Whose Police?

Just outside the market building in Taipo, a big banner exhorts those reading it to "Support Our Police".  It appears from the two-hands logo in the corner to have been erected by the objectionable Robert Chow's Alliance for Sleaze and Hypocrisy.  And there lies the problem: if they are "our" police, who are we?  Any police force that Robert Chow (still claiming to speak for the mythical Silent Majority despite opinion polls showing support for the government shrinking to well below 50%) claims proprietorial rights over is certainly not my police force.

The Hong Kong government is trying to frame a political problem as a law and order problem, which means the police are being forced into a political role - defending an unpopular, unelected and unrepresentative government - that should not be their job.  And the recent attack on TVB and RTHK journalists by the "Support Our Police" blue-ribbon mob suggests they don't have much idea what the police should really be doing - keeping the peace.  A peace that is mostly being disturbed by those claiming to support the police.

Occupy Centrsl with Peace, Love and a Sense of Humour

Wait and See

Has someone poisoned Hemlock?

Last night and this morning I tried to post comments on Hemlock's must-read "Big Lychee" blog, only to receiuve the following message each time:

What I was going to say today, after CY Leung's latest nonsensical outburst,  is "Can someone buy CY a wheelchair as a retirement gift?  He must have run out of feet to shoot himself in by now."  That seems a useful enough suggestion to me.

Either Wordpress suddenly dislikes me, or there's something funny going on.  The odd thing is that comments from others seem to be getting through OK.  Any ideas?

Anyway, do read Hemlock's posts for the last two days.  He has a real talent for cutting through the Hong Kong government's crap and skewering their stupidity with incisive reasoning.

Poor Excuse

 

A Clash of Menus

External Forces

CY Leung tells us that "external forces" are behind the turmoil in Hong Kong.  For once, he is absolutely right about something.  Many of the mysterious masked thugs trying to block delivery of Apple Daily and attacking the protesters in Mongkok are not even Cantonese-speakers, so they're probably not Hongkongers.

Then we had the busloads of external forces who came here to join Robert Chow's ridiculous anti-democracy march.  And there are even reports that Leung and/or his senior officials are secretly visiting Shenzhen to receive covert instructions from external forces across the border.  Why don't they all keep their noses out of Hong Kong's affairs and let us decide our own future?

CY Leung fiddles while Hong Kong burns

[Apologies to The Violin Monster for the use of his photo.]

A Message from Robert Chow

Mongkok is not, so CY Leung tells us, the most genteel part of town - or the most gentile, if you believe the ATV news subtitles.

Infinite Wisdom

Despite its generally pro-Beijing editorial stance in recent years, on the whole the South China Morning Post has done a fair job of covering the Occupy movement.  However, one sentence in today's account of the clearance of the Mongkok protest site defies the laws of physics:

Since Portland Street and Nathan Road run parallel to each other, they can only intersect at infinity!

Another thing I noticed in the Post's latest online poll - 3 of the responses here are favourable to the police, and only 2 unfavourable; there is no neutral choice on offer.  And while I don't believe most cops are bad, "Poor" is a very mild description of the stupidity, incompetence and brutality we have seen from a a few of them in the past three weeks.  "Bloody awful" should have been one of the offered choices.

I suspect the results (54% negative, 46% positive) owe more to attitudes towards the protests than directly towards the police.  There are some sociopaths on the pro-government side who would be perfectly happy for them to replicate the Tiananmen massacre on Hong Kong soil (well, tarmac).  If the police cut off Joshua Wong's and Benny Tai's heads and paraded them around Central they would consider it an excellent performance.

A Simple Question

I haven't posted much here lately, partly because I'm busy and partly because many others are in a better position to comment on the Occupy situation than I am.  But I would like to know the answer to one simple question: have any of the pro-government legislators actually gone to the protest site and talked to the protesters to find out their concerns and understand why they are there, or are they solely relying on their own propaganda for information?  Sadly, I fear I know the answer already.

Hint - it's just outside the LegCo Building.  You won't need your chauffeur-driven car, just walk a few steps.  Go on, the students won't bite you.

Career Opportunity

With some sources reporting that a number of Hong Kong police officers are resigning, unhappy at what our totally discredited government is asking them to do, I thought it would be a useful public service to help update the police's recruitment poster.

Arguments from History

"If we didn't have democracy during 155 years of British rule, why do we need it now?"

Of all the specious arguments being put forward by enemies of democracy in Hong Kong to justify acceptance of China's fake political reform package, this one - which I've seen several times recently - must be the most brainless.  It is just idiotic on so many levels - not to mention ironic that the comparison with British rule is being used to bolster the arguments of those who were most opposed to it at the time.

• Britain didn't have full universal suffrage itself for half of those years - it only achieved it in 1928 when the voting qualifications for women  (some of whom first got to vote in 1918) were made the same as those for men.
• 155 years ago, nowhere else had true universal suffrage either.  Most places in the world didn't have sanitation or universal education, either - should all these omissions be perpetuated indefinitely?
• What does it matter now what Britain did or didn't allow to Hong Kong people?  We should be asking what is right for them now, not taking colonial rule as a guide to the future.
• From the 1950s onwards Britain gradually introduced local self-rule in most of its colonies, leading in most cases to full independence.  Those few which remain colonies today, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, freely elect their own local leadership.  However, it is generally known that the Chinese government discouraged any such moves in Hong Kong.
• At one time Chinese people were not allowed to live on The Peak.  By the same logic, why should they be allowed to do so now?

Ho Tung Gardens, the first Chinese-owned house on The Peak, erected in 1927.  Photographed in the 1970s.

What remains of the site today, thanks to an uncaring government with no respect for Hong Kong's historical or architectural heritage.

• And finally, by the same token, if Hong Kong wasn't under Chinese rule for 155 years, why does it need to be now?