Bullets aimed at heads, fire first & then disperse - Review of Police's new strategy on 12 June

Bullets aimed at heads, fire first & then disperse - Review of Police's new strategy on 12 June

Translated by HKCT, written by Kwan Chun-hoi
Original: Kwan Chun-hoi's Medium 

"What a pleasure to see that! I thought we only fired during training. That’s real! There it is! (laughs) And I would not allow a “2.0” version to happen." In a video recorded within the police force as obtained by Apple Daily, a police officer seemed to be proud of firing, who "will not allow Umbrella Movement 2.0 to happen", talked with a sense of mission. 

Police and members of the public hold opposite views on firing. I stayed at the scene for 8 hours (10 am-6 pm) on 12 June and could give an analysis on the tactics employed by the Police in dealing with mass movement which was conspicuously different from the recent years. But the first question to be asked, both from the Hongkongers and Police, why firing came first? 

Police were facing the same situation as in the umbrella movement that 5,000 police officers were way less than tens of thousands of Hongkongers. From 3:30pm to 4pm, the force employed a baiting tactic. Front line police officers purposely did not wear gas masks, which projected an illusion of them being slack. Two inspectors in white uniform were assigned in each spot. The message of "no clearance today" was also disseminated to the lawmakers, which further soothed the tension. When protesters were lured into the LegCo Complex, tons of tear gas were fired. Flooded rapidly were special tactical squads hidden inside the Complex, as well as masked police officers with waving batons. 

To fire first and then disperse was the deployment of police and the main direction used to clear the scene on 12 June. What's more, firing (such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds) was aimed at heads, while tear gas canisters were hurled on bodies. 

Fire first and then disperse -- The followings were my observation near the LegCo public protest area from 3pm to 4pm: 

Protest at midday on 12 June was peaceful. Police had once said that there was no plan to "clear the scene for the time being". Some secondary school students in uniform, office ladies and white-collar workers from Central arrived at the scene to show support to the protest. There were church members lined up in front of the police officers singing hymns incessantly. No violence was foreseen. 

The calm ambience at 3pm in the public protest area became tense at near 4pm, when it was learnt that clashes started on Tim Mei Avenue. Police received news at 4pm that protesters were planning to occupy the LegCo. 

Protesters charged the Police cordon line. Without any warning and under the instruction from an inspector, the police fired bean bag rounds at protesters by an officer holding a Remington shotgun. During the clashes, there were protesters hurling a few pieces of bricks, around two to three. The inspector picked up the bricks and roared at the protesters, "Are you hurling bricks? Are you hurling bricks?" From what I saw at the scene, there were not many bricks. The shout of "Are you hurling bricks?" from police was more an order to their colleagues for the sake of recording rather than a warning to the protesters. Would it be an indication of "shoot once hurled"? 

Another angle at the public protest area: Police officers rushed out to strike protesters

Police fired the first tear gas when officers without gas masks were forced to back off to the corner. Then the riot squads lurked inside the Legco Building flocked in to disperse the crowd by batons. Former Commissioner of Police TSANG Wai-hung had once explained that the use of tear gas was for dispersing the crowd, but the operation this time was obviously to fire first and disperse afterwards. This is completely different from either the operation conducted during the Umbrella Movement in 2014 that "Disperse the crowd first" or the common ways used internationally. 

Back to 1989 Govt prevents treachery 

I believed that "This is an ORDER" to take a group photo of the police officers next to the patrol car before the operation. The photo could be sent within police WhatsApp groups for showing their loyalty, recognising their faces and implementing stringently the accountability system, in case "treacherous" officers refused to shoot at the scene. With the headshot taken, any uncooperative officers can be tried publicly within Police. I witnessed the first shot at the public protest area. 

The inspector made an order to the police officer, who was holding a gun and without a mask, next to his ear. Once the first shot was fired, other police officers would be relieved of a burden and become obedient soldiers who can forget the criminal responsibility of shooting at people's heads. That was why police officers were boasting that they would not allow a second umbrella movement as they have obviously been brain-washed. I believe that even Commissioner Stephen LO Wai-chung was well aware that once there were over 30,000 to 50,000 people around the LegCo, and the Police could only resort to weapons and tear gas for clearance. 

In 1989, Xu Qinxian, the army commander of the Beijing 38th Group Army, applied for leave. Sympathizing the citizens, the troops could not clear the scene when they entered the city. DENG Xiaoping worried the morale of the troops and therefore cut off their communications. Soldiers could only wait for instructions at the camps. In 2019, rumours saying that there are opposing voices to the "Fugitive Extradition Bill" at the senior level within the Government. The Government Headquarters was closed for two days. Police officers successively quit from friend WhatsApp groups and fired feverishly in the city. The police force is now out of control. Pro-Beijing camp went against the will of a million of people by keeping silent and trying their very best to attend the meeting. ExCo member Bernard Chan even implied the deployment of the People's Liberation Army, which was however ultimately denied by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Protesters were clad in white and then black, finally turned into red. Say hello to 1989. 

When HK Education Becomes Banality of Evil

When HK Education Becomes Banality of Evil

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by May Lau (劉倩) @ Jumbo 48.4, HKBU
Original: http://issuu.com/_hkbusueb/docs/jumbo48.4/1 
[Translator's note: not being sexist, man/men here refers to human being in general.]

What Makes Man?

The definition of education varies in different schools, and I agree what John Dewey, an American educator, proposed - education is needed to train the people to have independent thinking and sensibility, so as to reform the society and build democracy in people's mind, and this, is individual subjectivity. Education is treated as a basic human right in a civil society. Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 28 said "States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity".

The Book of Rites said, "Generally speaking, that which makes man man is the meaning of sense of propriety and justice." Though I share Mencius' view of "Men at their birth are naturally good", sense of propriety, justice, honesty and honour need a long time to be motivated (except those emotionally detached). The fundamentals of teaching is to make a man a man, or in Mandarin chengren, which means to be a conscientious man. The teaching must be started when they are young. People now send their children to receive education in schools. Such education means teachers, who have received professional training, will deliver values to children. School and teachers play important roles in the children's development.

The Inferiority of Hong Kong's Education: Banality of Evil

The most ridiculous thing about Hong Kong's education is nothing wakes up the individual subjectivity of the students. Rome is not built in a day, and the failure of Hong Kong's educational system has accumulated for a long time, causing a fundemental institutional problem. The education system is ossified, schools and parents are overemphasizing exams and results without much care about sense of benevolence, justice or propriety. Students have no choice but become the sacrifices of such distorted education system.
The education system in Hong Kong makes me think of banality of evil － that means no thinking, not thinking of people nor the society. Evilness is banal, and everyone might fall into this trap. Some people are willing to give up their own free will to assimilate themselves into the system and follow its arrangement, and would not speak a word for the hidden immorality. Such people would use all sorts of excuses to rationalize their moral faults. These people are but horrible, because they look the same as normal people do, but when they commit crimes, the consequences are unimaginable. The most evil of human being is not to think and to blindly follow.

The concept of "banality of evil" was mentioned by Hannah Arendt, an American philosophist, in 1963 in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. She illustrated that these "criminals" are not unpardonably wicked, and sometimes even quite conscientious (like helping old ladies on zebra crossings), but they commit crimes when they do not think and feel responsible. When Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi killer, faced with the charge against humanity, he said he was just a law-abiding person and all he did was to execute his duties. Eichmann said his role in the Final Solution (Endlösung) was just incidental, and any other people under his situation would execute tasks delegated by Hitler.

When Education Becomes Banality of Evil
System is a double-edge sword. Whether it is well used depends on the people inside a system. The biggest problem of Hong Kong's educational system is "quantifying everything" by looking at numbers in exams and assessments. Policy makers, executers and participants do not think. Secretary for Education Eddie Ng, who said he reads 30 books a month, quantifies his reading habit into number of books read; schools, who worry parents choosing other schools, would quantify the school achievement by how many score achievers in HKDSE. The education in Hong Kong has entered an era when nothing else but quantification is important.

First, talk about territory-wide assessment (TSA). TSA initially intends to evaluate the school's education policy, provide data for the school and teachers to improve its teaching, and let the Education Bureau evaluate the schools' qualities. Many schools worry that they will be eliminated or culled, so this burden is transferred to the shoulders of students. I do not know the reason behind - must the results of students reflect the teaching quality of a school or a teacher? Does good results in students reflect good teaching? Does good teaching (or not) depend on the good results? Since primary schools, students are carrying such burden to achieve the goals set by teachers and schools, and completing exercise books one by one as if they were robots. Eventually, students and parents can no longer take it, and call for complete eradication of TSA.

Then, the public exams. In the past there were HKALE and HKCEE, and now there is HKDSE. Studying is for exams. How many things can students remember and use it for their whole lives, instead of returning to their teachers once they are outside the exam halls? With such ideology in mind, schools become "input-output" factories. Students are input with formula - "studying is for scoring marks, or you cannot get in universities". Students live under such distorted system, and some high achievers cannot even take care of themselves, not to mention "lofty ideals".

Blind Obedience - When Education Becomes the Tool for Training Skills
The education in Hong Kong does not need nor allow us to think or to ask but to absorb knowledge and become puppets. Education becomes a tool to train skills and ensure capitalism to run on. Students are raw materials, and eventually become parts which cannot function on themselves, as they need to work with other parts - they can never become an independent individual. Schools are places producing parts in a closed circuit. As Michel Foucault said, "In every society, the body was in the grip of very strict powers, which imposed on it constraints, prohibitions or obligations." (Discipline and Punish, p136, 1977 Vintage Books) In schools, students are domesticated by authority.

Under the education system in Hong Kong, students can barely think, or if they wish, they do not know how to think outside the box. Most of the time they think inside the box of Examination and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). When they recite model answer from famous tutors, speculate markers' thoughts when answering "open-ended questions", they can get high marks. The banality of evil in Hong Kong's education is not because of students' ignorance, but rather, lack of thinking ability or willingness to think, because in schools, when you follow the authority, you get awards. And so, the younger generation becomes willing to assimilate their personal will into the system, and neglect the injustice of the system, thus growing the seeds of banality of evil.

What HK Teachers Teach Is to Compromise - System Is Bigger than Justice

I think what Hong Kong teachers teach is to compromise. Why I would conclude so? I watched an episode of Below The Lion Rock 2015, a RTHK TV programme. The female leading role, Yip Hiu-yuet, stood out for the classmate bullied by the bully, but was avenged by the bully. The teacher, without understanding the complete story, punished and insulted Yip physically. The bully and her father even said they will charge Yip. The teacher worried that Yip, who will be troubled by the lawsuit, will affect the school reputation, so the teacher demanded Yip to apologise to the bully and her father. The teacher did not teach students to stand out for injustice, but rather wanted Yip to play this down and compromise. Such "roll-with-the-punches" attitude would distort justice and treat this as normal -- that is the abnormal point. Students will treat teachers as authoritative yardsticks and social norms are delivered through and confirmed by teachers. The teacher has shown the ordinary education culture in Hong Kong - students should not resist but succumb to the fact.

There are many real life examples. In the 2013 Kei Chun Primary School tragedy (where a 10-year-old girl fell from 5th floor but teachers failed to respond promptly and causing her death), a seemingly good teacher did such hysteric thing (calling St Johns, 6.9 km away instead of dialling 999 and asking for an ambulance from Margaret Hospital, which is 1.5 km away). The school and teachers succumbed to "the protection of school reputation". During the death inquiry, the teachers even said "all were following established procedures". The seemingly good teacher become murderer, because she followed the procedures and the arrangement, and put system above justice.

Reshape the Role of Teachers as Social Intellectuals
To be honest, the system cannot be changed in a day, but the people inside the system can be the key. Teachers, as social intellectuals, are not only responsible for teaching, but changing the society. Teachers have to jump out of the box of "I am just a teacher", and should remain critical to the injustice in the school and the society, and pass this mindset to students, so as to foster social transformation. This is critical pedagogy, which advocates students should have the critical thinking, to think independently and solve problems. Students can have different points of views from real life problems, so they can get away with those rigid models, and think about men and the society.

Conclusion
George Orwell's 1984 warns the world how terrible an authoritarian regime is. If people still face the society with the none-of-my-business attitude, then they would be banality of evil too, as they become puppets manipulated by others. Hong Kong education should not be in this way, and Hongkongers should not be in this way. We should hold our conscience, and probably this is the only thing we can do for Hong Kong.

Reference: Hannah Arendt, Shek Chun-yin, Alex Hui, Tsang Wing-kwong

Statement of the Generation: 00 - Preamble

Statement of the Generation: 00 - Preamble

Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, written by The Undergrad session 2015, HKUSU

[DIRECTORY: AT THE END]

This is the change of an era, and we are in this whirlpool. The disputes between generation have not stopped, but the struggle of this era has begun. No one can arrogantly neglect the aspiration from the society. No one can be trampled cowardly by the authority. We might not win the cruel reality, but we have the responsibility to respond to this era. From “Greater China” to localism, from democracy in China to autonomy in Hong Kong, from resistance to awared, comprehensive revolution – we are trying to prove that these are values that all Hongkongers deserve, and also our Zeitgeist. As Immanuel Kant said, “Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made nothing entirely straight can be carved”.

So we drafted this statement – it began with the difficulties encountered by Hong Kong youth in this era. We described our characters and what do we want our Hong Kong to be. We know the inter-generational conflicts, and dare to point out the problems of them. We are like expecting the birth of a Hong Kong constitution, so we have prepared well to talk about the spirit, the character, the values, the facets and the vision of this code. We are like providing policies, laying the foundation for the council politics in a new generation. We are more like giving us a firm promise, that the blueprint we are having now and the sparkling aspiration will follow us for the whole life that we dare not forget.

Out of a crooked man, we must carve a straight path from it. Hong Kong needs to be under the test of the era. We Hongkongers must create a unique identity too. We Hong Kong youth need to show our strengths and determination. A generation of youth might eventually be old, but the proposals and spirits in this statement will be continuously under critique, debates, as well as developed and practiced – eventually, gaining roots across this territory.

The “Character” of This Generation

We are the best of generations, we are the worst of generations.

We are not born in chaotic times, but rather a moment when the sovereignty of Hong Kong was not transferred to China. The little us were not as perturbed as our older generation. The far and happy childhood was our imagination to Hong Kong: after school, kids ran along with their friends in parks; assignments, tests or exams were never a burden to us; we loved the estate shopping mall where we could buy our daily necessities in grocery stores or markets, or get capsule toys in stationery shops; on holidays, we could go to the Space Museum, Science Museum or Ocean Park, which were not yet cramped. As we grow, we see Hong Kong degenerating. These good old images are becoming the “Old Hong Kong”. Under this political darkness, catastrophes keep on pushing Hong Kong to the brink of death: the bogus One Country, Two Systems; a dysfunctional council; an ineffective horde of law enforcement agencies; a deceitful bunch of media; “white elephant” projects draining on and on... We have entered the worst times of Hong Kong when ridiculous things become normal. We are the generation hung between desperation and hope.

We did not choose Hong Kong, we choose Hong Kong.

Being born in Hong Kong was never our choice – we were born in British Hong Kong but raised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and are now living in the Hong Kong which is seemingly ruled completely by the PRC. Some may say if we do not like this identity, we can leave. We have no absolute responsibilities to be loyal to a place, but we have innumerable feelings to protect a place that raised us, and to protect Hongkongers as we share the common language and memories. This is the verity of “being born and raised in Hong Kong”. Even some may see Hong Kong as a temporary place to live; even some may be nonchalant on current affairs and live in the tiny existing freedom; even some may not be willing to resist the authoritarian regime for their homeland, we – amid political, economic, cultural fall – are willing to shout. We are mavericks who are unwilling to succumb to the authority nor interests.

We are the molded generation under competitions.

Our paths have been set since we were small, and pretty much the same one: interest classes, studying, taking exams, getting into colleges, finding good jobs. “We” might begin from different starting points on the running track, be it rich, middle-income or grassroots, but we are heading to the same destination. We compete for educational resources. We have to run faster, better, or even nastier to get others out of the track if we have to win. The last generation said “poor results means failure” and “not getting into colleges means meaningless prospects”, so we study and study for a good job with high salary. We spare no efforts in getting into schools they want us to get in, because education is the tool for social power and wealth allocation. Therefore, if they can afford, we have to go to different interest classes, learning different languages, musical instruments, sports or other art activities, so as to get into the “top-notch schools”. We are exhausted – brains and brawns: tutorial classes after classes make us sharp in exams so as to cut weaker ones away. We are in this competition. Those who win will say this is fair, because the winners are superior and the losers are lazy; the losers think this is fair too, because they have fought hard. Then we are thrown into the attritive society. To survive, one must compete; to compete, one must step on others' failures.

We refuse to live in such monotonous and gruelling society, nor follow the values shaped by the last generation. Even though it sounds hard, we have the courage to break the box. Every possibility exists in our Hong Kong, where artists and athletes can be a good occupation. Everyone should have the chance and possibility to paint and realize their dreams, and choose their own ways. In the Cantonese film “She Remembers, He Forgets”, there is this line: “Dream is things you think you must do before your last breath”. Our dream is to change Hong Kong. We are good at calculation, but failed at too much calculation. From taking means of transportation to life partner, we are too adept at turning things which can or cannot be quantified into numbers, treating success or failure with this so-called rationality. “Either you step on others' bodies, or you'll be stepped”, and one will fall into this endless cycle. In a narrow living space, people are afraid of being stepped on and have become self-protecting. This has in turn become a bigger nightmare.

We resist uncertainties, including resistance. It tampers our “calculators”. The “monochromatic screen” cannot tackle complicated geopolitical questions, so when we saw people taking it on streets, we stood with folded hands. We are not afraid of no fruits. No fruits might even be good, but if those self-deceiving fruits – hope – were gone, who would comfort such wound? Even if I decided to throw away the “calculator” and take on the road against the authority, I might the only one on the road. Who would comfort this solitude? We are domesticated as “rational animals”, but must it be so? “The calculator” shows the arrogance to include the world in a machine. The evolution of men and the advances in the society do not rely on the “calculated” success, but the unknown – which cannot be “calculated” at all. 

Since we were small, we were taught that obedience, instead of arrogance and obstinacy, will help one merge in the mainstream. We follow the mass because we know what comes with that is the pride from the society. The recognition, acknowledgement and status of ourselves can hardly be outside the box of criteria set by the society. When they say “you are elites”, we are elites; when they say “you are wasted youth”, we are wasted youth. The criteria on personal values brutally remove the right to define ourselves. “I” am no longer elaborated by “me”.

The last generation told us we can feel safe when we react in a way everyone likes when appropriate, if our emotions can follow the social ethics. But are we real if our behaviour is not based on real feelings but “set as default”? Are we real if we cannot face our true emotions and suppress how we really feel? There are only two kinds of things in the world, your business and none of your business. The former one needs us to tackle, and we have no stance on the latter one. On one hand we dislike the bland side of ourselves, on one hand we are glad that we are those who are recognized by the society. Every day, we are struggling between self-abhorrence and arrogance, and the only status we have is youngsters in Hong Kong. We have nothing left besides this. Albert Camus, in his book The Stranger, wrote “In our society any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death.” We do not want to live in the society of Meursault, we want to live our lives.

This generation lives in the “blissed tree shades” of the last generation. We have more resources and are enjoying their economic fruits. They make Hong Kong famous and part of the “Newlonkong”. A beautiful city with bright lights indeed, Hong Kong has become a place chasing after figures. There is no big change in the game rules – survival of the fittest. But the last generation has not yet found out that those on the top who hold most resources are the “survivors”. The last generation has not yet realized that the fairy tales of “Lion Rock spirit” (which says hardship will be repaid well) no longer exists. The social mobility of this generation is low. Hardship can barely get economic fruits in exchange. Justice means following the original game rule. Lessons and preaches such as “What have you done for Hong Kong except messing around?” have become part of our lives. In their eyes, we are but ungrateful wasted youth sitting there; we are useless trash. After the Umbrella Revolution, the values differences between two generations become more and more obvious. Parents or teachers no longer stand with us. Following the “work - eat bread - save money for down payment” chain after graduation, giving seats in MTR compartment, obeying rules set by the last generation are the path for removing the “wasted youth” label.

We do not want to see our society tearing apart. We are sick of bickering with the seniors. We once tried to talk rationally to the last generation but no one seems to comprehend the real world. Some of us came out and strived for changing problems that the last generation failed to against all odds. We carried the sin of “wasted youth/rioters” and neglected the backfire from the last generation. We stood until dawn on Nathan Road or Connaught Road Central. We threw bricks with anger and despair, because we do not want Hong Kong to die.

This generation does not only crave for richness materially, but also the say which is controlled by the last generation, and the freedom we have not had before. We hope Hongkongers can live happily afterwards and continue to be under the “blessed tree shades” brought by the last generation. Maybe we might not be acknowledged by the last generation, but we can only “wilfully” chase after the light at the end of the tunnel amid this storm. If this is what a “wasted youth” do, we are absolutely “wasted”, because what we are after is freedom.

The society sugarcoats the truth, rottens in the hands of officials and gags us all. The society domesticates us, and we can no longer give anything else other than the model answer. We started to refuse and reject because some changes are irrevocable. Our Hong Kong is no longer what it was. It can no longer be tormented. We are restricted by doubts and fears, but we see our weakness and constraints, and try to overcome them. We are talking about things others dare not to. We are pointing fingers to the injustice. More people might enjoy in their comfort circles, but we would rather live painfully because our eyes are no longer blind.

In the face of a ridiculous society and so-called masochistic peers, we have to see hopes in desperation. Wong Pik-wan, a local novelist, wrote: “Hope is like air and light to God. When you say there is hope, and there it is.” We are standing on the cliff and have no alternatives. Let us say “there is hope, and there it is”. We have to see hope, we have to grasp hope.

THE UNDERGRAD 2016 FINALE Editorial Board

Editor-in-chief: Marcus Lau Yee-ching

Deputy editor-in-chief: Chan Hoi-ying; Chiang Min-yen

Statement of the Generation

00 - Preamble

02 - The Possibilities of Education

10 - Awareness as a Nation and Mass Movement

11 - Our 2047

Speechless: View CCP's Stance on Lee Bo's Case from Global Times' Op-Ed

View CCP's Stance on Lee Bo's Case from Global Times' Op-Ed

Translated by Karen L., written by Speechless
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2016/01/07/26322/ 

(Screen capture of Global Times)

Despite Global Times' editorials on uncertain whereabouts of Causeway Bay Books' associates went absurd, it is referential as to catching a glimpse of CCP's attitude over the incident.

In Abduction Rumours Scotched by Lee's Fax on 6 Jan, it says,

"Combining Hong Kong media's news reports, Lee Bo is well aware that the investigation he has been assisting in involves a serious matter. Causeway Bay Books, for years, had published and sold a great deal of books that are directed against politics in mainland China. Those books are filled with false content, maliciously attacking the country's political system, and have already brought along bad influences. Although the bookshop is located in Hong Kong, the harm it has done has reached across the border to mainland, for which Lee knows it very well. Personally Lee seems to be willing to handle this in a low profile, whereas Hong Kong media's hype is not doing any good on him and on his business. As to the collateral damage it carries, the oppositions are not going to make it up for anything."

In short, Causeway Bay Books is regarded by CCP as the source of chaos destructing the country's efficient management. Metaphorically speaking, it is a pain in the neck someone intends to get rid of as soon as possible. Disappearance of Lee Bo and his fellow workers, by simple deduction, is expected to be work done by CCP itself, so there's something to be condemned scathingly and a chance to "right the wrong". This so-called "willing" to assist in investigation is merely a lie that sounds nice.

On the next day, 7 Jan, in Speculation over HK Bookstore's Investigation Went Completely Wild, it further clarifies,

"first thing first, even though Causeway Bay Books is based in Hong Kong, the business, in a large extent, targets readers from mainland China – thus stepping one foot in Hong Kong and another in mainland China. It creates interference in the mainland's social order, undermining the foundation of stability. The reasonableness of the investigation therefore is solid, and it is in accordance with the law in China."

In this case, Xi Jinping's emphasis on "rule of law" is being implemented. How? Following the above extreme principle of thinking – bookstore as a means to shaken the stability and social order in China – relevant party being arrested and punished is simply a natural consequence.

People may indicate the fact that according to the Basic Law, CCP's officials have no authority in the jurisdiction of Hong Kong even in the condition that Hongkongers engage in activities which endanger CCP's regime. Or else, if this is not strictly followed, the Basic Law will equate to being null and void. That being so, "One Country, Two Systems" will turn into obliteration, of which it turns out CCP did respond to it.

It says in the Abduction Rumours Scotched by Lee's Fax,

"Hong Kong has practised capitalism, and the people there enjoy freedom of speech. Still, the Two Systems exists in the necessary condition – One Country. Accordingly, Hong Kong cannot be a hostile base where involves activities to overthrow the country's political system. Those extreme oppositions have forced their opinion to transform the Two Systems into an unlimited manner... Based on the wrong knowledge, they attempt aggressively to confront the central government by the radical tool of 'freedom of speech'."

 "One Country overrides Two Systems" is unquestionably CCP's stance that will not concede even an inch. Even though it is explicitly stated in the law that only Hong Kong law-enforcement personnel have the legal authority to enforce laws in Hong Kong, the impregnable position is not up to Basic Law. The absolute power decided that the stability of the party and the country secures the foremost importance. Therefore at the unusual time, Basic Law being treated as a doormat is not a problem at all. Besides, Lee Bo being captured by police from mainland China is so far a speculation; CCP would be like, "haven't been known; therefore, 'Two Systems' is still in effect."

It is further elaborated in Speculation over HK Bookstore's Investigation Went Completely Wild,

"it's certainly a no go if the mainland officials are to truss Lee Bo up and stuff him into some police car to get pass in the checking points. In general, there are some methods for the law-enforcement departments to avoid violation of law and at the same time undergo investigation – a win-win situation."

"One thing is important: there should not be any confrontation between the Basic Law in Hong Kong and Law of the People's Republic of China. The former shall not be exploited to shield someone or some organizations which are in an attempt to sabotage the country’s stability..."

"Those Hongkongers who are obsessed in the opposition of politics should indeed straighten out the essential meaning of 'One Country, Two Systems', quit the fantasy which 'Two Systems' dominates 'One Country', and throw away the assumption which Hong Kong can be safe whatever it does to harm the country's operations..."

Basically, CCP has already admitted that it is the police from mainland China who have taken Lee Bo, simply not with violence. Added with the unproven speculation on the police (or CPHK dare not), "One country, Two Systems" does "sustain". Thus, CCP seems to be confident that this is "a win-win situation". The following two paragraphs quoted from the editorial clarify CCP’s stance that "Two Systems" and "the Basic Law" shall make way for the country’s safety at a certain time.

As to whether Lee Bo can return to Hong Kong someday, Abduction Rumours Scotched by Lee's Fax said, "...Sooner or later, Lee Bo will have to go back to Hong Kong..." and from Speculation over HK Bookstore's Investigation Went Completely Wild, it said, "it seems we will have to wait for Lee Bo’s return and his personal explanation to the media." It is expected that the possibility of release is high, while "his personal explanation to the media" seems to indicate an upcoming press conference, so that the public will be relieved and go back to their lives once again.

If I’m not mistaken, Ng Leung-sing’s speech "those five bookstore guys must have been arrested of slipping across the border and visiting prostitutes" apparently does not meet CCP’s purpose. It is the Achilles’ heel of the loyalists – sycophant who couldn’t able to keep up with their master’s steps; no wonder Ng apologized for what he said the very next day.

Lam Song-man: Forgiving the Authority-abuse Police is Out of the Question!

Forgiving the Authority-abuse Police is Out of the Question!

Translated by Karen L., Written by Lam Song-man  (林爽文)
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/05-17-2015/23011/ 

In 1978 Soviet Union, a nine-year-old girl was murdered. Kravchenko had been arrested, convicted, and put to death in 1983, though he had an alibi. As a matter of fact, the man was extorted confession under police's torture. 24 years later, he was proved innocent － It turned out to be a serial killer Chikatilo who ended the young girl's life. The case says, the arbitrariness of the police is accounted for Kravchenko's death.

With empowered authority, police forces are able to stop people, question them, interrogate them or hold them in detention within a specific period of time. During the course exercising these authorities, pepper sprays, guns, and so on － use of force － are allowed to be adopted. That is to say, a single imprudent mistake could lead to far-reaching drawbacks. In time of Soviet Union, there was Kravchenko killed being falsely accused; in the U.S., there were black youngsters executed in the street; in Malaysia, political figures from the opposition party were pushed from building; in mainland China, numerous housing clearance duties ended with violence.

In Hong Kong, a mentally handicapped person was forced to make a confession of a wrongly accused murder on the police statement. The case was dropped as the police officer fails to carry on his duty by the book. With higher authority than anybody else, upholding morality and strict manner are required in a police officer. Ordinary people lose clients, increase business cost, or harm their companies' reputation as a result of making mistakes, whereas one's freedom will be gratuitously restricted, will be racked from bodily harm or death, will be put in the wrong if a police officer makes mistakes.

A journalist suffered from rough treatment by seven police officers during the Umbrella Revolution, while the matter is still unsettled; a friend of mine was crookedly charged of drug possession (insufficient evidence before the court set my friend free, but it left a rather huge expense.); some activists were searched naked; some activists were beaten on the black maria; sex workers were made acquiesced to police's demands for sex without payment; some protesters were threatened as such "I will take you back to the police station and rape you"... Cases of abuse of authority are simply too many to count.

Originally, citizens empower police officers the authority to serve the society and maintain public order so that one's freedom is being protected. Their neglect of duty damages citizens' rights while they refuse to apologise for their own fault and exhibit arrogance on the public statement. To understand and forgive them for all this? This might be the best situation to quote the former Commissioner of the Hong Kong Police Force Andy Tsang Wai-hung's catchphrase "Out of the question!".