Occupy Central with Love and Peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP), often abbreviated to Occupy Central, is a nonviolentoccupation protest for universal suffrage in Central, Hong Kong that started on 27 September 2014.[2] It had previously been scheduled to start in the second half of 2014.

The campaign was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013. He predicted that at least 10,000 citizens would join the protest to take over Central in July 2014 if the universal suffrage for the 2017 Chief Executive election and 2020 Legislative Council Elections would not be carried out according to the "international standards".[3]

Observers noted that the occupy movement campaign would likely occur after Qiao Xiaoyang, chairman of the Chinese National People's Congress Law Committee, stated that chief executive candidates were required to love both the country (China) and Hong Kong, and not confront the central government, effectively excluding candidates from the opposition pro-democracy camp.[4] This was confirmed on 31 August 2014 when the NPC stated that the election for the chief executive of Hong Kong SAR being part of China would, in effect, be restricted to the candidates supportive of the Chinese central government.[5]

Background[edit]

The pro-democracy camp petitioned the Hong Kong government and Central People's Government 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.[citation needed] Members also cited[citation needed]language in Annex I in support of universal suffrage:

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 HK Government's recommendation to the PRC leadership on how to proceed with democratisation in the territory following consultations. As of July 2014[update] 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]

Objectives[edit]

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]

Deliberations[edit]

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. The 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.[15]

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 Beijing 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.[16]

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.[17] More moderate pan-democrats that avoided the notion of civic nomination were effectively squeezed out.[18][19] 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.[17] 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.[18][20]

Civic referendum[edit]

Civil ReferendumDateLocationVoting systemFor CE Election 2017, I support OCLP to submit this proposal to the Government:If the government proposal cannot satisfy international standards allowing genuine choices by electors, LegCo should veto it, my stance is:
20 – 29 June 2014 (2014-06-29)
 Hong Kong
Majority voting
Alliance for True Democracy proposal

  

42.1%
Students proposal

  

38.4%
People Power proposal

  

10.4%
Abstention

  

8.9%
LegCo should veto

  

87.8%
LegCo should not veto

  

7.5%
Abstention

  

4%

The Occupy Central movement commissioned HKPOP 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.[21] 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,.[22] 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).[23][24] 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.[24] 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.[24]

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.[21] 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.[21] 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.[21]

Before the referendum, the State Council issued a white paper claiming "comprehensive jurisdiction" over the territory.[25] "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."[21]

Legality[edit]

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 SecurityLai Tung-kwok stated that the government will "take robust action to uphold the rule of law and maintain safety and order."[14]

Official launch of occupation[edit]

On 27 September 2014, 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.[26]

Reactions[edit]

SAR government[edit]

Chief ExecutiveLeung Chun-ying warned that the Occupy Central movement is bound to neither be peaceful or legal and said that action will be taken to maintain law and order.[27]

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 PoliceAndy 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.[28]

PRC government[edit]

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."[4]

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.[4]

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."[29] 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?"[30]

Pro-democracy camp[edit]

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."[3]

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.[31][unreliable source?]

The pan-democrats' reactions were not uniformly supportive. Wong Yuk-man has expressed fears that the movement would deteriorate,[32] while Wong Yeung-tat was strongly opposed to the movement.[33]

Pro-Beijing camp[edit]

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.[3]Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, a National People's Congress Standing Committee member, feared the occupation would adversely affect Hong Kong's image.[34]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.[34]

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.[35] There were criticisms that no identity checks were carried out and that there were no steps to prevent numerous multiple signatories.[35] 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.[36][37] The APD claimed in excess of a million signatures were obtained.[38] The organisers said they obtained signatures from many supporters including children, secondary school and university students, the elderly, office staff, celebrities and maids.[35] Official endorsements include chief executive CY Leung and other top Hong Kong officials.[38][39] The APD organised a "march for peace" on 17 August intended to undermine the Occupy movement.[38] 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[40] and that some 20,000 people may have been bussed in from across the border.[41] 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".[41]

Business and professional groups[edit]

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.[42]

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.[43]

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."[44]

Others[edit]

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.[45]

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.[46] 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.[47]

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".[48]

Timeline[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ abcIvan Watson; Elizabeth Joseph; Anjali Tsui; Steve Almasy (September 28, 2014). "At least 34 injured as police and protesters clash in Hong Kong". CNN. Retrieved September 28, 2014. 
  2. ^"The Associated Press on Twitter: "BREAKING: Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders kick off `Occupy Central' protest in big challenge to Beijing."". Retrieved 28 September 2014. 
  3. ^ abcLuk, Eddie (25 February 2013). "Hot talk swirls on 'occupy Central' idea". The Standard. Retrieved 27 March 2013. 
  4. ^ abcdLee, Colleen; But, Joshua (25 March 2013). "Opponents of Beijing ineligible to be CE: top Chinese official". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 27 March 2013. 
  5. ^"Hong Kong braces for protests as China rules out full democracy". Reuters. Retrieved 28 September 2014. 
  6. ^ abHK basic law web pdf. "HK basic law." The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the People's Republic of China. Retrieved 8 January 2007.
  7. ^"Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Methods For Selecting The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region And For Forming The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Year 2012 And on Issues Relating To Universal Suffrage (Adopted by the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress at Its Thirty-First Session on 29 December 2007)". Hong Kong Legal Information Institute. 
  8. ^""Hong Kong on the march – again". Asia Times Online. 11 January 2008. 
  9. ^Shankar, Sneha (1 July 2014). "Hong Kong Democracy Protests Begin With Thousands Gathered At Victoria Park To Oppose Chinese Control". International Business Times.
  10. ^ abBuckley, Chris (25 April 2014). Chinese Vice President Warns Hong Kong Over Protests". The New York Times.
  11. ^Xinhua (10 June 2014) "Full Text: The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the HKSAR". China Daily,10 June 2014.
  12. ^ ab"公民抗命的最大殺傷力武器". Hong Kong Economic Journal. Retrieved 27 March 2013. 
  13. ^ ab"Occupy Central with Love and Peace". Occupy Central with Love and Peace. 
  14. ^ abc"Occupy Central is action based on risky thinking". The Standard. 
  15. ^"Democrat split denied after oath-taking fracas". THe Standard. 7 February 2014. 
  16. ^Ip, Kelly (7 May 2014). "Students' reform proposals get the thumbs-up". The Standard. 
  17. ^ abCheung, Gary; Chong, Tanna; Cheung, Tony. "Can alliance survive after Occupy vote?". 
  18. ^ abLuk, Eddie (15 May 2014). "Anson meets moderates in consensus bid". The Standard
  19. ^http://chinese-translation-company.com/radicals-admit-moderate-proposals-would-give-voters-genuine-choice[unreliable source?]
  20. ^"Plurality backed as democrats 'divide'". RTHK. 14 May 2014
  21. ^ abcdeKaiman, Jonathan (25 June 2014). "Hong Kong's unofficial pro-democracy referendum irks Beijing". The Guardian. 
  22. ^"Hong Kong democracy 'referendum' draws nearly 800,000". BBC. 30 June 2014. 
  23. ^Luk, Eddie (30 June 2014). "Alliance proposal wins the day". The Standard
  24. ^ abcCheung, Tony; Lam, Jeffie; Ng, Joyce; Cheung, Gary (29 June 2014). "Alliance for True Democracy proposal wins Occupy Central poll as nearly 800,000 Hongkongers vote". South China Morning Post. 
  25. ^Yung, Chester (10 June 2014). "China Reminds Hong Kong of Its Control". The Wall Street Journal.
  26. ^"Thousands at Hong Kong protest as Occupy Central is launched". BBC News. 27 September 2014. Retrieved 28 September 2014. 
  27. ^Ip, Kelly; Luk, Eddie (10 June 2014). "Crackdown warning over 'illegal' Occupy move". The Standard. 
  28. ^"'Occupy Central' plan draws warnings". South China Morning Post. 22 March 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2013. 
  29. ^HK opposition at risk of becoming enemy of the StateGlobal Times 24 October 2013
  30. ^Violent democracy threatens HK prospectsGlobal Times 4 November 2013
  31. ^Lee, Sau-woon (12 March 2013). "Albert Ho Chun-Yan Promised to Resign to pave way for the Occupy Central Movement". inmediahk.net. Retrieved 27 March 2013. 
  32. ^"稱未與蕭談佔領中環 黃毓民﹕無分歧無共識". 24 March 2013. Retrieved 5 April 2013. 
  33. ^"一個時代的終結". 24 March 2013. Retrieved 5 April 2013. 
  34. ^ abChan, Kahon (11 March 2013). "NPC deputies blast 'Occupy Central' threat by opposition". China Daily. Retrieved 27 March 2013. 
  35. ^ abc"Shocking turnout of anti-Occupy backers". The Standard. Retrieved 19 August 2014. 
  36. ^HKT (28 July 2014). "A Million Sign Hong Kong Petition as Democracy Fight Ratchets Up – China Real Time Report". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 19 August 2014. 
  37. ^"Towngas Backs Down After Asking Staff Sign Anti Occupy Central"South China Morning Post
  38. ^ abcNgai, Edward (18 August 2014) "Hong Kong's Pro-Beijing Groups March to Oppose Occupy Central". The Wall Street Journal.
  39. ^"Hong Kong Chief Executive Signs Anti-Occupy Campaign". English.cri.cn. 15 August 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2014. 
  40. ^CNBC. "Thousands join anti-Occupy rally in Hong Kong". CNBC. Retrieved 28 September 2014. 
  41. ^ abc"More street fights' cooling effect". The Standard. 6 January 2009. Retrieved 19 August 2014. 
  42. ^"International business mulling Occupy Central censure". Harbour Times. 16 May 2014. 
  43. ^Hu, Fox (11 June 2014). "Hong Kong Democracy Protest Plan Worries Foreign Businesses". Bloomberg News. 
  44. ^Lau, Stuart (30 June 2014). "Employees from 'Big Four' accounting firms disown anti-Occupy Central ad". South China Morning Post. 
  45. ^Lai, Chi-chun (22 March 2013). "Goodstadt in HK to support 'Occupy Central', signaling interference". China Daily. Retrieved 27 March 2013. 
  46. ^"陳日君有條件支持「佔領中環」". Ming Pao. 16 March 2013. Retrieved 18 March 2013. 
  47. ^"湯漢不鼓勵信眾「佔領中環」". Sing Tao Daily. 23 March 2013. Retrieved 9 April 2013. 
  48. ^"Church leaders divided over 'Occupy Central' plan". South China Morning Post. 20 April 2013. Retrieved 25 April 2013. 
  49. ^"'Occupy Central' threatens action". RTHK. 27 March 2013. Retrieved 27 March 2013. 
  50. ^""OCLP Deliberation Series" Feature Page". POPCON. 
  51. ^http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-27702206
  52. ^"Hong Kong's Occupy Central "referendum," explained". CNN. Retrieved 19 August 2014. 
  53. ^Kelvin Chan (30 June 2014). "Hong Kong braces for big democracy rally opposing China's limits on vote". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 19 August 2014. 
  54. ^H.K. Police Clear Protesters After Decade's Biggest Rally
  55. ^Isabella Steger and Prudence Ho (27 September 2014). "Occupy Central Launches Hong Kong Protest Campaign". The Wall Street Journal. 
  56. ^"Police fire tear gas and baton charge thousands of Occupy Central protesters". South China Morning Post. 28 September 2014. 

External links[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Central_with_Love_and_Peace