POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 85 (11-09-2015)

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 270

POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 85 (11-09-2015)

Full coverage of the day’s events  

  Coconuts HongKong   HKFrontline

   






Communication between the central government and the pan-democrats


【明報專訊】THE BRAINSTORMING SESSION held by the pan-democrats yesterday (September 9) carried several messages: not only are they supportive of the idea of maintaining communication with the central government, they also want that to happen on a regular basis. This is a positive sign. In the post-constitutional reform era, the pan-democrats and the central government should rebuild mutual trust and engage in positive interactions with a view to straightening out the different kinds of problems they are faced with. Everything should start with communication.

In late August, Feng Wei, the Deputy Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council (HKMAO), visited Hong Kong and met with five senior members of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Ronny Tong, who had been invited to the ceremony in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the victory over Japan, disclosed that he had met with HKMAO officials on two occasions. As can be seen from what has been disclosed by both sides, they are acting cautiously in a way that shows they cherish such interactions a lot. Members of society have reacted differently. Quite predictably, such meetings have been criticised by the radicals. But they are well received by the mainstream of society. Members of the public generally agree that there should be more interactions of similar nature in future.

Over the past few years, especially since the Occupy movement was triggered by the disagreements over constitutional reform, the relationship between the central government and the pan-democrats has hit a low. Democrats who intended to meet with central government officials would not only be lambasted by the radicals, but also be frowned on by the moderates in the pan-democratic camp. These democrats, as a result, found themselves in an awkward situation. However, the Democratic Party's and Ronny Tong's meetings with HKMAO officials have not been criticised overwhelmingly. This shows that the mainstream of society, as well as that of the pan-democratic camp, is becoming more pragmatic and moderate. Seen from this perspective, the messages conveyed by the pan-democrats yesterday are very positive indeed, so much so that they merit the central government's attention.

The pan-democrats believe that, even if they are willing to communicate, it is the central government that holds the power to decide whether to talk and whether to do so on a regular basis. As far as we know, this is true. It can be seen that, in the post-constitutional reform era, the central government has differentiated between the different camps of the pan-democrats. It is unwilling to talk with the radicals, who are in the minority. And in fact, the radicals, who view their defiance of the central government as a source of their political capital, simply do not dare communicate with the central government. On the face of it, Hong Kong politics has become more radical since the constitutional reform issue came to an end. But it is worth our attention that, since the issue came to an end, the radicals have not become more united, but have lost some of their momentum. Have the pan-democrats become more radical as a whole? We do not see any proof of that. But we have reason to believe that those in the middle of the political spectrum still make up the majority of society, which has always been the case.

The central government should engage in communication with as broad a group of pan-democrats as possible. Since the radicals are too willing to defy the central government, there is simply no basis for communication between them. The central government has no choice but to distance itself from the radicals. This is understood by the public. However, if the central government continues to differentiate between the different camps of the pan-democrats, it might pigeonhole some political parties or individuals as radicals, who are in fact moderates. In our view, the central government should be more tolerant. Rather than widen the rifts between itself and the pan-democrats, it should try to heal them. The central government should take a bigger step to strengthen the moderates at the expense of the radicals.


中央泛民接觸溝通 有助回歸溫和務實

泛民主派召開集思會，釋出支持跟中央保持溝通、特別提出爭取恒常化溝通的意願；這是一個積極信號。在後政改時期，泛民與中央有必要重建互信和良性互動，梳理應對各方面問題，而這一切必須從溝通開始。

去月下旬，港澳辦副主任馮巍來港與民主黨5名高層會面；獲邀到北京出席抗戰勝利70周年紀念活動的湯家驊，據透露留京期間兩度與港澳辦官員會面。這些會面，從雙方發布信息所見，都顯得小心翼翼，大有保護這類溝通之意。社會上對這兩次接觸有不同反應，取態極端偏激者肆意批評是意料中事，不過主流輿論多給予肯定，並認同應有更多類似溝通。

過去幾年，特別是政改爭拗發生佔領運動之後，中央與泛民關係跌至冰點；若有泛民中人與中央官員接觸，不單備受激進派攻擊，連被認為一貫取態溫和的泛民陣營也有異議，使這些人的處境甚為尷尬。不過，今次民主黨、湯家驊與港澳辦官員會面之後，卻未見一面倒的攻擊論調，反映出主流社會、特別是泛民陣營對於跟中央溝通，更多地是回歸溫和務實取態。放在這個框架審視泛民昨日釋出的信息，蘊含的積極意義值得中央注意。

泛民認為即使他們願意溝通，不過是否有溝通，有沒有可能溝通恒常化，中央都有主動權。按已知情况，此乃事實。政改鬥爭之後，中央對泛民陣營隱然有劃線，拒絕與少數激進派溝通；事實上，激進派把對抗中央視為政治本錢，他們也不敢尋求溝通。經過政改一役，表面上整體政治生態趨於激化，不過同樣值得注意的是：激進力量在政改之後未能整合，能量流失，若認為泛民整體都向極端偏激靠攏，暫時未見有力佐證。因此，有理由相信在政治光譜中，廣義的溫和中間力量仍然是大多數，與原有社會形態並無根本轉變。


中央與泛民溝通的範圍愈寬廣愈好。許多時候，激進派以對抗為樂，沒有溝通基礎，中央與他們涇渭分明、楚河漢界，在社會上會獲得理解；不過，中央若在泛民陣營再劃分，客觀上可能把一些黨派或人士推向激進派，但實際上他們本屬中間力量的一部分。因此，中央與泛民溝通，應該展示更多包容，爭取彌合更多裂縫，而非讓嫌隙擴大成為鴻溝。溝通步伐邁開一點，使中間溫和力量有更大空間，變相可收壓縮激進派之效。




Lawmaker to stay mum on milk curbs after rally

A Liberal Party lawmaker who had called for the two-can baby formula export restriction to be lifted now says he will not make such a call again.

Speaking after a meeting with Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, Vincent Fang Kang said the restriction heightened tensions between Hong Kong and the mainland.

But Fang said his call on Saturday for the lifting of the restrictions may have led to the revival of anti-parallel trading protests after a six-month lull the next day in Sheung Shui.

So he decided the party will cease demanding the policy be scrapped.

"I will never mention it again, because I fear that if I continue to talk about it, every Sunday there will be people coming over to our shopping malls to carry out non-cooperation activities and hurt our industry," Fang said yesterday.

The export restriction was introduced in March 2013 in response to shortages of powdered formula hoarded by an influx of parallel traders. Travelers under the restriction can only carry two cans, or 1.8 kilograms of powdered formula when they leave Hong Kong.

Those found guilty of exceeding this amount face up to seven years in jail and a HK$2 million fine.

The restriction helped ease formula shortages for local mothers.

Fang had said on Saturday: "I think we should lift [the restriction], right away. There's not a short supply of milk powder at all. This whole thing with milk powder is only a supply and demand problem. It's not a political problem.

"But this supply and demand problem is becoming a political problem, that's why it's affecting us so much."

The government immediately reacted, saying it had "no intention to change the relevant policies" concerning the bulk purchase of milk powder.

Secretary for Food and Health Ko Wing-man said it is not viable to lift the restriction as shortages are still seen in the northern New Territories.




Two pro-Beijing lawmakers go head to head for LegCo house committee chairmanship



Two pro-Beijing lawmakers are going head to head in the race for chairmanship of the Legislative Council’s House Committee.

The incumbent chairman, Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen of the pro-establishment Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) looked to continue his chairmanship with the support the pro-Beijing camp. However, lawmaker Tommy Cheung Yu-yan of the pro-Beijing Liberal Party will run for the chairmanship in the LegCo new term, he told the Hong Kong Economic Times.

Cheung said that his party’s lawmakers held the position from 2000 to 2012 and that “it is time for the Liberal Party to do it again.”

When asked whether he would consider running for the vice-chairman post instead, he said: “At my age, I am not going to be a vice-chairman of anything.”

The House Committee prepares for meetings and considers matters relating to the business of the LegCo. One important function of the House Committee is to scrutinise bills introduced, plus subsidiary legislation tabled at meetings or presented to LegCo for approval.

An unnamed pan-democrat lawmaker told Apple Daily that if Cheung manages to gain the support of 26 pan-democrats, plus five Liberal Party lawmakers and three to four independent lawmakers, it can mean that the Liberal Party will have the upper hand in negotiations with other pro-Beijing parties such as the BPA, the DAB and the Federation of Trade Unions.

The lawmaker also said pan-democrats could join forces with the Liberal Party and gain strategic advantage in their discussions with pro-Beijing parties.

Rivalry between Liberal Party and BPA 

Although Tommy Cheung Yu-yan said that he did not want the race to be seen as Liberal Party and BPA “settling old scores,” the two parties have a history of rivalries.

Four members of the BPA, including Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, left the Liberal Party in 2008 after its defeat in the LegCo election.

In June, a group of pro-Beijing lawmakers walked out of LegCo during a vote on the government’s political reform package in order to force a 15-minute recess—a compulsory break in proceedings if fewer than half of the lawmakers are present—which would have allowed pro-Beijing lawmaker Lau Wong-fat, who was late, to arrive in time for the vote. However, five Liberal Party lawmakers including its leader James Tien were not informed of the decision to leave the chamber en masse and remained inside for the vote.

After the incident, Cheung said that veteran lawmakers should know LegCo rules better. Tien commented that “incurably dumb” people were to blame.





Going all out to defend freedom and the rule of law in HK
Lai Chak-fun


Professor Johannes Chan was picked by HKU's search committee for a pro vice chancellor position, but the appointment has been delayed over and over again. Photo: HKEJ


Under the orders of the central government’s liaison office in Hong Kong, Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao have published at least 120 articles against Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun over the past three months.

The message of the two leading local pro-Beijing newspapers is clear: the anti-China and subversive law professor must never be named a pro vice chancellor at the University of Hong Kong.

The two papers even tried to put pressure on the Hong Kong government through their editorials and demanded that the Independent Commission Against Corruption probe Chan.

They claim he might have been involved in bribery and dereliction of duty by allegedly allowing his colleague, Associate Professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting, to accept illegal political donations to carry out Occupy Central last year.

Despite the fact that the indigenous communists looked ferocious and intimidating and that Beijing mobilized its proxies to vote against two non-binding motions by the HKU Alumni Concern Group, one urging the university council to appoint a pro vice chancellor within 30 days, the two motions were surprisingly passed by a 80 percent majority in the referendum called by the HKU convocation on Sept. 1.

In contrast, a motion by Lawrence Pang Wang-kee, head of a group of pro-establishment alumni, only received 20 percent of the votes.

The result spoke volumes, and justice once again prevailed.

Even though the motions are non-binding, they represent the general opinion of the majority of the HKU alumni on the appointment scandal.

No matter how much pro-Beijing proxies like Lo Chung-mau, Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Leonie Ki Man-fung are throwing their weight around in the HKU council, they just cannot afford to ignore the voice of the HKU alumni.

I was there on the night of the referendum, and 90 percent of those who spoke at the meeting were in favor of the two motions put forward by the concern group.

Although I knew the motions would be passed, I didn’t expect the results to be an overwhelming “yes”.

History has again proven that once the conscience of the people is awakened, it is often difficult to predict the outcome of their actions, even for the biggest optimist.

The reason why the HKU alumni voted overwhelmingly “yes” to the two motions was probably not because most of them wanted Chan to get the job of the pro vice chancellor, nor was it because they were successfully swayed by the Civic Party, which was accused by people like Pang of pulling the strings behind the scenes.

The underlying reason they cast their votes in favour of the two motions was because everybody felt compelled to defend the long-standing core values of our city: freedom and the rule of law.

Since the handover, whenever a major political move by Beijing or the Hong Kong government threatened these core values, it always provoked a strong backlash among Hongkongers.

Examples include the massive march on July 1, 2003, sparked by the government’s attempt to legislate provisions on Article 23 of the Basic Law, the public outrage caused by the white paper in June last year from the State Council that tried to overrule the principle of “one country, two systems”, and the Occupy movement, driven by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s resolution on Aug. 31 last year.

Beijing and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s interference with the appointment of key personnel of HKU is just the latest example of the willingness of the people of Hong Kong to go to any lengths to defend the core values that define our city.

As the most prestigious tertiary education institution in Hong Kong, HKU is one of the most valuable legacies of the British colonial period.

For the past 100 years, it has continued to be the cradle of generation after generation of the social elite  who have contributed significantly to the prosperity of Hong Kong and who have been true believers in the universal values of rationality, tolerance, freedom, equality, democracy and procedural justice.

Today these values are still very much treasured by HKU’s students and alumni, who are going to pass on the torch to their successors.

Interestingly, although many prominent figures in Hong Kong are pro-Beijing, they have never been willing to play a leading role in the recent “Cultural Revolution-style” onslaughts mounted by the indigenous communists.

Instead, they prefer someone else, mostly low-life thugs, to do the dirty work.

Many of the elite share the same set of values with the rest of us and are well aware that they would only disgrace themselves in the public eye if they ever spearheaded any of these uncivilized communist-style attacks.

Unless the current generation of Hongkongers all die off and are completely replaced by the “new Hongkongers” who settled in the city after the conclusion of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, freedom and the rule of law will remain the guardians of our city in the foreseeable future.

Any attempt by the communists to undermine or dilute these core values is bound to fail.