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 78:
Full coverage of the day’s events on 03-03
(NPC) Legislature won’t budge on HK suffrage ruling
The apex legislature's decision on the universal suffrage in the election of the Hong Kong chief executive is “unshakable," a spokeswoman for the national legislature said today in Beijing.
The National People's Congress Standing Committee made the decision in August last year on issues relating to the selection of the Hong Kong chief executive by universal suffrage and on the method for forming the Legislative Council in 2016.
“The decision is unshakable," said Fu Ying, (Pictured) spokeswoman for the Third Session of the 12th NPC, at a press conference. “We hope the universal suffrage can be held in 2017 smoothly."
Hong Kong has launched the second round of public consultation on constitutional reform. The results are expected to be published and subject to voting in the Legislative Council.
“The constitutional reform of the HKSAR should move forward rather than stand still," she told the conference.
Student activist seeks to quash reform consultation
The former president of the Students' Union at the University of Hong Kong plans to seek a judicial review of the second round of public consultation on political reform as laid down by Beijing.
Yvonne Leung Lai-kwok said yesterday she is doing this on her own and hopes to obtain legal aid to proceed with the action.
In her writ, Leung claims the chief secretary, secretary for justice and secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs are mistaken as to the legal nature and/or effect of the National People's Congress Standing Committee decision in August.
Furthermore, this extends to the legal framework governing the public consultation concerning an amendment to the electoral method for the chief executive in 2017. Therefore, as a consequence, the consultation document is also unlawful, she contends.
Leung said in the second step of the five- step political reform process, the central government should only verify a proposal from the local government and not give suggestions to Hong Kong.
She believes she has a strong legal argument.
Asked if she thinks she can win, Leung replied: "I hope the court will make a guideline or order the government to relaunch the consultation process, to cope with the inappropriate second round consultation, or other related actions."
Leung Chun-ying (left) finds dealing with the media a headache, while John Tsang (with selfie stick) is more comfortable with journalists. Photos: Ming Pao, Government Information Services
John Tsang steals the show with Occupy subsidies
Leung Chun-ying’s policy address earlier this year is being stacked up against John Tsang Chun-wah’s recent budget announcement.
The policy address from a faithful Beijing lackey compares poorly with the budget speech from a veteran civil servant who started his official career in the colonial era.
The annual policy address — from the time of the British governors to Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, Leung’s predecessor as chief executive — used to be delivered in early October, at the start of the new legislative year.
Normally people wouldn’t link it to the corresponding budget, which wouldn’t be announced until the following March, at the start of the new financial year.
Donald Tsang was the financial secretary, the first Chinese to hold the post, during the governorship of Chris Patten. Thanks to Hong Kong’s buoyant economic development back then, his budgets were rated highly by the public, yet Patten’s policy address was still the prime focus of each legislative year.
But in the two years before the handover in 1997, Patten took a back seat and yielded the headlines to Donald Tsang and other local officials.
To work in tandem with the financial secretary, the city’s top official needs wits and experience.
The first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, was a mere figurehead in financial affairs. He lacked knowledge of the traditions, bureaucracy and decision-making process of the financial departments, let alone any substantial authority over the financial secretary.
Following Anson Chan Fang On-sang’s resignation in 2001, Donald Tsang became chief secretary for administration, and financial officials became more prominent within the government.
During his tenure as chief executive, Donald Tsang practically oversaw the drafting of all the seven budget speeches and ensured that specific measures put forward in the budget would be consistent with the broad policy strokes laid out in his policy address.
All this has changed since Leung took office in 2012.
Apparently because of Leung’s inability to form a decent cabinet, John Tsang, who became financial secretary in 2007, was asked to serve another term.
Educated at a local elite school and at universities in the United States, John Tsang – an old-line official representing the manner and logic of governance inherited from colonial times – is noted for his charm and approachable demeanor.
The contrast cannot be starker with the long-faced Leung, who insists on issuing stuffy, sternly worded warnings and pontificating to his constituents.
It’s said that Leung deliberately postponed his policy address to right before the announcement of the budget so that Hongkongers will think he is the real boss and John Tsang must follow closely his policy stance.
Yet sadly, only a month after Leung’s latest policy address, no one bothers to mention it any more.
Leung stressed in a statement that John Tsang’s budget “reaffirms the agenda of the government”. That statement has become a popular object of sarcasm at lunchtime among officials and businessmen.
In his budget, the financial secretary launched a set of short-term measures to support businesses affected by last year’s Occupy movement.
Although I don’t know who within the government proposed such a policy, I must applaud this brilliant idea.
Like any other civil disobedience movements, Occupy was all about the fight for justice and the well-being of society.
Despite the statistically proven fact that Hong Kong suffered marginal economic losses, some retailers in the protest zones or franchised bus companies with affected routes may have indeed taken a hit.
Many of the businesspeople affected may be advocates of genuine universal suffrage, too, and some may just be indifferent to it.
But if they have to suffer losses from a democracy campaign, they are more likely to question the movement, or even oppose it, notwithstanding that they also stand to gain from a more liberal and democratic society.
Now the government’s support measures come as timely relief.
Those affected will at least cheer up a bit. They will also expect compensation if similar incidents happen again. Their resistance to pro-democracy demonstrations will lessen, or even disappear.
It’s also noteworthy that these measures apply to all travel agents, restaurants, hotels and taxi and bus operators, with numerous waivers of license and examination fees for a period of six months to a year.
That means those not affected by Occupy also stand to benefit as a result of the protests. Next time, they will have fewer concerns.
It’s possible that the retailers affected may have demanded support from the government.
But I guess the officials behind this well-thought-out plan must have withstood pressure from Leung and his radical loyalists when mulling over the initiatives.
This article appeared in the Hong Kong Economic Journal on Mar. 2.
Translation by Frank Chen
Hong Kong activists chant slogans and carry banners bearing messages such as "no locusts" in a recent protest against mainland shoppers and parallel-goods traders.
HK visitor woes: Beijing finally seems to pay attention
In recent days, there has been a spike in antagonistic messages and posts on social networking platforms on the mainland with regard to Hong Kong.
Criticizing the city for its alleged bad treatment of cross-border visitors, some netizens have urged Chinese authorities to retaliate by taking drastic measures such as halting water, electricity and food supply to Hong Kong.
Mainland censors, normally quick to clamp down on offensive messages, have this time around chosen to sit aside and let the messages be shared and reposted on online forums.
This constitutes another assault on Hong Kong and will make the ideological gap between Hongkongers and mainlanders turn into a chasm.
One should bear in mind that the still unfolding protests to purge northern New Territories of “locusts” – mainland shoppers and parallel good traders that descend upon the territory – are a direct response to the problems that China has exported to Hong Kong.
The Individual Visit Scheme that brings tens of millions of mainlanders every year was originally meant to boost Hong Kong’s retailing sector and the overall economy in the aftermath of a SARS crisis that first broke out in the mainland and quickly spread across the border into Hong Kong in 2003.
But a notorious contaminated milk and infant formula scandal in China in 2008 pushed mainlanders to turn to Hong Kong for safe products, giving birth to rampant parallel trading and smuggling, something that Principal Magistrate Bernadette Woo Huey-fang described as “a national shame” when she presided over smuggling cases by mainlanders.
The Hong Kong government’s response toward all these problems has been mild and slack, likely due to fear of offending the Beijing mandarins. Pan-democrats’ pressure tactics on the government have also been fruitless.
So the old way of petition and verbal protests have been superseded by a new, more drastic and forcible approach by the public. Fed up with all the inconveniences, Hongkongers have opted for a showdown-like confrontation with their mainland cousins.
Marches to “recover” malls and streets occupied by mainland shoppers and traders, which often led to physical scuffles, have finally pushed Beijing to review the Individual Visit Scheme.
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said recently that he will discuss the issue with the central authorities this month.
Now, here is some food for thought: If social movements expand and evolve in a valiant and straight-forward manner like what we have seen recently, with participants willing to pay the price (like brutal treatment by police or political suppression), Beijing won’t be able to turn a deaf ear for long.
This article appeared in the Hong Kong Economic Journal on March 2.
Translation by Frank Chen
沒有留言:
張貼留言