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 200
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 15
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 15
Full coverage of the day’s events on 03-07
Some activists fear they will be prosecuted under the new national security law for their actions or statements in Hong Kong if they enter the mainland. Photo: Reuters
Leung: No plan to legislate Article 23
Hong Kong won’t be getting its own national security law soon, after the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee passed a new one for China on Wednesday.
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said later in the day his administration has no plan to enact the provisions in Article 23 of the Basic Law, Ming Pao Daily reported Thursday.
Hong Kong appears in two clauses in the new security law.
Article 11 states: “Defending national sovereignty, unity and territorial completeness is the duty of all Chinese people, including those in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.”
Article 40 says Hong Kong and Macau should fulfill their responsibility to defend national security.
Zheng Shuna, deputy director of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee, said at a briefing in Beijing that Hong Kong has the responsibility to protect national security and that it is consistent with the constitution and the Basic law to mention Hong Kong in the new security law.
But she said the national security law is not one of the national laws listed in Annex III of the Basic Law and therefore does not apply directly to Hong Kong.
Zheng said Article 23 of the Basic Law provides for Hong Kong’s government to enact a law of its own accord to safeguard national security.
She did not comment on whether taking part in events like the annual June 4 vigil would violate the new law.
Article 23 of the Basic Law requires Hong Kong to implement laws against treason, secession and subversion. An attempt to enact the controversial legislation was scrapped in 2003.
Stanley Ng Chau-pei, a deputy to the NPC from Hong Kong, has called for legislation of Article 23 as soon as possible, because, he says, it is an unshirkable duty for the administration.
On Wednesday, Leung said Hong Kong is indisputably part of China and has the responsibility and obligation to protect the security of the country.
However, he said, that is a matter for local legislation in accordance with Article 23 of the Basic Law, and the incumbent government has no intention to move forward with that.
Leung’s words failed to calm fears in some quarters that the new national security law will have implications for Hongkongers, such as limiting the freedom of speech they now enjoy.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association, the International Federation of Journalists and the Independent Commentators Association called in a joint statement for the administration to seek clarification on whether opinions expressed in the city could lead to prosecution in the mainland.
They said naming Hong Kong in the national law threatens the principle of “one country two systems.”
An unnamed person close to Beijing was quoted by Sing Tao Daily as saying those who have been calling for independence for Hong Kong or the end of one-party rule in China could probably be convicted under the new security law once they enter the mainland.
Beijing should make a sober assessment of what really happened during the Legco vote on the election bill. Photo: HKEJ
Legco walkout: Lessons from the video recording
With the veto of the 2017 election package at the Legislative Council last month, Hong Kong can set aside the long-running rift in society, at least for now.
The bungled walkout by members of the pro-establishment bloc will continue to be talked about, although some local media are trying to play it down (through self-censorship or whimsical headlines like “out-of-chamber voting for the bill”), and despite the “we are sorry” ads that appeared in numerous local newspapers shortly after the fiasco (perhaps they should also buy space for such statements in overseas and mainland newspapers) and the public weeping and display of remorse by some embattled lawmakers.
I have no intention of mocking these people but I hope Beijing can make a sober assessment of what happened and rectify its policies toward the special administrative region. If it can do so, then the veto and the silly blunder will turn out to be a chance for us to start anew.
There are still some unanswered questions:
What really happened? Who played the leading role in the walkout?
Why did they have to wait for Lau Wong-fat, former chairman of Heung Yee Kuk and honorary chairman of the pro-Beijing Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong?
What lessons can be learned from this fiasco?
The account of those involved may not be reliable, as they tend to gloss over their own faults and pass the blame to others.
Thus, a video recording of the Legco session is without doubt more authoritative. Now I will try to reconstruct the walkout and figure out what these people thought based on the six-minute video clip available on YouTube and the Legco’s online webcast archive.
1. Shortly after Legco President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing declared the start of voting, Jeffrey Lam Kin-fung, vice chairman of the Business and Professionals Alliance, was seen talking to Tam Yiu-chung and Ip Kwok-him, both senior members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. Lam also checked his cellphone a number of times.
My inference is that Lam may have been told that Lau was still on his way to Legco and thus he wanted to discuss with his colleagues what to do.
2. In the next four minutes, Tam was seen whispering to Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, Executive Council member and chairperson of the New People’s Party, and Chan Yuen-han, who represents the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions. Meanwhile, Lam also approached other members of the pro-government camp.
3. Lam and Ip Kwok-him talked for a few seconds after Lam’s request for a suspension was rejected by Tsang less than one minute before the voting.
4. Then Ip Kwok-him was seen urging his peers to follow him out of the chamber. Subsequently, quite a lot of Beijing-friendly lawmakers stood up and left.
5. I also noticed that Paul Tse Wai-chun talked to Chung Kwok-pan, chairman of the Liberal Party, before he left but all of the five members of the party, including James Tien Pei-chun, remained seated.
6. Even Tsang himself appeared confused as the walkout suddenly took place, and asked his assistant if there were enough people left in the chamber. Thirty seconds later, Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, a member of the pro-democracy Civic Party, pressed Tsang to start the voting. Having been told that those remained still constituted a quorum, Tsang agreed to start and read out the results.
My inference: Lam obviously wanted to buy time yet he didn’t inform Tien and other Liberal Party members of the walkout. On the other hand, Tien and his teammates must also be aware that other government loyalists wanted to suspend voting and deny a quorum.
The fiasco shows that key figures in the pro-government bloc were incapable of leading and coordinating their actions to ensure that the different individuals and parties in their camp all move in unison.
As to why they must wait for the tardy Lau, I reckon it was because Lam was worried that without Lau’s vote, he would have a hard time explaining to Beijing, which had made it clear that each and every pro-establishment lawmaker — not one less — must cast a yes vote to demonstrate to all, including the international community, that its well-thought-out political reform package was killed by just a minority of legislators and that the pan-democrats were acting “against the popular will”.
The walkout was a very risky decision as these people should have known that Liberal Party members wouldn’t allow themselves to be maneuvered. Other groups like DAB and the New People’s Party still joined the move probably because they all feared that Beijing might flare up over Lau’s absence during the voting.
Had it not been for the Liberal Party members and other legislators who remained in the chamber, Lam could have succeeded in delaying the process and would have been applauded by Beijing for his ingenuity at such a crucial juncture.
From this case, we can tell that what is foremost in the minds of these Beijing loyalists is to avoid making their mainland masters unhappy, so much so that they failed to make the proper judgment during critical moments.
Why are these people — professionals and elites with a wealth of experience in various fields — so afraid of Beijing? How come Regina Ip, who once served as security minister, became so indecisive as to act like a naive junior member of the chamber? And, did anyone remember Starry Lee Wai-king, the new DAB chairwoman who once was seen as a rising star? Did anyone think of asking her opinion beforehand?
There are lots of talented people in Hong Kong who do not talk about their love for China all the time.
The question for Beijing is this: Has it ever thought that, apart from allegiance, the capability to get things done is an equally important standard when handpicking people to fill key posts in the SAR government and Legco?
When we criticize radical pan-democrats, have we noticed that some people in the pro-Beijing bloc cannot even speak proper Chinese or make a proper formal speech?
Police officers are highly visible at Sai Yeung Choi Street in Mong Kok on Wednesday night. Photo: SocRec
Anti-mainland activists threaten to disrupt Mong Kok ‘concert’
More than a hundred police officers swooped down on a busy shopping street in Mong Kok on Wednesday night after anti-mainland activists reportedly threatened to disrupt a “street concert” to be staged by a group of middle-aged women from the mainland.
The officers, mostly from the Police Tactical Unit, were deployed on Sai Yeung Choi Street after an informant said activists planned to splash water on the street singers in the area, Apple Daily reported on Thursday.
A leader of the street singers, identified only as Mr. Poon, condemned the activists for “behaving like barbarians”, but promised to cooperate with the police to avoid any untoward incident.
The mainland singers did not show up, and only one “cantopop” singer was seen belting out tunes in a street corner.
Plainclothes officers were seen distributing leaflets to passers-by, asking them not to splash liquid on other people and to respect their feelings.
Poon said his singing group is composed of 10 middle-aged women residing in Tuen Mun who hold valid Hong Kong identity cards.
“They are new immigrants, they are not ‘locusts’,” he said, referring to the term used by some Hong Kong netizens to insult mainland visitors.
Poon said the singing group has been performing in various venues for the past eight years, and it was only recently that they encountered protests from anti-mainland activists.
Coconuts
x
Pro-democracy activists seek new direction at July 1 march
Protesters held yellow umbrellas at yesterday's annual July 1 march. (Photo: Adrian Lo)
Tens of thousands joined a pro-democracy march on the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China yesterday in what organisers said was a chance to work out the movement’s next step as momentum wanes.
Crowds gathered in Victoria Park in the afternoon, many carrying yellow umbrellas, symbol of the democracy movement.
More protesters were expected to join en route with the march set to end in a rally at the government’s offices.
“The most important thing is to express disapproval to the Hong Kong and Chinese communist government for suppressing the freedoms of Chinese people and real elections for Hong Kong people,” protester Wong Man-ying, 61, told AFP.
Turnout was expected to be lower than in previous years after almost 12 months of rallies in the politically divided city, with campaigners admitting fatigue had set in.
Last year’s march saw huge numbers gather as discontent surged over restrictions by Beijing on how Hong Kong chooses its next leader, and organisers said a record 510,000 had attended.
The government’s plan to allow the public to vote for the city’s chief executive for the first time in 2017 was derided as “fake democracy” by the opposition as it stuck to Beijing’s ruling that candidates must be vetted by a loyalist committee.
That ruling sparked mass street rallies for more than two months at the end of last year and the bill was finally voted down by pro-democracy lawmakers last month.
“Everyone anticipates a lower turnout than last year… because the momentum has slowed down after the veto over political reform,” said Johnson Yeung of the Civil Human Rights Front, the march organisers.
But Yeung insisted numbers were not important and that this year’s march was a chance to reshape the democracy movement’s message, which has splintered since the end of the mass street rallies in December.
“Right now people are asking ‘what next?’ after the veto. We hope the march can set the political agenda and give citizens a chance to
discuss how to bring the democratic movement forward.”
discuss how to bring the democratic movement forward.”
British plan to move 5.5m Hong Kongers to Northern Ireland revealed in declassified docs
UK officials discussed the idea of relocating Hong Kong’s entire population to Northern Ireland in 1983 amid handover talks with China, recently declassified documents have revealed.
Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping and then-UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher discuss Hong Kong’s future. Photo: Xinhua.
A sociology lecturer at Reading University, Christie Davies, first raised the idea of creating a city state for Hong Kong’s then 5.5 million residents in Northern Ireland, according to a Guardian report. Davies believed that the British colony would have “no political future” under Chinese rule.
The idea was taken seriously by a civil servant in Northern Ireland called George Fergusson, who then proposed it to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, there is no evidence that discussions ever reached the ministerial level in London.
How Hong Kong’s flag might have changed after move to N Ireland. Photo: HKFP.
In 1983, the UK and Chinese government began official negotiations over Hong Kong’s future. The British side proposed to give China sovereignty over Hong Kong in exchange for the right of administration, which the Chinese government refused. The Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984, decreeing that Hong Kong would be retroceded to China after 155 years as a British colony.
Daily Mail Online
Should the entire population of Hong Kong be moved to NORTHERN IRELAND? Bizarre plan pondered by mandarins when territory was handed back to China (but one joked it would cause Irish 'exodus' the other way)
<>Unusual idea was brainchild of Reading University lecturer Christy Davies
<>He warned there would be no future for Hong Kong's 5.5million residents
<>Newly-released files at National Archives at Kew reveal resettlement idea
<>'City state' in Northern Ireland could have revitalised economy, he stated
By DAVID WILKES FOR THE DAILY MAIL
Heard the one about the entire population of Hong Kong being moved to a new city specially built for them in Northern Ireland?
It may sound like the start of a bad joke, but when the idea reached the ears of Whitehall mandarins they gave it some serious thought… about how to bat it away, at least.
The bizarre plan was the brainchild of Christy Davies, a lecturer at Reading University who warned that when Britain handed back Hong Kong to China in 1997 there would be no future for its 5.5million inhabitants, newly-released files at the National Archives at Kew show.
Future plans: A lecturer at Reading University had warned that when Britain handed back Hong Kong (pictured) to China in 1997 there would be no future for its 5.5million inhabitants
Resettling them in a new ‘city state’ to be established between Coleraine and Londonderry could revitalise the stagnant Northern Ireland economy, he added.
The province only had a population of 1.8million at the 2011 census.
When details of his scheme appeared in the Belfast News Letter in October 1983, they caught the eye of George Fergusson, an official in the Northern Ireland Office.
He fired off a memorandum to a colleague in the Republic of Ireland Department of the Foreign Office, declaring: ‘At this stage we see real advantages in taking the proposal seriously.’
In the countryside: Resettling the inhabitants of Hong Kong in a new ‘city state’ between Coleraine and Londonderry (above, file image) could revitalise the stagnant Northern Ireland economy, the lecturer said
Among the benefits, he suggested, was that it would help convince the Unionist population that the government in Westminster was truly committed to retaining Northern Ireland in the UK.
It is not clear whether his tongue was in his cheek when he wrote, but by the time the reply came back two weeks later from the David Snoxell at the Foreign Office, somebody had twigged that the idea was perhaps not entirely serious.
Mr Snoxell drily replied: ‘My initial reaction, however, is that the proposal could be useful to the extent that the arrival of 5.5million Chinese in Northern Ireland may induce the indigenous peoples to forsake their homeland for a future elsewhere.
‘We should not underestimate the danger of this taking the form of a mass exodus of boat refugees in the direction of South East Asia.
Location: Among the benefits, it was suggested, was that it would help convince the Unionist population that the government in Westminster was truly committed to retaining Northern Ireland in the UK
‘On the other hand, the countries of that region may view with equanimity the prospect of receiving a God-fearing, law-abiding people with an ingrained work ethic, to replace those that have left.’
Worse, he added, the plan could have serious implications for the UK’s dispute with Dublin over the sovereignty of Lough Foyle.
He wrote: ‘The Chinese people of Hong Kong are essentially a fishing and maritime people.
‘I am sure you would share our view that it would be unwise to settle the people of Hong Kong in the vicinity of Lough Foyle until we had established our claims on the lough and whether these extended to the high or low water mark.’
A Foreign Office colleague simply noted: ‘My mind will be boggling for the rest of the day.’
沒有留言:
張貼留言