bc magazine

Audrey Eu: Speaking Notes for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development of the House of Commons of Canada

Audrey Eu: Speaking Notes for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development of the House of Commons of Canada

The continued prosperity and stability of Hong Kong as one of Asia’s international city under the “One Country Two Systems” concept with a genuine respect for the Hong Kong systems and core values, such as freedom of the press, rule of law, clean and efficient government is beneficial to the whole world including Canada. However this is currently under threat with the lack of progress towards genuine constitutional reform and universal suffrage.

For many years, Hong Kong has been waiting for universal suffrage. It was promised for 2007 and 2008, ten years after the handover from Britain to China. This was denied by the decision of the National Peoples’ Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) in 2004. We waited for 2012. This was again denied by the NPCSC decision of 2007 which promised universal suffrage of the CE in 2017.

When the government first began the consultation for the method of CE election in 2017, the paper was headed “let’s talk”. So Hong Kong people talked about the methods we would like. Yet our hopes were dashed by the Decision of the National Peoples’ Congress Standing Committee made on 31 August 2014 (the 8-31 Decision). It came up with a method that no Hong Konger, not even the most conservative, has dared talked about.

Based on the 8-31 Decision, the Hong Kong government has recently announced the proposal which will be put to a vote by our Legislature towards the end of June.

There will be no more than two to three candidates and they must be endorsed by the Nominating Committee (NC). The NC is what we call a “small circle” made up of 1200 people (only 0.01% of HK total population). Its composition is the same as the Selection Committee (SC) which used to elect the CE. From past experience, the great majority of its members are heavily influenced and controlled by Beijing. For example, in 2002, despite the overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the incumbent CE, Mr. Tung, almost 90% of the members of the SC endorsed Mr. Tung as the only candidate and he was declared elected by the SC as the only viable candidate.

Nomination will be a two step process. First you need to be endorsed by 10% of the NC, so theoretically there can be as many as ten candidates. Then there is a second step pre-election by secret ballot where only the top 2 to 3 who get the majority support of the NC can become a candidate for the CE election. This means a prescreening of candidates by Beijing to ensure only those accepted by them can go through. This method of election has been compared to North Korea and Iran.

The 27 democrats in the Hong Kong Legislature have sufficient votes to block this proposal and they have already vowed to do so as it fails to meet international standards for universal suffrage guaranteed by our Basic Law. The Government told the public not to have illusion of any last minute changes. They would not even propose changes which are open under the local law, for example changing the corporate votes to directors votes, adjusting the distribution of seats so some sector like agriculture and fisheries would not have a disproportionate 60 out of 1200 seats in the NC, allowing two rounds of votes to ensure the pre-screened candidate would have majority public support or allowing protest votes to be counted etc.

Not only is the long cherished hopes of democracy dashed, the lack of mandate makes governance extremely difficult, if not possible. The proposal, whether it can be passed or not, will only cause even greater rift in the society and does nothing to alleviate the “deep rooted divide” which is acknowledged to exist in Hong Kong.

Instead of tackling the real problem, the government blames the media, youths, and foreign influence. It believes that the solutions lie in interference with the media, manipulation of university appointments, the introduction of braining washing national education or Mainland exchange experience and high handed arrests and prosecutions.

Many students and ordinary citizens have been arrested, and later prosecuted arising from their participation in the Umbrella Movement or related protests. Not surprisingly, hasty prosecutions led to acquittals and the judges criticized the police for giving testimony proven false by the videos taken by members of the public. However this led some pro-establishment legislators to criticize judges with the remark “Police catch people but judges release people”. The former Deputy Commissioner of ICAC who was one of CY Leung’s campaign team even said that judges should be required to declare their political stance.

In contrast to the many arrests and prosecutions, the Commissioner of Police has refused to disclose the names of 7 police officers involved in the brutal attack of one peaceful protester (for completeness I declare he is a member of my party). His hands were tied behind his back and carried facedown to a dark corner where one officer stood guard and the others took turns to kick and punch him for some 4 minutes whilst he was lying motionless on the ground. Although the event took place more than 6 months ago on 15 October 2014, no prosecution has yet been brought. The 4 minutes attack was captured by a television crew and the footage was aired on their station in the early hours of that morning. When the senior management woke up that morning and saw the clip, instead of commending the scoop, they chastised the news team. It led to removing the person responsible to a different post and other repercussions for the news team. That also tells you something about the state of our press. In their 2014 report, the Hong Kong Journalist Association said “The year under review has been the darkest for press freedom for several decades, with the media coming under relentless assault from several directions. There have been attacks on journalists, sackings and personnel changes affecting critical personalities and the withdrawal of advertising, which places pressure on the editorial integrity of publications.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce described Hong Kong as “the most Canadian City in Asia” as well as “Canada’s gateway to China”. They emphasize their belief in “free enterprise, rule of law, ethical business practices, entrepreneurship, social responsibility and environmental responsibility”. I believe we share common goals. The current impasse on universal suffrage poses a serious threat to Hong Kong as we know it.

We hope Canada will join hands with the International community for stronger engagement with Hong Kong at both government and civil society levels in ensuring that the Sino-British Joint Declaration with respect to “One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong People ruling Hong Kong with a High Degree of Autonomy” is honoured and respected, and that Hong Kong has the constitutional reform that meets with international standards and that will ensure that we continue to be a vibrant city.

Audrey Eu
2nd May 2015

Source: https://www.facebook.com/audrey.euyuetmee/photos/a.480482554434.260991.197345194434/10153218767224435/

Occupy Prince Edward – Buildings Department Eviction Protest

Occupy Prince Edward just started outside Pioneer Centre in protest at the Building Department’s eviction of Tsuen Wan families from a sub-divided industrial unit two days ago.

There’s lots of people showing up in support outside the Pioneer Centre Mall, passing sleeping mats and supplies through the cracks of locked doors to the protestors camped out on the ground floor.

The building management have blocked the lift from stopping at the Buildings Department on the 18/F essentially trapping those protesting the evictions there, and also turned off the a/c to that floor.

For some background on the same issue of sub-divided industrial units ‘converted’ into flats, see this 2012 Varsity article http://varsity.com.cuhk.edu.hk/index.php/2012/05/industrial-buildings-subdivided-units/

https://www.facebook.com/socrec/videos/vb.160696287290644/1132024046824525/

Photos and video courtesy of SocRec and LostDutch

Hong Kong Heroes

A retired couple’s mission to prove 17-year-old student Ho Pak-hei innocent of assaulting a police officer during the Occupy protests…

Helbert Lau believed the happy ending was only part of the story – the case proved the truth in the allegations of abuse of power by police and he called for a review of the issue.

His wife, who is in her fifties, voiced concerns about some of the negative comments made on social media following her testimony. “Does that mean there aren’t enough people who are willing to do the same thing?” Yeung asked.

The couple hoped they will inspire more people to come forward “to tell the truth”.

Police Ramp Up Scare/Intimidation Tactics!

Where are HK Police getting their strategy plans from? Could it be the People's Armed Police and their Tibetan strategy? — Where are HK Police getting their strategy plans from? Could it be the People’s Armed Police and their Tibetan strategy?

The Hong Kong Police really are showing that they come from the Tibet/Xinjiang school of policing now rather than any sensible rational approach. The top brass at HKPF have met and are now sending out what they think is a ‘scary’ message that groups of just three people could be arrested for public disorder offences. Plus, if that doesn’t scare people enough, they’ll bring out the big-bad, anti-terrorist PTU teams again.

YAWN!

This new draconian approach will change nothing in Hong Kong politically other than to highlight more of the contradictions and fractures within society.

The police neither have the ability or the judgement to discern fairly who represents a public order nuisance and who doesn’t. Gangs of violent, Blue Ribbons, will still roam free while the police target people based on the assumption that they oppose the government politically. This will be their only mandate for implementing these new measures or,

Are you a young person, that sympathises with the new wave of political protest in Hong Kong? If yes, proceed to intimidation, arrest and physical violence if required.

Religious festival in Amdo, Tibet. If Andy Tsang and CY get their way, is this what protests in Hong Kong will look like?

This is political persecution at its finest. Young HongKongers are now on the same par as Tibetans or Uighurs within the Great, Chinese Motherland; unable to raise their voice without facing overwhelming intimidation from the security forces.

After all, the police don’t need this new law to stop people from kicking over carts or acting violently. They can arrest people for this type of action whenever they see it. We do have extensive criminal laws and fairly impartial Courts in Hong Kong! But alas, these really don’t function too well when you’re in the business of political persecution.

Instead, just like during Occupy, Andy Tsang is formulating police strategy based on quelling a popular, political message that is in opposition to a malign government. It never works Andy, stop masturbating over all the weapons and gear you think you need and read some real history for once. What kind of path are you walking on when you now choose the same style of policing as Lhasa or Urumqi?

The sad fact is that these types of measures are only ever enacted by the most embattled of illegitimate governments protected by deranged and out of touch police forces in order to scare people off the streets. Or, screw the lid down tighter, allow no form of dissent and let’s carry on as though everything is ok. More popular outrage can only be met with more oppression.

The reality is that Hong Kong has a goon police force that has doubled down on a goon government and the people are not scared any more. The more force the goon government orders, the more powerful Hong Kong people get.

So, bring your draconian laws and your elite PTU, it only makes the people stronger and the government weaker!

As Albert Camus said, “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

Why the Secrecy?

Obfuscation and non-answers cast doubt on honesty and truthfulness. So why the secrecy? If the opinion poll is accurate and CY Leung is happy enough with it to quote the results and use it to justify his policies… Why won’t the government publish details of poll it says shows majority of public back its universal suffrage proposal?

In Legco Frederick Fung wanted to know why and asked the following questions. He received a written non-reply by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Mr Raymond Tam, in the Legislative Council on March 18:

Question:
It has been reported that on February 28 this year, the Chief Executive (CE) told reporters that the results of a public opinion survey recently commissioned by the Government showed that more than half of Hong Kong people were agreeable to the selection of CE by universal suffrage in 2017 to be implemented in accordance with the Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on August 31 last year on issues such as the selection of CE of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by universal suffrage. Yet, he did not provide any details of the public opinion survey. Some members of the public have complained to me that the Government has recently disseminated results of public opinion surveys to the media in a selective or incomprehensive manner from time to time, making it difficult for them to judge the credibility of such survey results. They also query that the employment of such a practice by the Government was an attempt to manipulate public opinion. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details of the aforesaid public opinion survey regarding (i) the organisation commissioned to conduct the survey, (ii) the content of the questionnaire, (iii) the method and form of the survey, (iv) the number of respondents and the response rate, (v) the distribution of age, gender and political attitude of the respondents, (vi) the raw data, and (vii) the analytical results of the survey data;

(2) whether it has assessed the consequences of CE selectively disseminating a particular result of the aforesaid public opinion survey, including whether it has resulted in the credibility of the survey results being questioned and the Government being accused of manipulating public opinion; if it has not assessed, of the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will consider disclosing concomitantly the relevant details when it disseminates the results of Government-commissioned public opinion surveys in future; if it will not, of the reasons for that?

Reply:
President,
In consultation with the Chief Executive’s Office and the Central Policy Unit (CPU), our reply to the questions raised by Hon Fung is as follows.

The opinion poll which the Chief Executive referred to on February 28 was conducted by a professional agency commissioned by the CPU. The CPU commissions professional research agencies to conduct opinion polls on major social, economic and political issues from time to time. Such polls are for Government’s internal reference only, and relevant details are generally not made public.

link to the official Lego release http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201503/18/P201503170712.htm

Professional Groups Publish Advert Protesting the Government’s “Abuse” of TV API’s to Push it’s Political Agenda

These five professional groups Frontline Tech Workers前線科技人員議政小組, Médecin Inspirés 杏林覺醒, Progressive Lawyers Group 法政匯思, Progressive Teachers’ Alliance 進步教師同盟, Reclaiming Social Work Movement 社工復興運動 took out and advert to protest about the government’s abuse of the television “Announcements in the Public Interest” (API’s) program to promote the governments position on political reform.

The text of the advert reads:

Joint Statement on the Government’s Misuse of Announcements of Public Interest

1. The broadcasting of political advertisements is unlawful in Hong Kong. A broadcaster was penalised for carrying advertisements advocating universal suffrage as part of the 2010 electoral reform process.

2. The Government requires radio and television broadcasters to broadcast “Announcements in the Public Interest” (“APIs”) for free. Typical APIs include messages such as those involving public health, road safety or weather information like a typhoon or rainstorm.

3. In recent months, the Government has required radio and television broadcasters to air the following advertisements without payment as if they were APIs:
(a) “有票，真係唔要” (Your Vote, Don’t Cast it Away!) from 7 August 2014;
(b) “有票，梗係要” (Your Vote, Gotta Have It!) from 2 September 2014; and
(c) “2017 機不可失” (2017, Seize the Opportunity) from 10 January 2015.

4. These advertisements are different from APIs. They carry a strong bias to advance the Government’s political position on electoral reform, to the exclusion to any other position. They are neither factual nor educational. These advertisements are no different from the unlawful political advertisements referred to above.

5. As such, these advertisements are not APIs. They are unlawful political advertisements which cannot be broadcast on radio or television. The Government’s unlawful abuse of its exclusive powers to broadcast APIs has also unjustly distorted the public debate on electoral reform.

6. We therefore condemn the Government’s broadcast of political advertisements under the guise of APIs. It must cease doing so immediately. To continue do so is not only unlawful, but also hypocritical in light of the Government’s recent repeated insistence upon “acting in accordance with the law”.

Frontline Tech Workers前線科技人員議政小組
Médecin Inspirés 杏林覺醒
Progressive Lawyers Group 法政匯思
Progressive Teachers’ Alliance 進步教師同盟
Reclaiming Social Work Movement 社工復興運動

Three More Corrupt Hong Kong police!!

Hong Kong’s Finest – Not!!! – These three Hong Kong policemen framed innocent people
The 3 cops tried to frame ‘the protesters’ in Mongkok. Said they were assaulted by the protesters but in fact they just picked on innocent people. The defending lawyer pointed out that the evidences given are controversial. One of the cops even admitted he has given false statements 14 times before and had been disciplined for falsifying reports.

The days of being hailed as Asia’s finest as sadly long gone.

And it is sad!

We Will Be Back – When?

Definitions:
Peaceful – not involving violence or force
Radical – favouring drastic political, economic, or social reforms
Fanatical – filled with excessive and single-minded zeal.

The big question is, have Hong Kong’s protests become more radical? The simple answer, by looking at a photograph of September 28th is categorically NO.

We can see there is a significant proportion of people who are engaging in what some would describe as radical actions, or, putting pressure on the police to remove the political line they are holding and let the masses assemble outside their government to protest.

Behind them we can see a throng of so called peaceful protesters, or those, that wouldn’t dream of confronting the police, but wish to register their political discontent in a way that is absent of violence or force.

Here, the police line is described as fanatical, or overly excessive and single minded. This is an inarguable description of them. It was overly excessive of them to fire 87 rounds of tear gas and walk upon the streets of Hong Kong with automatic weapons. Their single mindedness to pursue a plan of intimidation without giving much thought to other possible outcomes, shows without doubt their fanaticism.

To this day, nothing much has really changed in the make-up of the groups. some radical protesters have behaved badly, mainly due to lack of leadership. Some police have behaved badly, mainly due to lack of leadership.

The only significant thing that has changed is that the peaceful protesters packed up and went home after the 79day Occupy and have not come back out again on a regular basis.

Why is this?
Maybe it’s for fear of being accused of being a radical or being scared of being abused by the fanaticals. Who can say?

But when the Occupy ended, everyone revelled in the new motto, “We’ll be back.”
Well, when is that?

If you truly want to create change you need to do it regularly, every week. Not every third Tuesday in a month when the moon is blue.

There isn’t going to be another Occupy, the fanaticals are now too violent to let you settle in anyone place ever again. But this doesn’t mean that every weekend you can’t peacefully show your discontent in huge numbers. Being too scared to protest for fear of being accused of being radical didn’t bother anyone on 28th September, so why should it now?

If the police are to be believed, they fired the first canisters of tear gas because of the radical actions on the frontline, the Umbrella Movement, is born from radical action and made powerful by peaceful protests.

The radicals are still out there!
The fanatics are still out there!
Where are peaceful protesters?