Christopher Ho: Lies of HKFS - 7 Mins and You'll Know What's Wrong With HKFS

Lies of HKFS
7 Mins and You'll Know What's Wrong With HKFS

Translated and written by Christopher Ho Quen-thai

(This article is an abridged English version of the two series of Debunking the Numerous Lies of HKFS published on VJMedia between February and April 2015.)

Introduction

The Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) has recently been under a wave of members’ withdrawal, triggered by its various mistakes committed during the Umbrella Revolution. The author came into notice in mid-February (when the Hong Kong University Students’ Union was having its referendum to decide whether to withdraw from HKFS) various financial irregularities of HKFS and one of its major sources of finance – H.K.F.S. Fund Limited, and has uncovered numerous pieces of fact regarding HKFS’s financial situation which has long been concealed. A few of them have been addressed and clarified by HKFS, but more remain unanswered. 

Background information

H.K.F.S. Fund Limited is a company limited by guarantee registered in Hong Kong. It was called “Hong Kong Student Travel Bureau Limited” before 1994. One of its major objectives is to finance HKFS by making to the latter regular donations. The company holds in total three land properties, two of which on trust for HKFS as the beneficiary (including the office of HKFS), and the remaining one an investment property which generates rental income to finance the donations. The investment property is presently valued at around HK$13 million.

All the dishonest statements and practices of HKFS are hereby listed out.

A) All the irregularities concerning H.K.F.S. Fund Limited are, contrary to HKFS’s allegation, not merely “administrative negligence”

1. Between 2004 and 2014 HKFS had, in rampant violation of its constitution, failed to appoint student directors into H.K.F.S. Fund Limited every year.

2. The power of the said appointment lies in HKFS’s Annual General Meeting and Representative Council, and has nothing to do with its administrative body, namely the secretariat.

3. The 50th Representative Council of HKFS allowed H.K.F.S. Fund Limited to reduce the amount of yearly donation to HKFS, which was abetting the company to breach its own articles governing the amount of donation payable every year.

4. The two “reports by student directors of H.K.F.S. Fund Limited” issued in January and February contains a list of member of the company’s board of directors which was inconsistent with the information shown in the Company Registry at that time. The lists in each of the two reports were also inconsistent with each other.

5. A public statement of HKFS issued in February which attempted to explain the irregularities concerning H.K.F.S. Fund Limited contains numerous factual errors, including the relationship between the company and HKFS, and the year in which the name of the company was changed.

B) Every promise of financial reform is empty and misleading

1. The root of the irregularities is HKFS’s rampant violation of its constitution by not appointing student directors into H.K.F.S. Fund Limited every year, instead of any structural or institutional problems which need reforms.

2. The reform promised in the public statement of HKFS issued in February has turned out to be only a two-page yearly report of the “student directors of H.K.F.S. Fund Limited” submitted in March to the HKFS Annual General Meeting, with plenty of errors and unexplained inconsistencies with previous reports, including

a. Error in the date,

b. Error in the names of the directors,

c. Unexplained change of directors not even reported to the Company Registry,  and 

d. Unexplained change of estimated value of the investment property, from HK$8.7 million in the February report to HK$13.4 million in the yearly report.

3. Ridiculously, the February report, which is inconsistent with the January report, and the yearly report, which is inconsistent with both the January and February reports, have been passed without objection in HKFS Representative Council and Annual General Meeting respectively. The Annual General Meeting consists of the entire membership of the Representative Council; in other words, in only one month the same group of supposed student representatives approved two inconsistent reports in which no explanation on the inconsistencies have ever been given. Notwithstanding any promise to reform, these constituting bodies of HKFS remain total rubber stamp.

C) HKFS has probably concealed the internal conflicts as regards H.K.F.S. Fund Limited

1. The membership of the board of directors as shown from company search is still not totally consistent with that alleged by HKFS, which probably reflects internal conflicts between HKFS and the company on the one hand, and among the directors of the company on the other hand. There may well be a dispute as to the validity of membership of certain people in the board of directors.

2. This inference of internal conflicts is also supported by the fact that H.K.F.S. Fund Limited has (in breach of its articles) stopped making donations to HKFS since 2011.

3. The origin of the problem is, after all, HKFS’s failure across 10 years to appoint student directors into H.K.F.S. Fund Limited to exercise its otherwise granted power of control over the company.

D) HKFS is still trying to conceal the facts concerning H.K.F.S. Fund Limited’s investment property

1. HKFS deliberately avoids mentioning the investment property in all of its public statements and Facebook posts which attempt to answer the concern of its financial irregularities.

2. The investment property was deliberately undervalued for millions of dollar in order to downplay its importance.

3. No tenancy agreements regarding the investment property has been registered with the Land Registry for more than 10 years, rendering most information of the rentals inaccessible by even members of HKFS.

4. Owing to the increase in rental income and the failure of H.K.F.S. Fund Limited to make donations since 2011, the company now has, according to its articles, more than HK$1 million payable to HKFS.

Chan Ya-ming: Lau Nai-keung - Forerunner of Hong Kong Independence

Lau Nai-keung - Forerunner of Hong Kong Independence 

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Written by Chan Ya-ming (former editor in The Undergrad, HKUSU)
Original: http://localpresshk.com/2015/02/forerunner-of-hong-kong-independence/ 

My friend sent me the remarks of Lau Nai-keung a while ago, but I almost forgot to write about this because of the plan of withdrawal from HKFS. And, I almost forgot to thank Lau Nai-keung, the CPPCC deputy, for bringing this up. We are not the only cohort of The Undergrad which mentioned "Hong Kong independence" (HKI). It is not unusual to see previous Undergrad members writing about HKI.

But have you every imagined Lau Nai-keung was also part of the "previous Undergrad members"? In 1969, Lau was the then assistant editor-in-chief, Chan Yuen-ying (the current Director of Journalism and Media Studies Centre, HKU [Translator's note: political stance - pro-China]) was the Editor-in-chief, and guess who is the publication secretary? Yes, the one who spends his lunar new year in jail, Rafael Hui (spelt as Raphael then). Quite unimaginable even now.

An article in 1969 The Undergrad, "From Refugees to the Independence of Hong Kong", wrote,

So-called intellectuals immediately rejected and said "it's impossible" when they hear HKI. But let us ask ourselves: this "impossible" might mean - technically it would be the best if it happens, but there are many technical difficulties, which are impossible to overcome. One might stop such imagination. Such view is but unrealistic self-deception.

Such perspective is so precise, and still valid, as it mentioned the mentality of Hongkongers towards HKI. And it continued, "If Hong Kong has to be connected with China, it is just an emotional need. It brings more harm than good, and independence is the best." This is what now the localists support - "HK-China Segregation", and such idea was in discussion four decades ago.

The author of this article signed his name as Wah Sau [Translator's note: A Cantonese idiom 狼過華秀隻狗 roughly means "More fierce than the dog of Wah Sau", a phrase to describe a person's aggressiveness and fierceness.]. Of course we cannot determine whether he wrote this article or not. But if he is the assistant editor-in-chief, then it had something to do with Lau if this article goes to print. Actually, it is no big deal to mention HKI. The Undergrad had much more radical views before, and one needs not to react so strongly to this.

As a forerunner of mentioning HKI in 1969 The Undergrad, Lau is now often mentioning The Undergrad on Ta Kung Pao or Wen Wei Po. He actually mentioned it four decades ago, and is it something new for him?

Although Lau said "to HKI supporters, the government has to be tough 'orally and physically'", kind of bringing white terror, that cohort of The Undergrad members enlightened the latter members on the courage and imagination of mentioning HKI. They had contributed a lot. I must thank Mr. Lau Nai-keung for his contribution in mentioning HKI! Please let him know that I have expressed my sincere gratitude!

Chan Ya-ming: Dared to Be Separated - No Stress, No Reform in HKFS

Dared to Be Separated - No Stress, No Reform in HKFS

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Chan Ya-ming (HKFS full member, Year 3 student in HKU)
Original: http://localpresshk.com/2015/02/change/

(Photo source: Pasu Au Yeung)

[Translator's note: HKU has already withdrawn from HKFS at the time this article is fully translated. Even we cannot do anything to overrule the decision, it is vital for all of us to understand the whys, and what are in front of us, so that we can prepare ourselves to the challenges ahead.]

I have studied in HKU for several years, and this is my first time speaking as a full member of Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS). I almost forgot I have such an identity, so do many of my classmates in HKU. It is understandable though, as all HKU students become full members of HKFS automatically since day one there, and the fees are handed yearly as a habit, so naturally it comes a born-to-be identity that no one realise its existence.

The referendum on whether HKU students should withdraw from HKFS makes us all think upon the following two questions which I suppose there is no easy answer to many: What is HKFS? What are the rights being a HKFS full member? Truth be told, before the withdrawal discussion started, I, too, have no idea where the answers lie. But now, as a member member, I hope the following I am about to say can shed light on the matter, so that you vote according to the sense.

Most students started to realise there is an organisation called HKFS since 28th September 2014 but only a few precisely understand its system. For the test of the people, the impression over HKFS merely focuses on the "Five Leaders of HKFS". On the stage of the occupied area, they spoke with moral halo. At the time, their halo, so as their authority were unprecedented. But the question is, where does their authority come from? Theoretically, it should be empowered by us, the full members. But when and in what ways did we empower them with such authority?

Sec-Gen: Generated by Coterie Election
The "Five Leaders" include Alex Chow (Secretary-General), Lester Shum (Vice-Sec-Gen) and Eason Chung Yiu-wah (Standing Secretary of the Secretariat), combined with Yvonne Leung and Nathan Law (both chief spokespersons), who are elected as the presidents of the Student Union in HKU and Lingnan U respectively. Being not the presidents of the Student Union, the former three from the Secretariat which I assume most members have no idea what it is somehow hold the main titles. Why?

According to HKFS's Charter, the Secretariat is the supreme organ of the HKFS. Metaphorically speaking, the Secretariat is the counterpart of the HK government, and the Sec-Gen acts as the role of the Chief Executive of HKSAR. Knowing that the Secretariat is such powerful, it leads to another question — Were Chow, Shum and Chung elected for the positions? No. Before 28th September 2014, I believe most students in HKU do not know who is Lester Shum nor Eason Chung.

A Sec-Gen, without the foundation of a legitimate electorate, bearing potent responsibility on not only the enforcement of certain decisions, but also decision-making itself, resembles the selection of the CE. At the time when Alex Chow was elected as a Sec-Gen, he received some 60 votes — much lower than 689 (CY Leung). How embarrassing it is for an organ pursuing democracy?  Who were the voters? Ordinary members like you and I were not given the right to vote, but only the Delegation of HKUSU and other schools' SU have such a privilege.

The delegation of HKUSU this year includes Yvonne Leung and other four delegates, who by the way are not elected, but appointed by the HKUSU Council. Having a low legitimacy, the Council still is to vote for Sec-Gen on behalf on all full members.

That is to say, the Sec-Gen and other major posts in HKFS are elected through indirect election, rather similar to the existing election system of the CE in HKSAR. If the HKFS acknowledges the legitimacy behind the election of Sec-Gen, they are to acknowledge that of the CE as well. This is apparently at odds with our pursuit of democracy and freedom.

HKFS Cannot Even Represent Full Members
During the occupy movement, many said "HKFS does not represent me". Indeed, HKFS cannot represent all Hongkongers. Worse still, under its current system, it is no way that HKFS can even represent its full members. Full members should have the right to elect major positions, such as the Sec-Gen, and the right to monitor them. Without such fundamental rights, we have paid the fees for years for nothing. It is the top priority for HKFS to undergo an overhaul — establishing universal suffrage for major positions in the Secretariat. To fundamentally temper HKFS thus and so, democratic spirit is enhanced, the full members' hearts will stay, and above all, it will proved to be beneficial for later social movements.

After weeks of debates, I would say I do not entirely agree with the points made by the Withdrawal Concern Group, nor the claim that HKUSU can be on a par with HKFS or the Scholarism. Yet, still, I hold my doubts over Alex Chow's claim that the internal reform of HKFS towards universal suffrage can solve all problems.

It is not Alex Chow's determination that makes me hold back, and in fact I do believe his spirit. But the fact that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" implies that the reform can never be underway automatically. There is always conservative power and vested interests in an organisation. In the world history, it is seen that reforms often take place due to external pressure. And for a person who is about to retire from the seat, how is he going to guarantee this promise?

It Is Now the Time for Reform
Without this referendum towards the withdrawal from HKFS, people would not know about the pedantic system long existed in this organisation, nor have the chance to express their dissatisfaction over HKFS's performance. We should know that the referendum is a pressure encouraging HKFS's internal reform. The extent of such pressure hinges on the votes of supporting withdrawal. If there are too few, the motivation to reform will remain low. There is no need to worry rapprochement — According to the HKFS Charter, HKUSU is free to come and go.

It is the era of reform. Before the huge project reforming Hong Kong, we should start with the HKFS. The problematic system in HKFS has existed so long, and it needs to be cure through such a surgery. The malicious attacks towards the withdrawal are no more than CCP-style tactics. As students in HKU, we shall, with conscience and rational judgement, decide the future of ourselves, of HKFS, and of Hong Kong!

Gnimm: United We Fail - Should HKFS Dismantle?

United We Fail - Should HKFS Dismantle?

Translated by Poppie, Written by Gnimm
Original: http://gnimmm.com/2014/12/27/badunity/ 

(Screen capture from aTV)

[Translator's note: After the Umbrella Revolution, there are different opinions towards the performance of Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS). Students from HKU has proposed HKUSU to quit HKFS (as the current FS is composed of eight students unions of 8 universities). They have called upon a referendum in school to decide whether to stay or quit. HKFS has since responded the bill by saying this will only please the Communist Party as pro-government student organisations has been established since 1989, eg Hong Kong Tertiary Student Alliance, or HKTSA.]

I am not sure if the Communist Party would be the happiest one if college student unions quit Hong Kong Federation of Students. But I do know that the pan-democrats and leftards will be the most frustrating ones if it happens. From my point of view, that is a pretty good reason to propose the issue to upset those who have been dragging the democracy development of Hong Kong for twenty to thirty years. There's no point of being together and accusing each other if different SUs are not of similar minds.

To respond to the proposal of quitting HKFS from HKU, HKFS reacted quickly to show they have always been non-profit and with not dependent on [strong] power. However, after the Umbrella Revolution, people realise the discrepancy between the truth of the organisation and its self-portrait and description. The things about being composed of all universities' student unions therefore being responsible to member; the election of university representatives and the whole structure of HKFS respects different voices are all measurements to attract people. 

HKFS knows very well that the current agenda is not easy to be moderated. So as the general direction. People are inherently lazy. Being "Greater China supporters", supporting integration of Hong Kong and China, tolerating new immigrants are all under the general line of the federation. There are very few people who will advocate for change. The existence of HKFS is very solid as long as we all think it is better than nothing. What HKFS is really afraid is that some new power can walk the walk and not to abided by rules. Then it would be abandoned and ignored completely. Not even getting any spotlight. Then, pan-democrats and leftards cannot piggyback on students.

There are always doubts on whether university reps and the consensus system is as important and running smooth as HKFS claimed it to be. The decision of accepting the government to join the debate has never been consulted within the organization. Using "pseudo-escalation", but putting protesters at risks - such acts were never agreed by the members. The relationships between HKFS and its member has been abused. HKFS claims they are the elected organisation when they need the say; they put the blame of not monitoring well on the members when the split proposal comes out. This is the same as the Democratic Party saying all their decisions have supports from the voters. Shameless.

It is without doubt that the universities have their own organisation. However, it is clear that all the organisations are small and cannot compete with FS. Even though there are Current Affairs Committees Councils, University Affairs Committees under HKUSU, all with self-autonomy and measures to speak out, it is still incomparable against HKFS. This has nothing to do with whether FS is pressuring the universities but the fact that HKFS has always been regarded as the entity that represents the eight universities. Their status is above others. FS is using this non-influential units to prove that it is unnecessary to quit FS. They are using it as an excuse for their incapability. This is simply unreasonable and unconvincing. It is pathetic for them to frame reasons in order to guarantee their status and avoid the so-called "split of power".

The image of HKFS has been ruined. Unless there is another new determined cabinet to take over, there will not be any progress in the tertiary student sector. It does not matter if the bill of HKUSU does not pass this time. What truly matters is that, the next group of people will be there to fight after making a breaking point. The initial phase of the advocacy has to be fierce and high-profiled.

Quitting FS will definitely not cause a split in the tertiary student sector. It will also never lessen the whole power of FS. It is because there will only be progress when there is competition. The die hard supporters of HKFS should regard this as a voting within a political party instead of a challenge to the authority of HKFS

The tertiary student sector is a very vague concept. It is the people, which means it is also the crowd with no opinion. Splitting into two sides and the one who is capable of being a leader will become stronger in the competition and lead the crowd at the end. The enlightenment of freshmen will be accelerated. The strength of the tertiary student sector will be consolidated. It is important to have a leader and this leader has to be trained. This is a simple fact that will not change even with the democratic systems. Split, in whatever sense, is only doing good deed. It should be done and is worth doing. The sooner the better.