Police Used Excessive Force?

Val migrated to Australia some years ago but returned to Hong Kong last year.  She lives in Hong Kong now and visits Australia occasionally [1].

VAL:  Hong Kong police blatantly used excessive force against young protesters.

SAM:  Why do you say that?  How do you know?

VAL:  I have seen videos of police beating up young protesters.

SAM:  You haven't been a police officer; you haven't experienced what Hong Kong police have experienced.  You don't fully understand the circumstances around those incidents; and you don't have the expertise in determining if excessive force was used or not.  How can you conclude, by just watching videos, that Hong Kong police had used excessive force?

VAL:  But they are not going to have an independent inquiry.

SAM:  Hong Kong already has an Independent Police Complaints Council that monitors the handling and investigation of complaints against the Hong Kong Police.  The IPCC has 29 prominent Hong Kong citizens, independent of the government and police, serving as members on the council.  Do you know any of them?

VAL:  Not really.  But I don't trust the IPCC.  I believe they are biased towards the police.  The IPCC was set up by the Hong Kong government.  Council members were all appointed by the Chief Executive.  The whole Hong Kong government and the Chief Executive are corrupt.  So I can't believe the IPCC can be fair and can properly investigate police violence.

SAM:  IPCC cannot hide the incidents you saw in the media.  They have been captured by media around the world.  However, IPCC may say after reviewing the circumstances around a particular incident, the behaviour of the Hong Kong police was justified.  If you claimed that the IPCC is biased towards the police, what you mean is that the criteria in deciding whether the police had used excessive force or not, is too lenient.  Isn't that right?

VAL:  Yes.  I think an independent inquiry will be fairer; and it can set a proper standard for police behaviour.

SAM:  Then that will be a different standard from the current one.  The police has been working under the framework of the existing standard.  If an independent inquiry reviews past events with a different standard, that will be unfair to the police.  Don't you think so?

VAL:  Yes.  I can see that.

SAM:  I have also seen reports of protesters violently attacking police.  You have not criticised violence committed by the protesters.  That is unfair to the police.

VAL:  The protesters are different from the police.  The protesters have no leaders.  The protest movement cannot be responsible for what some rogue protesters do.  The police is different.  They have a command structure.  So when some police use excessive force, the whole police force is responsible.

SAM:  Assuming some officers were guilty of using excessive force, but I suspect the Hong Kong police may still be much more restraint than police in other countries.  In July alone police in Rio killed 194 people – a rate of more than six a day [2].  In USA, 992 people were shot by police in 2018 [3].  In Hong Kong, no one related to the anti-government protest has been killed by police so far.

VAL:  It is difficult to compare police in different cities.  Each city's situation is unique.

SAM:  I think the statistics are quite convincing though.  Perhaps we can agree that violence in Hong Kong is increasing.  The saying “hate begets hate; violence begets violence” rings true.

VAL:  I agree that violence is increasing in Hong Kong.  The phrase was used by Martin Luther King Jr.  Perhaps some of Dr. King's teaching is relevant to the situation in Hong Kong now.  He says:

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love [4].

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that [5].

Note:  (1) This is a fictional dialogue only.  Picture file is sourced from Wikimedia Commons authored by Open Clip Art Library:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1Stop_police_violence_fav-555px.jpg
(2) The Guardian (Australia edition 16 Sep 2019):  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/16/rio-de-janeiro-police-violence-deaths-families
(3) Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/
(4) Famous quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. Washing State University web site: https://mlk.wsu.edu/about-dr-king/famous-quotes/ 
(5) Martin Luther King Jr. (1967). Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?. p. 62.

Democracy in Hong Kong

"Don't you support democracy?" my friend asked.   The implication is that being an Australian, I should support democracy, and therefore I should support the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

I do support democracy in Australia.   But do I know or believe democracy is the best form of government for everyone else?  I don't think so.   I support the Australian sports men and women.  Do I really believe that they are best in the world?  More virtuous than everyone else?  No.  I support them because they are Australians.  Similarly I support democracy in Australia because it is Australia's political system.  I don't know if democracy is necessarily the best form of government for every country in the world.

Plato famously discusses five types of regimes in the Republic. They are Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny. These five regimes progressively degenerate starting with Aristocracy at the top and Tyranny at the bottom.  Plato believes the best regime is Aristocracy ruled by a wise philosopher king.  Democracy is considered only the second worst regime.

We can think of dictators like Hitler, Pol Pot who have committed atrocities against mankind.  Perhaps when we compare them with wealthy democratic countries like Australia, we easily conclude that democracy is better.  However, are we simply comparing good democracy to tyranny? 

Theoretically, democracy can commit injustice such as those below just like a dictatorship:

• Illegal invasion of foreign countries and mistreatment of their citizens,
• Discrimination and persecution of minorities within the country, 
• Corruption and mismanagement of economy leading to widespread poverty, and
• Lack of action dealing with difficult issues like climate change, world population growth.

I was a resident of Hong Kong when it was still under British rule.  I left Hong Kong not because it was not a democracy. I left because I felt there was rampant corruption in government, including police, and I felt unsafe going out.  It was also difficult to get into universities in Hong Kong.  There was also a fear that something bad may happen after 1997 when Hong Kong would be handed back to China.

After 1997, many Hong Kong Chinese who migrated to Australia and other western countries returned to Hong Kong.  Many young girls from Philippines and Indonesia, both democratic countries, work in Hong Kong as servants for very low wages. The fact that Hong Kong is not a democracy does not concern them.  To earn more in order to have a good life is more important to them.

Democracy is not an end by itself.  Democracy is a means to good government only.  What do people in Hong Kong really want?   They, and other people around the world, want a stable life where their basic needs are met.  They want their basic human rights and individual freedom protected by law and order.  They want opportunities to improve themselves and earn a good living.

All these things are possible and to a large extent have already been achieved within the one country two system framework in Hong Kong.   However, full western style democracy, which I think, will inevitably lead to full independence of Hong Kong, is very unlikely to be achievable in Hong Kong.  Even if it is achievable, it is debatable if that necessarily is a good way to go for Hong Kong.

So do I support the pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong?  The idea that young people should risk their future and their lives to fight for a political system that is pretty much impossible in Hong Kong, in order to gain benefits which can be achieved by the current system, just does not make sense to me.

From Identity Politics to Dehumanisation to Violence

Hong Kong citizens seem to have to identify themselves with either the anti-government or the pro-government group.  The anti-government protest people are called Yellow Ribbons.  The pro-government people are called Blue Ribbons.

Recently a friend asked me: "which side do you support?"  She expected that I must support either one or the other side.  She expected that I could not be neutral or only support some aspects of one group.  I wasn't given a choice to be an individual with my own viewpoints.   

As the Hong Kong community becomes more divided, people identify themselves as one or the other group.  They feel that if you disagree with me, you are with the other side;  You are the enemy;  If you are not with me, you are against me.  As conflict continues, hatred deepens.  Many in Hong Kong have started describing those opposite as dogs, cockroaches.

People start considering others as sub-human.  That gives them the permission to treat others violently, cruelly.  That seems to be what is happening in Hong Kong now.  Sadly, deep hatred does not dissipate easily.   The anti-government protest will subside one day; but the hatred between people, between former friends, will remain for much longer.  Some people may never forgive.  For some, the wound never heals.

A way to avoid this is to treat each other as individuals.  I hope that people will see issues from different perspectives;  respect and value the opinions of others, even when they disagree;  critically analyse the right and wrong of each issue; decide what actions, if any, to take as individuals, not as part of a group they have to fit in.

Starting Post

Hong Kong is currently going through a difficult time.  I hope that this blog will contribute, just a little bit, to promoting peace in Hong Kong.  I believe activities such as those below will help.  I will try to do some of them.  I may even succeed at times in producing something sensible.  That is not enough though.   If you are interested in seeing peace in Hong Kong, will you join me in this Peace Movement?  If enough people join in, may be there will be a miracle.

• Analysis of truthfulness of claims by different parties;
• Capturing perspectives of conflicting groups in Hong Kong;
• Understanding current events in Hong Kong through historical and philosophical perspectives;
• Critical analysis of media reports and feedback to media organisations in order to promote fair reporting in media;
• Providing background information and recording of the current events relating to the protest movement in Hong Kong; 
• Communication with fair minded people who wish to promote peace in Hong Kong.