Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Re: 'i'll just make lesser then': Chow yun-fat responds to prc ban for supporting hk
Is she hokkein? Despite fuck up cantonese like ho jinx n wong cunt sing who sold their soul to the devil. There is a difference between a cantonese n a fuckien.
Is she hokkein? Despite fuck up cantonese like ho chinf n wong cunt sing who sold their soul to the devil. There is a difference between a cantonese n a fuckien.
CPPCC chairman Yu Zhengsheng said criticism should be made privately to the central government. Photo: Xinhua
Hong Kong delegates to the nation’s top political advisory body can “say freely whatever they want” – but they must not call for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to resign or criticise the local government in a manner that is not “constructive”, a top Beijing official was quoted as saying this morning.
Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), was quoted by standing committee insider Chan Wing-kee, hours before the committee is expected to vote to strip Liberal Party leader James Tien Pei-chun of his seat on the CPPCC.
Tien had called for Leung to consider resigning over the political crisis engulfing Hong Kong.
“In March, we passed a resolution … that we would support the Hong Kong SAR government and its chief executive in governing Hong Kong in accordance with the law. Yu said Tien asked publicly for the chief executive to resign – that violated the resolution,” Chan said in Beijing.
But he added that “Chairman Yu also made it clear that … it doesn’t mean that [a delegate] cannot criticise the chief executive – otherwise, it means there is no democracy … [But delegates] must criticise constructively.
“Oppositional voices shouldn’t be made public … If there are dissenting voices, they should be reflected to the central government directly,” Chan quoted Yu, Beijing's fourth most senior official, as saying.
“The CPPCC delegates, especially those from Hong Kong, can talk about or raise any issue … [and] they can continue to say freely whatever they want, but we must also follow this existing resolution [passed in March],” he further quoted.
Chan also said Yu told the standing committee that “as far as he can remember” it was the first time that the CPPCC had invoked its power, stipulated in the CPPCC Charter, to “cancel the qualification” of a delegate who has seriously violated a resolution.
Previous disqualifications had been made to punish “corrupted” delegates, he added.
Tien will speak to the media in Hong Kong at about 4pm, after the CPPCC vote.
Liberal Party vice-chairman Vincent Fang Kang said he “still hopes the central government can handle James Tien’s wrong remarks leniently”. The Liberals will hold a general meeting tonight to discuss the matter.
It is understood that Beijing’s liaison officials have briefed six Liberals and several other pro-establishment lawmakers on the CPPCC’s plan.
Tien did not attend the meeting, but his younger brother, New People’s Party (NPP) lawmaker Michael Tien Puk-sun attended and understood that Beijing still regards James Tien as a patriot.
“It doesn’t mean that the central government is now classifying my brother as not ‘loving the country and loving Hong Kong’, or not a member of the pro-establishment camp,” Michael Tien said.
He believed his elder brother’s remarks against Leung were “spontaneous” and provoked by Leung’s recent comments that an open election of the next chief executive would mean candidates focused too much on the poor.
James Tien found those remarks “unacceptable”, his brother said.
Speaking on Commercial Radio, former secretary for commerce and economic development Frederick Ma Si-hang said even if James Tien was expelled from the CPPCC, he could still criticise the government and the chief executive.
“[You] just can’t tell a person to resign lightly, you need to back it up with reasons and explanations. The chief executive is a powerful figure, [you] need to be careful when commenting,” Ma said, adding that no one is stopping Tien from criticising the government or the chief executive, but that now “he was not part of the game”.
Ma also said it was impossible for Leung to step down before the end of his five-year term. But he said Leung should worker harder to overcome the challenges he was facing.
Ma also said the religion and sports sectors “definitely” make an economic contribution to society. He said the chief executive had already expressed regret over controversial remarks in which he said those sector contribute “zero” economically.
CPPCC delegate Tam Yiu-chung, who also chairs the Beijing-loyalist Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said James Tien’s case doesn’t mean that there’s no freedom of speech for delegates.
NPP chairwoman Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee said James Tien had repeatedly ignored pro-establishment figures’ advice for him not to criticise Leung too harshly.
Many years back we were on a same lift. Our eyes contacted and she smiled at me. I smiled back. I will give her the finger when she smiles at me the next time. :oIo:
James Tien (centre) announces his resignation as Liberal Party leader flanked by lawmakers (from left) Frankie Yick Chi-ming, Vincent Fang Kang, Tommy Cheung Yu-yan and Chung Kwok-pan. Photo: Sam Tsang
The Liberal Party's James Tien Pei-chun has insisted Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying should consider quitting to encourage political reconciliation - hours after the nation's top political advisory body expelled him for making just that demand.
But he held out the possibility of supporting Leung if the chief executive made an effort to ease political tensions by appearing at Occupy Central sites and speaking directly to protesters.
Tien resigned as leader of the party he co-founded after the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference confirmed his removal.
He did not regret asking Leung on Friday to consider resigning, he said. Tien had been asked by reporters to respond after the former chief executive and CPPCC vice-chairman Tung Chee-hwa said he was "satisfied" Leung was doing "a good job".
"Lawmakers are [staging] a non-cooperation movement, while … students, Occupy protesters and anti-Occupy people are disrupting social order," Tien said. He made the proposal "so Leung's successor could start a dialogue with pan-democrats".
Tien insisted: "Nothing has changed since then, therefore I see no reason to retract it."
In Beijing, Chan Wing-kee of the CPPCC standing committee said 267 members voted yesterday to expel Tien. Two voted against and three abstained.
At the meeting, CPPCC chairman Yu Zhengsheng said Tien "remains a target [in efforts] to unite" the Beijing-loyalist camp, according to Chan. Yu also told the members that, while they could criticise Leung, they must do so "constructively".
CCTV reported Tien was disqualified for "seriously violating the CPPCC's charter and resolution", which took effect in March and requires delegates to "support the chief executive in governing Hong Kong".
Liberal Party chairwoman Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee said she did not think that the pro-business party would lose support from the commercial sector and its supporters.
Chow quoted Zhang Xiaoming , director of the central government's liaison office, as saying Beijing still regarded the Liberals as part of the pro-establishment camp.
Tien said his remarks were mild compared to his previous criticism of Leung.
"Maybe … Beijing has interpreted the political situation differently since Occupy began," he said, referring to Beijing's growing concerns about alleged foreign interference and the possibility of a "colour revolution".
He also ruled out running for chief executive in 2017. The 67-year-old said he had been planning to retire from the political scene after 2016.
"Being a chief executive is very difficult, as everyone can be your boss, such as those in the sports and religious sectors, tycoons and Beijing," he said. "I am used to being a boss. I am not capable and not interested in serving bosses."
Tien said that now he was free of the duties of party leadership and CPPCC membership, he could speak more freely. But he maintained he opposed Occupy and said the Liberals would not become an opposition party.
Tony Cheung, Peter So, Gary Cheung, Joyce Ng, Teddy Ng and Adrian Wan in Beijing
Democracy protesters in Admiralty on Tuesday. Photo: Sam Tsang
The Bar Association’s criticism of democracy protesters’ defiance of injunctions to clear the streets on Tuesday has been greeted with scepticism by pan-democrats and some of the protesters.
The association said in its statement that the defiance of the injunctions to clear protest sites in Mong Kok and Admiralty was eroding the rule of law and set a bad precedent.
Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan said he “did not see the logic” behind the Bar’s statement.
He noted that US civil rights leader Martin Luther King had broken court injunctions in his fight for racial equality.
“If you break a criminal law and do not accept the court penalty, this runs against the rule of law. But a court injunction is civil law,” Ho said. “I am surprised by the standard of the Bar Association.”
Ho also criticised the government for relying on private parties to seek injunctions to clear the roads. “They are trying to avoid making a political decision and instead choose to use injunctions as a tool to enforce the law, which is ridiculous.”
Democracy protesters have also remained defiant.
In Admiralty, former teacher Brian Kern said: “These protests have occurred precisely because Hong Kong people have so patiently had to work within the system to get their very basic right to universal suffrage for many years, to no avail.
“The NPCSC [National People’s Congress Standing Committee] decision showed that Beijing was perfectly willing to trample Hong Kong people’s basic rights, so in this situation, what would the Bar Association suggest that we could do legally? The whole reason this is occurring is because legal means, strictly speaking, haven’t worked.”
Vintonius Primus, a musician in his 40s stationed outside Citic Tower opposite government headquarters, went further.
“As a citizen, we have a duty to obey laws that promote justice, and go against laws that don’t. This court order is just a legal ploy - the people applying for it only want to highlight the downsides of the Occupy movement, without any interest in understanding why all this started.”
But 21-year-old university student Yan Chung-yan said that he will not resist the court order, although he views it as an extreme measure and does not agree with it.
“We’re only peacefully protesting and we don’t want to defy the law,” he said.
In Mong Kok, protester Michael Lam, 23, said he would not leave until an acceptable proposal was offered by the government.
Lawyers believe in laws, he said, but they also support the retraction of Beijing’s election framework handed down on August 30.
Judy Kong, who recently resigned as a security guard, said: “If we occupy somewhere else, let’s say Victoria Park, what’s the point?”
She said by occupying major thoroughfares, it gave protesters “chips” to bargain with the government.
“I find it hard to understand...we are actually forced to stay here,” she said.
Meanwhile, an anti-Occupy group who started a signature campaign in support of police say they have amassed a million signatures, proving that the majority of Hongkongers are against the pro-democracy protests.
The credibility of the campaign has been questioned after organisers accepted they could not prevent multiple signatures or people using fake identities.
Robert Chow Yung, spokesman for the anti-Occupy Alliance for Peace and Democracy, said the signatures showed people are against the idea of letting the public nominate candidates for the chief executive election.
“Think about it – Occupy Central starts with civic nominations, so these million signatures make it clear that people do not support civic nominations...A system of civic nominations started the Occupy movement, chaos, and disorder,” he said.
When asked how he reached this conclusion when the term “civic nominations” doesn’t appear anywhere on the signature petition, he said it was not much of a stretch.
Reporting by Joyce Ng, Alan Yu, Chris Lau and Lai Ying-kit
Chief Secretary Carrie Lam was accused of "being tricky".
Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor refused to confirm yesterday whether Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying declared to the city's chief justice the £4 million (HK$50 million) he received from an Australian company in 2012 and 2013.
However, Lam hinted Leung may not have declared the payment.
The Basic Law requires the chief executive to declare their assets.
It was revealed this month that Leung had struck a £4 million deal with engineering firm UGL in December 2011, before he ran for chief executive.
The agreement was a side deal to UGL's purchase of DTZ, the property services firm of which Leung was a director.
Under the side deal, UGL agreed to give Leung a total of £4 million in 2012 and last year in return for Leung agreeing not to form or join a rival business to UGL or DTZ. As an "additional commitment", he would act as a "referee and adviser … from time to time".
Lam told a Legislative Council meeting yesterday that the term "assets" was not clearly defined in the city's mini-constitution, and also that Executive Council rules did not require that members declare cash assets.
Questioned by lawmakers as to whether Leung declared the £4 million payment, Lam did not answer directly. She cited the rules of declaration for the Executive Council, which say: "Cash is not among the items for declaration. A balance between personal privacy and public interest has to be struck."
Lam said Leung had declared his assets to the top judge when assuming office under article 47 of the Basic Law, but the record of his declarationwas confidential. The article does not say the record is to be treated confidentially.
Asked the value of Leung's assets, Lam said: "I have no reason to know how much Mr Leung owns. I suspect even Mr Leung's wife doesn't know it all."
Leung has refused to give a clear answer on the issue, saying this month he had declared all he "needed to declare".
Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan said Lam's response was "sophistry".
"Lam thinks she can interpret the article just as she pleases. Article 47 does not say the declaration is confidential. All Executive Councillors' declarations are disclosed to the public," Ho said.
Dennis Kwok, of the Civic Party, said Leung and Lam were "being tricky" and dancing around the provision.
