Keywords: Youth League of CCP, Yanhuang Chunqiu, Internet media control in China, Hong Kong’s Legislature election, political censorship, political party’s asset audit law in Taiwan.

CHINA – POLITICS

1. The Sixth Plenum of CCP’s Central Committee to be held in October

• //The sixth plenary session of the 18th Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee has been scheduled for October, the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee announced after a meeting on Tuesday. The plenum in Beijing will include the delivery of a work report to the CPC Central Committee by the Political Bureau, review of key issues concerning the comprehensive and strict management of the Party, writing the norms of intra-Party political life under the new situation; and a revision to an intra-Party supervision regulation, according to a statement released after Tuesday’s meeting. […] When improving and regulating intra-Party political life under the new circumstances, the statement said, attention will be focused on government agencies and officials at all levels, particularly senior officials including members of the CPC Central Committee, Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, and the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee. Senior officials, particularly members of the central leadership, must lead by example, follow the Party Constitution and rules, conform to the Party’s political norms and disciplines, always remember the Party’s mission and set a good example for Party members. « Intra-Party supervision is the basic and primary form of supervision, and only by pushing forward other forms of supervision alongside intra-Party supervision can we guarantee the comprehensive and strict management of the Party, » the statement said. According to the statement, the current intra-Party supervision regulation, promulgated in 2003, has supported the management of the Party, by safeguarding Party unity and ensuring that the Party exists for the public and governs for the people. However, it noted that the regulation has become « incompatible with new practices and demands, » adding that the experience gained in recent years laid the starting blocks for its revision.// Source: Xinhua, 27 July 2016.

2. New measures to discipline the Chinese Communist Party

a. Promulgation of new rules for intra-party accountability

On 17 July, the CCP promulgated a new set of rules to enhance intra-party accountability, for the text of the new rules, please find it here prepared by Xinhua. A commentator from Xinhua said it is a strong political message to the whole party that the top leaders are serious about holding accountable leaders of Party committees of lower levels with poor performances.

• //The new regulation introduced an internal Party accountability mechanism to be applied across all levels and divisions. It targets leaders of Party committees and discipline inspection committees at various levels, and holds them responsible for serious consequences caused by negligence or poor work performance, the document said. Party committees, departments as well as discipline inspection committees also will be held accountable for violations of Party rules as well as poor work performance, according to the new regulation. […] There are 119 documents involving accountability mechanism among more than 500 Party regulations, focusing on administrative accountability in accidents and incidents. The new regulation, summing up the existing Party rules and stressing strictly governing the Party, further clarified the subjects, situations and punishments in the accountability mechanism. For instance, the Party will hold officials and party organizations accountable for failing to implement Party guidelines and policies; failure to discipline subordinates or identify and address loopholes in Party management; or corruption in their own departments.// Source: Xinhua News, 17 July 2016.
• //《中国共产党问责条例》的制定出台，向全党释放强烈政治信号：党中央对问责是动真格的，要让失责必问、问责必严成为常态。真抓严管、狠抓落实，把问责条例这把利剑用起来，是全面从严治党的必然要求，也是检验各级党组织和领导干部责任意识、担当精神的试金石。[…] 执行制度关键在人。让失责必问、问责必严成为常态，必须抓住领导干部这个“关键少数”。党的领导是具体的不是抽象的，“领”就是率先垂范、引领示范，“导”就是要发现问题、及时纠正。问责条例能否起作用，关键在于各级党组织和党的领导干部能不能担当、敢不敢较真、有没有战斗性。// Source: Xinhua News, 19 July 2016.

b. Reform on the CCP’s Youth League

• //The Communist Youth League served as a cradle for generations of Chinese leaders, who rose through it into the high ranks of the party. Mr. Xi’s predecessor as China’s top leader, Hu Jintao, was among the most prominent. Others have included Premier Li Keqiang, Vice President Li Yuanchao and Ling Jihua, the former head of the party’s general office. But a reorganization of the Communist Youth League laid out in the state news media on Tuesday indicated that its glory days as a finishing school for China’s political elite may have passed. The overhaul promised to shrink the Youth League’s central leadership, put it under firmer party control and return it to its grass roots to try to win over the country’s young people. “Its ranks will undergo shrinkage at the top and replenishment below,” an unnamed Youth League leader said in People’s Daily, the party’s main newspaper, on Wednesday, explaining the reorganization. “In the face of major changes in the social environment and youth population, there are many areas of the Youth League’s development and work that are ill-adapted or unsuitable.” […] But officials who emerged from the Youth League were never as cohesive as some assumed, and the circumstances that made the league an incubator of political talent had diminished before Mr. Xi took power in late 2012, said Li Datong, a former editor at China Youth Daily, the league’s newspaper. The latest changes made it clear that this group had little influence, he said in an interview. “Under Hu Jintao you could maybe make a strained argument that there was some kind of Youth League faction, but not now,” Mr. Li said. “It’s ceased to exist.” “The criticisms of the Youth League show that its influence has run its course,” he said. “It’s become a political zombie.”//Source: New York Times, 03 August 2016.

Commentary from Xia Kedao (侠客岛), a commentator of the Overseas Edition of the People’s Daily, points out that the reason for the reform is to re-focus on the youth work so that it can help unify and mobilize the mass. Also, the Youth League is re-positioned to be the bridge between the government and the youth.

• //当下的中国，官方和民间存在诸多的误解和矛盾，导致舆论撕裂，社会流动性差，公众对社会事件的有效参与不够，社会的凝聚力和向心力不足。这也就是习近平所言，“人心是最大的政治”。尤其在当下的中国，无论是深化改革、转型升级发展，还是“大众创业、万众创新”，抑或是社会和谐稳定，说到底，都得靠群众、靠人民。这是根本的出路，更是共产党所有工作的出发点和落脚点。而在其中，青年的作用都至关重要。在这样的背景下，以共青团为代表的群团组织的意义就凸显出来了——它既可以承接国家意志，又可以团结和发动群众。《方案》强调，共青团是“党的助手和后备军”，“政府联系青年的桥梁和纽带”。毋庸置疑，这是一个涉及到“未来”的组织——团员很多会成为党员，青年则会成长为社会的中流砥柱；团的工作能不能做好，很大程度上关系到“扣好人生第一粒扣子”的问题。更耐人寻味的一个表述是，“推进共青团改革，是从严治党的一部分，是焕发共青团活力的重要举措”；以改革焕发活力是常见表述，而将其纳入“从严治党”的一部分，则并不常见。其特殊性不言而喻。 既然要改革，就说明目前存在问题。用中央巡视组给共青团中央的反馈意见说，问题可以概括为“机关化、行政化、贵族化、娱乐化” […] 这次的改革方案，也能非常明显地看出问题导向，基本都是面向“机关化、行政化、贵族化、娱乐化”的“四化”在动刀。比如，针对难出大院的机关化、行政化，《方案》提出，要在团中央精简机关行政编制，补充挂职干部，“不搞年龄层层递减”；同时，高度强调到基层去，“推动机关干部到基层一线开展工作，建立完善团中央机关干部常态化下沉基层、向基层服务对象报到工作机制，推动机关干部摆脱文山会海、走出高楼大院”；针对“贵族化”、“娱乐化”，则要在团中央领导机构中“明显提高基层和一线团干部、团员的比例”，五湖四海，“不拘一格从党员、团员中选拔优秀人才”；团干部则要直接联系青年，“每名专职、挂职团干部经常性联系100名左右不同领域的团员青年，兼职团干部直接联系10名左右普通青年”，把活动做实，经常性听取青年的声音，并与他们互动。// Source: IFeng, 03 August 2016.

Certain areas are targets of change in the reform. For example, overall structure will be reduced and less elitist with the expansion of lower-ranked members into Central Committee of Youth League, members are asked to go out and serve the mass, and the presence of the Youth League in the Internet will be substantially established.

• //方案從4大方面、12個領域提出了改革措施，包括改進團中央領導機構人員、機構、運行機制；改革團中央機關幹部選拔、使用及管理；改革創新團的工作、活動、基層組織建設；以及加大黨委和政府對共青團工作的支持保障力度。其中較矚目的是方案表明將會調高團中央領導機構中基層和一線幹部、團員的比例；改革優化機關職能和機構，實行工作力量「減上補下」，團中央精減機關行政編 制，補充相應數量的掛職幹部，帶動省級團委根據實際情況精減編制。另外，又要求領導幹部要「擺脫文山會海，走出高樓大院」，落實到地方基層服務。方案又列明要大力實施「網上共青團」工程，以「智慧團建」和「青年之聲」為重點，建設工作網、互聯網、服務網「三網合一」的網上共青團，形成「互聯網＋共青團」格局，建設「團幹部＋社工＋青年義工」隊伍，充實基層工作力量。// Source: Oriental Daily, 02 August 2016.

Prof. Bo Zhiyue, a professor of political science at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, who studies elite Chinese politics, analyzes that:

• //“The fact that they’re conducting these serious reforms is trying to undermine the legitimacy of the Youth League as a supply pool of future leaders,” Professor Bo said by telephone. “It’s an implicit attack on the power base of the so-called Youth League faction.” […] The Youth League won particular prominence as an incubator for future leaders in the 1980s. That was partly because the party leader for much of that decade, Hu Yaobang, was a former Youth League leader. Perhaps more important, the party also faced a talent gap at the time. In the late 1970s, after the Cultural Revolution and its radical supporters were swept away, party veterans such as Deng Xiaoping returned to power. But they knew that age would soon catch up with them and made plans to nurture potential successors. The Youth League became an important training ground for that, Professor Bo said. // Source: New York Times, 03 August 2016.

Dr. Bai Xin, who got a PhD in Politics, holds the views that the Youth League Faction will be severely undermined and the Youth League will become more loyal to President Xi Jinping. Also, Youth League will be mobilized to do more online work towards Taiwan.

• //具體來說，整個方案有兩個亮點，分別印證着共青團的「社運化改造」。一是去官僚化設計：團中央開始精簡編制，增加掛職幹部和基層幹部比重，並且不再要求職務等級和工作匹配。這等於既去掉了團派官僚升遷的棘輪，破壞了團系幹部的上升通道，又以一種變相的「內部幹部下放」形式對團系整體貶黜。共青團的快速升遷本來是團系政治力量的內生機制，如此一來，團系作為一個獨立政治力量的威脅，就此瓦解。經此改造，在未來的中國政治舞台上，一個更效忠習個人、更活躍、也更具政治進攻性的青年運動組織儼然形成，也就是一個建制化的「小粉紅」軍團。[…] 另一個最重要的趨勢是「互聯網＋共青團」的模式，強調網團的深度融合。這是第一次以互聯網結構為主導，改造黨團－官僚組織的嘗試。《方案》要求團組 織走出辦公室和文山會海，進入社會；也要求團幹部主動聯繫青年，直接動員青年；大力實施「網上共青團」工程，推動團員轉為社會志願者。如此成建制的、社會運動式的轉型，可以回溯到2008奧運會，共青團工作向社會志願者的轉型。那時，團組織事實上發揮着 NGO 的功能，向黨和政府部門提供有組織的青年志願服務，而團中央正是在賽後志願工作總結的基礎上開始了轉型。[…] 如果這一推測成立，那即是說，不僅團系已經全面轉向效忠習近平、甘當對台青年工作的馬前卒，而且整個共青團都在主動進行「無害化」轉向，以社會運動的手法重建組織和動員，參與到對習個人效忠、爭取青年、佔領互聯網的一場運動中。未來可見的，必然是更大規模、更為活躍、更為「萌態」的共青團組織的青年運動。那時，人們或許聽不到街道上整齊的皮靴聲，但只要打開手機和互聯網，就能看到鋪天蓋地的美麗青年，如何敬仰英明領袖的歌唱。// Source: The Initium, 04 August 2016.

CHINA – MEDIA

1. Closure of the liberal political magazine Yanhuang Chunqiu after a forceful purge of the existing management team

On 14 July, the supervisory body of the political magazine Yanhuang Chunqiu (炎黃春秋), the Chinese National Academy of Arts (中國藝術研究院) affiliated with the Ministry of Culture, announced a series of changes to the personnel in the management team of the magazine. Soon after the announcement, the supervisory body sent a new batch of staff to the magazine’s office in an attempt to take over the physical office. The magazine’s founder Du Daozheng (杜導正) protested, arguing the Academy has violated the mutual agreement which allows certain level of editorial autonomy for the magazine. On 17 July, he reacted by closing down the magazine. For the Statement made by Du about the cessation of publication, please find it here (in Chinese).

• //An outspoken mainland liberal political magazine has stopped publication following a reshuffle of top management last week, according to a notice signed by its sacked publisher. The decision announced by long-time Yanhuang Chunqiu publisher Du Daozheng reflected less tolerance in the establishment for reformers and liberals, a former editor of the magazine said. In a statement dated Sunday, Du said the magazine’s editorial staff made the decision after a series of sackings and demotions initiated by the cultural ministry academy overseeing the journal. […] The influential journal has a monthly circulation of about 200,000 and voiced support for constitutional democracy. It is also known for running articles that contest the official version of Communist Party history. It has had the backing of various retired senior party and government officials but came under pressure from the authorities in recent years to soften its editorial stance. “The mindset of domestic intellectuals may change [as a result of stopping publication],” former Yanhuang Chunqiu executive editor Hong Zhenkuai said. “The magazine represented reformists within the party and liberals within the establishment. “One of its key positions was to urge the party to advance political reform.”// Source: SCMP, 18 July 2016.

• //風波不斷的《炎黃春秋》雜誌，近日高層人事安排大換血，官方人馬全面入駐接管，終於在7月17日，由社長杜導正簽名，宣佈即日停刊。曾任雜誌執行主編四年多的洪振快向端傳媒表示，雜誌社與官方指定的主管主辦單位中國藝術研究院的官司還在打，但雜誌社人員已不能正常辦公，他17日探望留醫的杜導正，杜導正在病床上看了停刊聲明的草稿，「真正簽名可能是在今天（18日）」。[…] 一年半前，官方意圖通過變更主管主辦單位加強對《炎黃春秋》控制，此番人事大調整，乃是控制的進一步強化。官方決心通過人事調整，逐步完成對內容的控制，這種決心只能來自最頂層。[…]《炎黃春秋》的主要內容，一是中共黨史、軍史、國史上重要歷史事件當事人的回憶，能夠提供歷史內幕，包括中共最高層在重要歷史事件的真實作為；二是對中共歷史上的錯誤如肅反、大饑荒、文革等進行反思，以期總結歷史經驗，避免重犯錯誤；三是對重大理論問題即中國的發展方向提出看法，力求推動政治體制改革。[…] 經過長期的博弈，雜誌社與官方達成某種程度的協議，八個方面的內容不碰，即雜誌不能刊登涉及和主張這八個方面內容的文章。所謂「八不碰」包括：軍隊國家化、三權分立、六四、現任黨和國家領導人及其家屬、多黨制、法輪功、民族宗教問題、劉曉波（在藝研院提供的協議版本中，此點改為憲政）。除此之外，官方默認雜誌可以刊登。在中國大陸，這已是其他媒體所不能享有的特權，因「八不碰」之外還有廣闊的空間可以開拓，尤其是歷史問題。但實際上，並非所有內容都能刊登，官方還是經常提出某些文章違背「重大選題備案辦法」，觸碰了底線。雜誌每期刊登20篇文章光景，經常被指出有三四篇「違規」，甚至七八篇「違規」。[…] 由於沒有官方的編制和經費，《炎黃春秋》在人事和財務方面有相對獨立權，這是編輯方針保持相對獨立的重要保證。[…]《炎黃春秋》代表黨內改革派，受到了社會各界的關注和支持，創刊至今25年，官方一直未下決心關停，是因影響太大，沒人敢擔政治責任和歷史罪名。至此番人事大換血，可以看出官方是下了決心。官方還顯然進行了精心布局，包括下令各媒體不得炒作。這種決心只能來自最頂層，藝研院作為主管主辦單位，只是執行命令而已，不是能下決定者。當然，官方並不想直接關停《炎黃春秋》，因為那樣不夠體面，而且可能會引發政治事件；通過人事調整，逐步完成對內容的控制，改造成官方希望的面目，應是官方既定的目標，應該是誰也改變不了的結果。在此意義上，《炎黃春秋》已被判處死刑，已絕無保持原來的辦刊方針存活下去的可能。 […] 《炎黃春秋》的主張，代表了中共黨內改革派、體制內自由派所主張的改良道路，代表中共黨內和民間温和、理性、健康的力量，即通過政治體制改革，使中共由一個革命黨轉變成一個執政黨，以最小的社會代價，完成中國的現代文明轉型。這種主張，能夠避免通過「革命」方式變革社會帶來大規模政治動盪，從而引起社會失控的風險和代價。[…] 儘管上述主張過於理想化，未必能夠實現，但《炎黃春秋》的存在，至少表明上述主張在中共黨內還能被容許，還有一點微弱的希望。如果中共官方下決心扼殺《炎黃春秋》，那就意味著温和改良的道路在中國無法走通，激進革命話語將成為社會認識的主流，中國各界精英的認識將會發生微妙的調整，這對中國未來走向到底意味著什麼，還有待觀察。// Source: the Initium, 17 July 2016.

In response to the occupation of the magazine’s office, former senior manager of Yanhuang Chunqiu take a legal action to protect the magazine’s right, but the court in Beijing has so far refused to accept the case.

•  //A legal letter sent by two Beijing-based lawyers Mo Shaoping and Ding Xikui on behalf of the magazine to the president of the academy on Tuesday said: “In the hope of safeguarding the legal interests of Yanhuang Chunqiu, we will follow all legal measures … if the academy fails to take measures to stem the deteriorating and additional economic losses [triggered by its decision]. Mo and Ding called on the academy to resume normal working practices at Yanhuang Chunqiu by removing all the newsroom staff it appointed before returning control of its official website to editorial staff. The legal letter also accused the academy of violating a legally binding agreement reached between the academy and Yanhuang Chunqiu in mid-December, 2014. This agreement underscored the autonomy of the journal in terms of its editorial decisions, human resources and finance, as long as it complied with the constitution of the country.// Source: SCMP, 21 July 2016.

•  //The magazine, whose title roughly translates as China Annals, has survived many run-ins with censors. But the worst threat yet came this month, when the government-run Chinese National Academy of Arts, which officially oversees the magazine, announced it would install a new editorial lineup. In China, magazines must have a sponsoring government-linked unit, and the academy has sponsored Yanhuang Chunqiu since 2014, when it took over from an association more sympathetic to the periodical. Growing friction between the academy and editors culminated in the academy’s saying it would remove Mr. Du, demote other longtime editors and install its own editors. […] The publisher, Mr. Du, 92, and his supporters have also tried to sue the academy for breach of contract, claiming that the changes violated an agreement reached in 2014 that promised the magazine autonomy over personnel, finances and editorial choices. But a court in Beijing has so far refused to accept their case and is still considering what to do, said Ding Xikui, one of the lawyers representing the aggrieved editors. The rift over the magazine’s future has also become a physical standoff, with separate parts of its premises, behind a small hotel in western Beijing, held by the two rival groups. On Tuesday, the distribution office was still run by staff members loyal to the longtime editors, while nearby, an editor’s office and meeting room were held by people apparently loyal to the academy that has tried to impose control over the magazine. So far, the police have not moved against the protesting editors. Senior party officials have not publicly commented on the magazine, and editors said it was unclear whether Mr. Xi or other leaders had had a direct hand in the recent changes. But Maoist websites and conservative party scholars have long abhorred Yanhuang Chunqiu and have been celebrating its possible demise. A month ago, a court in Beijing ordered a former editor of the magazine to apologize for questioning the veracity of a story of Communist heroism against Japan during World War II. At the same time, liberal party veterans who have helped ward off pressure from critics have been dying out, said Wu Si, a former editor in chief of Yanhuang Chunqiu. Precedent suggests that the defenders of Yanhuang Chunqiu’s autonomy have little hope of winning. Other magazines and newspapers brought to heel by officialdom have either closed down or survived as tepid replicas.// Source: New York Times, 27 July 2016.

According to the online information, the magazine has recently published a new issue after the management purge in July. The former deputy editor, Hu Dehua, refused to recognize the book with the name Yanhuang Chunqiu, saying the magazine has officially ended the contractual relationship with the Chinese National Academy of Arts on 02 August.

•  //據悉，最新一期8號月刊已經發行。原雜誌社副社長、胡耀邦之子胡德華稱，此並非由他們出版，「我們不承認」，而且所有原班人馬均已與藝研院解除合約，如果新一期的版權頁仍有他們的信息，考慮控告其侵權。[…]《炎黃》8月2日發表聲明，解除與藝研院的主管關係，編委會成員及顧問在8月3日開會，創辦人杜導正、顧問李銳等出席，眾人均對藝研院設立偽《炎黃》編輯部、盜用他們名義的行為表示憤慨。但由於編輯部被不明人士「佔領」，胡德華說自己也回不去辦公室，會通過法律申訴解決。據《美國之音》近日報道，有中國四大法學家之稱的原中國法學雜誌總編郭道暉、前政法大學校長江平、原社科院法學所法理研究室主任李步雲、全國人大法工委研究室原主任高鍇，以及其他知名法律專家等十多人，8月2日參加了由炎黃春秋的法律代理北京莫少平律所主辦的專家研討會，會議將形成到會專家簽字的專家意見書，提供給司法機關參考，並向全社會公佈。郭道暉於會議表示，此「不經雙方協商、用非法行政命令手段、單方面撕毀與另一個社會文化組織訂立的協議並強佔，令人感到『文革』某些現象在回潮。」// Source: Hong Kong 01, 05 August 2016.

2. Government’s discipline of private Internet companies

a. Internet Giant Tencent was disciplined over an error in a headline referring to Xi Jinping’s speech at the 95th anniversary celebration of CCP

In the latest round of disciplines over online media in China, the Cyberspace Administration of China took initiatives to punish editors who failed to uphold the positive image of Xi Jinping, and to order amendment to news websites where description of CCP’s history is found falling out of the line of the party’s version. It also closed down news columns and sites which had produced original news contents on political and social issues, instead of re-posting news contents from state channels.

• //The online news department of mainland internet giant Tencent has been disciplined over an error in a headline referring to President Xi Jinping, three sources confirmed on Thursday. Instead of saying Xi “delivered an important speech” on the Communist Party’s 95th anniversary on July 1, the headline said Xi gave “an important speech in a furious manner”. The characters have similar pronunciation and the switch was believed to be the result of a computer input error. Sources said oversight of the news department would be changed from the Cyberspace Administration of China’s branch in Shenzhen to its operations in Beijing, which have responsibility for monitoring most of the mainland’s national news portals. The news site’s broad reach prompted propaganda authorities to launch an investigation into the mix-up, triggering a series of emergency meetings at the technology company. The fate of the news department’s chief editor, Wang Yongzhi, was unclear. […] Investigators also told Tencent to remove articles containing “inappropriate descriptions” of former state leaders in a section dedicated to Communist Party history on Tiantian Kuaibao, a Tencent mobile news app. The authorities could ban the app if adequate changes were not made, according to a source. Another major online news portal, Ifeng.com, was also under fire, accused of publishing inaccurate reports and misleading news headlines, according to The Beijing News.// Source: SCMP, 21 July 2016.

b. Shutting down of commercial news portals for failure in complying with Internet regulation

• //Beijing’s Internet regulator on Sunday shut down some programs of several commercial news portals run by a number of major Internet giants for publishing news articles that they had reported and composed themselves, in violation of recent regulations on Internet management, news site thepaper.cn reported. The Beijing Cyberspace Administration has shut down « Geek News, » a news program run by Sina, and is cleaning the forbidden content from its live channel « Sina Live. » Moreover, news programs such as « People in News », « Radian », and « Click Today » run by Sohu, news programs « Echos », « Road Sign » run by Netease have also been required to close. Website ifeng.com has already closed its « Serious-News » program. The platforms such as websites, mobile applications and WeChat accounts of all these banned news programs will be shut down.  An official from the administration said that these channels have seriously violated recently introduced regulations which stipulate that the re-posting or releasing news articles on social and political issues can only be done if they come from news agencies run by the central, provincial or municipal governments and should also note the sources. The official said that the administration will also fine the related websites, adding that it will enhance law enforcement and regulate the news services provided by the websites under its jurisdiction.// Source: Global Times, 25 July 2016.

Prof. Zhang Taofu (张涛甫) from Fudan University argues that the ban on news information production by private Internet companies is not new but the government was lenient enough to allow their unlawful actions in the past. He continues that the action to stop several famous news websites run by private companies will pass back the right of news content generation to state media.

• //国家《互联网新闻信息服务管理规定》有明确的规定，不允许商业门户网站自行采编新闻信息，但长期以来，不少门户网站或明或暗从事新闻信息的生产。监管方在管理过程中也会控制节奏和分寸，只要门户们不要玩得太过，差不多的情况也就算了，没下狠招、出重拳。这次，北京市网信办以凌厉之势整治门户网站的违规行为，不是出于权力的任性，其行为是有理据的：《互联网新闻信息服务管理规定》第十六条的规定。这个规定早已有之，不是近期才出台的，只不过，这个规定在执行过程中，存在一定的弹性。出于发展互联网的长远预期，互联网管理的刹车始终没有踩死，使得门户网站饱 尝市场的甜头，甚至对于某些网站在监管的边界打擦边球、在灰色地带模糊作业生产内容，管得并不严厉。比如说，对诸如体育新闻、社会新闻、娱乐新闻等内容领 域，对一些不敏感话题的讨论，监管方也没有特别较真。近年来，一些门户有点“得寸进尺”，在新闻的路上渐行渐远。这次叫停数家知名网站原创新闻频道栏目，责令整改其违规内容，这一监管行动会产生哪些影响？[…] 这次监管行动会影响新旧媒体的利益格局。传统媒体或体制内媒体有个重要的制度红利，就是享受制度庇护的新闻信息采制权。当初制度设计，商业网站可以做除了新闻采制之外的所有事情（当然是法规允许的事情），但事实上，很多商业网站并没有做到一尘不染，未能规规矩矩在法度之内作业，不少网站半明半暗地从事新闻内容的生产，稀释了传统媒体或体制内媒体的内容生产优势。其中，商业门户网站走得更远：明明有规定不准他们从事新闻内容生产，他们不但做了，而且直接要做原创、要做硬新闻，这不仅抢了传统媒体或体制内媒体的市场蛋糕，同时也是在挖制度的墙角。这次监管行动意味着，商业网站还是要本本分分地做法规允许做的事情，把新闻生产的权利交还给传统媒体或体制内媒体。这对那些依靠内容优势吃饭的传统媒体或体制内媒体，是一大利好消息。// Source: People.cn, 28 July 2016.

Wei Wuhui (魏武挥) from Shanghai Jiao Tong University disagrees on that the development of Chinese private Internet companies is not attributed to the government’s master plan of allowing deliberate freedom for them to grow but rather driven by practitioners when the government did not pay much attention to the Internet. He further points out that the government has always been concerned about regulating the Internet, and it was since the 2000s that a more complete set of laws was promulgated to do the task.

• //新媒体技术风口的确是门户网站崛起的重要因素之一。但这里面所谓的制度利好、美好预期、先发展后规范、宽松环境，其意是当时中国政策制定者，有意让其先发展，故作宽松。事实真的如此吗？[…]中国政府真正意义上专门针对互联网的一个官方文件，是1997年3月国务院新闻办就互联网开展对外新闻宣传问题的文件。因为当时互联网被冠以“国际互联网”，国内媒体搞电子版也好网站也好，就立刻和“国际”有关，自然是“利用互联网开展对外宣传”。1997年这份文件，强调要统一通过中央对外宣传平台统一入网，后来觉得实在没操作性，在1998年10月，再次发文进行补充修改，允许申请独立域名，自建网站。时任总书记的江泽民，在1999年一个会议上，做过要掌握先进传播技术手段之类的讲话，但那个会议的主题是：全国对外宣传工作会议。可以这么说，刚刚开始兴起的互联网媒体应用，很大一块和“对外宣传”有关，当时的中国管理当局，是把它当成一个外宣口子来看待的。甚至一开始的想法甚至是统一管理，统一入口，完全是中心化的思路，与互联网去中心化背道而驰，谈不上是什么“先发展后规范，有意宽松”。大致上，早期的互联网媒体就是如上所说发展。基本上两条线，各干各的。一路是国有媒体，一路是风险资本养大的互联网公司。国有媒体以外宣为重要任务，并不是以商业运作为主要目标。而互联网公司呢？有意思的地方就是，它们倒是拷贝了美国模式来中国，不过争夺的却是国内市场。中国政府真正意义上出手管理互联网媒体的，是2000年4月对外正式亮相的国务院新闻办公室网络新闻管理局。这标志一个专门管理网络媒体的管理机构出现。可以这么说，在这个机构出现之前，中国有关管理部门，从来没把互联网看做一个什么特别了不得的事物。2000年7月，中宣部关于网络工作的“西山会议”召开。这个会议在国有媒体网络化的历史上占有重要地位。正是这个会议，做出了“新闻网站不得融资、不得上市”的决定。[…] 2000年下半年的时候，不到两个月的时间，有五部法规出台。其中有三部法规，直接影响到互联网媒体公司：9月的《互联网信息服务管理办法》、11月的《互联网电子公告服务管理规定》和《互联网站从事登载新闻业务管理暂行规定》。[…] 总体来说，所谓意识到互联网这个先进生产力的，大抵都是业务层面的人才，不是什么管理最高当局。这些人才，有身处江湖互联网公司的，也有供职于体制内媒体的。不过这种意识，也是模模糊糊的意识，并不是说非常清晰地了解到互联网到底会如何如何。互联网早期的发展，要说有人能高瞻远瞩，做顶层设计，有意如何如何，未免高看了人的智慧。坦率地讲，的确会有人认识到趋势性的问题，但要在政策制定这种带有操作性的细节问题——尤其是中国这种喜欢用门槛管理的国家——上故意搞点政策红利，不免有些今人的夸大。2000年后，尤其是网民过亿后，从制度设计角度看，中国对互联网管理，其实文本上一直是从严要求的。至于有法可依下一步的违法必究还是不究，那就是另外一回事了。// Source: Financial Times (Chinese Edition), 28 July 2016.

 3. New plan for China to build up competitive cyber power by 2025

• //China, with 700 million mobile Internet users, has rolled out a “three-step” strategy that aims to transform it into a leading cyberpower by the middle of this century. A national informatization plan issued on Wednesday pledged to have an “impregnable” cyber system in 2025 by building up a group of globally competitive multinational companies and world-class mobile communications networks. While China’s latest grand blueprint, with a focus on domestic technology development, is not in full harmony with an open and free Internet, it lays out the ambitions of Beijing – which on one hand allows an exuberant commercial use of the internet and on the other runs one of the world’s harshest online policing systems – to make information technology subject to its economic and social agendas. The comprehensive plan, which will serve as a guideline for future policymaking, is also an articulated document of the vision of the internet and “cyberspace sovereignty” that President Xi Jinping promoted at a major internet forum in Wuzhen, China, last year. According to the plan, the country should become a leader in some key technologies in information and communications by 2020. […] China still lags behind in key technologies such as integrated circuitry, technical software and core components, but it is determined to narrow that gap, Zhuang Rongwen, deputy director of the Cyberspace Administration, said at a press conference on Wednesday. Information and communications technology is not only a tool to make China stronger and richer but also important to China’s national status in a historical context, Zhuang said. “We missed our opportunities during the industrial revolution … we should never lag behind in the new round of competition,” he said.// Source: SCMP, 28 July 2016.

HONG KONG – POLITICS

The controversy of disqualification of pro-independence candidates for Legislative Council Election in September

The nomination period for the upcoming Legislative Council ended recently. One of the controversies arising from it is the introduction of “declaration form” asking candidates to explicitly state their acknowledgement of Hong Kong being part of China. While it is a legal requirement for all candidates to pledge allegiance to the Basic Law, the legality of the additional declaration form is called into questions. Some candidates who did not sign the declaration form can gain candidacy, while some cannot. For a list of controversial candidates and whether they have secured candidacy with or without signing the declaration form, please find it here by SCMP. Another controversy that follows is the unprecedented use of power by the government to turn down applications from candidates who advocate independence of Hong Kong from China, regardless of whether he/she has signed the declaration form or not.

a. Candidates are disqualified from running election due to their pro-independence stance

Despite fulfilling the legal procedures, Chan Ho-tin from the Hong Kong Nationalist Party was disqualified on 31 July as the returning officer of the Election Affairs Commission had judged that his advocacy for Hong Kong’s independence contradicted what has been agreed upon in the declaration form.

• //Chan Ho-tin, whose candidacy was invalidated by the city’s election watchdog on Saturday, is one of a number of localists who refused to sign a recently introduced additional declaration form which reinforces acknowledgement that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China. […] Of them, only Chan received an email from the Electoral Affairs Commission on Saturday which said his application to join the election in the New Territories West constituency had been “invalidated”. Seven others whose fate was still uncertain ­included a member of Youngspiration, and five from the alliance formed by Civic Passion, Proletariat Political Institute and Hong Kong Resurgence Order. […] “The National Party is honoured to become the first party to be banned from joining a democratic election by the government due to political difference,” the party wrote on its Facebook page as it announced the latest development. It urged other parties that support democracy to boycott the election as the move “has violated the Basic Law”.// Source: SCMP, 30 July 2016.

• //陳浩天昨日下午接到選舉主任的電郵，電郵指陳雖然在提名表格上簽署了擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區的聲明，但選舉主任從新聞報道及陳浩天、香港民族黨的社交網站中，得知陳多次發表推動港獨及廢除《基本法》的言論，並得悉陳浩天不會簽署相關的碓認書。信中又提到陳浩天在七月二十六日晚向傳媒表示，簽署聲明只是「政治操作」，他「港獨」及「廢除《基本法》」的主張仍然不變。故此，選舉主任在信中指陳浩天主張、支持並推動香港獨立，明顯與《基本法》第一條、十二條及一百五十九條互不相容，即使充分顧及《基本法》下保障的被選舉權及言論自由，仍與《基本法》有根本性的牴觸，所以選舉主任信納陳浩天實際並不、亦無意擁護《基本法》，法律上亦沒有作出符合《立法會條例》第40(1)(b)(i)條規定的聲明，故決定陳浩天的提名無效。陳浩天在記者會上轟信件是「廢紙、垃圾」，並將信件即場撕毀。對於他主張港獨行動是否與聲明內容矛盾，他認為簽署聲明只是政治操作，自己已簽署聲明，完全符合法律。他擔心此例一開，後患無窮，他日選管會可就參選人是否支持共產黨等為由進行篩選。他將會提出選舉呈請，令選舉重新進行，亦會申請司法覆核，但具體理據及時間會再公布。// Source: Sing Tao Daily, 31 July 2016.

Views of legal experts who support or criticize the disqualification of Chan Ho-tin:

• //Eric Cheung Tat-ming, a legal scholar from the University of Hong Kong, said it was worrying that the government had deviated from its established ways of handling election nominations. Returning officers, tasked to confirm potential candidates’ commitment to the “one country, two systems” principle, were only used to conducting administrative duties, he said, but now they were being “subjective” in making political decisions on candidates’ eligibility. “I’m worried that with the start of this case, the role of the returning officer will be different,” Cheung said. “Now the officer has to differentiate whether the declaration is true or not. This is a very big problem.” Barrister Albert Luk Wai-hung agreed, suggesting the decision to invalidate a nomination should be made by a committee based on objective standards rather than by a single person. Cheung was also concerned whether Beijing would use this chance to reinterpret the law. But barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a moderate pro-democracy figure, said the decision was in accordance with the law, which was “clear with no grey area” that advocating Hong Kong’s independence went against the Legislative Council Ordinance. A government spokesman backed the invalidation decision made by the returning officers who “have the duty as well as power to make those decisions according to the relevant electoral laws”. “Independence [of Hong Kong] is inconsistent with the constitutional and legal status … stipulated in the Basic Law, as well as the established basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong,” he said.// Source: SCMP, 30 July 2016.

A commentary from the China Daily argues from another perspective that disqualification is justified as advocating independence for Hong Kong would damage Hong Kong-China relation and thus undermine the development of Hong Kong.

• //Technicalities aside, allowing these Basic Law opponents to become lawmakers would be a joke. The legislature is a place to make laws for the SAR that must be in line with the Basic Law. How can we entrust the vital job of lawmaking upon people who openly proclaim not to support the constitutional document? More importantly, their entry to LegCo would be a disaster for Hong Kong, because the SAR’s future lies on opportunities brought by the nation’s development. « Hong Kong independence » is nothing but an impasse. Anybody trying to lure Hong Kong in that direction is pushing the city into an abyss. Hence if these independence advocates are allowed to enter LegCo, where they can easily hinder the government’s work and the SAR’s development, we would be handing them the necessary tools to dig a grave for Hong Kong. Their disqualification, therefore, is crucial and necessary from whatever angle we look at it. //Source: China Daily, 02 August 2016.

b. Pro-independence candidate Edward Leung from Hong Kong Indigenous is disqualified despite his drop of pro-independence stance in a declaration to the government

Another candidate Edward Leung from Hong Kong Indigenous, which had been involved in the social disturbance on the First Day of Lunar New Year, participated in the by-election this year and was well known for his pro-independence stance, decided to drop his pro-independence stance in hopes of securing his candidacy to run the upcoming election. However, he was also barred from participating in the election on 02 August, as the returning officer doubted the genuineness of his drop of stance citing news reports as evidences.

• //After localist candidate Edward Leung Tin-kei was barred from the Legislative Council election, Tuesday night’s briefing session for candidates turned into protests questioning the election regulatory body’s neutrality. Leung, who received more than 60,000 votes in the LegCo by-election in February, was barred from running even after declaring that he did not support Hong Kong independence anymore. The returning officer did not accept that he genuinely changed his stance, making her judgment based on media reports, his old Facebook page and public statements. “Hong Kong is now a dictatorship – under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, there will never be democracy,” he said. “We have no universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election or the Legislative Council, and now the geographical constituency direct election is an election under political censorship, an election under manipulation.” […] He questioned the returning officer’s judgment in not accepting his change in stance, asking whether she lived in his head.// Source: Hong Kong Free Press, 03 August 2016.

• //梁天琦是今年第四名因政見而被取消參選資格的立法會候選人。他在7月28日已經明確回覆選舉主任，稱自己不會繼續推動港獨，並補簽了要求參選人明白《基本法》中「香港不可分離」條文的「確認書」，但選舉主任認定這只是策略。同日中午，作為梁天琦參選「Plan B」的青年新政召集人梁頌恆與李東昇的提名則獲得確認，可以參選。梁頌恆和李東昇在7月29日提名期最後一天緊急組成參選名單報名參選新界東，目的是梁天琦一旦被拒絕參選，充當後備方案。據梁天琦公開的新界東選舉主任何麗嫦8月2日中午給他的電郵，他提名無效的理由包括：一、未提出充分證據說明傳媒報導他主張港獨是失實；二、在私人 Facebook 以「頭盔版」形容他的新 Facebook 專頁，顯示他是用新網頁來模糊真正的政治主張；三、雖然他在回覆選舉主任的電郵中表示不會繼續主張和支持港獨，但他的真正意思應該是「為了晉身立法會他會採用任何方法，包括指稱他不再主張港獨，而一旦他成為立法會議員，他仍然會繼續主張及支持香港獨立」。何麗嫦在電郵中說，梁天琦主張及支持香港獨立，明顯與《基本法》的制定目的和第一條、第十二條、第一百五十九（四）條互不相容，因此即使充分享受《基本法》下的被選舉權及言論自由，仍與《基本法》有根本性抵觸，所以提名無效。// Source: The Initium, 02 August 2016.

Prof. Michael Davis, a former legal scholar at the University of Hong Kong, argues that the returning officer’s disqualification of candidate in Leung’s case is excessive.

• //“When a candidate has filed the basic declaration provided in the statute, it seems anomalous for the returning officers to unilaterally make a decision that they are not sincere,” Professor Michael Davis, formerly a legal academic at the University of Hong Kong, told the Post. Davis argued that it would be excessive for a returning officer to be charged with the responsibility to judge whether an aspirant had advocated improper political beliefs – when the candidate had already fully complied with procedural requirements outlined by law.// Source: SCMP, 02 August 2016.

30 members of the Election Committee for the Legal Sub-sector issued a joint statement which shows their deep regrets for political censorship exercised by the government. They argued that the Returning Officer from the Election Affairs Commission has no legal power to inquire the ‘genuineness’ of candidates in fulfilling the due procedure required by the law, let alone the legal basis to disqualify any candidate on the basis of subjective and political decision. For the full text of their statement, please find it here.

• //The role of these officers has been challenged in a joint statement by all 30 legal sub-sector members of the 1,200-strong Election Committee, which is responsible for choosing Hong Kong’s chief executive. Among them – all members or supporters of the pan-democratic camp – are former Bar Association chairmen Edward Chan King-sang SC and Philip Dykes SC. Section 40 of the Legislative Council Ordinance only requires a candidate to sign a declaration stating that he or she will uphold the Basic Law, they wrote in the statement issued yesterday. “[The ordinance] does not give the returning officer any power to inquire into the so-called genuineness of the candidates’ declarations, let alone making a subjective and political decision to disqualify a candidate without following any due process on the purported ground that the candidate will not genuinely uphold the Basic Law.” […] The role of returning officers was thrust into the spotlight after Cora Ho Lai-sheung’s decision to disqualify localist leader Edward Leung Tin-kei. […] Ho’s post-nomination inquiry about Leung’s commitment to the Basic Law and decision to disqualify him “are not only unlawful but amount to political censorship and screening … without any legal basis”, the 30 lawyers said in their statement. “Arbitrary and unlawful exercise of powers by government officials … are most damaging to the rule of law in Hong Kong” they continued. And it would undermine people’s confidence in Legco, they said, adding that the right to stand for election was a fundamental right also enshrined in the city’s mini-constitution.// Source: SCMP, 03 August 2016.

Prof. Chung Kim Wah from the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong criticizes the government of destroying the long-established fairness embedded in the electoral system in Hong Kong, and running the risk of damaging the legitimacy of the election result:

• //但當梁天琦的參選資格被否定，可以說，政府已經確認了要為選舉加入政治審查及篩選。這樣的結果，是對香港堅持了超過三分之一個世紀的公平選舉極之嚴重的破壞。香港的政治體制已有很多被視為不公平不合理的地方，但爭議的焦點主要都是在政制的設計而不在選舉的安排。也正因如此，香港絕少發生與選舉過程相關的嚴重暴力事件，也絕少有人或政團會否定選舉過程及結果。今天加入了政治審查及篩選，意味着選舉從一開始已經受到某種形式的操控，參與選舉的權利也不公平，由此產生的選舉結果也必然會受到質疑。選舉主任發出長達12頁的文件，不但未能給公眾一個有說服力的解釋，未能為其決定提出一個法理上說得通的理由，更令人氣憤的，是文件裏充滿了大量主觀的判斷及隨意拼合的材料，明顯只是應其決定，選擇性地擷取某些事實或推想。這份文件恐怕說服不了多少人。政府一方面堅持這種做法有法理基礎，另一方面又說不被確認的參選人可以申請司法覆核或選舉呈請。政府會如何對應這些可能隨之而來的法律挑戰，固然值得留意，社會各界已經作出了不同的揣測。但在這之前，選舉將會於這個受行政過程污染了的基礎上進行，除了選舉結果會受到持續的質疑，打擊新一屆立法會的政治認受性，選舉制度經多年發展才能確立的公正性及公平性，亦已遭受難以挽回的損害。// Source: Hong Kong 01, 04 August 2016.

Prof. Ma Ngok from the Chinese University offers his views on the consequence of the incident:

• //Dr Ma Ngok, a political scientist at Chinese University, said he saw no signs there would be violent clashes in the immediate future. While support for localists would rise in the short term, whether this could be sustained hinged on Beijing’s approach to the city. “The level of support for Hong Kong independence will depend on whether the city’s autonomy and freedoms can be maintained,” he said.// Source: SCMP, 04 August 2016.

The affected candidates vowed to submit an election petition against the election result as well as judicial review of the decisions made by the returning officers:

• //Chan [Ho-tin] said the precedent was dangerous as the ban could be extended in future to candidates who opposed the Communist Party or the chief executive. “We will soon launch a series of actions to subvert the elections which will largely undermine the legitimacy of the polls,” Chan warned as he vowed to challenge the decision in court via a judicial review or election petition.// Source: SCMP, 31 July 2016.

• //[Edward] Leung, a member of Hong Kong Indigenous, was expected to have a high chance of winning a seat, considering his strong performance in a Legco by-election in February. He slammed the rejection of his candidacy as “a decision made under rule of man, not rule of law”. “The returning officer doesn’t want to believe what I say in black and white and concluded that she simply doesn’t believe that I am genuine in what I say,” he said. “Is she a worm in my mind?” He went on to claim the elections were being “manipulated” by the government, and that he would submit an election petition to challenge the rejection the day after the Legco polls.// Source: SCMP, 02 August 2016.

Commentator S.C. Yeung notes that some pro-Beijing figures have hinted at the possibility of new interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress to preempt the highly possible success of the election petition against the decision made by the government.

• //While some candidates are expected to launch an election petition to seek a court ruling on the disqualification of certain candidates due to their political views, several pro-Beijing legal experts are sending signals that the National People’s Congress could preempt the Hong Kong court’s decision by interpreting the existing articles related to the city’s election, thereby providing a cloak of legality to the EAC actions. […] Legal expert Eric Cheung said the returning officer’s action may be proven to be illegal as Leung has signed the form and committed not to promote Hong Kong independence. That may be the reason why Leung is confident about his planned election petition.// Source: Hong Kong Economic Journal, 04 August 2016.

Johannes Man-mun Chan, the former Dean of the Law School of the University of Hong Kong, shows similar concerns about the possibility of new interpretation of the Basic Law after the ruling on the judicial review in favor of the disqualified candidates. He is worried that the new interpretation of the Basic Law might severely damage the judicial system in Hong Kong:

• //陳文敏擔心，政府的「危險先例」一開，選舉主任將可以任意篩選參選人，「今次是港獨，下次呢？平反六四算是擁護《基本法》嗎？主張打倒共產黨又如何呢？這是一個危險先例。」參選人被取消資格後，社會壓力轉向司法體系，焦點落了在針對選管會新設確認書的司法覆核，預計8月中開庭。梁天琦和陳浩天等被取消資格的參選人，已揚言9月4日立法會選舉後，會即時提出選舉呈請。對此，陳文敏有進一步的憂慮：當個案提到法院審訊，或會對香港的司法制度造成很大衝擊。他解釋，司法覆核可以有兩個方向：一是選舉主任沒有權力篩選參選人，今次做法是越權；二是選舉主任有這個權力，但對《基本法》的解讀錯誤。這些方向都或會引致北京釋法。「這些都涉及對《基本法》的解釋權，如果法院判決不為中方接受，中方甚至可以主動行使釋法權，毋須由政府或法院提請釋法。」// Source: The Initium, 04 August 2016.

Political commentator Dr. Sung Lap-kung argues that the disqualification of Edward Leung might trigger sentimental feelings within the pan-democracy camp and push more teenagers or first-time voters to go for candidates with localist stances instead of traditional democrats, while the establishment camp will remain largely affected.

• //建制中人坦言，今次取消梁天琦參選資格，客觀效果可能是送五個「梁天琦」入立法會。建制派的票源不會因為今次事件影響，但反對派板塊卻互相拉扯，傳統激進派社民連、人民力量的選情將首當其衝，但溫和泛民也不無影響。城大專業進修學院學術統籌宋立功指出，梁天琦未能參選，或會引發悲情牌效應，吸引首投族或青年人投票給本土派，如果傳統或溫和泛民未能就支持或反對港獨議題上有清晰論述，爭取年輕人支持，或有機會流失選票。// Source: Sing Tao Daily, 03 August 2016.

HONG KONG – MEDIA

Joseph Lian Yi-zheng, political commentator on Hong Kong Economic Journal and former Editor-in-chief of the same newspaper, was told that his newspaper column would be removed due to a new round of editorial re-structuring. Prof. Ma Ngok long argued in an academic article that the media in the city practiced self-censorship as a number of media owners have affiliation with Beijing.

• //In a brief letter addressed to Lian, HKEJ editor-in-chief Alice Kwok Yim-ming said his column will be suspended because “the newspaper will be undergoing a new round of restructuring, including of its Section A opinion page, beginning next Monday.” […] Formerly the HKEJ’s editor-in-chief, Lian has been writing irregularly for the newspaper since 2010. In recent years he has become known for expressing sympathy towards the Hong Kong localist movement, and in a column this April, laid out several scenarios in which Hong Kong, in his opinion, could legally become independent. Last October, he called the Hong Kong Government a “foreign regime” in an essay published in Hong Kong University magazine Undergrad. […] Founded in 1973, the HKEJ is owned by tycoon Richard Li Tzar-kai, who invested in the newspaper in 2006. Current editor-in-chief Kwok was appointed in August 2013. Her tenure began controversially, with the resignation of columnist Yau Ching-yuen alongside three reporters that October. Yau went on to establish online media platform Post 852.// Source: Hong Kong Free Press, 29 July 2016.

On 31 July, after receiving the notice of column removal, Joseph Lian made statement on other media channels to explain the incident. In essence, he believes that HKEJ’s staff has been protecting him from pressure above, given his outspoken writing style, and he believes the removal is related to his continued sympathy towards pro-independence figure and an article he wrote recently about the possibility of Hong Kong being legally independent. For one of his articles about this theme, please see here.

• //來不及在我的專欄講的七段話，想在這裡表白：一、多謝所有關心我的人，包括傳媒、政界和學界的讀者、朋友、同事、同文，以及一些素未謀面的中外人士。不少人替我感到不平，我都心領，但希望大家節怒。我其實不難過，反而感謝《信報》讓我斷斷續續佔用它的版面整整25年；我在信報寫評論，是從1991年開始的，到今天剛好四分之一世紀。九七之後，特別是在這幾年的氣候裡，報紙還容忍我在專欄裡「大放闕詞」直到上周，想必是有人替我擋了很多風風雨雨，所以儘管今天要封筆了，我還是心懷感激。[…] 13年初，《信報》高層跟我說，希望我寫多些，我鑑於時局需要，答允了，還辭去日本的教席，專心寫作。同年夏天，《信報》一連串「大地震」，至去年年中，連 Managing director 也去職；同時，我也聽到我的專欄也快要抽起的說法。今年三月底，《信報》通知我，因為經營困難，給我的潤筆要一下子減少約六成，專欄則還可以繼續。我與《信報》榮辱與共許多年，對此完全不介意。上周五，總編輯以電郵告訴我：改版停欄。為什麼？四、佔運之後，我同情年輕人，在我的文章裡支持他們提出任何關於2047香港二次前途問題的主張。採取這個態度，連一些朋友也不諒解，其實我的出發點很簡單，就是在年輕人提出激進觀點之時，希望幫助抵擋來自政權的打壓和一些不盡公正的指摘。例如有些新興團體主張港獨，一旦遭到政權對付，危險不會止於失去參選權，更會涉及人身自由與安危。我為此苦思之後，抽象繼承了台灣政治運動裡的「法理台獨」概念，向主張港獨的朋友們提出「法理港獨」之說，即只在一般理解的現行香港法律制約和法治框架下提倡和宣傳港獨。此說所包含的運作空間，在未來30年裡極可能都夠用，而且那樣提倡比較安全，政權較難找到藉口打壓倡議者、分化社運、分裂社會。我認為為免社運蒙受不必要的損失，不宜提倡港獨，要提倡的話，只能是「法理港獨」。五、「法理港獨」對倡議者比較安全而訊息所含的業力不減，結果只能導致政權更深度不安。介紹和分析這個概念的文章，上星期一在我的《信報》專欄刊出，明顯觸及了政權的一根脆弱底線。//Source: The Initium, 31 July 2016.

A cartoonist of HKEJ resigned in protest against the newspaper’s decision to remove Joseph Lian’s column:

• //A long-time cartoonist at local newspaper Hong Kong Economic Journal (HKEJ) has announced his resignation on Tuesday after the paper controversially removed the column of veteran political commentator Joseph Lian. “There are indeed lines that should not be crossed when speaking through a newspaper. If one crosses this line, [their] column is ‘restructured’ and cancelled immediately… this is no longer the HKEJ that I know,” said artist Yuen Chow-tai, who publishes under the name Yat Muk, in a public letter addressed to HKEJ’s editor-in-chief Alice Kwok Yim-ming.// Source: Hong Kong Free Press, 03 August 2016.

When asked about the political arrangement for Hong Kong beyond 2047, a recent opinion poll by the Chinese University of Hong Kong shows that the majority of Hongkongers supports “maintenance of One Country Two Systems”, while 17.4% opts for “independence”, where nearly 40% of young Hongkongers aged between 15 and 24 supports Hong Kong’s independence from China. For the details of the poll result, please find it here.

• //The survey by the Center for Communication and Public Opinion of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) interviewed 1,010 people aged 15 and above between July 6 and 15. One in five, or 17.4 percent of all respondents, said they favor Hong Kong independence after 2047. The support rate climbed to 39.2 percent among people aged 15 to 24. Nearly three in 10 had no preference. Less than 14 percent said they support direct governance by China while nearly 60 percent are against it. Asked if they think Hong Kong can attain independence in the future, one in eight indicated “not possible” compared with less than 4 percent who said it is possible. Paul Lee, a professor in the CUHK School of Journalism and Communication who led the survey, said the results suggest most Hongkongers know independence is out of the question. However, he said the high support rate, particularly among young people, is telling and could influence the upcoming Legislative Council elections to some degree.// Source: Hong Kong Economic Journal, 25 July 2016.

TAIWAN – POLITICS

Taiwan’s parliament passed a bill to audit assets illegally obtained by political party

•  //Taiwan is to launch an official investigation into the ill-gotten assets of political parties in a move blasted by the opposition Kuomintang as persecution. The move comes after Beijing-skeptic president Tsai Ing-wen formally took office in May. The new investigation is likely to deepen divisions between Taiwan’s main parties. Tsai repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of the KMT’s assets in her presidential campaign and accused it of trying to dispose of them before presidential and parliamentary elections in January. Although the bill passed by parliament late on Monday authorises the investigation and seizure of ill-gotten assets from all parties, it is only the KMT which has faced questions about its finances.  Considered one of the richest parties in the world, it registered total assets of NT$18.96 billion (HK$4.6 billion) by the end of last year, compared with NT$478.72 million by Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party. […] Tsai described the passing of the bill as a “milestone for mature development in Taiwan’s democratic politics”. But KMT chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu lashed out at Tsai’s party for using “majority violence to pass an illegal, unconstitutional and undemocratic vicious law” for its own partisan interests. The party has repeatedly blocked the assets bill, which was first proposed 14 years ago when it held a parliamentary majority. Now it faces a detailed probe after losing the presidency and control of parliament for the first time ever in January, as the public became increasingly uneasy over closer ties with the mainland China. Under the bill, all assets of a political party, with the exception of membership fees, political donations and government subsidies, obtained since August 15, 1945 – when the KMT took over Taiwan from Japan – are considered ill-gotten and must be returned to the government.// Source: SCMP, 26 July 2016.