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 148:
Full coverage of the day’s events on 13-05
Gap narrows on reform sentiment
Just two percentage points separate those who support and oppose the government's political reform package, the latest survey by three universities shows.
Of 1,130 people interviewed over May 5-9, pollsters found 42.3 percent support the reforms while 40.3 percent oppose them. The rest are undecided.
This compares with a 3.1 percentage point difference in the previous poll, with 42.9 percent supporting the reform and 39.8 percent rejecting it.
The rolling opinion poll is being conducted by the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University and Polytechnic University. Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing said she is not surprised as the public generally has negative feelings over officials' promotion campaign in districts.
But Federation of Trade Unions lawmaker Wong Kwok-kin said: "The universities' poll can be used as reference only. Other polls showed that about half of citizens supported that the reform be passed in the Legislative Council."
Executive Council member Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun said the SAR needs to gain experience in universal suffrage to see what aspects can be revised in the future.
Liberal Party lawmaker James Tien Pei- chun said he will not persuade the pan- democrat lawmakers to vote for the reform if the super opinion poll he is commissioning next month to be conducted by HKU's Public Opinion Programme shows only 40 percent of interviewees support the reforms.
The poll will survey 5,000 individuals in order to reduce the margin for error.
Tien also said he did not find that former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa presented any new arguments when he called for support of the reform. "His [Tung's] remarks are not strong enough to convince citizens who have no clear stance on the reform to express their views," Tien said.
Pro-Beijing group faces privacy probe
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data has expressed concern about an online posting of video recordings of students who voiced support for the government's political reform package.
An office spokesman said yesterday it may formally investigate the matter while continuing to monitor the situation.
The Federation of Hong Kong Guangxi Community Organisations uploaded a six-minute video to YouTube of seven students who cited reasons why they supported reform.
The students were participating in interviews in order to be selected for a study tour to the United States.
"We are particularly concerned about the incident as it involves youngsters and their rights to privacy in the cyber world. Any complaints made to the PCPD would be handled in accordance to established procedures," the commission spokesman said.
"If there is a prima facie case of any contravention of the data protection principles or other provisions under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, the PCPD may initiate a formal investigation into the matter."
A Facebook page "Occupy Central Does Not Represent Me" shared the video, which has since been deleted. The pro-Beijing federation has been criticized for uploading the video without permission.
It released a statement last night saying it has learned from the experience and will be more cautious in posting messages on social media.
It said the group will cooperate with any investigation or inquiries with law enforcement authorities.
The federation said it is "heartbroken" to see the students being placed under pressure for expressing their views on political reform.
Coconuts
Public support for Hong Kong election proposal falls to lowest level yet
Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen promoting the government’s political reform proposal on May 3
The most recent from three Hong Kong universities has revealed that support for the government’s political reform proposal is at its lowest level yet, despite intense campaigning.
The latest results show 42 percent of around 1,200 respondents favour the proposal, the lowest level since the polling began on April 23.
Meanwhile, 40 percent of respondents are opposed the plans, up two percentage points in the last fortnight.
The proposal’s net support lies at just two percent following a declining trend since late April.
According to RTHK, Democratic Party lawmaker Emily Lau said the results show the government has achieved nothing with their efforts to promote the proposal on radio, TV and the streets of Hong Kong.
She added that she hopes CY Leung’s administration will inform Beijing that the current proposal is unpopular.
We have a sneaky feeling they might already know that, though.
The plans allow for a one-person, one-vote system for the next chief executive election in 2017, but only two or three vetted candidates will be permitted to stand.
Meanwhile, a separate comparison run by HKU’s public opinion programme suggests that Chief Executive CY Leung has far less public support than his predecessors.
In their equivalent period of tenures, Donald Tsang earned a 66 percent approval rating and Christopher Pattern 57 percent, while Leung lags behind with a shy 43 percent.
Still, it's not a popularity contest, is it?
12th May,2015
Dear Mark,
You don’t know me. My name is Robert Yung CHOW, a very small Facebook user from Hong Kong, and I would like to share with you our Facebook experience. We opened a Media/News/Publishing fan page called HKG Pao this month, and immediately strange things began to happen.
On the first day we opened our Page, Facebook deleted our first post after seven hours. Within the next two hours, two more posts were deleted, making it three on the first day. The following morning, the fourth post was deleted. We put up a total of 18 posts during the first 24 hours and four were deleted, a ratio of 22%. The deletions happened both in our front end (Timeline) and our backend (Insight).
Now one would think we must have done some pretty offensive stuff, like insults to religion, pornography or worst. I would like to give you a brief rundown of what were in the posts:
The first post deleted was a piece authored by me explaining why I decided to start the web media called HKG Pao. The 800 word article had already been published in a newspaper, and was posted in my own fan page, as well as shared by a few sites the day before. No problem there. The picture we used was one featuring my not too attractive face, and which was approved by Facebook for use as an ad, and it is still being run on Facebook.
The second post deleted was a financial analysis on a listed company which just announced a profit warning. The picture used consisted of images of the major shareholder (an important political figure) and the CEO. Nothing offensive there except it may not please the company and its management, but what financial analysis on a profit-warned company ever did.
The third post deleted was an announcement for a voting to select the most popular faces of a political movement. The accompanying picture contained images of about 13 people, just head and shoulder shots. Nothing indecent there.
The fourth post deleted was a published newspaper article and we poked fun at a student leader who became the nominal head of 90,000 college students in Hong Kong by getting just 37 votes. What democracy, we asked. The image used was the student’s head and shoulder shot at a press conference.
We reposted the four and are waiting to see if they will be deleted again.
I am first to admit that Hong Kong is deep in the throes of a political turmoil (we just survived 79 days of Occupy Central/Umbrella revolution). We belong to one camp fighting for universal suffrage to be introduced in 2017. The opposition feels that the current political package proposal is not good enough and wants it rejected. That’s the gist of our differences.
Well, Hong Kong must be a tiny dot in your worldwide operation, and our insignificant fan page is no more than a speck in the Facebook universe, but since you and Facebook are all for communication, I have therefore decided to directly communicate with you.
People are suggesting that four Facebook deletions of non-offensive material (our claim) in just 30 hours of a fan page’s existence must be something of a record. A few have even questioned if Facebook is taking a political stand in Hong Kong or someone working in Facebook was trying to satisfy a private political agenda. I cannot for the life of me believe the former is true. As for the latter, I can offer no evidence except to say: heaven forbid.
That’s why I am bringing this to your attention. If we break any rules, and are punished for it, that’s fine and I’d accept it. But I imagine in this civilized age, the accused should be informed of his crimes before he is punished. If we incurred a lot of complaints, politically-inspired or otherwise, I suppose someone at Facebook would look at the evidence before applying the capital punishment, right? Well, did someone look?
Dear Mark, this is no request to go back to change the past. I am just humbly requesting you and Facebook to do what you think is the right thing going forward (that’s quoting you). I am not demanding anything, apology or whatever. Whether you will let me know what your finding is, I leave it to you and your team to decide. But getting an answer will be nice.
Like you said: I have calmed down, breathed and then typed you this e-mail. I do hope I will get a"We hear you. "
By the way, I cannot close without telling you Facebook is a great product and we intend to communicate through you a lot. I just hope we won’t be shut down by someone in Facebook next, and wondering why. Thank you, Mark, for hearing me out.
All the best,
Robert Yung CHOW
Chief Executive Officer
HKGpao.com Ltd
沒有留言:
張貼留言