Protest in Hong Kong

Local news report + clip

Response from the head of the Mong Kok police department:

I dont speak Chinese, so if someone could explain the gist of what is being said, I would greatly appreciate it, thanks.

Pretty much he said that he saw the car driving into people on TV and came to see if there's anyone is hurt. Another reporter asked if anyone reported this to the police and he replied no. Then another reporter asked why there isn't any police around his reply was pretty much a personal opinion on how he wishes to talk to the people but now the police had become extremely unwelcomed and they have other reports to deal with and so forth.

He sounds like the morale in the police isn't exactly the highest point at the moment.

edited 29th Sep '14 9:19:27 PM by IraTheSquire

I can only imagine...

The HKPD is probably terrified at what exactly to do at this point - they obviously have "maintain order and stability" in mind, but exactly how? Apply too much force and pressure and the protests will crack and run amok, act too passive and they'll only grow in size.

Most businessmen in Hong Kong are speaking out more against the protests for fears of hurting economic growth. Read a news article about Beijing's meeting with them.

Also got new travel alerts from America, Philippines and Singapore so far.

Foreign Ministry warned against interference from the usual suspects.

Another video from the 28/9 night:

Translation: "We have our duty. We are also Hong Kongers. We also have our family. But as police officers we have to obey our superior's orders and also perform other basic demands as police officers. I repeat we are here to execute (closest translation) the law, and not the ones who legislate the law. We have our questions too, but to execute the law from the superiors is the most basic thing for police officers. I hope we can understand each other and respect each other. Thank you for being peaceful protesters."

The rest is cheering and praises for the police officer to "have humanity".

I think it's a bit late for that. Even if the protest dies down Hong Kong will now have a reputation for this kind of thing to happen.

edited 29th Sep '14 9:22:19 PM by IraTheSquire

Does China really control so much information that they're able to keep citizens from hearing about these protests?

They do. Last time I was there, I can't gain access to FB and Google. Old man didn't know that Google was censored until someone had to explain it to him.

MSS is most likely the one running the censoring show so that no one will have the gall to do the same.

A brilliant article telling the whole story. Though Occupy Central was not involved in the weekend's protests. It was Secularism and the Student Association. The police tried to clear the scene (tear gas against high school students!) which sparked further protests. IT was then Occupy Central decided to start early because they saw what it sparked.

Global Times ran an article that the People's Armed Police may be allowed to intervene. For obvious reasons, the papers removed that article.

When did the BBC start using Cracked headlines?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Quite a while. Especially for their more in-depth articles on their website.

Keep Rolling On

Since I've shared this and took a day to translate, here is an article explaining the whole thing from a local university lecturer.

Translation:

Question 1: What the heck happened in Hong Kong?

Hong Kongers (Translator’s note/TN: or Hong Kongese) are fighting for an equal and universal suffrage proposal. The Basic Law (TN: Hong Kong’s “Constitution”) says that ultimately the Chief Executive (TN: the head of the Execution branch of the government. Think like the President of a city) will be elected from universal elections. The People’s Congress of China also decided that Hong Kong can have their own elections. The Hong Kongers’ hopes for an election is based on those promises. At the moment the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is elected from the Election Committee which consists of 1200 people. Candidates need 601 votes from those 1200 in order to get elected. The whole process at the moment does not necessarily have any relation with the wishes of the Hong Kongers.

Many think those 1200 people do not represent all of the people in Hong Kong. Thus they wish for changes to the process. Yet the People’s Congress decided on 31st August 2014 that even if Hong Kong can have one man, one vote type elections for her Chief Executive, the candidates have to first get the approval of the Nomination Committee that consists of the same 1200 people. In other words, while the wishes for universal suffrage is because of the belief that those 1200 people are not representative, the current “reform” not only did not put those 1200 people out of the equation, but give them even more privileges and power. Therefore the Hong Kongers feel cheated.

Question 2: I don’t get it. What’s up with those 1200 people?

The formal name for those 1200 people is the Election Committee, and the People’s Congress wants to turn them into the Nomination Committee to nominate candidates for any future Chief Executive elections. The core of the dispute right now is the representative-ness of those 1200 people. First, at the moment Hong Kong has over 3.5 million voters registered for the Legislative Council (TN: the legislative branch of the Hong Kong government, ie Hong Kong’s own “Senate”. Except that they can propose bills in the same way as the executive branch can) elections and the District Council (TN: Hong Kong’s “local council”) elections, but the voters that directly participate in electing those 1200 people is less than 240 thousand. In other words, there are 3 million voters that these 1200 do not represent.

On top of that, looking at the composition of those 1200 people we’d find that their representative-ness is extremely uneven. For example, 30 of those people represent the education sector, and elected by school teachers, and there are 81831 teachers registered as voters for that. At the same time, within those 1200 people 60 represent the agriculture and fishery sector. Thing is, Hong Kong is a modern city, the agriculture and fishery sector is extremely small: there are only little more than 4000 jobs related to the agriculture and fishery sector. Yet they have double the number of representatives within the 1200 people. Even more problematic is that most of those 4000 fishermen and farmers are not qualified to be voters for those 60 people. Only 158 people can be permitted by the (TN: presumably Hong Kong) government to be voters. How every sector is distributed and who are allowed to vote for them is basically completely controlled by the lastly elected government. Just from this point alone you can say that it is impossible for the distribution of those 1200 people to be fair.

Most of the sectors within the Election Committee is industry based, eg the Hospitality sector, the Tourism sector and the Publishing sector etc. However, that does not mean that everyone working in those industry can take part in their election. In fact, only the bosses and owners in those industries can take part. This arrangement has two problems. First is that people who want to plant votes can open up many empty-shell companies and increase influence within the Election Committee. Secondly, the Election Committee is obviously cantered towards business interests, and to become a Chief Executive you have to pander to businesses and not the everyday citizen.

Question 3: Hong Kong is a capitalist society. Shouldn’t the election process be pro- businesses anyway?

An election process slanted towards business interests is not good for capitalism. Capitalism often widens the gap between the rich and the poor, which results in social instability and needs interference from the government to sustain. The gap between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong has worsened within the last 10 odd years and created many causes for instability. A heavily pro-business political system results in many short-sighted policies and creates instability. In the end the environment will not be good for business at all. Another requirement for capitalism is a fair market, and democracy is an important condition to sweep away corruption. This so-called pro-business can easily be pro-“certain interest parties” and results in an unfair market.

Actually, looking around the world, although in every capitalist country the economic and political systems are not perfect, a fair political system is a must. Hong Kong is now listed as the top in the crony-capitalism index (TN: according to the Economist- http://www.economist.com/news/international/21599041-countries-where-politically-connected-businessmen-are-most-likely-prosper-planet). This kind of system will benefit only a small number of time for a short time and hurts everyone else.

Question 4: Don’t talk about other countries. Not matter how the Hong Kong election processes change, we have to take into the account of the Chinese circumstances, the Hong Kong’s real situation and cannot just borrow systems from other countries!

The Chinese government have promised to develop Hong Kong’s politics according to international standards. The Basic Law states that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is applicable in Hong Kong. Article 25 Covenant states that when people take part in public affairs without “unreasonable restrictions”. What is this “unreasonable restriction”? UN Human Rights Commission has explained further: people’s right to participate should not be stripped based on unreasonable or discriminatory reasons, for example political affiliations of the participants. Also personal political views cannot be the excuse to stop anyone from becoming a candidate.

About the real situation, right now without universal suffrage it will be difficult for the Hong Kong government to run. Our wishes for universal suffrage is because of the political and social problems in Hong Kong at the moment (details see Question 6). In reality, no one wants to impose any foreign political systems to Hong Kong, eg the American system or the British system. What we want is that every citizen can have real choices in their elections. So long as that is achieved the details can be discussed.

About the Chinese circumstances: An opinion piece in 2nd February 1944 the Xin Hua Daily clearly said, “In a real election system, not only the right to vote has to be universal and equal, but also the right to get voted also has to be universal and equal. Not only the people have the equal right to vote, but also the equal right to be voted.” I believe that on the ability to withstand political reform, right now China is developing quickly in all aspects, the circumstances should not be worse than before opening up.

Question 5: You have to get democracy step by step. Even though the nomination process has problems, at the end of the day you change from 1200 voters to 3.5 million voters. Isn’t that a step forward?

If we reform according to the current proposal, it is a step back away from democracy rather than a step forwards. Hong Kong so far has 5 Chief Executive elections (4 terms plus 1 succession). Every one of them is though the support of over half the Election Committee. But to be a candidate all you need is the support of an eighth of the committee. In the last two elections we have candidates with different political views. They debated on television as formal candidates.

Because the Election Committee is controlled by many interest parties (see Question 2), if you raise the requirements to become a candidate from support of one eighth of the committee to a half (Eg: each committee member can choose two or three formal candidates from a group of participants) then the selected candidates can no longer provide any real choices. The “election” that those 3.5 million voters take part is no longer a real election. They will become a rubber-stamp for the previously decided candidates. Therefore, many Hong Kongers have said, “We’d rather the status quo than to make a false step.”

Question 6: You people keep making a fuss/arguing/debating/fighting. How the heck can there be profress for Hong Kong?

Yup, endless political fighting is very tiring! So how can we resolve it? There are different interest groups within society, and so conflicts are quite normal. What we need to do is not to condemn those who make their different views, but to design a system that we can all agree on where we can make a final decision. This is why universal suffrage is necessary. With real elections, those in power can say that they represent the people and push forward their policies. Those who disagree can return in the next election. Both sides don’t need to fight endlessly. Today’s political mess in Hong Kong is because there ISN’T a real universal suffrage. If this lack of real elections keeps going there fighting will get worse. Now the fight for universal suffrage is not for the sake of carrying on fighting but to STOP the endless fighting.

Being entirely destructive is obviously bad, and the purpose of getting real universal suffrage is to solve this problem. With the current abnormal election and legislative systems in Hong Kong, the Establishment Faction (TN: personal translation. Pretty much the pro-Beijing faction) is always in power, and the Pro-democratic Faction is always in opposition. This is the cause for the lack of political talent. No matter how bad the policies of the Establishment Faction gets, eg the listing of the Metro Railway or the Government Stocks, they don’t get punished. Whereas, not matter what the Pro-democratic Faction proposes their policies never gets the chance to be executed. Therefore, the Establishment Faction doesn’t need new blood, and the Pro-democratic Faction cannot lure any new blood. At the end both sides get worse, and the government gets worse in doing their job. Therefore, if you want to stop this “oppose everything” approach in the current politics, the only solution is having real elections.

Question 7: But Hong Kong is part of China! How can we do things our way?

The Chinese government has promised Hong Kongers that they can do things their way. Using the Legislative elections as an example, the Basic Law states that if there needs to be any changes to electing the Legislative Council, the council can simply report the changes to the People’s Congress, and there’s no need for approval. Back in 1993 the Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council of the PRC Lu Ping said, “In the future the means for Hong Kong to develop democracy is always within Hong Kong’s internal affairs. The Central government will not interfere.” The way that the Legislative Council is formed “don’t need the permission of the Central government”.

Back to the Chief Executive elections, many political parties and scholars in Hong Kong have proposed many reforms, many of them fitted the requirements set by the Basic Law and did not challenge the power of the Central government on Hong Kong. For example, if the Nomination Committee is changed to the Legislative Council with participants becoming formal candidates with support of a number of members, this actually fits the requirements. And the Legislative Council is far more representative than the proposed Nomination Committee. These moderate ideas have been vetoed by the People’s Congress’ decision, which caused the current outrage.

Question 8: But what about nation security? Many foreign powers want to use Hong Kong to cause trouble for China! How can we not have conditions to become candidates? (TN: Yes, there are people like that!)

Real universal suffrage is in no conflict with the nation security. Most Hong Kongers don’t mind the Central committee having the final say on who gets to be the Chief Executive. The Basic Law states that the Chief Executive have to get the appointment of the Central government after being elected, which means that the Central government have the right to not appoint. And there’s not much argument there.

If there’s any foreign spies who want to become candidates, the Central government can easily reveal the relevant proof from their intelligence and then state that they refuse to appoint. With proof and process things gets easy. On the other hand, right now a big majority of members in the Nomination Committee are not experts in international relations. They have no expertise in preventing any foreign spies. Unless the Nomination Committee is made up of such experts, or they all take a test in international relations, this point is just an excuse.

Question 9: But what about a Chief Executive that opposes the Central government?

Then we have to trust the system. The US president is elected by the people. The New York mayor is also elected by the people. Both are not necessarily from the same political party. The New York mayor sometimes will yell at the US President. Yet we don’t see that affecting the development of New York. Once, the UK Conservatives control the parliament, and the Labor Party controls the London Council (TN: I hope I haven’t mistranslated those… :P). The councillors put up banners criticizing the P Ms on the other side of the river literally everyday. All these are characteristic of a mature political system. Even in modern Chinese society, the President of Taiwan does not always agree with the mayor of Taipei, but that doesn’t stop them from running Taiwan as normal. If we trust the Hong Kong citizens and the Central government, this is not a problem.

Question 10: Hong Kong is already very free. Why are Hong Kongers still not satisfied and asking for so much?

Freedom, democracy and the rule of law all support each other. A government that is not elected by the people have no pressure to maintain the freedom of the people. Even with a fair court, if the law is not created by a democratic process, the court will still have to judge cases accordingly. In the past 10 odd years, Hong Kongers found that their freedom and rule of law keeps getting eroded. And the reason is exactly because there is no democracy. The Joint Declaration guarantees that the lifestyle of Hong Kong can be maintained for fifty years. Without the support of democracy who is going to keep that guarantee?

Question 11: It’s one thing to want democracy. Surely there’s no need for violence?

None of the groups fighting for democracy want any violence. The protesters are expressing their desires via public assembly. The only thing that they did is to be present in public space, unarmed and without any dangerous weapons. The only ones that have been using violence right now are the police who are trying to forcefully drive them away. Those who call for protest have emphasised multiple times, when the police clears the scene they will not resist in any form. In fact whenever there’s conflict between the police and protesters, the protesters’ response has always been to hold their hands up, to show that they are unarmed.

Besides, before the protests Hong Kongers have tried many ways to peacefully express their views. For example, when the Hong Kong government made an enquiry for political reform Hong Kongers gave 124,700 suggestions, and many of them become twisted by the Hong Kong government and not presented as is to the Central government. Today the protesters have shown their opinions in a more direct fashion is because other ways haven’t got a response.

Question 12: Didn’t the students attack the government headquarters?

Students did not attack the government headquarters. Students climbed over the fence to enter the square OUTSIDE the government headquarters for a sit-in. This square has always been regarded as a public space and official have promised that it is for public use. In the past Hong Kongers have used this square for demonstrations and public assembly. The fence is a very recent addition. Any later conflict with police is because the police is trying to stop people from gathering outside the government headquarters, and not because people are trying to get in the government headquarters.

Question 13: All this is just politicians trying to get votes??? They’re corrupting the students!

This protest is entirely started and directed by the students. The politicians have always been criticised for not following the situation. The reality is the complete opposite to “politicians directing the students”.

Taking a step back, sometimes when some people protests they look very aggressive, but the reason for that can be very logical. In today’s Hong Kong, even when you got a lot of votes, you are still getting very small number of seats, and there’s no chance of taking power. This kind of unfair legislative politics is due to the unfair political system. At the same time, let’s not forget that in the past few years we are getting scandals from the Chief Executive and his officials. There’s constant accusations big businesses and the government scratching each other’s backs, but even trying to start investigations has proven difficult. We always say that “more power, more responsibility” but the Hong Kong politics is the complete opposite. This is what we think corrupts the youth more.

Question 14: I think that this protest must be directed by foreigners!

If you worry about foreign influence in Hong Kong elections, you’d better check how many of those 1200 people in the Election Committee have foreign passports. Unless they are driven out of the Election Committee let’s not talk about foreign influence.

Question 15: This protest is just because Hong Kongers hate the mainland and look down on mainlanders!

This puts the cart before the horse. It should be because there’s no real universal suffrage, there is no way for the Hong Kongers to show their discontent, which accelerated their resistance to mainland China. The Hong Kong identity always has many facets. Sometimes Hong Kongers will deliberately distance themselves from the mainland Chinese, and yet sometimes they will express their love for their country China. The reason why is that there are many people who feared the Communist Party who fled to Hong Kong in 1949, and their choice have allowed them to avoid many of the political upheavals. Therefore there is an emotional bond with China and yet at the same time look at her with suspicion.

For example, back in the 90s, on one hand there are tens of thousands of Hong Kongers migrating overseas, yet in 1991 within 10 days they donated 470 million HKD to help with the Chinese floods. All these are part of the Hong Kong identity. Which one gets shown is determined by the environment at that time. We can even boldly say that, if Hong Kong has real elections, the conflict between Hong Kong and mainland China will improve.

Question 16: Back in the British colony days the governor was not elected either. Why haven’t anyone fight for governor elections?

This is a common question, but extremely wrong. First of all, there HAVE been pro-democratic movements against the British government during those days. Without going any further, the movement for a direct election for the Legislative Council in 1988 is the best counter-proof. Secondly, the British Hong Kong government have always intend for more democracy in Hong Kong, but cannot push for it due to Chinese opposition.

As early as 1956, Zhou Enlai (TN: the first premier of the PRC) has told the British HK government that he doesn’t allow any reforms that would let Hong Kongers to govern themselves. At that time the British government feared that the PRC will take Hong Kong back early, and so did not push for any reforms. Fast forward to the 90s, when the governor Chris Pattern suggested accelerating the progress for Hong Kong democracy he was labelled as “the sinner of a thousand years” by the Chinese. Therefore, if you think that the British government did not give enough democracy to Hong Kong, please complain to the Chinese government.

Another thing: Hong Kong was once a British colony. Using the British methods to justify the Chinese methods in Hong Kong doesn’t make any sense. Also, on a nationalistic level doesn’t that mean the PRC approves of the foreign methods?

Question 17: It’s already been decided by the People’s Congress. Why the hell are you still fighting?

The suggestions made by the People’s Congress still need to pass through the Legislative Council with two-thirds support, approved by the Chief Executive, and then recognized by the People’s Congress. Therefore it is not final and Hong Kongers can still oppose.

Thank you for the translation. It's very helpful.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5898856?1411985358&utm_hp_ref=uk

Some good pics of what's happening right now. Beijing's increasing security by making sure Instagram is not accessed in the mainland.

edited 30th Sep '14 5:04:34 AM by Ominae

Well, the version that I got is that they're trying to stop mainlanders from knowing exactly going on.

Double post: Live coverage from the HK local English newspaper, South China Morning Post.

Over 100,000 people in Hong Kong downloaded FireChat, a messaging app that works even when internet or mobile coverage has been shut down... by bluetooth-spreading across nearby phones

China warns foreign diplomats in Hong Kong to ‘stay away’ from Occupy Central.

Things that could only happen at a Hong Kong protest. "A revolution is no excuse for slacking on homework."

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Some stuff I read from Russian media suggest that the protests are led by Western interests.

Wall Street Journal and Telegraph are carrying the reports.

Never trust anything said by Russia about the west. Also Link or it didn't happen.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

That goes both ways.