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 227
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 42
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 42
Full coverage of the day’s events on 30-07
【 致各香港大學同學的一封信｜A letter to all students of the University of Hong Kong 】
To all students of the University of Hong Kong:
We indeed failed. We failed to turn the situation round. We failed to restore our university to its rightful place. The absurd pretext of deferring the appointment ‘until the post of provost is filled’ remains. Violence in the structure stays on our campus. Not only are we frustrated with the current situation, we are also in heartfelt grief and distress.
In face of this Council which has incessantly neglected our demands, students having participated in the siege could do nothing but charge into the Senate room and demanded a direct exchange. Some conceited Council members under the lead of Arthur Li yet refused to converse with students’ view and explain the incident, while Leong Che-hung, the Chairman of the Council, rested all problems to the collective decision made by the Council and sadly made no promise. Our concern to the composition of the Council and the intervention from the regime were further shunned. It shall be the duty of the Council members to be accountable to HKU staff and students. Such system surely turns to be unjust when it is lobbied as a reason in shunning the general public.
Such incident concerning the Vice-President and Pro-Vice-Chancellor has been ridiculously prolonged. Not only did we launch petition and a sit-in protest, we also issued a joint declaration with three other university organisations, demanding the immediate appointment and a revision to the composition of the Council. The Council yet has never responded to our demands. Doors of the Senate room are in total resemblance to barriers to our opinions. Pro-establishment members even abused pretexts of ‘the code of confidentiality’ and ‘collective decision’ in defence, disabling us from making them accountable to the issue. When one questioned the validity of delaying the appointment ‘until the post of provost is filled’, Leong even claimed that the Council decision is final regardless of its validity in our eyes. We can never stand such ill-founded conclusion and a council neglecting the validity of its decision is a clear and undoubted tyranny of the majority.
Representatives of students and academic staff in the Council are the mere minority. They, sadly, are unable to influence any decision in face of the overwhelming majority of pro-establishment members. As the highest decision-making body, the Council should serve the benefits of the university. We are truly aware of the cost of charging the Council while what happened was surely nothing we had hoped for. Peaceful means were under trial and were proved to be impotent. They left us no choice but to charge in hope of restoring order in this Council.
Our fellow students, we once took pride in our university, we are yet now ashamed. The violence in the system and the malfunction of the council surely put us in heartfelt grief. But what is the most shocking is how the university again forfeited its autonomy to the police force and connived its enforcement on campus. On 18 August 2011, to save the reputation of the regime, the university allowed the police force to take control of the university security and exploited students freedom on campus. Such lesson must be born in mind. The connivance of the university to the police force enforcement on campus shall only make us hard not to believe in ingratiating herself to the regime.
We dare not claim our actions to be successful hitherto and we must take responsibility for the inadequacies. It yet never means that our struggle has come to an end. Our goal has never been only the appointment of the Vice-President and Pro-Vice-Chancellor. We demand a reform of the Council and further protection of our institutional autonomy from the University Ordinance.
Actions may not always be effective in face of such aloof authority. But instead of waiting for our own demise, we are determined to rise above such adversity. Only in unity shall we safeguard our own dignity. We hereby humbly call on all students to struggle with us and restore our University of Hong Kong to its rightful place.
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
29 July 2015
致各位香港大學同學：
我們失敗了，無法以雙手扭轉頹勢，無法以行動重光我校。「等待首副」的荒謬原委仍然不倒，制度暴力仍舊橫行港大。眼見此景，我們無可奈何，更是痛心疾首。
面對屢次無視同學訴求的校委會，一眾參與圍堵的同學無計可施，惟有衝入會場，要求直接對話。以李國章為首的校務委員態度傲慢，拒絕跟在場同學解釋事件。留下的梁智鴻主席更將所有問題訴諸校委會集體決策，稱不能作出任何承諾。同學對校委會組成及政權干預的關注，梁主席一一迴避。向師生問責，難道不是校務委員的責任嗎？當制度成為校務委員迴避公眾的理據，這個制度還公義嗎？
副校長事件曠持日久，我們為此曾收集聯署，發起靜坐，本月更與另外三個校內組織發表聯合聲明，要求立即任命，以及檢討校委會組成方法，惟校委會從未回應同學訴求。會議室的大門儼如高牆，隔絕了師生的聲音。親建制校務委員更以「保密協議」、「集體決定」等說辭為己辯護，以致我們無法向其問責。曾有人問及「等待首席副校長」決定是否合理，梁主席回應則指，不論我們認為是否合理，這就是校委會的最終決定。難道我們只能無奈地接受這毫無理據的結果嗎？難道這就不是議會暴力嗎？
制度之內，學生及教職員代表在校委會僅屬少數，面對逾半數的親建制委員，我們實在無力影響其決策。校委會作為港大最高決策機關，理應以我校的利益為依歸。我們深諳衝擊校委會的代價，昨天之事亦非吾等樂見。我們已嘗盡一切溫和手段，仍無法推倒高牆。為重光這個禮崩樂壞的議會，我輩實在別無他法。
各位同學，我們曾以這裡為榮，如今卻以這裡為恥。眼見制度暴力，議會失效，我們固然痛心疾首。更令我們震驚的是校方再一次斷送我校自主，默許警方攜帶紅黃旗橫行校園。四年前的八一八事件，校方為維護政權面子，容許警方接管港大保安管理，剝奪同學於校園活動的自由。當年的教訓，難道校方已經拋諸腦後了嗎？若今天校方縱容警察，試問又如何令我們信服，能夠不向政權低頭？
行動至今，了無實際成果，亦有未盡妥善之處，學生會實在責無旁貸，但這不代表未來的抗爭會就此終結。我們不單要求盡快委任副校，更要推動校委會變革，推倒大學條例對院校自主的侵凌。面對看似無法撼動的強權，行動或許徒勞無功。然而，相對坐以待斃，我們更願意背水一戰。惟有團結一致，才能捍衛港大尊嚴。我們懷着最謙卑的心，呼籲各位同學一起抗爭，重光我們的「香港大學」。
香港大學學生會
二零一五年七月二十九日
Peter Mathieson (left) and Leong Che-hung (right) meet students after a council meeting ended in chaos on Tuesday. Photo: HKUSU
Mathieson lashes at students over council meeting chaos
A group of students who stormed a University of Hong Kong (HKU) council meeting on Tuesday have apologized and promised a calmer protest movement.
The apology was issued by the student union which said it will remind students to remain calm in future protests, according to Ming Pao Daily.
HKU vice chancellor Peter Mathieson called the students’ actions “intolerable”, adding it was regrettable that the police and the emergency services had to be called in.
Mathieson said HKU respects freedom of speech “but there must be a balance”.
Former HKU law dean Johannes Chan said the incident “is something that can be discussed” but the council should not use it to divert attention from important issues.
Chaos erupted when a dozen students barged into the meeting after the council overwhelmingly voted to delay the appointment of a pro vice chancellor, affirming an earlier decision.
Chan is widely tipped for the job after he was recommended by a search committee in November, but his prospects have been clouded by alleged attempts to oust him from contention.
On Tuesday, the council voted 12-8 to delay naming a pro vice chancellor until after a deputy vice chancellor has been appointed.
The vote came amid a rally by hundreds of students outside the meeting venue.
Law professor Albert Chen condemned the students and said anyone who prevented any council member from leaving the meeting room could be liable to a charge of false imprisonment.
Chen’s law faculty colleague Simon NM Young called the incident “unfortunate and regrettable” but said the students’ actions did not constitute false imprisonment.
Council chairman Leong Che-hung refused to comment.
HKU council chairman Leong Che-hung talks to students after Tuesday's chaos. Photo: HKUSU facebook
HKU council drama: What on earth is going on?
You can’t have two controversial votes on an equally controversial university appointment and not raise questions from students and alumni.
Yet, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) council would have them believe nothing is the matter.
That is precisely the problem. Such denials are only fueling concern that HKU has caved to political pressure and compromised its autonomy.
There’s no doubt the prospective appointment of an outspoken former law dean, who has been recommended by an independent search committee to be a pro vice chancellor, is a hot potato.
But if that person wasn’t Johannes Chan, would the council have taken this long to decide?
After two lopsided votes to delay naming a pro vice chancellor until after a deputy chancellor has been announced, it’s clear the council’s problem is Chan.
Forget about its purported concern over procedural issues relating to a more senior appointment.
It’s no longer about HKU but about a meddlesome government.
Chan’s biggest sin is being linked to associate law professor Benny Tai, a co-founder of Occupy Central, the civil disobedience group that played a key role in last year’s democracy protests.
But Chan’s critics are not stopping there. They are harking back to his days as HKU law dean to accuse him of coddling Tai.
These accusations fall into perspective after a concerted attempt by two pro-Beijing newspapers to discredit Chan.
In January, Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po ran a series of withering articles questioning Chan’s competence and integrity.
The gist of the criticism centered on Chan’s alleged failure to maintain the quality of research of the law faculty.
And his integrity became a lightning rod when he was somehow linked to a political donation to Tai. An internal investigation found Tai did not follow normal procedure.
The story has taken a life of its own since a former newspaper editor revealed an attempt by senior government officials to derail Chan’s appointment.
Later, a damning Apple Daily article directly linked Leung Chun-ying to it.
On Wednesday, the saga took a violent twist when students stormed a council meeting which had decided on a second delay.
None of this would have happened if the council had properly managed what should have been a routine exercise.
Such appointments were never a problem when they were left to the university, its alumni and other stakeholders.
The fact that the Hong Kong chief executive is the nominal head of its tertiary institutions as university chancellor never got in the way of the appointment of senior school administrators.
That is until the government politicized the process. Judging by recent events, the HKUcouncil has become a party to this politicization.
Until the council injects a modicum of transparency into its affairs and creates a semblance of academic freedom, it will be hard put to defend its claim that nothing is going on.
HKU alumni and students — and the Hong Kong public at large — deserve to know the score.
Leung Chun-ying is truly a genius of political scheming unseen before in Hong Kong. Photo: Reuters
Chilling messages from Leung’s callous sackings
Former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin once lashed out at Hongkongers, saying that we are all “naïve”.
(Editor’s Note: In October 2000 Jiang berated Hong Kong Cable TV journalists when he was asked if he handpicked Tung Chee-hwa as the chief executive. His now famous rebuke in English: “Too simple, sometimes naïve.”)
Now we know we are all truly naïve. Leung Chun-ying’s move last week to ease out two ministers has given us a hard lesson in politics: the top leader can do whatever he wants to weed out foes, clear obstacles and deter all his potential opponents in defense of his power.
We cannot compare the drastic ousters to the administration’s previous personnel changes in which officials resigned of their own accord, nor can we link it to the cabinet changes in democratic nations.
In fact, the reshuffle is reminiscent of the kind of infighting within China’s ruling class, although the methods used by local politicians are not that flagrant yet.
Commentators and forums loyal to Leung have been busy hinting that Leung himself initiated the sackings, a proof of Beijing’s trust in him.
Tsang Tak-shing must go because he failed to handle youth affairs properly, which indirectly led to the massive youth participation in last year’s Occupy protests.
Paul Tang Kwok-wai, secretary for the civil service, is accused of having poor working relationship with civil service unions and his complicity when a number of government employees supported the Occupy Movement and denounced Leung in public.
I think Leung didn’t discuss the matter with Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, direct supervisor of Tsang and Tang, beforehand.
Lam merely noted later that she regretted the two’s “retirement”, but didn’t spare a word for Clement Cheung Wan-ching, Tang’s successor as head of the civil service.
It appears that she didn’t want to explain why Cheung, who is just a Grade A (D6) Administrative Officer, is favored by Leung to lead the territory’s civil servants as well as many permanent secretaries who are more senior and experienced in the government hierarchy.
Now I need to say a few fair words for Tang. The fact is that many of his predecessors had not been liked by civil service unions either.
Executive Council convenor Lam Woon-kwong also got lots of criticism for his policies when he served in the post. The same to Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun and Lam herself when they served as Secretary for Education and Manpower and Director of Social Welfare respectively.
As for myself, I wonder if I might have been the least welcome head of civil service, as I had to press ahead with a raft of hard tasks during my tenure like layoffs and salary cuts.
The secretary for the civil service is supposed to guard the core values of Hong Kong’s civil servants, like respect for the rule of law, procedural justice as well as the balance between personal interests and those of the public.
The many responsibilities of this post are not merely about maintaining sound relations with civil service unions and groups, otherwise a human resources department manager can do the job.
Will anyone believe that Tang quit the post because “unforeseeable family circumstances” that require him to spend more time with his family?
My fear is that Hong Kong’s well-founded, hard-won systems will unavoidably be vandalized amid the political interposition, malicious meddling to the sole advantage of the top leader, unless Cheung, as the new civil service minister, can demonstrate that he has some ironclad integrity.
The new post can be the biggest challenge for Cheung. Not only those who care about their remuneration will follow closely how he discharges his duties, Hongkongers who are vigorous guardians of our core values will also keep a watchful eye on him.
The blatant political demise that Leung brought to Tsang and Tang may also be intended to warn other parties.
All civil servants may feel that Leung has sent out a chilling message.
There are two facts that always make Beijing feel insecure: the first is that the hearts of Hongkongers haven’t returned yet and the second is that the city’s civil servants are not loyal enough.
Except for a few senior officials at directorate levels or above, most civil servants are free to speak out even if their views may run counter to the government stance.
Some unions are pro-democracy, too. Many government employees took part in the Occupy Movement and joined the petition against China’s ruling on the 2017 election methods.
Beijing must be very much bothered.
But in truth, it is just a trivial problem as long as these dissident civil servants continue to do it by the book and perform their duties.
Rather than worrying about losing face, the government instead should reflect on its own part as to why its policies have stirred up such backlash.
Now, if the government is determined to suppress the civil rights of all 170,000 civil servants while quietly retaliating against disobedient ones, members of the civil service will be further torn apart.
Leung also wants his own team, including secretaries and Executive Council members, to know that those who obey him can survive and those who do not will only be ousted.
Rumor has it that Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung was also on Leung’s sacking list because of So’s failure to conform with the official stance on Hong Kong Television Network Ltd’s application for free TV licence.
But it is said that So’s job is safe for now as Leung could not find a suitable person to replace him.
If that is the case, then Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah may be next on the gangplank.
Before taking office, Leung had proposed a deputy financial secretary but that didn’t materialize.
Since Leung became chief executive, there have been noticeable disagreements between Leung and Tsang.
Tsang has just reiterated the importance of fiscal discipline in his blog. Now how would he react if Leung wants to splurge money on raising civil servants’ pay or boosting Hong Kong’s retirement protection in order to gain popularity?
Even though Tsang was given a high-profile handshake by Chinese President Xi Jinping, I wonder if Leung may still want to test Beijing’s trust in him by trying to sack Tsang.
Then, given the political status quo, other members of Leung’s cabinet now have two options only: they can either quit in a dignified way or they can learn from Cheung Chi-kong, who always rushes to Leung’s defense whenever there is a critic.
The entire pro-establishment bloc has also been deterred by Leung’s headstrong expulsion of Tsang despite fierce rancor from local leftists. Leung’s message is clear: with Beijing’s backing, he can just defy anyone within the administration.
His lieutenant Lau Kong-wah is now in charge of the Home Affairs Bureau. Lau will be given a key role to play in coordinating with pro-Beijing candidates for the upcoming District Council and Legislative Council elections.
The goal is to strip the pan-democrats of their critical minority status, something Leung is striving to achieve to requite his mainland bosses.
Securing a second term is all Leung cares about. Harmony in society is probably the last thing on his mind.
We can expect more incidents like this in the next two years. Leung is truly and remarkably a genius when it comes to scheming and political feud, a figure unseen before in Hong Kong.
My only advice is that both democrats and Beijing loyalists who are not big fans of Leung must never relax their vigilance.
Coconuts
Three-month jail sentence for woman who ‘assaulted’ police officer with her breast
A woman who was convicted of assaulting a police officer with her breasts was sentenced to three months and 15 days’ imprisonment on Thursday morning.
Thirty-year-old Ng Lai-ying was found guilty of assaulting Chief Inspector Chan Ka-po by Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court earlier this month.
She returned to court on Thursday with three of her co-accused who were also sentenced.
Twenty-year-old Kwong Chung-hung was handed five months and one week in a rehabilitation centre, 22-year-old Poon Tsz-hang was sentenced to five months and three weeks in prison, and a 14-year-old defendant will also be sent to a rehabilitation centre for an indeterminate period of time.
Ng Lai-ying was arrested during an anti-parallel trading protest in Yuen long. Photo: Apple Daily.
All four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. Lawyers representing the four told the court they would appeal the sentences and the defendants were granted bail.
The magistrate overseeing the case, Michael Chan Pik-kiu, set bail conditions to HK$5,000 each and said that all four defendants must not leave Hong Kong.
According to Stand News between 40 to 50 people turned up at the courthouse to watch the sentencing, including members of Hong Kong Indigenous, a localist group spawned from last year’s pro-democracy Occupy movement.
As they left the courthouse, the three defendants did not comment on the sentence but thanked everyone for their support.
Nicknamed the “Yuen Long Four”, the group were arrested after taking part in an anti-parallel trading protest in Yuen Long at the beginning of March.
Ng was found guilty of thrusting her chest into Chief Inspector Chan’s arm as he was attempting to control the increasingly rowdy protest.
Ng told the court that she shouted “indecent assault” after Chan reached out for the strap of her bag, leading his hand to touch the upper part of her left breast.
Kwong and Poon were found guilty of obstructing police officers and a 14-year-old pupil was found guilty of hitting Chan in the chest with his shoulder.
Local media reported that magistrate Chan dismissed Ng’s allegations, saying they had caused great harm to the officer’s reputation.
Chan also revealed that after the Yuen Long Four were convicted he was threatened and feared for his safety, However, he did not make clear who had threatened him and why.
The ruling made international headlines and also saw 200 peopleassemble outside the High Court on Sunday, July 26 to protest against the convictions.
HKU Council member accused of ‘dive’ unsure whether he was pushed or kicked
University of Hong Kong Council member Dr Lo Chung-mau, who was hospitalised following Tuesday’s protest on campus, said he is unsure why he fell down, adding that he will not take legal action in regards to the incident.
According to fellow council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, Losaid that he had been shoved to the ground as he tried to exit the room on Tuesday evening following the incident. Lo himself also told local broadcaster DBC that he had been “kicked and injured”.
Lo called the protesters “lawless” as he waited in a wheelchair to seek medical attention. Lo said he felt ashamed of students who tried to prevent him from going to hospital and threw water bottles at him as he was taken to an ambulance.
However, Lo told Commercial Radio on Thursday that he never said he was pushed by a student, and could not recall how he was injured. He said that he felt pain in his right knee because it was hit by an unknown object, and added that his right knee was prone to injury after being fractured in an accident two years prior.
Lo Chung-mau. Photo: HKU Undergrad via Facebook/ Stand News.
Police have begun investigating the incident, which has been categorised an “assault claim” and “common assault”. A police spokesperson said that 12 emergency calls related to HKU were made after 4:00pm on Tuesday.
Lo was discharged from hospital on Thursday afternoon. He was seen leaving on his own with the aid of a walking stick. Lo’s doctorsaid that there are signs of abrasions, bruising and swelling on Lo’s knee. The doctor said that there was likely some sort of collision, but it is not possible to determine what object Lo collided with.
Lo said that people blocked medical staff from sending him to hospital and threw water bottles at him in the parking lot. He confirmed that he called the police on Tuesday night and said that the Criminal Investigation Department took his statement on Wednesday as per normal procedure.
He declined to comment on the students’ decision to force their way into the meeting, and stressed the importance of moving forward.
Students occupy HKU Council meeting. Photo: HKU Undergrad via Facebook.
On Tuesday, some 50 students disrupted the meeting of the governing body of HKU in protest against their decision to uphold the deferral of pro-democracy scholar Johannes Chan’s appointment as pro-vice chancellor. During the commotion, Lo and another council member fell ill and asked for medical treatment.
However, footage later emerged on social media contradicting Lo’s earlier claim of being pushed by students, prompting netizens to create memes to mock the questionable collapse.
Asked what he thought of the accusations and memes that suggest he had faked the collapse, Lo said that he was not upset with the accusers, and that people who doubted him would do so regardless of what he said.
Pro-establishment newspapers have compared the students’ actions to those of the paramilitary “Red Guards” who supported Mao Zedong during China’s Cultural Revolution. The Education Bureau and pro-Beijing politicians have also condemned the students.
HKFrontline
13:33
Defendants are freed and walk out to the cheers of supporters. Some women couldn't resist giving Ng Lai Ying a hug. They say they are too tired and long to go home. The appeal will be handled by their lawyers, no comment for now.
13:53
This is Chief Inspector Chan Ka Po, the alleged victim of breast assault, who himself admitted suffered no injury at all.
14:00
Magistrate Michael Chan Pik-kiu, who recently sentenced 4 protesters (including Ng Lai-ying who's sentenced to 3.5 months for assaulting police officer with her breast), claimed to have been threatened because of these cases he handled. Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, Secretary for Justice, said that the Department of Justice will contact the police on Magistrate Chan's case. If sufficient evidence is found, the DoJ may proceed with legal action.
Yuen also said that protesters outside the Magistrate Court during the said trials held up placards and shouted slogans containing insulting language. He added that rule of law should be defended and that people should respect court rulings and should not launch personal attacks on judges. Should the behaviours of any of these protesters constitute contempt of court or criminal offense, the DoJ will take action.
沒有留言:
張貼留言