Let the IPCC do its job of evaluating police conduct during the protests before taking the next step, an independent inquiry included

Singapore’s Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam recently mentioned Hong Kong in a speech to his country’s disciplined services personnel. He said the Hong Kong situation was a reminder that trust in law enforcement officers can erode quickly if things are not managed well. He noted that the Hong Kong police are “disciplined, highly professional” and among the best in Asia. Yet their reputation and relations with the public had become “severely strained”.

He said part of the problem was the often-biased portrayal of protesters as victims, and police in a negative light, in the media and in social media. This is something I have personally encountered in some recent interviews with international news organisations.

Shanmugam drew three lessons from Hong Kong’s experience. First was that only the government can solve socio-economic problems – not the police. Another was that government should be proactive in releasing information, rather than letting unverified accounts spread. He also said that responsibility for operational policies and communication with the public must lie at the top – in Singapore’s case, with him.

While the minister was addressing fellow Singaporeans, his points are surely very relevant to us in Hong Kong right now. Our socio-economic problems are certainly real, and the administration knows this and is under pressure to act. Our senior officials also recognise that there have been shortcomings in communicating with the public.

The administration has a chance to take action with the policy address next week. One especially important issue at this stage is how we get past this cycle of violent protests and disruption to everyday life. The protest movement is no longer about the extradition bill, but broader discontent among much of the community in Hong Kong.

Among many disturbing images we have seen recently was the case of a young mainland man who works in Hong Kong at JPMorgan Chase. A film clip circulating on social media shows him outside the company’s offices. A group of young Hong Kong people shout “Go back to the mainland” at him, and someone shoves him. He turns and says, in Mandarin, “We’re all Chinese”. As security guards usher him away, another young man actually punches him.

Incidents like this have become an almost daily occurrence in Hong Kong, and obviously threaten our image as a peaceful, safe business centre.

Sometimes good people do bad things, just look at Hong Kong

There is no way our underlying problems can be resolved this way or on the streets. In order to move on, we all need to be realistic and practical about what is feasible and what is not.

Perhaps the most sensitive of the protesters’ demands is a call for an independent commission of inquiry. This is understandable – we need some sort of closure to move on. But there is a real danger that if we try going down this road, we will get bogged down in details and disputes and never get anywhere.

The question of who should be on the independent commission could be controversial in itself. But perhaps a bigger problem would be over the commission’s terms of reference. Should it be about the police only, or should it cover the protests generally or the whole background leading up to the protests?

Hong Kong people could set up own panel to probe police conduct

It would probably take months to decide just these outlines – and that would just be the beginning. The judge-led inquiry into specific construction problems at the MTR’s Hung Hom extension started in July 2018 and overran its original schedule – and will go on into 2020. A full commission of inquiry on recent unrest would be hugely complex and would probably drag on for years.

Why not let the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) do its job first? It has set up a special task force on recent public order events which will focus on areas like police procedures, which have caused controversy. The results will be public, and anyone can submit information via channels listed on the IPCC website.

An international panel of five independent experts will advise the task force and make recommendations. The experts are highly respected, and I do not think anyone can seriously question their impartiality.

There is nothing to lose by going ahead with this. Within a few months, the public will be able to judge for themselves whether this task force provides an adequate account of what has happened. We should at least see if this reasonably quick option enables the closure we need.

Bernard Chan is convenor of Hong Kong’s Executive Council