Occupy Central
Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which began in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. It calls on thousands of protesters to block roads and paralyse Hong Kong's financial district if the Beijing and Hong Kong governments do not agree to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections in 2020 according to "international standards." The movement was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013.
Umbrella Movement
The Umbrella Movement (Chinese: 雨傘運動; pinyin: yǔsǎn yùndòng) is a loose political movement that was created spontaneously during the Hong Kong protests of 2014. Its name derives from the recognition of the umbrella as a symbol of defiance and resistance against the Hong Kong government, and the united grass-roots objection to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of 31 August.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
Occupy Central site in an area surrounding the Legislative Council and Central Government Offices at Tamar were cleared 22-06-2015.
Hong Kong reform vote
The Hong Kong government’s political reform proposal for how the city elects its leader by universal suffrage for the first time in 2017 is based on a strict framework set by Beijing. The plan limits the number of candidates to two or three and requires them to win majority support from a 1,200 strong nominating committee. Arguing that this does not constitute genuine universal suffrage, pan-democratic lawmakers have vowed to reject the package, while pro-democracy groups have protested. The government’s resolution was to be put to a vote by the 70-member Legislative Council in June 2015, requiring a two-thirds majority to be passed.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 248
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 63 (20-08-2015)
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 63 (20-08-2015)
Full coverage of the day’s events
Coconuts HKFrontline
Cinematographer Christopher Doyle’s film featuring Occupy to premiere at Toronto Film Fest
A crowd-funded film by Hong Kong-based cinematographer Christopher Doyle, featuring scenes shot during the pro-democracy Occupy movement last year, will be screening at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).
The three-part film series, named Hong Kong Trilogy: Preschooled Preoccupied Preposterous, was written, directed and shot by Doyle, who also goes by his Chinese name Du Kefeng. It tells the stories of three generations of Hongkongers.
The series will debut at the festival, which takes place from September 10-20.
Doyle’s film on the TIFF website.
The first part in the film series, Preschooled, premiered at the Hong Kong International Film Festival last year. The rest of the film was crowd-funded through Kickstarter. The project launched in January and raised over US$124,000 (HK$962,000) from 1,021 backers.
Many scenes from the Occupy movement last year, which took place as Doyle was shooting the second and third part in the series, were incorporated into the film.
“Preschooled features the voices of Hong Kong’s schoolchildren; Preoccupied takes on young adults during the anti-government protests of the Umbrella Movement; and Preposterous is set aboard a tram filled with seniors on their way to a speed-dating event,” the crowd-funding page said.
Christopher Doyle’s Hong Kong Trilogy
Doyle, who moved to Hong Kong in the 1970s, is fluent in Cantonese and Putonghua. He has worked with the likes of Gus Van Sant and Jon Favreau, but is best known for his collaborations with Hong Kong director Wong Kar-wai on films such as 1994’s Chungking Express and In the Mood For Love in 2000.
“Hong Kong created me. The energy and space and the intimacy of people’s relationships, and the intensity of it, and the colors. That’s what pushed me toward what I’m doing now. Hong Kong created my life, and created the rhythm and the dance of the films we do,” Doylesaid in an interview with Kickstarter.
Previously, Hong Kong director Johnnie To said that he wanted to direct a movie on the Occupy movement, but feared “consequences” he would have to face.
Pro-establishment lawmaker Felix Chung agrees CY Leung is the ‘worst’ chief executive
The chairman of the pro-business and conservative Liberal Party has said in an interview that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying should not run for a second five-year term.
“Personally I don’t think he should [run],” Felix Chung Kwok-pan said in a TVB Pearl interview aired on Tuesday night.
“He has delivered three policy addresses, but [many of his] proposals have not been implemented… There is no clear direction for the city’s economic development,” Chung said.
Asked if he supports the Liberal Party’s former chairman James Tien’scomment that Leung was Hong Kong’s worst leader since the 1997 handover, Chung replied, “Of course.”
Chung also said the Liberal Party will “probably not” support Leung if he runs again.
Felix Chung. Photo: Apple Daily.
He said Leung met with party members only a few times during the last three years.
He also cited comments from the business sector that a lot of people do not like Leung, because “for the future of Hong Kong, there is no clear direction. It’s very divisive right now.”
File photo. Photo: Apple Daily.
Lawmaker Wong Kwok-kin of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions said he did not know why Chung found it necessary to comment on Leung running for a second term.
The central government has only asked the pro-Beijing camp to support Leung Chun-ying, but this does not mean it is necessary to support Leung running for another term, Wong told Ming Pao.
Previously, Leung’s approval rating dropped to 39.2 marks, more than five marks below the 45 threshold, according to the latest results from the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Programme. The threshold is used as a credibility crisis indicator.
Chung was first elected to the Legislative Council in 2012. He was representing the Textiles and Garment constituency. He became chairman of the Liberal Party in 2014.
Do you prefer to be an egg or a high wall? The question gains relevance in the case involving Joshua Wong. Photos: fochk.org, HKEJ
How the HK legal system deals with ‘high walls’ and ‘eggs’
In 2009, celebrated author Haruki Murakami made a controversial trip to Jerusalem to accept a literary award amid calls by rights activists to boycott the event in protest of Israel’s recent bombing of Gaza.
He said: “Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg.”
Many critics and fans were puzzled by his words. Murakami later explained that the wall represents the system, while the egg represents the people who stand against it.
Apparently, he was assailing the Israeli government for its policies that oppress the Palestinian people.
We recall his words because in Hong Kong, throwing eggs at public figures could result in different court rulings, implying that the workings of our legal system depend on the personalities involved.
On Wednesday, two men who threw eggs at student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung were fined HK$3,000 each by the Kowloon City Court.
Transport workers Li Wong and Cheung Ka-shing had pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault, noting that last year’s Occupy protests, of which Wong was a leader, affected their business.
In passing sentence, Magistrate Eric Cheung said the fact that the defendants assaulted Wong right outside the court building had aggravated the gravity of the offense.
But it seemed to many that the fines imposed by the magistrate were quite lenient.
In November last year, pro-democracy activist Derek Chan Tak-cheung was sentenced to three weeks in jail for throwing an egg at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah during a political forum in 2013.
In his defense, Chan cited Murakami’s speech, portraying himself as an egg against the high wall of people in power.
He said the act of throwing an egg at the financial secretary was an exercise of his freedom of expression against the wall.
But Magistrate So Wai-tak of the Eastern Magistry Court was not impressed, and ruled that there was “no room or justification for reduction” of Chan’s sentence.
And so we are faced with the same offense resulting in two sorts of punishments. What could have been the difference between the two cases?
In one case, two workers committed the act to express their anger at a mass action led by a student activist for disrupting their business, and in the other, an activist committed the same act to protest against a top government official?
The only obvious difference is that the lighter punishment went to the case where the victim is a student activist while the jail term was imposed in the case where the victim is a top government official.
An expert in the legal profession said court rulings differ from case to case and depend on the magistrate’s own judgement, in which case it may not appropriate to compare the two cases.
However, from the viewpoint of democracy advocates, the judgement on Joshua Wong’s case shows that the justice system in Hong Kong is not treating everyone equally.
It appears that the government is quite keen on using the legal system as a tool to advance its political agenda, the latest example of which is the arrest of several student leaders for their role in the storming of the Civic Square outside the Central Government Offices in September last year.
The government has decided to charge student leaders Alex Chow Yong-kang, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Joshua Wong with inciting other people to join an unlawful assembly, joining an unlawful assembly, or both. They have been invited to report to the police next week.
What the public is concerned about is that the police have been investigating the Occupy Movement for so long, but decided to file charges only now, or almost a year after the protests.
That’s why Chow describes the police action as “an act of oppression”.
Chow believes the filing of charges is only the start of the government’s “revenge” against the protesters who challenged what he called “a small circle election” proposed by the central and the Hong Kong governments for 2017.
He also expects the police to target more protesters who took part in last year’s Occupy Movement.
Some political analysts noted that the government action came before the protesters could once again gather outside the government headquarters in late September to commemorate the first anniversary of the Occupy Movement, as well as to prevent them from staging mass actions before the District Council elections in November.
It is quite clear that the government is using the charges to limit the student leaders’ freedom in pursuing a new round of protests. The timing is quite suspicious.
However, the Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung dismissed the allegations. He said it was unfair to accuse the authorities of harboring political considerations whenever high-profile student activists or legislators are charged.
“Prosecutions by the Department of Justice are not influenced by the District Council or any other election,” Yuen said. “I can assure you that when my colleagues from the prosecutions division and I make any decision, we do not include any political considerations.”
His response is understandable. But if the government wants to win back the public’s trust, they should show fairness in handling cases involving political personalities.
For example, they should file charges against the seven police officers accused of beating up pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu in Admiralty in October last year.
Why can’t they do that immediately? Are they buying time until the case fades away in the public eye?
With the government’s questionable handling of cases, the public can’t help getting suspicious.
沒有留言:
張貼留言