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.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 134:
Full coverage of the day’s events on 28-04
Lam warns of `losers' if Legco rejects reform plan
Everybody in Hong Kong will end up a loser if the political reform package is vetoed, the chief secretary said.
Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was speaking to Michael Chugani on TVB's Straight Talk program last night, a week after unveiling the package based on Beijing's August 31 framework.
Lam would not describe it as a political crisis but said there would be "dire consequences" if the package is rejected by the Legislative Council in June.
"The first consequence is, of course, that the great majority of Hong Kong's people who want to have universal suffrage will be very disappointed," Lam said.
This might "translate disappointment into a sense of futility, that this is no longer a city that can get things done, that this society is very divisive and very split."
ADVERTISEMENT
It may mean "more polarization in society and more what we called radicalization in Hong Kong's politics to the extent that governance of the administration will be seriously affected ... and that's why I want to say this very clearly, that if the package is vetoed, no one in Hong Kong will win, everybody will be a loser."
The package needs a two-thirds majority 47 of 70 lawmakers to pass in Legco. All 27 pan-democrats said they will vote it down. The government needs four pan-dems to change sides to pass.
Lam said: "That's the 47 votes that you have mentioned.
"But, of course, as far as our work is concerned, I can tell you that we have never just focused on getting four or five votes.
"Of course, if it is only just 47, then I believe the remainder of the pan- democratic members will continue to make a lot of noise."
She went on: "They will continue to resist, maybe the proceedings of the legislature, or the proceedings of the elections in the coming two years, and we probably will see more opposition and protests."
Lam went to Lai Kok Estate in Sham Shui Po last night as part of the "Make It Happen" promotional campaign on political reform.
Meanwhile, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said yesterday the "uncivilized" action of radicals disrupting the promotional campaign will not stop officials reaching out to the public in different ways.
Leung defended his "smile" when he saw League of Social Democrats lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung being expelled from an event on Monday night.
Low standards all round in reform war
It is depressing to see the government's campaign over political reforms in retreat once radicals showed how offensively oriented their opposition to them is.
Chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and senior officials got a taste of those tactics, when they were forced to hole up in their open-top bus during a local version of a US-style whistle-stop tour on Saturday to campaign for passage of the reforms.
Then, photos of a visit to Shau Kei Wan by home affairs chief Tsang Tak- sing were issued only after it ended, without the media being informed of the trip beforehand.
How can the government hope to get its message on the urgency of those reforms across to the public like this?
But, sadly, this has become an all too common phenomenon in the public opinion war over political reforms.
Predictably, pan-democrats campaigning against the reforms on the streets will face similar sieges by government supporters.
Will such tactics help overcome the current impasse?
Both the government and pan- democrats know that answer.
They know that the war for the hearts and minds of the public will, at most, appeal to their own supporters and set their stances in stone in a way that makes a compromise even harder.
Are they doing all this with a view to the district council election in November and not the 2017 chief executive election reforms, which are actually more crucial?
A purely offensive strategy without any effort at a political compromise can only mean no winners. If both sides are still willing to start meaningful talks in search of a compromise, now is still not too late.
There is no doubt the government's hands in unveiling the package are firmly tied by Beijing's unpopular decision.
But Lam still managed to offer something new.
For example, the bar for admission to the nomination competition process has been lowered to 120 of the 1,200-strong nomination committee.
That theoretically means up to 10 people can vie for election in a compromise aimed at including pan-democrats in at least the first of the two-phase nomination process.
In the second phase, committee members will vote on each candidate separately. This is also more liberal than other alternatives mentioned previously.
Given Beijing's controls, these are perhaps the best that Lam can achieve at this stage. While it's a hard sell for the best-paid saleswoman in town, are Beijing's strictures set in stone?
For many, what's incomprehensible is the low threshold set for election of the chief executive, for a person can be the winner even if he or she does not have more than half of the votes cast.
Pan-democrats have been quick to point out a candidate with slightly over 20 percent of the votes can win should 40 percent of the votes cast be blank. This is an extreme example that is very unlikely.
But there is a moral hazard in the low threshold: the chief executive cannot claim to have the support of the majority of the people of Hong Kong, so the lack of moral authority plaguing the present chief executive is not addressed.
The system is already impermeable under the August 31 decision. Is it really necessary to set such a low bar for electing the chief executive?
How to get the reform proposal passed
THE WEEKEND following the government's announcement of the constitutional reform proposal, politically appointed officials tried to go into the community to drum up public support. However, they were only able to do an open-bus parade of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories, and were unable to discuss with the public the reform proposal. They failed to reach out because they wanted to avoid the chaos threatened by a handful of radicals. Clearly, government officials are trying hard to shun radical groups. This also shows that the constitutional reform movement has come to a point where the pan-democrats, dominated by radical groups, have taken up a position that makes rational discussion impossible. If for this reason the reform proposal cannot be pushed through, it will be very unfortunate for Hong Kong, a highly civilised society as it is said to be.
The current phase of constitutional reform saw the pan-democrats dominated by radical activists from the very beginning, with the moderates totally marginalised, leaving little room for rational discussion between the government and the public. Then came the 79-day Occupy movement, when students and pan-democrats joined the illegal protest in large numbers, which intensified the air of confrontation, so much so that the pan-democratic lawmakers boycotted the reform consultation launched soon afterwards. The invisible chains of radicalism allow them no room for flexibility.
Under such circumstances, the moderate democrats are finding it even more difficult to make themselves heard. At first trying actively to take the initiative and join the reform discussion, they have come to be marginalised and have retreated into silence, leaving the pan-democratic camp falling further into the grip of radicalism.
The government, in the hope of forcing the hand of the pan-democratic lawmakers, is waging a public opinion war by trying to win greater public support for the reform proposal. However, it is widely believed that this strategy will not really work since the attempt to overwhelm the opposition with public opinion means the government is not prepared to make any concession or attempt at reconciliation. If the pan-democrats mount a counter attack, the two sides will come into direct clash, and there will be even less room for manoeuvre.
The day before yesterday, a so-called shopping tour resulted in people trying once again to block a road in Mongkok late at night. While mainstream society does not approve of what these people do, it is not advisable for the government to suppress by force disturbances allegedly directed against constitutional reform. To prevent such disturbances, the best thing to do is try to get the reform proposal passed.
The majority of the public would like to have universal suffrage in 2017, and the reform proposal based on the August 31 decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress clearly receives greater support than opposition in society. The government cannot be said to have tried its best to get the proposal passed since it is not providing the pan-democratic lawmakers, who are not completely of one mind, with any room for a graceful departure from the radical position they have taken up. The government can, for instance, make it clear how the arrangements for election of the chief executive by universal suffrage will be improved in future, and what arrangements will be made for the election of all Legislative Council members by universal suffrage once the current reform proposal is passed. If developments in these two respects are clearly spelt out, it will facilitate the passage of the reform proposal.
政改民意戰不會有贏家 搭下台階撬票才是上策
政府公布政改方案後首個周末，問責官員落區宣傳，爭取更多市民支持。不過，官員只是乘坐開篷巴士在港九新界走一圈，並未出現官民面對面討論政改的場景。官員「落區不落地」，是要避免因為少數激進人物衝擊引起混亂和衝突，事態反映官員對激進人物避之唯恐不及。這也折射出今次政改發展到今時今日，激進人物主導了泛民的論述和取態，堵塞了理性討論空間；若政改因而告吹，對號稱高度文明的香港社會，將是使人感到十分無奈的結局。
今次政改，泛民陣營從較早期開始就由激進極端人物主導，溫和民主派被擠壓得靠邊站，大大壓縮了官民理性討論空間；然後，發展至歷時79日的佔領行動，大批學生與泛民人士參加違法抗爭，進一步激化了對峙氛圍。民主派議員從佔領行動之後都不參與政改諮詢，可見激進極端緊箍咒的無形威力，使他們動彈不得。
溫和民主派在這樣的氛圍下更難有置喙餘地，他們在政改討論中，由積極推動、參與辯論到被邊緣化而至銷聲匿迹，泛民陣營進一步由激進極端力量操控。
政府打民意戰，意圖爭取更多市民支持政改，以收倒逼民主派議員之效。對於這個策略，不少意見都認為效果有限，因為盤算要以民意壓倒對手，前提就是不會讓步和放棄尋求妥協；若民主派打反民意戰，則雙方開打起來，更難有轉圜餘地。
一些所謂「鳩嗚」人等，前晚深夜又在旺角佔據馬路，他們的所作所為不會得到主流社會認同。不過，當局應對以政改之名的搗亂，鎮壓肯定並非上策，尋求通過方案，杜絕這類人的鬧事空間，才是當局應該努力的方向。
大多數市民期望2017年普選特首，按8．31決定框架制定的政改方案，贊成通過的市民也明顯較多。當局未搭建下台階，讓並非鐵板一塊的民主派議員部分成員有可能考慮轉而支持通過政改方案，這是當局未盡全力。例如當局明確陳述特首普選安排的優化空間和方向，又表明落實特首普選之後就可啟動下一步立法會議席全部普選的安排等，若當局在這兩點有說法，對通過政改會是助力。
Christopher Ho: Lies of HKFS - 7 Mins and You'll Know What's Wrong With HKFS
Lies of HKFS
7 Mins and You'll Know What's Wrong With HKFS
The Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) has recently been under a wave of members’ withdrawal, triggered by its various mistakes committed during the Umbrella Revolution. The author came into notice in mid-February (when the Hong Kong University Students’ Union was having its referendum to decide whether to withdraw from HKFS) various financial irregularities of HKFS and one of its major sources of finance – H.K.F.S. Fund Limited, and has uncovered numerous pieces of fact regarding HKFS’s financial situation which has long been concealed. A few of them have been addressed and clarified by HKFS, but more remain unanswered.
7 Mins and You'll Know What's Wrong With HKFS
Translated and written by Christopher Ho Quen-thai
(This article is an abridged English version of the two series of Debunking the Numerous Lies of HKFS published on VJMedia between February and April 2015.)
Introduction
The Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) has recently been under a wave of members’ withdrawal, triggered by its various mistakes committed during the Umbrella Revolution. The author came into notice in mid-February (when the Hong Kong University Students’ Union was having its referendum to decide whether to withdraw from HKFS) various financial irregularities of HKFS and one of its major sources of finance – H.K.F.S. Fund Limited, and has uncovered numerous pieces of fact regarding HKFS’s financial situation which has long been concealed. A few of them have been addressed and clarified by HKFS, but more remain unanswered.
Background information
H.K.F.S. Fund Limited is a company limited by guarantee registered in Hong Kong. It was called “Hong Kong Student Travel Bureau Limited” before 1994. One of its major objectives is to finance HKFS by making to the latter regular donations. The company holds in total three land properties, two of which on trust for HKFS as the beneficiary (including the office of HKFS), and the remaining one an investment property which generates rental income to finance the donations. The investment property is presently valued at around HK$13 million.
All the dishonest statements and practices of HKFS are hereby listed out.
A) All the irregularities concerning H.K.F.S. Fund Limited are, contrary to HKFS’s allegation, not merely “administrative negligence”
1. Between 2004 and 2014 HKFS had, in rampant violation of its constitution, failed to appoint student directors into H.K.F.S. Fund Limited every year.
2. The power of the said appointment lies in HKFS’s Annual General Meeting and Representative Council, and has nothing to do with its administrative body, namely the secretariat.
3. The 50th Representative Council of HKFS allowed H.K.F.S. Fund Limited to reduce the amount of yearly donation to HKFS, which was abetting the company to breach its own articles governing the amount of donation payable every year.
4. The two “reports by student directors of H.K.F.S. Fund Limited” issued in January and February contains a list of member of the company’s board of directors which was inconsistent with the information shown in the Company Registry at that time. The lists in each of the two reports were also inconsistent with each other.
5. A public statement of HKFS issued in February which attempted to explain the irregularities concerning H.K.F.S. Fund Limited contains numerous factual errors, including the relationship between the company and HKFS, and the year in which the name of the company was changed.
B) Every promise of financial reform is empty and misleading
1. The root of the irregularities is HKFS’s rampant violation of its constitution by not appointing student directors into H.K.F.S. Fund Limited every year, instead of any structural or institutional problems which need reforms.
2. The reform promised in the public statement of HKFS issued in February has turned out to be only a two-page yearly report of the “student directors of H.K.F.S. Fund Limited” submitted in March to the HKFS Annual General Meeting, with plenty of errors and unexplained inconsistencies with previous reports, including
a. Error in the date,
b. Error in the names of the directors,
c. Unexplained change of directors not even reported to the Company Registry, and
d. Unexplained change of estimated value of the investment property, from HK$8.7 million in the February report to HK$13.4 million in the yearly report.
3. Ridiculously, the February report, which is inconsistent with the January report, and the yearly report, which is inconsistent with both the January and February reports, have been passed without objection in HKFS Representative Council and Annual General Meeting respectively. The Annual General Meeting consists of the entire membership of the Representative Council; in other words, in only one month the same group of supposed student representatives approved two inconsistent reports in which no explanation on the inconsistencies have ever been given. Notwithstanding any promise to reform, these constituting bodies of HKFS remain total rubber stamp.
C) HKFS has probably concealed the internal conflicts as regards H.K.F.S. Fund Limited
1. The membership of the board of directors as shown from company search is still not totally consistent with that alleged by HKFS, which probably reflects internal conflicts between HKFS and the company on the one hand, and among the directors of the company on the other hand. There may well be a dispute as to the validity of membership of certain people in the board of directors.
2. This inference of internal conflicts is also supported by the fact that H.K.F.S. Fund Limited has (in breach of its articles) stopped making donations to HKFS since 2011.
3. The origin of the problem is, after all, HKFS’s failure across 10 years to appoint student directors into H.K.F.S. Fund Limited to exercise its otherwise granted power of control over the company.
D) HKFS is still trying to conceal the facts concerning H.K.F.S. Fund Limited’s investment property
1. HKFS deliberately avoids mentioning the investment property in all of its public statements and Facebook posts which attempt to answer the concern of its financial irregularities.
2. The investment property was deliberately undervalued for millions of dollar in order to downplay its importance.
3. No tenancy agreements regarding the investment property has been registered with the Land Registry for more than 10 years, rendering most information of the rentals inaccessible by even members of HKFS.
4. Owing to the increase in rental income and the failure of H.K.F.S. Fund Limited to make donations since 2011, the company now has, according to its articles, more than HK$1 million payable to HKFS.
