Since the anti-extradition protests began in Hong Kong in June, the public has focussed its attention on the performance of the Hong Kong police force.
After police shot teargas and rubber bullets at protesters in a bloody incident on June 12, there have been calls for an independent investigation of their abuse of power, but such calls have been opposed by police-related groups and rejected by Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥).
In addition to refusing an investigation, Lam has expressed support for the police by, for example, giving them cash rewards.
Although they are repeatedly condemned for abusing their power, the police continue to do so with the chief executive’s support. They even take the initiative in provoking protesters when conflict between the police and public heats up.
A poll conducted by a research team at the Chinese University of Hong Kong showed that more than 95 percent of participants at 12 protests from June 9 to Aug. 4 joined the protests to demand that the government completely withdraw a proposed extradition bill.
However, after the violent Yuen Long MTR Station attack on July 21, during which the police were suspected of tolerating and even sheltering masked thugs in white T-shirts who attacked protesters and the public, a July 27 poll conducted at a protest in Yuen Long showed that 98.3 percent of the participants joined the march to show their dissatisfaction with the police’s mishandling of the protests — 13 percentage points more than the 85.1 percent who joined the march to demand that the government fully withdraw the extradition bill.
It is obvious what Hong Kongers think about their police force.
Right after the Yuen Long attack, former Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英), who is now vice chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, expressed his support for the police on Facebook, saying that the Hong Kong government should commend the police.
His attitude revealed the reason the Hong Kong police force has deteriorated, as a “qualitative change” started to occur among the police force when Leung — who used to be an underground party member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — became chief executive in 2012.
At that time, then-Hong Kong police commissioner Andy Tsang (曾偉雄) was dubbed “The Vulture” (禿鷹) for his bald head and hawkish methods of treating protesters. He was praised by Leung for suppressing the 2014 “Umbrella movement” and for charging protesters in Mong Kok with rioting.
In April, Tsang, now retired, was appointed deputy director of the Chinese National Narcotics Control Commission.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed in June that he has been nominated by China for director-general of the UN Office in Vienna and executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
Beijing is clearly repeating the trick of nominating former Hong Kong Department of Health director Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) for the WHO director-generalship as it tries to use Tsang to control yet another UN organization.
Besides, all top Hong Kong police officers must receive training by the CCP in Beijing, so little speculation is needed to determine whether the Hong Kong police force can avoid becoming a copy of the mainland’s police force.
With such leadership, it is unrealistic to expect the police to be guardians of the public and treat protesters peacefully.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS