Opinion

As antagonism between Hong Kong protesters and police escalates, there’s still hope for healing the rift

While protesters must stop their inflammatory rhetoric, the police must revisit its protocol for handling mass protests, reflect on its belligerence towards protesters and use the opportunity to increase transparency

4-MIN READ4-MIN

Brian Wong is an assistant professor in philosophy at the University of Hong Kong, and a Rhodes Scholar and adviser on strategy for the Oxford Global Society.

Published: 9:00am, 19 Jul 2019Updated: 3:02am, 23 Jul 2019

It pained me to watch videos of the violent confrontations between civilians and police in Sheung Shui and Sha Tin over the weekend, which left many from both sides injured. These events reflect a wider trend of escalating tensions between Hong Kong’s police force and citizens, one of the many collateral effects of the ongoing political crisis. The skirmishes only serve to exacerbate existing animosities between political groups, reinforcing the gulf between pan-democrat activists and the establishment.

Over the past weeks, frontline police officers have been caught in a perfect political storm for which few are directly responsible and yet many must bear the physical toll. The police leadership’s refusal to take action beyond superficial statements puts family members of police officers in a difficult position.

On the other hand, innocent people have been caught up in the recent altercations. Video footage suggests that non-violent protesters were exposed to disproportionate and unexpected violence. Allegations of brutality against the press and public have tarnished the reputation of the police force, once known as Asia’s finest.

The government’s official response has been twofold: one-sided outbursts of condemnation of the protesters, coupled with extended periods of silence between press conferences and official statements that few read and with which fewer can empathise. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said that she would not “sell out the police”, ostensibly putting an end to calls for an independent inquiry commission, which has been championed by diverse voices, from former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang to former secretary for transport and housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung to pan-democrat stalwarts and radical activists.

There are some protesters who engage in violence, and while their choice must be rejected as ineffective, we must ask serious questions about them beyond mere condemnation: What drove them to this? How could Hong Kong rehabilitate and reabsorb them into a political structure in which they see the promise of change? More importantly, who are we, as members of the public, to determine guilt when such tasks should be reserved for the courts and other just institutions?

As Lord Hewart, former chief justice of England, argued, “Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.” Even if existing institutions are in fact adequate to hold the police to account, this does not matter – a large proportion of Hong Kong’s public wants answers about the events of June 12 and subsequent weekends, and are sceptical of the Independent Police Complaints Council’s efficacy and impartiality.