August 11 – August 12 | The City Council has been collectively silent for 15 days, today finally a city councillor admitted a mistake!
August 11 (Tuesday) Four updates, all with timestamps.
9:46 AM | Reply from the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) The Tribunal replied: As of now, they have not received any complaints related to this incident. The content of the July 28 motion included “referring to the Human Rights Tribunal for consideration,” and the two city councillors also announced it to the public in this way on their respective social media. Two weeks have passed, and the Tribunal has no records of any related complaints. I will not make any inferences. I am only recording one fact: there is currently a discrepancy between what was publicly announced and the response from the receiving authority. This discrepancy should be explained by the party who made the announcement.
10:26 AM | Reply regarding the Freedom of Information (FOI) request The city government failed to meet our requested response deadline of August 14. They notified us that the response will be delayed and issued on September 14. September 14 is a city council meeting day. This means that even if the materials are delivered on schedule, the window available to react before the election is effectively reduced to just that one meeting on September 28.
12:30 PM | The images are still there As of a check at 12:30 PM today: The posts by Councillor Day and Councillor Gillanders have not been taken down on Facebook and X, and the images remain publicly visible. Since they were published on July 25 and July 28, more than two weeks have passed.
📍 Regarding the inquiry from real estate regulators Last week, Luxmore received a letter from the regulator inquiring about this matter. The company’s Managing Broker, Charles, subsequently made a written reply: There is no fault in my actions, the relevant facts can be found in the report by the Vancouver Sun, and I have not violated any provisions of the BC Election Act. I will not expand on this matter publicly; I am only recording it for the file.
August 12 (Wednesday)
Woke up in the morning, still not sleeping well. Compared to before, there are just too many things to think about in my head, and too many things to do. All the city councillors have maintained a collective silence. Three letters sank like stones in the ocean. No one told me where they went wrong, nor did anyone reach out to communicate even a single sentence. This is what is unsettling—not being criticized, but no one speaking up.
Regarding “meeting in private” Over the past few days, some people have expressed willingness through social media to help me build bridges; others have passed messages through friends, hoping I could contact and talk privately with certain incumbent councillors, saying these individuals are different from the others. There are also candidates preparing to run for election who have approached me, similarly hoping to “talk privately first.”
My stance remains unchanged: This matter must be handled publicly. Until they publicly state their positions, I will not meet with anyone in private.
The reason is simple. This incident happened publicly from the very beginning—a public motion, a public vote, and public social media posts. Therefore, it should be resolved publicly. Private goodwill cannot change the public record.
I sent letters to the incumbent city councillors, hoping they would do the right thing. If a mistake is discovered, correcting it is the only way. You are elected representatives; you represent all the voters, the residents of Richmond. If you make a mistake but dare not speak up, how can you represent us in the future? If next time someone finds themselves in my situation and you remain silent again, then when it comes to voting, shouldn’t our ballots take this into consideration?
🔹 Regarding the “demon-revealing mirror” (test of true character) I quite agree with the statement in Lao Mai’s article on Lahoo: Regarding this incident, as a candidate for the next city council, or a mayoral candidate, did you state your position? This actually indicates whether you can be a good public representative in the future—whether you can speak for your voters at crucial moments.
If you don’t even take a stand on such a matter, or worry about taking the wrong stand, or are still watching which way the wind blows—staying silent when the situation is unfavorable to an ordinary person like me, and only coming out to speak when the situation reverses—this kind of opportunism is not suitable for a public representative. This incident is indeed a mirror that reveals true character.
Why do some of the Chinese-Canadian public representatives we elect end up becoming mere window dressing? At crucial moments, when the Chinese community faces collective questioning, where are the people who step forward? Some people don’t speak because their party caucus has rules and discipline. This is also political window dressing—unable to do any real work. Having one more or one less of such representatives actually makes little difference.
🔹 Regarding votes Therefore, I have always advocated: elections should not differentiate by ethnicity. I have never said “Chinese must vote for Chinese.” What I said is—we need to elect those who can hear our voices, understand us, understand our culture, and are willing to speak up for us at crucial times. Ethnicity is not the standard; whether they can speak up when you need them is.
Able to speak for us when the entire group faces systemic and institutional discrimination. During the pandemic, with so many hostile acts, especially when the entire Asian community suffered from hatred, they need to speak for us. When our vulnerable Chinese girl at the coffee shop had coffee thrown at her by a racist perpetrator, they need to be able to step forward and speak for us.
🔹 Regarding this afternoon’s Chinese media mayoral candidate debate
This afternoon, a mayoral candidate debate hosted by the Chinese media was held. As I write this paragraph, I have not yet seen the debate, nor do I have a grasp of the situation on the ground. I believe this incident should become a major focus of the debate—it tests exactly whether every candidate will speak up at crucial moments. I will report the specific details to you in my next log.
Please rely on the official record: First, incumbent city councillor and mayoral candidate Alexa Loo was the first to admit her mistake and apologize. I have already seen the video of this segment. This is right. Admitting a mistake is never easy, especially in public and when colleagues remain silent. I acknowledge this point, and record it here. Second, Mr. Kash Heed is still evading. I have not seen this point with my own eyes yet; I have only heard about it.
🔹 Regarding Mr. Kash Heed First, I will mention the part I approve of. He opened his own Chinese account on Xiaohongshu, placed large Chinese posters in malls frequently visited by Chinese people, and has a lot of content interacting with the Chinese community on his social media. He has indeed stepped into the Chinese community. This is done well and should be praised. I say this without any sarcasm. It is a good thing for any candidate to seriously engage with Chinese voters.
But I must talk about the other half. Previously, a Chinese media outlet (Snow Goose Media) interviewed him about this incident. My observation is: he is evading. He stated that he did not propose the motion and was unaware of it; but when asked why he voted in favor of it, his answer deflected.
Putting these two things together is what I truly care about: Stepping into the community, and speaking for this community when it is being questioned, are two different things. Chinese posters, Chinese accounts, taking photos together—these are forms of contact. Whether one speaks up at crucial moments—this is true representation. What voters need to look at is the second thing.
The person directly named is him. He previously stated to the Vancouver Sun that he did not demand an apology. Since this is the case, then when voting on a motion in his name, worded as “representing all citizens,” he voted in favor—he should explain the reasoning behind this to the voters. This is not making things difficult; it is a question a mayoral candidate should answer.
🔹 Regarding why this matter is important Looking at it now, institutional and systemic discrimination still exist. The Chinese Exclusion Act has been in the past for so many years, and an official apology for the Head Tax has also been received, but in the bones of some people, prejudices against the Chinese community may have never truly disappeared.
If we remain silent this time, if those who want to become public representatives also remain silent, then the situation for this ethnic group in Canada will continue to be fraught with difficulties in the future. The wave of hostility directed at Chinese people that appeared in society during the pandemic will not stop automatically either. This is something we all need to think about. As candidates, they should think about it even more seriously.
📌 [Current Status] FOI #2026-164 – Delayed until September 14 Ombudsperson 26-005380 – In progress BCHRT – No related complaint records as of August 11 Three formal letters – Zero replies Images – Still there……
Luxmore Realty | Jason Liu | Author of AI Economics
Infrastructure determines the ceiling; data determines the moat.