Alan Leong. At this time, there seems to be a prevalent disrespect for the judges/magistrates and their verdicts. So let us remove the "contempt of court" and "insulting judges" ordinances, so that judges/magistrates can see if public opinion supports their rulings. After all, as Alan Leong has powerfully argued, criminalizing criticisms won't make the citizens respect you anyway.

- (SCMP) The grievances of our police must be heard if we want an effective force. By Alex Lo. February 25, 2017.

Whatever is your take on the jailing of seven policemen for their part in beating an Occupy protest leader, the unprecedented demonstration this week of 33,000 serving and former officers and their families should be a serious cause for concern.

At a time when social discontent is rising and violent protests are becoming increasingly common, an efficient and disciplined police force is often our last resort.

But widespread frustration and falling morale will only make our officers less productive and more unprofessional. Thats why their sense of grievance against the jailing of their colleagues needs to be properly addressed, not just dismissed or criticised.

More and more young activists and radicals feel they can shout at, and even physically confront, the police with little or no consequence.

Certainly the lenient treatment those Occupy protesters and Mong Kok rioters have received from the courts have given them a sense of impunity.

This feeling of entitlement has been taken to an absurd extreme by people like Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, the seasoned provocateur who was roughed up by the seven officers.

With no evidence, Tsang claimed his case was just the tip of the iceberg and that the police chief should apologise to the public for his beating. But, he himself was hardly the innocent victim, having been jailed for five weeks for assaulting police officers and resisting arrest. He is on bail and has launched an appeal.

The massive show of support in this weeks demonstration by the police should put these arrogant and self-righteous people on notice.

They should know that even a highly trained and professional force like the citys police have a breaking point.

Increasingly, police officers feel they are being targeted or criticised for whatever they do or dont do. They think they are in a no-win situation, and can only take the abuses as they come without recourse.

Thats the main reason why some are agitating for criminalising abusive behaviour against police.

Far from being wrong in showing support for his force, police chief Stephen Lo Wai-chung is actually not doing enough. He must show he is 100 per cent behind his officers; likewise, the chief executive and the secretary for security.

If we want a professional and competent police force, they must know they have the full support of law-abiding citizens.

Q1. Which candidate do you support?
39.2%: John Tsang
29.3%: Carrie Lam
9.7%: Woo Kwok-hing
5.9%: Regina Ip
2.6%: Leung Kwok-hung
5.6%: None of the above
7.5%: Don't know/no opinion/refused to answer

Q2. Between John Tsang and Carrie Lam, who do you support?
53.6%: John Tsang
33.03%: Carrie Lam
6.1%: Neither
2.4%: Both
4.9%: Don't know/no opinion/refused to answer

(Oriental Daily with video) February 18, 2017.

A number of pro-police organizations marched from Chater Garden in Central to Police Headquarters in support of the seven police officers who were sentenced to 2 years in jail for assault to cause bodily harm. About several thousand people marched. The organizers claimed that more than 3,500 persons took party. The police said that the peak number was 1,800.

At the end point, a participant cursed out foreigner judges. A woman advised people not to criticize judges but was drowned out by boos.

Videos:

TVB http://news.tvb.com/local/58a801016db28c5d23aa85cb 

Ming Pao http://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170218/s00001/1487422599628

Speakout HK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLMM7p92QeE

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/1556368111346483/videos/1750530265263599/

Internet comments:

- English language coverage? Nothing whatsoever via Google News. So this event never took place for you English-only readers.

- You are very wrong here. SCMP reported on the demonstration.

- Yes, SCMP reported on a different demonstration that took place on a different day: "Protesters worried about pollution from a planned factory in Heilongjiang province find their route to a demonstration blocked by police ..." Newspaper space is finite, so the editor is required to select those items that they think are more important for their readers. Pollution in Heilongjiang is surely very important to the people of Hong Kong who live a mere 2,800+ kilometers away. After all, Hongkongers are very concerned about radiation poisoning from Fujishima (3,000+ kilometers away), and Heilongjiang is even closer to home.

- SCMP also reported on a local Hong Kong riot on this very day. "K. Wah Holdings sells all 208 flats in first batch of project at old airport site. On February 9, K. Wah released the first price list at an average of HK$17,998 per square foot. K. City did not see much interest from mainland Chinese buyers, even though flats there are available to people from across the border. Over 2,100 buyers expressed an interest in purchasing K. City's first batch."

- Here are the media crowd counts:

NOW TV - "More than 200 people"

Commercial Radio: "Several hundred people"

Headline Daily: "Several hundred people"

Apple Daily: "One thousand persons"

- (Apple Daily) February 19, 2017.

Hong Kong Polithk Social Strategic organized demonstration march from Chater Garden to Police Headquarters. Along the way, the demonstrators chanted: Oust dog judge" and "Fucking David" against Judge David John Dufton. One person dressed up as a judge and said: "I am just a dog" while others acted as if to punch and kick him.

According to accountant Mr. Lee, a two- to three-month sentence would have been enough. "I cannot say that they did no wrong, but we should forgive them for making small mistakes during the excitement."

According to housewife Miu, "the seven police used excessive force but did not cause grave harm to Ken Tsang. Law enforcement people have always used force to control situations, just like fathers beating children. It is only a matter of degree."

According to Ms. Lam who didn't know who was assaulted by the seven police officers, "His name is Chiu somebody. He poured liquid on people ...  In the United States, they would have shot you already. It is merciful to just hit you a couple of times."

A senior citizens said: "The seven police officers made a mistake -- they should have dragged him to somewhere else to beat  him." The reporter asked: 'That is to say, he deserves to be beaten up?" He answered: "Yes!"

- Yellow Ribbon media Ming Pao's front page headline takes a definite stand:

Cursing police during pro-police demonstration march, Department of Justice follow up.

- Actually, the demonstrators want to be charged by the Department of Justice. Conversely, the Department of Justice is huffing and puffing but they won't do a thing.

There is no statute (either in the Basic Law or any other local ordinance) against criticism of judges as such; even if convicted under some interpretation of perversion of the course of justice or some such, an appeal can be made on the basis that it violates freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Basic Law Article 27. If the Court of Final Appeal upholds the verdict, the National People's Congress Standing Committee can come out with an Interpretation of the Basic Law Article 27 that freedom of speech includes freedom to criticize court judges and their rulings.

(Judiciary.gov.hk)

DCCC 980/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 980 OF 2015

____________

HKSAR v
WONG Cho-shing D1
LAU Cheuk-ngai D2
PAK Wing-bun D3
LAU Hing-pui D4
CHAN Siu-tan D5
KWAN Ka-ho D6
WONG Wai-ho D7

____________

Offences:
(1) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (襲擊致造成身體傷害) (2)
Common assault (普通襲擊)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. The defendants are convicted after trial of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm[1]. D5 was also found guilty of a further charge of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu[2].

2. Full particulars of the offences are set out in the reasons for verdict handed down on 14 February 2017. In summary at about 2:45 a.m. on 15 October 2014 the police carried out Operation Solarpeak to clear the protestors of the Occupy Central movement. When the police reached the end of the underpass on Lung Wo Road, Tsang Kin Chiu (Tsang) was seen on the planter above Lung Wo Road pouring liquid on the police.

3. Tsang was pulled down from the planter to the pavement and subdued by several uniform police officers. After the uniform police officers successfully handcuffed Tsangs hands behind his back with plastic zip ties they handed Tsang over to D1-D6, who escorted Tsang away in the direction of Lung Wo Road. On the way Tsang was picked up and carried face down.

4. Protestors were to be taken to the escort coaches and cars on Lung Wo Road for transport to the Central Police Station. D1-D6 did not carry Tsang direct to where the coaches and cars were parked. Instead D1-D6 carried Tsang to the north side of the Lung Wui Road Government Building Pump Station East Substation (the substation) to assault him.

5. On reaching the substation D1-D6 were joined by D7, who helped carry Tsang to the north side of the substation. On reaching the north side of the substation Tsang was dumped on the ground and immediately assaulted by the defendants, with D7 being the first one to kick Tsang.

6. D3 participated in the assault by stabbing Tsang; stamping on Tsang and kicking Tsang and D4, D5, D6 and D7 also participated in the assault by kicking Tsang. D1 and D2 did not take part in the assault but watched what happened. Tsang received injuries to his face; the left side of the neck; the left shoulder and clavicle; the left flank; the right flank and to his chest and back.

7. Every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers. By carrying Tsang to the substation and watching their colleagues beat up Tsang, D1 and D2, the two senior officers, intended to and did encourage and support D3-D7 to carry out the assault on Tsang, intending Tsang to sustain unlawful personal violence.

8. After the assault Tsang was frogmarched to Lung Wo Road where he boarded a car. D5 and D6 sat on either side of Tsang and accompanied him to the Central Police Station. At the police station Tsang was taken to room 7 where he stayed until he was escorted by coach to the Police College in Wong Chuk Hang. While in room 7 D5, in the presence of D6, slapped Tsang on the face twice.

Mitigation

9. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendants together with the many mitigation letters, all of which speak very highly of the defendants. D1 joined the police force in 1984; D2 in 2009; D3 in 1992; D4 in 1999; D5 in 2007; D6 in 2008; and D7 in 1998. The defendants all have long and distinguished careers in the police force earning many compliments and commendations.

10. Submissions have been made as to the unique circumstances confronting the police during the Occupy Central movement. Mr Lok SC informs the court that police officers had to work very long hours and in carrying out their duty were subject to insulting remarks and violent behaviour from the protestors. I am told 130 police officers were injured. There can be no doubt that all police officers, including the defendants, were working under great pressure during the Occupy Central movement.

11. Mr Lok SC, Mr Cheng SC and Ms Lam specifically submitted that if a prison sentence is to be imposed then the sentence should be suspended[3].

Sentence

12. In HKSAR v Hui Man Tai[4] the Court of Appeal said:

Police officers in whom the public place trust to uphold the law, but who themselves break the very laws they are empowered and entrusted to uphold, have to be made examples in terms of deterrent sentencing so that others will not be tempted to follow along similar lines and so that public confidence will be maintained.

13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kongs reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries[5].

14. Although Tsang had broken the law for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment[6] and the defendants were at the time acting under immense stress, there was no justification for taking Tsang to the substation and assaulting him.

15. The defendants, serving police officers who in the execution of their duty took Tsang to the substation to assault him; the multiplicity of the injuries sustained by Tsang as a result of the assault; and the damage to Hong Kongs reputation make this, in my view, a very serious case.

16. I am satisfied a term of imprisonment is appropriate. Tsang was defenceless, his hands handcuffed behind his back with plastic ties. The assault was a vicious assault, in particular the first thirty seconds when Tsang was dumped on the ground, stabbed, stamped on and repeatedly kicked. Most fortunately Tsang did not suffer more serious injuries.

17. I am satisfied a sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment is appropriate.

18. Taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time and the great stress the police were under in handling the Occupy Central movement; that the defendants, all of clear record, have served the community as police officers; that the conviction will result in all the defendants being dismissed from the police force and the likely loss of any pensions; and the stress caused while waiting for trial, I reduce the sentence by 6 months to 2 years imprisonment.

19. Having regard to all the circumstances of the commission of the offence and that of the defendants, I am satisfied that the assault is too serious for the imposition of a suspended sentence.

20. On charge 2, I am satisfied the proper sentence is 1 month imprisonment. Although separate from the assault at the substation, considering totality of sentence, I am satisfied a concurrent sentence is appropriate. D5 is sentenced to 1 month imprisonment concurrent to the sentence imposed on charge 1.

(D. J. DUFTON) District Judge

[1] Contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 39 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

[2] Common assault contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

[3] In support of his submission exceptional circumstances were not required before imposing a suspended sentence Mr Lok SC submitted Secretary for Justice v Wade, Ian Francis CAAR 1/2015

[4] CACC 334/2007.

[5] See 3 of the Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, marked H (1) for identification.

[6] Tsang appealed against conviction and sentence which appeal the court was told was still pending.

Internet comments:

- (Wikipedia) R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

- (Guide to Judicial Conduct)

Impartiality

19. Justice must be done and must seen to be done. Impartiality must exist in both as a matter of fact and as a matter of reasonable perception. If partiality is reasonably perceived, that perception is likely to leave a sense of grievance and of injustice having been done, which is destructive of confidence in judicial decisions.

20. The perception of impartiality is measured by the standard of a reasonable, fair-minded and well-informed person, as discussed more fully in relation to questions of apparent bias.

The apparent bias test

47. The apparent bias test may be stated as follows:

A particular judge is disqualified from sitting if the circumstances are such as would lead a reasonable, fair-mined and well-informed observer to conclude that there is a real possibility that the judge would be biased.

- The seven policemen were sentenced to two years in jail. You can compare what happened to the rioters in the Fishball Revolution:

The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 1
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 2
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 3
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 4
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 5
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 6

Here is one of those cases:

(Oriental Daily) December 19, 2016.

17-year-old waiter Chan Ho-man pleaded guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

According to the police officer Wong Chak-fai, the defendant came out of the crowd and threw a brick at Wong from ten meters away. The brick hit Wong on the left knee, causing bleeding. The defendant fled, but he was subdued by other police officers present at the scene. Under police caution, Chan admitted that he had come to support the demonstrators and picked up a brick to throw at the police.

In mitigation, the defense said that yesterday is Chan's birthday. On the evening of the Internet, Chan heard about the incident and went down to Mong Kok to offer support. He committed the crime in a moment of excitement. The defense said that Chan did not intend to engage in violence when he left home to head towards Mong Kok, and that Chan cannot control the others who were digging out the bricks from the pavement. The magistrate asked: "Can he control his own hand and feet, and their actions?" The defense concurred, and said that Chan is willing to accept the consequences.

The magistrate Heung Shuk-han ordered Chan Ho-man remanded in custody pending reports from the probation officer and the Detention Centre.

(Oriental Daily) December 20, 2016.

This morning magistrate Heung Shuk-han received a package today. When she opened it, she found a 5-inch box cutter inside. She immediately told the court to call the police.

(Metro Radio) January 9, 2017.

Magistrate Heung Shuk-han sentenced Chan Ho-man to an 18-month probation order. She said that the three weeks of pre-sentencing detention should constitute a profound lesson on the defendant who spent his 18th birthday behind bars.

The magistrate characterized the defendant as "having a volatile personality, easily influenced by others, immature thinking, lack of good judgment, weak in self-control, dim awareness of abiding by the law and directionless in life." Therefore she believes that he acted in a moment of rashness for which he should be held personally responsible. Since the defendant is repentant and has no prior records, an 18-month probation order with night curfews is appropriate. The magistrate said that the box cutter incident did not figure in her ruling.

- (SCMP) Principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen sentenced Ken Tsang to five weeks for one count of assaulting police by splashing a foul-smelling liquid on them and three weeks each for two counts of resisting arrest, all to be served concurrently. Magistrate Law promptly freed Tsang on HK$300 cash bail pending appeal.

- 5 weeks for Ken Tsang ($300 cash bail pending appeal) versus 2 years (=104 weeks) for the seven police officers who arrested Ken Tsang.

- Over time, people have seen any number of cases. To their minds, the sentences given to the seven cops appear to be much more severe compared to rioters. Yes, judges may have complex considerations spinning through their heads and duly written down in the judgment. While they may think that justice was done, the people do not see it that way.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 19, 2017. The sentence must factor in the profession of the defendants, because they are law enforcers who must know the law. Here are the more serious precedents which should have applied to this case under the vaunted Common Law system:

In 2009, Yau Ma Ti police sergeant Tam Wing-hong was accused of fighting with a man, punching the man such that his cranium collapsed. Tam was found guilty of seriously injuring another person and sentenced to ten months in jail. On appeal, the High Court ruled that the man was not a credible witness and vacated the verdict.

In 2001, Yuen Long Anti-Organized Crime Unit senior inspector Li Chi-fai was accused of dragging a discotheque manager into the back alley to assault, and then accused the man of obstructing police business. Lee was found guilty of perverting the course of justice and common assault. He was sentenced to six months in jail.

In 1998, four police officers (an inspector, a sergeant and two officers) were found guilty of assaulting a drug user causing bodily harm. The inspector and the sergeant were sentenced to 6 months, and the two police officers to 4 months.

- A sample of cases to compare to the case of seven policemen:

Case#: KCCC 4178/14
Charge: Assaulting a police officer
Case: Accused of hitting a sergeant with a tent and kicking him.
Verdict: Guilty
Sentence: 12 months of probation

Case#: KTCC 6008/14
Charge: Assaulting a police officer
Case: Tussling with and dragging a police officer down to the ground
Verdict: Not guilty, released immediately
Explanation: The magistrate said that it must be an accident -- as the defendant fell to the ground, he reached out with his hand and accidentally pulled the policeman down.

Case#: ESCC 2201/15
Charge: Assaulting a police officer
Verdict: Not guilty
Case: Accused to throwing a rock at a police officer in Tamar Park, Admiralty
Verdict: Not guilty, released immediately
Explanation: The admission of guilty by the defendant was taken down under imperfect conditions and was therefore excluded in order to be fair to the defendant. The prosecution was also unable to prove that the piece of rock produced in court was the one that was thrown by the defendant (for example, no fingerprints and no identificaiton via line-up). Given that there is no evidence without reasonable doubt, the defendant is found not guilty.

- Some statistics from the Department of Security on Occupy Central:

Total number of persons arrested = 1,003
Number of persons charged = 157
Number of persons found guilty = 68
    Number incarcerated (between 2 days to 10 months) = 30
    Number fined (between $300 to $3000) = 23
    Number sentenced to community service (80 to 800 hours) = 9
    Number sentenced to probation order = 6

- (SCMP) June 7, 2013.

A former Wan Chai divisional police commander was jailed for a year for misconduct in public office yesterday and accused by a magistrate of telling lies in court.

Magistrate Adriana Tse condemned Superintendent Titus Wong Koon-ho, 51, for showing no remorse during the trial and said he had given the worst testimony she had heard during her years as a magistrate.

Defence counsel Albert Luk Wai-hung yesterday submitted to the court 60 letters of mitigation and appreciation, including one from the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong. Luk also asked Tse to take into account Wong's contributions to the city.

Tse rebutted this by saying that police officers could not point to their community service as a defence in such circumstances. "They do not serve society for free," she said. "They are well paid for it."

Well, judges/magistrates are very well-paid too, so why are they so thin-skinned about any criticisms? Don't high-paying jobs come with arrows and barbs?

- Judge David Dufton: "13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kongs reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries."

- The Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution was widely reported as sino-phobic actions, which negatively impacted the tourism. Hong Kong received negative publicity as the place where mainland tourists or even people who look like mainland tourists are harassed. The tourism, retail and hospitality sectors took losses as much as 10% compared to previous years. So why didn't the judges see fit to impose heavy sentences as deterrence?

- The judges started with very lenient sentences for rioters who were engaged in civil disobedience. The maximum sentence for those Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution was ten months for Ng "Capone" Ting Pong for assaulting three police officers occasioning actual bodily harm. Given the adverse reaction this time, the next Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution rioter will probably have to receive more than two years in jail in order for justice to seem to be done.

- This is not the rule of law. This is not even the rule of man. This is the rule of public relations perceptions.

- None of this would be necessary if the judges impose the maximum sentences against all comers. Because they started with covert and even overt sympathy for 'civil disobedience', they end up damaging the credibility of the judiciary instead.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 18, 2017.

Legislator Junius Ho said that the fact that the seven policemen were sentenced to two years in jail showed that everybody is equal before the law. However, none of the leaders of Occupy Central have been prosecuted yet, and that shows the justice has not been done.

Legislator Leung Mei-fun said that the sentences were clearly too severe. It was understandable that the police officers could over-react in that situation. Most citizens oppose the illegal Occupy Central and are sympathetic towards the seven policemen who were maintaining public order. She said that pro-Occupy should not be gloating about the sentences, because the destruction of respect towards the law is nothing to celebrate about.

- (SCMP) Facts, hypocrisy and the outcry over police abuse in Hong Kong. By Michael Chugani. February 21, 2017.

This is likely to make me a target of bricks prised from Mong Kok streets but I would like to stick my middle finger at those who claim police brutality is prevalent. If they want to know what police abuse really means, try poking an umbrella, yellow or not, at a cop in the US or Europe, both democracies.

These people, including Occupy protester Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, tarnish Hong Kongs image with baseless claims that the beating of Tsang by seven policemen was the tip of an iceberg that only came to light because the media filmed it. Whats galling is that those who make such claims are themselves abusers of the law.

The police didnt start Occupy or the Mong Kok riot. It was their job to end them. Those who put police through 79 days of hell with their illegal occupation have used Tsangs beating to demonise the force. Why are they not condemning as thugs the Mong Kok rioters who bashed a policeman after knocking him down?

These hypocrites say being overworked cannot justify the bashing of Tsang who was convicted of pouring liquid on policemen. I agree. But then why do they use so-called root causes to justify Mong Kok rioters hurling bricks at police?

Opposition leaders accuse the police of double standards for not yet prosecuting a police superintendent who allegedly beat a protester with his baton. Double standards? Why are they not also demanding to know why they themselves have yet to be charged for their role in Occupy?

There is no alternative fact to morality. If you mount moralitys high horse you must embrace all its principles, not cherry-pick. Yet thats exactly what these hypocrites are doing.

They have condemned the police commissioner for saying he is saddened by the convictions of Tsangs attackers. Of course he has to stand by his men in the same way these hypocrites formed a protective ring around the Youngspiration pair after the Legislative Council president ordered them out.

These hypocrites want the police chief to apologise for Tsangs beating. How about Tsang apologising for splashing the seven with a foul-smelling liquid? And why havent the hypocrites apologised to the public for the Mong Kok riots and Occupy. Writing this doesnt make me pro-establishment, anti-democracy or a police lapdog. It makes me pro-facts and anti-hypocrisy.

- Here is public perception:

Judge: "I'm here!! Don't worry! The police won't dare to fight back!"

- (Bastille Post) Like many other verdicts in Hong Kong, society holds completely opposite views. For many people, Occupy Central was an illegal action and the police were acting in accordance with the law to clear the sites. During the process, it was understandable that excessive application of force may be used.

For the pro-Occupy people and the pan-democrats, Occupy Central was started to fight for freedom and democracy and therefore they hold the high moral point. When the police come in to clear the sites, they were immoral or even unlawful.

That is to say, different groups of people have different views on the verdict. Depending on positions, some people are happy, angry, sad, indifferent, etc. This would be the same with other verdicts.

Of course, many people are concerned about whether this was a fair verdict. No verdict is going to please everybody at the same time. But the problem with this and other verdicts is that people look at them with too many moral and political factors.

Previously, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow stood trial for charging into Government Plaza. The judge said that this was different from other cases, because these young man had "good" motives" (namely, going for democracy and freedom) and therefore he imposed light sentences.

Similarly, many people who assaulted police officers during Occupy Central were given very lenient sentences (such as probation or community service). And as of today (February 18, 2017), the Justice Department has not yet even prosecuted the masterminds of the Occupy Central (which took place in October 2014). Meanwhile the police who were out there to maintain law and order are being sent to jail.

People are bound to ask, Aren't these police officers young men too? Are their motives (namely, maintaining law and order) good? Why are their sentences much more severe than the rioters who commit arson, assault, vandalism, etc?

On a standalone basis and reading the logical analysis of the presiding judge, it is hard to say whether this was fair or unfair. But if this verdict were compared to all the other things that were happening during Occupy Central, the majority of people will think that there are double standards.

- And if you criticize the judges and their judgments, you are threatened with an investigation by the Judiciary Department. That is alright too, provided this is enforced uniformly. For example, here is this August 14, 2015 post by the Hong Kong Independence Alliance to tell the treacherous Hong Kong judge Chan Pik-kiu to arrange for his funeral matters and to challenge the Hong  Kong Public Security Bureau to arrest him. Where the hell was the Judiciary Department?

- Here is how to see justice being done correctly:

Basic Law Article 48

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions: 

( 1 ) To lead the government of the Region;
( 2 ) To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
( 3 ) To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
( 4 ) To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
( 5 ) To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
( 6 ) To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
( 7 ) To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
( 8 ) To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
( 9 ) To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
( 10 ) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
( 11 ) To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
( 12 ) To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
( 13 ) To handle petitions and complaints.

- Is it wrong to pardon guilty people? (Ming Pao Canada) Hong Kong Governor MacLehose announced on 5 November 1977 that all those police officers who were suspected of bribery but had not been charged as of 1 January 1977 would be pardoned.

- Universal standards: List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States Approximately 20,000 pardons and commutations were issued by U.S. presidents in the 20th century alone.

- Daily Mail, November 4, 2016. The publisher/editors/reporters should go to jail for insulting/threatening judges.

Q1. Hong Kong will be holding the election of the Chief Executive. Which of these four candidates are better suited to become the next Chief Executive?
37.4%: John Tsang
34.0%: Carrie Lam
7.9%: Woo Kwok-hing
7.8%: Regina Ip
0.3%: All of the above
5.8%: None of the above
6.9%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q2. Of these four candidates, who has the better capability to become the next Chief Executive?
39.9%: Carrie Lam
36.4%: John Tsang
6.1%: Woo Kwok-hing
8.5%: Regina Ip
0.5%: All of the above
3.1%: None of the above
5.4%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion\

Q3. Which issues should be given priority by the next Chief Executive?
45.5%: Land/housing
18.8%: Economic development
11.1%: Retirement protection
9.0%: Constitutional development
8.7%: Poverty relief
3.6%: Labor benefits
1.6%: Other
1.6%: Don't know/no opinion

Q4. Which candidate do you think will ultimately become the next Chief Executive?
66.0%: Carrie Lam
19.1%: John Tsang
4.0%: Regina Ip
1.8%: Woo Kwok-hing
0.4%: Other
8.6%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

(Oriental Daily) February 17, 2017.

In 2014 during the Occupy movement, the police assisted the bailiffs to carry out a court order to clear Mong Kok. Seventeen individuals were charged with contempt of court, including Civic Passion vice-president Cheng Kam-mun and part-time waiter Au Yuk-kwan. The two are now pleading guilty as charged.

Today the High Court heard their lawyers present their case. The argument was that their cases was much less serious many others during Occupy Central, and therefore they should be leniently penalized.

28-year-old Cheng Kam-mun is an assistant to legislative councilor Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion). He arrived at court 40 minutes late. As the lawyers presented their arguments, the judge Chan Hing-wai found Cheng Kam-mun fiddling around with his mobile phone. Judge Chan said that he may confiscate the mobile phone and used English to lecture Cheng: "What are you here for? Can you come and go as you please? Can you play around as you please? I don't see you showing any sincere apology. You came here without any hint of remorse."

Both defendants are receiving legal aid. According to their lawer, Au has apologized for what happened that day. Au does not have any political affiliations and he joined the Occupy Movement in order to show his dissatisfaction with the government. Although he was in contempt of court, he did not intend to challenge the authority of the court. He felt that he was only opposing the police and not the court.

Their lawyer also said that the court needs to impose sentences that have deterrent effects so that the authority of the court will not be challenged. But a large number of people have participated in the Occupy Movement in various capacities. Some of the participants were ignorant and stupid. Au has now awakened. Of the various options opened to the court (such as going to jail immediately, probation, fine, good behavior bond), Au case falls in the lightest category.

Their lawyer said that many of the defendants charged with contempt of court are fighting their cases in court. The trials can last 30 days. If they lose their cases, they face long prison terms. However, these two defendants have pleaded guilty and they have not wasted the court's time.

Although the two defendants are receiving legal aid, the Justice Department is asking them to pay punitive legal fees. The defense said that if the court accepts the application by the Justice Department, then every single person who is being charged with contempt of court will be bankrupt. The court should be encouraging those who are contesting their cases to plead guilty, and therefore Au should not be paying at all and Cheng should be paying partially.

(Ming Pao) February 17, 2017.

According to part-time waiter Au Yuk-kwan, he knew nothing about the separations of powers. So when he saw the police read out the court injunction, he thought that it came from the police and not the court. Au was only dissatisfied with the police and did not intend to challenge the authority of the court. Au said that he has learned a huge lesson and hopes that the court will impose just a fine on him.

The defense did not present any reason for mitigation on behalf of Cheng Kam-mun. Some background was given, such as Cheng is presently an Legco aide earning $15,000 a month and that he has not yet completed his university studies.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMPPaVN4IY

(Oriental Daily) September 4, 2016.

Avery Ng threw a stinky fish sandwich at CY Leung, but missed. Instead Avery Ng copped some dirty orange spots on his own white shirt. Ng explained that he threw the stink fish because many citizens are going hungry. Ng said that the police intercepted him and took down his Hong Kong ID information. He said that the police told him that they reserve the right to charge him with common assalt.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 16, 2017.

Pro-democracy activist Avery Ng Man-yuen has been charged in connection with an alleged assault during a protest against Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying last year.

Ng, chairman of the League of Social Democrats, wrote in a Facebook post that police attempted to arrest him at his residence on Thursday morning, but he was not there. He initially speculated that the charges were related to him allegedly throwing a smelly fish sandwich at Leung on the day of the Legislative Council elections.

According to Ming Pao, Ng and other party members demonstrated against Leung on the morning of September 4 last year. As Leung arrived to vote at Robinson Road in Mid-Levels, Ng allegedly threw a sandwich at him, but police did not make any arrests that day.

Ng said on Thursday that he was notified of his arrest on a charge of common assault, and would go to a police station in the afternoon to assist in the investigation. He said he had predicted that he would be prosecuted at some point for what he termed his close-range protest using a smelly fish sandwich.  He made reference to the case of former League of Social Democrats member Derek Chan Tak-cheung, who was jailed for three weeks in November 2014 for throwing an egg at then financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah. I think this bodes ill, he said.

In the afternoon, Ng wrote on Facebook that he was to be charged with assaulting a chief inspector not Chief Executive Leung using an Indian chicken roll in the same incident. He has not further elaborated on the incident so far.

(Wen Wei Po) August 24, 2016.

According to Passion Times, about 10 members the Internet media outlet Hong Kong Peanut (founded by League of Social Democrats ex-chairman Andrew To) plus supporters of League of Social Democrats and People Power harassed candidate Raymond Wong Yuk-man at a Kowloon West election forum. Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat called his supporters to come down.

The discussion forum was held at the HKICC Lee Shua Kee School of Creativity on Junction Road, Kowloon City. More than 30 Civic Passion members faced 20 anti-Wong and Hong Kong Peanut supporters and others. There was a clash. The anti-Wong people pasted posters that say "Violent leader: I was merely talking" and "Do not forget Ede Road: He got wealthier over time."

After "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun arrived, a policeman was pushed onto the ground. The police used pepper spray to control the crowd. Dante Ma, a supporter of candidate CK Ho, posted a video on YouTube under the title "Civic Passion is triad society". He wrote on Facebook, "As a rookie, I was lucky to witness the gangster mode of Civic Passion tonight. I advise my friends and relatives not to cast a single vote for them. They are thoroughly triad gangsters. No wonder social activism is dysfunctional."

Candidate CK Ho wrote on his Facebook: "A supporter of mine drove his car to this Cable TV forum. Afterwards, his car was surrounded by more than 100 followers of Raymond Wong. Some of these followers vandalized his car."

Wong Yeung-tat wrote on his Facebook: "Even today there are still people who say that Civic Passion people are thugs, that we are like a triad gang ... this really caused me to be scared ... Did you just realize this?" According to another person, "This means that Wong admits that they are thugs."

The police said that three police officers were injured. The case will be investigated as assault on a police officer and criminal destruction of property.

Civic Passion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySMEXmtItw The bespectacled guy in a white shirt is Cheng Kam-mun and the tall guy in black t-shirt, black baseball cap and surgical mask is Lee Ching-hei (follow the red arrow in the beginning of the clip).

(Headline Daily) February 21, 2017.

Last Wednesday, the police arrested a 22-year-old man named Chu on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. He has posted bail since. Today, the police arrested a 30-year-old man named Lee on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. He has also posted bail.

(The Standard) February 15, 2017.

Seven police officers were found guilty yesterday of assaulting Occupy Central protester Ken Tsang Kin-chiu. But they were cleared of the more serious charge of causing grievous bodily harm. The seven were remanded in custody until sentencing on Friday.

District Court judge David Dufton ruled that the injuries to Tsang, although extensive, did not constitute grievous bodily harm. But he was satisfied they amounted to actual bodily harm. "The prosecution have proved all the elements of the offense of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against each defendant beyond reasonable doubt," he said.

Anyone found guilty of causing actual bodily harm is liable to three years' imprisonment, while those convicted of common assault face up to one year's imprisonment. The original charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The defendants did not give evidence or call any witnesses.

Tsang, part of a group of pro- democracy protesters, was involved in a clash with police outside government headquarters during the Occupy Central movement in 2014. In the early hours of October 15, police carried Tsang, who was handcuffed, to a dark corner of the nearby Tamar Park and dumped him on the ground. Detective sergeant Pak Wing-bun, 42, then began "stabbing, stamping and kicking" him.

Officers Lau Hing-pui, 38, Chan Siu-tan, 31, Kwan Ka-ho, 32, and Wong Wai-ho, 36, also joined in and kicked Tsang.

The assault was captured on footage by TVB, Apple Daily, ATV and Now TV as well as a police video team. Despite an objection from the defense on submitting footage from news media as evidence, the court ruled that all audiovisual evidence was authentic and accurately depicted events.

The judge agreed with the inference drawn that the protester was "carried to the corner to be assaulted." Although chief inspector Wong Cho-shing, 48, and senior inspector Lau Cheuk-ngai, 29, did not take part in the assault, they were also convicted. Judge Dufton believed the duo "did encourage and support [the] unlawful violence" by watching their colleagues assault the activist. "Every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers," he said. "[Their] failure to intervene is evidence of encouragement to carry out the assault."

Chan was convicted of an extra count of common assault for slapping Tsang on the face twice in a room in Central Police Station.

Tsang sustained injuries to the left side of his neck, left shoulder and clavicle, left flank and right flank, as well as bruises on his chest and back.

(EJ Insight) February 16, 2017.

There are clever marketing gimmicks and then there are clever marketing gimmicks. The difference, as in the case of Schick, is whether you want to please the critics of the police at the expense of their fans.

On Tuesday, Schick, a distant second to Gillette in the personal care line, made an interesting post on its Facebook page saying there is something more to celebrate on Valentines Day. The post brought up famous singer Paula Tsui, whose famous hit song Jubilant has become an anthem for an anti-climactic political event (say, Carrie Lam not winning the chief executive election). Interestingly, it did not say what exactly we should be celebrating but we can glean from the hashtag link to no less than the conviction of seven policemen for assault on activist Ken Tsang.

The issue has been deeply divisive between supporters and critics of the police.

The original post attracted a few thousand likes but it was particularly disturbing to Speak Out HK, a group from the pro-establishment camp. A message posted on the groups Facebooks page by a certain Miso Cheng said it was very disappointing and disgusting that your administrator representing Schicks brand and identity has used such an insult. If your company is using this for sales and marketing strategy to enhance market share, traffic and revenue, I would say that you are doing it by inciting others and dividing society, Cheng wrote. My family will stop spending a dime on your products.

Schick, a 91-year-old company, has been owned by Energizer since 2003. Energizer also owns Eveready, among others. To avoid what could potentially become another Lancome debacle, Schick quickly bowed to the complaints.

In its latest Facebook appearance, it retracted its earlier posts, saying it is aware that our social media activity on Valentines Day may have inadvertently caused some concerns with its link to breaking news of the day. It was certainly not our intent to cause any upset or distress and we apologise if that was the case. We would like to reassure our consumers that, with our presence in Hong Kong of over 20 years, Schick is focused on product innovation and improvement and we strive to provide Hong Kong consumers with a high-quality shaving experience.

The retraction attracted 500 dislikes from Facebook fans who were disappointed at the U-turn and maintained that there is nothing wrong with the administrator.

Well, it is difficult to make both sides happy.

Internet comments:

- Hey, everybody knows that Schick will eventually delete the post, because the company mission is not to generate political controversy. Here is the screen capture of the original Schick HK Facebook post:


Schick HK
It took a long time, but we ask Ms. Paula Tsui (to sing her song of joy)
#Good_awesome
#I have waited a long time for this day
#You didn't do anything wrong but you will have to go to jail
#Valentine's Day
#Date on February 14
Today there is another kind of celebration besides Valentine's day

- The second and the last paragraphs justify nothing. You should have hired a more sensible digital marketer after so many other incidents which did nothing but damaging the brands. I don't give a damn about your marketer's own political belief but it was YOUR BRAND who posted it. Tough luck, can't be undone. Gillette for life. Or Braun. Or Phillips. Or a beard.

- If you didn't delete your post and apologize, the Blue Ribbon dogs who have no backbones will still continue to buy your products.
But if you delete your post and apologize, all Hongkongers with backbones will boycott you.
The original public relations person was not fucking stupid; the public relations person who decided to kneel down to the Blue Ribbon dogs is fucking stupid.

- What the fuck is wrong with you! Not a single word in the original post referred to anything, so why do you have to delete the lost. Self-censorship? If you hire someone to administer your Facebook but you don't have faith in his/her actions, you should do it yourself.

- Your extreme reaction shows that you are very worried about your position in the mainland Chinese market. You are worried that what happened in Hong Kong could lead to a consumer boycott in mainland China. Well, so did you remember to post the apology on their mainland Weibo/Weixin in simplified Chinese characters?

- Previously, your idea of Facebook marketing was something like.


Is it fair?
Even if you maintain a good beard, you are still going to be beaten.

- I switched from Gillette to Schick on account of this previous Facebook post. I am now switching back to Gillette.

- More great marketing from Schick:

Why don't you shave your beard first
[Avery Ng, chairman of the League of Social Democrats]
"We don't want the August 31 resolution
Universal suffrage should be implemented in all of China"

- This is a classical public relations disaster in which a company manages to offend all sides (see Lancme).

- DigDeeper Facebook

Seeking information to locate the ex-administrator over at Schick (HK)
It's you! You have a feel for locating material,  you are humorous, you dare to speak, you are courageous, you are a firefly in the darkness, you are a once-in-a-century genius.
We are presently looking for a social media expert. If you have been dismissed, or if you are being oppressed by the old farts and are disheartened, then congratulations to you because you will have a brand new place to express yourself. We guarantee to you that you will receive higher pay here.
Please disseminate this notice broadly.

(SCMP) February 16, 2017.

The Department of Justice will follow up on abusive comments made about a judge on social media platforms after the judiciary expressed serious concern. While government statements did not specify the relevant court case or judge concerned, the response came two days after seven police officers were convicted of assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu during an Occupy protest in 2014. The seven men will be sentenced on Friday at the District Court. Judge David Duftons verdict received a mixed response on social media, with some police supporters posting insulting criticism and abuse.

Two prominent Facebook posts by film director Clifton Ko Chi-sum drew more than a thousand comments.

Yellow-ribbon judges favoured troublemakers in Hong Kong, he wrote, referring to the symbolic colour of the pro-democracy civil disobedience movement. Localist, pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judge rule leniently, or even acquit them, showing absolute favouritism.

In another post he said: Which Hong Kong law said we cannot criticise judges?

Portraits of Dufton were posted on other Facebook pages, with captions accusing the judge of messing up Hong Kong.

In light of these recent comments, a judiciary spokesman said: The judiciary regards it as a matter of serious concern and has referred the matter to the Department of Justice to follow up.

A department spokesman said it would take suitable action.

The Department of Justice reiterates that judicial independence is the most important ring within the rule of law, he told the Post. Members of the public have the right to express their opinions towards court rulings and relevant matters within the permitted scope under the law ... but they must respect judicial independence at the same time and not maliciously attack judges or perform any behaviour that will harm the rule of law.

The spokesman noted that public opinion ought to avoid being possibly seen as exerting pressure towards the courts or individual judges, especially when commenting on ongoing cases to avoid affecting the healthy development of judicial independence and the rule of law.

A police spokesman said the force had yet to receive any public complaints or a referral from the department. But he said officers would keep an eye on online remarks and take action accordingly if they suspected offences had been committed.

At the ceremonial opening of the legal year last month, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li called for public restraint, noting that judges were not immune to criticism and that comments ought to be informed and measured.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said on the same occasion that he had noticed worrying signs of people overstepping the mark in criticising court rulings, including personal attacks on judges, and that such abuse must be stopped.

Internet comments:

- Clifton Ko Chi Sum's Facebook

Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers. Localist pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judges impose lenient sentences, or even acquit them, showing extreme favoritism.

The lawyer Wong Kwok-tung said that while what Ko Chi-sum said may not constitute contempt of court, it is definitely contempt of the law.
Wong Kwok-tung, you are wrong. I respect the law greatly. I merely don't trust biased judges.

Which Hong Kong law says that "judges shall not be criticized."

A judge is someone who issues a fair verdict
A dog judge is someone who issues an unfair verdict
Make your classification accordingly.

The more you want to silence my voice, the more I will speak out:
The morale of the Hong Kong Police cannot be sullied.

- (Apple Daily) Open Letter to Ko Chi-sum. By Kevin Yam. April 15, 2017.

At around 930am on February 14, the Hong Kong District Court found the seven police officers guilty of assaulting the social activist Ken Tsang to cause bodily damage. At 1:33pm, you posed on your Facebook: "Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers. Localist pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judges impose lenient sentences, or even acquit them, showing extreme favoritism."

After you published your views, someone noted that your words constituted contempt of court. At 515pm, you responded: "The Yellow Zombies want to frame me with those worlds. Risible! Which word above is about the court case that was decided today? Which word is "contempt of court"?" At 937pm, you said too: "I am not stupid. I did not discuss the court case today." When you did a newspaper that night, you emphasized that you have the freedom of expression to say those things.

There is surely freedom of speech in society. The dealings or verdicts in court can be criticized. But in order to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, the Hong Kong and overseas courts have stated in many cases that if a person expresses certain opinions that damage the authority of the courts or judges, or interfere with the independence of the judiciary in the absence of adequate evidence, then this is criminal contempt of court. Your words on Facebook on February 14 clearly constitutes criminal contempt of court.

Firstly, just because your words did not refer to any specific verdict does not mean that you are not in contempt, because the definition of "contempt of court" is not tied to any specific verdict. Without any evidence, you accuse judges of making rulings based upon personal political views ("Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers."). With evidence, you called the judges "dog judges." The Facebook post drew more than 1,000 Facebook LIKE's, and the commentators followed your example to insult the courts and judges. Isn't this speech that damage the authority of the courts?

Secondly, you openly stated that you are not "stupid" because you did not mention the court case of that Day. This showed that you clearly intended to expound on the verdict of the seven police officers. You think that you are smart, and that you can find a legal loophole by just making a generalized statement of the judiciary. Isn't this speech that damage the authority of the judiciary?

Thirdly, if you did not intend to so, your negligence still constitutes contempt of court. You are a well-known member of the entertainment industry. Your production company says that you have more than 10 job titles. You have received an honorary medal from the Hong Kong government. Your Facebook page is LIKE'd by more than 27,000 users. Can you say that your speech has no influence? But you still end up slurring the judges. What is this but negligent contempt of court? ...

I call on you to publicly retract your words and apologize. Otherwise, I wish you good luck. If an influential person like you can ignore the advice of the Justice Secretary and publicly hold the court in contempt without being prosecuted, then I wish Hong Kong good luck.

I wish you a booming business and make a lot of money.

- Kevin Yam is with the Progressive Lawyers Group (see Freedom of Speech and Scandalising the Court - Submissions of the Progressive Lawyers Group).

- If Ko Chi-sum is going to be prosecuted for saying "dog judge" over a court verdict, then the number of other people in line for the same treatment would be very very long.

Here is the first example that comes to mind (with video):

(Ming Pao) (YouTube) October 26, 2016.

Yesterday Raymond Wong Yuk-man was sentenced to two weeks in jail for common assault (over throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung during a Legislative Council Q&A session).

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said that he had considered the case of League of Social Democrats member Chan Tak-cheung throwing an egg that hit Financial Secretary John Tsang. Chan was found guilty of common assault and sentenced to three weeks in jail.

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said that while Raymond Wong claimed to be resisting in the Legislative Council, his was an act of violence. As a public figure who was a Legislative Councilor at the time, his action was violent and uncivilized. The court therefore must impose a deterrent penalty, and not just impose a fine. Since Raymond Wong did not submit anything in mitigation, it meant that he was not repentant and that would take away probation or community service as options.

The magistrate started off the sentence with three weeks in jail. Since Raymond Wong did not bring the cup to throw and he fortunately did not injure anyone, the sentence was reduced to two weeks.

After announcing the sentence, Magistrate Chu Chung-keung left the courtroom. The supporters of Raymond Wong began shouting and cursing inside the courtroom.

Raymond Wong emphasized that resistance inside the Legislative Council should not be subject to criminal prosecution. He criticized Magistrate Chu Chung-keung as "a thoroughly dog magistrate" (「徹頭徹尾嘅狗官」).

Now where the hell was Kevin Yam when Raymond Wong said that? Even if he missed that event, what does he say now that it has been brought out and placed alongside Ko Chi-sum's statement?

- And if Kevin Yam is willing to drag Raymond Wong into this, I am willing to do search through the Lexis database to find all other usage of "dog judges/magistrates" in order to make sure that justice is fully carried out against all of them.

- I can predict what Kevin Yam will do.

Media question: Raymond Wong said that the magistrate who sentenced him to 2 weeks in jail was a "thoroughly dog magistrate"? What is your reaction given what you said about Ko Chi-sum?

Yam response: I have not seen that statement before.

Media question: Here is the link in Ming Pao completed with a video.

Yam response: I will need time to review the facts first.

Media question [24 hours later]: Have you reviewed the facts of the Raymond Wong case?

Yam response: I have been really busy since, and I haven't had the time to do so.

... Yam will continue to be really busy for the rest of his life and he will never have to give a response.

- (Sing Tao) May 31, 2016.

More than 50 supporters of Ken Tsang booed and called magistrate Lo Tak-chuen a "dog judge" after the verdict on Ken  Tsang was announced. At the time, magistrate Lo was still inside the courtroom. There were shouts of "Are you kidding?" "Dog judge" "Justice is unfair" "Not in accordance with the law of the Heavens" "Damned dog judge" "May your whole family die" plus some obscene curses.

The Department of Justice said: "Based upon our initial understanding, certain members of the public expressed their opinions in court. At the time, the hearing was over and the presiding magistrate had already. The Department of Justice will attempt to learn more about this incident and then seek the opinion of the Secretary for Justice in order to decide whether more action will be taken."

Nothing was done.

- (The Stand News) February 19, 2017.


Cai Xiaoxin:
I am willing to pay 10,000 RMB to those persons who beat up the bastard British "judge" David Dufton
. I mean what I say."

Previously Cai Xiaoxin wrote: "Hong Kong has been returned to China for many years already, but the courts are still controlled by the British under the rules of the games established by Great Britain. When they show up in court, they have to wear wigs. What is this but extra-territorial rule of law?"

He added: "It is particularly irksome to see that the judge is British. The ass determines the brain, the position determines the ruling. In the British/American legal systems, precedents decided later rulings. In future riots, the police will be fearful. The Pandora's box of evil has been opened."

- Well, it is time for the Hong Kong Department of Justice to take immediate concrete actions against this clear threat against Judge David Dufton. Cai Xiaoxin must be immediately arrested and jailed for criminal contempt of court and/or perversion of the course of justice.

The minor obstacle is that Mr. Cai is a mainland Chinese resident. What can the Hong Kong Department of Justice do?

As everybody knows, cross-border law enforcement by sending the Flying Tigers Special Police Unit to snatch a mainland citizen (who happens to be the son of the former Shaanxi Military District Political Commissar) and sneak him back by boat to Hong Kong won't be popular.

Hong Kong and mainland China do not have a formal extradition treaty, but they have allowed informal extraditions. So far, mainland China have sent 174 mainland citizens to Hong Kong for crimes committed in Hong Kong. So far, Hong Kong has sent 0 Hong Kong citizens to mainland China for crimes committed in mainland China.

There is no point for mainland China to send Cai Xiaoxin to Hong Kong to serve a few years in jail for letting off steam against a British judge. But if they did, there will be a public uproar in mainland China and the consequences will be the stoppage of all future extraditions until a formal treat has been signed.

- Here is another case:

(Oriental Daily) July 30, 2015.

Passion Times
Talk is useless, action is most practical!
Accused of assaulting a police officer during "Recover Yuan Long"
A man was sentenced today to four months in jail
Hong Kong traitor Judge Michael Chan Pik-kiu (photo in aim sight)
Watch your step!

- (The Law Commission) Consultation Paper No 207. Contempt of Court: Scandalising the Court.

1. The offence of scandalising the court, also known as scandalising judges or
scandalising the judiciary, is a form of contempt of court. It may be defined as
publishing material or doing other acts likely to undermine the administration of
justice or public confidence therein, and usually takes the form of scurrilous
abuse of the judiciary or imputing to them corruption or improper motives. It is
distinct from other forms of contempt, such as:

(1) publications likely to impede or prejudice particular proceedings;
(2) misbehaviour in court;
(3) breach of jury confidentiality.

2. The rationale for an offence of scandalising the court derives from the need to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice. In many ways, this need is particularly acute in a democracy, where the power and legitimacy of the judicial branch of government derives from the willingness of the people to be subject to the rule of law. In consequence, the public must have faith in the judicial system.

3. Yet, in a democracy, the public also has the right to speak freely about the exercise of power, which must include the freedom to criticise the judicial system and the judiciary.2 To this end, such criticism is regarded as political speech under the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore subject to the highest degree of protection,3 although such protection is not absolute. Furthermore, in a democracy where the judicial system enjoys high levels of public confidence, there might be greater room for criticism (whether unfounded or otherwise) because displacing that confidence by such criticism is less likely. Balancing this right to freedom of expression with the importance of upholding public confidence in the administration of justice is at the heart of the debate about the offence of scandalising the court.

...

40. As stated by Lord Denning MR:

Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.

It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not.

...

71. Venkat Iyer, like Robertson and Nicol, argues that the offence has been over-used in Asian and Pacific Rim jurisdictions, and that this over-use amounts to political repression. However, he observes that there are a few recorded cases in which its use was thoroughly justified, making abolition undesirable. He cites the following examples.

(1) In Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary of Justice a newspaper was held guilty of contempt for describing some judges as dogs and bitches, scumbags, public enemy of freedom of the press and a public calamity to the six million citizens of Hong Kong, British white ghosts and pigs, and threatening to wipe [them] all out.

(2) In a then unreported case in South Australia, a radio presenter discussing a story about a magistrate invited his listeners to smash the judges face in.

The common feature of these two cases are that the abuse, while strong, was too generalised to support an action for defamation. Taken literally, the language used would amount to the offence of encouraging any of a range of offences of violence. If contained in a communication to the judges themselves, it could be prosecuted as a public order offence. The question is whether there ought to be sanctions for such conduct even if the language is intended and understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration and vulgar abuse: if so, the abolition of scandalising the court might indeed leave a gap in the law.

...

84. We provisionally propose that the offence of scandalising the court should be abolished without replacement. Consultees are asked whether they agree.

- (Legislation.gov.uk) Crime and Courts Act 2013.

33. Abolition of scandalising the judiciary as form of contempt of court

(1) Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.

How are you going to apply Common Law when the offense has been abolished from the books?

- Here are the "universal standards": (Dictionary.law.com) Contempt of Court

n. There are essentially two types of contempt:

a) being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge;

b) willful failure to obey an order of the court. This latter can include failure to pay child support or alimony.

The court's power to punish for contempt (called "citing" one for contempt) includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions"). Incarceration is generally just a threat and if imposed, usually brief.

Since the judge has discretion to control the courtroom, contempt citations are generally not appealable unless the amount of fine or jail time is excessive.

"Criminal contempt" involves contempt with the aim of obstruction of justice, such as threatening a judge or witness or disobeying an order to produce evidence.

Criticisms of judges and their verdict are not covered here.

- Cartoon: You are both for and against it.

Panel 1: (Before) I want to throw bricks and kill you Evil Cops!
Panel 2: (Before) Arse-licking judges dared to find justice warriors guilty!
Panel 3: (Now) I oppose violence! The police must obey the law and show forbearance!
Panel 4: (Now) Ko Chi-sum calls them "dog judges." This is simply contempt of the verdict!

- What is an example of "contempt of court" in Hong Kong? There was an explicit court order which was read out to the defendants to leave a site. The defendants were informed that they will face contempt of court charges. Still they refused to make way. They were arrested and charged with contempt of court.

(SCMP) November 10, 2015.

Police can now arrest Occupy Central protesters who defy bailiffs trying to clear their sit-in sites in Mong Kok and Admiralty, the High Court has ruled.

The court's authorisation for the bailiffs to get help from the police if necessary is a new addition to three interim restraining orders - on behalf of drivers' groups and the owner of a commercial building - in force for the past three weeks.

With the court's permission, the force could start removing barricades and defiant protesters from their occupied zone in Mong Kok as early as tomorrow, according to a police source.

The Department of Justice said yesterday that while the police would provide assistance in respect of the enforcement of the injunction orders, the Secretary for Justice might also "consider taking appropriate action against persons who may have committed the offence of criminal contempt".

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung extended the orders and said officers could remove or arrest people who ignored or insisted on breaching them.

They must, however, offer a brief explanation of the order at the point of arrest, Au wrote.

The judge explained that he allowed the police to step in because the rule of law and due administration of justice were at risk of being "seriously challenged and undermined", as some protesters had been openly disobeying and flouting the court orders.

"Under the rule of law, even if the defendants are of the view that a court order is wrongly granted, instead of simply disobeying it, they should first comply with it but seek to challenge and argue against that order in court," Au wrote.

Au's judgment means the applicants for injunctions against the Occupy movement do not need to return to the courts for further extensions of their orders.

The injunctions were first granted on October 20, to Chiu Luen Public Light Bus, the Taxi Association and the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association, for parts of Nathan Road to be cleared. The court also allowed Goldon Investment, owner of Citic Tower in Admiralty, to remove barricades blocking the building's entrances and exits.

The police source warned that protesters who still refused to move faced arrest for contempt of court. He said the Mong Kok protest zone was likely to be the first to be cleared, either Wednesday or Thursday. The source said enough manpower would be arranged to deal with any eventuality.

Outside court, solicitor Maggie Chan Man-ki, for the minibus drivers, said: "My clients only want to have the road back to do business."

(SCMP) January 6, 2015.

Twenty people would face charges of criminal contempt of court over a court-mandated clearance of the Mong Kok Occupy site in November, the Department of Justice told the High Court yesterday. They were arrested for obstructing bailiffs executing a court order granted to a transport firm to remove barricades obstructing Argyle Street. The arrests were made on November 25 as Chiu Luen Public Light Bus carried out a court injunction to reopen Argyle Street.

- The Justice Department is going to study the situation. If they decide to prosecute Ko Chi-sum (and Raymond Wong and a long list of others), they will bring the case before ... a judge in a court! Can we say "Conflict of Interest"?

- Epimenides paradox:

"Epimenides the Cretan says, 'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan; therefore he is himself a liar. But if he be a liar, what he says is untrue, and consequently the Cretans are veracious; but Epimenides is a Cretan, and therefore what he says is true; saying the Cretans are liars, Epimenides is himself a liar, and what he says is untrue. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."

Will we find a Hong Kong judge who says: "All Hong Kong judges are unfair"? Since that judge is a Hong Kong judge, he is unfair. Therefore his statement is unfair and therefore all Hong Kong judges are fair.

Alternately, will we find a Hong Kong judge who says: "All Hong Kong judges are fair"? Since that judge is a Hong Kong judge, he is fair and therefore all Hong Kong judges are fair. But what makes you think that you can trust him to tell the truth?

- Some judges are unfair some of the time, but not all of them are unfair all of the time. Therefore we must not criticize any judge any time?

- The theory of Occupy Central is that if 10,000 people showed up to occupy Central, the police cannot arrest all of them and process them in a timely basis. The entire judicial system would be paralyzed. In like manner, the antidote here is for everybody to post "Dog judge" on social media.

Here is Anna Chan:

Hong Kong troublemaker yellow dog (westerner) judge! ... David Dufton
Western dog, helping the Chinese traitors to oppose China and cause chaos in Hong Kong.

- White Terror is truly alive and well in Hong Kong.


The Police Public Relations Branch has just called me to say that there must not be any banners or photos that are critical of judges at all future assemblies, or else they will make arrests immediately.

- Hong Kong Basic Law

Article 88
Judges of the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be appointed by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of an independent commission composed of local judges, persons from the legal profession and eminent persons from other sectors. 

Article 92 
Judges and other members of the judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities and may be recruited from other common law jurisdictions. 

- What is this "independent commission"? It is a black box operation with no oversight. What is an "eminent person" anyway? Joshua Wong, Anson Chan, Martin Lee and friends are famous across the world. Judges being elected by other judges? It is just naked nepotism?

- Why don't we try to adopt the American system to nominate/appoint judges? Since America is the greatest democratic country in world history, their system is the universal standard. Moved to Hong Kong, it means (1) when there is an open judicial position, the Chief Executive nominates someone to the position; (2) the nominee is voted upon by the Legislative Council and confirmation requires a simple majority of the legislators present and voting.

- Thoughts on contempt of court:

Can a citizen criticize the court or the judge after a case is finished? Based upon the citizen's personal positions and knowledge, can he express his dissatisfaction?

What kind of world is this when, based upon personal positions and knowledge, a citizen can express his satisfaction but never his dissatisfaction over a court verdict?

Why is it that when you say "dog judge", you may be charged with contempt of court?

Why is it that when you say "dog official" for the department/bureau chiefs including the Justice Secretary or even the Chief Executive, you don't have to worry about any consequences?

Why is it that you can call Donald Trump and Xi Jinping pigs, but you cannot call a Hong Kong district court temporary magistrate a "dog judge"?

Why have people called the Legislative Councilors with names related to dogs, pigs, snakes, chickens without any consequences?

Is the reason why judges cannot be criticized because they wear long black robes and funny white wigs?

If a judge isn't wearing his long black robe and funny white wig, can a citizen criticize him?

If a citizen cursed out a westerner (who happens to be a judge who was in plain clothes at the time), is he still guilty of guilty of contempt of court?

Oh, it is so confusing!

- Why we can't trust the courts? Here are the photos of the non-permanent judges on the Court of Final Appeal:

This is the Court of Final Appeal for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Why are the judges whities?

- There is a Chinese saying: 非我族類 其心必異 = Those who are not my race must be of different hearts and minds.

- (Gegugu.com) In most countries of the world, the judges are their own citizens. According to Basic Law Article 90,

The Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be Chinese citizens who are permanent residents of the Region with no right of abode in any foreign country.

There is no nationality requirement on any other judges of the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region. They don't have to be Chinese citizens, and they don't even have to be permanent residents of the Region. As long as your some professional experience and qualification in Common Law nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia and you are recommended by an independent panel of current judges, you can become a judge or prosecutor here.

On February 4, 2016, HKSAR Chief Executive CY Leung appointed 17 persons to be the permanent and non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal. Of these only two are Chinese citizens who are permanent residents of Hong Kong. All others are of foreign or dual nationality.

In 2007, a mainland businessman was involved in a court case. He wrote an essay to reflect the situation: "There were nine judges who heard the case. Eight of these were non-Chinese. Of those eight, two were Australians and four were British. The main posts at the Security and Futures Commission and the Department of Justice were also occupied by Australians and British. Ten years after the handover, I finally recognized just what is meant by Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong."

At this time, we need to ask whether it is "One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" or "One Country Two Systems, foreigners ruling Hong Kong"?

The continued colonization of the legal sector in Hong Kong was designed by the British colonial administration to maintain their grip. The British colonial administration refused to establish a School of Law in Hong Kong for so long, so that legal practitioners must come from elsewhere in the British Empire. In 1969, they finally allowed Hong Kong University to establish a Department of Law in the Faculty of Social Sciences.

- Instant poll: How do judges handle the Illegal Occupy Central versus Anti-Occupy?


33: Fairly and justly
13: Biased towards both
178: Secretly pro-Yellow, openly anti-Blue
2395: Citizens have no means of supervising judges, the judicial system has lost its effectiveness

- (SilentMajority.hk) February 15, 2017.

When the Yellow Ribbon launched their attacks against Ko Chi-sum, Internet users rose to their defense. "When citizens do wrong, the judges make the determination; when judges do wrong, who is going to make the determination? Judges are humans too. Judges are humans too. If everybody pays more attention to the actions and lives of these judges,  you will undoubtedly find many headline stories. So who is going to monitor and deal with them?"

According to Ming Pao, Ko Chi-sum said that his sense is that judges are sometimes biased in their judgments, with many cases not being ruled on the same basis. "I am not sure if some judges are Yellow Ribbons or not, but I feel that they might be." He also said: "Actually, is there any system to monitor and oversee these judges? Every other profession has such a system. I don't know how many judges are Yellow Ribbons. But citizens have their speculations and inclinations, and this should be discussed."

Ko Chi-sum said that the case is not yet done and so he won't make specific comments. He was merely expressing his feelings on the Internet. Is he worried that he will be charged with contempt of court? He said: "I have reviewed what I wrote. My words do not constitute contempt of law. Every citizen has the freedom of expression. It is a core value of our society to be able to express our feelings."

Chapman To Facebook


Chapman To: Uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh.
The case of seven police officers assaulting Civic Party member Ken Tsang in a dark corner near a transformer station in Tamar Park during the Occupy period ended with the judge announcing that the defendants were not guilty of intentionally causing serious bodily harm to other persons, but they were guilty of the alternate charge of assaulting to cause bodily harm. In addition, the fifth defendant was found guilty of common assault. The defendants were remanded to custody.
Chapman To: Remanded into custody? Ouch! So they won't get a Valentine's Day dinner. Let me think about what I should eat tonight.

9UP News Facebook (note: spoof)

Chapman To: Remanded into custody? Ouch! So they won't get a Valentine's Day dinner. Let me think about what I should eat tonight.
Kristal Tin: Hubbie ... I beg you not to open your cheap mouth! Do you want me to lose my job as well ... if that happens, who is going to provide for the family?

- The Yellow Ribbon Entertainers: During Occupy Central, To was in the forefront. Last March, he also offered Facebook support to the movement to oppose the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement in Taiwan. In May this year, there were two films <Let go for love> and <Aberdeen> with Chapman To shown on mainland China. Chinese fans organized mass boycotts so that the box office receipts were dreadful. The production company of <Let go for love> acknowledged five days after the premiere that "Chapman To was immoral and we made the wrong choice." In the last film that he took part in on the mainland, <That's incredible>, his entire presence was edited out. Two to three years previously, Chapman To was already a controversial figure in mainland China. He cursed out mainlanders for their poor qualities and he arrogantly declared that he did not care for the mainland market. This caused his films to be shelved indefinitely. Even those films in which he had a cameo appearance were affected. Meanwhile his wife Kristal Tin still gets assignment at TVB. So she is the principal breadwinner for the family.

- (TVB) Excerpt from the drama series Destination Nowhere featuring Kristal Tin.

Daughter: Why is it that if I spend a little bit more money, you want to save it. What about him? He keeps squandering the money but you won't stop him. He has been spending your money all long. What are you so trashy? Is it the case that you cannot live without men?

(PopVote)

Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017

Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (POP) and Centre for Social Policy Studies at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (CSPS) are commissioned by the Citizens United in Action (CUIA) to organize the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 (2017 CE Election Civil Referendum), which consists of the following two stages:

  1. Civil Nomination Stage:

    From 16 to 31 January 2017, any person can indicate his intention to be a civil candidate of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum by sending a Letter of Intent to POP by post. All persons who have completed the relevant registration procedures of being a civil candidate and all persons who have declared their intention to stand for the official 2017 CE election by 5pm of 4 February 2017, will be included in the civil nomination system of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum.

    From 7 to 22 February 2017, all citizens of Hong Kong aged 18 or above can nominate one person to be a Civil Candidate via mobile web app or PopVote website.

    Any person who receives 37,790 nominations or more will become an official Civil Candidate of the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum. (Note: The total number of registered voters in Hong Kong is 3, 779, 085, and the requirement of 37,790 is 1% of the total number).
     

  2. Civil Referendum:

    All civil candidate(s) and official CE candidate(s) will be included in the 2017 CE Election Civil Referendum. The voting motions are as follow: 

    i. Do you agree support or oppose Candidate A to be the next Chief Executive? 
    (support / oppose / abstain)

    ii. Do you agree support or oppose Candidate B to be the next Chief Executive? 
    (support / oppose / abstain)

    (so on and so forth)

    The support votes of a candidate are positive votes and the oppose votes are negative votes. The votes of each candidate are the net votes he/she received by subtracting the negative votes from the positive votes. The winning candidate is the one who has the largest number of net votes and the number of support votes must be more than the negative votes and abstain votes added together. There is a possibility that there may be no winning candidate.

Method of Civil Nomination: PopVote website or mobile web app
Civil Nomination date & time:
7 February 2017 (Tuesday) 10am to 22 February 2017 (Wednesday) 5pm

Methods of Civil Referendum: 1. PopVote website or mobile app, or 2. Physical polling stations
Civil Referendum date & time:
10 March 2017 (Friday) 12nn to 19 March 2017 (Sunday) 8:30pm
  Voter requirement: Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above
  Verification information: Full HKID number of the voter and a mobile phone number which can receive SMS.


Results as of 04:00 February 14, 2017:

John Tsang, 8146
Leung Kwok-hung, 5349
Woo Kwok Hing, 2133
Carrie Lam, 133
Regina Ip, 86
Leung Shi-ho, 68
Woo Sai-chuen, 40
Kam Man, 26
Wong Yiu-suen, 8
Lau Chi-wing, 4
Wong Pak-ling, 1
Kan Wai-fun, 1

(Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data) February 13, 2017.

The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) noted the recent media reports and discussions on the issues of personal data privacy and data security arising from the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 (the activities) organised by Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong and Centre for Social Policy Studies at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, as commissioned by the Citizens United in Action, and was asked for clarification and views. Based on the public information of the activities, views of data security experts as quoted in media reports, and other facts gathered by PCPD so far, PCPD has the following preliminary observations to make.

The activities involve the collection of personal data of individuals, and there is a lack of transparency in setting out the details and objectives. It does not, in particular, state the differences in mechanism and procedures between the activities and what have been stipulated in existing laws, thereby misleading members of the public and prejudicing the public interest. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, Mr Stephen Kai-yi WONG, pointed out that, Any person or organisation, who collects personal data based on the nature of a lawful practice or established mechanism, in particular one of significant interest to and impact on members of the public, but through means which are not in line with the law or mechanism without explaining the lawful basis for them, as a result of which participants may be misled, or that the data collected may lead to misuse or abuse, may contravene the Principle of Fair Collection under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Ordinance).

Meanwhile, it is pointed out by some information technology organisations and experts that the de-identification technology adopted by PopVote on the personal data it collects can be easily interpreted and re-identified. The use of the related Telegram, the instant messaging programme, to verify a participants identity for voting is also questioned by some computer security experts. The existing privacy risks may not only result in irrecoverable fatal consequences, but also contravene the Data Security Principle under the Ordinance.

The PCPD strongly requests the relevant organisations to stop collecting personal data unfairly and the use of the related Telegram in the activities. Individuals should fully understand the privacy risks involved and consequences before participating. The PCPD has initiated compliance check for the case.

Note 1: Data Protection Principle 1 (Data Collection Principle) - Personal data must be collected in a lawful and fair way, for a purpose directly related to a function /activity of the data user. Data collected should be necessary but not excessive. Data subjects must be notified of the purpose and the classes of persons to whom the data may be transferred.

Note 2: Data Protection Principle 4 (Data Security Principle) - A data user needs to take practical steps to safeguard personal data from unauthorised or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use.

(The Standard) February 14, 2017.

In a rare venture into politics, the privacy commissioner spoke out against the "civil referendum" spearheaded by Benny Tai Yiu-ting, asking the public to pay attention to privacy risks before taking part.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement yesterday, in which it "strongly demanded" the organizers of the so-called "Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017" stop collecting personal data.

The Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong and Centre for Social Policy Studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic University have been commissioned by the group Citizens United in Action to organize the referendum.

The public can vote in two stages: the civil nomination stage and civil referendum stage. In the first stage, people can choose their pick of CE candidates via mobile web app or PopVote website. In the second stage, the public will vote on their favorite and their least preferred candidate.

Pro-democracy Election Committee members were recommended to take the public votes into consideration before they make nominations and vote.

The privacy watchdog said personal data collected on the website can be easily interpreted and re-identified. The use of instant messaging app Telegram to verify a participant's identity for voting has also been questioned by some computer security experts. "The existing privacy risks may not only result in irrecoverable fatal consequences, but also contravene the Data Security Principle under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance," Commissioner Stephen Wong Kai-yi said.

Citizens should learn about privacy risks and consequences before taking part in the civil nomination, his office said.

Internet comments:

- According to the PopVote Civil Nomination results as of 04:00 February 14, 2017,

50.9% John Tsang
33.4% Leung Kwok-hung
13.3% Woo Kwok-hing
0.8% Carrie Lam
0.1% Regina Ip

According to the Hong Kong Research Association (#672),
If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?

36%: John Tsang
35%: Carrie Lam
13%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: Regina Ip

According to the Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, Chinese University of Hong Kong (#669),
Who do you want as Hong Kong's next Chief Executive?

42.5%: John Tsang
28.2%: Carrie Lam
8.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
5.6%: Regina Ip

So it should be clear that the PopVote Civil Nomination results are not representative of the general population. At the Civil Nomination phase, you can still argue that nomination is not the same as voting to elect. But if the Civil Referendum shows the same kind of skew against Carrie Lam/Regina Ip, then PopVote is just another small-circle game.

-  Don't worry. They'll manage to stuff the ballot boxes when the time comes. The only traces left are the Hong Kong ID number (and there is free software (see example) that can generate random (but valid) Hong Kong ID numbers) and a mobile phone number (and there is telemarketing software that can generate random (but valid) mobile phone numbers).

- An audit means re-contacting the mobile phone user to verify the Hong Kong ID and how the person voted (if at all). But such an audit will be resisted because the privacy of personal data is of paramount importance. Of course.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017. Pro-democracy lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung announced on Wednesday that he will enter the chief executive race if he receives 37,790 unofficial nominations from members of the public, representing one per cent of the registered electorate.

With one-third of the Civil Nomination period already elapsed, Leung Kwok-hung only has 5,349 nominations. It is time to mobilize the masses to stuff the ballot boxes!

- (Oriental Daily) February 14, 2017. Yesterday Citizens United in Action said that they will explain everything to the authorities in order to dispel doubts. Today Citizens United in Action issued a statement that they will halt the nomination process temporarily. They apologize to the citizens. They will meet with the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data to explain the uses of their data collection and understand the requirements before re-starting the process.

- This means that a certain number of days will be lost from the Civil Nomination period. Of course, they can always shift the goal post from 37,790 nominations to 3,779 nominations to issue a free pass to Leung Kwok-hung. (And tough luck for Woo Kwok Hing!).

- Cartoon of personal data thief

- (HKG Pao) February 13, 2017. Yesterday legislator Leung Kwok-hung gathered nomination signatures outside the Sha Tin MTR station. The citizens were filling out their Hong Kong ID numbers and mobile telephone numbers. Leung did not explain why these unofficial civil nominations require them to provide HK ID and mobile telephone data. Where is the information going to? Future crowdfunding campaigns? Commercial telemarketers? Telephone scammers?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017. The referendum campaign is asking for HK$1.5 million worth of public donations, but it has only raised around HK$30,000 so far. In comparison, nearly 20,000 people donated over HK$4 million to Tsangs fundraiser in just three days. We will still go ahead with the poll even if we fail to raise HK$1.5 million, Ip Kim-ching, spokesperson for the campaign and an Election Committee member said. Members of the civil society groups involved will probably have to pay for the expenses out of their own pockets.

- As the history of HKU POP goes, a benevolent angel will appear on the last day to donate $1.5 million. Of course, they cannot tell you who this angel is. Privacy of personal data. You know what I mean [Wink wink nudge nudge].

- (SpeakoutHK) February 14, 2017.

A friend of mine who had taken part in the Civil Referendum said that the spokesperson for PopVote has reassured us that information technologists said that the system is secure without possibility of loss of personal data to hackers. But this is changing the subject. The security of the voting system is a completely different issue from the collection of the personal data of citizens. The voting system may or may not be safe, but it does not tell us why these people are collecting the personal data.

I would like to ask Benny Tai: Why are you people collecting the personal data? Apart from establishing the identity of the person, why other use is there? Once the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 project is over, what happens to the data? Will you hit the DELETE key and erase all data? If not, then why will you do with it? And have you obtained the consent of the participants for those purposes?

These are the most basic issues in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, which Professor Benny Tai must have surely considered, right? Don't count on it! In Benny Tai's history, he transmogrified the illegal Occupy Central into "Justice through Law" (without having to bear any legal consequences yet); in ThunderGo, he is suspected of violating the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance; and now in the Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 he is suspected of violating the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.

 Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017 is intended to affect the Election Committee to vote according to the wishes of the people as revealed by PopVote. But if Benny Tai and friends had let the constitutional bill pass in 2015, the people could be directly realizing their wishes via one-person-one-vote to elect their Chief Executive. It is all the more tragic when Carrie Lam wins in the Election Committee with 800 votes but gets fewer than 1% in the  Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017.

- (Bastille Post) February 15, 2017.

According to legal analysis, the Civil Referendum is being used to influence the nomination process if they demand the Electors to vote accordingly. As such, the organizers should be informing the participants about such goals while collecting personal data. At this time, some of the participants even think that they are voting for their own Chief Executive and gave up their personal data without realizing what is happening.

To satisfy the requirements of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Citizens United in Action may insert certain text that details the usage of personal data. However, we can expect that there will be litigation by other parties about this "unfair contract."

(SCMP) February 13, 2017.

Canto-pop singer Anthony Wong Yiu-ming claims an MTR poster advertising his reunion concert next month was censored and removed from stations across Hong Kong, part of the political backlash that has shadowed his career since the Occupy Central movement.

The poster for Wongs late-March reunion concert featured him and Tats Lau Yee-tat members of the now-disbanded 1980s musical duo Tat Ming Pair along with digitally added images of about 80 prominent people in Hong Kong.

Wong said these were individuals the pair felt were influential in the city over the past 30 years, creating a collage effect inspired by The Beatles classic Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover.

People featured on the poster included Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the face of the pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution during Occupy Central; outspoken talk show host Albert Cheng King-hon; entrepreneur and media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-yee; populist former lawmaker Mad Dog Wong Yuk-man; and Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the sixth Catholic Church bishop of Hong Kong who was outspoken on human rights.

But while the added figures were approved by a newspaper, Wong said some were fearful of even appearing in the same poster with the duo, particularly since Wong was a strident supporter of the pro-democracy Occupy Central demonstrations in late 2014.

He said the ads were pulled because someone in the poster with business links to mainland China was afraid of appearing with him, but he did not want to identify the person and described it as ridiculous. More prominent people had not complained, Wong added.

Its just one photo, one poster, but it reflects the current times we are in, Wong said in a Facebook post. This society really has people who fear everything, and their fear has led them to this point, where they are scared to death to even be in the same poster as us.

He blamed the invisible hand of censorship and interference in the industry and said the MTR Corp was not involved in the decision.

The movement for democracy in Hong Kong is being watched warily by the Beijing government, which is openly critical of greater independence for the former British colony as it operates semi-autonomously under the one country, two systems framework.

But businesses worried about political reprisals on mainland China have moved to distance themselves from controversial figures endorsing democracy in the city.

During Occupy Central, two of Wongs November concerts on the mainland were indefinitely postponed by organisers.

He told the Post in May 2015 that for six months after Occupy he did not have a single job offer from either the mainland or Hong Kong.

It was a weird and worrying situation, he said. What worries me is that it even happened in Hong Kong because Hong Kong is supposed to be a free city.

Now, the disappearance of Wongs concert poster shows the invisible hand at work, he said, after experiencing difficulties during the entire process of creating and producing the poster.

He likened its removal to something out of George Orwells classic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , depicting an authoritarian society whose citizens have little to no agency.

Just like this poster, there are many people and things in this city that quickly disappear, he wrote.

Fans took up the Orwell comparison on Facebook. He continuously wrote: Down with Big Brother! Down with Big Brother! one user commented.

Many people support you ... See you at the end of March, another wrote.

Ho also posted messages on her Facebook page, saying the incident showed the self-censorship of the entertainment industry has reached a level beyond that described in 1984.

Wong called on his fans to help fill every seat for his concert.

Let us continue to dance and make music, challenging these most evil of times, he said.

Internet comments:

- (The Stand News) February 13, 2017.

On Commercial Radio, Anthony Wong Yiu-ming said that everybody must surely want to know who the individual is. But Wong does not want to tell: "Because the individual is very scared. The recording company which is the organizer did not want to make him so scared. The individual said that he has lots of jobs in mainland China, so he was afraid that one photo or poster could affect him."

Wong Yiu-ming said that "His fear is worrisome." The poster had 80 persons from all walks of life. "Why should he be so scared?" "I also think that there are other people who should be more scared, such as Chief Executive candidates who stand with us." Other individuals who are "closer to the Central Government and at higher levels" did not object.

- (HKG Pao) February 13, 2017.

Anthony Wong explained: "This is a collage where the photos of the people were authorized by a certain newspapers and put together by us. Apart from the two of us, none of them were photographed with us."

In other words, Anthony Wong did not seek the approval of the 80 people to have their photos placed along side himself (who is openly gay and supports Occupy Central), Joshua Wong (who supports Occupy Central and Hong Kong self-determination/independence), etc. Does that mean that all 80 persons in the collage support the same? Isn't it selfish and presumptuous to do this unto others?

- This whole thing is just rubbish. This is a planned PR tactic to generate interest in the Tat Ming Project 31 concert. None of the people complained, but Anthony Wong says some person whom he could not name complained. Yeah, sure! The giveaway lies in: "Wong called on his fans to help fill every seat for his concert."

- The project for the Golden Forum boys now is to determine the culprit by process of elimination. If this person is so concerned for his mainland business, then he should be run out of Hong Kong.

- Hey, buddy, we now know who it was.

(Ming Pao) February 16, 2017.

According to information, it was Jay Chou's company JVR Music which lodged the complaint with the organizers. In response to media inquiry, JVR said: "The poster was used for commercial promotion. Our company was not informed and did not approve the use of the altered image of Jay Chou. Because we protect and respect the rights of artists, we contacted the organizers."

What are you going to do to Jay Chou? I am waiting ... ZZZZZZZ ...

- It is incidentally true that Jay Chou does great business in China but it is immaterial. JVR Music is simply saying that they want to respect and protect the rights of their artists. Is that so wrong? Is anything more needed?

- And to hear that Anthony Wong said:  "Because the individual is very scared. The recording company which is the organizer did not want to make him so scared. The individual said that he has lots of jobs in mainland China, so he was afraid that one photo or poster could affect him." This is disgusting.

- Someone in the Tat Ming Pair camp leaked the information. JVR Music was willing to stay quiet but they had to respond when the media came calling. So now the world knows.

- Jay Chou/JVR Music could have proceeded directly to sue the Tat Ming Pair in court. It would be an open-and-shut case. They were nice enough to send a note without publicity. They were trying to save face for the Tat Ming Pair, who were utterly ungrateful.

- I wonder if the Tat Ming Pair would be as sanguine as Jay Chou/JVR Music if someone had used their photos to promote something or the other.

- The truth is always boring. There goes the political persecution story.

- What is Anthony Wong's understanding of copyright? A newspaper took a photo of an individual. Anthony Wong obtained permission from the newspaper to use that photo. Does that mean that the photo of the individual can be used in a promotional poster? If yes, this changes the entire cost structure of the notion of celebrity endorsement/sponsorship. It means that if I take a photo of Anthony Wong, I can use it to promote anything that I want without asking for his permission.

- Why are you trying to argue a legal point with someone who illegally occupied Central for 79 days?

- What if G.E.M. Tang asks Wen Wei Po to supply and authorize the use of their photos of Denise Ho, Anthony Wong and Chapman To for a promotional poster of her Patriotic Tour? According to Anthony Wong, there is nothing those people can do.

- The guy standing next to Brother Tat in the poster is John Tsang. An Elector friend of mine saw the photo and decided that he will vote for John Tsang in order to support the Tai Ming among John Tsang's campaign expenses in accordance with the Election Ordinance.

- Fear in Hong Kong? There's plenty of fear in Hong Kong, such as:

Fear of suppression of freedom of speech
Fear of suppression of freedom of assembly
Fear of the Hong Kong Police (because they are all black evil cops)
Fear of LGBT being discriminated against
Fear of TSA tests
Fear of being brainwashed
Fear of cross-border law enforcement (such as Lam Wing-kee being arrested in China for crimes committed in China)
Fear of Ricky Wong being persecuted by CY Leung
Fear of CY Leung running for re-election
Fear of Hong Kong being overrun by fake asylum seekers from South Asia
Fear of children being kidnapped by mainlanders
Fear of radiation-contaminated food from Japan
Fear of Dongjiang water contaminated by garbage dump
Fear of plastic rice
Fear of fear itself
...

- If the Beatles can do it, then why can't the Tat Ming Pair? That is the same logic as: "If the car in front of me ran a red light, then why wasn't he booked like me?"

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,856 persons were interviewed by telephone January 24-February 8, 2017.

Q1. Which quality do you think the next Chief Executive needs to have the most?
24%: Firmly uphold One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people, High Degree of Autonomy
21%: Promote social harmony
17%: Trusted by the Central Government
13%: Has an excellent governing team
12%: Relative high public opinion support
5%: Honesty and open-mindedness
4%: Clear concepts of governance
1%: Others
3%: No opinion

Q2. Which issue do you think the next Chief Executive must deal with first?
32%: Relieve the housing problem
19%: Stimulate the Hong Kong economy
17%: Improve relationships between the executive and legislative branches
10%: Resolve conflict between Hong Kong and mainland China
10%: Relieve the poverty problem
9%: Restart the consultation on constitutional refrom
2%: Others
1%: No opinion

Q3. Which would you like to see happen in the 2017 Chief Executive election?
51%: The person that I like the most wins
43%: The person that I dislike the most loses
4%: Don't know/hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think the pan-democrats should send a representative to compete in the Chief Executive election>
47%: Yes
46%: No
6%: Don't know/hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q5. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?
36%: John Tsang
35%: Carrie Lam
13%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: Regina Ip
3%: Others
5%: No opinion

Isis Lee Facebook:

On the 286C bus, this fat brother kept surreptitiously taking photos of me napping for more than one hour. When I looked at him, he pretended that he was playing games on his mobile phone! The glass behind your back let me see that your monitor had my photo!! Damn! I was tired after work and tried to catch some sleep on the bus, but you want to take photos of me! Dirty man! Pervert!!!

- You should be happy to be filmed. It is an honor to be appreciated by someone. Why do you need to have such a negative tone? On the street, you look at people and they look at you. Looking at others with hostility simply makes your own life very unhappy.

- You are a so-called model with low name recognition. You must be very happy that all of Hong Kong now know who you are.

- Reporters chase after celebrities when they come across them in public. It is not a crime. So what if this man was filming you? You were in a public bus. Conversely, you are the one who filmed the fat guy without his permission.

- Did you scold him? What is the use of just posting his photo?

- Isis Lee: As soon as I took the photo of him, he immediately pressed the bell and got out of the bus.

- Just take a look at the fat guy in the photo. His eyes were shifty, as he is aware that he is being looked at and he looks as guilty as a plate of sin. If the fat guy was innocent, he would have demanded to know why he was being filmed.

- Big Sister, do you have any evidence to file charges? If no, you are committing libel!

- Isis Lee: First of all, I am Younger Sister, not Big Sister. Secondly, I personally saw him looking at my photo on the monitor while pretending to be playing a game. I can't make this up. Thirdly, will you please take a took at his eyes and expression. Who do you think was surreptitiously filming?

- The victim asserted that she saw the reflection of the monitor on the window. This is impossible under the laws of physics. The light from the monitor will hit the window and be reflected to the back. The person in front cannot see it.

- Dear Mr. Physicist, there is truth when there is a photo:

Because the photo was so clear, the "human flesh search engine" of Internet users soon identified the man in the photo as Sham Shui Po district councilor Kong Kwai-sang (ADPL Association for Democracy and People's Livelhood).

Kong Wai Sang Facebook

I just received a lot of information about someone accusing me filming a napping woman on a bus. They included photo and text. The pro-establishment camp must think that they have just received a precious gift because they are spreading it around. Unfortunately, I was just holding my mobile phone sideways to play games until I got off the bus. Perhaps the other party saw me holding the mobile phone sideways and thought that I was filming her. Therefore she made this accusation and sent it around.

I can fully understand the situation and feelings of the principle. I understand that fatigue after a day's hard work may impede judgment. But one should not come to conclusions just because of the looks or physique of someone. I hope that such misunderstanding won't occur again. Here I want to thank all those who are concerned about me. This was a minor misunderstanding. It would be nice if people can understand each other. Thanks.

- Here are the likely titles of the news reports according to the political positions of the respective media outlets:

Ta Kung Pao/Wen Wei Po: Dirty councilor caught taking photos surreptitiously, all Hong Kong citizens demand the police to enforce the law rigorously
Sing Tao: Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) suspected of surreptitious filming, the victim sought and gained Internet support
SpeakoutHK: Dirty district councilor caught red-handed with surreptitious filming, Yellow Ribbon Ghoul councilor harming Hong Kong again
Hong Kong Discussion Forum: Yellow Ribbon Ghoul councilor caught red-handed with surreptitious filming
Baby Kingdom: Baby Kingdom parents be carefully about being surreptitiously filmed on buses
She.com: Sisters, ten ways to stop surreptitious filming on buses

Bastille Post: Who do you believe? Surreptitious filming or game playing?
Oriental Daily: Game playing taken to be surreptitiously filming pretty girl, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) claimed fatigue affects judgment
am730: Surreptitious filming of female model on bus, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) said it was a misunderstanding.
The Stand News: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang said that the other party was too fatigued and misjudged
HK01: Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) accused of surreptitious filming, a photo becomes Rashomon

Apple Daily: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) laughed about being mistaken
Ming Pao: Game playing on bus treated as surreptitious  filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) cries foul
Hong Kong Economic Journal: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang magnanimously offers explanation
Sky Post: Accused of surreptitiously filming female model, Kong Kwai Sang pleads innocence
Passion Times: Playing FIFA mischaracterized as surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) said obesity, bachelorhood and short height are original sins
Sing Pao: Game playing mischaracterized as surreptitious filming, China Liaison Office causing harm everywhere
HK Golden Forum: Brothers, beware of being falsely accused of surreptitious filming on buses by Kong girls

- It is the nature of the pro-China faction to attack dissidents in every way possible. Meanwhile they either ignore or deny their own shortcomings. Such is their nature.

Kong Kwai Sang

I have turned over my mobile telephone to a forensic accounting company, and I have authorized them to extract the information from the mobile phone. The company promised to deliver the forensic report within three days. This will show whether I took photos on the night of February 4.

The cost is $50,000. Although I might need to borrow some money, this expense was unavoidable.

- Well, my guess is that you will be running a crowdfunding campaign to say for this forensic accounting company as well as lawyers to sue that woman. Right?

- I don't care! I am sending a cheque first thing on Monday morning to "Kong Kwai Sang" at his District Councilor office at Room 102, Podium, Lai Yeung House, Lei Cheung Uk, Sham Shui Po district, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

- I head that a legal letter will be issued on Monday morning. See you in court!

- Interestingly, the 'victim' Isis Lee has deleted three previously posts (in 2014, 2016 and January 2017) about having been surreptitiously filmed by others.

- You should emulate Leon Lai when it comes to apologizing.
You don't need so many people down at the District Council to come up with these strategies and tactics.
You are issuing statements left and right. You say that you won't care to respond. Then you don't want people to harass the woman. Then you take your mobile phone (and you can be taking another mobile phone) to a private a company to check.
This is very embarrassing. Be a man! Be an adult!!!

- Milhouse Chau B Facebook

Last year ... at the time, I had issued a warning ... to behave oneself, because I know everything ... this bastard will never change, because he will look for any chance to exploit anyway ... for example, if you borrow his restroom, after you leave he will lick the toilet seat and look for your pubic hair.
At the time, I personally saw him molest a female students at the sixth floor corridor of the Chong Gene Hang College, 12 Cheung Man Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong Island. At the time, the female student did not want to pursue the matter. To date, I am still extremely sorry that I did not beat up that bastard.

- No wonder the fat guy didn't want to file a police report. He has prior records! Instead, he pays a private company to declare himself clean.

- If he calls the police, the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau may be able to recover all the deleted photos.

- Kong Kwai Sang said about Milhouse Chau B: "A student in a higher class at middle school accused me of molesting a female student in school twenty years ago. I would like to understand and deal with this matter. I did not do this, and I had no memory of having being involved in this type of misunderstanding. I am following through right now. I will tell you later. Please don't worry."

More at Occupy Central Part 7


More at:
Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5
(401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6
(501-600)
Occupy Central Part 7 (601+)

Archive    Blogroll    Press

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com