IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
I believe most Hong Kong teenagers, when face with an increasing prospect of living like caged animals and worse lives than parents, will not fear death in fighting for their rightful democratic rights:
A High Court judge has given an assurance that the political background against which Occupy Central protests are set will not affect the judiciary's role and duties in assessing the legal rights of parties taking their cases to court.
A High Court judge has given an assurance that the political background against which Occupy Central protests are set will not affect the judiciary's role and duties in assessing the legal rights of parties taking their cases to court.
Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung spoke as he granted a bus operator an interim injunction to clear the obstruction of two main roads in Admiralty and Central.
The applicant, Kwoon Chung Bus Holdings subsidiary All China Express, had suffered substantial losses because its vehicles could not pass through the occupied Connaught Road Central, Harcourt Road and Cotton Tree Drive, Au said.
"The defendants simply have no legal right whatsoever to occupy and block in the way the protesters do the public roads in question," he wrote in his judgment, passed down yesterday.
"The balance of convenience lies overwhelmingly in favour of granting the injunction."
Earlier, All China Express told the court that ticket sales for its southbound service had fallen more than HK$691,800, or 17 per cent, between September 29 and October 26. Occupy Central began on September 28.
Au said the court would determine cases only by applying the law, and would not take into account political considerations. The fact that there were political undertones in the disputes "does not and should not affect the court's role and duty in adjudicating those legal rights".
He denied the application of another Kwoon Chung unit, school bus firm Kwoon Chung Motors, because it suffered only "trivial" losses of HK$4,594 in fuel costs and overtime pay.
According to yesterday's ruling, protesters must leave Connaught Road Central, from Edinburgh Place to Harcourt Road; Harcourt Road, from Edinburgh Place to Cotton Tree Drive, and Cotton Tree Drive, from Harcourt Road to Queensway. All China Express is to submit a plan by December 4, showing the areas covered by the court order.
The judge also authorised bailiffs and the police to help the firm execute the order if necessary. Kwoon Chung Bus Holdings chairman Matthew Wong would not say when it would take action.
"We've seen that even after the Mong Kok site was cleared, lots of problems were left," Wong said. "I think the government and police would have a better way to deal with this." He was referring to two injunctions Au issued on November 10 to taxi and minibus drivers' groups to clear sit-ins in Mong Kok, which could not take place until last week, after court procedures ended.
Meanwhile, four protesters, including Lester Shum of the Federation of Students and Tam Tak-chi of People Power, argued in court that bail conditions imposed over their alleged criminal offences undermined their freedom of movement, liberty and religion. The four are barred from entering a designated area in Mong Kok that is five times larger than the injunction area. Mr Justice Derek Pang Wai-cheong will hand down his judgment today.
Efforts are being made to retrieve various artworks at Occupy sites. Photo: Felix Wong
Volunteers were yesterday in a race against time to rescue scores of protest-inspired artworks ahead of a possible police clearance operation in the main Occupy site outside the government headquarters in Admiralty.
Together with works retrieved from the Mong Kok site last week, volunteers for Umbrella Movement Visual Archives and Research Collective have collected around 100 works for future research.
Clarisse Yeung of the collective said about 50 volunteers in 10 teams had arrived in Admiralty just before protesters and police clashed in Lung Wo Road early yesterday morning. "Our volunteers acted swiftly to retrieve the works. We had help from protesters on the site too. It went smoothly," said Yeung.
But it was not all peaceful as some volunteers were accused by radical protesters of wasting time on art instead of taking to the front line to battle the police.
Works collected yesterday included banners, sculptures, signage and drawings created over the past two months. They included the iconic sign kwong ming lui lok, which formed part of the main barricade outside the Red Cross headquarters in Harcourt Road.
The Umbrella Man statue has been taken away for repair. Photo: May Tse
The four-character expression means upright and honourable. It was used by the police to describe their law enforcement tactics. But it became a sarcastic phrase after the incident in which seven plain-clothes policemen allegedly beat Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, who was also a pan-democrat member of the 1,200-strong election committee which picked Leung Chun-ying as chief executive in 2012.
The volunteers also saved a road sign reading "Road To Democracy", which was erected outside the government headquarters, and a cardboard sculpture in the form of a man covered with post-its. They also took away protest banners removed by the police.
However, a patchwork canopy made of umbrella material which was hung on a bridge across Harcourt Road remains in place as the creators from Baptist University have yet to decide its fate.
Yeung said the artist nicknamed Milk had taken back his Umbrella Man sculpture for repair.
Artist Wen Yau of the collective said last week that volunteers had managed to retrieve dozens of works in Mong Kok just before chaos broke out. They collected makeshift objects including shields made of soft padding and empty water bottles and cutouts depicting President Xi Jinping holding an umbrella. But she said they could not save everything before the bailiffs moved in to clear the sites.
The retrieved works are being kept in a "safe place" for archival purposes. Wen said there had been global interest in the art, but volunteers hoped to keep them in Hong Kong for future research purposes.
Meanwhile, an exhibition showcasing the public's participation in street art during the protests is being held at the Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre in Shek Kip Mei. The show runs until December 31.
Smoke is visible coming from the PLA barracks. Photo: Felix Wong
Thirteen fire engines were deployed yesterday to a second-alarm fire at the People's Liberation Army headquarters in Admiralty, but firefighters said they found nothing to connect the blaze to the clashes between police and protesters in the area.
An exhaust duct burst into flames in the second-floor kitchen of one of the buildings in the barrack on Lung Wo Road, adjacent to the Admiralty government headquarters at 9.43am. Smoke was visible outside.
"Thirteen fire engines and one ambulance were put into action together with about 70 firefighters," a Fire Services Department spokesman said.
Fires in the city are rated on a scale of one to five alarms according to seriousness.
The spokesman said the blaze was put out before firefighters arrived at 9.48am: "No evacuation was needed and there were no reports of injuries in the incident."
A police spokeswoman said an initial investigation found nothing suspicious. The fire department is investigating the cause of the blaze.
The incident happened about three hours after police used batons, pepper spray and powerful water spray to break up a protest by pro-democracy demonstrators in Lung Wo Road.
Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah said both sit-in organisers and the government should take a step back to cool tension. Photo: Felix Wong
The key organising groups behind Occupy Central are edging further apart after pan-democratic lawmakers and Occupy's co-founders distanced themselves from a student-led escalation of the protests on Sunday.
For the first time since the protests began in late September, previously supportive lawmakers struck a note of dissent, with 23 of the 27 pan-democrats on the Legislative Council signing a joint statement urging student leaders not to escalate the campaign to avoid further injuries. They also condemned police "brutality".
The Occupy trio - who co-hosted the sit-in with leaders of the Federation of Students and Scholarism - have also faded from the limelight in recent days. None of the three - academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Dr Chan Kin-man, and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming - were present for the attempt to blockade government headquarters on Sunday.
"Pan-democrats actually had no idea of the details of the operation," Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah said yesterday. "We only knew about the plan to besiege government headquarters via unofficial channels and media reports."
Lawmakers and the Occupy trio are said to have raised concerns at a meeting with students and other groups last week, warning that escalation was unwise with public support waning.
Sources close to Occupy revealed that the three had floated the idea of handing themselves in to police on Sunday to pre-empt the escalation. Others at the meeting persuaded them to stick to the original plan of handing themselves in this Friday.
While the lawmakers and Occupy leaders favour ending the occupation and building the campaign for democracy in the community, student leaders said on Sunday that only stepping up their actions would make the government address their demands. They also prefer to be arrested rather than surrender, which they see as a passive move.
Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan said students should "reflect deeply" on Sundays events, which saw arrests as well as injuries to both protesters and police officers moving in to prevent the blockade. Further escalation would be "meaningless and would only trigger more injuries".
Labour Party stalwart Lee Cheuk-yan, who was in Admiralty on Sunday to urge protesters to avoid violence, said the cost of escalation was too high.
"You could never beat police suppression no matter how you escalate the protest," said Lee, adding that he was saddened by the injuries and arrests. "It's time to figure out a strategy - other than escalation - to sustain the long-term fight."
While the movement had won support from young people, Lee warned that it risked losing backing in the community.
But Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang brushed off talk of a split and said three of the lawmakers, including Lee, were in Admiralty on Sunday.
Meanwhile, Tong said both sit-in organisers and the government should take a step back to cool tension.
He urged the government to conduct a "holistic consultation" on democratic development. He suggested Beijing's model for the 2017 chief executive poll - in which a 1,200-strong committee dominated by Beijing loyalists would choose two or three candidates for a public vote - might be accepted if democratic elections were promised for Legco in 2020 and the top job in 2022.
Academics, meanwhile, said the escalation could backfire.
Professor Lau Siu-kai said the attempt to escalate showed that the movement was losing steam. Photo: Sam Tsang
Professor Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of mainland think tank the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, said the attempt to escalate showed that the movement was losing steam. He warned of an "authoritarian backlash" that would harm democratic development.
"The student movement in the United States in the 1960s led to the conservative backlash which culminated in the election of … Richard Nixon in 1968," he said. Nixon was known for his conservative domestic agenda.
"In the wake of the Occupy movement, Beijing realises it can't appease political opposition in Hong Kong with a moderate approach," added Lau, former head of Hong Kong's Central Policy Unit. "It will not be as tolerant as before of actions which challenge its authority."
Chinese University political scientist Dr Ma Ngok said taking the democracy movement into the community would be difficult given rising anti-Occupy sentiment in the past month.
Tony Cheung, Danny Lee, Clifford Lo and Emily Tsang
Tense stand-offs, arrests and clashes between police and protesters marked yesterday's fresh eruption of violence in and around Admiralty. Photo: Sam Tsang
Violence flared again in Admiralty yesterday morning following an eventful night during which student-led protesters tried to storm government headquarters then twice occupied Lung Wo Road outside the offices.
At least one policeman in plain clothes was taken to hospital after he was kicked and stamped on by protesters.
Police later said four officers had been attacked near Admiralty Centre and one who lost consciousness for a time was badly injured.
The escalation in confrontations over 12 hours highlights mounting animosity between police and Occupy Central participants. In the last two months, police attacked protesters with batons and pepper spray, and were often subjected to verbal abuse.
At about 9am, both sides clashed again. The South China Morning Post captured the brawl.
Barely an hour had passed since police armed with pepper spray, batons and a powerful water jet finished clearing Lung Wo Road, pushing protesters back to Harcourt Road.
Shortly before the morning's mayhem broke out, the air was thick with tension as angry students exchanged taunts with officers standing on an overhead bridge on Harcourt Road.
At Admiralty Centre, protesters realised at least three plainclothes officers were standing around. When one of the officers signalled with two fingers suggesting an invitation for a fight, more than a dozen people chased the three into the building and attacked them.
The Post's video shows the scene inside the entrance on Drake Street, where a crowd of some 200 protesters and journalists have converged.
One policeman is seen lying on the ground with several protesters punching, kicking and stamping on him.
At this point, another policeman retrieves a baton from his bag to create a distance between himself and protesters.
He is encircled by protesters, while the one on the ground appears to be semi-conscious, with protesters trying to revive him.
About five minutes after the fight, police reinforcements arrived. But the sight of tactical support officers armed with helmets, shields and pepper spray charging in to rescue their colleagues only triggered more chaos.
A bottle of water was hurled at the police, who charged at the crowd, knocking people over in an attempt to secure the area.
Police arrested a 30-year-old man over the incident and were searching for another two men.
Steve Hui Chun-tak, chief superintendent of the police public relations branch, said four officers were taken to hospital with one still being treated.
Other video footage showed policemen swearing, raising their middle fingers and clapping their hands after dispersing protesters from a bridge. Joshua Wong Chi-fung, leader of student group Scholarism, said the police were "out of control".
But Hui declined to say if those incidents would be investigated. "I hope that the public will understand the difficulties in law enforcement," he said.
Police Inspectors Association chairman Henry Ngo Chi-hang told the Post that the attack on the plainclothes officers had nothing to do with the police's relationship with civilians in general.
But he admitted many officers were "unhappy about the unreasonable insults" they had faced.
Police officers clash with pro-democracy protesters outside Central Government Offices on November 30. Photo: Edward Wong
Violence was never meant to be part of the Occupy movement, but it has regrettably evolved that way. Clashes between protesters and police outside the government headquarters in Admiralty early yesterday were the worst since the demonstrations began 65 days ago, the result of a call by student leaders for escalation. Dozens were injured, among them an officer knocked unconscious during an especially fierce scuffle. The refusal by demonstrators to abide by the law is taking hong Kong along a dangerous course from which no good can come. Withdrawing from the streets and adopting a realistic strategy is the only viable way forward for those seeking democracy.
Student leaders driving the protests have maintained that their movement is rooted in non-violence. But their urging for supporters to gather at the main protest site in Admiralty on Sunday prepared for confrontation with police spoke otherwise. It was inevitable that there would be unrest when the call went out for the crowd to surround government buildings. Many were wearing helmets, goggles and masks and some brandished home-made shields and objects that could be thrown; it was as if they were intent on provoking trouble.
Police lines near Tamar Park and Lung Wo Road were charged and fighting broke out; more than 40 people were arrested and as many treated for injuries. Alex Chow Yong-kang, secretary-general of the Federation of Students, defended the heightening of tactics. But Occupy movement founders and pan-democrat lawmakers have been distancing themselves from the students and public opinion is firmly against continued occupation of the streets of Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. There is an overwhelming desire for business and traffic to return to normal.
That can only happen if demonstrators turn to the time-tested methods of peaceful lobbying and reasoned negotiation with authorities. Violence is never an option. Student leaders have only one choice: to tell supporters it is time to go home.
Protesters are playing into the hands of the government
Howard Winn
More aggressive.
The Occupy protests appear to be entering a new phase with the police stepping up their aggression. The protesters, or at least some of them, have not helped themselves by also becoming more aggressive.
Unfortunately, the students are just playing into the hands of the government. They are allowing themselves to be portrayed as law-breaking, destabilising and selfish; while the government is increasingly able to present itself as a force for stability, rule of law, reason and "normality". As the violence becomes the focus of attention, people are losing sight of what this is supposed to be about, namely political reform. The endgame we talked about a few weeks after this all started is now coming into play.
Through its weakness, the government has come up with a winning strategy. Fearing that an aggressive attempt to clear the protesters would result in a popular backlash, the government was forced into a waiting game. This has worked to its advantage. By sitting back and doing nothing, apart from agreeing to token talks with the students, the Hong Kong government together with Beijing has successfully driven a wedge between the protesters and the general public.
People who are broadly sympathetic to the cause of political reform and who initially supported the students have been turned off by the students' lack of strategy and the disruption caused by the closure of the streets. So buoyed by the public's disinclination to offer further support to the students, the danger now is that the police appear to have literally been given a freer hand to deal with the protesters, with the result that a lot more blood is being spilt. Rather than hitting arms, legs and the body, the police seem to be hitting a lot more around the head. This will radicalise the students and undermine those that believe in peaceful protest.
There is also the likelihood that someone is going to be killed if this continues. There is no telling how people will respond to that. Meanwhile, the police gain nothing from television images showing officers on a bridge openly clapping their hands in applause as if they were at a football match, as their colleagues on the street below mounted another baton charge into the students. While this may be a symptom of the frustrations they have endured over the past couple of months, it also reflects their unfamiliarity with this kind of work.
While the government may take some comfort from being able to present itself now as a force for stability and public order, let's not forget its contribution to this mess. This includes an inability or reluctance to negotiate with the mainland over political reform, even to the point of maintaining the status quo.
This was reflected in its report on constitutional reform which it sent to Beijing earlier this year. It obviously did little to push back behind the scenes over the August 31 decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, which raised the threshold support required for those seeking to be nominated to compete in the 2017 chief executive election.
Given the mood in Hong Kong it is odd, to say the least, the authorities thought that taking Hong Kong backwards was going to ease the high levels of dissatisfaction here.
The current phase of the protest is obviously playing out badly for Hong Kong and the worry is that given the intransigence of the central government - which means there can be no political solution - this may turn out to be just round one of protracted instability.
With this cloud looming over Hong Kong, the situation does not augur well for an open economy like Hong Kong.
Have you got any stories that Lai See should know about? E-mail them to [email protected]
Isabella Lo (left), Prince Wong and Joshua Wong speak to the media yesterday. Photo: Reuters
Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung has rejected suggestions that his hunger strike plan has caused a split with the Federation of Students.
Wong said the move was part of a two-pronged strategy and the federation was responsible for other aspects of the movement.
Asked if there was a rift, Wong said: "Of course not. You can see that our friends at the federation are mainly in charge of escalating action. As for the hunger strike, Scholarism is in charge."
Wong said his group had discussed the plan with the federation before announcing it on Monday night. But federation secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang told Apple Daily yesterday he had not been aware of when it would be announced.
Chow told the Post his group decided not to join the hunger strike as "it may not be an effective way to pursue a dialogue with the government". They would instead preserve their energy and resources for community work. Wong said his group - which represents secondary school pupils - took on the hunger strike as the older students in the federation were better able to endure the rigours of frontline protest. "It's a division of labour," he said.
Wong made the comments hours after he announced on Monday night that three Scholarism members - himself, Prince Wong Ji-yuet and Isabella Lo Yin-wai - would begin an indefinite hunger strike.
Going hungry: Prince Wong Ji-yuet will join Joshua Wong in his protest. Photo: SCMP
Prince Wong, 17, who has been a Scholarism member for two years, attends International Christian Quality Music Secondary School, while Lo, 18, who has been with the group for half a year, goes to Baptist University. Joshua Wong, 18, was admitted to Open University in September.
The trio are having two check-ups per day and will drink only water - unless told otherwise by doctors, who might ask them to consume a glucose solution if their health deteriorates. The hunger strike is aimed at pressing the government to enter into further dialogue and "reboot" the political reform process.
In response, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying urged students to take care of their health.
READ MORE: To view all the latest Occupy Central stories click here
But Wong said: "Instead of asking us to take care of our bodies, he should have taken heed of our request to meet with officials.
"I just hope that Leung and Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, instead of expressing concern, seriously consider starting a dialogue."
The three co-founders of Occupy Central - Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Dr Chan Kin-man and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, who yesterday announced their plan to hand themselves in to police today - urged the students to call off their hunger strike. The students said the trio should urge the government to start a dialogue with them instead.
Richard Ottaway, chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said it would not cancel plans to “hear from people in Hong Kong”. Photo: AFP
British lawmakers have postponed a trip to Hong Kong after Beijing barred the delegation over fears that the visit might send the “wrong signals” to Occupy Central demonstrators.
The uncooperative attitude of Beijing – with a deputy ambassador to the UK declaring a “100 per cent” chance of entry refusal for the eight MPs – has been questioned by British Prime Minister David Cameron, the US State Department and a former law dean of the University of Hong Kong.
The House of Commons will hold an emergency debate today on China’s ban. The House’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee said on its website yesterday that it “will postpone its visit to Hong Kong but will continue to take oral evidence, potentially including evidence by video link.”
It vowed to “proceed with its inquiry into the UK’s relations with Hong Kong, despite opposition by the Chinese government”.
The committee said that its chairman, Richard Ottaway, was informed by Ni Jian, China’s deputy ambassador to Britain, that the refusal of entry was related to the Occupy movement.
Ni was quoted as saying: “The committee’s delegation making a so-called inquiry and scrutinising Hong Kong may send the wrong signals to the figures of Occupy Central. Also, it shows some encouragement for illegal actions.”
When Ottaway asked Ni if the committee would not be allowed into Hong Kong, Ni replied: “100 per cent surely. You will not be allowed.”
Ottaway said that the committee would not be pressured by Beijing into abandoning the inquiry and said it would not cancel plans to “hear from people in Hong Kong”.
“The approach taken by China has been very revealing, and we shall be looking carefully at how the Foreign Office responds,” he said.
China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying criticised Ottaway on Monday, saying that “if a particular member of parliament does not listen, this is what a confrontation is, and that is not in the interest of developing Sino-British relations.”
Beijing and London signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, setting out the terms of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.
Ottaway told NHK that China’s response “amounts to saying the joint declaration is null and void” and might affect various negotiations Britain has with Beijing.
Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, the legal scholar at HKU, also questioned Beijing’s move, saying it could not disregard its contractual obligation under the joint declaration.
While China has the right to deny entry for any visitor to Hong Kong, he said Beijing’s action was “politically confrontational” and would “put China in a very bad light in the Western world”.
“China cannot brush aside the joint declaration as if it does not exist or has no legal effect,” Chan said.
“Under the joint declaration, China agreed with the UK that it would honour its promises on Hong Kong for 50 years from 1997. Thus, the UK has a contractual interest to ensure that such promises are carried out.
“The argument that political development in Hong Kong is an internal affair is not sound insofar as the UK is concerned, for it would not have been an issue in Hong Kong in the first place had it not been for the joint declaration to which the UK is a party.”
The United States on Monday issued a fresh appeal to Beijing to exercise restraint in Hong Kong, adding it was concerned that British MPs had been barred from visiting the territory.
“We hope the members of parliament will be able to travel freely, as they wish,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
Cameron’s spokesman said on Monday that Beijing’s decision was “mistaken” and “counter-productive” as it “only amplifies concerns, rather than diminishing them”. Britain would be seeking a dialogue over the issue, he added.
Due to the emergency meeting at the House of Commons, the select committee’s evidence session scheduled for today was postponed. Journalist Jonathan Fenby, the South China Morning Post‘s editor-in-chief from 1995 to 2000, was originally due to testify.
Duncan Innes-Ker, senior editor at the Economist Intelligence Unit and Dr Tim Pringle, a senior lecturer at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies were also scheduled to give evidence today.
Re: HK Protest Leaders High! Demands Talks With 11 Jinping In Peking!
PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 02 December, 2014, 12:53pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 02 December, 2014, 6:01pm
The government must take responsibility for ending Occupy protests
Frank Ching says being derided for lacking legitimacy does not give the government an excuse to sit on its hands about the protests
Frank Ching
An injured protester lies on the ground during clashes on Monday. Photo: AP
Recent, highly visible examples of police abuse of power are totally unacceptable and potentially dangerous. Without close monitoring by government ministers, there is a danger that the police may become a law unto itself.
Granted, officers have been under great strain ever since the clearance operation in Mong Kok, and they have been battling protesters almost every night into the small hours. This, of course, also makes it clear that while the slogan "Occupy Central" is still used, there is little attempt to ensure that it is done "with love and peace", as promised.
The three original organisers said that the idea was civil disobedience, with participants not resisting arrest but ready to accept the legal consequences of their actions. Now, those carrying out Occupy Central are dressed and armed for battle with the police. Yet, the founders of Occupy Central have not repudiated them. The leaders have turned into the led.
On the government side, there is a similar unwillingness to assume responsibility. The police, we are told, are professionals capable of making their own decisions. In fact, the police should have been brought in to restore order long ago but the government sat on its hands, refusing to govern. In theory, the police entered the scene last week through the circuitous route of acting as assistants to bailiffs enforcing injunctions sought by private parties.
The government, it seems, has relinquished its role of governing and turned it over to the private sector, to the judiciary, to court bailiffs and to their police assistants. Nowhere is the government seen to be exercising leadership. It is not communicating with protesters. It is not mediating with the central government regarding the desires of Hong Kong people. It is not making plans. Steve Vickers, former head of the police criminal intelligence unit and now a security risk consultant, says the government's "quasi-judicial-police approach" is "damaging to Hong Kong's future" and to the judiciary.
While it is understood in virtually all societies that political issues have to be resolved at the political level, in Hong Kong, the judiciary is being used to resolve political problems that the government itself doesn't have an appetite for. This is not separation of powers. It is the executive branch abusing the judicial branch of government. As Henry Litton, one of the original permanent Court of Final Appeal judges and today still a non-permanent judge, said in a recent speech at a law forum, "A civil court process was being invoked for what I feel is a public order issue."
This abnormal state of affairs must end. It is contrary to Hong Kong's interests for the government not to govern. It is flouting thousands of years of Chinese tradition. Confucius taught that everyone has a role in society, with the ruler acting as a ruler and officials acting like officials. When this happens, society is harmonious. Otherwise, harmony is lost.
It is high time for the government to govern again. Just because it is derided by pan-democrats as lacking legitimacy doesn't mean the government doesn't have to do its job. In fact, that should spur it to do an even better job of governing.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter: @FrankChing1
British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday stepped into a row over Beijing's refusal to let a group of British lawmakers visit Hong Kong. Photo: AFP
British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday stepped into a row over Beijing's refusal to let a group of British lawmakers visit Hong Kong, as questions were raised over whether the central government had the authority to decide who could enter the city.
Meanwhile, Beijing's Foreign Ministry hit back at criticism from the lawmaker at the centre of the row, saying he, not China, was being "confrontational".
The case centres on the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the implementation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which paved the way for the 1997 handover. Its chairman, Richard Ottaway, was informed on Friday by Beijing's deputy ambassador in London that his committee would not be granted visas for the city.
Cameron's spokesman told Britain's Daily Telegraph yesterday that the decision was "mistaken" and "counterproductive" as it "only amplifies concerns, rather than diminishing them". Britain would be seeking a dialogue over the issue, he added.
But Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said yesterday that the Beijing and Hong Kong governments would handle the matter "according to the law". She rejected Ottaway's accusation that Beijing was being "confrontational" and said the reverse was true.
"Whether to grant visas, and who to give them to, are the decisions of the country," Hua said, adding that Beijing had been firmly against the committee's inquiry. "If a particular member of parliament does not listen, this is what a confrontation is, and that is not in the interest of developing Sino-British relations."
British lawmaker Richard Ottaway. Photo: SCMP Pictures
But speaking to the Post yesterday, Ottaway cast doubt on whether Beijing could dictate who Hong Kong allowed in.
"I think this is a mistake to block our entry," he said. "China has no authority to do this. It brings into question China's attitude [of governance] towards Hong Kong."
Article 154 of the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong "may apply immigration controls" on "persons from foreign states and regions". The city's mini-constitution also stipulates that Beijing is responsible for foreign affairs and diplomatic matters.
A Hong Kong government spokesman said that "as clearly stated" by the Foreign Ministry: "The matter … concerns our nation's foreign policy, and hence it falls within the prerogative of the [central government]."
But University of Hong Kong legal expert Professor Simon Young Ngai-man was concerned.
"It's rare to see the central government exerting control over our borders. The Hong Kong government should be asked to make clear who controls entry into Hong Kong," Young said, noting that the Basic Law "would seem to suggest" that this was a matter for Hong Kong.
"Where this part of the Basic Law reserves authority in the central government, it will say so explicitly," Young said, adding that Macau seemed to operate its own immigration policy. He noted that "prominent persons", including his HKU colleague Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, had been barred from the former Portuguese enclave despite being able to visit the mainland.
Ottaway said his committee would not call off its inquiry despite the pressure from Beijing. It will today hear from journalist Jonathan Fenby, the Post's editor-in-chief from 1995 to 2000.
Additional reporting by Danny Mok and Stuart Lau
Re: HK police spray protesters, arrest 32 in bid to clear road
PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 02 December, 2014, 2:08pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 02 December, 2014, 6:01pm
Why populist democracy is wrong for Hong Kong
Richard Wong
A pro-democracy protester holds up a banner on Lung Wo Road. Photo: EPA
Liberal democracy and populist democracy differ primarily in their conception of liberty. In a liberal democracy, liberty is freedom from constraint in one’s activities, especially constraint by government. In a populist democracy, liberty is the realisation of the “general will” through participation in democratic political processes.
As the student-led Occupy Central pro-democracy protests continue to reverberate around Hong Kong, it is worth analysing the brand of democracy that would best suit the city.
In my view, there are nine reasons why Hong Kong should not embrace populist democratic ideas. Three of them can apply to all nations and communities, the rest are unique to Hong Kong.
The first reason is a matter of beliefs. The idea that there is a “general will” of the people presumes everyone in a community shares a common set of beliefs about their own condition and interests.
But people do not have common beliefs under normal circumstances. The enormous diversity of beliefs we observe everywhere is a general and permanent condition of all societies and certainly of modern pluralistic ones.
The second reason is fear of the historical record. The great liberal intellectual, Isaiah Berlin, reflected that the “positive liberty” underpinning populist democracy was the root of 20th century tyranny.
“If you are truly convinced that there is some solution to all human problems … then you and your followers must believe that no price can be too high to pay in order to open the gates of such a paradise,” Berlin said. Persuasion, restrictive laws, coercion, violence and even terror and slaughter can follow.
The third reason is a matter of logical analysis. The theory of social choice has demonstrated that a community cannot avoid making schizophrenic choices, ie, A is ranked higher than B, B higher than C, and C higher than A. So the “general will” cannot be unambiguously known. Populist democracy becomes impossible to attain.
The fourth reason is that one cannot have competing popular wills co-existing in one nation.
Mainland China’s political culture is populist and its governing ideology is a sovereign statement. This means it will not tolerate a competing statement with sovereign pretensions from a Special Administrative Region. Beijing’s concerns are clearly spelt out in the requirement to enact an anti-sedition law – Article 23 of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law – which SAR residents broadly fear will erode their freedoms. Only the “negative liberties” of a liberal democracy can hope to be accommodated under Chinese sovereignty.
The fifth reason is that Hong Kong’s inherited institutions, for example, rule of law, freedom of the press, low tax rates, free markets and strong civil society, embody liberal democracy’s goal of protecting freedom from unnecessary constraint. The fact that legislators are prohibited from proposing private bills with budgetary implications makes it largely futile to implement the “general will”. There are too many hurdles to building populist democracy.
The sixth reason is the fragmentation that arises when building broad-based political parties and coalitions in Hong Kong. The Basic Law demands an executive-led government. This limits the ability of political parties to capture power, leading to division among the rank and file. Without broad-based political parties, populist political movements turn radical, alienating the majority of the population.
The seventh reason is that Hong Kong is a highly pluralistic society. Individual freedoms have been well protected so everyone can pursue the kind of life they choose. Still, frustration with the lack of democratic progress will feed alienation and radicalisation among the restless in society.
The eighth reason is the inherent conflict in the role of the Chief Executive. Should he represent Beijing or the people of Hong Kong? This conflict is more pronounced in a populist democracy because the Chief Executive has to represent the “general will” of the Hong Kong people, which pits him against Beijing. Under a liberal democracy, he is merely an official serving on limited tenure and with restricted powers. The only requirement is that he please both masters, or risk being dismissed by either one.
The ninth reason is that introducing a successful model for democratic reforms in Hong Kong can have relevance for Beijing’s own attempts at reforming its political institutions. The democratic models of the West and Japan now suffer from political gridlock and a tyranny of the minorities.
Can Hong Kong find a way for its executive-led government to introduce greater representation, broad-based accountability, and legitimacy within the framework of the Basic Law? If so, it will have important lessons to offer for China, and perhaps the rest of the world. We may not possess a lot of wisdom on how to achieve this goal, but we have no choice but to try under the circumstances. Hopefully, innovation will be born out of necessity.
Richard Wong Yue-chim is Philip Wong Kennedy Wong Professor in Political Economy at the University of Hong Kong
Occupy Central co-founders Dr Chan Kin-man, Benny Tai and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming hold hands at a press conference on Tuesday. Photo: Sam Tsang
The three co-founders of Occupy Central will today hand themselves in to police, as a police source revealed that more than 200 people had been identified for investigation over the civil disobedience movement.
The Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and academics Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Dr Chan Kin-man plan to report to Central Police Station at 3pm in an attempt to bring a peaceful end to the protests. They also made an open appeal to student-led protesters to retreat.
They will be joined by dozens of Occupy supporters, including Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun. Media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and Democratic Party Founder Martin Lee Chu-ming will wait for the protests to end before surrendering.
Student leaders have ruled out surrendering yet, though Federation of Students leader Alex Chow Yong-kang said last night it was "only a matter of time" before they gave themselves up. The federation would discuss with protesters how to end the campaign, he added.
Meanwhile a police source revealed that the Occupy trio were on a list for investigation, along with more than 200 others. They include people who clashed with officers during attempts to clear protest camps and people who had incited others to act illegally.
No action had been taken so far because the focus was on clearing the remaining protest camps, the source added.
A tearful Reverend Chu urges students to go home. Photo: Sam Tsang
The Occupy trio made their announcement two days after student leaders escalated the protests with an attempt to blockade government headquarters in Admiralty. The effort was beaten back by police in an operation that saw dozens of arrests and injuries on both sides. The escalation is thought to have forced the trio to bring their plan to surrender forward by two days.
"Our young people have used their bodies to withstand the blows of police batons, their blood and broken bones have brought us the deepest sorrow," Tai said as he read the trio's open letter. "For the sake of the occupiers' safety … we three urge the students to retreat."
Chan said he did not agree that the movement had failed or that its tactics had been naïve.
"If we were naïve, it would be in our naïve beliefs towards 'one country, two systems' and the government's conscience," he said. "It is the government - which refuses to answer."
Chu, a 70-year-old veteran activist, held back tears as he touched on police use of batons, pepper spray and tear gas in an attempt to disperse protesters.
Chan added that Occupy had liaised with the Democratic Development Network, which had pledged to provide subsidies for individuals or groups who intend to promote education on democracy.
"I was very clear about my duty from day one - to lead all participants home safely," said Chu, adding that the protest had veered from its theme of "love and peace" and "we could no longer protect everyone".
Tai dismissed the idea that the three were abandoning those still on the streets of Admiralty and Causeway Bay.
"Our call is out of love to the occupiers," he said, adding that he hoped students would help take the spirit of the "umbrella movement" into the community.
Secretary for security Lai Tung-kwok welcomed the trio's decision and said police would act in accordance with procedures in handling the case.
Police clash with protesters in Tamar. Some legislators are accused of letting activist leaders work in their offices. Photo: Edward Wong
The Legislative Council will impose stricter rules to prevent misuse of its facilities as three lawmakers were handed warning letters for letting student leaders use rooms to direct Occupy protesters.
Pro-establishment lawmakers have accused pandemocratic colleagues of letting student leaders use meeting rooms overnight as a "command centre" after a call by the Federation of Students and Scholarism to surround government offices on Sunday.
Legco President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing said the members had violated regulations by letting visitors use rooms that were off limits and by allowing beds to be placed in offices.
Among those warned were Wu Chi-wai of the Democratic Party, Lee Cheuk-yan of the Labour Party and "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung of the League of Social Democrats.
"In the last few weeks there have been complaints that some rooms in this Legco complex were abused by visitors who were invited into the complex by Legco members," Tsang said.
"The [Legco Commission] has decided we should set out more clear guidelines for using these facilities.
"New decisions include not letting visitors stay in the complex between midnight and 6am unless accompanied by a member and not allowing individual members to use the same meeting room for a long period of time for business not connected to Legco," Tsang added.
He said neither the council secretariat nor the commission had the ability or power to conduct investigations of members into whether any illegal activity had gone on in the rooms.
"The commission doesn't have the power to issue penalties or suspend lawmakers," he said, adding that written warnings for violations in the past had been effective.
But he stressed: "Any rules made by the council or the Legco Commission should be obeyed by members in a kind of honour system. It is up to members themselves to make sure such rules are obeyed."
The Labour Party's Lee said he accepted the warning but appealed for public understanding. "In normal circumstances, I would abide by the rules. But there have been exceptional circumstances in the past two months and I do not regret providing assistance to the Occupy movement," he said.
Occupy Central co-founders Dr Chan Kin-man, Benny Tai Yiu-ting and Reverend Chu Yiu-Ming, meet the media to urge students to go home as they vow to hand themselves in to police tomorrow. Photo: Reuters
When University of Hong Kong legal scholar Benny Tai Yiu-ting penned his thoughts in a weekly column for the Hong Kong Economic Journal , he expected few readers to pay heed to it.
In the January 16, 2013 article, entitled "Civil disobedience is the most powerful weapon", Tai raised the idea of mobilising 10,000 people to block roads in the financial heart of the city should the central and local governments create a system for the 2017 chief executive election that did not allow a "genuine" choice of candidates.
To his pleasant surprise, the article caught on in the public sphere, laying the groundwork for turning his blueprint into a popular movement.
But today, the Occupy Central protests that Tai launched with conviction on September 28 have deviated markedly from his script - in ways that he and his two co-founders had not imagined in their wildest dreams.
The original plan was to camp on Chater Road in Central for three days from October 1, the National Day holiday. In early September, Tai said they would act on a date that "would cause the minimal damage to Hong Kong's economy".
He also pledged to keep the campaign away from residential districts to avoid harming people's livelihoods.
The first indication that things might get tricky was when members of the Federation of Students and pupil-led protest group Scholarism barged into a forecourt at government headquarters in Admiralty on September 26, irate at being denied a rally at nearby Tamar Park in favour of a pro-Beijing event.
The area, known as Civic Square, had been a popular protest venue until it was fenced off. Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung and several federation leaders were arrested, prompting people from all walks of life to gather at the scene in support of them.
Despite the sudden turn of events, Tai and his fellow Occupy organisers, Dr Chan Kin-man and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, initially rejected pressure to start their campaign immediately.
Student activists insisted, however, and the Occupy trio agreed the "era of civil disobedience" had begun.
Noting that 80 per cent of protesters flocking to the main sit-in site of Admiralty were young, the trio acknowledged the student-led nature of the movement and positioned themselves as facilitators and "service leaders".
But the shift in leadership left the campaign less organised than planned. In its early days, a rift emerged between Occupy organisers and the student leaders and concerns were arising that the protests could spin out of control.
Since early October, the Occupy trio have been suggesting that students consider giving up their sites, noting a growing backlash from non-participants affected by the occupation.
But student leaders believed it would be inappropriate to disperse the crowds before the government made any concession on Beijing's strict framework for the 2017 vote.
The occupation wore on, and the patience of Hongkongers wore thin.
Two weeks ago, Chan again urged protesters to consider ending their road blockades and refocus instead on winning long-term support from the public.
Yesterday, Chan and his two co-founders renewed that call as they announced they would turn themselves in to police today.
Tai said the form of civil disobedience they envisaged had changed.
The love and peace that Occupy stood for was overshadowed by an "umbrella movement" that earned its name from dramatic scenes of protesters wielding umbrellas to fend off police tear gas and pepper spray.
"The absolute majority of participants in the protests still adhere to the principle of non-violence," Tai insisted.
He spoke after overnight clashes late on Sunday and early on Monday, during which protesters wearing hard hats and protective masks massed around government headquarters and charged police lines - after student groups called on them to surround the offices. The government strongly condemned Scholarism and the federation.
"When violence erupts, no matter who started it, it is time to consider the transformation of the movement," Tai said.
But he said the government was to blame for the violence because of its failure to respond to protesters' demands.
Dr Ma Ngok, head of Chinese University's department of government and public administration, said the very nature of a mass movement made it difficult to proceed as planned.
"Without the Occupy leaders' promotion of the civil disobedience concept, the 'umbrella movement' would not have happened," Ma said. "But it was not completely unimaginable that the protests would veer from their original expectations."
"If the trio hope that by surrendering themselves they can somehow force the hands of the authorities, they may be sorely mistaken," Grenville Cross said. Photo: Felix Wong
They could be let off with a slap on the wrist or be thrown behind bars for years. As the trio who came up with the Occupy Central civil disobedience idea turn themselves in to the police today, legal eagles differ over the severity of their likely punishment.
Ex-director of public prosecutions Grenville Cross raised the possibility of a five-year jail term, the maximum for organising an unauthorised assembly under the Public Order Ordinance.
But Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a University of Hong Kong principal law lecturer, said the facts did not support convicting Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Dr Chan Kin-man and the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming of organising such an assembly. If they were just participants in an unauthorised assembly - something Tai said yesterday they were prepared to admit to - a fine would be the norm, Cheung said.
HKU law professor Simon Young said the trio's trip to the police station "will be like walking into a lion's den". "They may think they will only face minor charges … but the joint enterprise principle could result in more serious criminal liability."
Cross said the more serious offence of organising, with the five-year maximum, was possible, depending on what they intended to confess. "This maximum shows that, in the most serious cases, the legislature clearly intended that offenders can receive condign punishment," Cross told the Post. "I do not think that anyone could seriously deny that the unauthorised assemblies we have seen on our streets over the past two months represent, in terms of scale, duration and consequences, a worst-possible-case scenario."
He noted that the trio did not hide themselves, meaning the police could have arrested them earlier but decided not to.
"If the trio hope that by surrendering themselves they can somehow force the hands of the authorities, they may be sorely mistaken," Cross said.
But Cheung noted the trio did no more than announce the start of the campaign. Several hours later they called on people to leave the rally after police used tear gas. "To be honest, there wasn't much organisation on their part, if any," he said.
His view appeared to be borne out by protesters who said the Occupy trio did not represent them. "It is only Tai's personal view," said hospital ward assistant Polly Lui on the idea of surrendering. She said she had no intention of turning herself in.
Renovation worker Sam Choi, 30, agreed, saying: "The police have been abusing their power."
Cheung said that if the police arrested the Occupy trio, there was no reason to refuse bail. The sentence should range from a fine to a short time in jail, he said.
The fact police never cordoned off the sit-in zones meant it would be legally impossible to distinguish between an onlooker and someone who intended to break the law, he added.
Joining the trio to surrender today are Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, diehard supporter and Baptist University lecturer Shiu Ka-chun, social worker and founder of minority rights group Unison Fermi Wong Wai-fun, and nine Democratic Party members including former chairman Dr Yeung Sum and ex-lawmaker Cheung Man-kwong.
A judiciary spokeswoman, on handling a potentially large number of cases, said: "Appropriate arrangements will be made."
