The conviction of mine leaders of the Occupy movement…should mark the beginning of the end of a troubled chapter in Hong Kong history. …there should be a time for reflection and for seeking to heal the wounds that have divided society.
The central government imposed restrictions on proposals for universal suffrage and the Occupy protests, in response, attracted many thousands of demonstrators. But the protests divided the city…and led to confrontations that occasionally flared into violence. …The Occupy protests raised public awareness, but ultimately failed to bring universal suffrage. They were never likely to succeed. A less confrontational approach would have had more chance of winning concessions from the central government.
The sentences are a matter for the judge to determine…according to the law. …The charges…are rare and somewhat convoluted. And the actions…involved an exercise of free speech, which we treasure. …The most important consideration, it has said, is whether punishment will do more harm than good.
I gave 80 to the editorial, but I have to warn readers from the mad dog always barking and biting on pag. 2 ( I wonder why nobody in the administration comes to restrain it from damaging the good name of the paper).
Mr. Lo must have drunk from the fountains of the west, but he has not learned the basics of decency. Is he not the one guilty of the sins of pride and arrogance when he makes such accusation to the three persons whom even many their enemies respect sincerely.
He may be right to call them naive, but that is a virtue of the Christians (spiritual childhood). Mr. Lo is naive of another kind of naivete, as he believes that he can get a bargain from a totalitarian power. Once you kneel down, you will remain there.
Can’t Mr. Lo see from the history that most of the successful revolutionaries were people the like of our naive TRIO?
Mr. Lo, you may do a better job with Wen Wei Po（文匯報）or Ta Kung Pao（大公報）.
