Conspiracy between pan-democratic legislators and the NDI to trigger the 2010 de-facto ‘referendum’

On 15 November 2009 a conspiracy took place between pan-democrat legislators and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in Hong Kong to discuss plans to trigger the de-facto ‘referendum’ in January 2010.

Background

In November 2009, the Hong Kong Government released a consultation document on the new electoral arrangements for the chief executive poll and the legislative elections in 2012, mainly dealing with the expansion of the Election Committee membership.

It also sought to increase the number of seats in the legislature from 60 to 70, and to allow all district council seats in the legislature to be filled by elected district councilors in 2012.

This was widely opposed by the pan-democrats, so on 15 November 2009 Civic Act Up arranged a meeting on Direct Democracy and Civil Referendum, at which plans for triggering the de-facto referendum” were discussed.

As a result of these discussions, and on 26 January 2010, Albert Chan, Alan Leong, Tanya Chan, "Longhair" Leung Kwok-hung and Wong Yuk-man resigned their LegCo seats, to trigger by-elections which they claimed was a de-facto ‘referendum’ on universal suffrage.

The evidence

The conspiracy was videotaped and put on YouTube in a series of eleven short videos (Part 1/11 to Part 11/11). This report is based on the information in the videos.

Who attended the meeting

The following people attended the Civic Act Up meeting on Direct Democracy and Civil Referendum (交流會：直接民主和民間公投) in Hong Kong on 15 November 2009:

1. Cyd HO Sau-lan (何秀蘭), Hong Kong pan-democratic legislator;

2. Gary FAN Kwok-wai (范國威), Hong Kong pan-democratic legislator;

3. YEUNG Kai-cheung (楊繼昌), Policy researcher, League of Social Democrats (社會民主連線政策研究員);

4. Belinda Winterbourne, Programme Manager, National Democratic Institute, Hong Kong;

5. Stephen Tong, Programme Officer, National Democratic Institute, Hong Kong;

6. Bruno Kaufmann, President Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe, sponsored by the UN Democracy Fund;

7. Dr. Christian Gruenler, Executive Director SOS-Kinderdoerfer Global Partner GmbH;

8. KWOK Hiu-chung (郭曉忠), Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor (香港人權監察教育幹事);

9. NGAI Kei-lok (魏基樂), Civic Act Up (公民起動成員);

10. CHAN Chun-man (陳雋文), Chinese University of Hong Kong student (中文大學學生);

11. Other unidentified people.

What was said at the meeting?

Whilst much was discussed at the meeting, the following key statements confirm this was a conspiracy between pan-democrat legislators and the NDI:

Cyd HO (Video 6/11. Time: start to 0.33)

Cyd HO briefing the meeting on the need for secrecy:

Now one thing to state.  Everything discussed in this room should be keeped in confidence. You could go out and tell your friends that, that’s what LSD thinks, but don’t quote cheung OK, he could be strangled.

Cyd HO (Video 4/11. Time: 1.23 to 2.46)

Cyd HO briefing everyone on the purpose of the meeting:

I’m going to ask a question in Hong Kong context, so anytime you want to raise any question, just feel free to interrupt, because it’s a small group discussion, so that’s the beauty of having very few people in this meeting and just feel free to participate at anytime, OK.

And with Bruno’s response, one idea that comes to my mind just a second ago is that if we trigger a civil referendum actually it should not be the decision of the legislator himself or herself, because there’s only one people then there might not be enough support to decide that there should be a referendum to decide certain issue, so that I don’t expect Bruno to comment on it, but actually it’s just the idea that’s sparked off a minute ago maybe we have to consider to have a signature campaign before we really submit our resignation like if we gather 5% support from the people, then lets resign, if not then we know we are going to be defeated and die in disgrace (laughs).

Belinda Winterbourne (Video 10/11. Time: 8.28 to 9.19)

Belinda Winterbourne, NDI Programme Manager in Hong Kong asking

how much time do we have, if we did want to conduct a civil referendum,

educate them why we are doing this

Christian raised the point that how much time do we have. Just now he mentioned you know ‘til January for example, but let’s say if we did want to conduct a civil referendum let’s say between now and the end of the (inaudible), how long does it usually take to educate the public on civil referendum, cos I presume that you’d have to do a lot of publicity prior to the actual exercise umm and educate them why we are doing this and you know how does that vote count eventually.

Five Legislators resign on 26 January 2010 to trigger the de-facto ‘referendum 

The conspiracy was completed when five Hong Kong legislators (from left to right) Albert Chan (League of Social Democrats), Alan Leong (Civic Party), Tanya Chan (Civic Party), Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats) and Wong Yuk-man (League of Social Democrats ) signed the resignation letter outside the Legislative Council on 26 January 2010 to trigger the de-facto ‘referendum'.

Alan LEONG and Tanya CHAN of the Civic Party resigned
to complete the conspiracy

Albert CHAN, LEUNG Kwok-hung and Raymond WONG of the
League of Social Democrats resigned to complete the conspiracy

References and credits

Eleven videos were taken during the seminar and uploaded onto Youtube by “hkdirectelection”  under the title  交流會：直接民主和民間公投 in December 2009 (Numbered Part 1/11 to Part 11/11). See link to the videos here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_w0DcbpJZE

Political Party Logo Credits: Alliance for True Democracy. See link at: http://www.atd.hk/en/?page_id=10

Resignation photo: AP photo at Jamaica Observer. Hong Kong pressures Beijing for democracy. AP. Wednesday, January 27, 2010. See link at: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Hong-Kong_7362322    

NDI Logo courtesy of NDI HKU poster.

Gardenia KWOK signs off as Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook Administrator on 15 December 2014

Gardenia KWOK was employed as a research assistant on the US Government funded Design Democracy Hong Kong Project. See details here: http://nedprogramsinhk.blogspot.hk/2016/08/how-us-government-funds-were-used-by.html

Gardenia was the Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook Administrator during the Occupy Central protests. Here Facebook signature was: G.K

Gardenia’s farewell message on the Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook page

This was Gardenia KWOK’s farewell message on the Design Democracy Hong Kong 港人講普選 Facebook page on 15 December 2014:

大家好，我係admin G.K 如果你跟開，應該知道我係邊個。
今天多謝大家來論壇，今次是最後一個啦。而今天亦都係我last day。我是幸運的，有幸生在動盪的時代，見證改變。而我更是受薪去見證的。

很感謝大家，由當初得100人like到今天。你地陪我經歷了很多，有網民話我知Photoshop點用啦，提議請咩嘉賓啦。

真的，1年多前我沒有想到我由一個記者同嘉賓都唔識，腳架都無開過的人，到今日第4個論壇，poster sticker我整，片我拍我剪，開記招，搞7.1，學校講talk，訪問，在佔領現場報導...

你也沒想到香港人會佔領吧。論壇？有人去嘅咩？政改？mud spring吖？香港人像我一樣，成長了。所以別說不可能，別未做先怕。

如果失敗了，就讓我們都做曱甴，打不死！好嗎？

如果你怕掛住我，就去follow : https://www.facebook.com/no.lawyer.no.talk
******
好多謝記者朋友的不厭其煩。多謝社運界朋友的愛護，雙學的熱情。多謝朋友的無限支援。多謝student assistants的包容努力。Thanks translators during first week of occupy. Thanks umbrellians. 多謝每一個幫助我的人，小妹銘記。

Our translation: -學校講talk  = school talk talk.

Gardenia’s farewell message in Chinese

Gardenia’s farewell message in English

Comment from Jennifer Eagleton 

We will miss you – what will you do now?

Reference

Design Democracy Hong Kong Project Facebook page

NDI briefing by Peter Manikas to Congress on the Design Democracy Program in Hong Kong

The following are extracts from testimony given by Peter Manikas, National Democratic Institute (NDI) Director of Asia Programs in a presentation to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on 11 June 2015 in relation to NDI programs, particularly collaboration with a ‘university partner’ on an ‘interactive website’ and ‘co-branded pages on social media’ in Hong Kong:

“The NDI has worked in Hong Kong since 1997 and its programs have been conducted at the request of, and in collaboration with, local partners such as universities and civil society organizations”.

“Over the past year, NDI’s programs in Hong Kong have engaged students, political parties, and civil society in substantive dialogue on electoral systems and the public consultation process to amend the method of electing the Chief Executive”.

“NDI supported a university partner to build an interactive website that allowed citizens to create their own models of universal suffrage. Online participation reflected the deep level of interest on electoral governance issues, particularly among young people over the past year. Communities also formed around co-branded pages on social media, which received even more user traffic than the interactive website”.

Peter Manikas briefing Cngress

A copy of his full statement is appended below.

Peter Manikas statement on Hong Kong in full

Since the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty under the “one country, two systems” framework in 1997, the promise of a democratic electoral framework outlined in Hong Kong’s constitution, the Basic Law, has not progressed according to the expectations of a large segment of the public. The Basic Law states that “the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures” (Basic Law Art. 45). Currently, the Nominating Committee that elects the Chief Executive consists of 1,200 members belonging to 38 subsectors, including non-democratically selected “functional constituencies.” During the recent government-led consultation process on political reform, citizens discussed the possible addition 2 of new subsectors to make the committee more inclusive and representative (such as adding new subsectors to represent the interests of women or young voters), but restructuring would necessarily mean disrupting and eliminating existing subsectors or committee members. For these reasons, the Hong Kong government’s consultation document suggested that these changes are unlikely (Consultation Document, Chapter 3, Sec. 3.08 p. 10). Similarly, half of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) comprises of the same functional constituencies, creating a check over the legislative process.

On August 31, 2014, the National People’s Congress issued a Standing Committee decision that would allow Hong Kong citizens to directly vote for their Chief Executive in 2017 but retained restrictive conditions on the nomination procedure of eligible candidates. The Nominating Committee would resemble the previous committee that elected the Chief Executive, with the same number of members belonging to the same limited number of subsectors. Under this framework, Beijing effectively has the discretion to determine the candidates for the Chief Executive position. This political reform proposal triggered 79 days of protest and civil disobedience – what activists and the international media have referred to as the “Umbrella Movement.” In reaction to the movement, a coordinated campaign has been launched to discredit pro-democracy activists and movement organizers. Attacks on leading liberal professors and student leaders in Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing media, reports of Hong Kong government interference in academic appointments, and renewed calls for “patriotic education” in Hong Kong schools, have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and academic independence. The government’s political reform proposal will finally come to a vote by the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Wednesday, June 17. LegCo seems irreconcilably divided between the pan-democrat and pro-establishment party camps.

The government’s failure to meet the expectations of a large segment of the public on universal suffrage has left Hong Kong deeply polarized. While several university professors conceived of last year’s movement for universal suffrage and articulated many of the guiding principles, young people and student associations drove the mobilization effort and quickly assumed ownership of the movement. The false narrative put forward by Hong Kong and Beijing officials that the student-led activities were instigated by “external” or “foreign forces” may be used as a pretext to re-introduce national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, which would drastically curtail civil liberties.

NDI has worked in Hong Kong since 1997 and its programs have been conducted at the request of, and in collaboration with, local partners such as universities and civil society organizations. The objectives of NDI programs in Hong Kong have been education and dialogue around comparative electoral models and to better enable citizens to effectively participate in the government-initiated electoral reform process. The Institute’s activities are inclusive of the many segments of Hong Kong society – including young people, lower income groups, ethnic minorities, women, and the elderly – and feature a diversity of political viewpoints across party and ideological spectrums. Pro-establishment as well as pan-democrat political party members participate in NDI-sponsored events. Any viewpoint may be expressed at the academic public forums or university-managed websites for which NDI has provided assistance. These are designed to be neutral and educational platforms and do not endorse any particular political position. By creating forums for inclusive political dialogue on various modes of governance, NDI activities provide a constructive outlet for grassroots voices, an opportunity for education, and the possibility of forging meaningful consensus.

Over the past year, NDI’s programs in Hong Kong have engaged students, political parties, and civil society in substantive dialogue on electoral systems and the public consultation process to amend the method of electing the Chief Executive. NDI supported a university partner to build an interactive website that allowed citizens to create their own models of universal suffrage. Online participation reflected the deep level of interest on electoral governance issues, particularly among young people over the past year. During the first official consultation period (December – May 2014), in which citizens could offer their views on universal suffrage, the website received more than 700 models of universal suffrage, many of which were submitted to the Hong Kong government. Communities also formed around co-branded pages on social media, which received even more user traffic than the interactive website. In parallel with these online platforms, local NDI partners organized several public debates offline, where prominent speakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum argued the merits of their proposals for political reform. The online platforms promoted these debates, allowed for sharing of citizen generated content on relevant topics, and crowd-sourced questions for event speakers¹.

References

¹Statement of Peter M. Manikas Director of Asia Programs, National Democratic Institute Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific “Retreat or Revival: A Status Report on Democracy in Asia” June 11, 2015. See Peter Manikas statement here.

Photograph of Peter Manikas courtesy of:

Democracy Works: A Blog of the National Democratic Institute. Retreat or Revival: The State of Democracy in Asia. By Peter Manikas. 15 June 2015. See link: https://www.demworks.org/retreat-or-revival-state-democracy-asia

Congressional Research Service report on the Design Democracy Hong Kong project dated 9 June 2015

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a US Government body that prepares reports for members and committees of Congress on a regular basis.

Because the US Congress funds the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the CRS regularly updates Congress on the progress of NED programs, including those undertaken by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) targeting Hong Kong.

CRS Report R44031 - Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: The 2017 Election Reforms

On 9 June 2015 in CRS Report R44031 - Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: The 2017 Election Reforms (prepared for members and committees of Congress)¹, Michael Martin reported the following on the Design Democracy Hong Kong project and the Occupy Central protests:

NED and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) are currently providing assistance to the Design Democracy Hong Kong project, a web-based forum (http://designdemocracy.hk/) where Hong Kong residents can create different models for the selection of the Chief Executive and Legco by universal suffrage. As of January 27, 2015, 716 CE election models have been created and 15 Legco models.

Some Mainland and Hong Kong publications have published allegations that the United States and other foreign sources were funding and advising the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

CRS Report Cover

Reference 

¹CRS Report R44031 - Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: The 2017 Election Reforms (June 9, 2015). See link to report: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44031.pdf

NDI website comments on the Design Democracy Hong Kong Project dated 29 January 2014

This is how the National Democratic Institute (NDI) described the Designing Democracy in Hong Kong project on their website on 29 January 2014:

Hong Kong citizens have never had the opportunity to directly elect their city's chief executive.

While Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, calls for “universal suffrage” as its “ultimate aim,” the head of government and numerous legislators have not been directly elected by citizens for the last 16 years.

Instead, Hong Kong’s chief executives have been chosen by special Election Committees with members elected from business and professional sectors. And, currently, almost half of all Legislative Council (LegCo) members have been elected through a similar system of “functional constituencies” that represent professional associations and special interests.

But Hong Kong’s citizens may finally have the opportunity for a more representative electoral system.

After decades of advocacy for electoral reform by Hong Kong activists and pro-democracy politicians, China’s supreme law-making body, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, determined that Hong Kong may have universal suffrage for the 2017 chief executive election.

An official five-month public consultation process on electoral reform, which relies on town hall-style meetings and official submissions to the government, began last month.

The Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) at the University of Hong Kong, with support from NDI, is working to amplify citizens’ voices in that consultation process by creating Design Democracy Hong Kong (www.designdemocracy.hk), a unique and neutral website that gives citizens a place to discuss the future of Hong Kong’s electoral system.

Since current policymakers who are not directly elected have little motivation to consider public recommendations, Design Democracy hopes to gauge and promote citizens’ preferences on different models of universal suffrage.

Launched on Dec. 3, the Design Democracy website is the first interactive, politically neutral place where citizens can learn about the Hong Kong political system, engage with others in a debate about electoral reform, and easily share their views on social media and directly with the Hong Kong government.

The website, accessible in English and both traditional and simplified Chinese, encourages public dialogue and participation with the use of two tools. The first, called a “decision tree,” helps users to better understand what “universal suffrage” means and to design their own proposal for how it should work by walking them through the most important questions facing Hong Kong in the reform process.

The decision tree, for example, asks: “Who should have the power to nominate chief executive candidates?” As users respond to these and other questions, they are encouraged to explain their answers. Users can submit their proposals directly to the Hong Kong government from the Design Democracy website.

In the first few weeks after the website’s launch, more than 210 proposals were submitted and the Design Democracy Facebook page (www.facebook.com/designdemocracyhk) generated more than 1,150 “likes.”

The website’s second tool is the “forum,” where users can comment on a range of topics related to the election, such as whether candidates should have to receive a certain share of the vote to win an election outright. The Design Democracy team has also interviewed members of the legislature, scholars, young activists, and even celebrities to get their views on the prospects for reaching universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

Recordings of the interviews have been uploaded to YouTube and embedded on the forum to allow users to view and discuss them. The 25 videos posted so far have received more than 1,000 views.

Before the public consultation period ends in May, CCPL will analyze the proposals and data from the website and submit recommendations to the Hong Kong government. Later this year the government will design a reform package in line with guidelines set by Beijing that must be approved by two-thirds of the Legislative Council. Once the package is passed by LegCo and signed off on by Beijing, the Hong Kong SAR government will have to put in place the new institutions and procedures needed to carry out the 2017 chief executive election¹.

NDI webpage on Designing Democracy in Hong Kong project

Reference

¹NDI. Designing Democracy in Hong Kong project. Published Jan. 29, 2014.

https://www.ndi.org/hong-kong-designing%20democracy

NED denies it played a central role in the Occupy Central protests

On 14 October 2014, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) published the following news item in response to reports that they played a central role in the Hong Kong protests:

The National Endowment for Democracy and support for democracy in Hong Kong

In the wake of recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong, state controlled Chinese news outlets have published erroneous reports that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has played a central role in the protests.

The projects that the Endowment has supported over the years in Hong Kong have focused on encouraging good governance, supporting informed citizen engagement in the political process, and protecting human rights. NED projects for Hong Kong totaled $695,031 in 2013 – brief descriptions of these projects are available on the NED website and include two Hong Kong specific projects and one regional project.

Reports that NED Vice President Louisa Greve met with organizers of the Hong Kong protests are inaccurate, and while the National Endowment for Democracy is supportive of the goals of universal suffrage and genuine democracy, no leader of the current protests has sought assistance or counsel from the NED. On April 2, 2014 Ms. Greve moderated a panel hosted by NED featuring prominent democracy advocates Martin Lee and Anson Chan, and the full video of that event is available online. This was one of many appearances and meetings Lee and Chan scheduled during their trip to the U.S. in the spring of 2014 to discuss Hong Kong’s future. While Mr. Lee and Ms. Chan are leading democratic figures in Hong Kong, they are neither leaders nor organizers of the current protests; neither are they grantees of the NED. Lee was honored with NED’s annual Democracy Award in 1997 in recognition of his work to support freedom of the press, full democratic elections, the rule of law, and human rights in Hong Kong.

The Endowment makes more than 1400 annual grants in nearly 90 countries, and NED’s objectives in Hong Kong, as everywhere, have been and continue to be the support of nongovernmental organizations working to strengthen democratic values, processes, and institutions.

The NDI rebuttal

NED rebuttal

Details of the two Hong Kong specific projects and one regional project referred to in the rebuttal

NED Grant to Hong Kong

NED Asia Regional Grants

Two Grants to Hong Kong under
NED Asia Regional Grants

Comment

You can judge for yourself from the previous posts in this blog what role the NED grants played in supporting the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong, remembering that all the posts in this blog relate to NED funded activities in Hong Kong.

Reference 

National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy and support for democracy in Hong Kong. Published 14 October 2014.

Jennifer Eagleton, Civic Party consiglieri makes a plea to the student protesters on 19 October 2014 to stop talking violence and make peace

On 19 October 2014 Gardenia KWOK (G.K.) shared Scholarism’s post on the use of Monadnock Batons on the Design Democracy Hong Kong 港人講普選 Facebook page.

In response, Jennifer Eaglton, Senior Civic party member and member of the Design Democracy Hong Kong Project Advisory Group made the following comment:

“I think we should stop talking violence and talk peace now - 

Reach out to police. We only keep building up hatred”.

Reference 

Design Democracy Hong Kong 港人講普選 Facebook page on 19 October 2014.

How the US Government funded Design Democracy Facebook account was used to support the Occupy Central protests after 28 September 2014

The US Government funded Design Democracy Internet Portal included a website and the use of assorted social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others to share information and help coordinate actions during Occupy Central.

These are posts from the Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook account from after 28 September 2014, after the protesters confronted the police.

It is also important to remember, all of these messages and all of this advice was funded by the US Government.

29 September 2014

Information on Police deployments: Police behind the Bank of China Tower

Message:

22:18
中銀後方有大批警察，並進入中銀大廈

22:18
There is a large group of police behind The Bank of China tower and entered the building

2218
中国銀行後方に大勢の警察がなかに入ろうとしている

Logistical support: What equipment do you need in Causeway Bay and Wanchai?

Message:

有朋友傳來消息，指銅鑼灣與灣仔已經相連！
有冇朋友仔知道現場欠缺什麼？

The crowds in Causeway bay and Wanchai have connected!
What materials and equipment do we need in these two areas?

Have friends from the news, referring to causeway bay, wan chai, and already connected!
Any friends know what lack the scene?

The crowds in Causeway bay and Wanchai have connected!
What materials and equipment do we need in these two areas?

Command and control: Spread out from Admiralty

Message:

金鐘宣布：由於太擠迫，所以擴大戰線到干諾道
Announcement in admiralty: too crowded in admiralty so spread out to Connaught road

Details of security equipment supplier for gasmasks

Message:

朋友：如果大家想買豬嘴
如果你唔出去不如你買，送去現場
If you want to buy gas mask, or if you want to buy gas masks for your friends.

網民: 新填地街砵蘭街一帶嘅工業安全用品公司留意下
網民: 也可買3M 1862.

Friends: if you want to buy a pig mouth
If you don't go out, why don't you buy sent to the scene
If you want to buy gas mask, or if you want to buy gas masks for your friends.

Netizens: Reclamation Street along the Portland street in industrial safety supplies companies to pay attention to the next
Netizens: you can also buy 3 M 1862.

30 September 2014

Information on Police deployments: Police in Wanchai

Message:

謝斐道現場! 小編收到好多風灣仔好多警察！一切小心！
Live at Jaffe Road! We have received messages that there are a lot of police in Wan Chai! Please be careful!

References 

Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook account after 28 September 2014

How the US Government funded Design Democracy Facebook account was used to support the Occupy Central protests on 28 September 2014

The US Government funded Design Democracy Internet Portal included a website and the use of assorted social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others to share information and help coordinate actions during Occupy Central.

These are posts from the Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook account on 28 September 2014, the day after the protesters confronted the police.

It is important to remember, all of these messages and all of this advice was funded by the US Government.

Message to avoid Chater Road

Message:

Please spread: Please do not come to Chater Road in Central. Those affected by tear gas please walk towards Causeway Bay. Charter Road has heavy-loaded police and waterwheels, all with gas masks.

Message of praise from Jennifer Eagleton on a school class boycott

Message:

迦密中學學生罷課現場. Class boycott at Carmel Secondary School, Ho Man Tin. Boycottage de classe, Carmel Secondary School, Ho Man Tin. 中学校のストライキ現場 迦密中學政改關注組

JenniferAnne Eagleton commented: “Good on you kids!”

Contact details for a Police and Security Equipment supplier

Message:

朋友：如果大家想買豬嘴. 如果你唔出去不如你買，送去現場. If you want to buy gas mask, or if you want to buy gas masks for your friends. 網民: 新填地街砵蘭街一帶嘅工業安全用品公司留意下 網民: 也可買3M 1862.

Design Democracy/CCPL/HKU poster with lawyer contact numbers and graphics explaining the need to dispose of scissors, cutters and knives

Message:

請廣傳

義務律師團隊發出訊息指，願意支援被拘捕的人。如果你在被捕後沒有律師去見你的話，請向警方要求打電話，請要求文律師和Mr. Vidler 律師去見你或指派大律師去見你。無需事前發出sms。9722 3750 文律師　(何謝韋律師事務所）9167 7091　 Mr. Vidler（韋智達律師行） 

Please help to spread this message: A volunteer lawyers team indicated that the team is willing to aid those who are being arrested. If you are being arrested without a lawyer to help you, please request the police to allow you to contact Mr. Man or Mr. Vidler. There is no need to send any SMS before that. 9722 3750 Mr. Man (Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners) 9167 7091 Mr. Vidler (Vidler & Co)

Reference

Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook account on 28 September 2014

How the US Government funded Design Democracy Facebook account was used to support the Occupy Central protests on 27 September 2014

The US Government funded Design Democracy Internet Portal included a website and the use of assorted social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others to share information and help coordinate actions during Occupy Central.

These are posts from the Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook account on 27 September 2014, the day the protesters confronted the police. It should be noted, all of these posts were made before the police used tear gas to disperse the protesters, suggesting the student confrontation with the police was pre-planned.

It is also important to remember, all of these messages and all of this advice was funded by the US Government.

Use of Firechat

Message:

//如果大家關注政總現場情況或會到政總, 請先到 AppStore 或 PlayStore 安裝及登入 FireChat.  Firechat於台灣立法院抗爭時, 開始廣為台灣人所用。 若你進入政總後, 發現你的電話無法上網, 只要你的電話開了藍芽，FireChat 就會變成一個公開既通訊渠道，你可以用 FireChat 與附近的 FireChat 用戶通訊，以聯絡自己的朋友。 你亦可以利用此 App, 把現場情況向外發佈. 以免有人因網上流言自亂陣腳。 請把以上資料傳開去，謝謝..

In case all entrances close and started clearing// If you are at gov headquarters or on your way, please download "firechat". It is used in the movement in taiwan, whenever you find that you cannot go online, use wifi etc, turn on your bluetooth and open firechat. Then you can chat with the friends near you. You can share info with this app as well.

Use of Safety Goggles

Message:

買到，大家五金鋪有。如果你想支持學生就去啦

Design Democracy/CCPL/HKU poster with lawyer contact numbers and graphics explaining the rights of arrested persons to a phone call, food and medical examination

Message:

你的基本人權:

Design Democracy HK ‏@hkwedecide Twitter post 

On 27 September 2014. Design Democracy HK ‏@hkwedecide  Twitter Account tweeted the following message and graphics explaining the need to dispose of scissors, cutters and knives:

Message:

If you have cutter, scissors or pocket knife with you, please throw them away

Reference

Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook account on 27 September 2014

Meeting arranged by Jennifer Eagleton between the Civic Party and student leaders immediately prior to Occupy Central on 5 September 2014

On 17 September 2014, Wen Wei Po published an article on a meeting of the Civic Party’s English Language Group (ELG), held in Room 502 of the LegCo building on the evening of 5 September 2014, “The Way Forward from the Young Generation’s Perspective”.

This meeting was significant for two reasons:

1.      Jennifer Anne Eagleton is not only a senior member of the Civic Party, she was also the Civic Party’s inside person at HKU in the Occupy Central protests, being a member of the Design Democracy Hong Kong Project Advisory Group. See link: http://nedprogramsinhk.blogspot.com/2016/08/introducing-design-democracy-advisory.html

2.      Yvonne LEUNG Lai-kwok, one of the student leaders in the Occupy Central protests who was an attendee at the meeting, is also the centre of a recent controversy at HKU involving political interference in HKU’s internal affairs by the Civic Party, where she categorically denied having any further relationship with the Civic Party after a 2012 internship with Alan LEONG Kah-kit. Her presence at this meeting disproves this. See link: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/01/28/hku-class-boycott-committee-rebut-council-chair-smears-deny-they-are-controlled-by-political-party/

Background

The Civic Forum English Language Group is a forum which meets in LegCo and holds meetings, often in conjunction with HK2020. Here’s an advert for a meeting they held in January 2014.

Civic Party English Language Group (ELG)
meeting notice on 7 January 2014

ELG meeting on 5 September 2014, “The Way Forward from the Young Generation’s Perspective”

On 17 September 2014, Wen Wei Po published an article on an ELG meeting held on 5 September 2014. The meeting was entitled: “The Way Forward from the Young Generation’s Perspective”. We’ve taken details of this meeting from the reports by the Canada China Friendship Association in their blog posts US Political Influence Among Young Hong Kong Activists (Part I)¹ and US Political Influence Among Young Hong Kong Activists (Part II)².

According to the blog post, this is a partial list of other attendees (out of 33, perhaps more): 

• Jennifer Eagleton, lecturer, City University of Hong Kong,
• Gladys Li, lawyer,
• Lee Faulkner, CEO, Radio Chinwag,
• Steve Vines, political reporter/commentator,
• Margaret Ng, Civic Party member  and lawyer,
• David M. Webb, former non-executive director of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange,
• Elizabeth Bosher, former Economic Department official (at the US Consulate),
• Rachel Cartland, former Financial and Economic Affairs Department official,
• Robin Bradbeer, director, Hong Kong Internet Management Co. Ltd.,
• Evan Fowler, director, Home Court News (translation?),
• Sebastian Veg, researcher on politics, French Center for Research on Contemporary China,
• Michele Geldens, English teacher, Hotung Secondary School,
• Jenn Horgos, Hong Kong TV anchor,
• Suzanne Pepper, American China scholar,
• Yvonne Leung, president of the Hong Kong University Student Union,
• Agnes Chow, spokesperson for the high school student activist group Scholarism,
• Hoidick Chu, spokesperson for ‘Local Action’,
• David Zweig, chair professor, Division of Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
• YC Chen (陈允中), Assistant Professor, Division of Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. 

The following photographs were posted from this meeting:

Jennifer Eagleton and Robin Bradbeer chatting

Student leaders including Agnes CHOW and Yvonne LEUNG

Other attendees

Other attendees

Following the meeting, both Robin Bradbeer and Jennifer Eagleton posted Facebook rebuttals of certain allegations made by Wen Wei Po about the meeting. They did not deny the meeting took place or that the list of attendees was wrong. Here are their rebuttals:

Rebuttal by Robin Bradbeer, posted to Design Democracy Hong Kong Facebook page
on 14 September 2014.

Further rebuttal posted on Facebook

on 19 September 2014.

References

¹Canada China Friendship Association Blog. US Political Infuence Among Young Hong Kong Activists ( Part I). Posted on 6 October 2014. See link: http://youxie.ca/us-political-infuence-among-young-hong-kong-activists-part-i/

²Canada China Friendship Association Blog. US Political Infuence Among Young Hong Kong Activists (Part I I). Posted on 9 October 2014. See link: http://youxie.ca/us-political-influence-among-young-hong-kong-activists-part-ii/