中华民国三十三年的新华日报

RT @szeyan1220
【今晚的臺北自由廣場】感謝臺灣同胞，我們風雨同路！

在香港和平佔中行动之际，北角警署今天(1日)凌晨发生一名外籍总督察开枪自杀事件。
事发时间约凌晨2时40分，隶属东区警区刑事部的50岁外籍总督察，在办公室内受伤昏迷，他的太阳穴有枪伤，鲜血四溢，救护员获报赶到，稍后证实外籍总督察死亡。
警方初步调查，该名总督察是用自己的佩枪自杀，明确死因待验尸后确定。此桉由港岛总区重桉组调查自杀原因。
由于是在佔中的敏感时刻，有香港网友认为，这名警察可能因良心不安，许多网友表示哀痛。
来源：东森新闻

香港问题答客问
2014-09-29 08:12
来源:
公民行动
作者:
梁啟智

问题一：香港发生什么事了？

答：香港人现在正以和平方式争取一个平等和开放的普选方案。《基本法》规定香港的行政长官最终由普选产生，而人大常委于2007年也决定了香港最早可于2017年实行普选，现在香港人对普选的期望正正是基于这些承诺。现时香港的行政长官由一个1200人的选举委员会选举产生，候选人只要得到当中601人的支持便可以当选，整个过程和香港的民意没有必然关系。

许多人认为这1200人不能代表所有的香港人，因此要求改变选举制度。然而人大常委于2014年8月31日的决定却列明日后就算实行一人一票普选行政长官，参选人也一定要先经同样是由这1200人出任的提名委员会筛选，要得到当中的过半数支持才可以成为正式候选人。换言之，香港人争取普选是因为觉得这1200人没有代表性，现在改革的方案不单止没有换走这1200人，反而给予他们更多的特权，香港人感到被忽悠了。

问题二：我不明白。这1200人的委员会到底是什么的一回事？

答：这1200人的正式名称是选举委员会，而人大常委则决定要让他们成为普选行政长官时的提名委员会。这1200人的代表性是现时争议的其中一个核心。首先，香港现时有超过350万选民可以在立法会和区议会选举当中投票，可以直接参与产生选举委员会的选民却不足24万。也就是说，一开始就已经有300多万人是这个选举委员会所代表不了的。

再细看选举委员会的组成，则发现它的代表性是极不平均的。举个例，委员会当中有30人是教育界的代表，由中小学的教职员选出，而登记在教育界的选民共有81831人。委员会当中又有60人是渔农界的代表。香港是一个现代城市，渔农业只占人口和经济产量很少的部分，现在只有4千多人的工作是和渔农业相关的，但渔农界的代表却竟然比教育界多一倍。更大问题的，是这4千多名渔农业工作者其实是没有资格投票选出那60个代表的，只有政府认可的158个“投票人”才有资格。为什么选举委员会的代表组成要这样分配，谁才有资格成为“投票人”，基本上都是上届政府说了算，这点就足以决定这个委员会的组成不可能是公平的。

选举委员会当中有不少界别是以行业划分的，例如饮食界、旅游界和出版小组等等，但这并不代表从事这些行业的人都可以参与，而是只有这些行业的老板可以参与。这种安排产生了两个问题。首先，有意种票的人可以给钱开设很多间的空壳公司，便能够增加在选举委员会的影响力。第二，选举委员会明显地向商界倾斜了，参选行政长官必须要先讨好商界而不是香港市民。

问题三：香港是资本主义社会，选举制度向商界倾斜也是应该的。

答：选举制度向商界倾斜不利于香港资本主义的发展。资本主义往往会拉阔贫富不均，而过度的贫富不均会引发社会的不稳定，需要政府适当的介入来维持。香港过去十多年积累的贫富不均已经严重拉阔，为社会增加了许多不稳定的因素。一个向商界倾斜的政治制度会订出很多短视的政策，引发社会不稳定，最终其实同样不利营商环境。资本主义的另一个条件就是公平的市场环境，而民主制度是扫除贪污腐败的重要条件，所谓向商界倾斜很容易会变成向个别利益集团倾斜，市场也就变得不公平了。

其实环顾全球运行资本主义的国家和地区，其经济和政治制度虽然有所差距，但公平的政治制度也是必须的。香港现在已列全球裙带资本主义的首位，这样的制度只会于短时期内有利于一小撮人，对其余所有人也是不利的。

问题四：不要和我说外国怎么样。无论香港的选举制度如何改变，也要顾及中国的国情，要按实际的情况，不可以照搬外国的一套啊！

答：中国政府答应了香港的政治发展要按国际标准。《基本法》规定《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》在香港适用，该公约例明公民参与政府管治的时候，不应该设有不合理的限制。什么叫作不合理的限制呢？联合国人权委员会对公约的进一步解释，公民的参选权是不应基于一些不合理或带有歧视性质的原因而被剥夺，例如参选者的政治联系，个人的政见亦不应成为剥夺任何人参选权的理由。

有关按实际情况这一点，香港现时的实际情况是没有真普选的话政府将会难以运作，对真普选的追求是为了理顺香港的各种政治和社会问题（详目问题六）。事实上，没有人要求把美国或英国的选举模式照搬到香港，大家要求的是“确保市民在选举中有真正的选择”这一点能够在选举制度中得以落实，具体的方法可以有很多不同的方案。

至于中国国情这一点，1944年2月2日《新华日报》的社论清晰地说明：“真正的普选制，不仅选举权要‘普通’、‘平等’，而且被选举权也要‘普通’、‘平等’；不仅人民都要享有同等的选举权，而且人民都要享有同等的被选举权”。相信在承受政治改革这一方面，今天的中国各方面发展迅速，国情应该不会比解放前还要差。

问题五：民主要一步一步来，就算提名的过程有问题都好，但最终投票的人数从1200人变成350万，这不是也算是走前一步吗？

答：如果按现时的方案改革的话，民主进程将会是倒退了而不是进步了。香港有过五次的特首选举（四届特首和一次继任补选），每一次也是由选举委员会过半数支持产生，但成为正式候选人只需要八分之一的委员支持，过去两届也出现过不同政目的参选人，可以以正式候选人的身份在电视直播的竞选论坛上同台辩论。因为选举委员会都是由既得利益所把握（详见问题二），把成为正式候选人的门槛从八分之一上调到二分之一（如每名委员可从众多参选者当中选择两到三名成为正式候选人），那么筛选出来的正式候选人已不能提供真正选择，350万选民所参与的已不是一场真正的选举，已是变相被迫一起当群众演员，为已经内定的候选人当橡皮图章。因此，不少香港人也表示：“宁愿原地踏步，也不要行差踏错”。

问题六：你们一天到晚吵吵闹闹的，香港怎么发展？

答：无止境的政治争拗确实令人烦厌！那么我们该如何解决争拗呢？社会中总有不同利益，争吵的出现本来很正常，我们要做的并不是谴责那些争吵的人，而是设计出一种大家都信服的制度来在争吵过后做最终决定。这也是为什么真普选是必要的。有了真普选，当权者大可以说自己是民意代表而坚持推行政策，不服气的也大可以到下次选举时卷土重来，双方都不用无止境的纠缠下去。今天的香港政治乱局，就是没有真普选所做成；而万一继续没有真普选，争拗只会变本加厉。现在争取真普选的并不是要吵闹，而是为解决无日无之的吵闹而争取。

有破坏没有建设当然不好，而真普选就是纠正这问题的终极方法。在香港的畸形选举和议会制度之下，建制派永远在朝，民主派永远在野，这就是政治人才凋零的罪魁祸首。无论建制派支持任何后来被认定失败的政策，例如地铁和领汇上市，也不用受到惩罚；相反，民主派有什么新的政策主张也不会得到实施的机会。如是者，建制派就没有吸纳政治人才的需要，而政治人才也没有加入民主派的诱因，最终两边变成海军斗水兵，香港的管治水平越来越低。因此，如果为了纠正“只懂反对”的问题，才更有必要支持真普选。

问题七：但是香港是中国的一部分，总不能自作主张吧？

答：中国政府答应过香港人可以自作主张。以立法会选举为例，《基本法》例明立法会的产生方法如果需要修改，只要向人大常委报备就可以，不需要批准。回到1993年时任港澳办主任鲁平也表明：“将来香港如何发展民主，完全是香港自治权范围内的事，中央政府不会干涉”，立法会的组成方法“不必要中央政府同意”。

回到行政长官选举，香港有许多政党和学者也提出过各种改革方案，当中不少都能完全合乎《基本法》的要求，完全没有挑战中央政府在香港的权力。举个例，如果把提名委员会的组成改为立法会议员，只要有若干比例的立法会议员支持便能够正式参选行政长官，这样的安排完全合乎《基本法》的要求，而立法会相对于现时的选举委员会也明显地更能广泛代表民意。这些相对温和的方案很不幸地也被人大常委的决定排除了，才是做成今天民怨的原因。

问题八：但是国家安全的问题呢？许多外国势力想借作香港来为中国制造混乱，参选不设关卡的话怎么办？

真普选和国家安全没有矛盾，大多数香港人也接受中央政府在行政长官选举当中的最终决定权。《基本法》规定香港行政长官的人选于选举后要报中央政府任命，也就是说中央政府有权不任命，而这一点在之前的咨询当中没有多少争议。

如果有什么外国特务要参选行政长官，中央政府可以立即公开相关线报然后表明拒绝任命，事情有根有据也容易操作。 相反，提名委员会的成员大多不是什么国际关系的专家，他们根本没有能力按国家安全的需要为港人排除外国特务当特首候选⼈。除非提名委员会只由国际关系专家组成，又或参选提名委员会之前要考一个国际关系基准试，否则所谓要为国家安全把关只可能是一个借题发挥的差劲藉口。

问题九：万一选出一个对抗中央政府的特首怎么办？

答：那么我们就要相信制度。美国总统由美国选民选出，纽约市长由纽约市民选出，两个人不用是同一个政党，纽约市长有时候会骂美国总统，也不见得纽约市的发展因而受到影响。曾几何时，英国保守党控制国会，工党则控制伦敦市议会，议长天天在市议会拉横额批评就对岸的西敏寺国会，这些都是成熟政治制度的表现。就算时在华人社会，中华民国的总统和台北市的市长也不一定是同一套政治观念的，一样可以运作如常。如果我们对香港市民和中央政府有足够的信心，就不用担心这个问题。

问题十：其实香港已经很自由了，为什么香港人还不满足，还要诸多要求？

答：自由民主和法治三者是相辅相成的。不是由人民选举出来的政府，就没有压力保持人民的自由。就算有公正的法院，如果法例本身不是按民主程序订立的，法院还是要跟着来判案。过去十多年来，香港人发现香港的自由和法治正在不断受损，而原因正正在于没有民主的保障。《中英联合声明》要保障香港既有生活方式五十年不变，但是没有民主制度的支持，这个承诺又可以由谁来监管呢。

问题十一：你们要民主是一件事，就算要争取也不该诉诸暴力手段吧？

答：没有任何一个争取民主的团体提出要诉诸暴力。示威者现在是透过公众集会向政府提出要求，他们唯一的行为就是在这些地方出现，没有带同任何攻击性的武器。现在唯一使用暴力的人士，是强行把这些示威者赶走的警察。号召示威的团体也多番强调，当警察要清场的时候他们将不会作任何的抵抗。事实上每次警察和示威者冲突，示威者的第一个反应也是高举双手，表明自己手无寸铁。

在示威集会之前，香港人其实试过很多不同方法，和平地表达意见。例如香港政府就政治改革所作的咨询，市民提供了124,700份的书面意见，然而当中的许多意见却被香港政府所曲解，没有如实反映给中央政府。今天示威者选择以直接行动的方式表达不满，是因为其他的方式也得不到回应。

问题十二：学生们不是冲击政府总部了吗？

答：学生没有冲击政府总部，学生是爬过围栏进入政府总部外面的广场静坐。这个广场按照城市规划其实是一个公共空间，围栏是最近才加上去的，但没有改变广场本身作为公共空间的规划用途，市民过去也是一直使用这个地方进行公众集会的。及后的冲突都是因为警察不容许市民在政府总部外面聚集而来的，并不是因为直接冲击政府总部。

问题十三：这些抗争只是政客捞选票的表演吧？根本是教坏学生！

答：这次抗争完全由学生主导，政客一直被批评未能跟上时势的发展，实情所谓的“学生受政客唆使”的说法完全相反。

宏观来说，有时候一些人示威看起来很激进，后面的原因却很理性。在今天的香港，就算你获得多数的选票，也只会得到少数的议席，更完全没有机会执政。不正常的议会政治，源于不公平的政治体制。与此同时，我们也不要忘记过去数年以来，特首以及众多问责高官丑闻不断，官商勾结指控不止，却往往连立案调查也困难重重。常言能力越大责任越大，香港官场却是背道而驰，这才为我们的下一代竖立一个极坏的榜样。

问题十四：我觉得这次抗争一定是外国人指示的吧！

答：如果你担心外国势力影响香港选举，你最好去查一查选举委员会那1200人当中有多少人有外国护照。除非政府把他们驱逐出选举委员会之外，否则外国势力这个说法还是不要提了。

问题十五：这次抗争只不过是香港人憎恨中国内地，看不起内地人的表现吧！

答：这个问题其实倒果为因，应该说是因为没有真普选，香港人的不满无路可诉，加速了香港人对中国认同的抗拒。香港人的身份认同有很多个面向，有些时候香港人会刻意和中国人同区分开，有些却会表现出极大的爱国情怀。香港这个地方之所以存在，本来就是因为有很多害怕共产党的人在从49年起从中国大我陆逃到香港，而他们的选择使他们逃过了中国多次的政治动荡，固此对中国一方面会有情感上的联系，同时又充满怀疑。以九十年代为例，一方面有数以十万计的香港人移民外国，91年华东水灾却又于短短十天之内向内地捐出4.7亿元赈灾。这些都是香港人身分认同的一部分，那一个面向被反映出来，在乎于当时的社会环境。我们甚至可以大胆假设，如果香港能有真普选，现时刺热的中港矛盾或能得到舒缓。

问题十六：为什么从前港英时代的总督不是香港人选举产生的，却又不见香港人争取？

答：这问题很常见，但也错得很离谱。首先，港英时代有大量针对港英政府管治的民间抗议活动。远的不说，“争取八八直选”运动就是这问题最好的反证。第二，港英政府其实一直有打算在香港推行更多的民主管治，但是因为中国政府表明反对而没有推行。早于1956年时，周恩来便向英国政府提出不容许港人治港的改革，当时英国政府为免给予借口让中国政府提早收回香港，才没有在香港推行政治改革。近至90年代，港督彭定康提出加快香港民主化，却被中方批为“千古罪人”。因此，如果你认为英国在九七前没有给予香港充分民主的话，请向中国政府而不是香港市民投诉。

顺带一题。从前香港是英国的殖民地，现在中国如果要拿当年英国人的做法来把自己在香港的做法合理化，逻辑上说不过去，从人民立场上说也未免有失尊严。

问题十七：既然人大常委已经决定了，你们还吵什么？

答：人大常委提出的是香港普选的框架，还要变成具体立案，经过立法会三分之二多数的同意，行政长官许可，再交回人大常委确认或备案。换言之，人大常委提出的并非定局，香港人还可以否决。

Anonymous視頻全文：

Greetings world. We are Anonymous. It has come to our attention that recent tactics used against peaceful protestors here in the United States have found their way to Hong Kong.

To the protestors in Hong Kong, we have heard your plea for help. Take heart and take to your streets. You are not alone in this fight. Anonymous members all over the world stand with you, and will help in your fight for democracy.

To the Hong Kong police and any others that are called to the protests, we are watching you very closely and have already begun to wage war on you for your inhumane actions against your own citizens. If you continue to abuse, harass or harm protestors, we will continue to deface and take every web-based asset of your government off line.

That is not a threat. It is a promise. Attacking protestors will result in releasing personal information of all of your government officials. We will seize all your databases and e-mail pools and dump them on the Internet.

This is your first and only warning. The time has come for Democracy for the citizens of Hong Kong. The line has been drawn in the sand. The police are to protect, not trample on, the freedoms and democracy of their citizens. Until justice prevails hack and protest will replace it. The cause of security and democracy will be grounds for the assault on your virtual infrastructure.

Take this opportunity to stand down while we give it to you, or it will get a lot worse. Operation Hong Kong engaged.




We Are Anonymous. We Are Legion. We do Not Forgive. We do Not Forget. Government of Hong Kong, expect us.

【記者任浩／編譯】 被評為全球最強的黑客組織Anonymous（匿名者）10月1日發出「承諾」，如果香港政府繼續對佔中者施暴，將攻陷香港政府等網站，並公開香港政府所有官員的個人信息。

News2Share網站，10月1日報導，其當天早上收到全球最著名的黑客組織Anonymous發來的視頻，視頻不長，只有2分40秒，但卻傳遞了一個強有力的信息。

視頻最開始播放了香港警方使用催淚彈、辣椒噴霧對待手無寸鐵市民的鏡頭，之後播放了香港少女呼籲全球關注的片段後轉入主題。

「這不是威脅，這是承諾！」（It’s not a threat, it’s a promise.）短片中一名男子先向香港市民喊話：「在這場戰鬥，你們不孤單，Anonymous在全球的所有成員，跟你們站在一起，將幫助你們爭取民主。」

男子說，因為香港政府對和平的示威者施暴，親民主的Anonymous組織，已經攻入了香港政府數個網站，而且正在打開更多的目標網站。

如果港府不回應和平的佔中者對民主與自由的訴求，Anonymous組織將把港府網站數據庫、電子郵件系統庫中的所有政府官員的個人信息公佈於世，港府及其下屬機構的網站也將被癱瘓。

男子說，這是唯一一次的警告，如果香港政府不採取行動，Anonymous的真正行動就將開始，「我們是軍團，我們不原諒，我們不忘記！」（We Are Legion. We do Not Forgive. We do Not Forget.）

Anonymous被認為是全球最強的黑客組織，他們甚至攻入過美國中央情報局（CIA）。親民主的Anonymous上一次向News2Share網站公布的視頻，是向極端恐怖主義組織ISIS宣戰。
Anonymous視頻全文：

Greetings world. We are Anonymous. It has come to our attention that recent tactics used against peaceful protestors here in the United States have found their way to Hong Kong.

To the protestors in Hong Kong, we have heard your plea for help. Take heart and take to your streets. You are not alone in this fight. Anonymous members all over the world stand with you, and will help in your fight for democracy.

To the Hong Kong police and any others that are called to the protests, we are watching you very closely and have already begun to wage war on you for your inhumane actions against your own citizens. If you continue to abuse, harass or harm protestors, we will continue to deface and take every web-based asset of your government off line.

That is not a threat. It is a promise. Attacking protestors will result in releasing personal information of all of your government officials. We will seize all your databases and e-mail pools and dump them on the Internet.

This is your first and only warning. The time has come for Democracy for the citizens of Hong Kong. The line has been drawn in the sand. The police are to protect, not trample on, the freedoms and democracy of their citizens. Until justice prevails hack and protest will replace it. The cause of security and democracy will be grounds for the assault on your virtual infrastructure.

Take this opportunity to stand down while we give it to you, or it will get a lot worse. Operation Hong Kong engaged.



We Are Anonymous. We Are Legion. We do Not Forgive. We do Not Forget. Government of Hong Kong, expect us.

请问香港人关于占中活动支持和反对的人口比例？ 谢谢

記者浦慧恩／報導】 香港「太陽傘運動」進入第四天。中共在香港灣仔金紫荊廣場舉行十一升旗儀式，前天開始廣場入場位置已經封鎖，並佈滿藍帽子警察。昨天深夜起廣場外開始有抗議人士聚集，並不斷增多，逾2千人擠滿天橋及街頭巷尾。港人的抗議浪潮對當局造成壓力，過去3年來每次嘗試進入升旗禮都被抬走的學民思潮成員，今年終於成功進入公眾觀禮區抗議中共人大決定，要求特首梁振英下台。
學民思潮一早就申請要求進入廣場「觀看」升旗儀式，包括召集人黃之鋒等一行七、八位成員，早上約7時半成功進入廣場。廣場內的警察五步一哨十步一崗戒備森嚴，靠近升旗一帶是一幫帶著紅帽子的阿公阿婆，拿著中共紅旗等候。黃之鋒及成員成為傳媒追訪對象，升旗或相關儀式無人關心。有趣的是，現場有人揮舞的紅旗，被發現是倒掛的中共旗，引起現場人士歡呼，紛紛拍下這象徵中共倒台的一幕。黃之鋒等人進入廣場即成為傳媒焦點，被記者團團圍住。五星旗升起瞬間，黃之鋒等學生即抬高雙臂作交叉手勢默站，抗議中共人大漠視港人民意，並要求特首梁振英下台及重新啟動政改。場內時而聽到人們高呼「支持梁振英下台」、「梁振英下台」等口號。在場人士說，今年入場的人特別多，記者也特別多。但隨著黃之鋒等人無聲抗議結束後，記者也紛紛離開，走出金紫荊廣場，儘管那邊的儀式還在進行。而在會場廣場外，站滿了逾2千名抗議的市民，他們抗議政改方案無真普選，其中社民連立法會議員「長毛」梁國雄，聯同四五行動成員走到廣場外抗議，長毛高叫「我有權普選、毋須共產黨批准」等口號，其他市民則高呼「我要真普選」，升旗開始之際噓聲四起。

何清涟: 香港占中: 北京的“台阶”在哪里？

9月下旬香港人要求真普选的抗议活动，成了全世界关心的大事件。

*梁特首态度软硬无常*

目前这一轮“占中”运动，其中9月28日被舆论称为“香港史上最黑暗的一天”，警方施放大量催泪弹，三位学运领袖被抓，激起香港市民极大愤怒，不断聚集在香港各处，形成“去中心化、会复发、粘胶式的抗争”，让香港当局疲于应付。29日，港首梁振英的表态有了变化，向香港民众喊话“无解放军出动，依法处理占中”，这与28日他宣布“占中是以违法方式占领公共地方，……试图瘫痪香港核心地区运作以要挟中央和特区政府”的强硬说法，态度已有明显软化。再考虑到他在喊话前已撤离防暴警察，政务司长林郑月娥出面表示将推迟政改第二轮咨询，表明这次香港不会重演1989年天安门事件。但到30日，梁振英要求阻塞这座城市主要道路的亲民主示威者“立即”回家时，却没有流露出准备就示威者的要求做出妥协的意思。

香港即使在港英统治时期，事实上存在一明一暗两个权力中心，“回归”之前，明的是港英政府，暗的是“新华通讯社香港分社”（对内称“港澳工作委员会”）， 回归后的特区政府更是时刻仰承北京鼻息，因此，梁及港府态度的变化就是北京态度的变化。这件事情如何和平结束，关键在于北京高层权衡利弊做出让香港人能够接受的决定。

说起来，香港人只不过要求北京中央政府履行1997年的承诺，落实《基本法》规定的行政长官和立法会议席要根据“实际情况和循序渐进的原则”，以普选为目标。如今香港回归至今已17年，逼近原来约定的20年期限。但所有合理又合法的事情，只要与中共主张不合，就会被认定为“既不合理又不合法”。

*北京对港不施以武力清场的原因*

按北京应对社会反抗的习惯思维，当然是武力解决问题最痛快，既彰显权威，又直接了当。在本轮占中运动发生的第一天，推特上不少人担心香港可能会重演1989年六四屠城，但我认为，香港这次绝对不会成为第二个天安门，中共不会出动军队。理由主要有四点，一，对付平民，现有武警装备已经足够。当年六四出动军队镇压，屠城恶名昭著，因此中共于90年代迅速扩充武警部队，其装备训练与军队有别，重在威慑力而非杀伤力；二，香港毕竟不同于内地，还背着“一国两制”的名份；三，中国目前大势不妙，在香港使用武力只会激发事端。这“大势”就是：新疆“反恐”压力甚大，西藏局势也不平静。台湾方面，中国刚下了一着“臭棋”，9月27日习近平在北京会见台湾统派团体时放了个试探气球，称要用“一国两制”实现“和平统一”，解决台湾问题，没想到台湾人听到“一国两制”，宛如听到“狼外婆要来了”，以香港教训为由，朝野齐声表示反对，主张维持台海“不统、不独、不武”的现状。

最重要的当然还是六四事件的前车之鉴，即武力镇压只会形成双输之局。中共当年因屠城恶行遭受国际社会孤立，花了好几年时间才算是与欧美关系正常化，但六四创伤却难以平复。邓小平启动改革开放的不世之功，却因六四屠城而黯然失色，至今，中国人几乎忘记了当年文革结束时因拨乱反正而对邓小平充满感谢之情的岁月，只记住了“六四屠夫”这一称呼，以及他“让少数权贵官僚先富起来”的改革路线。习近平并无邓小平当年的政治威望，处置不当，只会让政治对手抓住把柄，好不容易赢得的政治优势化为乌有。

以上，是习近平不准备对香港占中武力清场的原因，此时此刻的中国政治局势，习近平得权衡利弊。“十个手指按不住十只跳蚤”，他毕竟同时应付不了那么多的麻烦。

但不施以武力清场，并不意味着习近平会坐视香港占中抗议活动延续下去。香港人要求真普选，中共依靠玩诈术，即出台人大普选方案，玩“我定候选人你来选”的把戏已经行不通，还得另换个新招。

*北京最可能的解决备选方案*

但要让北京就此回应“占中”运动，让香港实行真普选，可能性暂时不大。因为在中共眼里，全国一盘棋，香港的事情会影响全国。现阶段，中共专制统治是集斯大林毛泽东模式与山大王特点于一身的野蛮政治，具备三个基本特点：以暴力镇压为主要统治手段；彻底剥夺被统治者的政治权利；统治者可以随意监管民众、绝不允许民众质疑统治者的合法性。倘若接受香港的普选要求，就等于承认协商政治、民众拥有选举政府与监督政府的权利，这与中共坚持的统治理念完全相悖。更重要的是，香港的民主示范效应可能成为导致中国专制统治崩坏的“蚁穴”，打开中国政治的“潘多拉盒子”。因此，让香港实行真普选，是让中共改变政治大思路的事情，决非朝夕可致。

“占中”运动难以持久，也在北京算计之中。BBC于9月30日发表《访谈：多种因素令占中示威不会持久》，采访了一位非常了解香港社会的国际贸易公司总裁加文·帕里（Gavin Parry）。加文认为，多种因素影响香港社情，其中一个最重要因素就是经济势力的影响，中国大陆现在能对香港的“钱包”造成影响。比如只要宣布减少或取消对奢侈品所征收的重税，就会对香港造成很大影响。其次是学校可以通过不给学分影响学生的选择。第三，不少打算利用国庆黄金周做笔大生意的香港商家希望占中快点结束。这一分析被BBC另一篇报道《港厂商准备法律咨询、随时向占中索偿》所证实，这篇报道谈到，香港各大商会早前的评估研究指出，“占领中环”不仅带来安全隐患，造成交通瘫痪，还会给区内各大写字楼及商场带来至少400亿港元的经济损失。香港中华厂商会会长施荣怀向BBC中文网表示， 厂商联合会已聘用两间律师行，为会员免费提供有关占中的法律咨询服务，服务包括占中影响商界生意及公司运作会员将向谁索偿的咨询。

在中共地下网络遍地的香港，上述这些因素，很难说清楚是中共有意诱导还是顺势利用。因此，北京最可能采取的方式是先以延迟政改这一虚招平息事态，再继续就普选的候选人是几位，由谁决定这类具体细节扯皮。虽然有个2017年实现普选的时间限制，但当局可以就“细节”想出无数办法，让香港特首继续成为北京钦点大员。这种“拖字诀”虽然稍有示软之嫌，但却可以避免“武力清场”之恶果。

梁振英软硬无常的讲话与林郑月娥宣布的政改延期，以及港澳办表态“中央充分信任梁振英”，说明北京会让梁振英继续留在特首位置上，成为前台责任人，“戴罪立功”，处理好这次危机。至于梁振英每事必请示北京，这是地球人皆知的“国家机密”。这种处置方式，于北京而言，是让自身处在可进可退的有利位置之上。进，有特首梁振英作为责任人；退，可以找到台阶就势体面下梯子。

编者按：这是何清涟为美国之音撰写的评论文章。这篇特约评论不代表美国之音的观点。转载者请注明来自美国之音或者VOA。

Timeline:
16 January 2013 – Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong, Benny Tai Yiu-ting wrote an article 公民抗命的最大殺傷力武器 (Civil disobedience's deadliest weapon) in Hong Kong Economic Journal suggesting an occupation of Central.[12]
24 March 2013 – Qiao Xiaoyang, chairman of the Law Committee under the National People's Congress Standing Committee stated that chief executive candidates must be persons who love the country and love Hong Kong, who do not insist on confronting the central government.[33]
27 March 2013 – Organisers of the "Occupy Central" movement, Benny Tai, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and Chinese University's Sociology professor Chan Kin-man officially announced at a news conference that they will start promoting the protest in 2014 if the government's proposals for universal suffrage fail to meet international standards.[74]
9 June 2013 – First Deliberation Day.[75]
9 March 2014 – Second Deliberation Day.
6 May 2014 – Third Deliberation Day.
4 June 2014 – The 1989 Tiananmen Square protest Memorial draws a 180,000 crowd in light of the massacre's 25th anniversary.[76]
22 June 2014 – Civil referendum.
29 June 2014 – The civil referendum ends with 787,767 valid e-votes, or about 22% of registered Hong Kong's registered voters.[77]
1 July 2014 – The annual 1 July marches on the 17th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule draws 100,000 protesters (500,000 according to organizer), and over 500 arrests.[78][79]
18 July to 17 August 2014 - Alliance for Peace and Democracy (APD) "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collected over 1,500,000 signatures.
17 August 2014 - APD "Anti-Occupy Central" march was attended by 193,000, according to organisers.[53]
2014 Hong Kong protests
Main article: 2014 Hong Kong protests
28 September 2014 - Benny Tai announces that Occupy Central is launched.[80] The police uses pepper spray, tear gas and batons to disperse protesters near Tamar Park.[81]
29 September 2014 - Thousands of protesters occupy part of Causeway Bay and part of Mong Kok.[82] Riot police have retreated from various areas.[83] Many banks on Hong Kong Island are closed. Schools in Wan Chai District and Central and Western District are suspended.[84]
30 September 2014 - Schools in Wan Chai District and Central and Western District remain suspended.[85]

International reaction:

The demonstration grew so unprecedentedly huge that Hong Kong received wide news coverage and headlines on major international news outfits—including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, BBC News and Reuters—for days. The demonstration has been widely referred to as the "Umbrella Revolution".[68]

The self-organised Facebook group Global Solidarity with Hong Kong was established on 13 September 2014, providing a platform for Hong Kong citizens who live in different corner of the world to organise protests in their own cities. Various protests sprang up across different cities with solidarity to support the on-going demonstration and to condemn the Hong Kong Police's excessive use of force in Hong Kong.

Australia
In Australia, 250 students wore black shirts and gathered peacefully outside of Chinese Consulate in Perth on 29 September 2014, condemning the excessive use of violence in dispersing peaceful demonstrators and supporting Hong Kong's pursuit of full democracy.[69]

Canada
In Vancouver, British Columbia, a large group wearing yellow gathered in front of the local Chinese Consulate to support the movement in Hong Kong. This began on September 28, and is expected to continue.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird wrote on Twitter, "Aspirations of people of Hong Kong are clear. Canada supports continued freedom of speech and prosperity under the rule of law." His press secretary added, "Canada’s position is clear. We are supportive of democratic development in Hong Kong and believe that the ongoing adherence to the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy has contributed to and remains essential for Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity [...] Canada reiterates its support for the implementation of universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 and all members of the Legislative Council in 2020, in accordance with the Basic Law and the democratic aspirations of the Hong Kong people."[70]

The New Democratic Party, the Official Opposition, also expressed solidarity with protesters, stating "New Democrats believe that freedom of expression and association, including the right to peaceful protest, are fundamental rights. We stand in solidarity with all people who aspire for democracy, peace and the protection of human rights." They also called on Chinese authorities to "exercise restraint."[70]

New Zealand
On 1 October 2014, ~300 people protested along Auckland's main street in support of the Occupy Central. Protests were also staged in Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin and Palmerston North[71].

Taiwan
Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou urged mainland authorities to listen to the voices of the people of Hong Kong and deal with the matter in a peaceful and cautious manner. He also urged Hong Kong residents to use peaceful and rational means to express their views. Ma expressed his understanding and support for Hong Kong residents' demand for universal suffrage, and said the realization of universal suffrage will be a win-win scenario for both Hong Kong and mainland China.[72]

United Kingdom
A statement from the Foreign Office called for the rights of those demonstrating to be protected. The Foreign Office said that it was important Hong Kong preserved the right to demonstrate within the law, adding that it is monitoring events "carefully". Britons have been advised to avoid public demonstrations in Hong Kong, and to monitor local media and transport companies for information.

United States
On 29 September 2014, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a press briefing that the United States government supports the "universal suffrage in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law” and "the aspirations of the Hong Kong people.” They believe that "the basic legitimacy of the chief executive in Hong Kong will be greatly enhanced if the Basic Law's ultimate aim of selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage is fulfilled,” [73]

Official launch:
On 28 September 2014 at 1.40am Hong Kong time, Benny Tai announced the official start of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace civil disobedience campaign on the stage of the student protests outside Hong Kong's Central Government Complex.[63]

On Sunday night, 28 September 2014, the scenes in Central and Admiralty became more dramatic, as the police employed tear gas, pepper spray, and batons in their attempts to disperse the protesters. The use of tear gas was a significant move in Hong Kong, as it had not been used in the SAR since 2005.[64] This did not deter the crowds, as thousands more began to occupy Causeway Bay and Mongkok instead. On Monday, the government withdrew the riot police and there were massive traffic disruptions as buses and vehicles were diverted.[65] The police requested that the protesters free up the roads to allow commuters to get to work. However, the protesters reiterated their requests to speak with a government official, in order to begin negotiations for democratic reforms.[66] The tear gas used has been identified by Campaign Against Arms Trade as being manufactured by Chemring Group.[67]

Reaction:
SAR government
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying warned that the Occupy Central movement is bound to be neither peaceful nor legal and that actions will be taken to maintain law and order.[31]

Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok warned that the radical elements of Occupy Central may cause serious disturbances like the violent incident during the meeting for funding the northeast New Territories new town in Legislative Council; he reminded the participants to consider their own personal safety and legal liability.[14]

Commissioner of Police Andy Tsang Wai-hung said that any attempt to block major thoroughfares in Central will not be tolerated and warned people to think twice about joining the Occupy Central protest, adding "any collective act to hold up traffic unlawfully" would not be tolerated.[32]

PRC government
Official's response
Wang Guangya, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, when asked if he believed the Occupy Central plan was beneficial to the city, said "I think Hong Kong compatriots don't want to see Hong Kong being messed up. Hong Kong needs development."[33]

Qiao Xiaoyang, chairman of the National People's Congress Law Committee, was quoted as accusing the "opposition camp" of "fuelling" the Occupy Central plan. Qiao said the plan was only "partly truthful", "complex" and a "risk-everything" proposition.[33]

In October 2013 the party-controlled Global Times objected to Occupy organizers meeting with Democratic Progressive Party figures such as Shih Ming-teh in Taiwan, saying that the DPP, the main opposition party to Taiwan's governing KMT, was "pro-independence." In a piece titled "HK opposition at risk of becoming enemy of the State," Occupy organizers were warned that "collaborating with the pro-independence forces in Taiwan will put Hong Kong's future at the risk of violence," and advised that "if they collaborated... massive chaos might be created, which will compel the central government to impose tough measures to maintain Hong Kong's stability."[34] A few days later the paper said that Occupy Central was a "potentially violent concept" and asked "Why are Benny Tai Yiu-ting, who initiated the Occupy Central campaign and his supporters so bold as to challenge the central government with a bloody proposal over the issue of chief executive election procedures?"[35]

Censorship
Occupy Central protests has been censored in mainland China news media. On nationalist newspaper, Occupy Central is described as an "illicit campaign" which will "jeopardise the global image of Hong Kong" and "erode the authority of the rule of law". The demonstrators are described as "radical opposition forces" and a small minority of extremists who are not capable of mobilising the mass towards revolution.[36] In all state mouthpiece, the general opinion in editorials and commentary is trivialising the scale, significance and the unlikelihood of Occupy Central's success, reassurance of the Communist party's complete power over Hong Kong's affairs and painting a picture of majority of Hong Kong people welcome the 2017 political framework.

On Sunday 28 September, the state-controlled news channel Dragon TV broadcast the images of few thousand people jubilantly waving Chinese flags, participating in a celebration of the upcoming 65th anniversary of China National Day in Tamar Park whilst the coverage on student protest was missing. Interviewees overwhelmingly welcomed China's framework and decision for Hong Kong's 2017 election.

On 28 September, Popular photo-sharing app Instagram was blocked in Mainland China after the photos and videos of the use of tear gas went viral online. Phrases like "Tear Gas", "Hong Kong Students" and "Occupy Central" are censored on the largest search engine in China Baidu, Sina Weibo (China Twitter).[37] Experts reported that he received "hundreds of complaints from people on Twitter saying their Weibo accounts had been either blocked or deleted, most because they talked about the Hong Kong issue."[38] Mobile messaging service providers KakaoTalk also reported disruptions of their service,[39] which protestors circumvented via the peer-to-peer app FireChat.[40][41]

Pro-democracy camp
Civic Party lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki said he saw the ideas as "the last resort" to pressure Beijing and the SAR administration to introduce universal suffrage. "If Beijing breaks its promise of universal suffrage," he added, "we will have no option but to launch such a civil disobedience movement."[42]

Albert Ho Chun-yan of Democratic Party claimed he would resign from his legislator post to grant Hong Kong people the opportunity to vote in a de facto referendum to pave way for the Occupy Central movement, just as the pan-democrats launched the by-election in 2010 for universal suffrage in 2012.[43][unreliable source?]

The pan-democrats' reactions were not uniformly supportive. Wong Yuk-man has expressed fears that the movement would deteriorate,[44] while Wong Yeung-tat was strongly opposed to the movement.[45]

Pro-Beijing camp
Cheung Kwok-kwan, vice-chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, questioned whether Hong Kong could "afford the negative impact of people staging a rally to occupy and even paralyze Central for a universal suffrage model". He noted that it was "a mainstream idea" in the SAR not to resort to radical means to fight for democracy.[42] Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, a National People's Congress Standing Committee member, feared the occupation would adversely affect Hong Kong's image.[46] National People's Congress Deputy and Executive Councilor Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fan urged the opposition camp to show respect for each other through a rational and pragmatic debate over the issue. She added that there was no need to resort to "extreme action" and claimed that it was not too late to begin consultations next year.[46]

In mid-July, after the civic referendum, the Alliance for Peace and Democracy (APD) initiated a petition against the occupation from 18 July to 17 August.[47] There were criticisms that no identity checks were carried out and that there were no steps to prevent numerous multiple signatories.[47] According to the Wall Street Journal and South China Morning Post, employees faced pressure to sign petition forms that were being circulated by department heads in some companies, including Town Gas, a major public utility.[48][49] The APD claimed in excess of a million signatures were obtained.[50] The organisers said they obtained signatures from many supporters including children, secondary school and university students, the elderly, office staff, celebrities and maids.[47] Official endorsements include chief executive CY Leung and other top Hong Kong officials.[50][51] The APD organised a "march for peace" on 17 August intended to undermine the Occupy movement.[50] It was attended by tens of thousands of marchers. There were widespread claims that organisations had paid people to attend the rally or had given other inducements; the media reported pro-establishment organisations (namely the Federation of Trade Unions) had put on cross-border transport to bring in marchers[52] and that some 20,000 people may have been bussed in from across the border.[53] An editorial in The Standard noted "it's obvious that Beijing spared no effort in maximizing the turnout... Beijing has demonstrated its ability to swiftly mobilize the masses over a relatively short period".[53]

Business and professional groups
Eight major local business groups signed a statement condemning the Occupy Central movement and its founders meeting with Taiwanese independence activists in October 2013. Signatories included Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, Federation of Hong Kong Industries, Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong and Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong . The Law Society of Hong Kong quickly followed.[54]

In June 2014, Executives and brokers including tycoons Li Ka-shing and Peter Woo, and also the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and the Hong Kong Bahrain Business Association were joined by the Canadian, Indian and Italian chambers of commerce in Hong Kong published an advertisement on newspapers that said the demonstrations may "cripple" businesses.[55]

In late June 2014, Hong Kong's four biggest accounting firms issued a statement condemning the Occupy Central movement arguing that the blockade could have an "adverse and far-reaching impact" on the local legal system, social order and economic development. Employees of the firms who called themselves a "group of Big Four employees who love Hong Kong" took out an advertisement saying their employers' statement "does not represent our stance."[56]

On 29 September 2014, Hong Kong Bar Association released a press statement, strongly denouncing “the excessive and disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong Police” [57] and the misjudgement of Police’s escalated use of force antagonised and frustrated public feelings.

Declaring that despite the disagreement over political views and allegedly criminal offences, the “repeated, systematic, indiscriminate and excessive use of CS gas” [57] on the unarmed, peaceful and well-conducted demonstrators can not be justified even in names of maintaining public order or prevention of public disorder, such use of force does not abide by law and out of common decency on unarmed civilians.

Others
Leo F. Goodstadt, who served as adviser to Chris Patten, the last British-appointed governor of Hong Kong, and chief adviser for the Central Policy Unit of the colonial government, said that it would be normal for protesters to "paralyze Central" because "it is part of their right to protest" and Hong Kong residents already possessed the right to criticise the government through protests since the colonial era. In response to concerns that the Occupy Central campaign would hurt Hong Kong's status as an international financial center, Goodstadt cited the frequent mass protests in New York and London, two leading international financial centres, as having a minimal effect on the business environment there.[58]

Cardinal Joseph Zen has given his conditional support to the campaign, but stated that he would not participate in the movement for an indefinite period.[59] The incumbent bishop Cardinal John Tong Hon expressed that he did not encourage followers to join the movement, suggesting that both parties should debate universal suffrage through dialogue.[60]

Reverend Ng Chung-man of the Evangelical Free Church of China publicly denounced the Occupy Central plan in his church's newsletter. Ng wrote that while "some Christians are advocating...occupying Central to force the governments to give in to their demands...civil disobedience is acceptable biblically only...when people's rights to religion and to live are under threat". He exhorted believers to pray for those in authority, in an act of "active subordination" to "relatively just governments".[61]

On 27 September, Human rights watchdog Amnesty International swiftly responded to the use of pepper spray in dispersing the peaceful demonstrators on the night before, declaring Hong Kong Police's immediate resolve to use violence and riot police dispersing the crowds violated Hong Kong citizens’ freedom of speech and freedom of assembly of demonstration as constituted in Article 27 of Hong Kong Basic Law, which bound by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[62] Amnesty International urged the authorities to fulfil their obligation abide by International and domestic law, to release people who had been detained solely on exercising their human rights, and to ensure a peaceful environment for demonstrators.

Legalit

The OCLP has pointed out the participants in Occupy Central could be guilty of "obstructing, inconveniencing or endangering a person or vehicle in a public place" under the Summary Offenses Ordinance. Also under the Public Order Ordinance, Occupy Central could be considered as unlawful assembly, i.e., "when three or more people assemble... to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly." The Hong Kong Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok stated that the government will "take robust action to uphold the rule of law and maintain safety and order."[14]

Civic referendum


The Occupy Central movement commissioned the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (HKUPOP) to run a poll on three proposals – all of which involve allowing citizens to directly nominate candidates – to present to the Beijing government. It ran from 20 to 29 June 2014.[26] A total of 792,808 people, equivalent to a fifth of the registered electorate, took part in the poll by either voting online or going to designated polling stations,.[27] The two referendum questions were "For CE Election 2017, I support OCLP to submit this proposal to the Government: 1. Alliance for True Democracy Proposal, 2. People Power Proposal, 3. Students Proposal, or Abstention" and "If the government proposal cannot satisfy international standards allowing genuine choices by electors, LegCo should veto it, my stance is: LegCo should veto, LegCo should not veto, or abstain" respectively.

The proposal tabled by the Alliance for True Democracy, a group comprising 26 of the 27 pan-democratic lawmakers, won the unofficial "referendum" by securing 331,427 votes, or 42.1 per cent of the 787,767 valid ballots. A joint blueprint put forward by Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students came second with 302,567 votes (38.4 per cent), followed by a People Power's proposal, which clinched 81,588 votes (10.4 per cent).[28][29] All three call for the public to be allowed to nominate candidates for the 2017 chief executive election, an idea repeatedly dismissed by Beijing as inconsistent with the Basic Law. However, the Alliance's "three track" proposal would allow the public, the nominating committee, as well as political parties, to put forward candidates. Under their plan, candidates can be nominated by 35,000 registered voters or by a party which secured at least five per cent of the vote in the last Legco election. It did not specify on the formation of the nominating committee, only stating that it should be "as democratic as it can be". The two other proposals would only allow the public and a nominating committee to put forward candidates.[29] 691,972 voters (87.8 per cent) agreed that the Legislative Council should veto any reform proposal put forward by the government if it failed to meet international standards, compared with 7.5 per cent who disagreed.[29]

The unofficial "referendum" infuriated Beijing and prompted a flurry of vitriolic editorials, preparatory police exercises and cyber-attacks. As the poll opened, it was quickly hit by what one US-based cyber-security firm called the "most sophisticated onslaught ever seen". "[The attackers] continue to use different strategies over time," Matthew Prince, the chief executive of CloudFlare, a firm that helped defend against the attack, told the South China Morning Post. "It is pretty unique and sophisticated." The firm could not identify the origin of the attack.[26] Mainland officials and newspapers have called the poll "illegal" while many have condemned the Occupy Central, claiming it is motivated by foreign "anti-China forces" and will damage Hong Kong's standing as a financial capital.[26] On Tuesday, Zhang Junsheng, a former deputy director of Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong, called the poll "meaningless". The state-run Global Times mocked the referendum as an "illegal farce" and "a joke". The territory's chief executive, Leung Chun-Ying, said: "Nobody should place Hong Kong people in confrontation with mainland Chinese citizens." Mainland censors have meanwhile scrubbed social media sites clean of references to Occupy Central.[26]

Before the referendum, the State Council issued a white paper claiming "comprehensive jurisdiction" over the territory.[30] "The high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR [Hong Kong Special Administrative Region] is not full autonomy, nor a decentralised power," it said. "It is the power to run local affairs as authorised by the central leadership." Michael DeGolyer, director of the transition project at Hong Kong Baptist University, said: "It's very clear from surveys that the vast majority of the people voting in this referendum are doing it as a reaction to this white paper – particularly because they see it as threatening the rule of law ... That's not negotiating on the one country two systems principle, that's demolishing it."[26]

Deliberation

See also: 2014 Hong Kong electoral reform
The three sessions of deliberation day were held on 9 June 2013, 9 March 2014, and 6 May 2014 respectively.

On 5 February 2014, the Democratic Party swore to take part in the Occupy Central campaign at Statue Square despite the risk of being jailed. Some more radical democrats, mostly People Power disrupted the oath-taking ceremony. The 20-member group of pan-democratic lawmakers condemned the radicals at a joint press conference afterwards.[20]

On the third deliberation day, the Occupy Central participants voted on electoral reform proposals put forward by different organisations for the civil referendum. A total of 2,508 votes were cast in the poll, all three selected proposals contain the concept of civil nomination, which the mainland China officials had said did not comply with the Basic Law. The proposal by student groups Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students which allows for public nomination, received 1,124 votes – 45 percent of the vote. People Power's proposal came in second with 685 votes, while that from the three-track proposal by Alliance for True Democracy consisting of 27 pan-democracy lawmakers got 445 votes. The proposal from Hong Kong 2020 received 43 votes, while the civil recommendation proposed by 18 academics got 74 votes.[21]

The three proposals chosen by the members of Occupy Central deliberation panel were considered to be more radical. The League of Social Democrats and People Power lawmakers, despite being part of the Alliance for True Democracy, urged their supporters to vote against the alliance's proposals.[22] More moderate pan-democrats that avoided the notion of civic nomination were effectively squeezed out.[23][24] Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah, who saw his moderate plan rejected in a poll believed "the Occupy Central movement has been hijacked by radicals". He believed that the poll results would make it harder to find a reform package Beijing would agree to and that wins over the five or so pan-democrats it will need for a two-thirds majority in LegCo. He also believed Occupy's plan to block streets in Central would be likely to go ahead.[22] This, and the decision of People Power and the League of Social Democrats to go back on pledges to support the alliance's proposals, and of People Power to make its own proposal that included civil nomination, pointed to a split in pan democrat ranks.[23][25]

Protestors:
Occupy Central initially organised and promoted by Occupy Central with Love and Peace, HKFS and Scholarism. Participants are usually groups of concerned citizens and students who are engaging in discussion of political reforms, democratic progress and social issues. On 27 - 28 September, the excessive use of violence in dispersion of demonstrators by Hong Kong Police has antagonised and frustrated general public feelings, and yet student’s spirits appeared to inspire more citizens rally under the same banner. By Monday morning, 29 September, Admiralty and Central, the artery of Hong Kong’s financial centre is paralysed by tens of thousands of protesters, by the same evening, the movement spread out to other major thoroughfares of Hong Kong including Mong Kok, Causeway Bay.[15]

Organisation
Although the demonstrators were gathered by HKFS and Scholarism, the unprecedented scale of demonstrators and multiple congregation locations soon changed the Occupy Central movement into a non-centralised, self-managed horizontal structure. News, distribution of resources and tactics exchange is viral on Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp, largely urged the protests remained calm, not to be incited or provoked and gave out instruction on handling tear gas and pepper spray.

Despite several nationalist newspaper described protesters as radical activists and extremists,[16] global news media generally have an affirmative altitude of protester’s discipline and organisation. The Independent said Occupy Central “could be the most polite demonstration ever”.[17] Protesters volunteered in distributing food and water, picking up rubbish and cigarette butts, recycling and sorting plastic bottles and used raincoats. According to BBC news, "many agree that the world hasn't seen organised and tidy protests quite like this before.”[18] In size of such protest, no damage of civilian properties, looting or vandalism has hitherto filed.

Apart from the surprising self-discipline and well-conducted civil behaviours, apology notes can be seen on the barricades for causing inconvenience. A widely reported apology note is found on the windshield of a vandalised police van, written “Sorry I don’t who did this but we are not anarchists - We want democracy.”[19]

Objectives:
On 16 January 2013, Benny Tai, Associate Professor at the University of Hong Kong, published an article in the Hong Kong Economic Journal in which he proposed an act of civil disobedience carried out in the Central, the business and financial centre of Hong Kong, to put pressure on the government if its universal suffrage proposals proved to be "fake" democracy.[12]

The OCLP states that it would campaign for universal suffrage through dialogue, deliberation, civil referendum and civil disobedience (Occupy Central);[13] it also demands that the government proposal should satisfy the "international standards" in relation to universal suffrage, i.e. equal number of vote, equal weight for each vote and no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election, and the final proposal for the electoral reform to be decided by means of democratic process. OCLP claims that any civil disobedience would be non-violent[13] though it cannot guarantee Occupy Central will be peaceful.[14]

Background:
The pro-democracy camp petitioned the Hong Kong government and Beijing for the full implementation of universal suffrage as indicated in the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45, which delineates the requirements for electing the chief executive.[5] Members also cited[citation needed]language in Annex I in support of universal suffrage:

“   "The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.[6]"   ”
“   "The method for selecting the chief executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. 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.[6]"   ”
In December 2007, the National People's Congress Law Committee officially ruled on the issue of universal suffrage in Hong Kong:[7]

“   that the election of the fifth chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the year 2017 may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage; that after the chief executive is selected by universal suffrage, the election of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may be implemented by the method of electing all the members by universal suffrage...   ”
The Asia Times wrote in 2008 that both proposals for the Legislative Council (LegCo) and for the chief executive were "hedged in with so many ifs and buts that there is no guarantee of Hong Kong getting anything at all... "[8]

CY Leung, the incumbent chief executive of Hong Kong, was to submit the local government's recommendation to Beijing on how to proceed with democratisation in the territory following consultations. As of July 2014 a round of consultations ended in early 2014, and another round of consultations was to take place in the second half.[9] Chinese political leaders have since repeatedly declared that the chief executive, which is to be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, "must conform to the standard of loving the country and loving Hong Kong".[10] To that end, the government of Hong Kong, strongly backed by the PRC government, reiterated that CE nominees be screened by a "broadly representative nominating committee", and that there was no provision for civic nominations.[10] The position was reaffirmed in a State Council white paper from June 2014.[11]

Occupy Central, (和平佔中 or just 佔中 in media reports) is a civil disobedience campaign initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong, the founder of Occupy Central with Love and Peace (organisation) to pressurise the PRC Government into granting universal suffrage and civil nomination in Hong Kong’s electoral reform in 2017 as promised according to the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45. The campaign was originally planned to launch on 1 October 2014, National Day of the People's Republic of China to respond Beijing's decision on the framework of Hong Kong electoral reform in 2017.[2]

However, Occupy Central with Love and Peace announced the commencement of Occupy Central earlier on 28 September 2014 in the midst of the heated week-long class boycott[3] organised by Hong Kong Federation of Students(referred as HKFS below) and Scholarism to encourage secondary students’ engagement in political and social affair discussion. The student strikes developed into a wave of strikes in other industries, demonstration of police’s excessive use of force, civil disobedience and occupy movement in an unprecedented scale that led by Hong Kong Federation of Students, Scholarism, Occupy Central and Pan-democratic parties. The method of Hong Kong Police in dispersing demonstrators received wide condemnation and criticism.

Occupy Central gradually developed into a non-centralised, self-generative occupy movement spreading in different area of Hong Kong that largely governed by citizen’s voluntary helps and self-discipline.[4]

resource> wiki