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 234
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 49 (06-08-2015)
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 49 (06-08-2015)
Full coverage of the day’s events
Coconuts HKFrontline
Surgeon gets interim post as HKU row rumbles
Pediatric surgeon Paul Tam Kwong-hang, who was the acting provost at the University of Hong Kong over the past month, has been appointed as interim provost, even as two groups of alumni criticized the violence at last week's HKU Council meeting.
The governing council is still searching for a suitable candidate to fill the provost position.
The provost will decide on the delayed appointment of a new pro vice chancellor for academic staffing and resources, which has been offered to pro-democracy academic Johannes Chan Man-mun.
Tam will serve in a temporary capacity until his replacement takes office, according to an e-mail sent to staff and students by Vice Chancellor Peter Mathieson.
Tam, formerly a pro vice chancellor for research, was appointed acting provost on July 3 after his predecessor Roland Chin Tai-hong stepped down to become Baptist University president.
Tam was named "interim provost" on August 1, Mathieson said. Council member Cheung Kie-chung said the interim tag implies Tam will remain in the post for months rather than days.
It is understood that Tam will not decide on the Chan issue.
A HKU spokeswoman said: "Interim appointments have to go through the senate before a decision will be made by the council. Interim appointments were made in a number of senior posts in the past."
Meanwhile, 103 alumni from 1968 to 2015 today published a statement in Sing Tao Daily a sister publication of The Standard defending the core values of the university and urged it to make decisions based on its interests while opposing the violent storming of the council meeting.
They include National People's Congress deputy Miriam Lau Kin-yee, former secretary for security Ambrose Lee Siu- kwong and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong lawmaker Elizabeth Quat.
Another group of 1,171 alumni signed a petition to condemn the students who stormed the meeting.
Mob rule or defending freedom? 8 reactions to HKU Council’s explosive protest
A student-led protest at last week’s HKU Council meeting has evoked polarised reactions from public figures. The protest took placeafter the council upheld a ruling to delay the appointment of a new pro-vice chancellor. Many considered the decision as an indication ofpolitical interference from the pro-establishment camp against supporters of democracy.
The HKU confrontation was met with both criticism and support. Here are the opinions of eight public figures:
Students forced their way into HKU Council meeting on July . Photo: HKU Undergrad via Facebook.
1. “Mob Rule” — Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, HKU Council and Executive Council member
Arthur Li said on Tuesday that someone had punched him from behind near his right kidney during the confusion. “In a melee like that, it’s inevitable somebody behind me punched me,” he said. “That night I went home and checked my urine and luckily I didn’t have any blood.”
Following the protest, Li was among those in the pro-establishment camp who called the students “Red Guards”, referencing a paramilitary group of youngsters who supported Mao Zedong during China’s Cultural Revolution.
“I was deprived of freedom, freedom of movement. I was deprived of food. I was not allowed to go out and have my dinner. I was ridiculed,” said Li. “And it’s very unfair to the lady members of the council. These are gentle ladies.”
He said the Red Guard comparison was not an extreme view. “[The Red Guards] made the professors come out, sit down, kneel down, admit that they’ve done wrong. It’s a revision of the whole thing. This was mob rule.”
Arthur Li says in a TVB Pearl programme that he was hit in the right kidney at last week’s HKU protest.
2. “A hotbed of Hong Kong independence” — Lau Nai-keung, Basic Law Committee member and HKU alumnus
Prominent politician Lau Nai-keung wrote in Tai Kung Pao on Monday that the protest revealed a blatant attempt by people advocating Hong Kong independence at taking power at local universities. “The Central Government must intervene at some point.”
Lau said HKU was no longer what it used to be, especially since it is run by a Brit who is “incompetent” in terms of scholarship and administration. “This fake HKU, funded with taxpayers’ money, has humiliated all HKU alumni and the whole of Hong Kong.”
He said students should be arrested for illegally detaining council members. HKU should also be charged with obstructing police officers as it was reluctant to let officers onto the campus. HKU President Peter Mathieson said that students might have violated school rules, but had not broken the law. Mathieson has been under attack by the pro-Beijing camp for not reporting the students.
Lau Nai-keung (left) and Peter Mathieson. Photo: Apple Daily & HKU.
3. “To Beijing, totalitarianism is democracy” — Joseph Lian Yizheng, veteran commentator
Joseph Lian criticised Arthur Li for being arrogant and combative. He said that the council system, established by the colonial government, allowed the chief executive to have total control over the university through directly appointing council members. An area of governance exclusive to the council is financial resource allocation.
Lian explained that the Chinese Communist Party established a policy that all tertiary schools in China must be overseen by the Central Government in 1950.
In some faculties there are more mainland teaching staff than locals, whereas very few were from mainland China 20 years ago, Lian said. With close ties to China, many mainland employees in universities are probably monitored and influenced by the China Liaison Office as well as underground members of the Communist Party, he said, warning that there would be more political interference in university councils.
Joseph Lian Yizheng. Photo: Apple Daily.
4. “Students are the most important stakeholder” — Professor Kwok Sun, dean of HKU science faculty
In an open letter sent to HKU members on Tuesday, Professor Kwok Sun said that as the most important stakeholder of the university, students’ concern about the appointment controversy was “a healthy sign”. Kwok revealed that most council members had expected the appointment would be made early this year.
Kwok also responded to a joint statement issued by ten HKU deans condemning the students for confronting officials, saying that the youngsters should continue to defend academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
Professor Kwok Sun. Photo: Apple Daily.
5. “Scholars should not remain silent over injustice” — Benny Tai, HKU law professor and founder of the pro-democracy Occupy Central campaign
Benny Tai expressed disappointment with the decision of a teacher representative to resign from the council following the protest, saying that scholars have obligations to resist injustice. “When those in positions of power are so mighty, we may not be able to effect any change. But at least we’ve tried our best and fulfilled our obligations as intellectuals,” the law professor said.
Tai added: “If every scholar chooses to keep silent amid controversies, it will not be long before Hong Kong collapses.”
Professor Benny Tai (centre) at a direct action training session. Photo: Occupy Central with Love and Peace via Facebook.
6. “Swearing constitutes common assault” — Christopher Chung Shu-kun, HKU Court member and DAB lawmaker
Christopher Chung said on Monday that demonstrators who swore at HKU Council members could be sued for common assault. “People were swearing, frightening some council members. Some of the members were injured. If you swear at people, you will probably be sued for common assault.”
DAB lawmaker Christopher Chung Shu-kun. Photo: Chung Shu-kun via Facebook.
7. “Spoiled brats and rioters” — Lawrence Lau Juen-yee, former vice-chancellor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong
On Monday, Lawrence Lau wrote in an op-ed entitled “Save our future generations” that student protesters should be imprisoned for their “mob-like behaviour”. He called students arrogant and self-centred spoiled brats who have no respect for the rights of others. His wife is an HKU Council member who fell ill during last week’s protest and subsequently went to hospital.
8. “We don’t need your salvation” — CUHK Student Union
In response to Lau’s criticism, the CUHK Student Union issued an open letter on Wednesday stating that Lau did not mention once the demands of students and had instead accused them of being rioters. The HKU Council members’ violation of procedural justice is a form of violence, the union said.
Lawrance Lau (left), and university student leaders burning the university ordinance symbolising their discontent with the council system. Photo: CUHK Student Union via Facebook.
It added that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying had interfered with institutional autonomy through the council system, but as the former vice-chancellor of CUHK, Lau instead chose to side with the powerful and permit structural violence against powerless students.
It cited Lau’s speech at his inauguration as CUHK vice-chancellor, in which Lau compared university governance to running a restaurant. He compared chancellor to restaurant owner and students to customers. Lau said that students could choose not to attend the school if they did not like it, and should accept decisions made by the school.
The student union accused Lau of being power-thirsty and self-centred.
A newspaper clipping shows some of the 103 signatories in the petition (inset). They denounced the storming of a council meeting by a group of students last week. Photo: HKEJ
Dozens of HKU alumni back council in newspaper petition
Dozens of alumni have taken out a newspaper advertisement in support of a decision by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) council to delay the appointment of a pro vice chancellor.
They also denounced the storming of a council meeting by a group of students last week.
Among the 103 signatories in the Sing Tao Daily petition were former Security Bureau chief Ambrose Lee and former Liberal Party chairman Miriam Lau.
Lee said the students’ behavior ruined HKU’s reputation.
He defended the council against accusations it has become a rubber stamp, saying it plays an important role and has every right to exercise it.
Lee said Johannes Chan, who is at the center of the controversy after his expected appointment as a pro vice chancellor was delayed, should consider what is best for the university.
Lee made the remark after reports Chan is under pressure to withdraw his name from consideration.
A group calling itself The Sound of Silence said it has collected more than 4,400 signatures including 1,100 from HKU alumni to ask HKU vice chancellor Peter Mathieson to investigate the council meeting incident.
Only five of the signatories gave their full name in the online petition.
Meanwhile, lawmaker Ip Kin-yuan, convenor of an HKU alumni concern group, rejected accusations the students intervened in the council’s affairs.
The group is calling a meeting for Sept. 1 to consider a motion of no confidence against HKU council member Arthur Li and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying who serves a nominal role as universal chancellor.
Last year's Occupy protests marked the political enlightenment of Hong Kong youngsters. Photo: Bloomberg
Forget universal suffrage, this is what young people want
In its brief history, Hong Kong has had two profound changes to its identity.
The first one was when it was acquired by the British in 1841, and the second when it was returned to Chinese sovereignty 18 years ago.
A third one, although still 32 years away, is looming large.
Deng Xiaoping once tried to calm Hong Kong people’s fears by saying that the change of suzerainty is just about changing the flag and the top leader.
That was the time when the nerve-wracking Sino-British negotiations were taking place, and Hong Kong’s future was being decided without any representative from the city participating in the talks.
Now we know that promises are meant to be broken, especially those coming from communist cadres who can afford to say one thing and do another.
But Hong Kong’s young generation, many of whom are younger than the SAR government, won’t allow their city to be fooled again.
So, what do they want now? Genuine universal suffrage in future elections like 2022? No, thank you.
Most of the youth have given up on that dream, especially after Beijing showed to all and sundry that it had no intention of giving that to the Hong Kong people.
This does not mean that they have pulled back.
Instead, a growing number of young people are now focusing on things that transcend the discussion about how future chief executives should be selected.
They have set their eyes on 2047 when the Basic Law, which supposedly ensures a high degree of autonomy for the territory, ends.
They want a second round of talks on Hong Kong’s future.
In a recent op-ed, Scholarism founder Joshua Wong Chi-fung said “sustainable autonomy” and “Hong Kong people deciding their own future” are what the youth are now aiming for.
The illusion of democratic reunification with China, once a source of spiritual sustenance for many senior democrats, has been shattered for good, he said.
Like it or not, Hong Kong will have to face its destiny in or around 2030 as it starts counting down to the expiry of “one country, two systems”.
Thus, as Wong suggests, the entire pan-democratic bloc must draw up a common roadmap for the following 15 years starting from 2015.
Specifically, he wants a revision of the Basic Law to eliminate all pitfalls and ambiguities and ultimately a territorial-wide referendum to determine the way forward.
To work towards that end, Wong’s recommendation is that rounds of referendum campaigns on issues and bills of common interest should be held alongside the official, legally-binding voting by Legislative Council members to invite public engagement and awaken their consciousness.
Many of our local pundits tend to dismiss the ideas proffered by young activists like the 18-year-old Wong, thinking that such views have yet to flow into the mainstream of political discourse.
Even after last year’s Occupy protests, not a few senior politicians still regard Hong Kong youth as politically apathetic and oblivious to such issues as the shape of things after 2047.
Some even attribute their participation in pro-democracy rallies to the spirit of rebellion that is common in young people. As Executive Council member Arthur Li Kwok-cheung puts it, “they like to be heroes in front of their girlfriends”.
Apparently our youngsters and those in high places are not on the same page. This is exactly what has been alienating the younger generation from the authorities.
The fact is that even some long-time pro-China student associations are having second thoughts about nationalism. One example is the 40-year-old China Studies Society (國是學會) at the Chinese University.
An executive committee member of the society, which once advocated for the use of simplified Chinese and democratic reunification with the mainland, told the Hong Kong Economic Journal that their ideals, as opposed to that of society founders back in the 1970s, are that the territory should be shielded from China.
Hong Kong independence is no longer a taboo but an option that must be discussed, he said, although he admitted that the cards are stacked against such a proposition.
“But at least you have to propose solutions and start the discussion now,” he said.
“Had Beijing honored its pledges in the first place, Hong Kong would have been willing to be part of the nation. As patriots back then, we chose to believe that except for defense and diplomacy, Hong Kong could go its own way.
“But what we see today is that cadres at the Liaison Office are the people who are running the city…”
The message from our youngsters is clear: the future of Hong Kong lies in their hands and they are not going to dodge the responsibility.
They won’t simply kick the can down the road and leave it for future generations to resolve. They are, after all, the future generation.
As such, the issue about the chief executive election is insignificant to them.
Has their message once again fallen on deaf ears? If not, how will Beijing and its local stooges respond?
No one has a crystal ball on that, but one thing for sure is that these teenagers and twentysomethings will still be around in 2047.
They will be the leading lights in politics in the next three decades.
Many of them are now harboring deep rancor as they feel betrayed by their previous representatives.
They are not going to let that happen again. They will do their best to ensure a good future for themselves and their children.
沒有留言:
張貼留言