Two Apple Daily Executives Charged, Supporters Buy Paper

Law (left), Cheung (right) charged with national security law

Following the arrest of five Apple Daily executives on Thursday, two were charged with violating the national security law, while the other three were released on bail today.

Chief editor Ryan Law Wai-kwong and chief executive Cheung Kim-hung were charged with conspiring to collude with foreign forces, while associate publisher Chan Pui-man, chief financial officer Chow Tat-kuen, and digital director Cheung Chi-wai were released after being detained for 40 hours, pending further investigation.

Chan praised Apple Daily staff for their hard work

Emerging from Tseung Kwan O police station after 10pm, Chan was sad that two of her colleagues were charged, but that she would go to court tomorrow morning to support them.

"Over the past 40 hours when I was detained, I know my colleagues in Apple Daily have been standing fast professionally," she said. "They continue to cover and report the news. I am very proud of them. I am touched. We will do our best."

Around 12.15am last night Apple Daily had a Facebook live video filming vans being filled with stacks of the Friday edition of the paper and they fanned out across the city distributing the paper to news vendors. 

The reporter explained to some 2,000 viewers that the vans would have to do several rounds to send out 500,000 copies of the paper.

A man buys some 20 copies to show his support

Then around 12.30am the first stacks of the paper arrived at a news stand in Mongkok and already there was a line of people waiting to buy the paper. The vendor had to assemble the pages together before selling them. Some people bought one or two, but there were others who bought, 10 or 20 copies each.

A reporter asked why they bought so many, and they said it was to support Apple Daily. When asked if he had some words for the newspaper's staff, a young man said: "You usually 'add oil' when people are not trying hard enough. Everyone at the paper is doing their best, so it would be unethical to 'add oil'."

Another man said he bought the paper to support press freedom. When asked for his surname, he thought for a second and said, "Poon, my name is Poon." 

Sure.

Interestingly government adviser and senior council Ronny Tong Ka-wah clarified that buying a copy of Apple Daily did not violate the national security law. 

Why did he even say that?

"The core issue was [the articles] calling for foreign forces to impose sanctions or take hostile action against Hong Kong and the central government. Any other acts that do not touch on this would not offend the law, such as buying copies of the newspaper," Tong said during a Friday morning radio show.

However, Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, chair of public law of the University of Hong Kong's law department, disagreed, noting police had also frozen HK$18 million (US$2.32 million) in assets of the three affiliated Apple Daily companies.

"If the arrests only [targeted] the senior staff... why did [police] not freeze the assets of the five senior staff members instead?" he said on another radio program.

But everyone is wondering how much longer Apple Daily will continue as there are rumours it could be shut down by July 1...

 

Pro-Beijing Bloc Crumbles in Blame Game

Over 230,000 came out to protest in Tsim Sha Tsui yesterday afternoon

It was bound to happen -- the pro-Beijing camp is now split, pointing fingers at who is to blame for the fallout from the controversial extradition bill that has been suspended, though the protest marches continue to demand a complete withdrawal.

The Liberal Party's James Tien Pei-chun has openly demanded three people take the blame: the party's own Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, and Exco members Ronny Tong Ka-wah and Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, who strongly supported the bill.

James Tien pointed fingers at the pro-establishment bloc

During a radio program today Tien said: "Cheung is supposed to be a Liberal Party representative in Exco to convey public opinion to the government. However, he has gone the opposite way and is pushing the party to support the government line."

When it comes to Tong and Ip, Tien said: "Members of the Executive Council are appointed by the chief executive while secretaries are appointed by the central government, therefore it's more feasible for the government to reshuffle its cabinet than to make heads roll in the top administrative echelon."

While Tong respected Tien's opinion, Tong felt that neither he nor his Exco colleagues did anything wrong.

However Ip told the media she had no plans to resign and that Tien's remarks were illogical and irresponsible.

Tien clamed Ronny Tong was to blame for the bill's fiasco...

"[James Tien] said we did not reflect the public's view, but let's not forget, there are different views on the matter in the society," she said, adding people were concerned about livelihood issues like housing and salaries.

Ip is just trying to deflect the issue away from her, because so many people, both young and old have come out to protest because they believe the extradition bill will affect their personal safety and security in Hong Kong.

This is the reality of the proposal of the bill that Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor had put forward and law experts, lawyers and judges sounded warning bells as well.

Tien's call for the trio to quit was backed by three of his fellow honorary chairmen, who make up half of the party's eight-member leadership. They were Selina Liang Shuk-yee, Vincent Fang Kang, and Miriam Lau Kin-yee, along with Tien.

... as well as Regina Ip, though she refused to resign

What's interesting about Tien is that while he is pro-establishment, he will sometimes go against the government in its decisions or give constructive criticism. Back in April he was already calling for the government to shelve the extradition bill, or delay the passing of the bill for another year for more consultation.

With regards to the protests, Tien says the marchers should focus more on the Legislative Council elections next year than go out protesting every week.

He would say that, being a pro-business lawmaker... but people aren't going to listen to him anyway. They seem determined to keep the momentum going. And the peaceful marches are making Hongkongers feel unified. Isn't that a good thing?

More Lecturing from Beijing

Qiao Xiaoyang says advocating independence is not freedom of speech

We welcome Qiao Xiaoyang to Hong Kong, but perhaps he didn't read the report on the results of a study done by City University the other day that concluded the rise of localism does not mean a lack of patriotism for China.

Qiao is a retired chairman of the national legislature's law committee, and he told 200 top local officials at a closed-door seminar today that he did not consider pro-independence calls to be freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in the city's mini constitution.

But Hong Kong's Basic Law allows freedom of speech

One of the attendees was Ronny Tong Ka-wah, an adviser to Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. He quoted Qiao as saying: "[Advocating independence] is hurtful to national feelings and contrary to the national constitution.

"Under the constitution, Hong Kong is a region under China's unitary system. So, Hongkongers have the duty to uphold the constitution and shouldn't do anything against the constitution and oppose the unitary system on the mainland."

You gotta love the argument that speaking out for democracy is "hurtful to national feelings". How is that even substantiated? That kind of news would be censored in Chinese media anyway so it wouldn't be hurtful to anyone.

Perhaps Qiao hasn't read Hong Kong's Basic Law? In Article 27 it says: "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication, freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions and to strike".

Ronny Tong was one of 200 who heard Qiao's speech

But maybe no one at this seminar dared to point this out to him.

He also said while the central government would maintain a capitalist system in Hong Kong, it would be unconstitutional to "subvert the socialist system led by the Communist Party", said Wong Kwok-kin, a member of Lam's Executive Council.

Qiao is the second mainland representative within a week to speak at seminars on Hong Kong's constitutional order being part of China, following Beijing's liaison office director Wang Zhimin, who on Sunday hit out at local activists for challenging national sovereignty.

Statements like his continue to breed resentment against Beijing in Hong Kong... it also shows an utter lack of understanding of the city and its people, only expecting them to conform to its demands.

This inevitably leads to more tensions and conflicts that aren't going to get better anytime soon.

Selling the High-Speed Rail Joint Checkpoint

An image of the cross-border high-speed rail link terminus in West Kowloon

The controversy over China having its immigration officers stationed in Hong Kong's cross-border express rail link between here and Guangzhou was settled Wednesday with little opposition to kick up a big fuss.

In West Kowloon, the cross-border high-speed rail link terminus is being built, and as far back as eight years ago, many pan-democrat lawmakers slammed the government for planning to establish a joint checkpoint there, which would violate the Basic Law.

At the time, Civic Party lawmaker Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee said: "The Basic Law has banned Hong Kong from implementing a co-location arrangement which allows Chinese Communist Party officers to enforce mainland laws in Hong Kong. This is crystal clear."

The train that will travel between Hong Kong and Guangzhou

Her colleague, Ronny Tong Ka-wah also said it was constitutionally impossible to set up such a joint checkpoint in the city centre.

But fast forward to today and Tong quit the party two years ago and is now a member of the Executive Council, which advises the chief executive, and endorsed the deal.

In this agreement, mainland officers can exercise nearly full jurisdiction in the 105,000 square metre designated port area at the terminus that it will rent from Hong Kong, but currently that's technically not possible, but Beijing and the Lam administration will work out some kind of backroom deal...

This is a sensitive issue because Hong Kong and China have separate laws, the former being more liberal than the latter. There are concerns that what a traveler does in the Hong Kong side that is considered legal maybe considered illegal on the mainland, so would that person be arrested?

Another somewhat trivial but important question is that once a traveler goes to "Chinese territory" in the terminus, will they suddenly not be able to have access to things like Facebook, Youtube and Google, which are currently banned in China?

The construction of the terminus in West Kowloon

That's why some legal critics say allowing Chinese officers to exercise mainland laws in this particular space on Hong Kong soil is a slippery slope in quickening the pace of the mainlandization of the city.

Dr Cheung Chor-yung, from City University's college of liberal arts and social sciences, said the co-location agreement would set a "very dangerous" precedent that could "shake the civil rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people as protected under the Basic Law".

"The price is too huge if we have to give up some of our guaranteed protection to trade for convenience in taking the train," he said.

Currently the joint checkpoint is being sold to the public as a form of convenience when traveling to the mainland. Business and tourism sectors are saying this will generate more economic benefits, but will it really?

Rimsky Yuen welcomes legal challenges to joint checkpoint

The set up we have now between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is convenient already, with a no-man's land in between the two border points at Lo Wu. But for example, Federation of Hong Kong Industries deputy chairman Jimmy Kwok Chun-wah says the new rail link will give more opportunities for Hong Kong people to find work across the border, making it more convenient for them to commute.

Really? Is there suddenly going to be a surge of people rushing across the border to work there? And the same with tourists, because it's more convenient?

Those reasons make it even harder to believe the new arrangement is a win-win for Hong Kong. Perhaps over time more workers and tourists will travel back and forth, but with the current sentiment Hong Kong people have about their northern cousins, they aren't eagerly sprinting over the border. And if they are working there already, they haven't been loudly complaining about their commute.

The joint checkpoint is also being compared to the arrangement between the United States and Canada, but in the latter case, US officials may only question and search travelers in Canada, but do not have the power to arrest them, which would be the case in Hong Kong.

Once again another divisive issue in the city, but does the public really understand the implications of this new arrangement? How do they feel about it?

Probably a mixture of uneasiness but also resignation. There are some legal challenges to this new arrangement and it will be interesting to see how they are received in court. It's a last-ditch attempt to protect Hong Kong.

Party Calls for HK's Independence

Chan Ho-tin announces the establishment of the Hong Kong National Party

Hong Kong may have another political party, though there are questions if it can legally exist.

In a one-man press conference in Tuen Mun on Sunday, former Occupy activist Chan Ho-tin announced the formation of the Hong Kong National Party.

He said the group would not recognize the Basic Law, the city's mini constitution, and that it would use "whatever means" available to push for independence, including fielding candidates in the Legislative Council elections in September and coordinate with other pro-independence localist groups.

"Staging marches or shouting slogans is obviously useless now. Regarding using violence, we would support it if it is effective to make us heard," he said. Chan claimed the party was entirely funded by donations from its 50-plus members, mostly university students and young activists.

However, the Department of Justice weighed in on the Hong Kong National Party, citing the Basic Law and that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.

Ho says wanting Hong Kong to be independent is not illegal

"Any suggestion that Hong Kong should be independent or any movement to advocate such independence would not be consistent with the legal status of Hong Kong... or the Basic Law. Nor would such suggestion or movement be conducive to the overall interests of [Hong Kong]."

But barrister and former lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah said talking about independence without taking any action was protected by freedom of speech.

Democratic Party lawmaker and solicitor Albert Ho Chun-yan added that merely advocating for independence was not a criminal offense.

"Seditious intention has to include a tendency to incite violence or an intention to create public disorder," Ho said.

Chan has said that he is not afraid of the consequences, but also said calling for independence was not illegal. "It is not that we advocate independence, it is Hong Kong people who want to break from China."

It's very curious that yet another political party as formed, and if it is made official, it will further splinter the vote in September. What is the point of that? While it is understandable the party could appeal to a group of people, most know the wish for Hong Kong to be independent is just that -- a wish.

The Occupy protests in 2014 failed to get democracy in HK

Legally Hong Kong is a part of China -- there is not much more ordinary people can do about this. It is how we work around these parameters is what matters.

Despite the failure of the Occupy Movement in 2014, they are still looking for other avenues to raise their voices which is admirable. Many of us are jaded and don't think there is much more we can do.

However these young people are very idealistic without taking into account the reality of the situation. No one has a perfect answer, but calling for outright independence is not the solution.

In the meantime we will have to see if the Hong Kong National Party does get formal approval to register, and if so, how many votes can it realistically get? That's how to make their voices heard, not by being radical to the point of possibly being illegal...

Hong Kong's Political Third Way

Civic Party's Alvin Yeung managed to win his predecessor Ronny Tong's seat

On Sunday there was a by-election in New Territories East to replace Civic Party co-founder Ronny Tong Ka-wah who vacated the seat and quit the party last June.

His seat was hotly contested, particularly after the Mongkok riot last month and all eyes were on Edward Leung Tin-kei, who belongs to Hong Kong Indigenous, a localist group that is keen to protect the city and its culture from being eroded by "mainlandization", or influences from Beijing.

However Hong Kong Indigenous is more radical, organizing protests against parallel traders in border areas like Tuen Mun and Sheung Shui. Leung was also an active participant in the Mongkok incident, who was later arrested and charged with rioting.

There were seven candidates campaigning for the seat, and there were concerns the pro-Beijing camp would possibly win.

Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous got 15% of the vote

In the end the Civic Party managed to retain the seat, with barrister Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu winning 37.2 percent of the vote, followed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), the pro-Beijing camp with 34.8 percent.

However in third place, newcomer Leung managed to get 66,524 of the 432,581 votes, or 15.4 percent of the votes. He had a respectable third place showing which demonstrates many things.

Many people, possibly young ones, voted for the 24-year-old undergraduate at the University of Hong Kong because they strongly believe in what Hong Kong Indigenous stands for, and their vote is a rebuke against the Hong Kong government, particularly Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

It also indicates the old guard, both the pro-Beijing camp and the pan-democrats, have to contend with this new blood, as young people are becoming more politically active to have their voices heard.

However, those who wanted to protest against the Hong Kong government, but don't approve of radical tactics voted for the Civic Party, which in the end prevailed.

As Hong Kong Indigenous can no longer be dismissed as a fringe group, or "a small number of separatists" according to Beijing, the upcoming Legislative Council elections in September will be very interesting.

For some, there is a third way, parties like Hong Kong Indigenous, Youngspiration and Civic Passion, that represent the frustrations of young people, but for some, their willingness to take the path of violent measures may be too frightening to accept in what used to be a status-quo city...

Losers on Both Sides

The pro-establishment parties are still facing the heat after bungling the vote

The fallout from last Thursday's vote in the Legislative Council on the political reform package that saw it voted down 28-8 continues with the pro-Beijing side bickering amongst themselves today.

The new excuse is that there was not one leader to ensure everyone was in line, when really what happened was that the pro-establishment legislators had a herd mentality and followed their colleagues as they filed out minutes before the crucial vote.

It also shows how diverse the pro-Beijing types are and that they cannot be united under one leader... it would only emphasize how monolithic that side is.

Meanwhile on the pan-democrat side, Ronny Tong Ka-wah resigned today as legislator hours after he told the Civic Party he was leaving the party after he co-founded it nine years ago.

He was tearful at a press conference announcing his departure. "I would like to take this opportunity to say sorry to the people who have supported me. I have barely achieved anything though I have made my greatest efforts in the legislature in the past 11 years," he said.

Ronny Tong got emotional at his press conference today

Tong is considered a moderate pan-democrat. In the past year, especially during the Occupy protests, the political climate became markedly divisive -- you were either pro-Beijing (blue ribbon) or pro-democracy (yellow ribbon).

He didn't agree with what the protesters did for 79 days, saying occupying the streets would not amount to anything. He also felt the pan-democrats were not trying to help the situation by only refusing whatever proposal Beijing put in front of them.

What Tong suggested was that the pan-democrats should make a counter proposal to Beijing, to reach out and initiate some dialogue with China. But some pan-democrats dismissed him as being pro-establishment which made him feel slighted by not only them but also his own party.

He believes that only through engaging Beijing with dialogue can there be some break in the impasse, or at least create some kind of understanding between the two sides. And he still believes it.

"I hope there is a political party in Hong Kong which represents the views of the middle-of-the-road people. Taking the middle ground approach doesn't mean you give up the fight for democracy or are being subservient to the central government," Tong said.

While his resignation comes into effect October 1, Tong will focus his energies on his own think tank -- how many more do we need in this city? -- that he founded two weeks ago.

Called Path of Democracy, the think tank is made up of academics in politics and economics as well as professionals, and the goal is to improve strained relations with the mainland, and possibly train young people into politics.

Hong Kong needs more people like Tong in the Legislative Council to offer a moderate voice, but he is being drowned out and feels he cannot do much politically. This is a sad state of affairs in the city, as the atmosphere has become so divisive that nothing can be achieved because both sides are so far apart and not willing to compromise or at least find some kind of middle ground that Tong was aiming for.

Now with him resigning from Legco, who will speak up for those moderates?

Conservative Cadres Rule HK

Now senior cadres are complaining about the NPC decision on HK in 2007

The squabbling continues over universal suffrage in Hong Kong, as some senior cadres don't think the city should be able to have the vote unless there were tight restrictions, and that to allow "one man, one vote" in 2017 was an unwise decision made in 2007.

And many cadres wouldn't mind if Hong Kong lawmakers vetoed the electoral reforms, perhaps hinting it would be an opportunity to scrap the whole idea altogether.

Apparently it was these elderly folks who had to be appeased and hence the very conservative "reforms" of candidates needing to have 50 percent of the vote of the nominating committee.

"Some senior mainland officials do not want to see universal suffrage introduced in Hong Kong at all," a source familiar with Beijing's policies on Hong Kong said. "They believe that the central government leadership's decision in 2007... was unwise and not well thought out.

"Those Hong Kong people who oppose the framework may not realize that many Beijing officials will be happy to see Hong Kong's electoral methods stay as they are."

However, there are other senior cadres, like Wang Guangya, director of the State Council's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office who would like to see universal suffrage implemented in the city before he retires next year.

So it's interesting to see there are disputes within the Chinese leadership on this issue, while the pan-democrats are fraying at the seams now, with Civic Party leader Ronny Tong Ka-wah annoyed that they did not fight in a "rational and pragmatic manner".

"The Communist Party is not the most transparent party in the world, but it is very predictable," Tong said. "But while many people said they know the Communist Party [is inclined to bend] under a soft approach rather than a hard one -- they also said they would adopt a hard approach. This doesn't mean you have to give up on principles and values... and I am not saying that we have to kneel [to Beijing], but if there is another method to do this, then why not do it?"

So while Beijing may have the upper hand, it seems there is not complete consensus on its side, while the pan-democrats plan to veto the electoral reform proposal.

So now what?

These senior cadres either have no clue what a democracy looks like or are too scared to unleash it in Hong Kong, fearing it will spread elsewhere...