In Hong Kong Crackdown, Police Repeatedly Broke Their Own Rules — and Faced No Consequences

Leaked law-enforcement manuals contain guidelines often ignored in confrontations with protesters.

As violence escalated in Hong Kong over recent months, senior officials repeatedly ruled out a full inquiry into increasingly aggressive police tactics toward pro-democracy demonstrators.

Independent scrutiny would be an “injustice” and a “tool for inciting hatred” against the force, commissioner Chris Tang said recently, echoing the refusal of Carrie Lam, the city’s Beijing-appointed leader, to meet one of protesters’ key demands. A police spokesman emphasized that the force is adhering to “strict” guidelines in policing the protests, “benchmarked against international standards.”

A review of more than 100 pages of police guidelines and training manuals obtained by The Washington Post details these protocols surrounding use of force. The guidelines, however, were often ignored by police, who have misused chemical agents and used excessive force against protesters not resisting, according to experts in policing who examined dozens of incidents in consultation with Post journalists and in comparison with the police protocols.

Read the full article here, including a response from the HK Police

In Hong Kong Crackdown, Police Repeatedly Broke Their Own Rules — and Faced No Consequences

Dear Trevor…

Dear Trevor
You talk a good game, but when it comes to actually supporting your talk you seem to disappear…?
 
Sad to see you have cancelled your upcoming Hong Kong show. HK is a wonderfully safe city. There’s lots to see and do and it’s easy to avoid any of the protests.
 
The protestors are friendly polite HongKongers of all ages frustrated at their incompetent leaders. If you come across them you’ll invariably find them helpful, intelligent and friendly.
 
If you get a lung full of tear gas or a face full of pepper-spray from our aggressive overzealous police – that’s today’s reality for Hongkongers old and young. But it’s a tale to tell in your shows and on TV.
 
And the only way that’s likely to happen is if you actively want it to. The actions are slow-moving and not hard to avoid.
 
I would though avoid wearing a white t-shirt on the streets, unless of course you enjoy sloppy group kisses from tattooed men holding small dildos.
 
There are occasional transport delays, but nothing that’ll affect your visit significantly. And if your flights delayed our friendly bar owners will be happy to serve you cold expensive beer all night while you wait.
 
Again sad to see you’re not coming, the daily fabrications from Carrie Lam and the HK Police are stronger than most building foundations in China and would give you material for multiple three hour shows.

Police Ramp Up Scare/Intimidation Tactics!

Where are HK Police getting their strategy plans from? Could it be the People's Armed Police and their Tibetan strategy?
Where are HK Police getting their strategy plans from? Could it be the People’s Armed Police and their Tibetan strategy?

The Hong Kong Police really are showing that they come from the Tibet/Xinjiang school of policing now rather than any sensible rational approach. The top brass at HKPF have met and are now sending out what they think is a ‘scary’ message that groups of just three people could be arrested for public disorder offences. Plus, if that doesn’t scare people enough, they’ll bring out the big-bad, anti-terrorist PTU teams again.

YAWN!

This new draconian approach will change nothing in Hong Kong politically other than to highlight more of the contradictions and fractures within society.

The police neither have the ability or the judgement to discern fairly who represents a public order nuisance and who doesn’t. Gangs of violent, Blue Ribbons, will still roam free while the police target people based on the assumption that they oppose the government politically. This will be their only mandate for implementing these new measures or,

Are you a young person, that sympathises with the new wave of political protest in Hong Kong? If yes, proceed to intimidation, arrest and physical violence if required.

Religious festival in Amdo, Tibet. If Andy Tsang and CY get their way, is this what protests in Hong Kong will look like?
Religious festival in Amdo, Tibet. If Andy Tsang and CY get their way, is this what protests in Hong Kong will look like?

This is political persecution at its finest. Young HongKongers are now on the same par as Tibetans or Uighurs within the Great, Chinese Motherland; unable to raise their voice without facing overwhelming intimidation from the security forces.

After all, the police don’t need this new law to stop people from kicking over carts or acting violently. They can arrest people for this type of action whenever they see it. We do have extensive criminal laws and fairly impartial Courts in Hong Kong! But alas, these really don’t function too well when you’re in the business of political persecution.

Instead, just like during Occupy, Andy Tsang is formulating police strategy based on quelling a popular, political message that is in opposition to a malign government. It never works Andy, stop masturbating over all the weapons and gear you think you need and read some real history for once. What kind of path are you walking on when you now choose the same style of policing as Lhasa or Urumqi?

The sad fact is that these types of measures are only ever enacted by the most embattled of illegitimate governments protected by deranged and out of touch police forces in order to scare people off the streets. Or, screw the lid down tighter, allow no form of dissent and let’s carry on as though everything is ok. More popular outrage can only be met with more oppression.

The reality is that Hong Kong has a goon police force that has doubled down on a goon government and the people are not scared any more. The more force the goon government orders, the more powerful Hong Kong people get.

So, bring your draconian laws and your elite PTU, it only makes the people stronger and the government weaker!

As Albert Camus said, “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

Why the Secrecy?

Obfuscation and non-answers cast doubt on honesty and truthfulness. So why the secrecy? If the opinion poll is accurate and CY Leung is happy enough with it to quote the results and use it to justify his policies… Why won’t the government publish details of poll it says shows majority of public back its universal suffrage proposal?

In Legco Frederick Fung wanted to know why and asked the following questions. He received a written non-reply by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Mr Raymond Tam, in the Legislative Council on March 18:

Question:
It has been reported that on February 28 this year, the Chief Executive (CE) told reporters that the results of a public opinion survey recently commissioned by the Government showed that more than half of Hong Kong people were agreeable to the selection of CE by universal suffrage in 2017 to be implemented in accordance with the Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on August 31 last year on issues such as the selection of CE of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by universal suffrage. Yet, he did not provide any details of the public opinion survey. Some members of the public have complained to me that the Government has recently disseminated results of public opinion surveys to the media in a selective or incomprehensive manner from time to time, making it difficult for them to judge the credibility of such survey results. They also query that the employment of such a practice by the Government was an attempt to manipulate public opinion.  In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details of the aforesaid public opinion survey regarding (i) the organisation commissioned to conduct the survey, (ii) the content of the questionnaire, (iii) the method and form of the survey, (iv) the number of respondents and the response rate, (v) the distribution of age, gender and political attitude of the respondents, (vi) the raw data, and (vii) the analytical results of the survey data;

(2) whether it has assessed the consequences of CE selectively disseminating a particular result of the aforesaid public opinion survey, including whether it has resulted in the credibility of the survey results being questioned and the Government being accused of manipulating public opinion; if it has not assessed, of the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will consider disclosing concomitantly the relevant details when it disseminates the results of Government-commissioned public opinion surveys in future; if it will not, of the reasons for that?

Reply:
President,
In consultation with the Chief Executive’s Office and the Central Policy Unit (CPU), our reply to the questions raised by Hon Fung is as follows.

The opinion poll which the Chief Executive referred to on February 28 was conducted by a professional agency commissioned by the CPU. The CPU commissions professional research agencies to conduct opinion polls on major social, economic and political issues from time to time. Such polls are for Government’s internal reference only, and relevant details are generally not made public.

link to the official Lego release http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201503/18/P201503170712.htm

Professional Groups Publish Advert Protesting the Government’s “Abuse” of TV API’s to Push it’s Political Agenda

against misProfessional Groups Publish Advert Protesting the Government's "Abuse" of TV API's to Push it's Political Agendause of adverts

These five professional groups Frontline Tech Workers前線科技人員議政小組, Médecin Inspirés 杏林覺醒, Progressive Lawyers Group 法政匯思, Progressive Teachers’ Alliance 進步教師同盟, Reclaiming Social Work Movement 社工復興運動 took out and advert to protest about the government’s abuse of the television “Announcements in the Public Interest” (API’s) program to promote the governments position on political reform.

The text of the advert reads:

Joint Statement on the Government’s Misuse of Announcements of Public Interest 

1. The broadcasting of political advertisements is unlawful in Hong Kong. A broadcaster was penalised for carrying advertisements advocating universal suffrage as part of the 2010 electoral reform process.

2. The Government requires radio and television broadcasters to broadcast “Announcements in the Public Interest” (“APIs”) for free. Typical APIs include messages such as those involving public health, road safety or weather information like a typhoon or rainstorm.

3. In recent months, the Government has required radio and television broadcasters to air the following advertisements without payment as if they were APIs:
(a) “有票,真係唔要” (Your Vote, Don’t Cast it Away!) from 7 August 2014;
(b) “有票,梗係要” (Your Vote, Gotta Have It!) from 2 September 2014; and
(c) “2017 機不可失” (2017, Seize the Opportunity) from 10 January 2015.

4. These advertisements are different from APIs. They carry a strong bias to advance the Government’s political position on electoral reform, to the exclusion to any other position. They are neither factual nor educational. These advertisements are no different from the unlawful political advertisements referred to above.

5. As such, these advertisements are not APIs. They are unlawful political advertisements which cannot be broadcast on radio or television. The Government’s unlawful abuse of its exclusive powers to broadcast APIs has also unjustly distorted the public debate on electoral reform.

6. We therefore condemn the Government’s broadcast of political advertisements under the guise of APIs. It must cease doing so immediately. To continue do so is not only unlawful, but also hypocritical in light of the Government’s recent repeated insistence upon “acting in accordance with the law”.

Frontline Tech Workers前線科技人員議政小組
Médecin Inspirés 杏林覺醒
Progressive Lawyers Group 法政匯思
Progressive Teachers’ Alliance 進步教師同盟
Reclaiming Social Work Movement 社工復興運動

Three More Corrupt Hong Kong police!!

three dirty cops

Hong Kong’s Finest – Not!!! – These three Hong Kong policemen framed innocent people
The 3 cops tried to frame ‘the protesters’ in Mongkok. Said they were assaulted by the protesters but in fact they just picked on innocent people. The defending lawyer pointed out that the evidences given are controversial. One of the cops even admitted he has given false statements 14 times before and had been disciplined for falsifying reports.

The days of being hailed as Asia’s finest as sadly long gone.

And it is sad!

We Will Be Back – When?

We Will Be Back - When?

We Will Be Back – When?

Definitions:
Peaceful – not involving violence or force
Radical – favouring drastic political, economic, or social reforms
Fanatical – filled with excessive and single-minded zeal.

The big question is, have Hong Kong’s protests become more radical? The simple answer, by looking at a photograph of September 28th is categorically NO.

We can see there is a significant proportion of people who are engaging in what some would describe as radical actions, or, putting pressure on the police to remove the political line they are holding and let the masses assemble outside their government to protest.

Behind them we can see a throng of so called peaceful protesters, or those, that wouldn’t dream of confronting the police, but wish to register their political discontent in a way that is absent of violence or force.

Here, the police line is described as fanatical, or overly excessive and single minded. This is an inarguable description of them. It was overly excessive of them to fire 87 rounds of tear gas and walk upon the streets of Hong Kong with automatic weapons. Their single mindedness to pursue a plan of intimidation without giving much thought to other possible outcomes, shows without doubt their fanaticism.

To this day, nothing much has really changed in the make-up of the groups. some radical protesters have behaved badly, mainly due to lack of leadership. Some police have behaved badly, mainly due to lack of leadership.

The only significant thing that has changed is that the peaceful protesters packed up and went home after the 79day Occupy and have not come back out again on a regular basis.

Why is this?
Maybe it’s for fear of being accused of being a radical or being scared of being abused by the fanaticals. Who can say?

But when the Occupy ended, everyone revelled in the new motto, “We’ll be back.”
Well, when is that?

If you truly want to create change you need to do it regularly, every week. Not every third Tuesday in a month when the moon is blue.

There isn’t going to be another Occupy, the fanaticals are now too violent to let you settle in anyone place ever again. But this doesn’t mean that every weekend you can’t peacefully show your discontent in huge numbers. Being too scared to protest for fear of being accused of being radical didn’t bother anyone on 28th September, so why should it now?

If the police are to be believed, they fired the first canisters of tear gas because of the radical actions on the frontline, the Umbrella Movement, is born from radical action and made powerful by peaceful protests.

The radicals are still out there!
The fanatics are still out there!
Where are peaceful protesters?