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.
Shops in Central and Admiralty, such as Prada, say they have seen a heavy declines in sales owing to Occupy Central. Photo: Bloomberg
Landlords in the prime districts of Central and Admiralty are being urged by Italian brands to offer short-term rent cuts as foot traffic has been hit by the prolonged Occupy Central protests, according to the president of the Italian Chamber of Commerce.
"Some of our members are suffering," said chamber president Fabio De Rosa.
He said the chamber's members in Admiralty and Central had seen a 30 to 40 per cent fall in foot traffic between the end of September and the end of October although the situation had slightly improved in the last week of October.
"I know they are discussing [the issue] with their landlords," said De Rosa.
The chamber has 260 members, including top brands such as Prada, Ferragamo and Gucci. De Rosa said most landlords were not prepared to respond to the request but Hongkong Land was trying to hear tenants' concerns.
Sources said street shops in Central and Admiralty suffered a double-digit decline in sales as the Occupy Central movement blocked some roads.
"Hongkong Land has turned down a rent cut request but will provide marketing support to the affected tenants to boost sales," a source said.
Hongkong Land declined to comment on the issue.
Some landlords waived the tenants' promotion levy in shopping centres. The levy was a regular monthly fee charged by landlords at a few dollars per square foot per month, sources said.
In Causeway Bay, small retailers had asked landlords for rent cuts after sales plunged as much as 50 per cent due to the protests. They complained they had had fewer customers as a result of road closures over the past month.
Swire Properties said there was some impact on vehicle flow at Pacific Place during the period when Queensway was closed off.
"Despite this, our operations remained largely normal. With the reopening of Queensway in mid-October, our operations have returned to normal," it said in a written reply.
Wharf (Holdings) spoke at a Jefferies summit earlier that retail sales at Harbour City and Times Square were affected, declining up to 30 per cent year on year during the first week of October, which was the "golden week".
"It is too early to evaluate how much of the business will be affected. If the issue cannot be solved in a short period of time, businesses will definitely be affected," said Adrian Lee Ching-ming, the chief executive of Champion Real Estate Investment Trust, which runs the Langham Place office and retail centre in Mong Kok, a hotbed of the protests.
Helen Mak, a senior director at Colliers International, said sales at retailers of luxury brands had been declining since the beginning of the year due to Beijing's anti-extravagance rules, which had curbed luxury consumption in Hong Kong. The Occupy Central movement further soured sentiment in a slowing sector, she added.
"The reality is that Christmas is coming, that would be a really important part of their business," said De Rosa, adding that if the protests go past the holidays, he expects brands to cut their budgets and marketing expenses for next year.
There is also a hidden impact.
"Hong Kong is not as perfect as it used to be because people have a big question mark: will this happen again?" said De Rosa.
Put yourself in the position of the students. Against the realities of the housing situation in Hong Kong, a shared tent in Admiralty starts to look like quite an attractive option. Photo: AFP
A lot of people have been struck by the tenacity of the Occupy protesters, wondering how and why they could keep up their occupation of Hong Kong's highways for over a month without showing any signs of giving up.
I may have stumbled on part of the reason. Last week, a report said that one of our major property developers had issued a price list for a newly completed project in Cheung Sha Wan. Some flats are as small as 193 sq ft, the largest just over 500 sq ft. Moreover, these were not the smallest apartments to go on sale recently. Another of our major developers is offering flats of 165 sq ft.
Rub your eyes and look at those numbers again, then pinch yourself and look a third time. That was what I did.
A sales manager is quoted as saying the studio flats are "very suitable for first-time buyers". Surely he meant to say "very small people".
One has to ask what kind of social system we have created where flats this small are considered part of the solution to Hong Kong's housing problems. In any other developed community, they would be considered part of the problem. What kind of economy and property market have we created that only flats of this size are affordable to a significant number of would-be homebuyers? And what kind of political system have we built to sustain such an appalling situation?
Then you go back to a news story from last month which shows the chairmen of these two property developers among a group of business leaders being feted in the Great Hall of the People, by President Xi Jinping no less.
Now you begin to see the big picture. You join up the dots - as those clever students have surely done - and realise why the protesters are so angry about the developments on the political reform front. They are calling for the end of corporate voting because they realise such a practice puts literally hundreds of votes in the pockets of those same property developers who are offering miniscule flats. They are calling for the scrapping of functional constituencies because they realise their existence entrenches the advantages of the "haves" at the expense of the "have-nots".
The most the government has done on corporate voting is to hint that it might be possible to end it in one or two sectors. And it has been totally silent on its proposals with respect to the functional constituencies even though, by its own admission, they need radical reform.
To top things off, we now have a ruling on arrangements for the next chief executive election which effectively means the status quo will be preserved, more or less indefinitely.
The degree of social injustice in Hong Kong is so extreme it screams out for change. If it is to be orderly, it must be faster than gradual. Yet the ruling by the National People's Congress Standing Committee applies a further brake.
Put yourself in the position of the students. They know that, when they graduate, their and their spouse's (if they can scrape up the money to marry) combined income will mean years of frugality while they save up for a deposit on a flat. Given the way apartments are shrinking, it is by no means certain they would both be able to fit in it at the same time, let alone start a family.
Against that background, a shared tent in Harcourt Road right now, rent free, starts to look like quite an attractive option.
I am not a supporter of Occupy Central. It is causing serious hardship to some individuals and small businesses, and is beginning to affect the wider economy to the disadvantage of us all. I hope the demonstrators all go home soon. But I do understand why they went in the first place and why they have had the stamina to cling on.
Mike Rowse is managing director of Stanton Chase International and an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. [email protected]
PUBLISHED : Monday, 10 November, 2014, 5:31am
UPDATED : Monday, 10 November, 2014, 5:31am
Our youth are special … but no more so than others before them
Alice Wu plays down talk of a gap between today's Hong Kong youth and older folk; in truth, every generation sees itself as different
Joshua Wong is right to say his generation was brought up in a vastly different world compared to his parents'. But whose isn't? Photo: Reuters
Are we at a complete loss when it comes to grappling with the so-called generation gap that has been all over the news lately? What's with the call to create a "youth" subsector in the nominating committee for the 2017 chief executive election, or for the students to organise themselves into political parties?
I guess it beats creating temporary work opportunities for young people - an actual recurring idea in policy addresses of the past.
The fascination with this "new generation" began in late 2009 when protests over the Guangzhou-Hong Kong high-speed rail project brought the so-called post-80s generation to the fore as a "new civil force". Scholarism head Joshua Wong Chi-fung, in his October 29 op-ed in The New York Times, basically laid out his generation's views - a mini manifesto and declaration of war against older folk.
This overemphasis on the generational divide smells a tad too self-important and indulgent. It's like the never-ending race to claim the "greatest generation" title.
Generation clashes are nothing new, and every generation finds a way to speak up. What they say may be different, on issues reflective of the times. We all have to face our own realities, which change. That's why the very people who chanted the mantra of "trust no one over 30" change it, as they age, to "trust no one under 30".
If every generation is so special, then there's not much that's really special.
Wong is right to say that his generation was brought up in a vastly different world compared to his parents' and grandparents'. (But whose isn't?) And Wong isn't completely wrong in generalising that many older folks wanted a stable life, a secure job and some comfort.
But Wong got some things wrong. Generations before don't suffer from some sort of degenerative virus that rendered them unwilling to "want more", as he has asserted to be the one thing that sets his generation apart from the rest. They had ideals; forging and defending peace after living through two world wars wasn't exactly child's play. Providing for their family is as noble an ideal as, say, real democracy.
Wong is also wrong in thinking that his generation is the first to fear being worse off than their parents. No, Gen X beat them to it. How about his generation's depressing job prospects? "McJob" and "ozmosis" are Gen X terms. So are "homeowner envy" (housing problems) and "Brazilification" (wealth gap). These, and more, can be found in Douglas Coupland's Generation X.
Wong's generation is worried about jobs, home ownership and livelihoods. That's no different from Gen X, his parents' and grandparents' generations. It's life; and a lot of the time, it sucks.
I'm a Gen X-er, so I'm sorry if, as a member of the persistently "underwhelmed" generation, I have never quite taken to all the brouhaha over generation gaps. By the way, I saw Coupland's classic on sale at a bookstore last week. Perhaps reading it would make the post-80s and post-90s feel better.
Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA
Re: China blocks bbc website after video shows hong kong police beating protester
PUBLISHED : Monday, 10 November, 2014, 5:31am
UPDATED : Monday, 10 November, 2014, 7:19am
Xi Jinping gives Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying a gift over Occupy demands
The Occupy movement has always fought on two fronts: "real" democracy and the collapse of the Leung Chun-ying administration.
But it's now clear, even to its own leaders, that the immediate goal of full democratisation is unreachable, at least for the 2017 chief executive election.
So there has now been a tactical shift. The student leaders are seeking what they hope is achievable: the de-legitimisation and collapse of the government.
In that sense, the movement has morphed into the long-standing goal of the pan-democratic camp from the first day that Leung took over as chief executive - to expose his political illegitimacy.
The pan-dems' campaign of total non-cooperation must be understood in this context, though it risks the ire of the public, which may well blame them as much as the government for doing nothing.
In recent weeks student leaders have made more conciliatory statements towards Beijing. This includes saying their goal was never to challenge the authority of the central government; and blaming the first round of "biased and defective" political reform consultation on Leung's government, so Beijing might not have really understood Hong Kong people's wishes when it issued the August 31 edict on reform. Consequently, it is necessary for student leaders to hold direct talks with the central government. The real goal is to bypass Leung's government and demonstrate its irrelevance.
But Beijing has turned down any offer to meet, saying it "understands the different views in Hong Kong" and that the August 31 decision reflects its understanding of the city's actual situation.
In the past month, Beijing has repeatedly stated its support for Leung because the Occupy movement's demand for his head is seen as a direct challenge to its authority.
The delay in rolling out the Shanghai-Hong Kong stock exchange through-train has been widely seen by insiders as part of Beijing's effort to signal its displeasure at developments in Hong Kong. Over the weekend, Leung secured the green light for the stock scheme from President Xi Jinping . Coming as popular support for the Occupy movement is waning, it's Xi's gift to Leung for a victory dance.
New People's Party proposed to bring student leaders into the future committee that nominates chief executive candidates. Photo: EPA
Hong Kong students have never been so high profile. They boycott classes, occupy the streets and scuffle with the police. They also outshine leading political parties in popularity polls, take officials to the negotiating table and make headlines around the world. While their actions are not endorsed by everyone, their aspiration for full democracy is shared by many people. They are no doubt a rising political force to be reckoned with in our society.
The political awakening has prompted calls for the government to better accommodate our younger generation in the establishment. One proposal is to bring them into the future committee that nominates chief executive candidates. This can be done by giving them some of the 60 seats earmarked for farmers and fishermen, according to the New People's Party.
It would be tempting to say the proposal is worth exploring. After all, what the students want is a say in the nomination process. The party rightly said that youngsters and some other sectors are underrepresented on the committee, whose composition is meant to enhance balanced participation from different sectors. The students took to the streets en masse because they felt their voice could not be heard.
But the proposal cannot appease the occupiers, apparently. They turned out because they fundamentally reject the framework that vests nomination with a 1,200-member panel. They are fighting for the public right to nominate rather than representation for themselves. Judging from the initial response from the crowds, they do not seem to be impressed.
The government is set to flesh out the electoral details for public consultation. Whether the proposal is to be incorporated for further discussion remains to be seen. Even if that is the case, implementation will be a challenge. Which sector is willing to give up their seats to the students? Are the seats returned via one person, one vote among students; or will it be a ballot among some youth groups? The lawmaker representing the agricultural and fisheries constituency has already expressed reservations over the idea of taking seats from his sector. Given the change is essentially a redistribution of power, it will inevitably upset vested interests and provoke opposition.
The city's future lies with our younger generation. The government can ill-afford to lose their trust and support. Political representation is one way to achieve reconciliation. More serious soul-searching is needed to bridge the divide.
Re: China blocks bbc website after video shows hong kong police beating protester
PUBLISHED : Monday, 10 November, 2014, 6:46am
UPDATED : Monday, 10 November, 2014, 6:46am
Beijing, the protesters and CY's delicate balancing act
After meeting the president and other leaders at Apec, Leung's next test will be his policy address
Tammy Tam
Leung Chun-ying at a summit dialogue at the APEC CEO Summit in Beijing.
Leung Chun-ying will get the chance this week to boost his international profile when he attends the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders summit in Beijing.
The chief executive will rub shoulders with other leaders, but as the Occupy protests drag on, the media focus will likely be on his meeting with President Xi Jinping.
Xi will doubtless have instructions for Leung on Hong Kong. And there have already been signs of a shift in Beijing's stance on the city since the civil disobedience movement began.
The most apparent is the long-awaited Hong Kong and Shanghai stock market "through train" scheme, which still needs approval from the central government. Some see the hold-up as punishment for the Occupy protests; others blame global market volatility.
Either way, Leung raised the issue with Xi when they met in Beijing yesterday, and although Xi was positive, there is still no start date for the scheme.
Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah has already tried. He led a high-level delegation to Beijing last week, telling officials the city was ready and wanted to start the scheme as soon as possible. But Beijing gave only a vague "positive" response, and no date was given.
It is significant that the city's leader is going straight to the top to resolve a matter that could easily be decided at the ministerial level. Leung would certainly undo some of the damage caused by the protests if he could persuade Xi to give a start date for the scheme.
But to most observers, Beijing's message is clear: Hong Kong is paying the price for the Occupy movement, which the central government sees as a serious challenge to the authority of the top legislature.
When Tsang and his delegation were in the capital, they stressed that the protests and the "through train" delay were not linked. Beijing was reportedly unhappy about the comments but refrained from saying so publicly.
This indicates a subtle shift in Beijing's stance on Hong Kong. And it raises important questions on future relations between the city and the mainland. Many people have speculated that Beijing is only going to get tougher on Hong Kong, so what can and should the city do?
It's clear that Leung needs to put more effort into promoting cross-border relations, or nei jiao - a term he coined before the special administrative region was even set up, meaning internal diplomacy.
Leung will stay behind in Beijing after the Apec summit so that he can meet the heads of various ministries. Their focus will likely be on what he is planning to do after the protests to keep the city running. But it's not just the heavyweights in Beijing who want to know. Many Hongkongers are also wondering - and waiting for the answer in Leung's next policy address in January.
It's a delicate balancing act for Leung. He is accountable to both Beijing and Hong Kong, and responsible for the direction of cross-border relations. At home, while his hands might be tied on democracy, he could certainly do more to tackle the other issues that have driven young people onto the streets - housing and social inequality.
Leung has consulted various groups in the past two weeks as he puts together his policy address. Now, he will face a real test - he must keep Beijing happy yet pacify an increasingly disaffected younger generation.
In 1979, two university students and a young graduate trying to help fishermen get permanent housing were convicted of unlawful assembly. Thirty-five years later, they have joined another fight, supporting the student-led protests for democratic reform.
Cheung Choi-wan and Leung Heung-nam, both 57, and Chan Shun-hing, 60, joined the Occupy movement when it started in late September. Leung slept in Admiralty's occupied zone one night, concluding that it was "very tough" and that he was too old for such steps.
Comparing their dissent in the 1970s to the new generation's campaign, the trio said that today's protest was more advanced. "At that time, I was mindless and just felt unafraid of being arrested. There was no prior example for us to follow and I had no idea what 'civil disobedience' meant," said Leung, a retired journalist.
Demonstrations since then - the 2006 Star Ferry Pier demolition; the 2007 relocation of Lee Tung Street residents in Wan Chai; the 2009 fight over the city section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link; the 2012 fight against a national school curriculum - "have helped build up a school of thought based on the local identity", he said.
The three friends were among 11 activists convicted of unlawful assembly as they fought for public housing for boat dwellers at the Yau Ma Tei typhoon shelter whose homes had been destroyed or were threatened by typhoons.
The campaign stretched on for more than a year. On January 7, 1979, police stopped them and 67 boat dwellers as they rode two buses from Kowloon to Hong Kong Island. They had intended to march to Government House where they planned to present a petition. Under the public order ordinance introduced after the 1967 riots, three people walking in the same direction towards the same destination could be charged with unlawful assembly, Cheung said.
The action inflamed many of the public. The court dropped the charges against the boat occupants, saying they were less educated and had been induced to break the law by the activists. But the activists, including the Reverend Franco Mella, were convicted. The challenge to their convictions went to the Privy Council in London, where the protesters lost their final appeal.
Yau Ma Tei boat dwellers' activist supporters outside court in 1979 when 11 faced charges of unlawful assembly. Photo: Sunny Lee
Chan said that if only the housing fight was considered "then we failed". In 1990, the government resettled the boat dwellers to make way for the West Kowloon reclamation project.
"However, the campaign had given rise to radical forces among social workers and student forces," Chan said. "It triggered the establishment of the Hong Kong Social Workers' General Union."
Cheung, now a feminist group activist, said she did not hesitate to sign up for Occupy Central.
"When the protests against the national education curriculum broke out, I was moved and thought, 'Finally some people are taking up our baton'. But when students started the school strike this time, I started to worry. Why are our adults not doing anything?" she said.
Chan, who teaches cultural studies at Lingnan University, said she had not planned to fight for electoral reform. "Having gone through reforms for representative democracy since the 1980s, I felt quite disillusioned and found the entire representative politics had failed as a voice for grass-roots citizens," she said.
"Later I was moved by students' organisation power, which had helped the protest develop into a city-wide movement. Of course Occupy Central organisers had laid out the early work."
As with the Occupy movement now, some citizens disliked the 1979 protest. Some thought the boat dwellers were trying to jump the queue while many waited for public housing. Others branded the activists as troublemakers, the trio said.
The scenario mirrored today's Occupy movement, in which student leaders were struggling to win support from both protesters and the public.
Cheung felt so strongly about what today's students are trying to achieve that one night in October, she spoke from the stage on Harcourt Road.
"I never believe Beijing will change its mind and I only came here to express that I didn't accept it as fate," Cheung said.
"But the young people really think what they did could bring about changes. Certainly I hope their dreams could come true."
Benny Tai Yiu-ting says the mode of struggle has gone through an evolution. Photo: Felix Wong
Six weeks into its struggle for democracy, the once-carefully planned Occupy movement has grown and shifted in ways beyond the imagination of organisers. And that raises a question: is the protest still a civil disobedience campaign?
More than a year before Occupy kicked off, its founders discussed their plans, organised meetings and wrote articles on their thoughts for a civil disobedience campaign. They published a detailed "manual of disobedience" for protesters to follow.
"The ultimate aim of the campaign," the manual says, "is to establish a society embracing equality, tolerance, love and care. We fight against the unjust system, not individuals. We are not to destroy or humiliate law enforcers, rather we are to win over their understanding and respect. We need to avoid physical confrontation, and also avoid developing hatred in our hearts."
Illustration: Henry Wong
But just weeks into the campaign, protesters on Harcourt Road were shoving metal barricades against lines of police officers who pushed back. In Mong Kok, protesters surrounded officers and raised umbrellas to ward off pepper spray and batons.
Occupy Central leaders described the development as an "evolution of the struggle", but said that most protesters were following the basic guidelines of refusing to obey certain laws, but not provoking or resisting police.
Occupy opponents have used the chaotic scenes to justify their view that the campaign is a disruption of social order in the guise of civil disobedience.
"This is not civil disobedience, but a direct challenge to the law and disruption of public order," said Robert Chow Yung, convenor of the Alliance for Peace and Democracy, which has been campaigning against the sit-ins. "What Gandhi did was refuse to pay salt tax to the British government to protest against the laws. What Martin Luther King led was a bus boycott campaign to protest against the reservation of seats for whites. They were not hurting anyone." The Hong Kong protests, he said, had inconvenienced drivers and businesses.
Professor David Graeber, an American anthropologist who was a leading figure in the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement, said the core idea of civil disobedience was non-cooperation. "Governments can abuse us, or abuse others, because we passively consent to their legitimacy. But we can withdraw that consent," he said.
The academic and activist said he found the local "umbrella movement" absolutely qualified as civil disobedience. He said the diversity of tactics used by participants was a key to success in any social movement and that protesters should respect differences among themselves.
"Everyone who believes in non-violence agrees that we should never initiate an attack, an attempt to hurt, to cause pain and suffering, to another human being," he said. "However, beyond that there is a great diversity of philosophical points of view. Some believe that hurting a human is always bad, even if they are attacking you, but damaging property is entirely legitimate. Others believe that it is acceptable to respond to an attempt to hurt you, or someone you love, in a way that protects oneself, or that other person, so long as one never initiates violence oneself … There is no one right answer to such questions."
Benny Tai Yiu-ting, co-founder of Occupy Central, maintained the protests were still a civil disobedience movement, pointing out they had been largely peaceful despite moments of violence.
"The mode of struggle has gone through an evolution," Tai, a law academic, said in an interview. "Overall, the principles are still observed … In the past we talked about a passive mode of civil disobedience. Now it has turned into an active mode. But this is still civil disobedience."
The eight-page Occupy manual, released in September, laid out eight rules and offered guidelines and practical tips to help the sit-ins proceed peacefully.
The manual advised, "Do not use any masks to cover faces", but that participants should instead use goggles to protect themselves in case police used pepper spray or tear gas. The rule, intended to prevent people from concealing their faces and engaging in unruly behaviour, was soon ignored. Many protesters have since covered their faces with surgical masks, bandanas or cloth to help them breathe should police fire more gas tear or use pepper spray.
Police have accused protesters of hiding their identities while breaking the law by refusing orders to disperse. Some protesters have said they wanted to obscure their faces because of the number of international photographers snapping pictures.
Tai said the organisers had not considered that police might use pepper spray when they drew up their guidelines asking people not to wear masks.
The Occupy manual says that "protesters must not engage in physical or verbal conflicts with law enforcers" and that they should form human chains and lie down if facing arrest. But on the first day of the occupation, September 28, hundreds of protesters pushed against a police line on Harcourt Road, and as the huge number of participants clogged the street, the officers unleashed 87 canisters of tear gas throughout the day. Demonstrators dragged in steel barriers, collected from around the city, and fortified them with wood, concrete and bamboo, blocking traffic and keeping police out.
Six days later, at the satellite protest site in Mong Kok, mobs surrounded Occupy protesters, some of whom were hit and beaten. Several protesters screamed at police, accusing them of colluding with triad members and letting some attackers go free.
Protesters routinely hold open umbrellas in front of police officers' faces, anticipating pepper spray. Police officials have complained that some protesters have poked or pushed officers with them. In Mong Kok, officers have used batons to smash umbrellas out of protesters' hands.
"I understand that some citizens could not help but defend themselves when faced with attack," Tai said. He and some student organisers have said they are planning, at some point, to turn themselves in to police. "I hope a certain number of participants will do so with us," he said.
Chow said the notion of civil disobedience was now "all a sham". "The Occupy Central trio said they would sit there and get arrested. But they are now hiding behind the crowd," he said.
Tsang Kin-shing, convenor of Citizens' Radio, which has been broadcasting without a licence since 2005, said his work was also an act of civil disobedience, to defy what he believes are unreasonable broadcasting laws. He said the Occupy protests would take the concept of protesting in Hong Kong to a new level.
"It is absolutely an era of civil disobedience," Tsang said. "Many new forms of non-cooperation may emerge." For example, he said, some people were suggesting each taxpayer under pay their tax bill by HK$68.90 - symbolising the 689 votes that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying received in the 2012 election.
Pro-democracy protesters wearing yellow umbrellas and ribbons make their way from Central to Sai Wan. Photo: Dickson Lee
Hundreds of yellow ribbons were tied outside the central government's outpost in Hong Kong yesterday after democracy campaigners marched from Central to the liaison office in Sai Wan.
Organised by the Civil Human Rights Front, the march saw hundreds of protesters demand that Beijing overturn its August 31 decision setting strict limits on nominations for the 2017 chief executive election. They also demanded a meeting between Beijing officials and the Federation of Students, as Hong Kong's leaders had failed to break the impasse that had left roads blocked for more than six weeks.
Front convenor Daisy Chan Sin-ying estimated the turnout at more than 1,000, while police put the figure at 740. Many carried yellow umbrellas and ribbons, two key symbols of the Occupy campaign.
Referring to plans by student leaders to head to Beijing, Chan said: "The students are not going to Beijing to beg to Beijing or to ask for their sympathy … we want to face the national power head-on, and reflect the demands of the Hong Kong public to them.
"Hongkongers are completely disappointed at the government in [failing to] find a way out of the current political dilemma."
Pro-democracy leaders (from left) Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Eason Chung Yiu-wah demand NPCSC to backtrack its resolution on HK constitutional development outside the Liaison Office. Photo: Dickson Lee
Federation secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang, who took part in the march, said the group would write to all 35 local delegates to the National People's Congress to ask them to help set up talks with Beijing. That included Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, the only local member of the NPC Standing Committee, the body that took the August 31 decision.
"Fan … can request motions during the [Standing Committee] meetings. This is within what she can do," Chow said. "She has a duty to reflect the views of Hongkongers."
Lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung, of the League of Social Democrats, managed to throw a yellow umbrella into the liaison office's forecourt, bearing the names of mainland activists detained for supporting Occupy.
The marchers faced a counter-protest by about 20 people from the Defend Hong Kong Campaign. The group urged those taking part in the Occupy movement to turn themselves in to police and accused them of destroying the rule of law.
Meanwhile, a group of Occupy activists released the results of a survey of over 1,300 people in the occupied area of Admiralty. Some 40 per cent had visited that protest zone on more than 21 days. At least 75 per cent favoured allowing the public to nominate candidates for chief executive, while 81 per cent favoured the abolition of functional constituencies in the Legislative Council.
Former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa speaks at "Our Hong Kong Foundation" inauguration ceremony cum forum at Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre in Wan Chai. Photo: K.Y. Cheng
Hong Kong's first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa officially launched his think tank on Monday morning, asserting that two of its most urgent missions are to win support for the government's 2017 chief executive election plan, and boost social mobility for the city's younger generation.
Tung, who is now a vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, also urged Occupy Central protesters to end their campaign, which according to him has caused a negative impact on the city's economy, split communities and undermined Hong Kong's rule of the law.
"The government hopes that the occupation campaign can end peacefully. But it's impossible for social order to be disrupted and laws not observed for a long time," Tung said.
Tung, who made a similar plea to Occupy protesters at a press conference on October 24, noted that protesters and pan-democrats had paid a heavy price in their fight for democracy. "But other residents have also paid a heavy price. Now it's the time to end the occupation," he said. "Time will not wait for you."
His comments were made just one day after President Xi Jinping told Chief Executive Leung Chun-Ying in Beijing that the central government would "resolutely support" the Hong Hong Kong government's efforts to safeguard the city's rule of law.
Tung said one of the top priorities of his newly established think tank, Our Hong Kong Foundation, was to create conditions for an early and peaceful end of the Occupy movement, which had paralysed parts of the city for more than six weeks.
The foundation has more than 80 advisers, including former financial secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung, former Monetary Authority chief executive Joseph Yam Chi-kwong, former chief secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen and former Democrat lawmaker Tik Chi-yuen.
Other advisers include Shun Tak managing director Pansy Ho Chiu-king; former Ocean Park boss Allan Zeman; Jack Ma Yun, chairman of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba; executive council Convenor Lam Woon-kwong; Peter Woo Kwong-ching, Wharf (Holdings) chairman; PCCW chairman Richard Li Tzar-Kai, and professional racing cyclist Sarah Lee Wai-sze.
The foundation also lists Jao Tsung-I, a respected scholar of Chinese civilisation studies, ex-chief justice Ti-liang Yang and Nobel Prize laureate Yang Chen Ning as its honorary advisers.
Tung said implementation of "one man, one vote" for electing the chief executive would be the "most thrilling moment" since the handover in 1997.
If Hong Kong's electoral system stays unchanged in 2017, it would not only bring about stagnation but even retrogression, Tung warned. "Hong Kong would face endless protests (over political reform)," he said.
Tung said the foundation would help nurture political talents, noting there was a dearth of politically talented people in the city.
Acknowledging that Hong Kong's young people had been suffering from a decline in social mobility in recent years, Tung said his foundation would conduct studies early next year on how to foster social mobility for the younger generation.
"The key to boosting social mobility is to create more job opportunities and high value-added economic opportunities," he said.
"Our government and community should work together to reinvent Hong Kong as a city of innovation and creativity," the former chief executive said.
All political funding in Hong Kong should be open to public scrutiny
Peter Kammerer says groups pushing a political agenda should be upfront about their funding sources, or civil society must insist on it
Peter Kammerer
Donations, no matter where they are from and to which group, have to be accounted for. Photo: AP
At a Tung Chung bus stop, far from Hong Kong's occupied downtown streets, I recently listened in on two men heatedly discussing the protests. One angrily wondered just where the students were getting the funding for their campaign. The other matter-of-factly said it was coming from the US and he had read somewhere hundreds of demonstrators had been flown there "to learn all about civil disobedience". Both then embarked on a rant about foreign interference in the affairs of our city.
Beijing's influence means these are often-heard thoughts. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, his ministers and pro-Beijing media, politicians, lobbyists and businesspeople echo the Communist Party's warnings that subversive forces are at work. The message is clearly being successfully disseminated when suburban commuters take it up.
There is as much eagerness to find out how the pan-democrats are being financed. The Independent Commission Against Corruption is investigating Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying for allegedly donating millions of dollars to pro-democracy lawmakers. Some have admitted to having received money. The political funding rules are basic: individuals have to declare their interests and comply with basic election spending rules, but there are no funding regulations for political parties.
Strangely, there is silence when it comes to the anti-Occupy movement and pro-Beijing groups. Just how Robert Chow Yung's Alliance for Peace and Democracy came by its largesse remains uncertain. Why should we wonder, some people may argue, even if it's from the mainland - this is one country. I counter - naively - that under "one country, two systems", Beijing's only business in Hong Kong should be foreign affairs and defence, and that political matters should count as interference.
In an ideal world, those with a political agenda would be honest about who is supporting them and to what degree. But our politics has become dirty and a fair and balanced playing field is the last thing on the minds of those pushing agendas. Society is ever-more polarised, threatening stability.
Magnus Ohman, a political finance researcher with the US-based International Foundation for Electoral Systems who has worked on initiatives in 30 countries, has a bleak assessment for our city. The lack of democracy and the complications of China being a one-party state make implementing regulations difficult. "Spending limits and public funding can both be valuable approaches, but they depend on independent and effective enforcement," he told me. Public pressure and civil society advocacy were, in the circumstances, the best way forward.
Groups with a political agenda have to be transparent about their funding. Donations, no matter where they are from, have to be accounted for. Election campaigns should be either wholly publicly funded or limits put on how much can be spent. There cannot be state or outside interference.
The more Beijing imposes its will and tries to silence democratic voices, the greater will be the resentment. Only by creating a political system in which every citizen can have a say in the way their city is governed will the future look bright.
Lawyers stand in silence outside the High Court to condemn those ignoring temporary court injunctions taken out to stop people blocking roads as part of the ongoing Occupy Central civil disobedience movement on November 3. Photo: Sam Tsang
I have been invited to speak to you today about the rule of law.
I do so gladly because I believe observance of the rule of law is fundamental to any civilised society. But I also do so with some trepidation because I feel myself to some extent an outsider. I have though been coming here frequently since the 1980s and also have great affection for Hong Kong and its people. I am very proud now to play a role in Hong Kong’s International Arbitration Centre, and to visit my firm’s office here.
I cannot claim though that I am of Hong Kong and recognise that others have greater legitimacy and knowledge to express opinions about the issues facing Hong Kong today.
For the same reason, I want to be circumspect about any statement I make about the current protest. Like all right minded people, I deeply and sincerely hope that it will not end in blood shed and therefore commend the restrained response of the authorities. I will however have some statements more of general principle to make.
At this point let me make clear. As well as being a practising lawyer I continue as an active member of the Upper House of the British Parliament, the House of Lords, and sit on its Constitution Committee which is concerned with many of the issues I will discuss today. Everything I say today however is in a personal capacity.
Nonetheless, as the rule of law is now a matter of universal interest reflected in many local and international statements, I hope what I have to say is of value to those considering these issues.
Further, I have indeed had to think hard about the rule of law especially during my time as Attorney General in the United Kingdom. I took office three months to the day before 9/11 and served thereafter through a turbulent and difficult period. It was an unprecedented and challenging time.
One of the issues that gave rise to was whether you could continue to observe the rule of law but still do what was necessary to combat a grievous threat from terrorism. I however became increasingly of the view that upholding the rule of law was not an obstacle to tackling terrorism but a key part of a successful strategy of tackling it. It enables us to show how our values are better than those of the terrorists for example because they are more just and more fair and more equal than the doctrine of hatred and extremism peddled by extremists and other hatemongers.
What is the rule of law? That is a more difficult question than it sounds.
The expression the rule of law is generally attributed to Professor AV Dicey the Vinerian Professor of Law at Oxford University in his book An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution published in 1885. He did not, however, invent the ideas lying behind it. Nor even was he the first to use the expression as Lord Bingham Former Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom (and former member of my own Barristers’ chambers in London) demonstrated in his highly influential book The Rule of Law published in 2010.
Though the expression is in wide and repeated use there is less agreement as to what it means. Dicey identified three meanings of the rule of law, the first two of which I would venture to suggest would remain universally accepted: that no man should be penalised save for a breach of an established law enacted under authority and tried before the ordinary courts of the land; and that the law applies to all including the government which like a private citizen can be held to account before the ordinary courts for breaches of the established law. Diceys’ third meaning of the rule was a peculiarly English one which contrasted the English common law approach to the upholding of rights with those of countries with a written constitution and is almost certainly now out of date.
Since then many have attempted their own definitions of the rule of law. Lord Bingham for example found 8 principles as opposed to Dicey’s three. Other commentators and judges have argued for different formulations and content.
The most lively debate is over the question whether the rule of law is concerned only with the formal aspects of the law: what is its source of authority; is it clear, accessible and predictable so that people can guide their conduct by it? Is it applied evenly so that differentiation is only by reference to objectively justifiable differences? Is determination of breach by the ordinary courts of the land having certain characteristics?
Or whether the rule of law is also concerned with the content of the law; that the rule of law distinguishes between just laws and unjust laws; that there are certain principles and values which need to be reflected in the law or else.
The view of many distinguished common law jurists is that the rule of law is not only concerned with formal aspects but with the substance too. Lord Bingham was one of those. He argued the case by asking whether a state which savagely repressed or persecuted sections of its people could be regarded as observing the rule of law because the savage treatment and atrocities (for example, transportation to a Nazi concentration camp) were the subject of detailed laws duly examined and scrupulously observed.
In reaching that conclusion Bingham relied on a statement of the President of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (VD Zorkin) at a symposium in 2007 when he declared:
“Law cannot be simply what is dictated by political authority or issued by the state.”
President Zorkin illustrated that point by reference to events both in Nazi Germany and in Stalin’s Soviet Union where, as he said
“Both systems were killing millions of people, because for both the law was given and contained in the statutes.”
In other words he was saying that rule by law is not the same as rule of law.
Bingham therefore included amongst his eight principles, two in particular which dealt with the substance of the law. His seventh principle is that the law must afford adequate protection of human rights. His eighth is that the rule of law requires compliance by a state with its obligations in international law as well as its own domestic law.
Today, there is much content in the principles of international law; in customary international law and in laws agreed to by States in bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions and through binding decisions of the United Nations.
I happen to share the view that rule of law does involve the substance of the law and not merely its procedures and formalities.
But for the purposes of what I want to say today the answer to that particular question is not critical. There are more fundamental issues to consider.
My thesis is that to thrive and prosper, Hong Kong needs not only the engines of economic prosperity. It also needs to observe the rule of law. And to be seen to be doing so.
Economic prosperity and social cohesion go hand in hand with the rule of law. The rule of law creates conditions for economic growth in which people can have confidence – that enterprise will be rewarded and those rewards not arbitrarily removed. It also assists social cohesion by creating a society which is seen to be fair and just.
I am not therefore surprised to read that many Hong Kong citizens value the rule of law and place it highly amongst the values they prize most according to a recent poll.
Viewed from outside Hong Kong, it is a critical consideration for example for foreign investment and business partnership that Hong Kong should offer impartial application of the law and an effective and trustworthy dispute resolution system to solve civil disputes that the parties themselves cannot resolve without undue cost or delay. These are both elements of the rule of law.
Let me then identify what for me are the key attributes of the rules of law.
At its most basic level the rule of law requires that government is by laws and not by men, that is, that rule should not be arbitrary depending on the whim or will of individuals however prominent. Rather there should be certainty and predictability in law so that citizens and others can guide their conduct. As Dicey explained – indeed this was his first meaning – people should not be penalised by the mere discretionary decision of a ruler but only in accordance with a clear and established law where breach has been determined by an independent tribunal. That is in reality a specific example of the need for laws to determine the boundaries of behaviour.
It is therefore essential that the law is accessible; it must be intelligible, clear and predictable.
There are formal requirements in the law; how they are enacted from a lawful authority; that they be accessible to all, be clear and predictable so that men and women may guide the conduct of their lives; that they be applied equally so that they should be applied alike to the same circumstances and accordingly only objectively justifiable differences should justify differentiation. These are all important considerations.
As I have said they are concerned however with the formal requirements of the law. But there is more in my view; the content of the law also engages issues of the rule of law. It is not, therefore, enough for a law to follow some formal concepts: clarity, generality of application, not retrospectively and so on. That is not the end of the inquiry whether the rule of law is being observed.
Further, the same essential principle means that questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by the application of the law and not by the exercise of unfettered discretion.
But rule of law is more than that – important though it is that there be clear and accessible law.
For example, the rule of law also means very importantly that there be equality before the law. The law must apply equally to everyone.
An essential aspect of this universality of application is that the law must apply to the ruler or government as well as the ordinary citizen.
The rule of law requires that all must be subject to the law including the very highest in the land. And that includes enforceability of that law by the courts; there must be effective measures to enforce those rules even against public authorities and the government itself. This is the principle by which the executive authority and other public bodies can be brought to account for the way they exercise the powers that they are entrusted with.
Because the rule of law also imposes limits on the way that power is exercised. That authority, that is to say ministers and public officials at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.
This is what is meant by the famous phrase first used by an 18th century churchman and historian, Dr Thomas Fuller: “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”
Law is not there just to regulate the behaviour of the citizen or of business. It is there also to control the exercise of power by public bodies.
That is of limited value however if the law in theory applies to public authorities but there is no means effectively to enforce the duties the law thus imposes.
The delivery of justice including judicial review of executive action forms therefore a key part of the rule of law.
It is critical in the determination of whether an individual has committed an offence for which he or she deserves to be punished. It is critical too in the determination of civil rights and the resolution of civil disputes that the dispute is determined fairly and by reference to the evidence and not merely the whim of an adjudicator. So too where the issue is the accountability of public bodies.
The rule of law therefore requires that these issues be determined by a suitable judiciary
They should be administered by a competent and honest independent judiciary. What though does independence of the judiciary mean?
At a recent lecture here at the Foreign Correspondents Club, Lord Neuberger President of the UK Supreme court and one of Hong Kong's non-permanent judges in the court of Final Appeal had this to say about the state of independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong.
He underlined that independence for the judiciary means that the legislature and the executive should not be able either (i) to interfere with, or influence judicial decision making, or (ii) remove judges from office.
He also made the important point that Alexander Hamilton one of the founding fathers of the United States made when helping to frame the US Constitution that the judiciary is a branch of government but it is the weakest branch. And, therefore, special care needs to be taken to guard it against attacks.
I know this to be the case from my own experience. During my time in government in the United Kingdom from time to time ministers would find decisions of the courts irksome. They would want to express their feelings publicly and sometimes did. But public criticism of judges by ministers is dangerous. The judges can rarely answer back so the criticism stands uncorrected. This can lead to serious issues such as a loss of public confidence in the courts which may lead people to take action into their own hands.
I was very glad therefore to see Lord Neuberger reject suggestions that the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong is in fact being undermined. He spoke, given his position as one of the judges of the Final Court of Appeal, with knowledge. He will have had the opportunity to witness and to hear from the other judges whether there are issues. His conclusion was clear: “If I felt” he said “that the independence of the judiciary was being undermined then I would either have to speak out or I would have to resign as a judge.”
I believe the world outside Hong Kong and Hong Kong itself can take much comfort from this. As it can take comfort from the fact that in the course of the actions concerning the Occupy Central demonstrations a young leader of the protests was freed from detention by a judge granting habeas corpus – the ancient common law remedy against arbitrary or unlawful detention – against the wishes of the police in a matter of hours from when the judge was seised of the matter.
Whatever other issues there may be about the circumstances of that detention and indeed its length, one can take heart about the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary that robust and decisive action was taken by a judge.
It is critically important to the future of Hong Kong as an international centre for dispute resolution – and also I would say – for its continued economic prosperity that people do not misunderstand the position about the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong. This foundation launched today can help in that respect in two ways.
First by helping to promote the positive evidence of judicial independence, such as the incidents I have just referred to. They need to be understood abroad so people do not doubt that they can get a fair trial and a fair and competent resolution of their civil disputes in Hong Kong. All the evidence I have seen is that they can.
In this respect it is also a great strength of the system of law in Hong Kong that the Final Court of Appeal contains overseas judges of distinction. For those who do not know the system the fact is that some of the most senior and distinguished judges especially from Australia and the UK serve on the court. This gives a strong reassurance that the most important disputes will come before fiercely independent judges for decision. This is not for a moment to suggest that the permanent local members of the Hong Kong judiciary are not equally independent and detached in their opinions and decisions as their overseas brothers. In terms of appearance, however, the presence of the overseas judges gives much reassurance that cases will be decided objectively and without any partisan element.
The Hong Kong judiciary is therefore a hugely important and impressive element of Hong Kong’s commitment to the rule of law.
That will not necessarily mean that all the decisions of this court will be welcomed. Or that the court will not take account of the views of government if it is a party to the decision. Of course the court should listen to that.
And the fact of the interpretative role of the National People’s Congress under Article 158 of the Basic Law will still jar with some people. If the foundation takes on the role of showing that the rule of law is strong in Hong Kong it should also consider how to explain this unusual feature of judicial decision making.
But secondly, it would help to sensitise others to the need not even to give the appearance of undermining that independence. As I have already noted the judiciary is the weakest arm of government. The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are precious flowers. But like most flowers they are fragile and bruise easily. No-one should be surprised that the call in the recent PRC white paper for judges to be patriotic was understood by some as a call for the judges to determine their decisions by considerations of what was best for the country rather than by an objective scrutiny of the evidence and of the law. That would not be a correct understanding of what a judge’s role is; rather the judge should determine the case in front of him or her on the basis of a scrupulous and unpartisan examination of the law and the evidence.
Lord Neuberger in fact put forward his explanation of why judges could hold firm to that approach whilst still being patriotic, emphasising in that respect that deciding cases in accordance with those principles was precisely the patriotic duty expected of a judge.
That reconciliation notwithstanding, the episode shows the fears and the risks to the rule of law if the wrong idea is circulated. In addition therefore to pointing to the evidence of robust and independent judicial action and in recognition of how fragile and vulnerable is the flower of judicial independence, I hope that the foundation might counsel great care is taken in statements especially about the role of judges which could be taken as encouraging a departure from the strict judicial role of determining cases on a dispassionate non-partisan and scrupulous study of the evidence.
What of the observance of the law by others? Is requiring observance of the general law a part of the rule of law?
It is true that most analysis of the rule of law looks at the role of government and public authorities. This is not surprising. This is the area of most importance because the rule of law is a bulwark against arbitrary government rather than a method of enforcing obligations on the majority of the population. So, the list of elements of the rule of law will normally be considered from the stand point of the accountability of the state and public bodies.
What is more the fact that people break the law – which sadly in all countries is constantly happening – does not mean that such country is not subject to the rule of law. If there are people in a country who rob or harm or murder you cannot say that such a country does not follow the rule of law.
What matters in those circumstances is how the law breaking is dealt with.
The rule of law requires that penalisation for breach of the law should be determined by tribunals acting objectively and fairly, applying their own dispassionate judgement to the case and not being dictated to by powerful interests. Inevitably that means that final decisions should only be taken after hearing from both sides – or sometimes all sides – of a dispute. But once that has happened the law must be allowed to run its course and be respected. Respect for the law is not a one-way street. It is a two-way street and as the law applies to the state, so of course it applies to the citizen and those within the state.
I am aware that some might interpret those remarks as directly applicable to the current state of injunctions granted in relation to the Occupy Central protest.
They should not be taken as any expression of any view on those matters. For me to do that would be wrong for several reasons: because the courts are about to rule and above all it is for the courts to make the decision, including whether orders once made should be confirmed or set aside and to weigh up the arguments. But once final judicial orders are made, and unless the court grants a stay of the order, the decisions should be respected. A country based on law can allow nothing less.
Peter Henry Goldsmith, Baron Goldsmith, PC, QC is a British barrister and peer, and a former Attorney General for England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
US President Barack Obama arrives at the Apec summit in Beijing on Monday. Photo: AFP
US President Barack Obama on Monday said his priority when it came to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests was to ensure that violence would be avoided.
This comes after President Xi Jinping told visiting Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying in Beijing on Sunday that the central government would “resolutely support” the Hong Kong government’s efforts to safeguard the city’s rule of law.
Speaking in Beijing, Obama said China wasn’t in the same place as the US when it came to development. But he said it would be unrealistic for the US to set aside its concerns about human rights.
He said the US wouldn’t stop speaking out about the things it cared about.
This is not the first time that Obama has commented on the Occupy Central movement in the city. Early last month, he called for the Hong Kong government to exercise restraint and said he hoped for a peaceful resolution to the political stand-off during a meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.
The US president is visiting the Chinese capital to attend the high-level Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit where he has been scheduled to meet key Asian leaders.
During his three-day trip to China, Obama scheduled to meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.
In Mong Kok, all protesters that the Post talked to seemed unfazed by the extension of the injunctions. Photo: Dickson Lee
Hong Kong police could attempt to clear pro-democracy protesters in Mong Kok as early as Wednesday, the Post has learned, after the High Court again ordered demonstrators off the streets.
The court ruled that bailiffs may seek police assistance if protesters ignore orders to leave sections of Nathan Road in Mong Kok and outside Citic Tower in Admiralty, after extending interim injunctions granted to bus and taxi driver groups and the owner of Citic Tower.
Hundreds and at times thousands of protesters have been camped out at the sites for six weeks in an act of civil disobedience to call for an open election of the city’s next leader.
In today’s decision, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said police should make arrests if bailiffs request assistance and protesters refuse to obey the injunction after it has been explained to them – language missing from the original injunctions.
“When the rule of law and the due administration of justice are at the risk of being seriously challenged and undermined, as it is now, the court must act and strive to protect and uphold them for the benefit and best interest of the general public,” Au said.
“I have therefore come to the clear conclusion that it is necessary to include the police authorisation direction in all the injunction orders.”
Speaking after the decision was made, a police source told the Post that officers would likely try to clear the Mong Kok site on Wednesday.
“We will study the court orders and our role in the orders and then we will discuss with bailiffs,” the source said. “The clearance [in Mong Kok] is expected to take place on Wednesday and Thursday.”
The three plaintiffs first filed their cases almost a month ago. Chiu Luen Public Light Bus Company, the Taxi Association and the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association are asking for sections of Nathan Road in Mong Kok to be cleared, while Goldon Investment, owner of Citic Tower in Admiralty, is seeking the removal of barricades blocking the building’s entrances and exits.
A statement from Citic Limited, which owns 40 per cent of Goldon Investment, said the company was pleased to know the injunction order had remained in place.
Outside court, solicitor Maggie Chan Man-ki who represented the minibus drivers, said: “My clients only want to have the road back to do business.”
Transport sector lawmaker Frankie Yik Chi-ming also welcomed the court decision, saying that no action should be put above the law and wellbeing of society. “[The movement] has plunged our sector into hardship,” Yik said.
Protester Dominic Fok Wai-pong, who testified on behalf of the Mong Kok site, criticised the decision of the plaintiffs to seek court injunctions. He said political problems should be solved by political means, adding that the government had failed to negotiate with protesters.
Asked if protesters would retreat, lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip said the crowd already knew the legal consequences they might face. He suggested that if bailiffs and police begin clearing the sites, protesters could get arrested in their thousands or leave and congregate somewhere else.
Both Albert Chan and Fok said they will consult with lawyers before deciding whether to file an appeal, while Ng Ting-pong, another protester who testified on behalf of the Mong Kok camp, said he would lodge his appeal as soon as possible.
In Mong Kok, all protesters that the Post talked to seemed unfazed by the extension of the injunctions.
“We would let them clear [the roadblocks] but they [the bailiffs] should make a clear record of what they take,” said Alfred Wong, a student who has spent almost every night on the street since the protests began.
“They should play by the rules if injunction order is the game they play now,” said the 18-year-old, adding that bailiffs in the past did not always follow the rules strictly.
In Admiralty, diploma student Frank Wong said he would stand guard as usual. “If someone tries to clear the area by force, we’ll just stand on the road and watch them take down the barricades,” he said.
Reporting by Clifford Lo, Julie Chu, Samuel Chan, Alan Yu and Chris Lau
Re: Hong Kong Occupy Protest rears its NWO Satanic 666 hand signal...
Occupy Central 'is challenging Beijing'
Eddie Luk and Hilary Wong
Monday, November 10, 2014
Occupy Central is a direct challenge not just to the SAR and its governance but also to Beijing, President Xi Jinping said yesterday.
But the central government has a full grasp of the ongoing protest movement and protesters' demands for genuine universal suffrage.
Sources said Xi made the remarks during a 40-minute closed-door meeting with Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on the fringes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Xi praised Leung for having the courage to face the political crisis, now in its 44th day.
The president said he fully supports the efforts of Leung and the SAR government to govern in line with the law, especially when safeguarding the rule of law and maintaining social order, Xinhua News Agency reported.
It is the first time Xi has commented on Hong Kong affairs since the launch of the Occupy Central movement on September 28.
Xi reiterated that Hong Kong's move toward democratic reform will be based on the Basic Law and the "One Country, Two Systems" principle and that the central government is determined to maintain the SAR's stability and prosperity. He praised Leung for being "reliable and brave."
Xi said the central government has told foreign government leaders that Hong Kong's political reform is an internal affair and they should not interfere.
He also asked whether stripping Liberal Party lawmaker James Tien Pei- chun of his Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference membership had any effect.
Leung reported to Xi the Liberal Party's stances on some important issues after Tien's expulsion.
Speaking after the meeting, Leung quoted Xi as saying that the rule of law is the "cornerstone" of Hong Kong's long-term stability.
"I am confident that, with the support and cooperation of various sectors in society, the occupation movement and other incidents can be handled well to restore social order in Hong Kong and protect the rule of law," Leung said.
Before the talks, Xi told media: "The central government will steadfastly implement One Country, Two Systems and the Basic Law, steadfastly support Hong Kong to advocate the development of democracy based on the law and steadfastly maintain Hong Kong's prosperity and stability."
Leung said the occupation movement has already hit Hong Kong's rule of law and disrupted social order.
"It has also reflected that Hong Kong society has different views on political reform," he said.
Student leader Alex Chow wants to meet in Beijing. Photo: Dickson Lee
Hongkongers' sense of Chinese identity has hit a record low, a Chinese University survey conducted during the Occupy Central protests found, as local student organisers plan their overtures to state leaders in Beijing.
Only 8.9 per cent of the 810 people polled last month identified themselves as "Chinese", according to the telephone survey carried out by the university's Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey.
That was one of four options presented to respondents of the poll, 26.8 per cent of whom chose "Hongkongers" as their identity. Forty-two per cent chose "Hongkongers but also Chinese" and 22.3 per cent went with "Chinese but also Hongkongers".
Professor Anthony Fung Ying-him, director of the university's school of journalism and communication, said people's low sense of Chinese identity stemmed from news of the Occupy Central movement and conflicts between Hong Kong and the mainland that have permeated social media.
"Our survey also found that social media has a big impact on the teenagers. Their sense of identity is affected by what they read" there, he said.
This is the tenth identity survey the centre has conducted since 1996. The study in 1997, the year of the handover, found 32.1 per cent identifying as Chinese. That figure dropped to 16.5 per cent in 2010, and to just 12.6 per cent in 2012.
The portion of people who identified themselves as Hongkongers peaked in 1998, at 28.8 per cent. This year's result of 26.8 per cent is the second-highest .
Meanwhile, Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang reiterated that the federation planned to write to all 35 local delegates to the National People's Congress to seek a meeting with state leaders.
They have written to Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, the only local member of the NPC Standing Committee, asking her to start a petition with other NPC local deputies to call on the national legislature to retract the restrictive framework on universal suffrage.
The federation's Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok said federation representatives would still go to Beijing even without NPC help.
The students had asked former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa to help set up such a meeting, but he did not agree to do so.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) meets with Leung Chun-ying in Beijing. Photo: Xinhua
On Sunday, President Xi Jinping and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying met for the first time since the Occupy Central protests began some six weeks ago. The message from the meeting is clear. Beijing continues to support the city's leader and his governance according to the law. During a brief photo session for the media, Xi did not follow his predecessors in heaping praise on the chief executive. But a Xinhua report said the central government fully supported Leung and his administration. A source close to the Hong Kong government also said Xi cited a Chinese poem at the closed-door meeting to show his appreciation of Leung's loyalty and resilience during testing times. Separately, China yesterday announced that the scheme linking the stock markets in Shanghai and Hong Kong would be launched next week, a day after Leung raised the issue during the meeting. The green light is seen as yet another move to back the city's leader.
The endorsement for Leung is to be expected. It came at a time when the city is threatened by the gravest political challenge since the handover. It is imperative for Beijing to be seen as firmly behind the embattled chief executive. It also gives the clearest signal that Beijing will strictly adhere to the rule of law on the issue of political reform. Although Xi did not comment directly on the protests, he stressed the importance of the rule of law, the centerpiece in the latest Communist Party policy blueprint. He also reiterated the need for Hong Kong to "fully and accurately" understand the Basic Law, sparking concerns that it may impose tougher policies on the city.
The central government says it will resolutely support the Hong Kong government's efforts to safeguard the rule of law. Regrettably, the protesters' actions are not in line with that. They block the streets and defy court orders; they challenge the electoral framework decided by the highest state authority and insist on public nomination - a concept outside the Basic Law. The struggle is spilling over to the mainland, with some protest leaders trying to gatecrash Beijing after former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa turned down their request to arrange a meeting with state officials. The confrontational tactics will not end the impasse. It is clear Beijing will only allow Hong Kong to implement political reform according to its framework. The longer the protests drag on, the less likely democracy can be achieved. Adhering to the law is the only way forward.
Leung Chun-ying meets Xi Jinping. Photo: Simon Song
State leaders gave the green light to the launch of the Hong Kong and Shanghai stock market "through train" scheme after Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying pledged that the city's government was capable of handling the Occupy Central protests.
The market originally expected the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect scheme to kick off in October given the joint announcement by securities regulators in Hong Kong and the mainland in April stating that it would take about six months to complete the preparations.
The Hong Kong government originally expected to announce the launch of the long-awaited scheme on October 27.
But a Hong Kong government source said state leaders started to worry about the threat to the rule of law and social order in Hong Kong as the Occupy protests continued.
"The central government informed the Hong Kong government on October 25 that the scheme would be postponed without giving a date for its launch," the source said.
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing issued a statement the following day saying that it had not received approval for the launch of the scheme and there was no firm date for its implementation.
Zhang Rongshun, vice-chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee's legislative affairs commission, said on October 28 that the postponement was due to the Occupy campaign.
The source said Leung subsequently offered a written assurance to the central government, pledging that the Hong Kong government would deploy its own resources to restore social order and address Beijing's concerns about the threat to the rule of law in the city.
It remains unclear if Leung mentioned in his report to Beijing whether the Hong Kong government would clear protest sites and when.
"The chief executive repeated the pledge when he met President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Sunday. The president was convinced and told Premier Li Keqiang later in the day to give the go-ahead to the scheme," the source said.
The source said relevant central government ministries worked out the details on Sunday night and a joint announcement by the Securities and Futures Commission and the China Securities Regulatory Commission on the approval of the launch of the scheme was issued yesterday.
Vincent Lo Hong-sui, chairman of Shui On Land, said in Beijing yesterday that the timing of the announcement of the through-train scheme had showed the central government's support for the chief executive. "I believe the central government will support him to complete his remaining term in office," said Lo, a staunch supporter of Leung.
PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 11 November, 2014, 12:26pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 11 November, 2014, 7:29pm
If Hong Kong were better governed, would there be any need for democracy?
Kelly Yang says people rallying for democracy in Hong Kong really want strong leadership, as has been demonstrated in the corporate world
As Leung's approval ratings plummet, companies like Alibaba continue to attract shareholders who happily trade their cash for virtually no say in the company. Photo: Simon Song
Two blocks away from the protests for "one person, one vote", the Hong Kong stock exchange is quietly mulling over whether to abandon its "one shareholder, one vote" policy. Ironically, early this year, it was the exchange's insistence on democratic governance that lost Hong Kong the biggest IPO in history - the US$25 billion Alibaba listing - to New York.
HKEx's "one share, one vote" policy serves to safeguard shareholders' rights against entrenching power to a minority, in much the same way "one person, one vote" protects citizens. Yet a growing number of companies, including Alibaba, Google and Facebook, are eschewing this democratic model in favour of dual-class shares, where some shares are weighted more heavily than others.
Dual-class shares, allowed on the New York Stock Exchange but not yet in Hong Kong, allow founders and vetted executives to keep control while still getting the public's money. This trend raises the question: Is democracy becoming a thing of the past?
Alibaba seems to think so. A group of 27 "partners" of the Chinese online commerce company has retained the exclusive right to nominate a majority of its board of directors even after it became a public company. Founder Jack Ma argues that in order for a company to "survive the long journey", it needed to be able to withstand the pressures of short-term gains that shareholders demand. To do that, it needed control.
Last month, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying infamously tried to use similar logic in media interviews to defend the proposed 2017 nomination procedure for the chief executive. Unfortunately, the result of his speech was no soaring IPO.
As Leung's approval ratings plummet, companies like Alibaba continue to attract shareholders who happily trade their cash for virtually no say in the company. Why? And if it's possible for corporations to flourish in a structure in which shares and money are not king, is it then possible for a city to thrive when its people are not king?
Of course, there are glaring differences between companies and countries. Moreover, because governments affect people's fundamental rights, when something goes wrong, there's a lot more to lose. Currently in Hong Kong, there's a massive wealth gap, limited access to affordable housing and an education system that facilitates little upward mobility. That's a lot that needs to change.
However, if the success of tech IPOs tells us anything, it's that democracy is not the only way to bring about change. Non-democratic systems of governance can also bring lasting, favourable results.
Ultimately, what all successful companies and countries need - democratic or not - is strong leadership. That's why the Hong Kong people are protesting for democracy while the HKEx is thinking about scrapping it. The stock exchange has seen exceptional leaders who can deliver results to shareholders without democracy. The Hong Kong people, on the other hand, clearly haven't.
Kelly Yang is the founder of The Kelly Yang Project, an after-school programme for children in Hong Kong. She is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard Law School. [email protected]
Carrie Lam urged protesters to leave Occupy Central sites. Photo: Nora Tam
Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said “there is no room for dialogue” with student leaders of the Occupy movement unless they give views that are “related” to the government agenda for the next round of consultation for political reform.
Speaking after the Executive Council meeting this morning, Lam said she noted that the Federation of Students were seeking a meeting with central government officials.
“If they go to Beijing only to repeat their views, there seems to be no need to do so,” Lam said.
“But if they have new views about what to do next with the political reform, especially views that are related to the second round of the [government’s] consultation, we will always welcome them.”
Lam spoke a day after the federation wrote to Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, the city’s sole representative in the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, asking her to help set up a meeting with state officials. Former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa has evaded a similar request from the students.
She continued: “In the previous talks, the [Hong Kong] government has shown the greatest sincerity in the two-hour session … but the federation didn’t demonstrate the same sincerity. On the other hand it toughened its stance afterwards ... I feel there is no room for dialogue for the time being.”
The students’ demand that the NPCSC withdraw its August decision for the city’s political reform and on public nomination for the city’s 2017 chief executive election was not in line with the Basic Law, Lam said.
Lam – who is the acting chief executive while Leung Chun-ying is in Beijing for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting – also urged protesters to leave their camps as soon as possible after the High Court ruled that police can now arrest demonstrators who defy bailiffs trying to clear sit-in sites in Mong Kok and Admiralty.
Lam said that police would make arrests “to uphold the rule of law” following the court’s renewal of injunctions in Mong Kok and Admiralty yesterday.
“I also note that the court has authorised police to arrest people who prevent the bailiffs from executing the injunctions,” Lam said. “To uphold the rule of law, police are preparing to enforce the law, including making arrests.”
She called on protesters inside and outside the areas covered by the injunctions to leave immediately.
The injunctions cover the junction between Argyle Road and Nathan Road in Mong Kok, and the entrances to Citic Tower in Admiralty.
Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung added that the injunctions would be effective, even though some protesters might want to appeal against them.
