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.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 56:
Full coverage of the day’s events
CY urges voters to reject filibusters
Hongkongers should cast their votes in the next Legislative Council elections based on their views on filibusters, the chief executive says.
Speaking ahead of Saturday's meeting of the Finance Committee, Leung Chun-ying once again drew public attention to filibusters, which he said has repeatedly delayed his attempts to set up the Innovation and Technology Bureau.
"If Legco members, and these are the opposition members of Legco, do not give up filibustering, we'll probably lose ITB, definitely for a few months," Leung said. "It will be sad, very sad for Hong Kong."
The bureau was initially introduced as part of his 2012 election manifesto, but due to opposition, it did not receive the green light to proceed until last year.
Now, its setting up is facing the last hurdle of gaining funding approval from the Finance Committee.
Based on Leung's estimates, the bureau will cost taxpayers HK$35 million a year for a new policy secretary, an undersecretary, a political assistant,and two permanent secretaries. "And that's it," he said.
The new bureau is a much-needed overarching body to coordinate funding and efforts on innovation and technology, which are both economic and livelihood initiatives that will help Hong Kong move up the value chain, Leung claims.
Asked at a joint business community luncheon to comment on the latest progress of setting up the bureau, Leung expressed his distaste for the repeated filibusters as he described the bureau as "not the first or only casualty of filibustering."
"It is something that Legco must seriously look at. I know we need a majority in both sides of the house, both the geographical constituency and the functional constituency sides of the house, to pass any motion to amend the rules and procedures of Legco," Leung said.
"And I think Hong Kong people should speak up and speak out, and Hong Kong people probably want to cast a vote according to their view on filibustering when it's election day again sometime next year."
Leung made his remarks during a question-and- answer session moderated by Stanley Lau Chin-ho, chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries.
Li warns against boycott of anniversary bash
A boycott of the Democratic Party's 20th anniversary dinner by high-ranking government officials would mean a declaration of war, former party lawmaker Fred Li Wah-ming said yesterday.
Li said it is common knowledge that the dinner is only an event to "give face" and if officials refuse to attend, it means they are declaring war on the party.
"If you are going to boycott [the party], boycott comprehensively. Fine, it means you are declaring war," Li said.
Li revealed in a radio interview that Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung a former Democratic Party vice chairman and Secretary for Food and Health Ko Wing- man had promised to attend, but had since changed their minds.
Li criticized the decision as akin to "a kid playing with mud."
He said arrangements for this year's dinner are the same as last year's, which was attended by some officials.
It was earlier reported that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and all political appointees held an internal meeting and planned to boycott the February 27 dinner.
If no government officials attend the dinner, then it will be the second boycott by Leung's government of anniversary dinners held by local political parties.
In late 2013, Leung and his Cabinet were also absent from the Liberal Party's 20th anniversary dinner.
Li warned a boycott of the Democratic Party by Leung will mark a worsening of relationship between the government and the party.
"It's the party anniversary. If the government is not giving face, fine. But we are still in the Legislative Council. Are you still thinking that our party has no influence?" Li said.
He also expressed concerns over moderate pan-democrats as they could easily be attacked by netizens for their political stance. Li said he is not optimistic on the party's hopes in the district council elections in November.
Ridiculous smear campaign against HKU law faculty
I was away from Hong Kong for several weeks and internet connection was available only once in a while. When I learned through my mobile phone that Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun had come under attack from leftist newspapers, my heart really ached.
Professor Chan has been my longtime colleague, and whenever I came across any legal issue I always turned to him for advice. He is a very pragmatic academic and I respect him a lot.
If I was working or living on the mainland, I would definitely not write this article because my friends would probably advise me against it given the current political atmosphere.
That is the unique political culture on the mainland and it should be seen in its historical context. It is difficult to understand unless you are actually living there.
I have been studying the education issue in China since forever and I still find it hard to figure out China, just like my mainland friends who find it difficult to figure out Hong Kong.
Therefore, one might get it totally wrong if he or she judges the situation on the mainland with a Hong Kong mindset. Likewise, using a mainland mindset to judge Hong Kong affairs is also prone to mistakes.
There are several critical points here:
Firstly, some critics describe the law faculty of the University of Hong Kong as an institution that only specializes in organizing political activities, and such allegation is totally unfounded. When did the law faculty ever take part in any political activity?
In fact, every colleague that I get in contact with at the HKU law school is working on their own unique and remarkable academic researches regardless of their ethnicity, nationality or academic background.
It would definitely be unfair or even an insult to the academics working in the law school if one accuses the entire faculty of getting involved in political activities too much simply because a couple of its staff members were leaders of the Occupy Movement.
Secondly, what a law academic focuses on is not necessarily related to politics, unless he or she specializes in constitutional studies, which is the strength of the HKU law school.
And it is common among academics who study political systems to have different political views. For example, Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, who is also a famous academic at the HKU law school, has an entirely different political view from Professor Johannes Chan’s.
However, it doesn’t stop them from being friends and everyone in the legal sector respects their opinions. This is exactly what is so special about the intellectual community: there will be no advancement in knowledge if there isn’t any debate.
Therefore, even though law academics have various opinions about the Occupy Movement, there has never been any split in the intellectual community because intellectual debates are absolutely normal in the academic world.
Thirdly, it is normal among academics in universities to have their own political views because no matter what their views are, they never get in the way of their jobs, nor will they get in the way of their employment and promotion because there has never been such thing as political censorship in our universities.
Academics with different political views never find it hard to work together closely on teaching and research because it is just the way it should be, or else a university is not a university anymore.
Even in mainland universities, academics can always debate freely with one another on the campus — at least for now. In Hong Kong, intellectuals can express their own political opinions in public or take part in any political activity freely without any intervention from their superiors in their universities simply because this is not supposed to be a concern for the university management, nor is it the job of a dean to act as a political “gatekeeper”.
Fourthly, a university dean should always be judged on whether he or she can explore new frontiers academically, attract new resources, speak up for his or her staff, defend the academic integrity and dignity of the faculty, as well as achieve academic distinction, etc. One’s political views or political life is never a factor for consideration.
As far as Professor Chan is concerned, his professional achievements speak volumes, and his background as a democrat never gets in the way of his job.
Moreover, Professor Chan is both democratic and pragmatic. Even prior to the Occupy Movement, when the debate over the 2017 political reform was already in full swing, his suggestions over the veto power of Beijing were both moderate and feasible.
In fact, what he suggested, like the proposal brought forward by his colleague Professor Albert Chen recently, was aimed at fostering further discussions and providing an alternative for the public to consider. Why should he come under attack and be held guilty for offering a different proposal?
Lastly, and most importantly, for a long time, Professor Chan has been putting a lot of effort into training mainland judges in common law. He has also provided the judiciary on the mainland with a lot of experience and material over the use of common law, something much needed in the course of our country’s economic reforms.
Isn’t it a pity that a world-renowned institution like the HKU law faculty, which has stood the test of time, something rarely seen on Chinese soil, suddenly becomes the target of a smear campaign just for political purposes, regardless of the truth and the social culture of Hong Kong?
Does anybody really think that a well-respected academic like Professor Chan would give in to pressure and abandon his own convictions just because of a few pieces of articles and commentaries?
Does anybody really expect that the people of Hong Kong would join this smear campaign?
This article appeared in the Hong Kong Economic Journal on Feb. 6.
Translation by Alan Lee
– Contact us at english@hkej.com
沒有留言:
張貼留言