Coalition of Politics, Not Pragmatism

Tung Chee-hwa (left) and Leung Chun-ying form a coalition for Hong Kong

Two of Hong Kong's former chief executives, Tung Chee-hwa and Leung Chun-ying are keeping busy these days. They have formed a coalition banding together top business, political and academic elites to somehow revive the city's economy.

Called Hong Kong Coalition (how inspiring), the group has 1,500 members, including tycoons like Lee Shau-kee, Li Ka-shing, academics such as Chinese University President Rocky Tuan Sung-chi, former secretary for justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, and top epidemiologist Gabriel Leung.

Lee Shau-kee is part of the group to revive the economy

Not only will this alliance try to help contain the coronavirus epidemic, but also revive Hong Kong's economy and end the political stalemate between the government and protesters that had "shattered" the city since the anti-extradition protests began last June.

"The opposition has resorted to all means to seek mutual destruction, such as attacking the police with petrol bombs, and making remote bombs," Tung said.

"They damaged mutual interests of Hong Kong, and pushed the city to the edge of a cliff. If they want to destroy the future of Hong Kong, we won't let them succeed."

Some 1,500 members have signed up to the coalition

Tung doesn't seem to remember that it was Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who, wanting to gain brownie points with Beijing, proposed the extradition bill without thinking through the legal consequences, and more importantly, how Hong Kong people would feel about it.

And she did not care that 1 million people came out to peacefully protest against it; her lack of empathy led to escalated violence. "It was you who taught me that peaceful marches are useless", was spray painted on the walls of the Legislative Council when it was stormed by protesters on July 1.

Tung also accused opposition lawmakers of abusing their power by filibustering in the legislature. Can we remind him that because they are the opposition, it is their right to do that?

Will the pro-Beijing group help young protesters get jobs?

Meanwhile Leung Chun-ying claims the coalition will help young people find jobs, internships and volunteer positions so they won't "stay idle".

But which students will they choose? The ones towing the government line, or those who participated in the protests? When asked about this, Leung did not reply.

Just how this group of heavyweights -- many of them past their prime -- are going to somehow magically revive Hong Kong's economy back to where it was before is wishful thinking.

Or is this a make-work project to give the appearance that Hong Kong elites are trying to look like they are doing something for the economy?

Carrie Lam caused the protests last year that led to violence

Hong Kong needs creative leadership and new ideas, not stodgy people who join this group to be politically correct... guess that doesn't include disgraced CE Donald Tsang Yam-kuen...

Nathan Law Quits Demosisto

Nathan Law was the youngest elected lawmaker to the Legislative Council

Former legislator Nathan Law Kwun-chung has had enough and is quitting Demosisto, the political party he co-founded.

The 24-year-old pro-democracy activist made the announcement yesterday on social media, saying he was stepping down as chairman of the two-year-old party, while co-founder Joshua Wong Chi-fung remains Demosisto's secretary-general.

Law said in his Facebook post on Wednesday that he is not abandoning his vision or beliefs, but wanted to "open up paths that were not explored before".

Law (far left) with Joshua Wong and Alex Chow at Occupy

"Since the umbrella movement, I have been living in the vortex of the political storm. In the face of the stern political situation, I found myself overloaded both physically and mentally. I need time to rally my forces and think about the road ahead."

Indeed he has been through a lot since he and Wong started Scholarism exactly seven years ago this month and since then Law has been in the public eye, particularly during the Occupy Movement in 2014.

Two years later the duo started Demosisto and Law ran and won a seat in the Legislative Council elections that year.

However, Law was dogged with law suits and jail time -- he, Wong and Alex Chow Yong-kang were convicted and jailed for six to eight months last August for their role in the Occupy protests that were deemed illegal.

Also after he was elected democratically into Legco in 2016, he was disqualified last year by the court for his improper oath-taking in which he made a short speech before taking the oath.

Law campaigning in 2016 with the Demosisto party

He quoted Mahatma Gandhi in saying: "You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind." And then as he took the oath, when it came to the word "republic", he changed the tone of his voice as if you ask a question -- "I swear allegiance to... the People's Republic of China?" he asked.

Although his oath was validated by the clerk, there was an unprecedented legal challenge mounted by then chief executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung. First it was Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung who were disqualified, then Law along with three others.

So one can imagine Law might be mentally and physically exhausted after what he has gone through. He also hints it's time to figure out another way to fight the establishment, though how else can one do that without doing something illegal these days?

The pro-Beijing side must be elated -- one less opponent to deal with (for now), and now there is speculation how much longer Demosisto will be around now that one of the co-founders is leaving.

It's not easy to walk away from something you have started, but perhaps Law feels now is the time to take a break and figure out what to do next.

The Justice Minister with Illegal Structures

New Justice Minster Teresa Cheng watches as her boss Carrie Lam walks by

On January 6, Hong Kong got a new Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah, but since she was sworn in she has been embroiled in a huge scandal involving illegal structures in her properties. Yes more than one.

She used to work in the private sector and has bought a house in Tuen Mun, and other properties in Sha Tin and Repulse Bay.

When she bought them, she knew there were illegal structures on them -- the Repulse Bay one purchased as early as last September. She must have had an inkling then she would get the job as the government's top legal eagle.

Cheng's home is on the left, her husband's on the right

Surely she should have known this would be a huge potential problem for Chief Executive Carrie Cheng Lam Yuet-ngor's administration?

Did she not follow the fiasco Henry Tang Ying-yen went through in 2012?

It has been reported that in general some luxury homes in Hong Kong have illegal structures because land is so expensive the owners want to make the most out of it by carving out as much livable space as possible.

And because it takes so long to get a permit or approval from the authorities, and if they are found out, the punishments pretty much add up to a slap on the wrist that owners are willing to take the risk to go ahead with the renovations.

If that wasn't enough, Cheng bought the Repulse Bay flat for HK$62 million -- claiming she was a first-time home buyer (the other two were bought through her companies) -- so that she only had to pay a stamp duty of HK$2.635 million instead of HK$9.3 million.

Cheng's third-floor flat in Repulse Bay she bought for HK$62M

One can imagine Hong Kong people are fuming to hear how much Cheng owns, let alone having homes with illegal structures on them when she's the chief justice secretary.

And now there are grumblings in the pro-Beijing camp that it's getting harder and harder for them to support Chief Executive Lam's decision to choose Cheng to replace Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung

Maybe Cheng didn't really want to do the job, knowing this would happen. But did she know this scandal would be dragging Lam's administration's credibility down too?

Cheng hasn't said much except to apologize many times for the "inconvenience and concern caused in the community".

Sounds like she too is overwhelmed by the barrage of coverage. But if she was politically smart enough, she would have sold or attempted to sell her properties before starting her new job.

But perhaps the super wealthy don't seem to think rules apply to them, or they think they won't get caught...

Tsang Saga Isn't Over Yet

Kwok Cheuk-kin has filed a judicial review on Bill Wong and David Li

Former Hong Kong leader Donald Tsang Kam-yuen is now in Stanley Prison with his cohort Rafael Hui Si-yan. Perhaps Hui is giving Tsang some orientation and tips on how to survive prison life.

Tonight some friends told me Tsang was known to be stingy. Was he so miserly that he didn't want to pay for the renovations on his Shenzhen flat? Or was he greedy? The man was well paid as chief executive of Hong Kong AND has a pension of HK$80,000 a month.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen is named in the application

If your housing is already taken care of, surely that pension would be more than enough to spend... it's definitely more than most people's salaries in Hong Kong...

In any event, the saga over the trial is still not over.

A former civil servant who has a penchant for filing legal challenges against the government on behalf of the little guy has done so again today.

Kwok Cheuk-kin has filed a judicial review application, questioning why Wave Media's Bill Wong Cho-bau and BEA bank's David Li Kwok-po were let off lightly. Kwok accuses the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Department of Justice of maladministration, as they failed to do justice to all relevant parties.

As well as ICAC chief Simon Peh for maladministration

In the application naming Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung and ICAC chief Simon Peh Yun-lu the respondents, Kwok claims the commission and department should take action against Wong and Li, citing equality before the law according to the Basic Law.

We heard during the trial that Li evaded ICAC investigators for years and then gave up, believing he would not cooperate. As for Wong, why wasn't he called to testify?

Will the judicial review go ahead? In the benefit of public interest, it should.

Umbrella Protests 2.0?

Police shooting pepper spray at protesters near the Liaison Office tonight

Police and protesters are clashing in Sai Ying Pun as I write this post around 10.45pm on Sunday evening. The MTR has announced that the station entrance there is blocked and has told commuters to get out or get in at HKU station instead.

Meanwhile on Queen's Road West protesters are armed with whatever they have -- masks, googles and umbrellas, while police stand ready with riot shields and helmets ready to subdue violently if need be.

Earlier today people gathering for the afternoon protest march

But the afternoon didn't start like that.

At the appointed time of 3pm, there were some 11,000 people gathered at Southorn Playground in Wan Chai to march to the former Legislative Council in Central which is now the Final Court of Appeal.

There were some amusing caricatures of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying as well as Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, someone waved the Hong Kong colonial flag and some had yellow banners that read "I want true universal suffrage".

We saw the likes of "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung and Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung and press reports had Youngspiration pair Sixtus Baggio Leung Hung-chang and Yau Wai-ching there.

Protesters showing off their handmade signs and umbrellas

The march began in earnest around 3.40pm and unlike Wednesday evening which was a pleasant stroll, this march painfully inched its way out of Southorn Playground to see even more people standing outside -- by the garbage dump -- which made us realize there were even more people than we expected.

Just as we came out of Southorn Playground near a church was a small group of pro-establishment protesters using a bullhorn to taunt protesters for being like dogs. Marchers just drowned them out periodically with the Chinese version of boos (hurrrrrrr). But it was good because they got the crowd ignited for their cause, though for the rest of the way we were quiet, not even chanting slogans.

However it seemed like the police were limiting our progress and periodically we had to stop and wait, though no one was complaining. In the crowd were seniors, middle-aged, young families, young people, young couples holding hands.

We finally arrived at the Final Court of Appeal at 5pm, though the crowd was encouraged to go to the Liaison Office -- a destination that was not part of the official protest march plan.

There were some 11,000 people marching peacefully earlier

I left at this point to go for a swim, and when I went back to the same spot to go take the MTR around 7pm, there were still media and some people milling around.

My two other friends headed to Western District and around that same time people were trying for 45 minutes to get the police to open sections of the road to protesters who had been confined to the pavement.

Some had enough trying to wait for the police to accommodate the situation and jumped the barricades, which promoted the police to unfurl its warning sign and then use pepper spray on protesters around 8pm.

Reports on the ground say the scene is reminiscent of how the Umbrella protests erupted two years ago and currently the police are trying to contain the situation, though protesters are now spreading through Sai Ying Pun, which resulted in the MTR shutting its gates, much to the frustration of commuters who may not even be protesters.

At this juncture some people decide to go to Western District

The police are hoping people will leave peacefully, but it may be a long night.

This is what happens when the lingering anger and frustration from the Occupy protests are not fully resolved, and with Beijing voicing its say in the oath-taking issue now called #oathgate, Hong Kong people are more frustrated than ever at trying to protect whatever they have left.

For more on the clashes this evening head to Webs of Significance.

Legco's Outrageous Circus

Paul Tse (centre) instigated the pro-establishment walkout of Legco

Today was a descent into chaos in the Legislative Council.

The High Court ruled late last night that the two Youngspiration lawmakers, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang could retake their oaths, and Legislative Council President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen allowed them to do that too.

So everyone expected to watch how the young politicians would recite the oath this time.

However the spotlight was hijacked by the pro-Beijing side, when Paul Tse Wai-chun spoke before the meeting, suggesting lawmakers should walk out of Legco if the pair do not apologize and genuinely swear the oath.

Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching must wait another week

After 11am, two other lawmakers were sworn in before pro-establishment members started walking out of the chamber, so the president had to ring the quorum bell.

Then outside the chamber, the pro-establishment formed a human wall, and Leung Kwok-hung or "Long Hair" stood in front of them in protest, hurling luncheon meat at them before there was a shouting match for 10 minutes.

Andrew Leung had to adjourn the meeting 19 minutes after it started because of the lack of quorum and Yau, Sixtus Leung and another localist have yet to be sworn in.

It's ironic to see the pro-Beijing camp stopping all proceedings and paralyzing Legco over the oath-taking, insisting the pair apologize and that they must acknowledge that Hong Kong is China.

Meanwhile the president has won big points by observers for trying to stick to the rules and give the localists -- who had opposed his run for the job -- to take the oath again, though he too is now at odds with his colleagues.

It's lonely at the top for Legco President Andrew Leung

It's all a downright mess really. Can we just get the formalities over with? The Younspiration folks have learned their lesson and promise to take the oath properly. But now they have to wait yet ANOTHER week to do that.

Meanwhile the judicial review filed last night with the High Court to look at Andrew Leung's decision to allow the Youngspiration lawmakers to retake their oaths was revealed to be lodged by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Security Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung.

Seems like CY doesn't mind his popularity sinking even lower...

Joshua Wong's Preferential Detainment

Joshua Wong speaks to the media after returning from Bangkok yesterday

Why is Demosisto activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung considered a dangerous person by Thai authorities?

On the invitation of Thai student activist Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal to speak to students at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok about the 2014 Umbrella Movement, Wong flew to the Thai capital on Tuesday evening.

But the 19-year-old was detained by Thai authorities even before he reached the terminal -- he says he was surrounded by 20 police and immigration officers at the air bridge.

When he confirmed his identity, his passport was confiscated and he was detained in a cell for 12 hours where he was not told what he was being held for, had no access to a lawyer or could not notify the Hong Kong Immigration Department or family members.

Thai student activist Netwit Chotiphatphaisal invited Wong

Chotiphatphaisal was waiting at the airport to pick up Wong, but when he didn't show up, he asked airport authorities who told him hours later that student activist was detained, and so the Thai student immediately contacted Demosisto of the situation.

It turns out that Wong was detained at Beijing's request.

"Officials there have requested to take him back. It's Chinese officials' business. Don't get involved too much. They are all Chinese people no matter Hong Kong or mainland China," said junta leader and Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha.

It's shocking to hear Thailand is so keen to do Beijing's bidding, but perhaps even more so is Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung's passive response to the matter.

"I personally do not believe such a matter would... require international pressure," he said, adding the incident was "purely Thailand's own handling" of an individual's entry into the country as a tourist.

So much for being concerned about Hong Kong citizens in other countries...

The Thai authorities were skittish about allowing Wong in because he would be speaking at Bangkok's leading university to mark the 40th anniversary of a student massacre, a highly sensitive time for the junta, who took power in 2014.

Thai junta leader and Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha

Prayuth's office said the junta was "aware that Mr Wong had been active in resistance movements against other foreign governments, and that if such actions were taken within Thailand, they could eventually affect Thailand's relations with other nations".

China washed its hands of the matter, only saying it "respects Thailand's exercise of immigration control in accordance with law".

While Wong criticized the Hong Kong government for not looking into this case, he also felt "very fortunate" that he had been able to return home, compared to missing bookseller Gui Minhai who was taken from Pattaya and then resurfaced on the mainland under detention.

Will other Hong Kong citizens be detained in this way too if they travel to Thailand? Will the Hong Kong government show any interest in helping them out?

This only reveals the pettiness of the government for not seeing everyone equal under the law and allowing other countries to do what they want to Hong Kong citizens.

How is this just?

Does the Liaison Office Get Hong Kong?

Wang Zhenmin has been stationed at the liaison office since January

The Chinese government may have people on the ground in Hong Kong gathering information about the people and the city, but it doesn't seem to want to try to understand what's going on.

At all.

The legal head of Beijing's liaison office here said Hong Kong is ill and needs medication, caused by the growing talk of independence -- which he ruled out for "1,000 years and forever".

It's either 1,000 years or forever. Which one is it?

Wang Zhenmin believes those advocating Hong Kong's separation from China are acting out of fear that the mainland's success is eclipsing the city's.

Sixtus "Baggio" Leung says Wang's comments are "laughable"

Someone really has his head above the clouds.

"Hong Kong's prosperity and stability is largely because of the motherland," he said. "Some people then think that now the motherland is developing well, Hong Kong will go downhill. It is heartbreaking to see some people going for extreme means to destroy Hong Kong."

Err... no one is really thinking that theory, Mr Wang; it is rather that Hong Kong people are tired of our dependence on the mainland and Beijing meddling in our affairs. None of us wants to destroy Hong Kong, unless the mainland has other plans for us.

He went on to declare Hong Kong would remain a part of China "for 1,000 years and forever", and that no one could break them apart.

Sounds so romantic and yet does Hong Kong have a choice in the matter?

The Basic Law expert said Hong Kong should serve as a role model for the country's economic and democratic development, along with the rule of law.

"If the 7.3 million people in Hong Kong mess up democracy and only bring extremism, violence and separatism, how can the 1.4 billion people on the mainland pursue democracy without fear?"

Is he insinuating there will be democracy in China?

Rimsky Yuen says advocating separatism breaches Basic Law

And he shouldn't he give us credit for no violent incidents on September 4, the day of the Legislative Council elections when 2.8 million people turned out to cast their votes?

Wang is the same person who raised eyebrows in April when he warned that those who discussed independence for Hong Kong in a "large-scale" setting were not only violating the Basic Law, but could also be committing "treason" and "sedition" under existing criminal laws.

That set off a debate on whether talking about separatism was considered "sedition", and the Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung warned that advocating independence was a breach of the "relevant" provisions in the Basic Law, and incompatible with the legal status and overall interests of the city.

While Wang said he was open to discussing whether "one country, two systems" should continue after it expires in 2047, he revealed that he personally preferred to maintain the

status quo.

Localist lawmaker-elect Sixtus "Baggio" Leung Chung-hang, who advocates self-determination, dismissed Wang's take on the rise of separatism as "laughable".

"When we discuss the question of independence, we are driven by the invisible hand from the Communist Party that is meddling with our rights and freedoms," Leung said. "It has nothing to do with China's economic strength."

While Wang was here at the University of Hong Kong from 1993 to 1995, and served on the Basic Law committee from 2006 to 2008, his recent time here only started from January this year.

Perhaps he feels he has to play up the rhetoric because of his position, but that just only demonstrates Beijing's lack of sensitivity to the issue or a belief in the heavy-handed approach will bring bring stray attitudes around.

Not.

Justice Minister Accused of Double Standards

Hong Kong Indigenous' Edward Leung shows his rejection letter to the media

The whole fiasco over candidates in next month's Legislative Council elections having to sign an extra form is getting even bigger now that the justice minister has weighed in.

Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung waded into the controversy and created even more of a mess when he said Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous was disqualified from the September 4 elections because of his pro-independence views, but not in the February by-elections because Yuen says Leung was not explicit about his stance then.

That immediately got the media in a tizzy because they have proof on the record that Leung had promoted independence as early as last December, well before his candidacy for the by-election was validated and gazetted on January 29. He came in third in that race for New Territories East with 16 percent of the vote, not to be scoffed at.

Leung came in third with an independence platform

And then Yuen tried to defend the Electoral Affairs Commission's decision to disqualify Leung on the basis that he had no intention of upholding the Basic Law.

But all 30 members of the legal sub-sector in the 1,200-member Election Committee that picked Hong Kong's chief executive in 2012, hit out with a joint statement yesterday.

They said returning officers were not empowered to investigate the "genuineness" of candidates' declarations to respect the city's mini constitution, let alone to make "a subjective and political decision to disqualify a candidate without following any due process on the grounds that a candidate will not genuinely uphold the Basic Law".

"Such an inquiry and decision are not only unlawful, but amount to political censorship and screening by the returning officer without any legal basis," they said.

Rimsky Yuen doesn't seem to have his facts straight on Leung

The 30 committee members are either from the pan-democratic camp or linked to it.

What is also strange is that while Leung changed his political stance to sign the form, 42 candidates from pan-democratic and localist parties were allowed to run even though they didn't sign the form.

There doesn't seem to be an explanation of how the electoral commission gave them the green light.

Chinese University political scientist Dr Ma Ngok said the justice minister's explanation was "subjective, selective and unconvincing".

"Many people have touched on independence one way or another, but why were some of them qualified but others not?" he asked.

Again -- why is the democratic process for the Legislative Council -- the only true one Hong Kong has -- being politicized? Why is the government meddling? It's doing a very clumsy job, and made even more outrageous when trying to explain itself out of a paper bag.

As justice minister, surely Yuen would not want to lose his credibility over such a fiasco?

Challenging HK's Constitution

Edward Leung is calling for a judicial review regarding self-determination

The upcoming Legislative Council elections are already interesting, with many young people running for seats, and now there's a slight twist that will be keenly watched on all sides.

Edward Leung Tin-kei, who won 66,000 votes or 15 percent in a by-election in February, has lodged an appeal for a judicial review at the High Court. He wants the judiciary to decide whether people who call for self-determination or Hong Kong's independence, are constitutionally protected under freedom of speech.

This comes after the Registration and Electoral Office refused to circulate his politically sensitive election leaflets, as well as threats from Beijing and Hong Kong officials for possibly being criminally liable for promoting independence from China.

Is the Hong Kong National Party a threat to national security?

The leaflet had words such as "self-independence", "autonomy" and "resistance by force".

"Self-determination ought to be protected under freedom of expression," Leung said. "We have the right to discuss it -- whether the government likes it or not."

The electoral office did not comment on Leung's legal action.

In his documents submitted to the court, the localist activist claimed his freedom of expression of violated by the electoral office's decision not to disseminate his leaflets, and that it was contrary to the Bill of Rights.

Because of the electoral office's decision, it had advised the Post Office not to provide free postage, even though election candidates are entitled to such a service.

 Yuen is looking into the Hong Kong National Party case

Meanwhile the Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, is looking into whether the recently established Hong Kong National Party had broken any laws by setting up a party that advocated the city's independence.

Yuen is probably under pressure from the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, as it claimed the party, established in March, posed a threat to national security.

Both cases are very interesting, and we are waiting with baited breath to see what the courts say. Those verdicts will definitely affect how residents feel about their city, if they feel more alienated than ever, or that rule of law is still functioning as it should.

Ex-ICAC Chief Free from Prosecution

Ex-head of the anti-graft agency won't face further prosecution or investigation

Today there was finally an announcement of former ICAC chief Timothy Tong Hin-ming's fate -- that he would not be further prosecuted, nor further investigated.

Case closed.

What? Really?

When he was commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption from 2007-2012, Tong was found to have spent taxpayer money on lavish gifts and hosting dinners, for not only his mainland counterparts, but other Chinese officials too. He also invited his friends and relatives to dine at these dinners at taxpayers' expense.

For example, Tong hosted 206 meals that were listed as "official entertainment", and overspent on 77 of them. This compares with only two percent of the 460 meals hosted by other ICAC officers that overspent.

Apparently there isn't enough evidence to prosecute him -- or there is no law that he has broken.

ICAC's report says Tong didn't break rules in lavish spending

"With respect to the purchase of hard liquor, it is noted that there were neither regulations nor internal rules within the ICAC prohibiting the consumption or purchase of hard liquor, including Maotai during Mr Tong's tenure," the department for Justice said in a statement.

"It is also noted that even before his tenure, there had been occasions of serving hard liquor at official functions. It is unfortunately that the relevant rules and regulations in this regard at the time were not clear."

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said applicable internal ICAC rules, that have since been revamped, made it difficult to prosecute Tong.

Yuen and current ICAC commissioner Simon Peh Yun-lu denied the decision was politically motivated, though Tong was appointed a CPPCC official in 2013; it made some wonder if all that wining and dining he did was to help him get that political position.

It is very disappointing that Tong did not get prosecuted, based on the fact that there were no strict rules in place about entertaining or giving lavish gifts, that it was more based on the officials' sense of morality and responsibility.

Did Tong know that before he bought all that booze? Now that's a question worth asking.

Regardless, the optics of this whole fiasco make the ICAC and the justice department look bad.

Who is the public supposed to believe?

A former ICAC investigator as well as several lawmakers are calling for full disclosure of the legal advice given to the justice department to lead it to today's announcement.

We shall see how the request is received...

Meanwhile today Transparency International released its latest Corruption Perceptions Index, where Hong Kong was ranked 18th along with Ireland and Japan. Hong Kong's score was 75 for 2015, up one from 2014. It was at 75 for 2013, and 77 for 2012.

It's intriguing that Hong Kong is thought to have improved on becoming less corrupt, though the number of complaints about corruption increased by 20 percent last year.

Is it me, or is it coincidence that the announcement about Tong is the same day Transparency International's report comes out? Makes one wonder what's really going on...

Justice Secretary Promises Investigation

Thousands came out to protest Lee Bo and his associates' disappearance

How many days has it been since bookseller Lee Bo has disappeared and finally Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung says something.

During a speech at City Hall before judges and lawyers to mark the start of the new legal year, Yuen said the public's concern about Lee and his four associates' disappearance was "understandable" and promised a thorough investigation.

"Except properly permitted under our laws, neither unauthorized criminal investigations nor unlawful arrests within the jurisdiction by anyone or any authority shall be tolerated," he said.

"Any suspected case of infringement deserves full and thorough investigation, and this is what the government is seeking to achieve," he added, saying concerns in the community were "understandable" and should be properly addressed.

Will Rimsky Yuen find the answers we are looking for?

Surely Yuen can pick up the phone and call Beijing to demand some answers? So far it's the media and public that are driving this story, not the government, which seems to have a passive reaction to what Hong Kong people think is a shocking erosion of rights in the city.

And as the Secretary for Justice, one would think Yuen should be just as concerned as us, and would be leading the charge, trying to find out answers for the rest of us?

Or perhaps he does know, but is not at liberty to say?

It's maddening how the Leung administration has a delayed response to every incident -- it's as if the senior officials are waiting for instructions from above before they decide on their own game plan.

One would think after the Occupy protests, lead in the water issue, housing, depressed salaries and so on, that the government would try to work harder to earn the public's trust.

Time is off the essence here. We need to know where Lee and his associates are. Now.

The MTR Needs Money -- Again

An illustration of what the West Kowloon-Guangzhou station will look like

Earlier this week Hong Kong people found out that the MTR Corporation is HK$19 billion over budget in building the 26km high-speed link from West Kowloon to Guangzhou. It is also three years behind schedule.

And who's going to pay for this massive shortfall?

The Hong Kong government has pledged that we, the taxpayers will shore up the HK$19.6 billion, and the same amount will be eventually recouped through a special dividend the MTR will pay out.

The company pledges to pay HK$25.76 billion in dividends at the rate of HK$4.40 per share -- four times last year's payout -- in two stages.

What the site looks like now, three years behind schedule

And because the Hong Kong government owns 76 percent of MTR shares, it will get the HK$19.6 billion back, and the other shareholders will get HK$6.2 billion. Not bad if you're an MTR shareholder.

But what about the rest of us? Why should we be bailing out a publicly-listed company? It should be lending money from the banks instead like any other company. If we do shell out the money, do we get free rides on the train? Highly doubt it.

If the Legislative Council does not approve this extra funding request by the government, then the project will be further delayed. But that's fine -- do we really need this high-speed train when we can get to Guangzhou relatively comfortably in three hours currently?

Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung apologized yesterday for the delay and the cost of the overruns, while others called for his resignation. One should check to see if he owns any MTR shares...

Why should taxpayers bail out the MTR for cost overruns?

In the meantime, there is also the contentious issue of having mainland immigration officers stationed in Hong Kong in order to speed up the process.

The Civic Party is proposing that these mainland immigration officers could check passengers while on the train, however Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung hinted last month that the officers would be based in Hong Kong, after his chat with officials in Beijing.

"If Hong Kong people allow mainland officers to be stationed in Hong Kong, it will set a bad and irrevocable precedent to the rule of law in Hong Kong," said party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit.

The Hong Kong government is probably going to lose this round. Public sentiment for this high-speed rail link and the MTR has plunged considerably. It will be eventually built, and mainland immigration officers will probably be stationed in the West Kowloon station, but resentment for the MTR and the government will continue to simmer...

(Muddled) Quote of the Day: Leung Chun-ying

CY Leung and Zhang Xiaoming two weeks ago at the start of this muddle

After the former deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office Chen Zuo'er spoke about how Hong Kong was not properly "de-colonized", and that it was still conducting "de-sinofication", Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying added his two cents' worth.

"Hong Kong, as a special administrative region, has a high degree of autonomy but, at the same time, it also has responsibilities to the country as a whole," he said.

"Similarly, Hong Kong people have basic rights and duties. So, it is a question of following the Basic Law and striking a balance between rights and duties, and also our high degree of autonomy and our responsibilities to the country."

What is Leung talking about?

Chen Zuo'er accuses Hong Kong people of "de-sinofication"

First of all what are our "duties"? We have to pay taxes, obey laws, be civilized human beings to each other, and so on. Why should we have to balance our rights and duties with our high degree of autonomy? We are given all these things in the Basic Law. There is no need to give and take.

When he says "our responsibilities to the country", what does that mean? Do we have to attend the flag raising ceremony every morning? Do we have to sign up for PLA duty? Do we have to know the Chinese anthem by heart? Adopt Chinese babies?

Leung is stepping up the rhetoric and yet he makes no sense at all!

Is Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung going to speak out and interpret what Leung said, or is Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor going to do that? Speaking of which, we haven't heard from her in ages. Maybe she has demanded a sabbatical after the disastrous campaign to push for political reform fell on its face a few months ago.

In any event, can Leung please clarify what he means? We're all waiting with baited breath to know what our duties are to the country...

Legal Smackdown

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma spoke out, telling people to read the Basic Law

Thank you Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li!

Thank you for setting the record straight once and for all about the status of Hong Kong's chief executive.

Today Ma made a legal smackdown hours after Leung Chun-ying's comments that the chief executive "is indeed transcendent", giving the impression that he has an emperor-like status.

One wonders if Leung has indeed been hanging out at Government House with a crown on his head.

While the chief justice said he was not going to comment on "things which have recently been said" or on other people's comments on what he said in the past, he did say: "But I wish to emphasize two points, both in relation to the Basic Law," Ma said. "The first point is judicial independence. This is specified in the Basic Law in three separate places and I would ask people to read articles 2, 19 and 85."

CY Leung will have to re-think his "transcendent" status

He went on: "The second point deals with equality before the law, and this is Article 25 of the Basic law, which prescribes that everybody is equal before the law, without exception. This applies to everyone."

And what does Article 25 of the Basic Law say? "... all Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law".

So there. Leung can take off his crown now. The ermine robes have to go too.

In Article 2, Beijing's legislature authorizes Hong Kong "to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication".

Finally Article 19 reiterates that Hong Kong "shall be vested with independent judicial power", while Article 85 states that Hong Kong courts "shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. Members of the judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions."

Again we have to ask -- why did Zhang Xiaoming, head of the liaison office, say what he did on Saturday?

Legally his speech was completely out of line and we hope Ma's clarification will end any more speculation of the chief executive's status.

Today on Commercial Radio, James Tien Pei-chun, honorary chairman of the Liberal Party, urged Zhang to clarify what he meant five days ago.

James Tien thinks Beijing is still trying to assert authority

The last five days have been a verbal circus, because having others like Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung and Leung himself trying to explain Zhang's comments is like watching a dog chase its tail.

"Zhang read his speech carefully that day," says Tien. "It seemed to me it was pre-written by Beijing and he was only responsible for reading that out. Perhaps Beijing feels the hearts of Hong Kong people are still not with the country, years since the [1997] handover. That's why they are doing this to assert 'one country'." he said.

If Tien's speculation is true, then Beijing still does not understand how Hong Kong operates and what its people are thinking. For China to think locals will automatically demonstrate unwavering patriotism -- when many of them escaped the Communists in 1949 and onwards -- is naive thinking.

And trying to assert its power over the city is just making things worse.

But in the meantime, high fives to Ma -- the smackdown was just what the doctor ordered.

Trying to Clear the Air

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen spent the last two days clearing the air...

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung set the record straight regarding the the status of Hong Kong's chief executive, after remarks made on Saturday by Zhang Xiaoming, head of the liaison office here.

Yuen said the CE would never be "an emperor", as the Basic Law is "unequivocal" in stipulating he must be accountable to legislative and judicial jurisdiction, like everyone else.

He added it was not Zhang's intention to elevate the chief executive to an emperor-like position. "The chief executive is the same as any other member of the public in obeying Hong Kong's laws," Yuen said today.

Then what did Zhang mean then?

... on comments Zhang Xiaoming made on Saturday...

Or is Yuen trying to backpedal on the Chinese official's behalf?

On Saturday Zhang stated the CE was above the law and legislative council that resulted in an uproar in the pro-democracy camp.

To try to be more diplomatic, Yuen said on Sunday in an interview with Xinhua that the Basic Law had to be seen from both the mainland and Hong Kong perspectives.

"It has to be read both from Hong Kong's angle, as well as that of the central government, otherwise it is impossible to safeguard the co-existence of the 'two systems' under the 'one country' framework," he said.

It was unclear if Yuen said this before or after Zhang's remarks, but it still did not clarify anything, which is probably why the justice minister had to come out today and say outright that the CE, or in this case, Leung Chun-ying, did not have an emperor-like position.

We can only shake our heads and wonder what is really going on behind the scenes.

Again we ask - why did Zhang say what he did on Saturday? Did he purposely say this to rile up pro-democracy leaders and activists two weeks short of the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Movement? Or does he think Hong Kong people have no clue what's written in the Basic Law so he thinks he can whitewash it with his own version?

With regards to the role of the CE, it's written pretty clearly in the Basic Law -- there is no room for misinterpretation.

And so it was left to Yuen to try to clear the air, first saying that the Basic Law should be considered from both mainland and Hong Kong perspectives, which doesn't mean anything, and then today he finally put his foot down and said Leung was not like an emperor.

Sometimes the job of underlings is to clean up messes their bosses make -- if Zhang is his boss...

Hong Kong's chief executive would never be "an emperor" as the Basic Law is "unequivocal" in stipulating he falls under legislative and judicial supervision just like anyone else, the justice secretary says in the wake of controversial remarks by Beijing's top man in the city.
Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung also asked Hongkongers not to take the words of Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong, out of context.
He believed it was not Zhang's intention to elevate the chief executive to an emperor-like position.
"The chief executive is the same as any other member of the public in obeying Hong Kong's laws," Yuen said today.
"It is impossible for him or her to act in breach of the legal or judicial systems."
Yuen spoke after Zhang said on Saturday the chief executive possessed a power above the executive, the judiciary and the legislature – which would effectively end any notion that the separation of powers applied to the city.
The mainland official's comments – made at a symposium celebrating the 25th year of the birth of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution – sparked an outcry among local pan-democrats who feared Beijing was trying to redefine the city's constitutional model.
But Yuen said: "The Basic Law is clearly designed. The fact that the chief executive, as head of the executive and of the Hong Kong special administrative region, is subject to legislative and judicial supervision is unequivocal."
Yuen further highlighted another point Zhang made during the speech, that the chief executive did not enjoy any dominant power.
In an earlier interview with Chinese state media Xinhua, Yuen said Beijing and Hong Kong must look at the Basic Law from each other's perspective, or risk facing "negative effects" on cross-border cooperation.
He warned that without such mutual understanding, the coexistence of "two systems" under the governing principle of "one country, two systems" would be at risk.
It was unclear whether Yuen's interview took place before or after Zhang's Saturday speech.

Getting Hong Kong to Uber-ize

Uber is ready to serve customers who are willing to pay more for good service

Uber is forcing governments around the world to figure out how this car-hailing app can fit into their societies, but not without backlash.

In Hong Kong, the firm's offices in Sheung Wan were raided several days ago and three staff were arrested along with seven Uber drivers.

The ironic thing is that Uber was supported by InvestHK, a government arm that helps businesses set up shop in Hong Kong easily, in some cases offering promotional services and introduction to contacts, as long as the business fits into one of six areas like creative industries, financial services, innovation and technology, and information and communications technology.

Many complain about Hong Kong taxi drivers' bad habits

Uber was even promoted on the InvestHK website up until the day of the arrests which must have been an awkward U-turn for the government.

But why all of a sudden these arrests? Technically Uber drivers do not have licenses to carry strangers in their own cars. And what if there's an accident? Who takes responsibility?

This is what the taxi driver associations are angry about, because they are paying around HK$7 million each for their licenses while these Uber drivers are not.

However, upon hearing about the arrests, there was an online petition that garnered 50,000 signatures supporting Uber, and lots of comments in local newspapers from residents tired of putting up with cab drivers who refuse to pick up passengers, smell lingering cigarette smoke, charge exorbitant fees late at night, and so on.

Surely there is room for two services, one of which people need to pay more for better service? Some customers like to be picked up in a Mercedes, others just want to ensure they have a ride after a concert where thousands of people are waiting in line for a taxi.

Uber North Asia general manager Sam Gellman is keen to sit down with the government to hash out some kind of agreement.

Uber's Sam Gellman keen to work with the government

"A smart city must have smart regulations fit for a digital age, and we look forward to working closely with regulators towards developing a regulatory approach that enables more choice and innovation while putting the safety and interests of riders and drivers first," he says.

The Hong Kong government, via Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, says there should be "legal space" for Uber to continue to operate in the city.

Gellman says safety is a top priority for the taxi-hailing app, which is why the drivers go through an extensive background check and every ride is covered by insurance.

He seems optimistic something will be worked out in the end for Hong Kong, citing the successful adaptation of Uber into transportation regulations and licensing schemes in 54 jurisdictions in the United States, Mexico City and the Philippines.

Yuen says the Justice Department has yet to lay charges on the Uber staff and drivers, as the police are still investigating... but shouldn't the government have done its due diligence work on Uber before allowing it into the city? Seems strange for it to investigate one of its star clients...

Nevertheless, the fight between Uber and Hong Kong taxi drivers continues and public opinion seems to side with the former.

I have yet to try the service, and have heard about some hits and misses, but overall seems like it wouldn't hurt to drive a little competition in Hong Kong -- isn't that what this city is about -- choice?