HK Journalists Recognised in Japan

Chan accepting the Japanese award on behalf of HK journalists

A day after the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Hong Kong suspended its Human rights Press Awards citing the national security law, its sister club in Japan have named Hong Kong journalists as winners of its Freedom of the Press Asia Award.

Freelance journalist Ilgin Yorulmaz, co-chair of The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan's press freedom committee, said the award recognised journalists and media organisations who fight for free speech, for the free exchange of information, and against censorship.

The award was accepted by Hong Kong Journalists Association chair Ronson Chan Ron-sing.

He said it was an honour to receive the prize. 

FCC suspended the Human Rights Press Awards

"Hong Kong journalists are kind, passionate and tenacious... although the environment changed, most of us have remained in our position and try our best to find the truth for the Hong Kong community."

Meanwhile another person has abruptly left Hong Kong, a political cartoonist known as Ah To. 

In a social media post, he explained he would face "great mental stress" if he were to continue to produce political cartoons in the city.

On Tuesday he shared a picture of one of his characters in what looked like a backdrop of London and said he left because he "wanted to continue creating for Hong Kong".

Ah To said he thought about changing the theme of his work last year, but felt Hong Kong "needed political cartoons", and said he wanted to "persist" by remotely creating cartoons for his home city.

"I was worried that my future work would not be down to earth... but staying in Hong Kong to produce political cartoon [causes] great mental stress. [I] have no alternative but to leave," he wrote on Facebook, without stating his destination.

Ah To's character in what looks like London

He is known for being critical of Beijing and the Hong Kong government, and has produced work on controversial issues like the national security law, the election overhaul, and the 2019 protests.

Last July pro-Beijing newspaper Ta Kung Pao criticised Ah To for sharing cartoons that "vilified the SAR government" and "incited hatred against the police".

His work was published in Ming Pao Weekly and Yahoo News, but both columns were cancelled in June 2020 just before the implementation of the national security law on June 30 that year.

In Tuesday's post, Ah To said he had made the decision to leave Hong Kong in a hurry and would not have time to bid farewell to his friends. He felt "guilty" about his departure, adding he would "speak up for the voiceless" and hoped Hong Kong's history would not be left with "silence" in the future.

Ah To's take on Carrie Lam

"Thinking about my family members in Hong Kong who I may not see again, my comrades who are in jail or pending trial, the readers who have been supporting me and my wife who was forced to flee with me... I feel very guilty," Ah To said.

"May good-natured people take care and preserve kindness in different ways," he added.

Ah To is not the only artist to leave recently. Manga artist Tony Lu and performance artist Kacey Wong Kwok-choi both left for Taiwan last year, citing the national security law for the reason behind their move.

PS: Here is the link to my new blog: https://goodbyehkhelloyvr.blogspot.com/

HKU Removes the Pillar of Shame

Workers move a piece of the sculpture overnight on Thursday

Two months after heads of the University of Hong Kong ordered the Tiananmen-themed sculpture Pillar of Shame removed, late last night it was taken apart in pieces which were wrapped up and then moved to HKU's Kadoorie Centre in Yuen Long, 30km away.

The surreptitious incident happened after 10pm when yellow plastic barricades were placed around the statue by Danish artist Jens Galschiot and workers in yellow hard hats began dismantling it around 3am, and bundled the pieces into a container truck which left the campus at 6.50am.

The Pillar of Shame originally looked like this

The HKU Council confirmed the removal of the eight-metre tall sculpture in a statement after the deed was done, saying the decision to take down the Pillar of Shame was made in light of "external legal advice and risk assessment" after a meeting on Wednesday.

"Latest legal advice given to the university cautioned that the continued display of the statue would pose legal risks... based on the Crimes Ordinance enacted under the Hong Kong colonial government," the statement said.

So it's not national security law related? Or any other law not related to NSL?

The council also said it was "very concerned about the potential safety issues resulting from the fragile statue" and noted that no official approval had ever been granted for its display. It had stood on campus since June 1997.

While the statement didn't give specifics on the potential legal risks, Section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance deals with acts with a seditious intent, including publications and displays of any seditious material, deemed a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a HK$5,000 (US$641) fine for a first offence.

The artist is threatening compensation for damage

At Wednesday's council meeting, a large majority of the members -- most of whom are external stakeholders -- voted for the statue's removal.

It seems the council was prepared to remove the statue immediately after the meeting without asking other stakeholders on campus. This drew a lot of criticism not only the act of removing the sculpture, but also how it was done.

Legal scholar Eric Cheung Tat-ming said he could not see the rationale for citing Section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance to remove the pillar.

"The section has existed for a very long time and the statue was erected at HKU for years. Why did they not think the display had a [seditious] intention in the past, while suddenly they think it will violate the law?" Cheung said.

Indeed. We are all wondering the same thing.

And many critics have also pointed out for the university to take it apart in the middle of the night days before Christmas shows how cowardly the institution is in dealing with the issue. 

Interestingly the statue's removal comes two days before council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung ends his term, and is days after the recent Legislative Council election to ensure "only patriots" hold power.

The statue was moved to Yuen Long

Li claimed on Sunday that it was still unclear who was the rightful owner of the sculpture, but artist Galschiot said Thursday it was his and accused the university of "destroying" the art work, and had ignored his offer to travel to Hong Kong to take it away.

"[HKU] will not talk to me," he said in a statement. "Countries around the world have offered to receive the Pillar of Shame, and the Danish foreign minister has offered his help -- but there has been no response from [HKU] or other responsible authorities."

He added: "It is my private property and the sculpture belongs to me personally... I will claim compensation for any damage to the sculpture. It is a disgrace and an abuse and shows that Hong Kong has become a brutal place without laws and regulations such as protecting the population, the arts and private property.

"And it's even more grotesque that they use the Western holiday Christmas to carry out the destruction of the artwork."

The aftermath of the removal is empty space

What is left is the yellow plastic hoarding and white plastic sheets over the area where the pillar was. Around the hoarding are pots of poinsettias as if to give the space a festive air.

The university has taken a hard line on the statue, which sparks questions around the future of freedom of speech and expression, as well as academic freedom on campus. More importantly it shows HKU complicit in following the government's lead in removing any reminders of what happened on June 4, 1989.

Will students there wish to continue studying at HKU following this incident? How do the alumnae feel?And what does this mean in terms of remembering Tiananmen? Will students and staff still be able to commemorate it in some way? Can the topic still be taught in class?

While administrators may think they are doing the right thing, they are destroying the foundations of the university, and Hong Kong too.

Drifting from the Truth

Amnesty International is leaving Hong Kong by end of 2021

Yesterday human rights group Amnesty International announced it was closing its two offices in Hong Kong, because of the national security law.

In a statement it said its local office focused on human rights education in Hong Kong will cease operations on October 31, while the regional office that conducts research, advocacy and campaigning work is expected to close at the end of the year.

Bais says Amnesty leaving because of NSL

Regional operations will be moved to the organization's other offices in the Asia-Pacific.

"This decision, made with a heavy heart, has been driven by Hong Kong's national security law, which has made it effectively impossible for human rights organizations in Hong Kong to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals from the government," said Anjhula Mya Singh Bais, chair of Amnesty's International Board.

"The environment of repression and perpetual uncertainty created by the national security law makes it impossible to know what activities might lead to criminal sanctions."

This morning Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor went back to work, arm in a cast and in her media briefing was ask to comment about Amnesty International leaving Hong Kong because of the national security law.

Lam claims there is still freedom of speech

"Since the enactment of the national security law, different associations and various individuals have explained or justified their actions on the basis of the national security law," said Lam. "But there is no way one could prove this is exactly the reason for their taking such a decision, so similarly I could not comment on this explanation given by an organization about their departure from Hong Kong. 

"But what I could say here is, under the Basic Law... the freedom of association, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of speech, so on, are being guaranteed, so no organizations should be worried about their legitimate operations in Hong Kong, but it has to be done in accordance with the law."

Even though Amnesty International cites the national security law for it having to shut its offices in Hong Kong, Lam claims there is no way to prove this reason, classic gaslighting, which she has been doing since the anti-government protests in 2019.

Orwell's quote still resonates today in Hong Kong

The definition of gaslighting: to manipulate someone by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

The other day a friend posted on social media a picture of George Orwell and one of his quotes that read: "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it."

HK's Largest Teachers' Union Votes to Disband

PTU president Fung speaks during the extraordinary meeting

After 47 years, the Professional Teachers' Union voted to disband yesterday because of pressure from the authorities, claiming the professional group was openly involved in political activism, supported the 2019 anti-government protests. Chinese state media described the PTU as a "malignant tumour" that had to be eradicated.

On Saturday the union held an extraordinary general meeting after a previous meeting to change the constitution so that fewer people would be needed to pass the motion to formally disband.

Around 140 members attended, and more than 130 voted in favour of dissolving the union. Previously the union would have needed two-thirds of the 95,000 members to agree.

Members voted overwhelmingly to disband PTU

With the overwhelming majority in favour, the members have authorized the PTU executive committee to initiate liquidation procedures. After paying off debts, and staff salaries, proceeds of the sales of assets would be distributed equally among the members according to the constitution, and the rest donated to charities.

The PTU owns several properties, including two ground-floor shops in Causeway Bay, and five units in a building in Mongkok. It recently struck a deal with two companies to sell two floors with a combined area of 14,000 sq ft in Mongkok for HK$175 million (US$22.5 million).

During the meeting some members voluntarily got up and thanked the union for its work over the decades, others suggested helping staff find other jobs.

PTU president Fung Wai-wah said after the meeting he felt "heavy-hearted" about the union's dissolution.

The union owns this building in Mongkok

"The decision is grudging but necessary. We have to be able to control our emotions and go through with the process of disbandment rationally," he said.

Fung also said tenders for the other properties for sale would be done in a transparent manner and would not "dispose of any assets under a diminished valuation".

In other words these would not be quick sales, as the union is acting in the best interests of its members. But will the authorities allow the PTU's property sales drag on?

Nevertheless, several members said they felt sad about the disbandment, with one secondary school teacher who voted in favour of the motion saying she hoped the move could "protect other frontline teachers and [PTU] staff members".

"I feel heartbroken. It feels as if Hong Kong no longer has any freedom of speech nowadays," she said. "I am not afraid of the national security investigations, as [we] did not do anything wrong."

She may think that way, but the National Security Department will find something... 

Hong Kong's Second Silver, and a 9-Year Sentence

Haughey with her second silver medal in the 100m free final

 

This morning Hongkongers were on a high as they watched swimmer Siobhan Haughey win a silver medal in the women's 100m freestyle. The 23-year-old clinched double silver in the span of a few days, Hong Kong's third medal of the Tokyo 2020 Games. 

But by the afternoon the mood became sombre with the news that Leon Tong Ying-kit, 24, the first person to be convicted of terrorism and secession under the national security law, was sentenced to nine years in prison.

Haughey set a new Asian record at 52.27 seconds

The government-appointed panel of judges sentenced the former restaurant worker to 6.5 years for the secession crime, and eight years for terrorism, with 5.5 years of the latter term to run concurrently with the first. He was also barred from driving for 10 years.

"The defendant was not a lone protester quietly carrying a flag bearing the slogan amongst a sea of protesters," read the 15-page judgment delivered at the Court of First Instance. "He deliberately challenged a number of police check lines in order to attract as much attention to the secessionist message on the flag as possible and to leave a great impact and a strong impression on people."

There was a flag mounted on the back of Tong's motorcycle with the slogan, "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times".

The panel believed Tong acted alone and did not have a specific plan to separate Hong Kong from the mainland.

Tong riding his motorcycle on July 1, 2020

However the judges believed the defendant committed a terrorist act when he ran into three police officers -- a symbol of law and order -- and intimidating members of the public, especially those with opposing views, by that action.

"What the defendant did was calculated and deliberate acts which created a very dangerous situation for the road users and which indeed caused injuries to three police officers," the judgment read. But they agreed the injuries suffered by the officers were not "serious" as alleged by the prosecution, and so the starting point for sentencing for the charge should be between three and 10 years in jail. The maximum penalty for terrorism under the national security law is life imprisonment.

Thomas Kellogg is the executive director of the Georgetown Centre for Asian Law and describes the sentence as "harsh".

"People can only shape their behaviour after the initial lines of what the national security law covers have been drawn," he said, adding it did not bode well for the 47 opposition activists who were earlier charged with subversion for their part in the unofficial primary election last year. 

Tong has been sentenced to nine years in prison

Kellogg also said it was unfortunate that judges had ruled that the acts to incite secession were of a "serious nature". "If Tong's act of carrying the banner is serious, what acts... are not serious? I worry that the court has essentially expanded the serious nature provision to cover almost all acts of inciting secession," he said.  

Meanwhile Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who is now based in the UK, said the sentence was "outrageous", and raised concerns about free speech.

"The sentencing guideline is unclear, and it gives the judge the power to determine whether a slogan can be seen as 'capable of' inciting secession. This is an extremely low threshold to lock an individual in jail for years," he said.

Today was literally a high and a low...

The End of Apple Daily, The End of Press Freedom

Wow Apple Daily even has a swimming pool on the rooftop!

 

As I write this, Apple Daily is putting to bed its final edition.

Earlier today it was announced the paper would continue operating until Friday, but this afternoon the board of directors issued a statement saying Apple Daily would cease to operate on Thursday morning and thanked its readers. 

It was later revealed that 1 million copies of the paper would be printed.

Might as well go out with a bang.

Right now there are supporters standing outside the Apple Daily offices in Tseung Kwan O and waving their mobile phones with their lights on and shouting, "Add oil Apple!"

Tomorrow's front page

Staffers inside and on the roof are waving back.

And there are people lining up at a newsstand in Mongkok waiting for the newspaper to arrive an hour from now at 1.30am. 

For people in Hong Kong the end of Apple Daily is the end of press freedom in Hong Kong, the end of free speech and freedom of expression.

An attack on one news outlet is an attack on all media in Hong Kong. The forced closure of Apple Daily will change the media landscape forever.

To the Apple Daily reporters past and present, thank you for your hard work and dedication to get the news out to your readers. It isn't easy to work for an organization like this, particularly in the last two years, which is why you are even more courageous.

Thank you for fighting to the end.

Almost 130 Civil Servants Fail to Sign Oath

Carrie Lam (centre) led oath for senior government officials

 

The Hong Kong government's human resources department is going to be extremely busy these days, with almost 130 civil servants refusing to sign the oath of allegiance and some have resigned, while others will be sacked.

The vast majority of the 180,000 civil service have signed the declaration, according to Secretary for Civil Service Patrick Nip Tak-kuen. 

Nip said 129 people did not sign the declaration

At a Legislative Council public service panel meeting on Monday, Nip said 129 civil servants either neglected or refused to sign and return the declaration. Among them are 16 disciplined service officers, the rest were civilians.

He said 25 have resigned, while most will be sacked under civil service regulations.

"For those who ignored or refused to sign the declaration, we will doubt whether they are willing to bear the responsibilities as civil servants and whether they are fit to carry out their duties. In other words, we don't have faith in them," Nip said.

Since October all civil servants must sign the oath of allegiance, pledging to uphold the Basic Law, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, be dedicated to their duties and be responsible to the government.

Civil servants who have taken the oath are also expected to support government policies, including implementation of the national security law.

Civil servants expected to support policies, laws

"For those who sign the pledge, if they act or say something against the government, such as promoting Hong Kong independence or colluding with foreign forces, they would be deemed breaching their pledge of allegiance and subject to dismissal," Nip said.

The explanations of some civil servants on why they didn't sign the declaration include claiming it infringes on their freedom of speech, disagreeing with the oath's content, and that it might conflict with the foreign passport they held.

However, Nip found these excuses were not acceptable.

"As civil servants, they should not say something in public against the government or the Basic Law. I don't see how the oath-taking would infringe upon their freedom of speech, or be in conflict with holding a foreign passport," he said.

Nip does have a point -- why have people in the civil service who are wavering or feel it's against their ethics.

But he will also find it harder to recruit people in future, particularly young people to keep the civil service going...

Hong Kong's New Chief Justice

Chief Justice Andrew Cheung making his inaugural address

Hong Kong has a new chief justice, Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, and with the official start of the legal year, he gave an inaugural address stating that the judiciary would continue to follow the rule of law that is enshrined in the Basic Law.

The 59-year-old Cheung succeeded Geoffrey Ma Tao-li who retired last week. Cheung seems to continue in the same vein has his predecessor, as he urged judges to be steadfast in maintaining the rights and freedoms of residents.

Cheung (right) with predecessor Geoffrey Ma

He repeated a few times that the principles of judicial independence and impartiality would remain unchanged during his tenure.

"An independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law in Hong Kong and the due administration of justice," he said.

"It is equally crucial to the public's and business [community's] confidence -- whether local or overseas -- in our judicial system, as well as to the international reputation of Hong Kong as a society governed by the rule of law under the 'one country, two systems' arrangement."

Cheung noted he was coming in at a sensitive time, with the slew of prosecutions related to the anti-government protests in 2019 and the implementation of the national security law last summer.

He said it was inevitable that cases with political undertones would come before him and his colleagues, which would inevitably draw "extreme and harsh" partisan criticism.

Cheung was sworn in today as chief justice

"Whilst the freedom of speech of everyone in society must be fully respected, there must not be any attempt to exert improper pressure on judges in the discharge of their judicial functions," Cheung said. "It has to be stressed that attempts to exert undue pressure on our judges by means such as threats of violence or doxxing are as futile as they are reprehensible."

In addition Cheung advised judges to put aside their personal opinions when they returned to the bench, as the public expected impartial judgments.

While it is reassuring to hear the new chief justice say the judiciary will continue on as it has, how much pressure will it have to try to fend off from stakeholders on all sides as Hong Kong becomes more politicized and divisive?

 

Hong Kong's Eroding Freedoms

New Zealand, Switzerland and Hong Kong are the top three

 

The Fraser Institute describes itself as an independent, non-partisan research and educational organization with its headquarters in Vancouver, Canada.

Every year it releases its Human Freedom Index, and surprisingly for 2020 Hong Kong is third on the list -- for the third year in a row; in 2017 it was second after Switzerland.

The HFI measures personal freedom, which includes freedom of movement, speech, assembly and religion, as well as economic freedom, as in the ability of individuals to make their own economic decisions without government or crony interference.

76 indicators used to rank 162 countries, regions

It uses 76 indicators of personal and economic freedom including, rule of law, movement, religion, expression and information, legal system, access to sound money, and freedom to trade internationally.

While Hong Kong does tick these boxes (for now), it is interesting the 2020 report still lists the Chinese city in third place despite last year's protests.

However, in the executive summary it notes:

The HFI also finds a strong relationship between human freedom and democracy. Hong Kong is an outlier in this regard. Although Hong Kong's ratings and rankings have decreased since 2008, the impact of the Chinese Communist Party's unprecedented interventions in the territory in 2019 and 2020 are not reflected in this year's report (which, as noted, is based on 2018 data). Those recent events will likely decrease Hong Kong's noticeably in the future.

The top 10 countries are: New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, Germany, and Sweden.

National security law has infringed HK rights

China was ranked 129th, behind Taiwan (19), Kazakhstan (75), Rwanda (78), India (111) and Vietnam (121).

And in July this year, the Fraser Institute along with think tanks from 35 countries and territories around the world signed an open letter to the people of Hong Kong.

The letter summarizes Hong Kong economic rise, due to a high level of personal freedom that has seen its per capita GDP rise from US$2,000 in 1950 to US$40,000 in 2018, four times the world average.

However the letter ends by saying:

Most recently, China has ordered large scale arrests of dissidents and, on May 28, China's National People's Congress imposed a national security law which attacks Hong Kong's freedoms and Hong Kong's Basic Law (effectively, a freedom-protecting constitution), by bypassing Hong Kong's Legislative Council. While the Communist Party of China has yet to release details, the law is intended to allow mainland authorities to crush freedom in Hong Kong and extend absolute CPC rule.

Moderates are being silenced by the government

Pro-democracy demonstrators, young and old, Chinese and the many other groups that populate Hong Kong, are demonstrating to protect their freedoms and hopes for the future of their children and grandchildren. We stand with the people of Hong Kong as they attempt to protect their freedoms and rights and believe a strong global response is critical.

So we shall wait with curious anticipation what the 2021 report will say, taking into account data from 2019 and 2020...

Protests are Carrie Lam's Point of Pride?

Hong Kong's Basic Law is 30 years old today

To mark the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of Hong Kong's Basic Law by the National People's Congress, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor wrote two opinion pieces, one in English, the other in Chinese.

Carrie Lam says freedom of protest is in the Basic Law

However, the two articles are not copies of each other in different languages, because in the Chinese one, Lam points out that under the Basic Law, Hong Kong guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and protest.

"These are not empty talk, but are freedoms that Hong Kong citizens enjoy and exercise every day, every moment.

"For example, Hong Kong has seen over 11,000 marches and gatherings in 2019, ten times the number in 1997. This proves that the freedoms enjoyed by citizens have increased instead of decreased.

"The SAR government respects these protests as long as they are peaceful and legal, and the police will provide appropriate assistance."

Over 11,000 protests happened in Hong Kong in 2019

Over 11,000 marches and gatherings! Any democratically elected leader would have already humbly stepped down after 1 million people took to the streets on June 16 last year to allow another more competent person to take his or her place.

But she seems to look at this number as a source of pride, perhaps it is proof of her extraordinary staying power?

Remembering Dr Li Wenliang

Dr Li Wenliang was infected with the new "SARS-like virus"

This morning we hard the news that Li Wenliang, the doctor who was one of the first to warn about a "new SARS virus" died. He was only 34 years old.

Pictures like these flooded social media

Mainland Chinese were devastated by the announcement and immediately declared Li a hero; they directed their anger at the government for punishing him for telling the truth. The national grief is similar to that of the Wenzhou train crash in July 2011. Two high-speed trains collided, killing 40 people, and a proper investigation was never conducted, and even one of the train cars was buried to prevent further inquiry.

A friend living in Beijing told me his WeChat account went berserk from 2am with messages of anger, grief, sadness and frustration. The people mourning Li's death related to him, a 34-year-old, married with a child and another due in June.

He was not challenging the state -- all the ophthalmologist was trying to do was warn his medical school classmates to be careful about this serious SARS-like virus in a post on his WeChat.

On January 3, the authorities accused Li and seven others of spreading rumours, and forced him to write a statement admitting to "illegal behaviour".

In the statement, it asks Li: "Can you stop your illegal behaviour?" and "Do you understand you'll be punished if you don't stop such behaviour?"

He wrote in response: "I can". "I understand".

Li's statement he had to sign

After his death, people wrote on their surgical masks : "我能" "我明白" and posted pictures of themselves wearing the masks as a way to mourn Li.

The hashtags #we want freedom of speech#, "#I want freedom of speech#" and "#Wuhan government owes Dr Li an apology#" were created on Weibo and viewed some 2 million times before being shut down around 5am.

People felt that if Li wasn't punished and the authorities took his post seriously, then we would not have over 30,000 confirmed cases now and over 600 deaths, mostly in Wuhan, Hubei province.

The central government, now trying to appease people, is sending a team from the dreaded National Supervisory Commission that typically looks into corruption to investigate Li's death.

But we all know what happened. Li posted his statement complete with his thumbprint on it. How much more can Beijing cover up or deny?

A mournful farewell for Li Wenliang in the snow

Tonight there was a quickly organized memorial for Li at Chater Garden in Hong Kong. Only a handful of people came out to the event that where pro-democracy activist Lee Cheuk-yan gave a speech criticizing President Xi Jinping as well as Chief Executive Carrie Lam for not moving fast enough to contain the coronavirus.

People held white chrysanthemum flowers before a portrait of Li.

It's a pity not more people came out, but maybe some worried about too many people showing up or they didn't know about the protest vigil at all.

In an interview with The New York Times days before he died, Li said: "If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, I think it would have been a lot better. There should be more openness and transparency."

In Hong Kong a small protest vigil for the ophthalmologist

When asked how Li felt about the police accusing him of spreading rumours, he replied: "The police believed the virus was not confirmed to be SARS. They believed I was spreading rumours. They asked me to acknowledge that I was at fault.

"I felt I was being wronged, but I had to accept it," he continued. "Obviously I had been acting out of good will. I felt very sad seeing so many people losing their loved ones."

Li believed he would get better within two weeks and then rejoin his colleagues in treating patients.

Alas that was not to be.

Shocking Attacks on Right to Assembly

Yuen Long protest organizer Max Chung's back following an attack in Tai Po

In Hong Kong, people have the right to freedom of speech. They have a right to freedom of assembly.

So why were two protest march organizers beaten up in broad daylight today.

Coincidence?

And why is there no outrage from the police or the government?

CHRF convenor Jimmy Sham before he was attacked

Civil Human Rights Front, that has organized some of the biggest marches this summer, on June 9 when 1 million people came out, June 16 when double that number turned out, and August 18 with 1.7 million in the pouring rain.

The group had applied for a protest march permit for this Saturday from Chater Garden in Central to the liaison office in Western district to mark the fifth anniversary of Beijing announcing a restrictive electoral reform package that was eventually rejected by Hong Kong.

Hong Kong police for the first time rejected both the rally and march with reasons laid out in a five-page letter. The force said the police, protesters, journalists and bystanders had sustained "serious injuries" following 22 marches and rallies since June, seven of which were organized by CHRF.

Sham's assistant sustained serious welts on his arms

"Protesters not only resort to violent acts, arson and road blockades, but also use petrol bombs, steel balls, bricks, lances, rods and other self-made weapons to vandalize public facilities on a large scale, committing a breach of the peace and leading to the injuries of others," the letter read.

In response, Bonnie Leung Wing-man, the front's vice-convenor, said the police were "declaring war on all peaceful protesters".

"The rally and march on August 31 were supposed to be another chance for the authorities to resolve the matter in a peaceful manner," she said. "It is the best offer, but they turned it down."

CHRF's convenor Jimmy Sham Tsz-kit said that by banning the application, the police showed the government didn't care to listen to the people.

"Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is the one pushing Hong Kong into an abyss. The people's voice cannot be blocked, it needs to be vented," he said.

August 18 protest organized by CHRF had 1.7 million people

Sham told the media CHRF would appeal the decision but was not optimistic.

Then around 12.50pm, Sham and his assistant were attacked by two men while eating in a cafe in Jordan in Kowloon. The men, who police say were not Chinese, wore face masks and one held a baseball bat, the other a rod. One tried to hit Sham, but his assistant Law Kwok-wai shielded him, bearing serious bruises on his forearms.

Cafe workers called police, but by the time they arrived, the attackers had fled.

Meanwhile another activist, Max Chung Kin-ping, who organized the July 27 Yuen Long protest was also attacked in Tai Po, while he was giving an interview to a reporter with Truth Media Hong Kong, an online news outlet.

Max Chung had been arrested for unlawful assembly

Chung had just been released by Tai Po police station after he was granted unconditional release. He and reporter Jeffrey Cheng were walking along Tai Wo Road when they felt they were being followed. When they turned around they saw four men described as being South Asian who started beating them up with metal rods and umbrellas.

Cheng told the assailants that he was a reporter and they stopped attacking him, but continued beating Chung, who sustained injuries on his back and arms. The reporter was bleeding from the lip. The entire attack lasted about two minutes and again the assailants fled before police arrived.

These brazen attacks in broad daylight are shocking, but also cowardly.

Who did them -- who ordered them?

WHY?

And why does the government not condemn these attacks at all? Much like the triads in Yuen Long who brandished metal rods and bamboo sticks, hitting innocent people in the MTR station?

These attacks will not scare protesters into submission. It only inspires more of them to stand up against these attacks.

Protesters Not Giving Up

Thousands of people crammed in and around Chater Garden for tonight's rally

Tonight the protesters were back in numbers in Chater Garden in Central. This time they were angry about police abuse, particularly the sexual harassment of some female protesters who were arrested.

While the dress code for this rally was purple, most people showed up in black and wore purple ribbons that were pinned to their T-shirts. Others wore purple ribbons around their wrists. There were also people with lipsticks on hand to write #ProtestToo on people's arms, a riff off of #MeToo.

"Investigate police sexual violence!" The rally organizer said. "We believe everyone has the right to participate in political activities and take part in rallies, but the police are using sexual violence as a means to humiliate people of different gender."

Others were waiting for friends outside the MTR station

Some protesters were shining laser pens onto buildings to create an impromptu laser show, others put purple filters on their phone lights to create a pastel purple glow.

Some women came to the stage to talk about their experiences of being sexually harassed by the police, including one who says she was strip searched. She said she felt violated as a woman and is now seeking psychological help.

When I was leaving Chater Garden around 8.20pm, the crowd had spilled out onto Des Voeux Road, and they made way when trams were passing through. All the other vehicles had to go along Queens Road Central, causing a traffic jam.

There were a few police officers on hand, just making sure there were no serious accidents or that the crowd was under control.

As I walked towards the Central MTR station, people were shouting, "Reclaim Hong Kong! Revolution of our times!" or "Hongkongers add oil!". The shouts got louder as people streaming out of the MTR station on the escalator already began chanting.

And as I came into the station, more people were coming out, attaching purple ribbons on their shirts or carrying signs. It was heartening to see so many people all with the same goals with the same fighting spirit.

What else happened today?

The editor-in-chief of Global Times, Hu Xijin rolled into town today. His Twitter post said: "Just arrived in Hong Kong to attend media dialogue. I will also report what I see and hear. Current situation in Hong Kong is a bit special for mainland journalists, but I hope I can have an open trip. Looking forward to having a candid exchange of views."

Global Times' chief editor Hu Xijin has arrived in Hong Kong

Welcome to the city where we have freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, Mr Hu.

See how special Hong Kong is and why protesters are defending it to the death.

They have five demands, but the most crucial is to withdraw the extradition bill. It's really simple to do, but our Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor says it cannot be done.

Perhaps you can persuade her to help us have peace in Hong Kong again?

If not, you will see scores of people out on the streets this weekend to show the government protesters are still asking for their demands to be met. They are not giving up anytime soon.

The Same Mind-Numbing Refrain

Perhaps China can't explain why 2 million people came out to protest?

The G20 Summit will be held in Osaka, Japan later this week on June 28-29 and already the Chinese government has warned that the subject of Hong Kong is off-limits.

"I can tell you for sure that the G20 will not discuss the affairs of Hong Kong. We will not allow the G20 to talk about Hong Kong matters," said China's assistant minister of foreign affairs Zhang Jun today (Monday).

Zhang Jun warns not to talk about Hong Kong at the G20

"Hong Kong is China's special administrative region. Hong Kong matters are purely an internal affair to China. No foreign country has the right to interfere," Zhang said.

Why does China get to decide what can and cannot be talked about at the G20?

The proposed extradition law affects EVERYONE who passes through or lives or does business in Hong Kong. This is not an internal affair. It's EVERYONE'S affair.

This is why almost 2 million people marched on the streets and are prepared to clash with police because it is a serious issue that affects everyone's livelihoods.

But perhaps China is trying to prevent others from talking about it because if criticized about it, the government doesn't have any good reasons to explain why the extradition bill should be passed. But why should it worry anyway? It was initiated by the Hong Kong government anyway... right?

Protesters are prepared to clash wit police if necessary

For sure this will entice reporters covering the G20 Summit to be more daring and ask not only China but other countries about Hong Kong after Jun warned: "No matter at what venue, using any method, we will not permit any country or person to interfere in China's internal affairs."

How can China stop free speech in Japan at an international event? Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. They are not on Chinese soil.

We shall see which countries' leaders are courageous enough to speak out as well. How many will be squirming? We will be counting.