http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20150108/00176_026.html
文浩正律師昨原代表其中一名被告，但未有現身，裁判官認為事件或涉操守問題，要求文到庭解釋。文宣誓下指，他昨早因處理其他案件，未及去信通知法庭，他已獲客戶同意由另一律師處理案件，惟因溝通問題，該律師未有盡快告知法庭已接手案件。裁判官押後至下周三，以便文先徵詢法律意見才再跟進。
案件編號：KCCC 4216、4221/2014
2015年1月8日 星期四
2014年10月3日 星期五
"My Responses To The 10 Things They Say About Occupy Students"
http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/article/1606761/my-responses-ten-things-they-say-about-occupy-students
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October 2014, by Wong Sze Wai)
I am not blindly supporting the students. I am simply supporting anyone who fights for justice. I have heard of a number of sayings about the protesters and the students, and I would like to respond to them one by one.
1. "One person one vote is already an improvement. Why don’t we take it?"
Let’s say your parents are so liberal and merciful that they allow you to enjoy the freedom to choose your own bride. The pre-requisite is that they limit your options to just two women chosen by them. In the event you like neither of them, sorry, tough luck. Do you see this as "freedom to choose"? Would you take it?
2. "It’s OK even though there is no real democracy. It has nothing to do with my life."
Many people think that even though there is no real democracy, it doesn’t impact them personally. That is not true. Without the right to elect your own leaders, it means however notorious the people in power are, they can remain in power as long as they like. They do not need to care about the needs of ordinary people. They would continue to collude with the business tycoons, and do their best to defend their interests. They would come up with every possible policy to facilitate the migration of mainlanders to Hong Kong so that they could "dilute" the Hong Kong population, despite the fact that intense conflicts have grown between the two peoples.
They could continue to erode Hong Kong’s judicial independence by ordering the judges to be patriotic to China. They could continue say things like, the CCP is the largest democratic force in Hong Kong. They continue to stifle the freedom of speech, turning almost all the newspapers and TV channels into government mouthpieces.
Perhaps you would still think all these do not bother you. But they are important to people who pursue justice. Please, at least do not pour cold water on them.
3. "Students vs the CCP? Students are bound to lose. What can students do? All will be fruitless!"
It has never been easy to fight for what you want in front of those in power. Back then, how many people had said to Martin Luther King and Gandhi respectively, that "civil disobedience will not work out"? If they had given up, what kind of life would African-Americans and Indians be living today?
If everyone obeys the authorities because they think they would in no way achieve anything by fighting against the government, there will be no human rights, justice or democracy in the world. Ordinary people would be slaves for the rich and powerful for ever and ever.
4. "They are making Hong Kong chaotic, undermining our economy, damaging HK’s international image."
Whenever people fight for their political rights they displease those in power. Are you really calling them trouble-makers for that?
Those who said that Occupy Central would severely damage Hong Kong’s economy have always been the government, its allies and the rich and powerful. How exactly would protesters affect the economy? No one could really tell. Even if it may have an impact, is the economic growth or justice more important?
Freedom, judicial independence and a clean government have always been the qualities which uphold Hong Kong’s international image. It is the authorities who more and more blatantly undermine these qualities, while the people are defending them in their own ways. Who are the ones who are actually undermining Hong Kong’s international image?
There are a lot more demonstrations, protests and marches in London than in Hong Kong. These protests have not seemed to cause any damage to London’s economy or its international image.
5. "They broke the rules. It’s not right."
For decades these pro-democracy campaigners have abided by the rules, hoping they would reach a solution through dialogue. Only after it has long proven fruitless, they have finally resorted to civil disobedience.
Is it always right to abide by the laws and rules? The reasons behind having laws and rules are to uphold fairness and justice in the society. However, under an unjust system and totalitarian rule, it is sometimes necessary to reach a bigger goal by breaking some rules.
Needless to say, not all the rules in the world are worth being followed. Let’s use the same example. What would you think if your parents say to you, "I’ve chosen two women for you and you can opt for one as your wife. This is my house rule. If you don’t do as I say, if you want to meet another girl of your choice, I will punish you as you broke my rule!"
The meaning behind civil disobedience is to break some so-called rules in a non-violent way. The participants are clearly aware that they may be arrested, which may have tremendous impact on their future. And yet they are still willing to take the risks. This is the kind of sacrifice not anyone is ready to make.
6. "They are violent. It’s not right."
If you have not been to the scene, please do not trust the media reports. People who have been there could all see how violent the police force was, and how restrained the students were.
Yes, the students climbed through an open fence to reach Civic Square, and pushed down the barriers under the flags so that they could sit down in the square. If you see these actions as violence, let me ask you this: "A woman, while being molested by a man, screamed and pushed him away. Would you call her violent and disobedient?" When injustice is around us, it is our duty to resist.
7. "The students were either manipulated, having fun, or playing heroes. They don’t know what they are doing."
Have you been to the scene to meet the students and communicate with them before saying this?
For days, they have lived outdoors under the baking sun, lacking sleep. They have not eaten properly and it has even been inconvenient to find a loo. Many of them face a lot of pressure from their parents and schools. Some were trapped by the police for more than ten hours. They are taking the risks of being arrested and having a criminal record. What they’ve been doing is admirable. Not many people could do as much.
If you cannot do what they have been doing, please at least keep quiet and don’t show disrespect.
8. "They are just making noise. Why can’t they negotiate rationally or do something more constructive?"
Before saying that, please spend some time to research what the campaigners have done in trying to "negotiate rationally". Please research how many proposals on political reform they have submitted in the hope that the government will consider. Any negotiation is two-way. If one side has already shut the door, how could the other side continue to "negotiate rationally"? After doing the research, please ask yourself: "If I were them, is there anything I could do to continue the rational negotiation?"
Please also do some research on what they have done all the way through to be constructive. Only then, ask yourself: "On top of all these, is there anything I could do to be constructive?"
If you cannot come up with a proper answer, please don’t criticise these people as "unconstructive".
9. "The Occupy Central people are so irresponsible and hypocritical!" "After all this, the students will just go back to school as usual. What could they achieve?" "What’s the point of striving for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party’s rule. Why don’t they simply launch a coup d’état against the CCP?"
Some people are opposed to the government and the CCP rule and yet have disdained those fighting for justice. They’ve blamed the pan-democratic legislators for having betrayed Hong Kong people. They’ve blamed the Occupy Central leaders for not being forward enough. They called the students’ actions impulsive and useless.
There is not much use in discussing anything with these people. I just want to ask them:
After criticising almost everyone else, do you have a better solution?
After blaming everyone else, aren’t you going back to work and living your life as usual? Or are you planning to launch a coup d’état in Tiananmen Square instead?
Even if I could do more than the protesters, I would never criticise them for not doing enough, as everyone has his own limitations. And, in any case, the fact is that I would never be able to do more than what they have done. I will never criticise them for not doing enough, not being determined enough, or not having sacrificed enough. When others do what they can, I must at least appreciate and admire.
10. "I am not interested in politics. What are they actually fighting for?" "I know nothing about politics. I don’t have a stand."
Believe it or not. A good number of people still choose to live in their own bubbles, burying their heads in the sand. They do not bother to ask any questions or make any statements. They are survivors who just want to live their lives.
The problem is that Hong Kong is a building on fire. The alarm is on. And yet you who live on the 30th floor say to yourself, "I will be fine. The fire won’t spread to the 30th floor."
It is no longer a situation where you can simply say "just leave me alone". The CCP is boiling a frog. They are bit by bit breaking the promise of "one country, two systems" to Hong Kong people. If everyone chooses to bury their head in the sand, the CCP would gladly speed up totalitarian rule in Hong Kong. Very soon, Hong Kong would then be no different to the rest of China.
If, one day, your loved one was imprisoned, tortured and killed only because he had criticised the government, would you still be able to say, "I am not interested in politics. I have no stand."
Today, you may still think that politics is abstract. Tomorrow, when you finally realise that politics is affecting your everyday life, it may be too late.
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October 2014, by Wong Sze Wai)
I am not blindly supporting the students. I am simply supporting anyone who fights for justice. I have heard of a number of sayings about the protesters and the students, and I would like to respond to them one by one.
1. "One person one vote is already an improvement. Why don’t we take it?"
Let’s say your parents are so liberal and merciful that they allow you to enjoy the freedom to choose your own bride. The pre-requisite is that they limit your options to just two women chosen by them. In the event you like neither of them, sorry, tough luck. Do you see this as "freedom to choose"? Would you take it?
2. "It’s OK even though there is no real democracy. It has nothing to do with my life."
Many people think that even though there is no real democracy, it doesn’t impact them personally. That is not true. Without the right to elect your own leaders, it means however notorious the people in power are, they can remain in power as long as they like. They do not need to care about the needs of ordinary people. They would continue to collude with the business tycoons, and do their best to defend their interests. They would come up with every possible policy to facilitate the migration of mainlanders to Hong Kong so that they could "dilute" the Hong Kong population, despite the fact that intense conflicts have grown between the two peoples.
They could continue to erode Hong Kong’s judicial independence by ordering the judges to be patriotic to China. They could continue say things like, the CCP is the largest democratic force in Hong Kong. They continue to stifle the freedom of speech, turning almost all the newspapers and TV channels into government mouthpieces.
Perhaps you would still think all these do not bother you. But they are important to people who pursue justice. Please, at least do not pour cold water on them.
3. "Students vs the CCP? Students are bound to lose. What can students do? All will be fruitless!"
It has never been easy to fight for what you want in front of those in power. Back then, how many people had said to Martin Luther King and Gandhi respectively, that "civil disobedience will not work out"? If they had given up, what kind of life would African-Americans and Indians be living today?
If everyone obeys the authorities because they think they would in no way achieve anything by fighting against the government, there will be no human rights, justice or democracy in the world. Ordinary people would be slaves for the rich and powerful for ever and ever.
4. "They are making Hong Kong chaotic, undermining our economy, damaging HK’s international image."
Whenever people fight for their political rights they displease those in power. Are you really calling them trouble-makers for that?
Those who said that Occupy Central would severely damage Hong Kong’s economy have always been the government, its allies and the rich and powerful. How exactly would protesters affect the economy? No one could really tell. Even if it may have an impact, is the economic growth or justice more important?
Freedom, judicial independence and a clean government have always been the qualities which uphold Hong Kong’s international image. It is the authorities who more and more blatantly undermine these qualities, while the people are defending them in their own ways. Who are the ones who are actually undermining Hong Kong’s international image?
There are a lot more demonstrations, protests and marches in London than in Hong Kong. These protests have not seemed to cause any damage to London’s economy or its international image.
5. "They broke the rules. It’s not right."
For decades these pro-democracy campaigners have abided by the rules, hoping they would reach a solution through dialogue. Only after it has long proven fruitless, they have finally resorted to civil disobedience.
Is it always right to abide by the laws and rules? The reasons behind having laws and rules are to uphold fairness and justice in the society. However, under an unjust system and totalitarian rule, it is sometimes necessary to reach a bigger goal by breaking some rules.
Needless to say, not all the rules in the world are worth being followed. Let’s use the same example. What would you think if your parents say to you, "I’ve chosen two women for you and you can opt for one as your wife. This is my house rule. If you don’t do as I say, if you want to meet another girl of your choice, I will punish you as you broke my rule!"
The meaning behind civil disobedience is to break some so-called rules in a non-violent way. The participants are clearly aware that they may be arrested, which may have tremendous impact on their future. And yet they are still willing to take the risks. This is the kind of sacrifice not anyone is ready to make.
6. "They are violent. It’s not right."
If you have not been to the scene, please do not trust the media reports. People who have been there could all see how violent the police force was, and how restrained the students were.
Yes, the students climbed through an open fence to reach Civic Square, and pushed down the barriers under the flags so that they could sit down in the square. If you see these actions as violence, let me ask you this: "A woman, while being molested by a man, screamed and pushed him away. Would you call her violent and disobedient?" When injustice is around us, it is our duty to resist.
7. "The students were either manipulated, having fun, or playing heroes. They don’t know what they are doing."
Have you been to the scene to meet the students and communicate with them before saying this?
For days, they have lived outdoors under the baking sun, lacking sleep. They have not eaten properly and it has even been inconvenient to find a loo. Many of them face a lot of pressure from their parents and schools. Some were trapped by the police for more than ten hours. They are taking the risks of being arrested and having a criminal record. What they’ve been doing is admirable. Not many people could do as much.
If you cannot do what they have been doing, please at least keep quiet and don’t show disrespect.
8. "They are just making noise. Why can’t they negotiate rationally or do something more constructive?"
Before saying that, please spend some time to research what the campaigners have done in trying to "negotiate rationally". Please research how many proposals on political reform they have submitted in the hope that the government will consider. Any negotiation is two-way. If one side has already shut the door, how could the other side continue to "negotiate rationally"? After doing the research, please ask yourself: "If I were them, is there anything I could do to continue the rational negotiation?"
Please also do some research on what they have done all the way through to be constructive. Only then, ask yourself: "On top of all these, is there anything I could do to be constructive?"
If you cannot come up with a proper answer, please don’t criticise these people as "unconstructive".
9. "The Occupy Central people are so irresponsible and hypocritical!" "After all this, the students will just go back to school as usual. What could they achieve?" "What’s the point of striving for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party’s rule. Why don’t they simply launch a coup d’état against the CCP?"
Some people are opposed to the government and the CCP rule and yet have disdained those fighting for justice. They’ve blamed the pan-democratic legislators for having betrayed Hong Kong people. They’ve blamed the Occupy Central leaders for not being forward enough. They called the students’ actions impulsive and useless.
There is not much use in discussing anything with these people. I just want to ask them:
After criticising almost everyone else, do you have a better solution?
After blaming everyone else, aren’t you going back to work and living your life as usual? Or are you planning to launch a coup d’état in Tiananmen Square instead?
Even if I could do more than the protesters, I would never criticise them for not doing enough, as everyone has his own limitations. And, in any case, the fact is that I would never be able to do more than what they have done. I will never criticise them for not doing enough, not being determined enough, or not having sacrificed enough. When others do what they can, I must at least appreciate and admire.
10. "I am not interested in politics. What are they actually fighting for?" "I know nothing about politics. I don’t have a stand."
Believe it or not. A good number of people still choose to live in their own bubbles, burying their heads in the sand. They do not bother to ask any questions or make any statements. They are survivors who just want to live their lives.
The problem is that Hong Kong is a building on fire. The alarm is on. And yet you who live on the 30th floor say to yourself, "I will be fine. The fire won’t spread to the 30th floor."
It is no longer a situation where you can simply say "just leave me alone". The CCP is boiling a frog. They are bit by bit breaking the promise of "one country, two systems" to Hong Kong people. If everyone chooses to bury their head in the sand, the CCP would gladly speed up totalitarian rule in Hong Kong. Very soon, Hong Kong would then be no different to the rest of China.
If, one day, your loved one was imprisoned, tortured and killed only because he had criticised the government, would you still be able to say, "I am not interested in politics. I have no stand."
Today, you may still think that politics is abstract. Tomorrow, when you finally realise that politics is affecting your everyday life, it may be too late.
Chris Patten: The Hong Kong SAR Government Must Listen To Its People
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1608726/hong-kong-government-must-listen-its-people
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October, 2014)
Chris Patten calls on the Hong Kong government to rectify its error of misjudging public sentiment by ensuring that the second round of consultation on political reform is, above all, open and honest.
It is not wholly true to say that the eyes of the entire world are on Hong Kong. They would be, of course, if people in mainland China were allowed to know what is happening in their country's most successful city. But China's government has tried to block any news about the Hong Kong democracy demonstrations from reaching the rest of the country - not exactly a sign of confidence on the part of China's rulers in their system of authoritarian government.
Before suggesting a way forward for Hong Kong's ham-fisted authorities, three things need to be made clear. First, it is a slur on the integrity and principles of Hong Kong's citizens to assert, as the Chinese government's propaganda machine does, that they are being manipulated by outside forces. What motivates Hong Kong's tens of thousands of demonstrators is a passionate belief that they should be able to run their affairs as they were promised, choosing those who govern them in free and fair elections.
Second, others outside Hong Kong have a legitimate interest in what happens in the city. Hong Kong is a great international centre, whose freedoms and autonomy were guaranteed in a treaty registered at the United Nations. In particular, the United Kingdom, the other party to this Sino-British Joint Declaration, sought and received guarantees that the survival of Hong Kong's autonomy and liberties would be guaranteed for 50 years.
So it is ridiculous to suggest that British ministers and parliamentarians should keep their noses out of Hong Kong's affairs. In fact, they have a right and a moral obligation to continue to check on whether China is keeping its side of the bargain - as, to be fair, it has mostly done so far.
But, third, the biggest problems have arisen because of a dispute about where Hong Kong's promised path to democracy should take it, and when. No one told Hongkongers when they were assured of universal suffrage that it would not mean being able to choose for whom they could vote.
No one said that Iran was the democratic model that China's communist bureaucracy had in mind, with the Chinese government authorised to exercise an effective veto over candidates.
In fact, that is not what China had in mind. As early as 1993, China's chief negotiator on Hong Kong, Lu Ping , told the People's Daily: "The [method of universal suffrage] should be reported to [China's parliament] for the record, whereas the central government's agreement is not necessary. How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere." The following year, China's foreign ministry confirmed this.
The British parliament summarised what had been said and promised in a report on Hong Kong in 2000: "The Chinese government has therefore formally accepted that it is for the Hong Kong government to determine the extent and nature of democracy in Hong Kong."
So, what next?
The peaceful demonstrators in Hong Kong, with their umbrellas and refuse-collection bags, will not themselves be swept off the streets like garbage or bullied into submission by tear gas and pepper spray. Any attempt to do so would present a terrible and damaging picture of Hong Kong and China to the world, and would be an affront to all that China should aspire to be.
The Hong Kong authorities have gravely miscalculated the views of their citizens. Like the bad courtiers against whom Confucius warned, they went to Beijing and told the emperor what they thought he wanted to hear, not what the situation really was in the city. They must think again.
Under the existing plans, there is supposed to be a second phase of consultations on democratic development to follow what turned out to be a counterfeit start to the process. Hong Kong's government should now offer its people a proper second round of consultation, one that is open and honest. Dialogue is the only sensible way forward. Hong Kong's citizens are not irresponsible or unreasonable. A decent compromise that allows for elections that people can recognise as fair, not fixed, is surely available.
The demonstrators in Hong Kong, young and old, represent the city's future. Their hopes are for a peaceful and prosperous life in which they can enjoy the freedoms and rule of law that they were promised. That is not only in the interest of their city; it is in China's interest, too. Hong Kong's future is the main issue; but so, too, is China's honour and its standing in the world.
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October, 2014)
Chris Patten calls on the Hong Kong government to rectify its error of misjudging public sentiment by ensuring that the second round of consultation on political reform is, above all, open and honest.
It is not wholly true to say that the eyes of the entire world are on Hong Kong. They would be, of course, if people in mainland China were allowed to know what is happening in their country's most successful city. But China's government has tried to block any news about the Hong Kong democracy demonstrations from reaching the rest of the country - not exactly a sign of confidence on the part of China's rulers in their system of authoritarian government.
Before suggesting a way forward for Hong Kong's ham-fisted authorities, three things need to be made clear. First, it is a slur on the integrity and principles of Hong Kong's citizens to assert, as the Chinese government's propaganda machine does, that they are being manipulated by outside forces. What motivates Hong Kong's tens of thousands of demonstrators is a passionate belief that they should be able to run their affairs as they were promised, choosing those who govern them in free and fair elections.
Second, others outside Hong Kong have a legitimate interest in what happens in the city. Hong Kong is a great international centre, whose freedoms and autonomy were guaranteed in a treaty registered at the United Nations. In particular, the United Kingdom, the other party to this Sino-British Joint Declaration, sought and received guarantees that the survival of Hong Kong's autonomy and liberties would be guaranteed for 50 years.
So it is ridiculous to suggest that British ministers and parliamentarians should keep their noses out of Hong Kong's affairs. In fact, they have a right and a moral obligation to continue to check on whether China is keeping its side of the bargain - as, to be fair, it has mostly done so far.
But, third, the biggest problems have arisen because of a dispute about where Hong Kong's promised path to democracy should take it, and when. No one told Hongkongers when they were assured of universal suffrage that it would not mean being able to choose for whom they could vote.
No one said that Iran was the democratic model that China's communist bureaucracy had in mind, with the Chinese government authorised to exercise an effective veto over candidates.
In fact, that is not what China had in mind. As early as 1993, China's chief negotiator on Hong Kong, Lu Ping , told the People's Daily: "The [method of universal suffrage] should be reported to [China's parliament] for the record, whereas the central government's agreement is not necessary. How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere." The following year, China's foreign ministry confirmed this.
The British parliament summarised what had been said and promised in a report on Hong Kong in 2000: "The Chinese government has therefore formally accepted that it is for the Hong Kong government to determine the extent and nature of democracy in Hong Kong."
So, what next?
The peaceful demonstrators in Hong Kong, with their umbrellas and refuse-collection bags, will not themselves be swept off the streets like garbage or bullied into submission by tear gas and pepper spray. Any attempt to do so would present a terrible and damaging picture of Hong Kong and China to the world, and would be an affront to all that China should aspire to be.
The Hong Kong authorities have gravely miscalculated the views of their citizens. Like the bad courtiers against whom Confucius warned, they went to Beijing and told the emperor what they thought he wanted to hear, not what the situation really was in the city. They must think again.
Under the existing plans, there is supposed to be a second phase of consultations on democratic development to follow what turned out to be a counterfeit start to the process. Hong Kong's government should now offer its people a proper second round of consultation, one that is open and honest. Dialogue is the only sensible way forward. Hong Kong's citizens are not irresponsible or unreasonable. A decent compromise that allows for elections that people can recognise as fair, not fixed, is surely available.
The demonstrators in Hong Kong, young and old, represent the city's future. Their hopes are for a peaceful and prosperous life in which they can enjoy the freedoms and rule of law that they were promised. That is not only in the interest of their city; it is in China's interest, too. Hong Kong's future is the main issue; but so, too, is China's honour and its standing in the world.
2014年9月29日 星期一
Hong Kong Protest 20140928 - 示威者中環佔路 旺角銅鑼灣愈見擠擁
http://hkba.org/whatsnew/misc/20140929-Press_Statement_of_HKBA_29_September_2014.pdf
Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association on the Use of Force by the Hong Kong Police at Harcourt Road on 28 September 2014
1. The Hong Kong Bar Association ("HKBA") is deeply disturbed by, and deplores and condemns, the excessive and disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong Police on demonstrators gathering at Harcourt Road in the afternoon of 28 September 2014.
2. The circumstances in which the Hong Kong Police commenced the use of CS gas on demonstrators gathering at Harcourt Road in the afternoon of 28 September 2014 were well documented in the local and international media. Even though on occasions, a minority of demonstrators became confrontational with the police, the overwhelming majority of the demonstrators were visibly conducting themselves peacefully. Many demonstrators were young students. There had also been widespread reports of absence of display of visual signs before the use of CS gas.
3. There can be scope for disagreement on the underlying political debate or demands leading to the demonstration. Some demonstrators may have committed criminal offences during the course of the demonstration. However, none of the above matters can justify the use of excessive or disproportionate force by the Police against unarmed civilians as a matter of law and common decency. Even after giving due allowance to the professional judgment of the police force in the maintenance of public order and the prevention of public disorder in a difficult and delicate situation, the HKBA still considers that there was plainly no justification to commence the use of CS gas against peaceful demonstrators, let alone repeated, systematic, indiscriminate and excessive use of CS gas. The escalation in the use of force by the Hong Kong police in such circumstances was uncalled for, disproportionate, excessive and had unnecessarily aggravated public feelings of resentment and frustration.
Dated 29 September 2014
HONG KONG BAR ASSOCIATION
大批佔中示威者連續第二日佔據港九多處鬧市的主要幹道，今日入夜後，參與集會的人數愈來愈多。在金鐘夏慤道一帶，經過昨日示威者與警方的「激戰」後，今日情況大致平靜，逾萬示威者全日守候，入夜放工後，到來參與集會的市民愈來愈多，集會人士揮動手機燈，表達對真普選的訴求。
而在銅鑼灣，大約2千名示威者繼續佔據崇光百貨對開的道路，人數入夜後同樣有增無減，不少市民放工後到場靜坐。崇光百貨要提早於黃昏6時關門停止營業，崇光平日周日至周四一般會營業到晚上10時。另外位處附近一帶的商舖，例如周大福、周生生、莎莎百貨及余仁生等則全日關門，休業一天。
在中環，皇后像廣場對出的來回行車線已全被示威者佔據，他們在附近位置以兩重鐵馬及水馬布防，亦設有物資補給站，有系統地分發物資，氣氛尚算和平。
而在九龍，旺角彌敦道與亞皆老街交界，同樣人頭湧湧，參與集會的市民入夜後有增無減。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)