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:


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):



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

plasticHK: 紅隧塞車之真心難求

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?

Concerning the TVB News magazine programme on 2010-1-28,

新聞透視 2010-01-28 – 客從何處來?

A transport department bloke maintained in the programme that the emphasis is the trend, and they did well on that, but even with that granted:

1. We all know that there is inflation. That’s a trend. That doesn’t help us very much in making our investment decisions. We need more specific numbers.
2. Why do all estimates of major (and ministers’ “pet”) projects turned out to be exaggerated by a factor of 2 or 3? Either there is a systemic error to be explained – or the programme had a bias.

Now let’s consider the following comment from an “insider”:

“wchan_9910” commented on TVB News Magazine at 2010.01.28 (四) 07:04AM:

I am a transport planner who actually work on patronage forecast / traffic forecast of some infrastructure. Forecast are done based on a series of assumptions, like economic growth, population growth, vehicle ownership, etc.. However, there is some implicit assumptions which do change over years but is assumed not to change over time, like unemployment rate by age group, work force ratio, no. of student left school by age group, retirement age, etc..

I worked in HK, UK, Europe and China. I do find the quality of HK professional is not bad at all. In some case, the work of HK professional has been made referenced by oversea player. Like travel characteristic survey which has been made referenced by at least chinese, singaporian. UK professional also adopt the methodology used by HK professional in their airport expansion projects in London in which I worked on! These methodologies has been regarded as a good way to do things in UK, albeit only on a few elements.

Now, If the forecasting work is indeed “good”, there should be overestimates and underestimates.

My question remains: Why did all the forecasts for the “major” and controversial transportation projects shown on the programme turn out to be overestimates?


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,

See also: 立法局包圍戰之
[反高鐵] 點解我地要突破警方防線 (附圖解釋)

When you have an asymmetric conflict like the StopXRL movement, do drastic measures from the weaker side always equal irrational over-reactions? 喺反高鐵呢種唔對稱嘅對抗中,強硬行動係唔係一定過激?

Imagine two antagonists (or countries). Let’s call them Sam and Joe. Sam is rich and have a lot of weapons available, but Joe is strong. They are in a dispute over something and their conflict is escalating.

Consider their weapons:

Sam: fist, handknife, handgun, M-16, M1A1 tank, Apache helicopter, F-15 fighter, F-22 fighter, Satellite Laser system

Joe: fist, handknife, AK47, Mig 31 fighter jet, Satellite Laser system

As their conflict escalate, they would pull out bigger and more powerful weapons from their war chest. Now, as Joe is stronger, Sam loses out in the fist fight, and pulls out a handgun. Joe has no choice but to get his AK47. Sam pulls out his M-16, but as he is not as good a marksman, he called in an M1A1. Joe had no choice but to call in his Mig 31 fighter jet. The conflict escalates into a space war.

Now let’s put ourselves in Joe’s shoes. Was he irrational or “over-reacting”? No. He just made use of his limited resources as well as he could. The problem is that Sam was in a much convenient position to escalate a conflict, and in each escalation he chose to put Joe in an uncomfortable position.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, what choices did the governement or the police give the protesters? We tried sit-ins and conflict-free demonstrations. The government simply ignored us. When we want dialogues, what did they give us? Has the Hong Kong SARS actually tried to act like a government for the people of the people, even if it is not by the people? 當喺中聯辦綁條絲帶都會被人剪傷手, 你仲想同佢和諧落去?

Don’t take things on their face values. There are often reasons, even logical ones, behind conflict escalations.

Further Reading:

Conflict Escalation: theory
Constructive Escalation

About hkXRL and Mai Po





BBC News: “Google ‘may pull out of China after Gmail cyber attack’ ”

Google at blogspot:


虞瑋倩: 我也經常往返內地﹐高鐵也唔算方便﹐例如佛山﹑江門﹑韶關﹑順德都已經到唔到﹐一樣要接駁﹐而且高鐵除了設計選址受到質疑﹐最大問題係政府那種蝦得就蝦﹑ 瞞得就瞞﹑點問都唔透露資料﹑最後一分鐘話669億﹑討論十年﹐當全世界傻瓜。大部份大角咀居民沒有受到諮詢,上兩次的諮詢會都只是得十多人參與 — 而且兒戲到係響餐廳咨詢﹐而不是攪公開咨詢會。而所謂公開咨詢會根本就沒有足夠宣傳﹐做了也沒有多少人知道﹐擺明係當循例做下樣而不是認真﹐同當年皇后碼頭﹑天星一樣﹐按照程序要求“有做”就算﹐而不是真正達到公眾參與﹑公眾得到咨詢的目的。「流動檢」在每日對開100班車﹐到底需要多少人呢﹖相信唔多人會考慮到。 1月13日 10:35

曾偉眠 【政府承擔669億的建築投資,令鐵路將來不必承擔利息開支】
那是代表香港損失669億的利息收入喔! 1月13日 10:45

深挖洞 曾偉眠兄:政府等於承認高鐵在商業上是蝕硬的,要它孭利息便必死,所以要納稅人打本。將來一定學內地及輕鐵,大砍其他交通,谷人乘高鐵,內地網民說得好:被高速了。 1月13日 10:56

Big Mac 高鐡從根本起已經有問題,很嚴重的問題,可能有人見到政府儲備多,睇唔過眼,諗個方法洗咗去,就搞個起豪板鐡路。要用一個天文數字買一個高速鐡路,但只能已低速行走,天大的笑話,你話背後不是有其他目的都不會有人信。 1月13日 11:47



2010年01月13日 00:01 王永平: 高鐵爭議帶出不少政治問題


曹仁超: 追落後 逐隻捉

January 6, 2010
Asian Computer Makers Move Into Riskier Ventures

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — For years, the process remained relatively static: PC makers like Hewlett-Packard and Apple, with well-staffed research labs and design departments, would dream up their next product and then hire a Chinese or Taiwanese fabricator to manufacture the largest number of units at the lowest possible cost.

But lately, this traditional division of labor has been upended. Many of those Asian companies have moved well beyond manufacturing to seize greater control over the look and feel of tomorrow’s personal computers, smartphones and even Web sites.

The investment arms of large Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturers have created an investment network in Silicon Valley operating under the radar that pumps money into a variety of chip, software and services companies to gain the latest technology. As a result, some Asian manufacturers have proved more willing than entrenched Silicon Valley venture capitalists to back some risky endeavors.

“In the past, the manufacturers would sneak around and get inside information on technology by investing in these companies,” said K. Bobby Chao, the managing partner at DFJ DragonFund China, a business that invests in technology companies in China and the United States. “Now, they’re more involved, more visible and charging after more complex maneuvers.”

As manufacturing of electronics in the United States began moving offshore decades ago, some feared the American economy would suffer. But the American companies, as well as economists and policy makers, said that as long as the high-value jobs like research and design remained in the United States, there was little danger.

Asian investments in Silicon Valley present some risks for America’s top technology companies, which could lose their connection to top innovations.

Asian manufacturers like Foxconn or Quanta, as a result, could wrestle away the edge in research and design.

“The manufacturers have gotten more competitive as it relates to innovation, and in some instances they’re already competing directly with their customers,” said Patrick Moorhead, a vice president at Advance Micro Devices, a major PC chip maker.

The investments by Asian companies have already started to pay off. At the Consumer Electronics Show this week in Las Vegas, people will see laptops that end sluggish start times and instead boot up instantly and TVs that do not require remotes because they can see the gestures of viewers. These features are a result of strategic investments in technology by Asian manufacturers. One Asian manufacturer turned investor is Quanta, based in Taiwan, which has long been one of the largest manufacturers of laptops and personal computers for major brands like H.P., Acer and Dell.

To keep those customers coming back, it needs unique product designs and technologies that give it an edge over competitors. Last October, Quanta invested $10 million into Tilera, a chip start-up based in San Jose, Calif., in the heart of Silicon Valley, that has designed a radical computer processor. Tilera is gambling that it can take business from the major chip makers like Intel and A.M.D.

Quanta also joined a group investing $16 million in Canesta, another chip maker based in Silicon Valley. When combined with a digital camera, Canesta’s products let computers, televisions and other devices view objects in three dimensions. That means that a person could move photos or documents around a PC’s desktop or change TV channels simply by waving a hand.

Elton Yang, a vice president at Quanta, said there was a high likelihood that the technology could make its way into laptops in 2010. Eventually all makers of personal computers will have a chance to buy Canesta’s technology, but Quanta’s investment gives it a temporary design lead.

“The PC companies are looking for a new future, and we want to attract them to our machines,” Mr. Yang said. Over the last 10 years, Canesta has made its pitch to more than 100 venture capitalists in Silicon Valley — only to be rejected time and again. James Spare, the chief executive of Canesta, praised the willingness of companies like Quanta to back risky start-ups needing many years to turn ideas into products.

“It’s no secret that these companies make most of the devices we use in our daily lives,” Mr. Spare said. “And they’re only becoming more and more influential when it comes to innovation and guiding technology choices.”

Foxconn, one of the largest electronics makers, has found technology investments, too. It has backed Innovation Works, an investment and incubation company started last year by the former president of Google’s Chinese operations, Kai-fu Lee.

With $115 million at its disposal, Innovation Works, based in Beijing, has pledged to “build dream teams to collect, analyze, prioritize and execute on the most promising ideas” in the Internet and mobile computing markets.

Ambitious Taiwanese manufacturers are now talking to influential component makers like Intel and A.M.D. to help shape what tomorrow’s chips and hard drives will do.

“They do have a much bigger voice in what companies are doing on the chip level than before,” said Mr. Moorhead. “We are interfacing more with them than we ever have.”

Some former manufacturers have already made the transition and are gaining global brand recognition. Acer and Asustek are Taiwan’s most prominent computer brands, but both companies were contract fabricators for major American companies. Some of their executives steeped in this manufacturing tradition now run the investment arms of the companies.

For example, the Silicon Valley start-up DeviceVM has developed software that lets computers boot up in about five seconds, rather than the minutes many computers can take to start. Both Asustek and Acer, through its investment arm called iD Innovation, have put money into DeviceVM, and the company’s software now appears on computers from a variety of makers including the world’s largest PC company, H.P.

The Asian companies often back projects that Silicon Valley’s financial heavyweights pass on because pay offs are too low and take too long. The Asian companies are “thinking that they didn’t get their fair share of the technology pie in the past,” Mr. Chao said. “Now they have money and will take the risks needed to build up new levels of expertise.”

For entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, the money flowing from Taiwan and China represents a blessing.

“It’s great,” said Mr. Spare of Canesta, “to have another pool of money to go after.”


7 January 2010


related post

梁文道: 有人在「反高鐵」嗎?








馬家輝兄把這次有關高鐵的爭論比作西九龍文化區事件的再版,理由之一正是當年政府也是未經詳盡的諮詢和公共參與便急推計劃上馬,親建制言論也是照樣把反對人士說成反對「發展」。直到今日,西九龍文化區仍未動工,就有不少人總是以大陸比較,說什麼人家的歌劇院藝術館早已遍地開花,我們的西九仍是荒地一片,藉此譏刺香港的速度之慢效率之低。他們好像看不到大陸那些宏偉的新興場館落成啟用之後留下了多少問題﹕有的管理不善,軟件跟不上硬體;有的變成了富人俱樂部,一般百姓無緣問津;還有的根本就是空洞無物的大白象,徒具裝飾功能。這一切全拜官方急速發展之功。要跟以「發展是硬道理」為圭臬,以速度超人著稱的中國大陸比快,怎麼會是香港該走的道路呢?正是那種「先砸個100億再看划不划算」的心態才造成了今日遺禍重重的三峽工程,難道香港建高鐵還要先丟個 600億再向大家解釋高鐵的種種影響嗎?

更有報道稱政府設計了1小時多的Power Point展演,許多媒體及政壇人士看了都頗受打動。這種新聞真是匪夷所思,彷彿要讀者完全相信記者的感受,他說自己被說服了,讀者也最好跟覑感動。假如政府真有這麼好的展演,它怎麼不在全港19區大開town meeting,讓大家都感動一下呢?







Further REading