JULY 29 – A RECORD

Everything I Know About What Happened

This is a record for the friends who care about me. I did not post updates over the past two days because I was occupied with handling the matter. Today, I am setting out the full course of events in one account.

Over the past several days, many friends have asked me what happened. I have decided to write down truthfully what I know and what I have done.

I will not comment on motives or speculate. I will simply record the facts.

Every matter described below can be checked against video footage, emails, or published reports.

1. First, Let Me Be Clear About Where I Was Wrong

The matter began with an image accompanying an article I wrote.

The image was AI-generated, and I did not review it before publishing it. That was my mistake, and I acknowledge it.

The problem with the image was that it used elements of national flags and presented two communities as opposing sides – precisely the opposite of what my article advocated – and its depiction of Councillor Kash Heed was factually incorrect.

As soon as I discovered the problem, I deleted it.

On July 25, I had already publicly apologized for the image in my written response to the Vancouver Sun.

I did so on my own initiative; no one asked me to apologize. The report has been published and is available for anyone to review. This took place two days before the City Council motion on July 27.

This is the one thing I did wrong: the image, and my failure to review it beforehand.

The text of the article is a separate matter. I continue to stand by the written content.

2. July 27: The City Council Meeting

The following occurred at the regular meeting of Richmond City Council on July 27.

Everything below is drawn from the meeting video posted on the City’s official YouTube channel. Each speaker’s nameplate is clearly visible on screen.

Councillor Carol Day held up the image – an image I had already removed on my own – and called it “appalling.”

Councillor Laura Gillanders told Council that my article suggested that increased voter turnout in one community would prevent a person from another community from being elected, and stated: “That is what the article says.”

Councillor Bill McNulty introduced the motion.

The motion had three parts:

require the party who published the social media post to issue a public apology on behalf of all Richmond residents;
have the City publicly condemn the discriminatory content in the post; and
refer the matter to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for review.

The motion passed.

I was not present that day. No one notified me before the meeting, and no one asked me any questions.

3. July 28: I Learned About It Through a Phone Call

I knew that the image had caused controversy – I had already apologized for it.

But I did not know that City Council would pass a formal motion concerning it.

On the morning of July 28, a Richmond News reporter called my company seeking an interview.

It was through that call that I first learned what had actually happened at the July 27 Council meeting.

After ending the call, I received the same photograph from the Council meeting through several other channels.

To understand what had happened, I located the official meeting video, watched it in full from beginning to end, transcribed the relevant remarks sentence by sentence, and checked them repeatedly.

After watching it, I did two things.

I Wrote to the Mayor and Four Councillors

I wrote separately to Mayor Malcolm Brodie and to Councillors Carol Day, Laura Gillanders, Kash Heed, and Bill McNulty.

I attached to each letter a complete English translation of my article, translated by me personally, without omitting a single word.

The reason was simple:

Since Council had discussed my article and used it as the basis for a vote, the article in its entirety should also form part of the public record.

In my letters, I asked a direct question:

Before speaking about my article and voting on it, had any member of Council read the article in full – whether in the original Chinese or in any form of English translation?

I also stated that I was willing to appear before Council at any time to answer any questions about what I had written.

As of the time of writing, I had not received any response.

I Agreed to a Written Interview

The reporter initially proposed a telephone interview, and I asked to conduct it by email instead.

The reason was simple:

I wanted every word I said to remain on the record exactly as I had said it, without distortion through paraphrasing.

She respected my request.

The questions were quite pointed, and I answered each of them truthfully, without evasion.

4. What I Will Not Apologize For

I will not apologize for urging eligible Canadian citizens to register and vote.

These are the figures cited in my article:

Voter turnout in the 2022 Richmond municipal election: 24.5%
Voter turnout in the Richmond Centre riding in the 2025 federal election: 59.6%

My article simply expressed the hope that my community could do better than 24.5%.

The following is the original wording from my article:

“I do not intend to tell anyone whom they should vote for, and no community organization should designate candidates on behalf of voters.

As long as voter turnout increases, regardless of the ethnicity of the person ultimately elected, we can and should accept the result, because it is the voters’ own choice.”

In my article, I described the South Asian community’s century of accumulated experience in community organizing as:

“a textbook worthy of study by every immigrant community.”

Councillor Gillanders told Council that my article said that if one community voted in greater numbers, it would prevent a person from another community from being elected, and stated: “That is what the article says.”

What the article actually said was precisely the opposite.

There is one more fact worth recording.

Councillor Kash Heed had previously told the Vancouver Sun that, in his view, my article did not violate election law and that he was asking for neither an apology nor the removal of the article.

5. July 29: Today

The Report Was Published

The Richmond News report was formally published today and appeared on the website’s homepage.

I believe the reporter’s account was quite objective and presented my position in full.

This morning, I promptly sent her a letter of thanks.

[Image in the original article]

Under the present circumstances, I am deeply grateful to see a fair report.

I Wrote to the Councillor Who Introduced the Motion

Today, I wrote to Councillor Bill McNulty, who introduced the motion, and asked the following questions:

What prompted him to introduce the motion?
Who submitted my article and the related image to Council?
Was Council provided with the original Chinese, an English translation, or a summary? If it was a translation, who prepared it?
How was the motion discussed and developed before the meeting, and who was involved?
Before passing a resolution requiring a resident to apologize publicly, did Council consider contacting me first?
Why had I still received no formal notice as of today?
What, precisely, does City Council now require me to do, and what is the applicable deadline?

I Submitted a Freedom of Information Request

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), I formally submitted a freedom of information request to the City.

The request covers:

all versions of the motion;
communications among councillors;
the source of any translation; and
records of internal discussions about whether to notify me.

As a Canadian citizen, I believe I have the right to know: how, exactly, this motion came about.

6. I Filed a Complaint with the British Columbia Ombudsperson

I also wrote to the Office of the Ombudsperson of British Columbia.

The Ombudsperson is an independent office of the provincial legislature and is not part of any level of government. Its role is to review whether public bodies have acted fairly and reasonably in handling matters involving particular individuals. Municipal governments fall within its jurisdiction.

I did not ask the Office to review whether Council’s position was correct – that falls within the realm of freedom of expression, and I have no intention of asking any institution to adjudicate opinions.

What I asked the Office to review was the process:

whether a person should be notified before a motion directed at that individual and requiring a public apology is introduced and put to a vote;
whether that person should have an opportunity to express their views;
whether an article should be read in full before it is characterized; and
whether the person concerned should receive formal notice after the motion is passed.

In my letter, I explained that I had already attempted direct communication first.

I had written separately to the Mayor and four councillors, and had formally submitted a freedom of information request to the City under FIPPA.

As of the time of writing, I had not received any response.

I do not know whether the Ombudsperson will accept the complaint, and I do not presume any outcome.

I am simply following, step by step, the process that I believe should be followed through to completion.

[Image in the original article]

7. Regarding the Human Rights Tribunal

The third part of the motion was to refer the matter to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for review.

I welcome any impartial review.

The condition is that what is reviewed must be the words actually written: the full text, in the language in which it was written.

I am confident, because the words speak for themselves.

At the same time, I must also place one fact on the record:

As of today, I still have not received any formal document telling me what, exactly, I am accused of, the basis for the accusation, or when I am required to respond.

I cannot respond to a matter whose substance no one has communicated to me.

8. My Current Condition

To be honest, I am not doing well.

Over the past two days, I have barely slept and have had severe headaches.

I had planned to stay home and rest today, but I still went to the office because there were many matters that needed attention.

I have a doctor’s appointment scheduled for tomorrow.

I am not writing this to seek sympathy, but simply to make a truthful record.

9. What I Want to Say

At this stage, I do not intend to judge anyone’s motives.

Until I have seen the complete record, I do not believe I am in a position to draw conclusions.

That is also why I submitted the freedom of information request.

I insist on only one thing, and it has nothing to do with any ethnicity:

Before Council passes a resolution requiring an ordinary resident to apologize publicly, that resident should be notified in advance and given an opportunity to speak.

Before judging an article, one should read it in full.

This is a matter of process, not a matter of position.

It applies to every resident of Richmond.

Today it is me; tomorrow it could be anyone.

I will continue to keep a record and write down every step.

Thank you to all the friends who have sent me messages over the past several days.

I may not have time to reply to each one individually, but I have read every message carefully.

Luxmore Realty | Jason Liu | Author of AI Economics

Infrastructure determines the ceiling; data determines the moat.