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.
Democracy alone may not solve Hong Kong's ailments
A more open political system alone will not be enough to fix Hong Kong's growing social problems
Richard Wong
The views of some of the student leaders of the Occupy movement and the pan-democrat politicians in Hong Kong are quite similar to the commentaries found in rich developed nations.
For example, as in Hong Kong, the Occupy Wall Street movement bemoaned rising inequality, the growth of government-business cronyism, and the inability of the political system to arrest these developments and correct them.
Many pan-democrats and occupation supporters here believe that at the very minimum, a more democratic political system in Hong Kong will be better able to tackle these social ailments.
Occupy Wall Street protestors. Photo: NYT
It is not difficult to understand the source of these sentiments. In both the US and Hong Kong, labour productivity has continued to rise over time but real median household incomes have become stagnant.
This phenomenon leads to rising economic inequality and sinking middle-income classes over time. There are multiple causes behind it.
First, technological change has created demand for highly skilled manpower, increasing wage gaps between more and lesser educated workers.
Second, investments in education have lagged behind the demand for skilled manpower, exacerbating the shortage of this labour.
Third, highly regulated schooling systems and the unionisation of teachers have stunted incentives to innovate in schools, making learning less effective, especially for underprivileged students. In Hong Kong, there has barely been any growth in tertiary education investments since the 1990s.
Fourth, rising divorce rates have negatively affected the learning and work habits of children. Hong Kong's divorce rates are among the top 10 in the world. The situation is particularly severe among low-income classes living in public housing estates.
Fifth, high-income families invest heavily in their children at very early ages, giving them learning and health advantages for a lifetime of competition.
Sixth, the rich-income classes are able to invest in financial and physical assets that preserve and enhance their wealth. Property prices in Hong Kong have risen enormously in the past two decades, creating sharp inequalities between those who own property and benefit from higher prices, and those who do not.
Seventh, politics in the rich and developed nations have not alleviated these problems because the time horizons of politicians in democratic societies are often too short to implement significant policies, and most societies in the West are configured to make state governing institutions weak.
This has left a legacy in which the governance systems of rich developed nations are unable to arrest rising inequality, halt growing government-business cronyism, overcome the tyranny of minorities, or end political gridlock. Society is beset with growing distrust and remains in the grip of well-organised narrow special interests that are not limited to business alone.
A rising number of scholars and intellectuals in the West have been re-examining their own political democracies in search of a fix. They remain committed to liberal democracy and the principles of equality and fairness, but they also accept that their democratic systems have deep flaws.
Hong Kong does not yet have democracy. But if American, European and Japanese democracies have not resolved their social ailments, why expect a similar form of democracy to solve the same ailments here? Hong Kong's problems need more than a political solution.
I am not questioning the superiority of democracy, but as a political arrangement for safeguarding and promoting competing public interests, there is much room for improvement. As Winston Churchill famously said in 1947, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
If we fail to end political gridlock, Hong Kong will not arrive at democracy through compromise and rational discourse. Democracy will not be attained through peaceful means. Violence certainly will not bring democracy; it can only bring tyranny.
Richard Wong Yue-chim is Philip Wong Kennedy Wong Professor in Political Economy at the University of Hong Kong
Protesters smash glass doors at the Legco complex. Photo: SCMP Pictures
Police on Wednesday strongly condemned a “mob” of protesters who stormed the Legco building last night, attempting to break in through a window, which they smashed using an iron barricade.
Hui Chun Tak, chief superintendent of Police Public Relations Branch, said that six men aged between 18 and 24 had been arrested for criminal damage and for assaulting police officers during the incident.
Three police officers were injured in scuffles at the scene and Hui said there may be more arrests pending further investigations.
Equipment belonging to the police also went missing last night’s clash – a baton, a helmet and two shields – and police urged people who knew their whereabouts to return the items to police.
Regarding the protest site in Mong Kok, Hui said police would assist bailiffs in carrying out the injunction order to remove barricades there and confirmed they had met with the plaintiff and bailiffs today to discuss how to implement the removals.
Hui said a large-scale confrontation could easily take place as many protesters of opposing camps have gathered tehre. A man aged 52 was arrested last night for common assault, Hui added.
The police urged people not be incited by radical individuals and urged protesters to remove the obstacles and leave the protest zone in an orderly and peaceful manner as soon as possible.
The surprise flare-up of violence, which led to the deployment of pepper spray and police baton-charging protesters, took place barely one day after a clearance operation had been carried out at one of the main pro-democracy protest sites in the district.
The Legco meeting and Public Works Subcommittee meeting scheduled for Wednesday were cancelled hours after the clashes broke out.
At around 1am, a group of masked people, many of whom appeared to be teenagers, used metal barriers and various objects including broken bricks to try to crack open the glass doors outside the canteen at the Legco complex.
Lawmaker Dr Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung, who had arrived at the scene earlier, tried in vain to stop them.
Scores of police officers carrying shields moved in shortly afterwards, deploying pepper spray to fend off the attackers. Officers later spread out and guarded the entrance of the building after the crowd retreated.
Waving yellow, then red warning flags, police told the masked group not to charge again.
The stand-off continued for hours as more protesters flocked to the area and police reinforcements were called in.
The stand-off continued for hours as more protesters flocked to the area and police reinforcements were called in. Photo: Felix Wong
At 3am, some protesters gathered again at the Legco's north entrance facing Victoria Harbour, with another group forming in the open area 20 metres away. More protesters continued to pour in. The crowds were very fluid and moved around. Most protesters wore masks and protective goggles.
Some protesters said they were furious at seeing the barricades in the occupied area around Citic Tower being removed by bailiffs on Tuesday.
"We want to use this action to pass on our voices, across onto those over on the other side of the glass," said a protester, who refused to be named.
Another protester, who said she had been staying in the protest zone in Admiralty since the class boycott in September, said the "main stage" people, who organised the Occupy Central sit-in, were doing nothing and just waiting for the government to come clear them out.
"At least we need to fight to abolish functional constituencies ... Universal suffrage is a far-off dream, but this we need to fight for because it's the first step," she said. Not all "pushing-forward" actions were bad, she insisted.
Both said they were there when the glass doors in the Legco complex were broken by rocks, and said there were three people still inside the building.
Police use pepper spray against the protesters. Photo: SCMP Pictures
There is a split in the Occupy camp over whether protests should remain peaceful or not, said Kuroros Li, 23, who was among those who stormed Legco. He said that some demonstrators were wary of political parties using the Occupy movement to leverage support.
"I'm not afraid to say that we already disagree with most political parties; it's just that we wanted to unite at first, but that'll change after last night. We may go our separate ways," he said.
"Our aim is to attract Occupiers in Admiralty who still insist that peace can change everything, and not the people on the outside.
"When the clearances started yesterday, they were extremely cooperative and even helped move their stuff away, which felt strange to me: why are you playing along with the government?"
He said some protesters have talked about taking over government buildings and key locations, like Admiralty Centre and Lung Wo Road.
"It's not a matter of which government building or landmark we occupy, but if we do nothing, then we're just waiting for this movement to end," he said.
A smashed window at Legco on Wednesday morning. Photo: Felix Wong
Lawmaker Cheung, who tried to stop the protesters from smashing the glass doors, also said there might be at least one protester who had snuck into the complex.
“What they [the masked attackers] did was not helpful to the matter as a whole,” he said.
Cheung was not injured but at least one suspected blood stain was seen on his shirt. He said he suspected someone might have been cut by broken glass.
Cheung called the protesters’ action a "dark spot" for the Occupy movement.
"The opposition will definitely use what happened last night to smear our entire movement, and that might deal us a fatal blow in a referendum," he said.
"For the past 50 days now, the government has remained an inaccessible wall and hasn't responded to very reasonable demands from citizens.
"I'm afraid this will give the government and pro-government lawmakers an excuse to put up more walls in Legco."
Police haul a protester away from the Legco complex in Admiralty. Photo: Felix Wong
At 4.30am, protesters regrouped and clashed with police again. Officers used pepper spray and baton-charged the crowd, who were again forced to retreat, with dozens mounting a wall and fleeing into the adjacent Tamar Park.
Earlier on Tuesday night, at around 10pm, dozens of masked people attempted to storm the Legislative Council through the side gate but could not enter the building because the gate was locked. Some of them then suggested occupying Lung Wo Road which is adjacent to the complex, before they were stopped by other protesters at the site.
Some masked protesters claimed they were trying to obstruct the amendment to the copyright law that addresses the issue of user-generated content. This is, however, not on the agenda of the Legco meeting on Wednesday.
Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow Yong-kang said on Wednesday morning that storming Legco was pointless. He denied that the Occupy protests had gone out of control but admitted that there was "room for improvement" in coordinating among protesters.
Scholarism convener Joshua Wong Chi-fung said the protesters' action would endanger other demonstrators.
“In a civil disobedience campaign participants have to shoulder their legal responsibilities and ensure the safety of all other participants,” he said.
“Those storming the Legco and then leaving the scene immediately afterwards would pose danger to other protesters behind them.”
Eddie Lee, Jennifer Ngo, Danny Mok, Lai Ying-kit, Alan Yu
Fernando Cheung attempts to stop protesters from storming Legco in the early hours of Wednesday. Photo: SCMP Pictures
Occupy Central and pan-democratic lawmakers condemned the break-in at the Legislative Council in the early hours of Wednesday, saying protesters has been “misled” by rumours about a yet-to-be discussed bill on internet freedom.
Lawmakers are also worried the incident would provide an excuse for pro-establishment lawmakers to push through a proposal to build a three-metre high metal fence outside the Legco complex.
“The violent acts have violated the principle of peace and non-violence underlying the umbrella movement,” Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit said.
“We feel the [break-in] will have a negative impact on the movement. We’re heartbroken.”
Labour Party lawmaker Dr Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung, who witnessed the break-in, said the protesters who tried to storm Legco were “misled”.
“They told me they thought Legco will meet to discuss the so-called Article 23 for the internet today. But there’s no such meeting arranged at all,” Cheung said.
The bill he referred to is the Copyright (Amendment) Bill this year, which pan-democrats see as an attempt to suppress freedom of expression on the internet. It is due to be discussed by a bills committee next month.
Cheung said he rushed to the Legco complex shortly after midnight, after learning there had been a verbal confrontation on Harcourt Road regarding the break-in. Outside Legco, he saw several masked men smashing the glass doors of the building with metal barriers.
Protesters hurl concrete slabs at the Legco doors. Photo: SCMP Pictures
“I felt mad, and threw myself between those people and the glass door. Two men jumped on me and pushed me away,” he said.
The Civic Party’s Ronny Tong Ka-wah said he was worried that the incident would make it hard to object to a proposal to build a fence outside the Legco complex, which the pan-democrats oppose.
“With [the break-in], how can we persuade the pro-establishment lawmakers that the fence shouldn’t be built?” he said.
The Legislative Council Commission yesterday discussed the idea, suggested by a security consultant, that a three-metre high metal fence should be built at the Legco car park entrance. It came after protesters against a new town project attempted to break in to Legco earlier this year.
Photographers assess the damage on Wednesday morning. Photo: Felix Wong
The Occupy Central campaign “strongly reprimanded” the storming of Legco.
In a statement it said “those who stormed [the Legco] did not discuss their objective and strategy with other occupiers [before they took action], yet they used false information [that the Legco is voting on a copyright bill] to mislead the crowd, so that occupiers were involved in the incident without being well-informed beforehand.”
The campaign also said that the “umbrella movement emphasises non-violent civil disobedience and the bearing of criminal responsibility. Yet, the action [this morning] … went against the concepts of civil disobedience.”
Supporters of the “umbrella movement” must insist on non-violent action, so that the government would not find “any excuse to clear the scene in a violent manner”, the statement added.
Jasper Tsang inspects the damage at Legco on Wednesday. Photo: Felix Wong
A proposal to step up security at the Legislative Council includes building a fence at the car park entrance rather than one surrounding the whole building, the council’s president clarified on Wednesday.
Jasper Tsang Yok-sing said that the suggestion to erect a three-metre high metal fence was made by a security consultant in an interim report, among other measures to strengthen security. No decision had been made on its construction yet, he added.
“The Legco complex was not designed to cope with a deliberate attack to break in,” Tsang said after a closed-door meeting on security measures.
“Making Legco as accessible to the public as possible remains our main principle. But we also have to take care of the safety of those working in the building.”
Tsang was speaking after a group of masked pro-democracy protesters smashed two glass doors at the complex using metal barriers and concrete slabs shortly after midnight.
Tsang strongly condemned those who initiated the storming of the complex, but noted that they “were different from the Occupy [Central] protesters” and that their acts were not endorsed by the movement.
He denied reports that the proposed fence would “surround” the Legco building. Instead, it would only be erected at the car park entrance and would remain open unless it was necessary to close it for safety reasons.
Tsang also said there was no plan to clear the protest area outside the council complex, although he said that there were hygiene and safety issues, with power generators placed inside some tents, for example.
But the Legco president also admitted that some lawmakers had suggested the legislature should apply for an injunction from the court to eject protesters around its area.
“Our legal adviser says there would be special legal issues for the legislature to seek an order from the courts. Our legal division has yet to study this,” he said.
The Occupy protest zone in Admiralty. Photo: Felix Wong
Nearly 83 per cent of Hongkongers want the Occupy Central protests to stop while more than two-thirds believe the government should clear the protest sites, a University of Hong Kong survey found.
Nearly 55 per cent of 513 respondents interviewed by the university’s public opinion programme from Monday to Tuesday said they opposed the civil disobedience movement, compared with 28 per cent who supported the campaign.
A total of 82.9 per cent said the occupation campaign, now in its eighth week, should end while 13 per cent said it should continue. Another 4.1 per cent replied “don’t know/hard to say”.
The survey findings were released a day after Dr Chan Kin-man, a co-founder of Occupy Central, urged protesters to consider ending their road blockades and instead refocus on winning the long-term support of the public.
More than 68 per cent of the respondents said the Hong Kong government should clear the protest sites while 25.1 per cent said it should maintain the “status quo”. Another 6.8 per cent said “don’t know/hard to say”.
The survey had a response rate of 65.9 per cent, a sampling error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points and a confidence level of 95 per cent.
More than 11 per cent of the respondents said they had taken part in the protests, compared with 88.4 per cent who said they had not done so.
According to another survey by Chinese University’s Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey from November 5 to 11, more than 67 per cent of 1.030 respondents believed the protesters should go home, while 14 per cent believed the opposite.
Dr Ma Ngok, a political scientist at Chinese University, said as the Occupy protests had dragged on for such a long time, some people who were sympathetic with the protesters disagreed with continuation of the sit-ins without clear goals.
“But many occupiers joined the movement in the hope of protecting students. Student leaders find it difficult to withdraw from protest zones because they believe they owe a moral responsibility to those occupiers,” he said. “The students think they shouldn’t abandon the occupiers lightly.”
A man throws a lump of concrete at a glass panel as protesters sought to get inside the building. Photo: SCMP Pictures
Who stormed the Legco complex? Student leaders were adamant they did not instigate the violence, and the pan-democratic camp was quick to distance itself from events.
However, a strong clue emerged when someone at the scene in Admiralty used a megaphone to address the crowd before the assault was launched.
"We are besieging the entrances of Legco to stop lawmakers from attending a meeting tomorrow [yesterday morning] so that 'Article 23' cannot be passed smoothly," he said.
Police use pepper spray against protesters outside the Legislative Council building early yesterday. Photo: SCMP Pictures
Suspicion immediately fell on "keyboard fighters" - internet users who instigate unrest.
On Tuesday, a handful had taken to popular online forum HKGolden.com to express their worries about a controversial copyright amendment bill - labelled by some as the online version of the Article 23 antisubversion law, which was shelved a decade ago after mass protests. The bill, if passed, would limit online freedom of speech, many believe.
The government has for years been trying to strengthen copyright laws to offer more protection for copyright holders online and meet international standards. But it has faced opposition amid concerns that parodies and satire would suffer. A previous bill was dropped in 2012.
Some who replied to the online alert urged protesters to escalate their actions. What subsequently happened was captured graphically by TV cameras.
Scores of masked protesters emerged early yesterday morning to storm the Legislative Council, battering a glass window with a metal barrier and lumps of concrete and injuring three police officers.
Six men aged 18 to 25 were arrested. A full Legco meeting and a public works subcommittee meeting scheduled for yesterday were called off.
Police officers take away a protester after the storming of Legco. Photo: Felix Wong
The online campaign had begun when a man calling himself Yip Ching-shun posted a message online saying: "What the government does is to inevitably force people to rise against it. Let's surround Legco."
Yip accused the government in another online post of wanting to pass the bill on Tuesday.
But the bills committee on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 only met to discuss details.
Another user, called Japanese Buffet Convenor, suggested: "Even if you got there, no one has the guts to break the glass and storm in."
Posts with similar suggestions emerged throughout the day, though some users pointed out that the bill would not be put to the vote until next year.
When the unrest started, Labour Party lawmaker Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung, who had arrived at the scene earlier, tried in vain to stop them.
Scores of police officers carrying shields moved in shortly afterwards, deploying pepper spray to fend off the attackers. Officers later spread out and guarded the entrance after the crowd retreated.
The stand-off continued for hours as more protesters flocked to the area and police reinforcements were called in.
At 3am, some protesters gathered again at Legco's north entrance facing Victoria Harbour, with another group forming in the open area 20 metres away. More protesters continued to pour in. The crowds were very fluid and moved around. Most protesters wore masks.
Cheung said the protesters who tried to storm Legco were "misled". Cheung said he rushed to the Legco complex shortly after midnight, after learning of a quarrel between "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung and a protester.
"They told me they thought Legco would meet to discuss the so-called Article 23 for the internet today. But there's no such meeting at all," Cheung said.
"I felt mad, and threw myself between those people and the glass door. Two men jumped on me, held me in their arms and pulled me away," he said.
A split between moderate and radical protesters widened after bailiffs cleared barricades in Admiralty on Tuesday.
"We want to use this action to pass on our voices to those on the other side of the glass," said one protester, who refused to be named.
Another protester, who said she had been staying in the protest zone in Admiralty since September, said the "main stage" people who organised the sit-ins were doing nothing apart from waiting for the government to clear them out.
"At least we need to fight to abolish functional constituencies … Universal suffrage is a far-off dream, but this we need to fight for because it's the first step." Not all "pushing forward" actions were bad, she insisted.
But others, like 23-year-old Kuroros Li disagreed. "Our aim is to attract occupiers in Admiralty who still insist that peace can change everything, and not the people on the outside," he said.
Police officers rest after dealing with the protesters at Legco. Photo: Felix Wong
Federation of Students secretary general Alex Chow Yong-kang denied the protests had got out of control but said protesters involved had to improve communication among themselves.
Scholarism convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung said the protesters' actions would endanger other demonstrators.
Police spokesman Chief Superintendent Steve Hui Chun-tak said the force would conduct further investigations into the background of those arrested. He said police strongly condemned the action at Legco, and called those who took part a "mob".
Chris Lau, Joyce Ng, Alan Yu, Danny Mok, Jennifer Ngo, Eddie Lee, Elizabeth Cheung
End occupation of Hong Kong and focus on mass electoral campaign for democracy
Albert Cheng says change in strategy needed to win back public sentiment and counter Leung's war of attrition, to avoid a political disaster at the polls
Albert Cheng
The campaign is in danger of dissipating into a public nuisance. Photo: Sam Tsang
I am an old-timer. The umbrella movement is billed as an intergenerational conflict. What I have to say may not be music to young ears. Yet, like most grandparents, I will keep mumbling, screaming and doing whatever it takes to talk some sense into the heads of the student activists.
Those who are supposed to be leading the movement have formed a five-party platform to discuss their next moves. They include the pan-democrats, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, the Federation of Students, Scholarism and other civic bodies. My hopes are pinned on the student bodies.
The organisers have so far failed to come up with a clear strategy, let alone an action plan. The longer this goes on, the less popular the movement will become. The government will emerge as the winner from this gradual change in public sentiment. The campaign is in danger of dissipating into a public nuisance.
This trend has been confirmed independently by various surveys. An overwhelming 83 per cent in one poll said they wanted Occupy to end immediately. The under 30s are the only sector who tend to think otherwise. Slightly over half this age bracket want the sites in Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok to remain occupied. For them, the movement will be a failure, until and unless the government makes substantial concessions over electoral reform. They prefer a forced eviction to a voluntary withdrawal.
The five-party platform has been toying with the idea of asking some directly elected legislators to resign so they can promote their ideas in all 18 districts during by-elections that would be called within six months. Such a pseudo-referendum could provide a turning point for the campaign. The pan-democratic camp could then use the electoral campaign to regain the momentum and refocus on the major stumbling block for true democracy in Hong Kong - Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.
The student groups should call a mass assembly and announce a tactical withdrawal from the occupied sites so the protests can transform into a mass campaign across the districts. The window of opportunity is narrow, with major occupied areas due to be cleared within days.
Professor Chan Kin-man, one of the trio behind the original concept of Occupy, is apparently sensitive to the turning tide. He has in effect withdrawn from Admiralty and resumed his teaching duties on campus. He has written in support of the pseudo-referendum. He said the least the protesters should do is make the occupied sites smaller in return for greater support from the wider public.
However, the pan-democratic legislators' response has been less than warm. Those who gave up their seats would be barred from running in the by-elections under current electoral laws. They are dragging their feet out of self-interest. The students should apply maximum moral pressure on them.
Meanwhile, the pro-establishment camp has lost no time in maximising its political gains. Their blue ribbon campaign in support of the police is, in effect, a grand election campaign that has started early.
They are targeting citizens who used to be apolitical. The recent anti-Occupy petition, headed by Robert Chow Yung, claimed to have secured 1.8 million signatures. That may be inflated but even half that figure would be equivalent to the total number of votes the pan-democrats got in the geographical constituencies in the 2012 Legislative Council poll. In that ballot, support for the pan-democrats dropped from 60 to 55 per cent. It looks poised to slip further in the next election.
The one-third of citizens who are in favour of Occupy in principle are likely to vote for younger and more progressive candidates in the next district council and Legco elections.
The political awakening of the younger generation is by far the biggest achievement of the movement. The young activists should make the most of any by-elections to reach out to their peers and broaden their ballot bases. But the student leaders have lost sight of the reality that Leung is fighting a war of attrition and division. The attempt by a small group of radicals to storm the Legco building shows that the government tactics are paying off. Even Leung's approval rating has inched back above the 40-point threshold.
The young occupiers are chasing a democratic ideal, for which they should be given credit. Yet, all democratic systems boil down to a contest for votes. This movement for a fair and just electoral system is not backed up by tactical considerations to consolidate and enlarge the support of the general electorate.
The biting reality is that even as youngsters seek the holy grail of true democracy, their allies can barely hang on to their elected seats. Their democratic dream might turn into a political nightmare before too long.
Joshua Wong gives an interview in Hong Kong's occupied financial central district. Photo: Reuters
Scholarism leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung today said the storming of the Legislative Complex on Wednesday was "inappropriate", but failed to give a clear answer on whether the offenders should be condemned for their actions.
In an interview with RTHK he said he believed the Occupy protests should continue, despite a fresh survey this morning that showed more than 80 per cent of Hongkongers want the demonstrators to go home.
Wong said he understood that a number of Occupy protesters were looking to escalate their action to break the current impasse with the government and Beijing, but that he believed storming the building and smashing windows was not appropriate.
"The basis for taking this level of action was not there," he said, speaking during an RTHK talk show on Thursday morning.
"There had been no planning, no explanation to other protesters and the public beforehand on what they were trying to achieve. The result was people feeling bad about the whole umbrella movement," Wong said.
Responding to a Hong Kong university survey which showed nearly 83 per cent of Hongkongers want the Occupy Central protests to stop, Wong said it was not yet time to pack up and go home. Photo: Felix Wong
He failed to give a clear answer when he was repeatedly asked by the programme's host whether he thought the break-in constituted violence, but said only that the masked protesters were irresponisble.
"What I would condemn was a lack of accountablity among the masked protesters," he added.
"They broke a glass door and urged those from behind to move in while they stood aloof outside. They failed to look after the safety of the other protesters," he said.
Scores of masked protesters emerged early on Wednesday morning to storm the Legco building, battering a glass window with a metal barrier and lumps of concrete and injuring three police officers.
Responding to a Hong Kong university survey which showed nearly 83 per cent of Hongkongers want the Occupy Central protests to stop while more than two-thirds want the government to clear the protest sites, Wong said it was not yet time to pack up and go home.
He said there had to be an alternative way to continue the push for genuine universal suffrage before the Occupy protests were stopped.
He added that Occupy leaders were now thinking how to best continue the pro-democracy campaign outside of street protests.
Half of Occupy Central protesters ready to pack it in if asked by organisers
Survey shows a near-even split between those who would go home if asked by organisers, and those who want to stay until demands are met
Legal representatives place a notice on a Mong Kok barricade set up by pro-democracy protesters, to be removed by bailiffs under a court injunction. Photo: Sam Tsang
Half of Occupy protesters said they would retreat if asked to do so by campaign leaders, according to a poll of more than 2,100 people taking part in the sit-ins.
The findings, compiled by students and analysed by the Post, came as tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying urged protesters to consider retreating.
Out of 2,183 protesters polled, 958 said they would retreat if the three groups leading the movement asked them to do so. The results also showed that 963 said they would ignore such a request and continue their protest, while 262 did not give a clear answer or were undecided.
The study was conducted by 20 student protesters and volunteers. Close to 2,000 protesters in Admiralty and about 200 in Mong Kok replied to questionnaires between Friday and Sunday.
Supporters of a retreat said now was the time to change their strategy to reach out to the wider public. Some said public support for the street protests, now in their eighth week, had been dwindling and staying would not give them a better chance of achieving their goals.
Those who vowed to stay said retreating would amount to an admission of failure, as the Hong Kong and central governments had not made any concessions on electoral reform proposals.
The study came as a University of Hong Kong poll conducted this week found nearly 83 per cent of Hongkongers wanted the protests to stop.
Occupy co-founder Dr Chan Kin-man said yesterday: "If half of the protesters would leave [if asked by organisers], the other half might actually rethink whether they should stay."
Chan, who has hinted several times that the sit-in should end, said organisers should now consider other strategies.
"Many people in the crowd are waiting for the student leaders to make the next move, and also for a way out," he said.
He said what the students had achieved was already beyond imagination, and that they should not have any "sense of failure" in calling for a retreat.
Media mogul Jimmy Lai, who has been camping in Admiralty, agreed that it was time for protesters to consider leaving to save energy for the long-term fight for greater democracy.
"Scholarism, HKFS [Federation of Students] or the Occupy leaders should give the government a deadline on when to respond. If the government doesn't act, then we'll come back."
Lai said some protesters wanted to get something from the government before they left, but this was not likely to happen.
"If you wait for that, or wait for action from Legco, are you really going to wait for a year?"
Another Occupy co-organiser, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, said he and the two other founders had postponed their plan to turn themselves in to police today, as they wanted to observe the clearance of protest areas in Mong Kok, expected next week.
Student leader Lester Shum said they were planning to stay at the occupied area in Mong Kok next week in order to get arrested as the operation took place.
Four more arrested over Legco storming, including publication editor, Civic Passion members
Those nabbed in the action meant to further Occupy Central’s cause include a publication’s chief editor and radical Civic Passion members
The latest four arrested over Wednesday's storming including two Civic Passion members and Local Press chief editor Leung Kam-cheung (inset). Photos: Felix Wong, MyRadio
Police have nabbed another four men - including two from a radical political group and the chief editor of a free publication - over Wednesday's storming of the Legislative Council building.
The latest four arrested yesterday - bringing the total to 10 - include two Civic Passion members and Local Press chief editor Leung Kam-cheung.
They were held on suspicion of criminal damage, unlawful assembly, and accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent, police said.
Last night, police said the six men arrested on Wednesday would appear in Eastern Court today. Four are on holding charges of criminal damage and the other two are being charged with assaulting a police officer.
The news came as protesters who took part in the storming expressed disappointment at pan-democratic lawmakers who condemned their act, and warned that they might target other public buildings next.
Two protesters, a man and a woman who refused to give their full names, dismissed suggestions that they had been "misled" into storming the Legco building.
They knew exactly what they were doing and believed their action would further the Occupy Central pro-democracy movement's cause, they said.
At about 1am on Wednesday, a group of masked men, using bricks and metal railings, smashed two glass doors at the Legco building.
Hundreds of Occupy protesters flocked to the scene shortly after in a show of support for the masked men.
The ensuing chaos prompted police to charge at them with batons and pepper spray.
Later that day, three Occupy co-founders and 23 pan-democratic lawmakers "strongly condemned" their actions. Three radical pan-democrats, including "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung, urged the action's organisers to explain their motives.
The Occupy movement said some protesters had falsely claimed lawmakers would on Wednesday discuss a bill with implications for online freedom of expression. The bill will be discussed only next month.
But the woman protester said she had not been misled. She had gone to Admiralty on Tuesday night after seeing a post in an online forum implying that the forum users would be "doing something", she said.
"Do the pan-democrats think democracy will just fall from the sky?" she said. "We sat there for days but the government has not [made any concrete response]."
While she did not take part in smashing the doors, the woman said, she supported the action by tweeting from the scene.
"We were trying to increase the 'cost of governance' … And although we were unsuccessful, we caused some trouble for the police," she said, adding that she believed the streets of Central and other public buildings might be the protesters' next targets.
Her fellow protester said: "It's contradictory for the pan-democrats to slam us for staining the movement with illegal action, as blocking roads is also illegal."
Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat said: "The timing was unwise strategically, but … I understand their anxiety that the movement has yet to bear fruit."
Meanwhile, Next Media founder and Occupy supporter Jimmy Lai Chee-ying said the protesters were just destructive.
"Obviously someone was creating false information to spark people off ... The objective was to paint this movement in a bad light," he said.
Graduates were not dissuaded from holding umbrellas at Chinese University's ceremony. Photo: May Tse
The rule of law in Hong Kong will survive no matter how severely critics of the courts say it has been undermined, a founding judge of the Court of Final Appeal said yesterday.
Mr Justice Kemal Bokhary rejected suggestions that High Court injunctions against the Occupy protesters had harmed the court's independence by involving it in a political issue, because the court "does not choose cases, but the cases are brought before the court".
But he declined to comment on whether the government was undermining the rule of law by relying on the court instead of police to solve the political stand-off between the administration and pro-democracy protesters.
"The rule of law, even if it takes a number of hits, will survive, because we … as people make it survive," Bokhary said.
Bokhary, a non-permanent judge of the top court, spoke after a graduation ceremony at Shue Yan University in North Point yesterday where he received an honorary doctorate in law.
Mr Justice Kemal Bokhary defended the rule of law. Photo: Bruce Yan
Bokhary said he was "100 per cent in support of the idea of democratic development", and he praised the student activists joining the Occupy movement, who he said were pursuing their own cause and "the future of Hong Kong".
But he said society comprised different interests, including those of the police and of citizens complaining about the inconvenience caused by the movement, which couldn't be ignored.
In a speech after receiving the degree, Bokhary lamented the high cost of living in the city, especially skyrocketing property prices. "There was a time in Hong Kong when a good education more or less guaranteed commensurate employment or professional advancement," he said. "That is no longer so." He said "we will see" if the Occupy movement could make a difference.
Separately, Monetary Authority chief Norman Chan Tak-lam told 610 degree recipients at Chinese University yesterday that "not everything can be achieved in one go" and "sometimes taking a step back is necessary".
He reminded students that they should not give up on what they strove for, even though results might take generations.
Scores of students opened umbrellas in a symbol of protest when the national anthem played. Vice chancellor Professor Joseph Sung Jao-yiu said they did not cause disruption or show disrespect. Baptist University president Professor Albert Chan Sun-chi had condemned similar protests earlier this week.
In this picture taken on October 31, 2014, Hong Kong's last British governor Chris Patten, holds a yellow umbrella - a symbol of the Occupy movement in Hong Kong - after it was given to him by a University of Oxford student in the audience during an event at the Oxford Union in Oxford. Photo: AFP
It is "complete nonsense" to suggest that China "always wanted democracy" for Hong Kong, as it appeared "resistant to any form of democracy" even before the 1997 handover, former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten told a US commission.
Patten, a British peer, was responding to a congressman's question on whether Beijing seemed willing to allow democracy in Hong Kong before it resumed sovereignty over the city.
"The Chinese were very much against this moving to greater democracy … because they thought it might lead people in Hong Kong to think they will eventually be independent like, say, Singapore," he said. "So it's complete nonsense to suggest that China always wanted democracy for Hong Kong."
During his tenure, Patten's attempts to increase democracy by allowing more Hongkongers to vote for lawmakers in functional constituencies led Beijing's Hong Kong affairs chief, Lu Ping , to dub him a "sinner of the ages".
Addressing a hearing of the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China via video conference in London, Patten said he "did think that the Chinese would keep their word … and that democracy would inevitably develop", yet it was not until recently that Hongkongers were given "the sort of democratic election … understood in Iran".
He was referring to Beijing's decision on August 31 that while Hong Kong could elect its leader by "one man, one vote" in 2017, only two or three candidates backed by half of a 1,200-strong nominating committee's members could run.
That restrictive framework, which effectively allows Beijing to vet candidates, played a key role in triggering the Occupy Central protests in September.
A government spokesman said it was "a plainly incorrect reading of the Basic Law to suggest, as Lord Patten did, that the National People's Congress Standing Committee has no role to play in the constitutional development of Hong Kong".
He said foreign governments should not interfere in Hong Kong's constitutional development, which was an "internal matter" for the city and China.
"The one and only basis for Hong Kong's constitutional development is the Basic Law, not the [Sino-British] Joint Declaration," he said.
Patten called for countries such as the US to develop a relationship with China "based on principle and national interests" because sole emphasis on an economic relationship might encourage China to "behave badly".
"It is ridiculous to suggest that any attempt to stand up for our values … means risking economic damage and our relationship with China," he said. "It's in a way encouraging China to behave badly."
Patten believed that the central and local governments might be reluctant to back down for "a third time" after shelving national security legislation and the national education curriculum in 2003 and 2012, respectively.
He was "extremely sorry" to see officials failing to show statesmanship and enter into a proper dialogue with the students involved in Occupy, he said.
The government spokesman responded that officials "have been engaging in dialogues with various sectors of the community … with a view to forging a consensus to bring forward the constitutional process to attain universal suffrage".
As the Occupy movement drags on, Patten also urged students to "be prepared" to continue their fight for democracy "in other ways".
"The government hasn't even done the bare minimum … [but] it doesn't mean you have lost," he said. "I think I would, for the time being, drop down at least a few notches with this campaign."
Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said yesterday that the Chinese government "firmly opposed any foreign government, organisation or individual interfering in Hong Kong affairs and destroying its stability with whatever excuse".
People in Hong Kong feared the passing of “Internet Article 23”. The original Article 23 is a controversial national security bill that provoked half a million Hong Kong people to protest in the streets in 2003 (right). And because people started sharing yellow umbrella pictures (left), Instagram is now the latest member to the club of global internet platforms that are blocked in China, joining Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, amongst others. Photos: Martin Chan, EPA
Late on Tuesday, a small group of people charged the Legislative Council building and broke a glass panel. Reports indicate they did so because they feared the passing of “Internet Article 23”. The original Article 23 is of course the controversial national security bill that provoked half a million Hong Kong people to protest in the streets in 2003. So what exactly is “Internet Article 23”, and should we be concerned?
“Internet Article 23” is actually more than one bill. Lawmakers and advocacy groups use it to refer to at least two different regulations, both with the potential to seriously undermine the free and open internet we enjoy in Hong Kong.
One is the Copyright Amendment bill, a much needed update to the otherwise outdated copyright bill. But many fear that it will punish citizens for remixing original content with social or political commentary as parody or satire. To understand why people are concerned, you only need to take one quick look online or walk by the Occupy areas: among the many art pieces, one of the most popular is a life-size cutout of president Xi Jinping holding a yellow umbrella that many people take selfies with.
The other regulation in question is the Computer Crimes Ordinance. Originally intended to battle computer fraud and hacking, it has been drafted in such a way that it has serious potential for abuse. The most recent case involves the arrest of a citizen for “inciting” others to commit an offence. His crime? Posting a message on an online forum asking others to join him in the pro-democracy protests; the original post has been removed and the police have so far declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
Let’s not forget what is at stake. We only need to look across the border to see a tightly monitored, closely controlled internet where citizens have to watch what they say to each other, even on seemingly private messenger apps such as WeChat. Then they might find themselves at a dead end if they try to find out what is going on; Sina Weibo and Baidu have been filtering search results for “Hong Kong students”, “Hong Kong tear gas” and “true universal suffrage”. And because people started sharing yellow umbrella pictures, Instagram is now the latest member to the club of global internet platforms that are blocked in China, joining Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, amongst others.
In contrast, we have a free and open internet in Hong Kong. Anyone can share their story and decide for themselves what is meaningful or not; no longer does a small and powerful elite determine this for the rest of society. Let’s be clear: a free and open internet doesn’t mean that people can say whatever they want without any consequences; all countries regulate speech to some extent. But it does mean that the conversation is open and inclusive: whether you are a yellow, blue or red ribbon supporter, you don’t have to ask anyone for permission to speak.
Whether you agree with the protesters or not, it is undeniable that they have breathed new life into a conversation that most people had given up on, a conversation about the future of Hong Kong and the status of “one country, two systems”. Sometimes we disagree or even yell at each other, but that’s what it means to have a honest, frank and real conversation, warts and all.
To my knowledge, the Hong Kong government hasn’t censored anything related to the protests. This is surely a good thing. But if the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is that our "one country, two systems" setup isn't sacrosanct or set in stone. That is why I am asking all of us to keep a close eye on “one country, two internets” and to make sure we preserve and protect the free and open internet in Hong Kong.
The author is an assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Real radicals in constitutional debate are those who want to cast aside Hong Kong's core values
Stephen Vines says, by contrast, protesters seek to preserve the city's uniqueness
Protesters want to preserve the characteristics that make this place unique in China; rule of law and freedom is an essential part of this agenda. Photo: AFP
In all the noise and anger that surrounds the umbrella movement, one vital point appears to have been overlooked.
This is that the fundamental aim of most protesters is a conservative one, namely to preserve the unique character of Hong Kong.
Having spent a great deal of time talking to the protesters, especially the students, I keep hearing the same refrain: "We don't want Hong Kong to become just another Chinese city."
They want to preserve the characteristics that make this place unique in China; rule of law and freedom is an essential part of this agenda.
Of course, they also want to see a democratically elected government and there is no suggestion here that this is a side issue. But drill down to what fundamentally motivates these protests and you keep coming to this core issue of preservation.
The real radicals in Hong Kong want to see it becoming a very different sort of place where the central government makes all the big decisions and where core values that distinguish the Hong Kong system from that of the mainland are cast aside.
They shout very loudly about the need for adherence to the "one country, two systems" principle but, in practice, focus only on the "one country" part of this equation.
This was vividly illustrated when the radicals clamoured to support Beijing's ruling on the future of constitutional reform, even though the Basic Law prominently asserts the "high degree of autonomy" vested in the government of Hong Kong.
As power has eked away from the Hong Kong government and it is clear that major decisions affecting the SAR are not going to be taken at the local level, the protesters are struggling to secure adherence to the Basic Law and to protect what the law describes as safeguarding "the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".
It is quite extraordinary how the portrayal of the two main parties to the constitutional debate has been turned on its head, with those focusing on preservation being labelled as radicals and those advocating fundamental change being labelled as conservative.
It may be argued that the labels really do not matter. There is something in this, but history shows that it is easier to preserve the status quo than to change it.
Therefore, in many ways, the umbrella movement should find it easier to achieve its fundamental conservative goals than did the 1989 Tiananmen Square protesters, who sought a fundamental change in a system they were certainly not angling to preserve.
Hong Kong's situation is admittedly unusual because the norm is for the younger generation to press for radical change while the older generations seek preservation of the status quo.
But, of course, Hong Kong's younger generation is not devoid of a desire for change; this is most certainly the case when it comes to democratic reform.
The result is a strange hybrid of desire for change matched by a yearning to preserve the status quo. This is not a typical state of affairs but reflects the many hybrid aspects of Hong Kong life.
This is why this place is seen as a bridge between the East and West, why full-throttle free enterprise is accompanied by a great deal of state intervention and why Hong Kong's most famous drink, nai cha, Hong Kong-style milk tea, is a culture-bridging drink.
Encompassing change and preserving the best of what we have is no easy task. However, the umbrella movement has already secured its place in history by ensuring that those who want to demolish Hong Kong's freedoms and liberty can expect formidable resistance as they do their worst.
The harder part of the movement's job is to secure democratic reform.
Stephen Vines is a Hong Kong-based journalist and entrepreneur
Where should universities draw the line on rights and freedoms?
Surya Deva says the umbrella movement raises important questions about human rights and freedoms on HK campuses, and is a reminder that restrictions should not be imposed lightly
Universities are where students, teachers and others should be able to discuss, debate and disagree on any issue without fear.
The ongoing umbrella movement has triggered a volcano of creative imagination in Hong Kong, with new ideas, governance paradigms and legal principles being tested almost every day.
Baptist University president Albert Chan Sun-chi recently refused to present degree certificates to graduates carrying yellow umbrellas on to the stage as they showed disrespect for the solemnity of the occasion. To reciprocate, a few graduates declined to accept certificates from him.
It has also been reported that students at City University have been told verbally not to hang a "Democracy: Now or Never" banner at the entrance of the university library. Otherwise, they risk disciplinary action. Then there was the controversy surrounding alleged civil rights abuses during the visit of Li Keqiang , then a Chinese vice-premier, to the University of Hong Kong campus in August 2011.
All these scenarios raise important questions about human rights within the campuses of Hong Kong's publicly-funded universities and the limits universities can place on the exercise of such rights.
It goes without saying that the Hong Kong government has an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance. These three-fold duties apply equally to public universities. So, the duty is not merely negative in nature: universities are expected to take a number of positive steps to ensure the human rights of all their stakeholders are adequately safeguarded on campus.
Of all the human rights, the one that stands out in the context of educational institutions is freedom of speech and expression. Universities are where students, teachers and others should be able to discuss, debate and disagree on any issue without fear. Innovation and creativity mushroom in a process of open engagement, rather than when debates take place within set contours.
Graduation ceremonies are an important facet of students' life at university. And while they are solemn occasions, they are also full of symbolism, reflected, for example, in the academic dress worn by graduates. If universities mandate graduating students to carry these symbols on to the stage, why not a small yellow umbrella as a symbol of the pursuit of the constitutional goal of universal suffrage?
If yellow umbrellas are not allowed on the convocation stage, would it be acceptable for students to take umbrellas into class or would it lead to their expulsion from the room? And how should one deal with faculty members who might find it offensive for students to wear yellow ribbons, or a cross for that matter, while in laboratories?
Where to draw these lines and how? There are at least two difficulties. First, it seems universities, like many corporations, are not fully aware of their human rights responsibilities. Universities might think that, as long as they accomplish their primary goal of nurturing learning and research, and in turn climb the ladder of world rankings, they are fulfilling their mission. But such a narrow compass is neither legally sound nor socially beneficial. Rather than using human rights or sustainability as part of a public relations exercise, universities should weave human rights into everything they do.
Second, each and every action of universities - from the hiring and firing of staff, to regulating the behaviour of students and the accessibility of campus to people with different needs or views - should be tested on the touchstone of human rights. They should be asking whether disallowing a yellow umbrella as a symbol on the convocation stage or denying students a prominent place to display banners would be consistent with the Basic Law and Bill of Rights Ordinance.
It should not be too difficult for universities to realise that freedom of speech and expression should be restricted - and then, too, in a proportional manner - only on certain grounds such as respect for the rights or reputations of others, or the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. Moreover, such restrictions could only be imposed according to validly enacted regulations.
To avoid a repeat of the scenario that led to James Tien Pei-chun's expulsion from the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference for saying that Leung Chun-ying should quit as chief executive, it would also be desirable for newly appointed university presidents to resign from political positions. It is not irrelevant that Professor Chan's membership of the CPPCC fuelled certain perceptions about his actions.
Universities and other public authorities should also ask themselves another question: Why are the protests taking place in unusual locations or in an unusual manner - whether by occupying the streets for close to two months, by hanging a banner on the Lion Rock or now by unfurling yellow umbrellas on the convocation stage?
One reason is the lack of conventional spaces for engagement with decision-makers to raise legitimate concerns. Plus, there is little in the way of formal institutions, either in Hong Kong or Beijing, where democracy activists can engage the local or central government in constructive dialogue. This has forced people to find innovative and unprecedented ways to protest.
Human rights are hardly absolute, inside or outside university campuses. Universities can impose reasonable restrictions but they should not result in making human rights illusory. Nor should public educational institutions be operated as private shops with not enough space for human rights on their shelves.
Surya Deva, an associate professor at City University's School of Law, specialises in business and human rights, and comparative constitutional law. The views expressed here are the author's own
Pro-democracy leaders (from left) Benny Tai, Alex Chow, Joshua Wong and Alan Leong attend a press conference outside the Hong Kong government headquarters on October 26, 2014. Photo: EPA
A group of pro-democracy protesters are planning a demonstration tonight against the leaders of the Admiralty protest camp.
One 21-year-old protestor, who asked not to be named, said some protesters were upset by what he called the “overbearing” manner of the organisers, often referred to as the “main stage” after the stage in Admiralty where leaders give speeches.
On Hong Kong Golden – one of the city’s most popular online forums – posters have encouraged protesters to gather at 7pm at the main stage, with some complaining that the leaders of the months-long occupation are too moderate.
Others have posted messages warning against any attempt to “take down” the main stage.
Citing Mong Kok as example, the protester the Post spoke to said demonstrators could maintain order at protest camps. He said the marshals, organised by the Occupy Central group, were unnecessary.
The protester said about 40 people were planning to remove metal barricades from the main stage on Friday.
The protest camp in Admiralty has been led by the Federation of Students, Occupy Central and Scholarism. Those groups have less influence in Mong Kok, where more radical pro-democracy groups such as Civic Passion hold greater sway.
The leader of Civic Passion, Wong Yeung-tat, advised against dismantling the main stage, calling on protesters to be “calm and rational”.
Zachary Wong Wai-yin, a 56-year-old marshal stationed in Admiralty, said he was unconcerned as there had been other plans to take down the main stage that amounted to nothing.
“This isn’t anything to get worked up about. People have already tried twice to take down the main stage, and we always ask them why. We explain that it’s not an official stage; that’s just the one from the Occupy trio, Scholarism and Federation of Students. Other groups like Civic Passion have their own stages, and if these people want, they’re welcome to set up their own,” Wong said.
Lai Choi-Yin, a 22-year-old member of the federation, said she disagrees with taking down the main stage.
“We can always improve, but the main stage is a platform that brings everyone together. But if they absolutely insist on coming in and taking down the main stage, then maybe we’ll let them and see what the public thinks.”
Lai said some protesters in Admiralty disagreed with marshals who tried to stop people from breaking into the Legislative Council complex earlier this week.
While people should have the right to step in when they see something they do not agree with, Lai said, perhaps marshals should not be the ones doing it.
“Maybe [some protesters] aren’t happy with some marshals telling them what to do and what not to do....Perhaps if some protesters want to take more drastic actions, marshals can leave it to everyone else to step in if they disagree instead of taking action as marshals,” she said.
The split among pro-democracy protesters deepened last night with radicals confronting the campaign leadership to demand an equal say on the movement. Photo: K.Y. Cheng
The split among pro-democracy protesters deepened last night with radicals confronting the campaign leadership to demand an equal say on the movement.
The drama began as dozens of protesters who answered an internet appeal to confront the leadership marched, some wearing masks, to the main stage of the Admiralty rally site at 8pm.
They carried placards reading "you do not represent us" and shouted at speakers on the stage.
"We have not been allowed to express our views freely on stage," Samuel Chuang, one of the challengers, said. "If we say something the emcees do not like, they then add their comments later to 'correct' our speech."
Protesters who had been camping at the site described the radicals as "troublemakers" and said they would film any who caused trouble so they could be held accountable later.
Chuang also said the marshal system set up to keep order at the protests was unnecessary. No one, he said, should have the right to overrule others in a social movement, especially when those keeping order were not elected by the people.
He admitted he was present when clashes broke out early on Wednesday when a group of masked men tried to storm the Legislative Council building, but said he did not want to see any violence.
Alex Kwok Siu-kit, head of Occupy Central's marshal team, poses for a picture at protest site in Admiralty. Photo: SCMP Pictures
Other radicals, though, said marshal team leader Alex Kwok Siu-kit should not have acted to block Wednesday's action.
Oscar Lai Man-lok of student group Scholarism - one of the key organisers - said the main stage was always open to different voices. He said the marshal system was in place in case of incidents such as one when Apple Daily publisher Jimmy Lai Chee-ying had offal thrown over him.
Wong Yeung-tat, leader of radical group Civic Passion - several members of which are alleged to have been involved in Wednesday's disturbances - called on protesters not to storm the stage. "Pan-democrats have formed a united front with the police and labelled the strugglers as thugs," he said. "I call on everyone to be restrained, to remain calm and rational and not to fall into the trap. [We] should not offer pan-democrats an excuse to retreat, as they have planned."
Lai said the organisers would be happy to hold a public debate on the marshalling system with the group.
Meanwhile, a report by British television station Channel 4 has quoted a senior member of a Hong Kong triad gang as saying that Occupy protesters were infiltrated by troublemakers. The man - called "Mr Kong" - said triads were paid by the Communist Party to disrupt and discredit the movement.
Protester loses bid to appeal against injunction allowing police to aid bailiffs
Despite 'exceptional political circumstances', judges reject attempt to halt ruling authorising bailiffs and police to clear Mong Kok site
Judges said citizens' rights needed protection. Photo: Felix Wong
Courts have the duty to protect the constitutional rights of private citizens, two appeal judges have ruled in upholding an injunction order that authorised bailiffs and the police to help clear the protest area in Mong Kok.
High Court Chief Judge Mr Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung and Court of Appeal vice-president Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon made the observation as they refused a protester leave to appeal against the order.
"We understand there are exceptional political circumstances that gave rise to the unlawful occupation in the present case," Mr Justice Lam wrote. "But the court has to be involved in this instance because the rights of private citizens protected by the law are said to be threatened and they seek redress."
Protester Ng Ting-pong, in seeking leave to appeal and a stay of the order, had asked why the matter should be dealt with by civil litigation rather than an action brought by the secretary for justice.
Lam said the minibus drivers group who obtained the injunction claiming their business had suffered from the obstruction of Argyle Street had simply exercised their constitutional right.
"It is the duty of the court to adjudicate upon and, where justified, give effect to such rights according to law," Lam wrote.
"Even in cases where protesters are pursuing a noble cause that they feel strongly about (and we express no view on the protest in the case before us), this does not give them any right in the eyes of law to trample upon the rights of the others who may or may not agree with their cause.
"This is an important facet of the rule of law which, as judges, we must uphold."
Lam also stated that the court would not consider similar future applications for leave to appeal.
He said that the case involved exceptional circumstances because a large number of protesters, with the encouragement of some public figures, had openly disobeyed and flouted the injunction order.
"If such an idea prevails, it will bring society into disorder, chaos and lawlessness," he wrote.
The two appeal court judges backed Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung's decision to allow the police to assist bailiffs if necessary.
They found that Au's order, issued on November 10, did not compel the police to make any arrest but limited their action to powers conferred on them by the law. They also found that Au had given clear directions to the bailiffs and the police on how to carry out the order. They believed that protection had been given to the defendants.
The minibus group's lawyer, Maggie Chan Man-ki, said they would take clearance action as early as Monday but that no timetable had been fixed.
Ng was disappointed with the judgment. He said some protesters would stay until they were arrested and that it would not be the end of their campaign.
Meanwhile, six men arrested in connection with an attempt to break into the Legislative Council building on Wednesday were granted bail yesterday.
The six defendants - aged between 18 and 24, who face charges including criminal damage and assaulting police officers - were ordered by Principal Magistrate Bina Chainrai in Eastern Court not to go within 300 metres of the Legislative Council building.
They did not enter a plea and the case was adjourned until January 19.
Yesterday, another man - described in media reports as a member of the radical group Civic Passion - was arrested at Ngau Tau Kok, putting the total number of people arrested for Wednesday's clash at 11.
The man was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage.
Benny Tai is encouraging the naive youth to break the law in order to achieve unrealistic political objectives.
The Occupy Central movement has attracted thousands of participants from a broad diversity of backgrounds, life experiences and political philosophies.
Many of the participants are students who share the same mentality.
Amongst Chinese students lies the erroneous but deeply ingrained belief that one must work hard and attend the top university to become successful in life.
I have witnessed the chaos at an Occupy protest area. A middle-aged anti-Occupy activist was annoyed by the inconvenience.
He was shouting at students and protesters for making his business suffer.
A student went up to the man and disparaged his background, asking if he only obtained education up to primary level and if he even knew English.
A well-educated student should be sensitive and realise that it is hard to make a living in Hong Kong even if you are educated and that you should know not to lose respect for your elders at all times.
A harmful consequence of Occupy Central is clearly that it has indeed created a general divide between the opinions of the old and the young.
One of Occupy Central's founders, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, has repeatedly claimed that persistence will lead to a change in the city's political system and bring about a "new" Hong Kong, an idea I find quite threatening.
The vision he has described is what students hope to achieve, but it is impossible.
He is encouraging the naive youth to break the law in order to achieve unrealistic political objectives.
He is an associate professor and as such he should know when he is stepping outside of his responsibilities and should stop.
A professor belongs in the library and the lecture theatre. His responsibility is to nurture talent, not to take it on to the streets in defiance of the law at the risk of ruining the future prospects of students. They are not being paid by taxpayers to lobby in the streets, which is the role of politicians. Any activism in politics by a professor is therefore unacceptable.
Although I was very disobedient when young, I was not manipulated by anyone and gradually worked my way towards becoming a lawyer.
Life is unpredictable and students should accept the reality that Hong Kong can never be perfect.
Pro-democracy protesters breaking into the Legco Building in Admiralty.
As the world continues to keep a watchful eye on Hong Kong's peaceful Occupy protests, a group of masked activists stormed the Legislative Council complex in the early hours of Wednesday. The break-in has dented the city's image and deserves unequivocal censure from all sides.
The surprise flare-up of violence came as plans were being made to deploy thousands of police officers to help clear the high-risk occupied zone in Mong Kok. Earlier, court officers successfully removed blockades in Admiralty in what was a relatively smooth operation. We appeal to all parties concerned to exercise self-restraint and avoid confrontation.
Until yesterday, the world had been watching in amazement that our mass street protests had continued for more than 50 days without a single piece of glass broken. Apparently misled by false rumours of an imminent vote on the "Article 23 for the internet" - a controversial copyright amendment bill that critics fear would gag freedom of expression and creativity - protesters in Admiralty rushed to the Legco complex late in the evening. They used metal barriers and concrete debris to ram the glass panels, and at least one person managed to get inside before retreating again. At least six people were arrested and the weekly sitting yesterday was suspended.
The government has rightly condemned what it called acts by violent radicals. Pan-democrat lawmakers were also quick to condemn the violence and stressed that it was not part of the Occupy movement. Responses from student groups were less unequivocal. Referring to what they called government inaction to address protesters' demands, one student leader said he understood the frustration of the crowd. This may send the wrong signal that violence is to be condoned.
The incident may be an individual case, but fears are growing that more violence may erupt as patience and tolerance wear thin. The blockade has dragged on for over seven weeks, seemingly without any endgame. Although the organisers have pledged to keep Occupy peaceful and rational, the break-in shows there is no guarantee of peace and order for a public campaign of such scale. A new survey shows that support for an end to the occupation has surged to 83 per cent.
As acknowledged by one of the three core leaders, the disruptions and grievances caused by the Occupy movement have exceeded acceptable levels. It is time protesters packed up and cleared our streets lest more clashes erupt.
