Freedom Fighter 游蕙禎

Hong Kong's rebellious lawmaker Yau Wai-ching
By Helier Cheung

Yau Wai-ching is the youngest woman to be elected to Hong Kong's parliament -- and she has been called many things, including: "radical", "goddess", "spy", "pretty" and "cancer cell".
In the space of two months, the 25-year-old has become one of the most controversial politicians in Hong Kong -- and is now pitted in a court battle against the Hong Kong and Chinese governments -- even though she has admitted it could bankrupt her.
Ms Yau and fellow party member Sixtus Leung won elections in September, gaining more than 55,000 votes between them.
Ms Yau, a daughter of two civil servants, had little previous political experience, and made headlines for edging out a veteran politician to win a seat.
The Chinese Studies graduate had been involved in the 2014 pro-democracy protests, when tens of thousands of people, including large numbers of students, took to the streets demanding fully democratic elections in Hong Kong.
She describes the protests as an important part of her political awakening.
After the movement failed to win any concessions from Beijing, Ms Yau and Mr Leung became involved in a new political party -- Youngspiration -- that campaigns against mainland China's influence on Hong Kong, and advocates a "Hong Kong first" approach.
The party struck a nerve with many young Hong Kongers unhappy with China and disillusioned with traditional pro-democracy parties, who they argue have failed to achieve any reform.
But, after their election victory, things quickly spiralled out of control.
Ms Yau and Mr Leung sparked a furore when they were being sworn in last month.
Instead of pledging allegiance to the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", the duo swore allegiance to the "Hong Kong nation", used a term considered derogatory towards China, and displayed a banner that read "Hong Kong is not China".
Their oaths were invalidated, and thousands of people protested against their actions, demanding they be removed from parliament.
A top Chinese official even likened the duo to "two cancer cells -- if you don't care about it, it will continue to hurt your body".
The Hong Kong government launched a court case to disqualify them.
And the Chinese government also decided to intervene -- issuing a controversial interpretation of Hong Kong's law on oath taking, to say that any oath that is not "sincere" should be automatically disqualified.
After losing the court case, Ms Yau and Mr Leung were disqualified as legislators -- and are now also bombarded with angry comments on social media, where people accuse them of being useless, politically naïve, or insulting their country.
But for all the controversy surrounding her, Ms Yau comes across as mild-mannered and determined in person -- and less slick or media trained than many other politicians.
"We know that appealing the court decision will cost a lot," she says.
"We may face bankruptcy, but we have no choice."
She is concerned that if the case is not challenged, it may set a legal precedent for other pro-independence legislators to be disqualified, which would allow the government to "negate the results of a democratic vote".
She says she believes in independence for Hong Kong because the "One Country, Two Systems" model under which it is governed, after it was handed back to China from the British in 1997, is "a failed experiment".
Despite the model, which promises Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, "in these few years we have seen the PRC [People's Republic of China] government having direct interventions into the internal affairs of Hong Kong".
"We have to find another way to solve this problem," she says.
"One solution may be independence -- or maybe we can find another kind of solution, but right now I can't think of any other solutions."
It is true that there has been growing anger in Hong Kong at perceived Chinese involvement in its affairs.
In particular, the disappearance of five Hong Kong booksellers who published books critical of mainland China in late 2015 sparked concerns over Hong Kong's future.
Hong Kong relies on China for much of its food and water supplies -- as well as much of its trade -- and the Chinese government has shown that it has zero tolerance for moves towards independence from any of its territories.
Veteran democracy activist Martin Lee said he felt suspicious of Ms Yau and Mr Leung's actions, saying that they are "giving [Beijing] the excuse" to destroy Hong Kong's judicial independence.
Some have even accused Ms Yau and Mr Leung of secretly working with Beijing to undermine Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement.
Ms Yau flatly denies this, and says her party has faced such accusations ever since it was founded.
"There are no external forces telling us what to do, to make long term plans, or betray Hong Kong."
Looking amused, she adds: "If we really were undercover agents, surely we'd still be in the legislative council -- we wouldn't have let ourselves get kicked out, would we?"
Ms Yau is known for being outspoken.
She supported gay marriage in her election campaign -- despite receiving criticism for it -- and also raised eyebrows when she said that Hong Kong's housing shortage meant that young people had "no room to bang".
But a lot of the comments about Ms Yau have focused on her gender and appearance, rather than her policies.
One newspaper wrote articles about what she wore to rallies, highlighting what they called her "protest look", while others nicknamed her "goddess" in reference to her appearance.
And the sexism appears to have stepped up a notch since the oath-taking controversy.
At one pro-Beijing protest, demonstrators stuck a photo of Ms Yau on a sex doll -- and internet commentators have shared photos of Ms Yau's dress being hiked up during a scuffle in parliament.
Ms Yau says she believes the sexist attacks are "not because of my gender -- it's because my ideology is different from theirs".
However, experts have argued that the remarks are indicative of gender stereotyping in Hong Kong media -- and worry that they could put off other women from entering politics.
As for Ms Yau, she says she will continue to work to fulfil her campaign pledges -- even if she loses her appeal and her seat in parliament.
"The fact is that many Hong Kongers take [independence] as an aim for the future of Hong Kong," and the government can't ignore those voices, she says.
"I hope in the future, Hong Kong people have the power to choose their destiny and the future they want -- whatever it is they decide to choose."

Free Speech Ruling Threatens To Revive Mass Anti-China Protests In Hong Kong

By Ralph Jennings ,

The Hong Kong high court is due to rule Tuesday on whether two young people elected as legislators in the Chinese territory can hold office despite taking oaths where they used their own language. Their words and the anti-China sentiment behind them offended Beijing.

The duo, Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, took the supposed oaths on Oct. 12.
They belong to a political party called Youngspiration, which is ideologically close to the protesters who occupied Hong Kong streets for nearly 80 days in 2014 to resist Beijing’s vetting of election candidates.
Their fate in court could revive those “Umbrella Movement” demonstrations as sympathetic youth worry again about China’s influence.

Mass protests are a headache for China as it seeks to contain autonomy seekers in Hong Kong, as well as its far west, while convincing proudly self-ruled Taiwan it should someday unify with Beijing.
Hong Kong’s legal system is technically autonomous. 

However, the territory of 7 million people has fallen under Communist Chinese rule since 1997. China is hardly tolerant of dissent, to wit its role in the disappearance earlier this year of Hong Kong booksellers who sold material critical of Chinese leaders.
Thousands protested already in Hong Kong Nov. 6 and Nov. 13 over Beijing’s influence in the oath flap. 

A legislative committee in Beijing had reviewed Hong Kong’s law and moved toward an interpretation that would stop legislators in the territory from actions or words that breach allegiance to the People’s Republic. 

Hong Kong’s chief executive and justice secretary had asked the court to declare as vacant the seats won by Leung, 30, and Yau, 25.
Protests could easily reignite Tuesday or over the weekend again if the court tells the duo they can neither be legislators nor retake the oath.
“Beijing’s intervention is likely to add fuel to fire in Hong Kong, where many already feel deeply resentful towards the central government, contributing to similar expression of anger in the future,” says Maya Wang, China researcher with the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.
Yet any street demonstrations may be short lived this time. 

About 44,000 people in Hong Kong had signed an online petition asking that Yau apologize for using the F-word and calling China the derogatory term “Chee-na” in her oath, Hong Kong Free Press reported in mid-October.
Internet commentary reveals a mix of support and bewilderment. 

Some people wonder why the pair didn’t see the clash coming or what they expected if they did. 

“I’m surprised that the two refused to take the oath,” a portfolio manager in Hong Kong told this blog. 

“I mean, they should have thought of that before running, yes? If you’re not going to take the oath than why run?”

The People of Hong Kong vs. The People’s Republic of China

A Hong Kong court could soon decide on the future legal relationship between the city and the mainland.
BY SUZANNE SATALINE

Hong Kong’s colonial past is still alive in the city’s courtrooms. 

There, judges are called “my lord” or “my lady,” and barristers stride in black robes and heavy wigs that ripple with thick skeins of horsehair. 

The scenes connote sobriety, stability, and, for many Hong Kongers, equality before the law — even though they unfold within the People’s Republic of China, where legal proceedings are cloaked in mystery.
Hong Kong has the only legal system in the world with an independent judiciary that operates within a socialist dictatorship, according to Cora Chan, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong. 

It’s been a struggle to balance the odd marriage between Leninist doctrine and Western common law, especially at those moments when the Communist government tips the scales and privileges party preservation over transparency and fairness.
This week saw one such moment. 

On Nov. 7, China’s de facto legislature, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), intervened in an ongoing Hong Kong court case and effectively banished two newly elected lawmakers who champion the region’s independence. 

Sixtus “Baggio” Leung and Yao Wai-ching derided the People’s Republic during their swearing-in ceremony last month, and the city’s executive went to court to bar them from retaking their oaths. Before the judge could rule, the Standing Committee issued a rare legal directive on Nov. 7.
The directive effectively imposes a loyalty test on Hong Kong officeholders, and clouds the future not just of Leung and Yao but of two other lawmakers, whose initial vows were deemed invalid. 

The document could also prevent pro-independence residents from seeking office and muzzle secessionist talk by opposition lawmakers. 

“[The central government] is determined to firmly confront the pro-independence forces without any ambiguity,” said Li Fei, the chairman of the Beijing-based committee that oversees Hong Kong’s constitution, known as the Basic Law, as he explained the decision. 

Hong Kong Chief Executive C.Y. Leung said his government will enact the Beijing doctrine in full.
To advocates of Hong Kong’s legal — if not national — independence, this was a death knell. 

On Nov. 8, Hong Kong’s lawyers organized a silent march to protest the NPCSC’s decision. 

Hundreds of lawyers and other residents, dressed in black, quietly walked the city’s streets. 

Three days earlier, a much larger protest over Beijing’s intrusion drew young Hong Kongers; a few hundred defied police and were pepper-sprayed.
Beijing’s intervention puts the Hong Kong government in a bind. 

Using a one-sentence line in Hong Kong’s constitution concerning oaths, Beijing expanded the duties of Hong Kong officials and suppressed free speech — a rewriting of city law that violates the established process to amend Hong Kong’s constitution.
If Hong Kong follows Beijing’s directive, as Chief Executive C.Y. Leung has promised, the impact could be enormous. 

The city would lose at least two lawmakers chosen by popular vote, possibly more, and some legislators critical of the government would be silenced. 

The directive might also be applied retroactively, legal scholars say, allowing the government to remove more lawmakers whose oaths — or politics — might not match the Beijing line.
Most troubling is that the decision threatens the city’s independence and punctures the 50-year firewall, created in 1997, that protects Hong Kong’s rights and powers from the authoritarian system to the north in a framework called “one country, two systems.”
“This is the most brutal form of intervention with a judicial interpretation,” says Johannes Chan, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong and former faculty dean. 

“It’s interfering with the judicial process. It’s far worse than any time before … The NPC has no power to make law for Hong Kong, as such. The blow, apart from the fatal blow to the judicial system, is how could anyone have confidence in one country, two systems?”
Nineteen years after Britain ceded Hong Kong to Chinese control, many residents are furious with what they consider Beijing’s encroachments and demands for allegiance. 

Thousands of people attended a rally in August to support five candidates who were blocked from running for Legislative Council, or Legco, after they voiced support for independence or a referendum on the city’s future. 

Many protested last year after five employees of a publishing house kidnapped and detained on the mainland. 

A Chinese legal decision in 2014 promised free elections in Hong Kong, but only for candidates vetted by Beijing. 

The resulting fury fanned a vast street occupation that lasted nearly three months.
The Basic Law allows China to step in and issue interpretations of law, but legal scholars who have studied the process to draft the constitution with the PRC say that the intent was not to invite blatant interference in Hong Kong local governance. 

Yet, the NPCSC has tried to break the spirit of the agreement repeatedly since reunification, at least four times prior to this week. 

Because Hong Kong’s constitution permits China’s legislature to offer its views, Hong Kong can’t ignore Beijing’s legal decrees, Johannes Chan says, but must find ways to work with or around them.
Hong Kong lawyers are now debating how to handle China’s latest intervention. 

Hong Kong’s government argued in court on Nov. 10 that China’s directive justified an order to bar Baggio Leung and Yao from office, but lawyers for the dissenting lawmakers, both from the new party Youngspiration, asked that the edict be disregarded.
Other pro-Beijing groups are making use of the Beijing directive. 

That same day, a member of a taxi driver’s group — one which successfully petitioned the court in 2014 to shut down the street occupation — asked the court to reject eight pro-democracy lawmakers because their oaths had been improper by Beijing’s definition.
“The community is still hopelessly split on this,” Johannes Chan said about city residents. 

“There are no shortage of people who embrace the NPC interpretation.” 

He noted the advertisements in some newspapers placed by pro-China associations and commerce groups lauding Beijing’s move. 

“Society is more polarized and this creates more problems than it resolves.”
What happens next is now in the hands of the Hong Kong judge presiding over the case. 

He could dodge the constitutional conundrum, decide that oath-taking is a legislative issue, and kick the problem back to that chamber. 

That would avoid some problems and create others. 

The president of Legco, who is considered a Beijing loyalist, would be expected to follow the NPC dictates. 

“They now feel that whenever they interpret the Basic Law they can add whatever they like to it,” says Kevin Yam, one of three conveners of the Progressive Lawyers Group. 

The Legco president will comply. 

“Of course he’s going to follow the interpretation, regardless of any legal basis for it … It’s one rotten mess, really.”
Or, the judge could accept China’s legal directive and bar the two lawmakers from office. 

That might require that the courts review the words and actions of every sitting lawmaker, to ensure their oaths were declaimed “sincerely and solemnly,” as proscribed by Beijing. 

Ejecting the lawmakers in this way would also neuter the veto power of the legislature’s pro-democracy camp, several lawyers said. 

What’s more, a decision to follow Beijing’s order would likely invite more interference from Beijing. “The possibilities are endless,” says Yam. 

“They could interpret Basic Law and vastly expand the scope of executive power under the Basic Law.” 

Alternatively, the judge could accept a less expansive version of Beijing’s argument, and decide that it applies only to future lawmakers and candidates.
A final option is what Cora Chan calls the “nuclear” choice. 

In theory, the court could reject Beijing’s paper as a nonbonding opinion that exceeds the framework of Hong Kong’s constitution.
That would risk the wrath of the Chinese Communist Party.
“There’s always this possibility that whatever the courts do, it might antagonize China and China might then issue another interpretation to overrule the court’s understanding,” she says. 

“One might argue, if you antagonize Beijing, they might take away the entire common law legal system in Hong Kong. That’s a possibility.”
There is precedent, though, for Hong Kong’s resistance. 

In 1999, the city’s Court of Final Appeal found that Hong Kong judges have the right to reject legislative acts from the NPC or its committee if they are inconsistent with Basic Law. 

In a 2001 case, Hong Kong judges found that a statement in Beijing interpretation was not binding and had no bearing on common law practice. 

“The courts,” the justices wrote, “will not on the basis of any extrinsic materials depart from the clear meaning and give the language a meaning which the language cannot bear.”
Cora Chan says Hong Kong could test Beijing’s limits and take a similar approach with the new interpretation; there’s always a chance, she says, that Beijing won’t intervene further.
In the long run, she says, Hong Kong must consider effective controls — political or legal — on Beijing’s power over Hong Kong. 

In Britain, Parliament is checked through elections. 

China’s lawmakers aren’t subject to public choice. 

“Going forward it’s not going to work,” she says. 

“Without effective political controls, we should probably start exploring other sources of control … We just can’t have a high position-maker over Hong Kong that is not subject to any limits.”
Whether the interpretation shapes the current court’s decision or not, the battle over national — or local — loyalties is intense. 

C.Y. Leung, the city’s chief executive, said he will adhere to Beijing’s repeated request to reintroduce a constitutional security act that would bar treason, secession, sedition and subversion. 

When the proposed amendment, known as Article 23, was last broached, the broad range of offenses enraged the public. 

Waves of massive demonstrations in 2003 pushed the government to shelve the bill.
“Beijing has no respect for Hong Kong’s legal system at all. So it’s determined to kneecap the judiciary, to kneecap the legislature, and it already has the executive [on its side],” says Alvin Cheung, a Hong Kong lawyer and legal scholar at New York University. 

Then the government could delay having elections to replace the disbarred lawmakers “to get whatever legislation they want passed. Then they can run the by-elections then and no one who’s remotely sympathetic to democracy would be allowed to run, because they’re all national security threats. Unfortunately, that’s all dangerously plausible.”

More Hong Kong lawmakers at risk of losing office as China equates self-determination with independence

By Ellie Ng

Basic Law Committee Chair Li Fei has said that self-determination is the same as Hong Kong independence and therefore contravenes the territory’s mini-constitution. 

Analysts say that lawmakers who challenge China’s sovereignty will be at risk of disqualification despite having been sworn-in.
The comment came shortly after China’s top legislature, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), voted on and passed the NPCSC’s interpretation of the Basic Law Article 104 of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with unanimous support on Monday. 

It is the fifth Basic Law interpretation since the 1997 handover.

Self-determination
Li said that concepts such as national self-determination and the Hong Kong nation are “essentially” the same as Hong Kong independence, which would contravene the Basic Law which states that Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of China. 

It would also damage the territory’s rule of law, social order and economy, he said.
Li added that pledging loyalty to Hong Kong and not China practically means support for Hong Kong independence.
Although Li referred to “national self-determination,” which is advocated by the Youngspiration party, there are concerns that advocates of “democratic self-determination” – such as the Demosistō party and independent lawmakers Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu Chung-yim – will also be affected.
The latest NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law said that oaths taken by public officers such as lawmakers and judges are legally binding. 

It warns that those who make a “false oath” or break their oath will be disqualified from assuming public office and bear “legal consequences.”

Lau Siu-lai. 

‘Lawmakers at risk of disqualification’
Lau Siu-kai, former top policy adviser to the government, said on an RTHK programme on Monday that Beijing needed to interpret the Basic Law to make clear its strong stance against moves that could harm China’s national interests. 

The introduction of a national security law would not have effectively solved the imminent issue, he added.
He said the future of Hong Kong should be decided by the whole of China, and that the territory has no right to become independent.
Lau added that the scale of the pro-independence camp in Hong Kong is not big compared with those in Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang. 

Nonetheless, he said, the Chinese government cannot tolerate pro-independence forces in Hong Kong.

The professor predicted that Youngspiration’s Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang are very likely going to be disqualified as lawmakers. 

But the interpretation does not only target the pair; it also aims at provide legal guidance for other oath-taking events, he said.
He cannot rule out the possibility of people filing judicial reviews against lawmakers such as Lau Siu-lai, one of the self-determination advocates in the legislature.
Any lawmakers who advocate independence or challenge China’s sovereignty will be disqualified, as they will have broken the oath, Lau Siu-kai said. 

He added that it would depend on how the authorities handled Monday’s interpretation by the NPCSC.

Criticism
IT sector lawmaker Charles Mok criticised Li’s comment for adding words to the interpretation, which did not mention “self-determination.”
“What do you mean by ‘essentially’? You think you are the law, but let us tell you: you have not solved the problem, but have only made it bigger,” Mok said.
Activist Joshua Wong of the Demosistō party said: “Democratic self-determination means allowing Hongkongers to decide the future of Hong Kong by democratic means. Today, the Chinese Communist Party characterised it as independence.”

Joshua Wong

“It looks like the day when Beijing equates anti-Article-23 [security law] and ‘end one-party rule’ with fueling pro-independence forces is not far away,” Wong said.
Wong’s former colleague Tommy Cheung, one of the student leaders behind the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests, said: “If self-determination is independence, then everything is the same as Hong Kong independence.”
A protest against Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law was held on Sunday. 

It ended with clashes outside the China Liaison Office, Beijing’s organ in Hong Kong.

From Hong Kong Pencil Pusher to Political Firebrand

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE and ALAN WONG

HONG KONG — Yau Wai-ching seemed destined to lead an ordinary life.
Twenty-two years old and a newly-minted college graduate, she was already lost in the anonymity of the hundreds of thousands of workers commuting from this city’s high-rise apartments to its glass office towers. 

Her job: processing membership applications at the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
That was three years ago.
Now, Ms. Yau is one of the best-known and most provocative public figures in this former British colony of 7.3 million, part of an expanding, youth-centered movement that backs more autonomy and, in her case, outright independence from China.
In September, she became the youngest woman ever elected to Hong Kong’s 70-seat legislature. 

And last month, when taking the oath of office, she altered the words, using both an expletive and the term “Chee-na” instead of China, which many people understood to be a reference to a demeaning term for the country that was used during the World War II era.
Her extraordinary public act of defiance enraged the leaders in Beijing. 

On Wednesday, the Communist Party newspaper People’s Daily cited one mainland scholar who referred to Ms. Yau and a fellow pro-independence colleague as a “pustule” that had to be removed.
The following evening, Hong Kong’s government was told that China’s Communist Party-controlled Parliament would take the extraordinary step of ruling on the legality of her oath, which was already being argued in a local court. 

Beijing has never intervened in a Hong Kong court case without being asked by local officials or judges before, raising alarms that the city’s considerable autonomy from the mainland, guaranteed by an international treaty, was being undermined.
Beijing is also outraged about a trip that Ms. Yau and her colleague, Sixtus Leung, known as Baggio, took to Taiwan last month to meet with pro-independence students there.
But for now, she and her young staff are settling into spacious offices on the 10th floor of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council building. 

Bottles of wine and Belgian beer, and three large megaphones, lay strewn about the messy office during a visit late last week. 

On her desk was a copy of “The Godfather,” by Mario Puzo, which she is eager to read.

Ms. Yau at her swearing-in ceremony on Oct. 12. She used an expletive and laid out a banner that read “Hong Kong Is Not China.”

On a whiteboard, written with blue marker, was the now-famous variation of “China” she had voiced at her inauguration. 

From the window next to her desk, the local headquarters of the People’s Liberation Army looms.
It was the road in front of the army headquarters — a building which also served as a British military installation — where Ms. Yau’s transformation began two years ago, on Sept. 28, 2014. 

It was there and then that she first experienced the political life: joining thousands of people in a standoff against the police.
As remarkable as Ms. Yau’s rise from office worker to radical lawmaker may seem, her personal transformation is far from unique here. 

She is just one of hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers whose lives were altered by the pro-democracy protests that swept the city two years ago.
A generation of young people forged their political identities as they rallied — ultimately unsuccessfully — against China’s decision to put strict controls on planned elections for the city’s chief executive. 

To them, it was a betrayal of the promises made more than a generation ago that led to Britain transferring sovereignty to China, with the promise that Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy until at least 2047.
“All of us had the same mission, that we had to stop the government and try to get our democracy,” Ms. Yau said in an interview.
After a few days, she became disillusioned with the main body of protesters who had set up camp on the thoroughfares around the Legislative Council building and the main government offices. 

The atmosphere was like a “festival,” she said.
“When I came out from my home I thought I had to fight, to have a war with the government,” Ms. Yau said.
When the protests ended after 79 days in December 2014, most participants resumed their daily routines. 

But not Ms. Yau. 

She volunteered for the newly formed Youngspiration party and ran for a seat in a local district council in 2015. 

She lost, but was spurred to run for the legislature after violent clashes broke out in February.
Her experience in the youth movement slowly transformed a quiet young woman into an outspoken, irreverent young politician. 

Together with Mr. Leung, she has helped to trigger what may turn into a constitutional crisis, should China’s Parliament move to block them from taking office.
Mr. Leung recalled that when Ms. Yau joined the Youngspiration party in early 2015, she used to keep to herself.
“She didn’t know how to express herself. To be blunt, she was quite a nerd,” he said. 

“But in the two years since she’s been forced to speak and has changed a lot.”
Ms. Yau’s experience until 2014 offered few clues to suggest she would become so passionate about Hong Kong’s future. 

Her parents — both retired civil servants — wanted her to work for a few years in her steady job and then, perhaps, go to graduate school. 

Until 2014, she complied.
But, as Ms. Yau describes it, she could not countenance students — some still in high school — confronting the police on Hong Kong’s streets while she worked at a comfortable desk job just blocks away. 

“They are too young to bear this kind of social responsibility,” she said. 

“I had to pay something for this place.”
Some of her experiences as a student suggest that, if anything, she strongly identified with the Chinese nation, if not the Communist government that has run it since 1949.

Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung inside the Legislative Council late last month.

At Hong Kong’s Lingnan University, Ms. Yau studied Chinese literature. 

She said she enjoyed writing fictionalized accounts of the romantic intrigue — especially homosexual relations — in China’s imperial dynasties, notably the Qin, the first dynasty that flourished more than 2,200 years ago. 

As for China’s last dynasty, the Qing, she said she had little interest because its rulers — the Manchus — were foreigners.
“I don’t think it is a real dynasty for Chinese people,” she said.
Even before she attended college, she said she was particularly affected by the Analects, the collection of sayings and ideas attributed to the philosopher Confucius. 

In some ways, they have helped shape her still developing worldview, particularly her strident anti-Communism.
To Ms. Yau, the government in Beijing has, through its political campaigns, destroyed much that is good about Chinese society. 

She considers Taiwan, which Beijing holds is a breakaway province, a better guardian of Chinese traditions, and that Xi Jinping’s recent emphasis on Confucian values is superficial and not in keeping with the true spirit of the sage.
But even if China abandoned Communism and embraced its thousands of years of history, Ms. Yau said her loyalties lie with Hong Kong, which embarked on a very different path after the British established their colony in the 1840s. 

She sees Hong Kong’s civil liberties — the same ones that allowed her to protest and then win a seat on the legislature — as being under mortal threat by an ever-intrusive mainland government.
At 25 years old, she has come under intense criticism for her inauguration, during which she laid out a blue banner that read “Hong Kong Is Not China.” 

Even some of her allies considered her profanity-laced oath childish.
That speaks to the divide between older pro-democracy supporters, who accept Chinese sovereignty, and many in the younger generation, who do not. 

Emily Lau, the longtime head of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, said it was unwise of Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung to use the term “Chee-na.”
“I don’t agree with that at all and understand why many people feel infuriated and insulted,” Ms. Lau said, adding that she also strongly disagreed with the pro-Beijing camp’s attempt to prevent the pair from taking office.
Ms. Yau, now in danger of losing her seat, did not want to comment on her oath, citing a court case on whether she will be allowed to retake the pledge. 

Even so, on Wednesday she and Mr. Leung tried to retake their oaths, unannounced, in a chaotic and aborted legislative session. 

The body’s president called their action “ridiculous” and asked them to leave.
“We have to protect our own values, our freedoms,” Ms. Yau said. 

“Some people have to stand up and fight for these kind of things.”

Independentist Hong Kong Lawmakers Draw Blunt Response From China

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE and ALAN WONG

The recently elected Hong Kong lawmaker Sixtus Leung, center with glasses, was restrained by security officers after trying to retake his oath of office on Wednesday.

HONG KONG — It started with an oath of office that two young, newly elected lawmakers altered to insert a derogatory term into the formal name of Hong Kong’s sovereign ruler, the People’s Republic of China, with one also adding a crude epithet.
In addition to substantially revising the pledge of loyalty that all members of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council are required to take, the lawmakers, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Leung, known as Baggio, displayed a banner with the words “Hong Kong Is Not China” at their swearing-in.
And China is responding with some bluntness of its own.
Hong Kong’s government, loyal to Beijing, has asked the court system in the city, a former British colony, to review whether the council can let the lawmakers retake their oaths of office.
The Hong Kong government and Beijing want the two representatives, who support independence for the territory, to vacate their seats rather than simply retake the oaths.
A court in Hong Kong is set to hold a hearing on the matter on Thursday.
But a fusillade of invective against the pair in China’s state-controlled news media on Wednesday is leading to fears, backed by reports in Hong Kong news outlets, that Beijing may circumvent Hong Kong’s legal process by issuing a rare interpretation of the city’s mini-constitution that would effectively bar Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung from office.
That prospect has alarmed people in the political, academic and legal communities in Hong Kong.
The city has a strong and independent legal system, inherited from the British, that China has vowed to honor until at least 2047, as part of the agreement that paved the way for the resumption of Chinese rule in 1997.
But a clause in the city’s mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law, gives China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress, final say over interpretations of that constitution, though the provision has rarely been invoked.
If the Congress’s standing committee, which is in session, rules on the matter, it would amount to mainland China, where there is no tradition of independent courts and no expectations of genuine debate on legal interpretations, overriding the highly developed Hong Kong court system.
The committee may meet to discuss the matter as early as this week.
The independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary is one of the reasons that so many multinational companies, banks and law firms have their Asian headquarters in the city.
Eric Cheung, a law lecturer at the University of Hong Kong, said in an interview that any interpretation by the National People’s Congress “fundamentally undermines our rule of law and the interpretation power of our courts.” 
On Wednesday, the Hong Kong Bar Association said in a statement that an interpretation by Beijing would “deal a severe blow to the independence of the judiciary and the power of final adjudication of the Hong Kong court.”
It added, “The irreparable harm it will do to Hong Kong far outweighs any purpose it could possibly achieve.”

Yau Wai-ching and Mr. Leung outside the Legislative Council building in Hong Kong on Wednesday. Hong Kong’s government, loyal to Beijing, has asked the court system to rule on whether the council can let the two lawmakers retake their oaths.

The actions of Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung, as well as other advocates of greater self-determination for Hong Kong, have touched a raw nerve in Beijing, which harshly suppresses independence movements in other parts of China, such as Tibet and Xinjiang.
But in Hong Kong, which was promised considerable autonomy under the “one country, two systems” principle, people are free to express such sentiments without fear of arrest.
That freedom was on display on Oct. 12, the day they took their oaths, when Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau pronounced China “Chee-na,” which is similar to a derogatory term for China used during World War II.
With its normal instruments of authoritarian repression of limited use in Hong Kong, China has turned its propaganda arms on the pair.
On Wednesday, the Communist Party’s flagship People’s Daily published an interview with Mo Jihong, a legal researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who called Ms. Yau’s and Mr. Leung’s actions “obvious malice.”
“Such things cannot be allowed to happen in China’s territory,” Mr. Mo said.
“If Hong Kong cannot deal with it properly, the central government should make a decisive move: It cannot allow a festering pustule to become the bane of your life, and it must nip the trend of Hong Kong independence in the bud.”
Ms. Yau, 25, and Mr. Leung, 30, were also strident in pushing back against the possibility of intervention by the Chinese Communist Party.
In a chaotic scene on Wednesday, they burst into the legislative chambers and tried to retake their oaths.
They were unsuccessful.
The council’s president said their actions were “ridiculous.”
“My concern is the destruction of ‘one country, two systems,’ ” Ms. Yau told reporters.
“Once the C.C.P. government chooses to interpret the Basic Law, it means that the dictatorship of the C.C.P. government has come to Hong Kong, which all Hong Kong people don’t want.”
And Mr. Leung brought up a point that seems obvious to many in Hong Kong.
The move for independence is new and is a direct outgrowth of the last time the National People’s Congress chose to set rules on how Hong Kong runs its affairs.
That was in 2014, when the congress set strict guidelines for elections for Hong Kong’s top official that all but guaranteed that only pro-Beijing candidates could appear on the ballot.
That decision set off enormous protests that led to the founding of Mr. Leung’s and Ms. Yau’s political party, Youngspiration.
The main belief guiding supporters of independence is that China’s interference undermines “one country, two systems.”
“ ‘One country, two systems’ and Hong Kong independence are the two models for Hong Kong’s political system,” Mr. Leung told reporters.
“When you destroy one option, you inevitably promote the other option.”
The 2014 ruling was telegraphed well ahead of time.
But news of a possible intervention by the National People’s Congress on the oath-taking caught many people by surprise.
In the issue involving the two lawmakers, the principal relevant law is a local ordinance on oath-taking, said Mr. Cheung, the legal scholar.
That shouldn’t be in the jurisdiction of the National People’s Congress, he said.
What’s more, the congress would be acting pre-emptively and not allowing the court proceedings in Hong Kong to run their course.
Since 1997, China’s legislature has made only four interpretations of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, and customarily that has been only after a request by Hong Kong’s highest court.

Hong Kong Independence

Yau Wai-ching Fights For A Free Hong Kong, But Her War Is Harder Than She Thought
By Marcel Winatschek

If you talk to young people in Hong Kong, then one thing is quite clear: The former British colony is at a burgeoning civil war with China. 

The population fears that China wants to tighten its control over the autonomous territory by determining elections, laws, and the police. 

Yau Wai-ching is one of three new lawmakers of Youngspiration who fight for a free Hong Kong.
“After the fruitless Umbrella Revolution, the Hong Kong society has come under even more ruthless suppression,” Yau Wai-ching tells us. 

“The Hong Kong communist government has made itself the people’s enemy by following a policy of disregarding the will of the people and doing everything it can against the people. Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist regime has accelerated on a daily basis its unscrupulous invasion into Hong Kong in terms of population, economy, and culture.”

“Should this trend continues, Hong Kong people will degenerate into a mere feast of human flesh, a feast that awaits in silence to be swallowed up in the end,” she continues. 

“The Hong Kong of our ideal might be far away, but we hope to use this dream as our fuel so that we can turn into sparks and shine in the dark. We want to reclaim our Councils and reclaim Hong Kong, our own home.”
Youngspiration is a new political movement that wants to conduct community work to serve their citizens with the aims of protecting Hong Kongers’ space and of fighting for liberty, democracy, equality, and justice. 

Of course, Yau Wai-ching is aware of their huge opponent they see as their prime enemy. 

But even for some supporters of the Umbrella Revolution, Youngspiration may be too radical. 

At least since Yau Wai-ching altered the “People’s Republic of China” to “Re-Fucking” and “Chee-na,” during her oath-taking at the Legislative Council. 

“Hong Kong rightfully belongs to us,” Yau Wai-ching says. 

“Let us reclaim our home!”

Anti-China pair demand place in Hong Kong legislature

Supporters form a human chain around Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching as the pair defy a banning order against them.

By Katie Stallard

Pro-independence lawmakers Yau Wai-ching (L) and Baggio Leung stand during a demonstration at the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, China October 26, 2016.

Two young pro-independence politicians have defied a banning order against them and forced their way into the Hong Kong parliament and demanded to take their oaths.
Democrats formed a human chain around Baggio Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25, to protect them as they entered the legislature on Wednesday.
The newly-elected pair's oaths were invalidated earlier this month over comments and a banner deemed insulting to China.
The session rapidly descended into chaos as camera crews followed them into the chamber and surrounded their seats.
"If we lose this war ... our system is done for. We have no room to retreat," said Leung, tears welling in his eyes.
"Democratically-elected legislators need to take their oath," democrat members shouted as they shielded Yau and Leung.

Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung speak after trying to take their oaths

The legislature's president repeatedly asked them to leave, before abandoning the session after 30 minutes.
Leung and Yau are both members of Youngspiration, a political party that grew out of the 2014 street protest movement calling for democracy and universal suffrage.
They were elected in September amid a record turnout in the first public poll since the protests, as part of a new, younger generation of Hong Kong politicians who have risen to prominence.
They have called for independence for Hong Kong -- anathema to Beijing, which considers the territory an inalienable part of China.
During their oath-taking ceremony they pledged allegiance to "the Hong Kong nation" instead of the People's Republic, and appeared to deliberately mispronounce China, in what pro-Beijing groups have interpreted as an insult to the mainland.
Leung wrapped a flag around his shoulders during the ceremony which said: "Hong Kong is NOT China."

Cheng Chung-tai from the Civic Passion party protests in the chamber

Yau Wai-ching laid the same flag in front of her on the table and inserted an expletive into her oath, which she later attributed to her accent, and to English not being her first language.
Their oaths were due to be re-taken at a second meeting on 19 October, but had to be abandoned after pro-Beijing lawmakers, who hold the vast majority of seats, walked out of the chamber, rendering the session invalid.
The pair were then barred from the legislature until a judicial review on 3 November, at which the government will call for them to be disqualified from holding office, and their seats declared empty.
Pro-Beijing politicians have supported the council president's decision to bar Leung and Yau from the chamber.
"We hope the Legislative Council can resume order as soon as possible, and respect the decision made by the president," pro-Beijing lawmaker Starry Lee said.