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 224
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 39
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 39
Full coverage of the day’s events on 27-07
Pan-dems to make sure message gets through
Pan-democrat lawmakers yesterday decided they would enhance communication with the central government to prevent any "wrong judgment" after a brainstorming meeting yesterday.
The meeting was held to set out the pan-democrats' direction after the Occupy movement and rejection of the government's political reform proposals.
About 15 lawmakers attended the meeting at the Legislative Council complex, including Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit, Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing and Labour Party chairman Lee Cheuk-yan.
Professional Commons chairman and IT sector lawmaker Charles Mok also attended.
Leong, who is also the convener of the pan-democrat "lunch boxes meeting," said pan-democrats must continue to stand united.
He also said the pan-democrats hope to maintain communication with the central government "especially when we have seen that the central government seems to have a wrong judgment on Hong Kong's situation".
Leong said the wrong judgment "might have come from biased information."
He said he hopes the central government will acknowledge pan-democrats have an important role in Hong Kong politics.
"Communication must be based on both sides. Indeed we hope the central government will recognize the pan-democrats' role in Hong Kong politics. We do have a role, and [central government] should not take pan-democrats to be a party they should clash with," he said.
Leong also said they will improve communication with those who support democracy.
Lee stressed that they are not calling on the central government to intervene in Hong Kong's governance.
"We hope to improve communication with central government on different issues about Hong Kong, but it does not mean we are asking for their intervention in Hong Kong's affairs. The Labour Party thinks that we should not have too many symbolic communications only, but we should have also some communication on concrete issues."
The Democratic Party's Albert Ho Chun-yan said: "The central government should have known clearly that, we, the pan-democrats in Hong Kong, are the opposition and that we exist."
CY urges young `to do their duty'
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying told Hong Kong youngsters they should think more about society and their obligations to the motherland.
Leung was speaking yesterday at the closing ceremony of the Military Summer Camp for Teens at the San Wai Barracks of the People's Liberation Army.
"Hong Kong society values individuality more than unity, rights more than obligations, and what to fight for more than what to give. While reflecting your personal rights, [summer camp participants] should also fulfill your duty to sacrifice for the community, share a positive outlook toward life, and acquire the spirit of serving society and contribute to our mother country," Leung said, speaking in Putonghua.
The camp is a program for teenagers that has been criticized by pan-democrats as a brainwashing group to boost patriotism.
Chinese University political analyst Ivan Choy Chi-keung believes that Leung is using the chance to advise the younger generation.
"Leung is just re-emphasizing a pro-establishment view toward the development of Hong Kong society that has been stressed through many speeches in the past," Choy said.
"I think he is commenting beyond the Occupy movement but to youths in Hong Kong in general."
A total of 260 students from different secondary schools in Hong Kong participated in the 15-day camp.
Lau Kong-wah became the butt of jokes after his Legco election defeat in 2012 and for saying nothing during last year's talks between a government panel and student protesters. Photo: Internet
Musical chairs, CY Leung style
Back in 2002, former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa marked his second term with one of the biggest political shake-ups in Hong Kong’s history — the introduction of the principal officials accountability system.
Seemingly convinced that Hong Kong’s problems and dissatisfaction with his first five years in office could be traced to organizational and administrative flaws, Tung put an end to the days where top officials were “untouchable” civil servants as they could keep their posts even if they screwed up on the job.
With great fanfare and grand promises for a better and more effective government, Tung announced that all of his principal officials were to be political appointees chosen by the chief executive and would report directly to him.
The professional fate of these ministerial secretaries would hinge on their performance.
Right from the start, there was much debate whether this political framework ever had a chance to succeed.
But various instances in the earlier years of the accountability system put it to the test.
There was Antony Leung’s Lexusgate scandal which forced him to cut short his tenure as financial secretary because he had bought a brand new Lexus just weeks before he raised the tax on new vehicles.
New People’s Party chairwoman Regina Ip also abruptly ended her decades-long public service career in 2003.
She left her job as security chief for “personal reasons” but common sense suggests that the mass protests in 2003, which foiled the government’s attempts to introduce national security laws under Article 23 of the Basic Law, played a prominent role in her resignation.
Funny enough, Ip and Leung resigned on the same day.
Although they were not officially pushed out of the job, the writing was clearly on the wall.
Even though Tung didn’t officially give them the sack, the rules for the accountability system set out that officials may have to step down for “serious failures” relating to their portfolio or for grave personal misconduct such as conflict of interest.
Let’s fast-forward 12 years, with Tung’s protege, Leung Chun-ying at the helm and, once again, we have two policy secretaries who left their posts on the same day.
Whether they chose to jump or were pushed remains shrouded in mystery.
The sudden departures of former home affairs secretary Tsang Tak-shing and ex-civil service secretary Paul Tang reek of suspicion.
Having just happened out of the blue, no one apart from CY Leung has a clue as to the real reasons why both of them had to go so suddenly.
Only a fool would believe that Tsang was so relieved to finally enjoy “early retirement” or fall for Tang’s apparent eagerness to spend more time with his family.
We’ve heard the rumors about how Beijing and CY are unhappy with Tsang’s failure to indoctrinate our younger generation about the virtues of the Chinese Communist Party and his shortcomings in preventing the city’s youth from taking part in last year’s democracy protest movement.
There are also murmurs they are equally unhappy about Tang for failing to keep the civil service onside.
But that alone doesn’t explain why their removals had to happen this week rather than in the immediate aftermath of the protests, or why they happened simultaneously.
I stand to be corrected but I cannot recall instances where the actions of Tsang and Tang amount to either grave personal misconduct or a serious failure.
The accountability system also provides an opportunity for the civil service secretary to rejoin the civil service, age permitting.
But was Paul Tang, who is three years shy from turning 60, ever given that opportunity?
CY Leung has the answer to that question, but we can only assume that the answer is “no”.
I can, however, think of one clear-cut case for a deserved removal under the government’s own rules — Development Secretary Paul Chan.
His conflict-of-interest row involving the ownership of farmland in the New Territories, his sub-divided flats scandal (which he squarely blamed on his wife) and his drink-driving should have landed him in hot water.
But he lacked the decency to resign, insisting there was nothing wrong with his integrity and CY Leung continues to stand by his beleaguered buddy despite such gross shortcomings on Chan’s part.
Perhaps the most baffling aspect of last week’s removals is CY’s comical decision to replace Tsang Tak-shing with former constitutional affairs undersecretary and DAB stalwart Lau Kong-wah.
Out of the whole bunch of government officials, Lau is probably the most pitiful and pathetic.
He spent almost HK$5 million dollars on his 2012 Legislative Council campaign, making him the biggest spender in Legco election history, only to lose his seat.
He became the butt of online jokes after a picture of his campaign poster being obscured by a rubbish bin started making the rounds.
His appointment to the government as an undersecretary for constitutional and mainland affairs was seen as a consolation prize for his election defeat (even though it pays a lot more than a legislator’s salary).
And to top it all off, the rubbish bin image became his omnipresent online meme after he stayed silent during tense two-hour talks over political reform between the government and pro-democracy student leaders in October last year.
In announcing Lau’s appointment, the CY Leung praised him for his “ample political and administrative experience”.
But this begs the question as to what exactly has Lau Kong-wah done to earn his stripes for this post?
In contrast, Undersecretary for Home Affairs Florence Hui would have been a more pragmatic choice to fill Tsang’s shoes given her wealth of experience in this portfolio.
Instead, CY’s choice of Lau once again proves his administration’s total lack of credibility.
One of the goals that Tung Chee-hwa’s government had in mind when setting up the accountability system was to “select the most suitable persons to take up principal official positions to serve the community and to enhance governance”.
I wonder if Tung genuinely thought his political brainchild would serve Hong Kong well, or whether he foresaw that his successors, let alone his protege, would pervert the system to suit their whim.
But one thing is for certain: the accountability system has now become a government game of musical chairs where some players don’t get a seat and others do, depending on whether they dance to CY’s tune.
Tsang Tak-sing rides a government car on his last day as home affairs minister. Photo: HKEJ
Tsang loves the party, but does the party love him?
The sudden ouster of two ministers last Tuesday reflects the rabid infighting within the ruling class.
Leung Chun-ying announced his cabinet reshuffle – new Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah and Secretary for the Civil Service Clement Cheung Wan-ching replacing Tsang Tak-sing and Paul Tang Kwok-wai respectively – on the same day the results of blood sample tests on 900 residents affected by the tainted water saga were also expected.
Probably the arrangement was deliberately made so the impact of the two issues could counterbalance each other but Hongkongers can only feel that those in high places, incapable of ensuring public health, are now engaged in a new round of internal feuds.
I have some views based on my observations.
Leung must have secured approval from his mainland bosses during his trip to Beijing earlier this month and informed the two successors and ordered them to keep their lips sealed.
Very likely, Tsang and Tang were not told of their removal until before the weekly meeting of the Executive Council Tuesday morning and other members of the cabinet were informed during the meeting in the absence of Tsang and Tang.
Leung called a news conference and announced the personnel changes shortly after the meeting.
Tsang’s own account of “seamless transition” is also a hint that he had to step down the moment he was told to as Leung refused to allow him a transition period.
There might have been some severe disagreements within Leung’s cabinet but Leung remained firm.
The fact that he met the press on his own indicates that some key figures, like the Chief Secretary and the Executive Council Convenor, chose to step away from the controversy because they have their own reservations.
The two outgoing secretaries didn’t say they offered to quit, nor did Leung note that he tried to ask them to stay.
Rather, Leung was seen in an upbeat mood, and, while smiling, he refuted that the two tendered resignations themselves.
Obviously, Leung is more than happy to claim it as his victory. Not only has he smashed the rumor of his impending extrication, one of his big foes in the government is also down.
Since I am not familiar with Tang, so I will just focus on the many implications of Tsang’s exit, which cannot just be viewed as an isolated incident.
Instead, it is the result of the long-lasting rift between Leung’s camp of “new patriots” and the city’s old-line leftists, or the “old patriots”.
From the “seamless transition” mentioned above, we know that the power struggle, even among Beijing loyalists, is brutal without any leeway for any side.
I became a full-time advisor at the SAR Government’s Central Policy Unit (CPU) not long after the 1997 handover but I was suddenly stripped of my post in 2003 when my policy recommendations to the top leader were no longer liked.
The process back then was quite “seamless” too as I was not given a last day: I was told at 4 p.m. that day and had to pack my bags within an hour.
But compared to how Leung treated Tsang, I have to say the government was quite lenient to me back then as I was told to leave in the last month before the expiry of my contract. On the other hand, there are still two years left in Tsang’s tenure as home affairs minister.
Tsang was my colleague at the same administrative level at CPU and he attended the internal meeting about my dismissal.
His own dismissal turned out to be far more humiliating. On the day of his ouster, Leung’s allies and pro-government forums had already been throwing oblique insults at his integrity.
My guess is that there have been some grave conflicts between Leung and Tsang, something more severe than my disagreement with the government at that time.
These can’t be hearsay like Tsang’s negligence in youth affairs or his inabilities due to old age, but must be issues of irreconcilable strife that prompted Leung to expel him from cabinet for good.
In terms of performance, Tsang is never among the least capable ministers. The present crop is unremarkable with the competence and integrity of some being repeatedly questioned.
But in his official capacity Tsang has never been a subject of public doubt. Had it not been for some bitter, fundamental row between the two, Tsang would have been allowed to leave in a more dignified manner.
After all, he is a lifetime loyalist to the party and has made great sacrifices (he was once jailed for two years by the colonial authorities for spreading Communist thoughts). So it’s apparent that Leung just wanted to get rid of him.
Then how to define the old leftists and those “new patriots”? The 1967 riot against the British rule formed a dividing line. People who had already been Beijing’s adherents before that year can be called the “old patriots” and those that switched to Beijing’s side after the incident are the “new patriots”.
Surely, in terms of political seniority, local leftists are ahead of Beijing’s new friends. So the fact that old-line Tsang was sacked by Leung the new patriot is an interesting exception, and it can’t happen without the consent from the top leadership in Beijing.
Then we can conjecture that when Leung told Tsang that he was being sacked Tuesday morning, there must be a top party cadre present to make sure that Tsang wouldn’t resist and would be “glad to retire”.
No one knows what exactly was going on between Leung and Tsang. Some cite Tsang’s strong objection to Leung’s plan to rezone plots in the proposed sports complex at Kai Tak, but I don’t think such a dispute can lead to an outcome of this magnitude.
Still, sooner or later, pieces of truth will filter through various channels.
The rift among the authorities and in the pro-establishment camp has widened. There are now three major factions: Leung and his allies, local leftists represented by Tsang and those loyal to Henry Tang Ying-yen.
Local leftists once commanded wide popularity among Hong Kong’s grassroots, but after the handover, the camp suffered a crippling decline as their supporters have turned to the SAR government and the new patriots to secure their interests.
When senior members are either dead or fading rapidly into history, local leftists as a whole believe the 2017 chief executive election is their last chance to grab hold of power.
Then what is Leung’s strategy to defend his job? Tarnishing old patriots for all the faults that triggered last year’s Occupy movement.
So all of sudden, Tsang the old patriot has become a collateral target: Leung’s lackeys pass all the blame to him for the unpatriotic youth and thoughts of Hong Kong independence.
But Leung himself is on thin ice, too, as he now owes a great deal to Beijing and he must requite his mainland bosses.
If he fails to accomplish tasks to Beijing’s satisfaction during the rest of his term, Beijing will fire him exactly the way he did to Tsang. This is the sort of old plot we see in many gangster films, but we have now seen the ways of the underworld in Hong Kong’s political arena.
If there is any more incident like the recent lead-in-water scare or exposes of his acceptance of interests, Leung will have to pay the price.
I have known Tsang for more than four decades and worked with him in the government for six years with my office located right next door to his.
He does not have the kind of tact or sophistication seen in his old brother Jasper Tsang Yok-sing. Instead, he is straightforward and forthright.
As a leftist, he is obliged to state that he is “glad to retire” as he must do whatever Beijing mandates.
But I suspect that, having dedicated most of his life to the party and communism, he must have some unspoken rancor with the stab in the back and humiliation that he has been subjected to under Beijing’s watch.
Tung Chee-hwa was asked to step down with Beijing’s compensation of a deputy chairmanship in China’s top political advisory body, but given Tsang’s personality, will he be appeased with similar political perks?
“You love the party, but does the party love you?” This is the question that I will surely ask Tsang next time when I meet him.
Coconuts
Protesters march to High Court over ‘breast assault’ conviction
Activists marched to Hong Kong’s High Court on Sunday to protest a magistrate’s decision to convict a female demonstrator of assaulting a police officer with her breast.
The demonstration was organised by localist group Hong Kong Indigenous after four people – nicknamed the “Yuen Long Four” – were convicted in Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court of assaulting or obstructing an officer during an anti-parallel trading protest in Yuen Long.
Photo: Vicky Wong
Around 200 demonstrators arrived at the High Court holding placards stating “Breast is NOT a weapon!” and “The rule of law is dead” in front of police. The group chanted slogans such as “down with the Communist Party!”
At the end of the rally, Edward Leung, a spokesperson for Hong Kong Indigenous, thanked the crowd for joining the protest and invited everyone to join them outside Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday July 29, the day the Yuen Long Four will return for sentencing.
Leung told HKFP: “We are trying to support those protesters arrested by the police.”
“They are trying to protect our land, because they are trying to reclaim the community that they deserve to live in … so they deserve our support, they are trying to fight for a better Hong Kong.”
He then went on to raise concerns about the independence of the city’s judiciary and government interference with Hong Kong’s legal system, citing a white paper issued by the central government in June last year saying all judges should be patriotic.
“We think that in Hong Kong, the legal system in Hong Kong, is trying to cooperate with the executive system, that’s it. We have to stop this phenomenon, we have to stop this kind of Communist party rule.”
Leung told HKFP that Hong Kong Indigenous have not decided whether they would hold another protest if the Yuen Long Four are handed a strict sentence.
The Yuen Long Four – consisting of three men and one woman – were arrested during an anti-parallel trading protest in March.
The woman, 30-year-old Ng Lai-ying, was found guilty of using her chest to knock into the right arm of Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po, who was attempting to control the protest as it started to get rowdy. The ruling made international news.
Ng told the court that she shouted “indecent assault” after Chan reached out his arm to reach the strap of her bag causing his hand to touch the upper part of her left breast.
Two other men, 20-year-old Kwong Chung-hung and 22-year-old Poon Tsz-hang, were found guilty of obstructing police officers and a 14-year-old pupil was found guilty of hitting Ka-po in the chest with his shoulder. All four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.
Local media reported that Michael Chan Pik-kiu, the magistrate presiding over the case, dismissed Ng’s allegations saying they had caused great harm to the officer’s reputation.
HKFrontline
沒有留言:
張貼留言