POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 11 (29-06-2015)

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.

Occupy Central site in Causeway Bay was cleared as police moved in  ...

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 195

POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 11

Full coverage of the day’s events on 29-06

Repercussions of the botched vote on constitutional reform proposal


A week has passed since the constitutional reform proposal was put to the vote. However, the earth-shattering fiasco involving pro-establishment lawmakers continues to have repercussions, with Jasper Tsang, the Legco president who enjoys the greatest popularity within the pro-establishment camp, being mired in the controversy. Questions are being asked as to whether Tsang has betrayed the principle of objectivity he should adhere to. It remains to be seen whether Tsang can withstand the pressure and stay on as Legco president.

On the day of the vote, Tsang rejected lawmaker Jeffrey Lam's request that the meeting be adjourned, and let the vote proceed in accordance with proper procedure. He was praised on all sides for remaining impartial and defending the integrity of the political system. However, according to messages from a WhatsApp chat group belonging to pro-establishment lawmakers which have been brought to light by the media, Tsang engaged in the discussion. His participation was so active and his comments were so influential as to be in conflict with the objectivity expected from him. It is reasonable to doubt whether Tsang was favouring the pro-establishment lawmakers and failed to remain fair and impartial.

Tsang has explained that he discussed with pro-establishment lawmakers in the WhatsApp chat group to help conduct the meeting so that it would run smoothly and pass off well. He has added that he wanted to prevent the vote from being held at night, which would have heightened the risk of confrontations outside the Legco building. His intentions might be justifiable. Still, his comments in the chat group were intended to serve strategic and guiding purposes and had unmatched value and authority. Tsang even advised his colleagues not to press buttons, but to put up their hands, if they wanted to speak. Instead of merely exchanging information with lawmakers, Tsang was acting like a mentor. Furthermore, after pan-democrats had informed him of their plans to display a banner after the vote and adjournment, Tsang relayed the news, in the WhatsApp chat group, to pro-establishment lawmakers. By doing so Tsang was divulging the pan-democrats' game plan to pro-establishment lawmakers, which was not an appropriate thing to do.

The leaked messages have further confirmed that the idea of "waiting for Uncle Fat" was not mentioned in the chat group. Judging from what was broadcast live on TV and the body language and responses of other legislators, it is clear that Jeffrey Lam made the spur-of-the-moment decision, left his seat and approached other lawmakers. In other words, the botched walkout was started by him. Knowing that the damage was done, pro-establishment lawmakers issued a joint apology, with some of them shedding tears and the others reproaching themselves. But it is the blame-shifting that has dominated the scene, with even brothers crossing swords with each other. Obviously, in the pro-establishment camp, there is a lack of coordination and everyone has an axe to grind. That the constitutional reform proposal received only eight votes of support has angered citizens to the core. But up to now, there has been no one to come forward and shoulder the responsibility. A week after the botched vote, there is still not a way for citizens to vent their disappointment and despair.

It is almost certain that the messages of the pro-establishment camp were leaked by an insider, whose motives and aims cannot possibly be determined. Still, the affair has the effect of embroiling Tsang into the controversy and provoking even more conjectures and thoughts about the botched vote. The pro-establishment camp is falling apart at the seams. The new development will only add to the bad feeling between pro-establishment lawmakers, making it even more difficult for them to cooperate in future.


表決甩轆持續發酵 整體建制付出代價


政改表決到今日滿一星期，建制派議員的「驚天大甩轆」事態仍然繼續燃燒，陣營內民望最高的立法會主席曾鈺成也陷身泥淖。他被質疑違背了主席應該恪守的中立原則，能否頂住壓力，保住主席之位，仍待事態發展。

表決當日，曾鈺成拒絕林健鋒議員提出休會的要求，讓表決按序進行，被認為做到鐵面無私，維護了體制，各方予以肯定。不過，據傳媒披露建制派WhatsApp群組的對話內容，曾鈺成的參與程度和「發言」分量，與他身為立法會主席應該保持中立角色，有衝突之嫌，是否偏幫建制派，未能做到公平公正，確有爭議和值得商榷之處。

曾鈺成表示與建制派在WhatsApp群組交流信息，目的為幫助主持會議，使會議順利進行以至完成，及避免在晚上表決以增加衝突風險，云云；即使出發點無可厚非，不過曾鈺成的對話內容具策略性和指導性，發言質素和權威並非其他建制派議員可比擬。另外，他還「教導」建制派盡量避免按發言掣，要發言就舉手等，這已是臨場指揮，並非純粹信息交流了。還有是泛民議員把表決休會後要在會議廳內拉橫額的部署通知了曾鈺成，他卻把這項信息知會建制派群組；作為主席，這個做法宛如披露了泛民部署的「情報」，不能說妥當。

從建制派WhatsApp群組對話內容，可以進一步確立一點，就是對話沒有提及所謂「等埋發叔」，而從電視直播畫面看來，林健鋒議員的臨時起意，然後離開座位聯絡個別議員、加上其他議員的身體語言和應對，可以確定「表決甩轆一幕」，林健鋒是始作俑者。甩轆無可挽回之後，建制派集體道歉，然後哭的哭、自責的自責，可是在他們之間卻更多的是相互推諉責任，連兄弟也隔空罵戰，充分顯示各自為政、各懷鬼胎的真實景况。至於民間對表決只有8票支持通過政改方案，憤怒至極，卻未見有人需要為事態實質負責，失望和沮喪情緒，一個星期都未有渠道紓解。

建制派WhatsApp群組對話內容曝光，幾可肯定是內鬼所為，泄秘者的動機和目的無從猜測。不過，客觀效果是把曾鈺成扯落水，引發對表決甩轆有更多猜測聯想，使千瘡百孔的建制派更難癒合，芥蒂更深，為日後合作添加難度。

Young blood wanted to fill Tong seat



A new face from the Civic Party is likely to contest the by-election to fill the seat left vacant by Ronny Tong Ka-wah, with party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee playing down suggestions she might run.

Eu said yesterday young talents should stand up to the challenge and the party will be selecting a candidate through an established mechanism.

Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit said interested members could submit their applications to a three- man team, adding it would be favorable to let second-generation party members contest the by- election. People Power lawmaker Albert Chan Wai- yip has called upon the party's heavyweights such as Eu and Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee to run.

In the RTHK program, Letter to Hong Kong, Tong said it is necessary to mend the rift caused by the failure of the political reform package

He said there are three rifts between the SAR government and Legislative Council, and more specifically, the pan-democrats; in the community; and, the most difficult to mend, that between the Beijing and the pan-democrats.

At the heart of the matter is a huge difference in appreciation and expectations of one country, two systems, and the Basic Law, he said.

"We have to learn to tolerate, be inclusive and appreciate a compromise means there will be give and take. Since Hong Kong is a part of China and the Basic Law stipulates that the central government has a constitutional role to play, we cannot try to exclude that role in the name of democracy," Tong said.

Meanwhile, the row between pro-establishment brothers Michael Tien Puk-sun and James Tien Pei- chun has yet to end.

In a TVB program, On the Record, Michael Tien used the proverb "it's brave to admit your shame [wrongdoing]" when he suggested the Liberal Party and his older brother should review what they did.

By insisting they had done nothing wrong by staying in the Legco chamber for the reform vote, the party is not helping to rebuild unity in the pro- establishment camp, he said.

But he defended his brother over the "pig" joke, saying it was initiated by young Liberal Party members rather than the elder Tien.

In a Facebook post on the day of voting, James Tien uploaded a pig's picture, hinting that those who joined the walkout were stupid.

In RTHK's weekly City Forum, Michael Tien and unionist Wong Kwok-kin bowed to the public to apologize for their walkout.

Coconuts

HongKong