Hong Kong's "White" Christmas

Tear gas was fired at protesters in Tsim Sha Tsui on Christmas Eve

 

What is the Hong Kong government's end game with the protests that are into its seventh month?

The day before Christmas police clashed with protesters who took their demonstrations to shopping malls around town.

Protesters feeling from the tear gas on Nathan Road

Protesters dressed in black and wearing masks didn't want to be arrested for illegal assembly so they went "shopping" to continue to push for their five demands to be met, including the withdrawal of the extradition bill.

Things got more tense when undercover police officers confronted protesters and started beating up people with extendable batons. Others were pepper sprayed and riot police fired tear gas in Tsim Sha Tsui prompting someone on social media to sarcastically remark it was a "white Christmas" for Hong Kong...

Apparently the protests were so unruly that the MTR stations in Tsim Sha Tsui and Mongkok were closed down in the evening.

A day earlier Cardinal John Tong Hon issued a video message, urging for a truce during the Christmas holiday and to use the time off to cool down and reflect.

A protester being beaten by undercover police in a mall

Tong also called on the Hong Kong government to listen to the people and set up an independent inquiry into police handling of the protests, saying this would "help to re-establish mutual trust between the government and the people and pave the way for a dialogue of reconciliation".

As a Catholic herself, it's strange that Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is not heeding these words of wisdom that he has repeated a few times over the past half year.

Similarly the Archbishop of Hong Kong's Anglican Church, Most Reverend Paul Kwong urged the government and protesters to use the holiday as an opportunity to "start a dialogue with courage, sincerity and humility, and to admit their own inadequacies and shortcomings".

"The government should not limit themselves to rigid thinking when they respond to voices from society, but should instead take practical measures or actions that are relevant to the needs of the citizens," Kwong said.

Cardinal John Tong called for peace during Christmas break

So how what is the end game? Lam keeps saying the violence has to end, but the police, more specifically the riot police, ratchet up tensions and violence and then people come out again the protest the violence... it's a never ending cycle.

Meanwhile the government does nothing except repeat its condemnation of the violence.

How is this productive at all?

This does not solve anything, making everyone more frustrated and stressed, angry and sad.

Perhaps the government is living in a parallel universe, unable to fully comprehend let alone empathize with what is going on in the streets of Hong Kong. Maybe it is still in denial about the November 24 district council elections where 17 out of the 18 districts turned yellow.

Riot police in Harbour City shopping mall in Tsim Sha Tsui

The people have spoken! The government should be responding to this quasi referendum of what people want.

Instead Hong Kong supposed leadership is hiding behind the police in the hopes that tear gassing people will make the problem go away...

Where's Hong Kong's "High Degree of Autonomy"?

Agnes Chow's dreams of running for political office were shut down today

The Hong Kong government is shifting the goal posts again on behalf of Beijing, this time in an upcoming by-election.

You may recall six pro-democracy lawmakers were disqualified from being lawmakers when it was decided that they did not take their oaths of office properly.

One person who wanted to run in the race was Demosisto's Agnes Chow Ting, but today she found out she was rejected as a candidate.

The reason?

Lam claims self-determination is not allowed in Basic Law

Not because she advocated independence -- we know is a complete no-no -- but because she promoted self-determination.

In a statement, the government said:

"Self-determination" or changing the HKSAR system by referendum which includes the choice of independence is inconsistent with the constitutional and legal status of the HKSAR as stipulated in the Basic Law, as well as the established basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong. Upholding the Basic Law is the basic legal duty of a legislator. If a person advocates or promotes self-determination or independence by any means, he or she cannot possibly uphold the Basic Law or fulfill his or her duties as a legislator.

Wait a second. Does the government even understand what a referendum is? A referendum means everyone has a say to vote on an issue in how Hong Kong moves forward. It is not determined by a small group of elites, but democratically through one person, one vote.

But no, the government or Beijing is so terrified of this possibility that it has decided self-determination should not be allowed in Hong Kong.

Joshua Wong says youth will be even more disillustioned

However, the same government statement says earlier:

Article 12 of the Basic Law states that the HKSAR shall be a local administrative region of the PRC, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government.

So what does "high degree of autonomy" mean then, if we are not allowed self-determination?

Of course Chow was upset by the decision, saying, "It is obviously a political decision and political screening, and the government is trying to shirk responsibility [by passing it on] to the returning officer, who should be only in charge of executive procedures," she said. "We can see that Hong Kong is not ruled by law or [governed by] the rule of law, but only ruled by the Beijing government."

One of Demosisto's platforms is to have a city-wide referendum on the city's political future, including the option of independence from China.

"The government did not only disqualify Chow, but all members of Demosisto, and even the entire younger generation," says Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the party's co-founder. "I am not certain how many young comrades can stand as candidates in future."

Law professor Johannes Chan says Chow's rejection is illegal

Basically the government has decided Demosisto is an outlaw, that its political thinking is illegal and therefore its candidates are disqualified.

Is this how Chief Executive Carrie Lam thinks she can heal the rift between the generations? She has just inflamed the youth even more.

What is wrong with Chow running in a by-election? What are the chances of her winning? And even if she does win, Legco is still stacked with pro-establishment lawmakers. Why is the government so worried?

Legally the government may not be allowed to do what it just did, according to Michael Davis, a former law professor at the University Hong Kong. He warned Chow's disqualification was wrong and the government was on a "slippery slope", while former university law dean Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun said there was no legal basis for such a move.

A march is planned tomorrow to government headquarters, and in the meantime does Chow have any legal recourse? If so we hope her lawyers are filing the papers now for Monday morning.

The government is fixing the race by changing the rules. How convenient.

Trying to Discredit Jimmy Lai

Jimmy Lai may have donated millions to pro-democracy politicians and groups

Someone or a group is out to take down media mogul Jimmy Lai Chee-ying with the leak of his emails showing how much he has donated to pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong.

Two weeks ago there were leaked emails showing he donated millions of dollars to pan-democratic politicians such as Civic Party's Claudia Mo Man-ching, Democrat James To Kun-sun, and ex-lawmaker Tanya Chan, as well as Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, and Martin Lee Chu-ming.

Donations ranged from HK$200,000 to HK$6 million (over two years).

And now the latest revelation from more leaked emails is that Lai helped fund the referendum that Occupy Central held in June.

Exchanges between the founder of Next Media and his top aide Mark Simon show Lai has spent between HK$3 million to HK$3.5 million on the plebiscite, though it is not clear what exactly the money was used for.

While Lai gave extensive advice to the pro-democracy group, he privately described Occupy Central as "idealist scholars" who "couldn't make the cut without help".

He added they had "no strategy", not to mention any organized plans or steps for actions". They "could accomplish nothing if there was no help".

While Lai and Simon would not comment, one of the Occupy Central organizers, Chinese University academic Dr Chan Kin-man dismissed the notion that Lai was the main force behind the campaign.

"Occupy Central has its own flow and schedule which are very transparent," he said.

He also condemned the leak as a smear campaign.

It is interesting these leaks have come out now as well as the contents of them. It should be no surprise that Lai would possibly support pro-democracy groups because of his critical stance towards the mainland.

And what he does with his money is his own business. Surely other tycoons are donating money to pro-Beijing camps, perhaps even the anti-Occupy Central group that's collecting signatures now, and the total has far surpassed 1 million.

Lai is an outsider -- like Li Ka-shing he has built his riches from the bottom up -- but instead Lai focuses on his media projects and uses them as his bullhorn to express his disapproval of China.

As a result, it is alleged by Simon that banks such as HSBC and Standard Chartered stopped advertising with Lai's popular Apple Daily thanks to an order from the Liaison Office in Hong Kong.

This hit Lai's Next Media hard financially, but he still manages to do OK.

Which is maybe perhaps most locals don't really care about these email leaks on Lai in terms of how much he's spending on pro-democracy groups and activities...

He's on their side.

Giving the "Silent Majority" a Say

The Alliance for Peace and Democracy was launched a few days ago

The anti-Occupy Central movement out in force today with 468 stations around the city collecting signatures in the hopes of surpassing the 793,000 votes for the civic referendum last month.

Unlike the unofficial referendum that lasted 10 days, this signature campaign will last one month in the hopes they will get over 800,000 signatures of support.

At the top of the form it says:

I oppose violence
I oppose occupy [sic] Central
I support peace for Hong Kong
I support democracy for Hong Kong

The group called "Safeguard Suffrage for Chief Executive, Oppose Occupy Central Movement" is insinuating that the Occupy Central movement is violent, which is far from it. If anything Occupy Central is also hoping for a peaceful solution for universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

Opposing sides: Benny Tai listens to Robert Chow

Not only is the form skewing the truth, but already the campaign has received lots of criticism because anyone can vote -- mainlanders, tourists and even kids -- as long as they show some kind of valid identification, whereas in the civic referendum, voters had to be permanent residents and adults.

How can this signature campaign be considered legitimate in any way by allowing anyone to fill out the form and its premise is far from the truth?

Nevertheless, the group, led by Robert Chow Yung, who is also a spokesman for the pro-Beijing Alliance for Peace and Democracy, has a lot of backing from various corporate groups like Towngas that tried to force its employees to support the campaign, and later backed down.

However there is word the central government's Liaison Office here has asked mainland students who are applying to study in Hong Kong to add their signatures to the anti-Occupy Central movement.

Will the campaign garner more than 800,000 signatures? And if it does, not all of them are Hong Kong residents, so why consider this legitimate?

The battle lines continue being drawn...

The Cultural and Political Divide

China continues to twist the democracy movement into a radical action...

The divide between Hong Kong and the mainland is even greater now, thanks to Beijing being unmoved by the July 1 march.

According to Professor Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies and adviser to the central government, the massive crowds on Tuesday make it difficult for the government to change its stance on political reform.

Is Lau just saying that? Because things changed in 2003, forcing then chief executive Tung Chee-hwa to step down and for the government to rescind Article 23.

That's why over half a million people marched in the streets on Tuesday.

He even adds, "I'm worried the escalating confrontation between Beijing and Hong Kongers could result in bloody conflicts."

Really?

Is he scaremongering? Much like nationalistic paper the Global Times?

The state-run media is saying the sit-in demonstration that happened Tuesday evening to Wednesday morning is a threat to rule of law, and without it, "Hong Kong could sink into the likes of Ukraine or Thailand and all kinds of dangerous phenomena could happen", it said.

Really?

And the most outrageous thing is that mainland Chinese read these things and believe them.

I had an opportunity to hear some mainlanders voice their opinions about Tuesday's march, and they were amusing to hear.

One claimed they had read media reports outside of China that said there were concerns "such radical actions could hijack the whole 'so-called' full democracy movement in Hong Kong".

He seemed to parrot exactly what the propaganda machine has been churning out in the last few weeks. And it just shows how effective state media is in influencing the opinions of 1.3 billion people.

Another point he made was that the referendum last week did not represent the whole population. He said according to a survey by Lingnan University and another university in Hong Kong which is conducted in a more scientific way over half of the population will accept the conditions of the central government in Beijing for the 2017 chief executive election.

However he twisted the last point. More than half the respondents didn't think a public nomination of candidates for chief executive was against the Basic Law. Obviously state media missed mentioning this point and reporting fully on the survey.

A woman from Shanghai observed there were differences between mainlanders and Hong Kongers in the way they were brought up, saying, "protesting wasn't really something we were taught when we were growing up". She also said it was because Hong Kong people were western educated, insinuating it was something leftover from the British.

Hong Kong people didn't learn to protest in schools either! They were left with no choice but to march on Tuesday. It was not an impromptu protest like those at Tahrir Square in Egypt. The July 1 march was organized well in advance, with organizers getting the relevant permits, working with police and other authorities.

It was a civilized march -- hardly radical.

The propaganda machine is too big and powerful for Hong Kong people to battle against. Those who visit Hong Kong and see the freedoms we enjoy and the access to material and information they don't, make them realize what a special place the city.

They understand, but the vast majority are still spouting on command whatever Beijing wants them to say.

The battle of the minds continues...

Marching to be Heard

Gathering in Victoria Park before the start of the march

July 1 is Hong Kong SAR Day, and usually the public holiday is reserved for sleeping in, shopping and eating out. But hundreds of thousands of people chose not to pamper themselves but instead turned out to march for several hours, from small children to the elderly.

Conservative estimates put the numbers at 510,000 and the Hong Kong Police dare to say there were only 92,000. So how do they explain why there were people still setting off at Victoria Park at 7pm when the march started at 3pm?

This sign perfectly encapsulates what we want to say

Before the march I ran 5K on the treadmill which took me 36 minutes, but over seven hours to walk almost the same distance. That demonstrates how many people want to show their displeasure at the Hong Kong government and Beijing, but also how the police tried to frustrate us along the way.

My friends and I (including YTSL) had planned to meet at 3pm at Tin Hau, but when I arrived at Tin Hau station, the escalators were not working and we had to walk up the stairs and then I realized why -- there were still tons of people not exiting the station fast enough.

When we finally got together we walked towards Victoria Park but were diverted to the lawn area where we waited and waited... and waited. We even waited in the pouring rain (and got soaked).

It's evening and we're only at Hysan Place

Then there was some movement around 5pm, inching towards the pitch and then for some reason moving towards Tin Hau instead of Causeway Bay. At one point we saw a helicopter flying by to check us out so we all waved and shouted. We hope they got a good shot of us. One or two may have given it the finger...

We finally got to get out of the park and move at a decent pace, but it was stop and start and people kept shouting "open the road!" and then the crowd would move but then it would stop again...

It was nightfall by the time we reached Sogo -- only steps away from Victoria Park -- and we wondered how long it would take us to get to Central. But there were political parties who set up shop along the way, chanting slogans like "Leung Chun-ying step down!" or "We want to choose our leaders" to buoy people's spirits.

We spied actor and director Derek Tsang Kwok-cheung, son of entertainer Eric Tsang Chi-wai in front of us, and gay artists Denise Ho and Anthony Wong lent their support as well.

Abandoned buses and cars on the opposite side of the road

The convenient stores along the way did really good business, particularly the 7-11s where people stocked up on water and snacks. One friend pointed out there were no porta potties along the route and I said that there were none, but then there was no need either because we were sweating so much.

By the time we arrived near Admiralty, there was an Occupy Central stand with the founders there including Benny Tai Yiu-ting waving to the crowds and accepting donations. Everyone waved to them and shouted. It was a huge boost for the group, that up until several weeks ago looked sketchy. It was Beijing's white paper that really boost the group's support, as demonstrated by the turnout for the referendum.

Cardinal Zen getting lots of attention

Soon afterwards we finally reached our destination -- Central! Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun was there collecting donations and posing for photographs with fans. He has advocated for civil disobedience and encouraged people to vote on the referendum. He is one cool dude.

When we arrived at 10pm -- seven hours after we started -- there were tons of people milling around Central. Along Chater Road people sat rapt listening to Scholarism leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung who told the crowd that they had to stand up for the next generation and the generation after that. The audience cheered and clapped.

The Scholarism group was about to go to the Chief Executive's Office in Tamar and stay there the night, but I'd had enough for the day and managed to catch the express bus home!

What a day. My feet are tired, but spirits are high. How can the Hong Kong government and Central government ignore so many people out in the streets. The ball is now in their court to see how they respond.

The crowd "occupies Central"

They had better be careful -- we have no qualms marching in big numbers again if need be.

Voicing Discontent Continues

Hong Kong lawyers marched on Friday to protest against the white paper

The polls for the civic referendum closed about an hour ago and the minimum number of people who turned out to vote is estimated at 740,000 while a maximum of 799,000 voiced their opinion on public nomination.

To be honest it's disappointing it didn't hit 1 million, and around 740,000 is just over 10 percent of the population.

This number is worse than the worst election turnout in any democratic society.

Nevertheless we are glad people came out to vote and many had different reasons. In the first few days it was because of Beijing releasing the white paper and claiming that it had complete jurisdiction over Hong Kong. In its mind "one country, two systems" did not apply anymore.

Polls for the referendum closed at 10pm today (Sunday)

And then in the last few days people have come out to vote because of funding approval for the northeastern New Territories on Friday that was highly controversial.

It's interesting to see people's motivations to vote -- and if they don't they won't come out. Which perhaps is understandable because there is no culture of voting as a civil duty.

Nevertheless, on Friday lawyers voted with their feet with a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final Appeal.

Organizers say a record number -- around 1,800 -- participated, wearing black. They were protesting Beijing's white paper because they believe it jeopardizes rule of law in Hong Kong.

Even one Court of Final Appeal non permanent judge Kemal Bokary lent his support, though he did not march.

One of those leading the march was Martin Lee Chu-ming, senior council on the barristers' list and founding chairman of the Democratic Party. "Lawyers are giving support to an independent judiciary which cannot speak for itself. Without it, human rights cannot be defended," he said.

Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, outgoing law dean at the University of Hong Kong, who marched on Friday as well as in 1999 and 2005 said: "Fifteen years on, the legal profession still needs to take to the streets. This is a problem."

We will find out the results of the civic referendum in the next few days, but in the meantime many will be gearing up for the July 1 march in the afternoon.

This year people have many grievances against the government and so organizers are hopeful the turnout will be significant.

And if the government still refuses to accept its mistakes and listen to the people, Occupy Central will definitely happen...

More Useless Rhetoric

In an interesting move, Leung Chun-ying says the vote reflects people's opinions

We just love how the mainland is getting all riled up about the civic referendum and thinking that imposing its ideology on us is going to scare us from voting.

Instead it just does the opposite.

The latest?

Nationalistic paper the Global Times has described the between 680,000 to 730,000 votes as "no match" for the 1.3 billion population of China.

Uh excuse me, but you don't have universal suffrage on the mainland so how can you even compare?

It also adds, "the Basic Law reflects the will of the whole nation as well... more than 1.3 billion people have the right to speak on Hong Kong's political reform".

Really? Since when?

I haven't heard any laobaixing being able to weigh in on how to govern Hong Kong...

And in an unusual move, Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying waded into the fray, saying the Global Times' editorial was wrong to put "the people of Hong Kong and China on confronting sides".

He went on to say "no matter how many people voted" and no matter how many of those votes could be "questionable", the majority of residents who took part were expressing their wish to elect the city's leader by universal suffrage in 2017. "This is a promise [enshrined] in the Basic Law," he said.

However Leung did not agree with the second question of the referendum of whether lawmakers should veto the election plan if it does not meet international standards, saying "international standards" is not found in Basic Law and that elections should be held according to the city's situation and within Basic Law.

Nevertheless, he clarified that the some 730,000 who participated in the referendum would not face any criminal liability despite China constantly condemning the poll as "illegal".

The mainland is so wrong on reading this issue that it's on the verge of farcical. We wonder what they're going to come up with next...

Gathering Momentum

Despite the rain people voted in polling stations in 15 spots around Hong Kong

Today was the first day of polling stations in 15 points around Hong Kong to vote on the referendum. And by 10pm tonight (half an hour ago), there was a total of 693,354 who had cast their vote.

It's interesting to see those who previously didn't care much about district elections who came out this time in droves. A large number of them cited Beijing's release of the white paper as the reason why they felt strongly to make their voice heard.

Many friends on Facebook and Instagram post pictures of their screen shots to prove they had voted -- the new trendy badge of honour -- while others express frustration at not being able to enter the site.

The Chinese government is trying very hard to discredit the referendum with Chen Zuoer, former deputy director of the State Council's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office being the latest person trotted out denouncing the civic vote.

And like other critics before him, Chen reiterated that all three proposals contravene the Basic Law. "I don't think the 'referendum' can truly reflect public opinion in Hong Kong," he said.

Chen added that "there were some dishonest elements during the process of conducting the public vote, which resulted in the failure to truly reflect public opinion".

Is this the best the pro-Beijing side can do?

Occupy Central leader Benny Tai Yiu-ting hit back in defiance. "I cannot see anything we are doing now is unlawful. If the Chinese authorities say we are doing something unlawful, please point out which acts are unlawful. Are we subject to any criminal liability, and if yes, why not arrest me now?"

Indeed. Which is why what China says has no credibility.

We all understand this referendum is not legally binding, but this is our way of telling Beijing we are not happy with how it has governed Hong Kong so far and its attitude towards the city.

Momentum could build to over 1 million votes well before June 29.

And if several hundred thousand people come out July 1, then Beijing has a big, big problem on its hands...