Former British home secretary Robert Peel, credited as the father of modern policing, in 1829 established the Metropolitan Police, the world’s first professional police force.
In a force made up of ordinary citizens, police officers nicknamed “bobbies” were expected to adhere to the “Peelian principles,” often summarized as “policing by consent.” This meant that rather than using fear on the streets of London, “bobbies” had to secure and maintain the approval, respect and affection of the public, an ethos that is still followed. The Hong Kong Police Force of old, modeled on Britain’s police force, once adhered to these principles and was considered “Asia’s finest.”
Unfortunately, the latest violent clashes at the Hong Kong MTR’s Prince Edward Station on Saturday evening provide further evidence that Hong Kong police are increasingly using disproportionate violence to quell the unrelenting protest movement that has engulfed the former British colony.
Protesters on Saturday went ahead with a rally in defiance of the police.
A video uploaded to YouTube shows dozens of riot police sprinting down the platform at Prince Edward Station in pursuit of what appears to be a lone protester before tackling him to the ground. Officers then converge on a stationary train, pointing a tear gas gun through the open doors before storming carriages and, seemingly at random, spraying passengers with pepper spray and beating them with batons. A group of passengers is seen huddling in a corner, trying to shield themselves from the police, terrified and sobbing uncontrollably.
On Sunday, pro-democracy lawmakers held a news conference to condemn the use of extreme force.
Hong Kong Legislator Claudia Mo (毛孟靜) said: “Hong Kong people are now facing licensed terror attacks not just from the police force, but from the Hong Kong government.”
“What happened on an MTR train at Prince Edward Station was blatantly clear through press footage and photos, and police would still dare to deny ... that [they] were beating up ordinary citizens indiscriminately,” Mo said.
Civic Party Legislator Kwok Ka-ki (郭家麒) accused the police of “shameless behavior unbefitting of monsters.”
Such extreme levels of force being employed by police anywhere in Hong Kong, let alone within its safe and efficient metro rail system, would have seemed unthinkable just a few months ago.
Regrettably, Saturday evening’s carnage was not the first time Hong Kong police have used excessive force in the past few weeks. It follows multiple instances of officers firing rubber bullets, beanbag rounds and tear gas canisters at close range and at head height, targeting protesters.
In one particularly egregious example, a young woman was reportedly hit in the eye with a beanbag round at an anti-government protest outside Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station on Aug. 11. She is still receiving treatment to her shattered right eye, which could be irrecoverably damaged.
Hong Kong police increasingly look and act like a paramilitary outfit. Many officers wear olive-colored, army-style fatigues, instead of blue or black uniforms. The police regularly refuse to grant permission for rallies and last week conducted a dragnet operation, arresting many former student leaders of the 2014 “Umbrella movement” and other high-profile democracy advocates on trumped-up charges.
Following the events of the past few months, many Hong Kongers are understandably questioning whether Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥), who has repeatedly refused to condemn excessive force, has lost control not just of the Hong Kong Police Force, but effectively relinquished control of the territory’s governance to Beijing.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS