An Outline of the Hong Kong Autonomy Movement

The autonomous city-state status of Hong Kong comes from Hong Kong’s history of British rule for more than 150 years, which enabled Hong Kong to isolate itself from the Chinese Mainland, to avoid revolutions and turmoil there, so that Hong Kong has preserved traditional Chines culture and British civilization and law.
After the sovereignty of Hong Kong was transferred to Communist China in 1997, “one country, two systems” has been implemented in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law. The spirit of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy is a continuation or heritage of the city-state characteristic of Hong Kong during British rule, rather than something out of the blue.
In the face of the enormous population and capital, if Hong Kong cannot adopt effective self-protective measures, its city-state setup will definitely be destroyed, which will also indirectly lead to China losing a valuable referential system and a cultural resource.
Maintenance and development of the city-state setup of Hong Kong will ensure that its public policies have local awareness.
Hong Kong has to start the City-State Autonomy Movement. The Hong Kong Autonomy Movement (abbrev. HKAM) is a local awareness promotion movement based on the constitutional order laid down by the Hong Kong Basic Law. It urges the Hong Kong Government to give priority to Hong Kong people and local interests when stipulating public policies and special administrative measures (such as imposing restrictions on Mainland pregnant women coming to Hong Kong for giving birth). When the Hong Kong Government negotiates with the Central Government or other regional governments, it is also supposed to protect the local interests of Hong Kong and to answer to Hong Kong people.
The 150 years’ foundation of Hong Kong as laid down under British rule was the preparation for “one country, two systems” and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. So the Dragon-Lion emblem of Hong Kong is adopted as the symbol and sign of The Hong Kong Autonomy Movement because it stresses the historical continuity and cultural subjectivity of Hong Kong as a city-state.
The vision of the city-state autonomy is as follows. During the 50 years of implementation of the Basic Law, any constitutional arrangement of Hong Kong beyond “one country, two systems” has to be authorized by the People’s Republic of China. When the Basic Law has been implemented for 50 years, the constitutional status of Hong Kong will also have to inherit something like the city-state status quo of Hong Kong, so that there will be reasonable expectations when the “one country, two systems” is being implemented.
In case of transformation of the Communist Party of China or disintegration of the People’s Republic of China, supporters of The Autonomy Movement will urge the Hong Kong Government to negotiate with the new China regime on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, so that Hong Kong’s local interests will be protected and it will not be devoured by the new Chinese Government.
The Hong Kong Autonomy Movement is a civic movement promoting one country, two systems and a high degree of autonomy rather than an independence movement advocating secession.
The public policies advocated by HKAM are as follows:
堅持《基本法》的「港人治港,高度自治」的治港宗旨,並以此向北京中央政府明確區隔彼此的政治權力,在政府之間互不干涉內政,井水河水互不侵犯。在涉及內地的事務上,港府必須充分諮詢香港民意及議會,保護本土利益。To persist in the principle of “one country, two systems” as laid down in the Basic Law, and based on this, to make it clear to the Central Government in Beijing the demarcation between the political powers of the two governments so that the two governments will not interfere with the internal affairs of each other, that well water and river water will not intrude into each other. Regarding affairs that involve the Mainland, the Hong Kong Government must fully consult Hong Kong public opinion and protect local interests.
爭取行政長官與立法會雙普選,使港府有充分的民意基礎。To struggle for universal suffrage for election of the Chief Executive as well of the Legco members so that the Hong Kong Government will have adequate public support.
要求港府制定公共政策時,具備本土意識,以港人利益為重。例如在中港兩地的地域規劃、跨境基建安排時,考慮本土利益及城邦地理格局。To demand the Hong Kong Government to have local awareness and give priority to the interest of Hong Kong people when formulating public policies, for example, to consider local interests and the geographical setup of Hong Kong as a city-state in territorial planning and cross-border infrastructure building involving Hong Kong and China.
制定移民政策,收回內地移民的審批權,並採取措施限制大陸孕婦來港產子籍此取得居留身份。在接納新移民的時候,給予自願的文化上的入籍歸化程序及宣誓儀式。To draw up the immigration policies of taking back the power of examining and approving immigration applications from the Mainland and of taking measures to restrict Mainland pregnant women’s coming to Hong Kong for giving birth. To administer voluntary cultural naturalization procedures and oath taking for new immigrants.
制定符合香港城邦格局的文化政策及教育政策。例如在中小學校推廣普通話課程的時候,保護以粵語教中文的一貫做法,並發展一套適合香港的公民教育及國民教育。To lay down cultural and education policies that fit in with the city-state setup of Hong Kong, for example, protecting the traditional practice of teaching Chinese in Cantonese when promoting the Putonghua course in primary and secondary schools, and developing a set of civic education and national education curricula suitable for Hong Kong.
制定長遠的房屋策略,保障香港人的居住權,並將本土人的地產與外來投資者的地產區隔開來,使本港居民安居樂業。To lay down long-term housing strategies in order to protect the housing right of Hong Kong people and to separate the real estate for Hong Kong people from the real estate district for external investors so that Hong Kong residents can live and work in peace. 考慮實行保障民生及公平交易的土地法例,如向土地囤積及物業空置者徵稅、保障原租者的續租優惠等。To consider implementing land regulations that protect the citizens’ livelihood and ensure fair dealings, such as collecting land hoarding and vacant property taxes.
重整香港城邦的整體性和主體性,促進香港食水自主、農產自保及食物安全,重振本港工業,保護本土企業(如中小企),並支持發展新產業。(註:所謂農產自保,是保存若干本土農業為農學知識基礎,並擴大香港的農產輸入來源的多元性)To reorganize the integrity and subjectivity of the city-state of Hong Kong; to promote drinking water self-sufficiency, agricultural preservation and food safety of Hong Kong; to resuscitate local industries, to protect local enterprises, especially small and medium sized ones, and to support the development of new industries.

Hong Kong City-State Autonomy Movement(Facebook:HKAM Group)
26 June 2011


Facebook Group:

我國最膾炙人口的平反故事,無疑是岳飛風波獄。風波獄成於宋高宗紹興十一年,到紹興三十二年高宗讓位給孝宗之後,才告平反。這平反詔令由皇帝頒布,於是「(高宗)有旨:岳飛特賜死」的事實,在朝廷的平反文牘裏,變成「秦檜誣岳飛,舉世莫敢言」,以致高宗「為權臣所誤」等等。而平反的目的,當然是要天下繼續效忠趙宋,「危身奉上,確然不移」(《建炎以來朝野雜記乙集》卷十二、《鄂國金佗 編》卷九)。
2011年02月19日 蘋果日報


20 February 2011






北京 王府井麥當勞門前
上海 人民廣場和平影都門前
天津 鼓樓下
南京 鼓樓廣場秀水街百貨門口
西安 北大街家樂福門口
成都 天府廣場毛主席像下
長沙 五一廣場新大新大廈門口
杭州 武林廣場杭州百貨大樓門口
廣州 人民公園星巴克門口
瀋陽 南京北街肯德基門口
長春 文化廣場西民主大街快樂購超市門口
哈爾濱 哈爾濱電影院門口
武漢 解放大道世貿廣場麥當勞門口

Wan Chin (陳雲):


反對壟斷 對抗複製

有錢佬以地產霸權複製成功經驗,以生殖科技複製自己,窮人卻只能棲身蝸居絕窟,用闔家燒炭和連環跳樓的自殺技術,複製失敗經驗。官商勾結、地產霸權之下,這就是香港富人與窮人的命運。這不是「五十後」、「八十後」面對的世代抗爭問題,也不是仇富的心理問題,而是香港全民面對的階級剝削經濟及貧富隔離(poor-rich apartheid)的政治問題。

天水圍的悲情,由地產商和政府聯手造成。天水圍人口二十七萬,失業率高達百分之九,高踞全香港。居民可以到區外找工作,卻要忍受高昂的交通費和漫長的交通時間,犧牲家庭積蓄和閒暇時間。天水圍的地價和工資相對廉宜,交通網絡也算發達,鄰近元朗和邊境地區的消費力也高,很多團體和名人向政府獻計,在天水圍發展商業和服務業,例如邊境商貿中心、物流和迷你儲物貨倉、飲食市集(大牌檔中心)(2)、散貨場中心(factory outlet)、護理服務中心等等,然而一一被政府推搪過去,無功而還。2010年12月6日英文《南華早報》的挖掘式報道,終於揭開悲情城市的謎底;1982年,政府開發天水圍新市鎮之際,與Mightycity地產發展公司(3)簽訂密議(正式名稱叫「私人備忘錄」private memorandum),限制政府不得在該區另行發展商業,以免妨礙私人屋苑的商業收益。

商督官辦 暗無天日
該私人備忘錄透露的,只是當年香港政府與發展商的「私人」交易的一部分。1982年,政府以高於市場價格向發展商買回面積接近五百公頃的魚塘和農地,然後再與發展商共同開發。事緣1977年,當年的土地供應特別委員會(或稱土地闢增特別委員會Special Committee on Land Production)建議研究開發天水圍新市鎮。春江水暖鴨先知,財團Mightycity窺準發展機會,1979年起開始在天水圍收購農地及漁塘,面積多達四百八十八公頃。Mightycity當時的股權分布為:華潤持有51%,長江實業擁有12.5%,會德豐、Trafalgar Housing及其他共佔36.5%。Mightycity囤積大量土地之後,接觸政府,提議興建一個可容納超過五十萬人口的新市鎮。財團原來的計劃是,撥出部分土地予政府興建公共房屋,以換取政府興建整個新市鎮的基建及公共設施。1982年,政府否決地產商的建議,但同年,財團卻得到政府不尋常的、更為優惠的安排:地政工務司陳乃強在1982年7月29日公布,政府會以二十二億五千八百萬港元向Mightycity回購所有天水圍農地和魚塘,再以八億元的代價向發展商批出當中四十公頃的土地。政府以每平方呎四十六元向財團回購農地,呎價比1980年一次由法庭處理的土地拍賣的估值多出三倍,該年的拍賣價只是每平方呎十一元半。

政府倒貼 市民遭殃
根據1982年7月29日簽署的官商私人協議,天水圍新市鎮內一百六十九公頃土地劃為發展區,其中三十八點八公頃交予Mightycity發展私人屋苑,其餘一百三十公頃則留作興建公屋及資助房屋。一百六十九公頃以外的土地由政府留作土地儲備。1988年,該項投資額達數十億港元的私人屋苑發展計劃展開之際,長實集團及主席李嘉誠個人分別增持Mightycity的股份至48.25%及0.75%。同年,政府委任長江實業為「項目經理」(project manager)。1992至1999年間,Mightycity在天水圍興建了唯一的私人大型屋苑嘉湖山莊,共有一萬五千八百八十個住宅單位。屋苑內有總樓面達七萬五千平方米的商業設施,包括嘉湖銀座商場及有一千一百零二個房間的嘉湖海逸酒店。然而,即使社區需求殷切,政府卻受制於協議,無法建立一個如沙田、荃灣一般的自給自足的新市鎮,促進本地就業,令社區健康發展,政府只能在公共屋邨設立一些街坊小店,其規模也不能威脅Mightycity發展的私人商業設施。(4)

政權交接 地產成魔

惡霸擋路 港人起義
民國九十九年夏曆庚寅年十一月十七日冬至 西元二零一零年十二月二十二日

(1)2010年10月底,香港報章爭相披露一未經當事人確定之消息,轟動香港。富豪李兆基之子李家傑在境外借助代母產下三子。李家傑單身而有三子,即是三子一出世便遭剝奪母親之身及母親之倫,令港人困惑。參閱見〈代母產子觸發社會討論〉,《明報》,2010年10月28日。〈代母產子全城熱話 李家傑:給我私人空間〉,《頭條日報》,2010年10月30日。
(2)該計劃由蔡瀾在2008年12月構思,向政府提出在濕地公園附近發展112B區開設三百個熟食攤檔,2009年告吹。蔡瀾寫下〈羞恥〉一文悼念其「大牌檔村」計劃,見《蘋果日報》副刊,2009年11月16日。另見英文《南華早報》報道,Job-creation plans for Tin Shui Wai rejected,記者Vivian Kwok,2010年12月3日。中譯本參閱〈天水圍創造就業計劃被否決〉,《獨立媒體》網站(,2010年12月9日。
(3)Mightycity當時的股權分布為:華潤持有51%,長江實業擁有12.5%,會德豐、Trafalgar Housing及其他共佔36.5%。該公司現時的股權分別由華潤創業及長江實業集團持有。
(4)以上報道,摘錄自英文《南華早報》,Colonial deal built ‘City of Sadness’,記者Vivian Kwok,2010年12月3日。網上閱讀:–City-of-Sadness。中譯本參閱〈八二年官商協議限制商業發展 種下天水圍「悲情」禍端〉,《獨立媒體》網站(,2010年12月9日。

English translation, first installment /
google translation

The full text of the testimony and not-guilty plea of Zhao Lian-Hai

In response to the charge of causing troubles (尋釁滋事罪) in indictment #[2010]0043 (“京大檢 刑訴[2010]0043號 起訴書”) by Beijing Municipal Da-Xing People’s Procuratorate (北大市大興區人民檢察院), I hereby provide some necessary explanations and defence.

First of all, I disagree with the charge of “using the hotspot events (熱點問題) in the society, inciting and illegal gathering others to shout slogans and to cause troubles” in the indictment. In the following I shall provide a brief account concerning the charge.

There are two principal “social hotspot events” (社會熱點問題) in the indictment. The first one is the Melamine Milk Products Scandal (commonly called “Melamine Poisoned Milk Powder Incident”) exposed on 11th Septemper, 2008, which has deep relevance to me, for my child is one of the victims of Melamine milk products, and I am one of the leaders of the rights movement (維權) in this incident. The second “event” happened on 4th August, 2009, when Li Rui-Rui(李蕊蕊), the young woman from An-Hui who came to Beijing to petition(上訪), was intercepted, illegally detained, and raped by out-of-province government personels (外地政府駐京辦截訪人員). On that day I accompanied Li Rui-Rui and witnesses to report the case to Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau.

First, concerning the Melamine Poisoned Milk Powder Incident rights movement: The indictment charge me for “from September 2008 to September 2009, utilising the hotspot problems in the society(社會熱點問題), incited and gathered many people in turns in Shi-Jia-Zhuang, He-Bei and in Da-Xing and Feng-Tai districts in Beijing Municipal, to caused riots and troubles by shouting slogans and illegal gathering, seriously disturbing the social order in the aforesaid districts.” Concerning these charges I would like to present opposite opinions. First let’s briefly note that the “social hotspot problem” in the indictment is exactly the world-shocking Melamine-Poisoned Milk Product Scandal which caused many many victims and their families extreme pain. My little child is one of these “Kidney Stony Baby” poisoned by melamine. My child was breast-fed from small, but switched to various milk products since age 1, and has consumed vast quantites of milk products, across the spectrum, contaminated with melamine for two years until he was diagnosed with kidney stones. Afte the diagnosis, we as parents have been in extreme pain and worry, considering the quantity and length of time the child had consumed the milk products. I believe anyone with any heart would understand.

Since the tragedy happened to our still-young children, we the parents of victims would naturally wish to seek to protect their Rights and advocate for their life-long health-care. Thus many families of the victims have come together spontaneously to form a rights movement. Surprisinglly, though our children have been cruelly harmed, our rights movements have been met with hardships, pressures and hindrances, which caused many fresh injuries and pains in us. Yet our rights movement have maintained our reasonable course. Since the tragedy happened to our still-young children, we the parents of victims would naturally wish to seek to protect their Rights and advocate for their life-long health-care. Thus many families of the victims have come together spontaneously to form a rights movement. Surprisingly, though our children have been cruelly harmed, our rights movements have been met with hardships, pressures and hindrances, which caused many fresh injuries and pains in us. Yet our rights movement have maintained our reasonable course. I myself, as leader of the Kidney Stony Baby Rights Movement, have actively and repeatedly sought communication and feedback from the relevant bureaus. Yet our many positive and reasonable suggestions sunk like a rock into the ocean and were met with no response. Even so, our many parents are still keeping their pains and grievances to themselves, and are urging the relevant authorities to communicate with us, hoping they can directly face the voice of our community of victims. The many families of ours have comforted and supported each other, and also tried hard to advise those family who suffered more than others from anger and other irrational thoughts which might create even more tragedies. Our rational and positive attitude have given comfort to families facing deaths, surgeries or other serious conditions and prevented many dangerous incidences. Due to all of the above, the positive influence of our Rights Movements are should be acknowledged.


We have tried to communicate with China Dairy Industry Association and other departments but they have merilessly refused. Our hearts are filled with pain and helplessness. We expected the relevant governement departments would, respecting our being the families of the victims, be fairer, more reasonable and more just, and be able to negotiate solutions to the problems emerged with the families, placing the victims’ health in the highest priority. What happened then was, for a general idea, there were a lot of children who needed hospitalisation or even surgery who were refused free medical care, seriouely delaying their treatments and threatening their lives and their health. There were also cases in which the children were omitted from the list of the Nationally Recognised List of Kidney Stone Babies, placing all the financial burdens on the victims’ families. Many such families are already heavily in debt, and yet they are still facing the mounting cost of continued care for their children. Many early- or late-stage cases were not covered. And the most puzzling thing is that, those deaths of Kidney Stone Babies, after the Melamine Scandal has been exposed, were not recognised to be Melamine-related, and all requests for autopsy by the victims’ parents who had doubts about the actual causes of deaths were refused. For example, little girl Ma Xue-Fei (馬雪菲) of Ma-Cheng, Hu-Bei Province (湖北麻城), who died on 4th December, 2008, (she was 1 year old when she died, and her information is in my computer impounded by the police) had already been recognised as a Melamine-poisoned Kidney Stone Baby before her death, but the bureau in charge denied any melamine relevance after her death. Before her death, Ma Xue-Fei had already had [urinary catheter(?) and stone removal(?) operations (置管、排尿排石手術)] due to her failure of urination, and there had been domestic press coverage on her during her hospitalisation. After Ma Xue-Fei’s death, many of our families and professionals suspected that there were melamine granules inside the catheter (腎小管), causing serious damage to her kidneys or other vital organs. We considered autopsy the only means to acertain the true cause of death, but the authority in charge denied our request after they denied any relation to melamine. Hou Hai-Qi(候海淇), who died later on 6th January, 2009, received the same treatment. His/her parents kept the child’s body frozen in the mortuary for days, asking for autopsy from many relevant departments, but all their requests had been rejected.

The significance of careful autopsies/medical examinations of Ma Xue-Fei and other new deaths is not just for a more exact determination of the causes deaths which are relevant to the compensations to the victims’ family, but, more importantly, through rigorous medical examination, pathological studies, biopsies of the kidneys, livers, cardiovascular and other vital organs, etc., and other professional pathological studies, we can gain an in-depth understanding of how Melamine damage the kidneys and other vital organs of the children, and what are the long-term harms, and so on. Such studies are important and necessary, and will be invaluable to the long term continued care of the 300,000 Kidney-Stone Babies in the Official List. However, such precious chances of experimental studies have been delayed and rejected even after the active demands of the families. That is incomprehensible to us and it hurts our hearts. Having seen the autopsy pictures of the rocoons (貉子) which died from eating melamine-poisoned feeds in 2008 in the North East Provinces, in which the seriously damaged kidneys were shown (There are such pictures in my computer which has been impounded), we want to understand more how Melamine milk products have harmed the kindeys and other vital organs to our children.

1月2日 的這個事情本可以進行的非常順利,但我在1月1日晚即被警方在豐台區強制控制,與我同時被控制的還有其他4個家長代表(他們都是孩子受傷害很嚴重且都動過手術患兒的家長)。我們在1月1日晚被警方強制關押在大興區團河農場會議中心內,在我們提出意見後,警方告訴我們第二天上午將有領導與我們談話溝通,並承諾我們第 二天上午11點前無論談話是什麼結果都肯定會釋放我們。
綜上簡述,我完全不認同起訴書對我 的指控內容,我不認同指控我煽動糾集多人在北京豐台區、大興區的犯罪指控,我也不認同我們是非法聚會,更不存在呼喊口號、起哄鬧事的情況。上面是2009年1月2日在北京豐台區及大興區的大致情況。
其他一年期間內的多次致衛生部信訪辦,國 家質檢總局信訪辦,國家信訪局中國消費者協會,中國乳製品工業協會,最高人民法院等部門上訪反映問題的地點都不屬於起訴書所說的豐台區、大興區、也不存在 任何起訴書指控的內容,故不必敍述。
先說第一次1月16日去石家莊,1月16日前2天, 在網路上有傳言說16日上午在石家莊中級人民法院將開庭審理宣判田文華,我們一些家長在得知這個消息後商議我們作為受害孩子家長應該到現場去關注庭審結果並接觸到現場的媒體反映我們的問題,期望引起重視。但16日早上我與另外兩個家長到達石家莊中法後才得知那是一個假消息,當天去了,三五家媒體與我們簡短談了一會兒就各自回家了,這是1月16日的情況,不存在任何起訴書內指控的情況。
當天,我們在那裏是非常理智的,沒有起訴 書指控的任何行為發生,並且也一切聽從了現場警方的指揮與協調,讓我們在哪待著,我們就在哪待著,更沒有所謂呼喊口號,起哄鬧事等行為發生。並且在審判田 文華結束後也各自儘快的離開了石家莊。
當天現場情況也有眾多媒體記者可以作證。 如法庭不認同我的辯解,我請求法庭允許當天在現場的眾多記者到庭為我作證。
以上是四次去石家莊的大致情況,綜上所 述,我不認為我這4次在石家 莊的行為構成犯罪,並且我還要重點強調,我的每次出行都有警方人員在現場或隨從,也沒有任何警方人員提示說我們的行為構成犯罪,故此,我更認為我上述事情 都沒有構成犯罪。
自2008年9月11日三聚氰胺事件發生以來,我作為維權帶頭人被警方多次談話,但從未提及我曾 經的事情構成犯罪,另在2009年7月後因準備進行結石寶寶周年紀念,與警方再多次頻繁解除溝通,在7月至9月11日結石寶寶周年長達兩個月與警方多次接觸的時間裏,也多次談及曾經的這些事情也從未指出我這些事情構成犯罪,並一再好意的勸告我千萬別有什麼衝動的事情發生構成犯罪。這些情況也證實我曾經的這些事情並沒有被警方認為是犯罪,我也沒有因這些事情收到過警告或提示說我構成犯罪,讓我不能理解並痛心的是事後竟指控我那些在警方嚴密監控下的事情構成犯罪。
我們身為孩子的家長最關心孩子們生命健康 及一生有效地保障,我們的維權也一直是合理合法且理性文明的,我們也從沒有指控的所謂“非法聚集,呼喊口號,起哄鬧事”等這些無中生有的事情。
對於本指控我完全不認同,我們在當天不僅沒有任何過激的行為發生,並且在警方強行抓人導致嚇跑一些訪民的情況下,將一切害怕且跑開的當事人及證人勸說留了下來,我不僅不認為我當天的行為構成犯罪,反倒更認為當天在我的堅持及推動下能得以最終報案、立案成功,得以最終有效地打擊了罪犯,在我及多名訪民證人被東交民巷派出所強行扣留關押一天后,8 月5日中午警方多名領導找我談話說馬上釋放我們,但要求我 們走後不要再對記者多提這個事情了,然後就讓我們就離開了。
我在8月4日當天的所作所為,可由多位當天現場的當事人作證,如法庭不認同我的辯解,我 將請求相關證人出庭為我作證。
以上是我就起訴書指控的內容做的必要說 明。
我因為維權及協助別人報案被冠以莫須有的 罪名而失去自由,在此我期忘這樣的傷害與委屈儘快結束,並期望是非被顛倒的事情不要再發生。
在此,我要說:如果維權有罪,那勢必會助 長利慾薰心的奸商繼續喪盡天良、肆無忌憚的將自己的利益建立在殘害他人的基礎上,我們本已日漸淪喪的社會將會變成何等扭曲的樣子。
今天的我,由於錯誤的指控被強行關押失去了自由,我所能期待的也只有祈盼法律應有的公平公正來為我主 持正義還我于清白。在此也真誠期望我們的政府相關部門能正視已犯下的錯誤,不要一錯再錯。
我堅信,正義與真理的光芒必將照耀我們這 個國度的每個角落,而我所能做的也只能是倔強的堅持,不為別的,僅僅為了我自己良心與靈魂的安穩,以及為了我們的後代們能生活在一個具有優良品質的社會 裏,更為了我們這個民族,我們這個國度能以健康的體魄繼續存在於世界。
最後,我要再重申,我沒有進行起訴 書內指控的犯罪行為,我堅信我所做的一切都是身為一名公民應擔當的一份責任,我堅信自己所做的事情都是文明且沒有錯誤的,我也祈盼自己的努力能讓社會有所 進步。

In order to keep righteousness and conscience in our lives and our souls, we can only maintain the faith and standard of the just, or else the righteous mind shall be shaken and our future generations wrongly influenced and making us sinners.

All in all, I believe I am innocent!
Defendent: Zhao Lian-Hai (辯護陳述人:趙連海)
March, 2010.

尹光 – 一個黐膠線的少年





還重晚晚, 黐膠線,



重播 : 喚樂起義文化及音樂會



Published on: Mar 10, 2010 @ 2:11

Twitter: @hkwakeuprising

我對香港說 0002
2010年3月9日星期二 上午9:24 by 喚樂起義活動籌委 0 意見
星屑醫生(http://AJ.HK 主持): 我想所有人講真心話, 做個真心人

我對香港說 0001
上午4:00 by 喚樂起義活動籌委 0 意見

馬草泥(AJ.HK-城市再市論壇主持): 希望香港盡快有真普選,仲好似7﹣ELEVEN一樣「年中無休」

Calvin 說《321 喚樂。起義文化及音樂會》理念
2010年3月7日星期日 上午6:21 by 喚樂起義活動籌委 0 意見








這個社會每間大學只開辦工商管理系, 創造多點銀行及政府職位就可以解決到青年人社會問題吧。將社會單一化,就能解決全香港的問題。








我們舉行「321喚樂。起義 文化及音樂會」目的就是利用多元的藝術文化及音樂活動,讓青年人了解多元社會的重要性;明白單一社會的禍害, 喚醒他們知道民生與政策是息息相關 ,了解為何功能組別令社會發展方向為商家所傾斜,讓他們明白民主派一致地要廢除功能組別的原因,進一步明白新民主運動的意義。

議會(立法會)理應是代替市民發聲的地方,也是approve proposal的地方 (很決定性!)。
當政府提交 proposal時,他們當然不會公義得連對自身利益不利的都agree,甚至否決一切不利於己的建議。


3月21日 一起喚樂起義!

日期: 2010年03月21日
時間: 13:00 – 18:00
地點: 荃灣福來村

21 March 2010


Yang Wen-Li: “I want to save the seeds of democracy for the bad times. To make the empire recognise us, we must fight and beat them. However, the citizens consider this idea meaningless, and the possiblility of backing off is increasing.”

#hk5 tweets
to save the seeds of democracy we must fight and beat the empire, but the citizens think the idea meaningless...

Ming Pao: 青年峰會代表稱被迫改提問
與唐英年(相關)對談 敏感議題被封殺

Apple Daily: 青少年怒斥「高峰會」騙局

Happy Idiot :若要人不知


Martin Oei:

Tang Ying Nin targeted as he attended a conference with a selection of young people

An unemployed 31-year-old threw a shoe at Hong Kong Chief Secretary and acting governor Henry “Red Wine Tiu Tiu Fing” Tang Ying-yen at a “conference” with the young people. Why? Watch it yourself.






司徒華回覆本報查詢時,狠批建制派此舉是「抽水」﹕「我聽到這些說話,覺得有些悲涼,我有貓哭老鼠的感覺。自從1989年六四之後,我已不能回內地 20年了,為何他們不早些說?是否知我時日無多,知我就快死,才說要幫我取回回鄉證?領回鄉證是我的公民權利,為何他們20年來不出聲,為何現在才出聲呢?我現在如何可以遊山玩水?我當然要去養病啦!我如何去旅行,我如何去黃山呢?我現在的體力如何去旅行呢?這是普通常識!」

Having reached the 80,000-membership mark, the Facebook group “I believe we can gather 100,000 people who hate the “Democratic Alliance for the ‘Betterment’ of Hong Kong” (我相信可以召集100,000個厭惡民建聯的人) disappeared mysteriously, following the disappearance of the similar sounding copy-cat group “我相信可以召集100,000個厭惡社民連的人”.

It has subsequently been revived and growing rapidly.

Note: The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) is an alliance formed around a core of underground Hong Kong communists; their members currently control the Legislative Council (LegCo) of Hong Kong.

Note that the rival group “1,000,000 joint declaration: League of Social Democrats do not represent me!” (1,000,000人聯署,社民連不代表我!) has been revived and has 148 members and 25(!) admins.



sina hong kong

Facebook’s official statement???

明報: 好報﹕地區小好報﹕禁語辦成立 「喜二」「工頭」禁用‎
Mingpao: Ministry of Truth established. “Hay Yee” and “Gung Tou” forbidden.


喜二燒味 Hay Yee Barbecue Restaurant
工頭五金 Gong Tou “Foreman” Hardware Store


It was reported that the Business Registration Office has forbidden small businesses, on grounds of “fanning social disorder 煽動社會”, from registering completely innocent and legitimate names: “工頭” (foreman, sounding like “referendum” in chinese, for a hardware store), and “喜二” (“Joy” the second, sounding like “uprising” in chinese, the name of the deceased wife of the barbecue restaurant chef). Do they think they can get away with this kind of oppression?

DAB successfully achieved Legco non-quorate

Man Kin Leun Shing Kung Cheng Chui Lau Wui


The chinese communist party cannot do better than this – a massive advertisement for the Hong Kong Referendum and the Chinese Democracy Movement, and paving the way to its own eventual end.

Further Reading
Lam Kay: Hong Kong Referendum FAQ :

continued from my previous post
反高鐵示威者行為過激? Are the hk high speed rail protesters extremists? Are they over-reacting?

As we have discussed before in the above post, the Stop-The-Rail Movement (“The Movement”) v. HKSAR is an asymmetric conflict, in which HKSAR has an overwhelmingly superior advantage. They control the police, the media, and have the initiative as the incumbant. Crucially, they are the enforcer of the law and they have the least to worry worry about being arrested and prosecuted.

Knowing they cannot wrestle control from HKSAR, The Movement has focused on two objectives
1. Attracting more supporters and
2. galvanising the existing ones

For each of the above, actions are needed, but the key question is “how much action”.

The 16 January Siege, in which officials of HKSAR as well as legislators in the SAR-Loyalist camp were trapped inside Legco for 6 hours, is a minimal show-of-force, as if to tell public, “We can make a difference.”

In order to maintain the siege, the Protesters, at times, when the Police tried to barracade them in, had to breach the Police line, and else they would risk being cut off, and the siege would have failed right then. [For a detailed analysis, visit the HK-golden forum]

Note that it was the police, representing HKSAR, who escalated the conflict in the first place, and the protesters used the minimal escalation tool, or course of action, in their arsenal (compare the example in my prior post).

There will always be debate on this, but judging by the split media and public opinion, it was probably “about right”. Notably,
1. The protesters siezed metal barracades (actions) but didn’t attack the policemen. They stayed within the law and nobody was arrested.
2. On the contrary, the police released pepper-sprays without prior warning, in order to divert attention and escort the officials and loyalists out of the Legco building into the J2-exit of the MTR Central Station. That is in clear breach of the operation protocol.

And crucially,
3. Everbody went home safe.

So, the answer to the question in the title is No, and 1-0 to the Movement.


1. HKgolden forum:


And what action. When I saw these guys rush to grab the equipment of the”enemy” and use it against them, I felt the same rush that I do when watching, say, Ronaldinho play for Brasil. This is team politics, and the cheeky, confident and plugged in demonstrators of the baat sap hau play–with apologies to la liga argentina– a “beautiful game”.

– the siego of legco in the eyes of Daisann, a Gwai-Lo in Hong Kong

3。 [信報-羅耕] 政府目中無人

Caution: I have followed the original as closely as possible. One may find Chinese grammar in the English text
Donald Tsang:
Concerning the opinions expressed on the funding of the HK High Speed Rail project, the vast majority of citizens, workers, farmers, intellectuals, people from all trades and young students, have expressed [SIC] their own opinions in various means, and expressed their wish to covert money into power, to contribute towards linking up with Vaterland and reviving the economy. During such activities, unusual circumstances appeared as well. An extreme minority used the situations to create rumours, and pointedly attacked HKSAR and national leaders; they deceived the crowd into charging Zhung-Hwan, where HKSAR-central, Legislative Council are located; some even cried out Down with the loyalists, and serious incidents of criminals beating, smashing, robbing and burning happened on the roads.

People's Daily, 1989 '4-26' Editorial

Bearing in mind the heartaches borne by the vast Crowd[sic], the People’s Government of HKSAR has taken a tolerant and restrained stance vis-a-vis certain inappropriate postulations and actions of the young students in their emotional states. Before the 16th [January] vote, the early arrivals at the Statue Square hasn’t been clear from the site as usual, but requested to respect the public order, to morn Vegetable Garden Village altogether. Due to the collaborative effort, the gathering was conducted smoothly in a solemn atmosphere.





16 January 2010




Legco Finance Committee Voting records on HK high speed rail


Twitter live

SAR 出到熄燈停Camera呢下賤招,第日記住帶電筒。

Further Reading,