“The key feature of policing [in Hong Kong] is just really poor decision making”. This is how the former Independent Police Complaints Council panel member, Clifford Stott, characterised the Hong Kong Police’s response to the protests that have gripped Hong Kong in the past year.

The latest decision by the Hong Kong Police to ban the June 4th vigil commemorating the Tiananmen Square Massacre, an iconic event in Hong Kong’s political calendar, is just the latest in a catalogue of tactical errors by the police since the brutal suppression of protestors outside the Legislative Council building on June 12th. It has resulted in a lose-lose scenario for the police and will only further damage their standing in the eyes of the public.

While pro-Beijing supporters argue the police’s hand was forced due to the gathering ban remaining in place, vigil organiser and former legislator Lee Cheuk-Yan has stated he regards the ongoing pandemic as merely providing a pretext for the government to ban the event. With Hong Kong’s coronavirus cases now in single digit and the unveiling of the proposed national security laws occurring amidst the outbreak, it is difficult to deny that Beijing is weaponizing the pandemic to seek to crush Hong Kong’s burgeoning democratic movement.

Now that the police have made the decision to prohibit the vigil, several distinct scenarios have become apparent. If the alternative activities planned by organisers pass without incident, which include a mass candle-lighting across the city and an online mourning event, the police will have merely dealt another deathblow to the freedom of speech and association protected under the Basic Law. However, if violence or bloodshed erupts, it would likely further tarnish the already severely damaged public image of the Hong Kong Police.

Whilst June 4th is a seminal date in Hong Kong’s political calendar, it is an occasion which has always been marked peaceful. However, the imminent passage of draconian national security legislation in Hong Kong has evoked a raw fury that means violence cannot be ruled out this year. While it remains to be seen whether the more radical demonstrators will seek to protest in this way, a look at social media sites popular with protestors including LIHKG reveals that many are seething with anger at the police denying protestors a showpiece victory through their massive policing operation outside of LegCo as the national anthem law was being debated, which rendered scenes of the chamber being occupied as on July 1st impossible to replicate.

On June 4th of all days, any scenes of bloodshed or violence, or even just of tear gas being fired, would almost certainly reflect terribly on the police. The sanctity of the day as a time for reflection and mourning being disrupted by police brutality would mean it would likely join the Yuen Long triad attack and Prince Edward station incident as deep stains on the reputation of the Hong Kong Police.

The IPCC’s own report - criticized by many pro-democracy activists for concluding the protests are “dragging Hong Kong into an era of terrorism” - showed 72.6% of people are already dissatisfied with the performance of the police during the protests, a figure which would only increase if such a notable date was marred by violence. The same report found that 62.3% of the public support the protests, with just 18% opposed.

However, scenes of mass violence seem unlikely. The vast majority of LIHKG users discussing plans for June 4th are not calling for violent demonstrations, with many talking instead of respecting the sanctity of the day. But the ban on the vigil would have further consequences. It has already handed a propaganda victory of sorts to the pro-democracy camp as it provides irrefutable evidence of freedoms protected under the Basic Law being eroded. The police also cannot answer the question of how it is a very real possibility that 2019’s vigil could be the last, as draconian national security laws unveiled by Beijing last week threaten to prevent the event from ever taking place again.

The scenes of millions of candles being lit across the city may also be even more visually powerful than the traditional pictures of hundreds of thousands gathered in Victoria Park. The police’s decision will also likely inflame anger among many white-collar and middle-class pro-democracy supporters, who might baulk at the thought of attending protests due to the risk of arrest but who attend the vigil most years. With the September LegCo elections now firmly in view, that does not bode well for the pro-Beijing camp.

Even if June 4th passes without incident, it is clear that in banning the Victoria Park vigil, the police have further damaged their reputation and handed yet another PR boost to the pro-democracy camp. Even as the significance of the date has somewhat diminished among some younger pro-democracy activists, as most of whom were not alive when the massacre took place, the swiftly-organised alternative arrangements for the date demonstrate how you cannot police away a political problem. Ultimately, the only way forward for Hong Kong is democratic reform.

(Jack Hazlewood is a student and journalist based in London. He previously worked for a localist political party in Hong Kong and served as a field producer for the conflict journalism outlet Popular Front’s documentary ‘Add Oil’, which followed frontline protesters in Hong Kong in the run-up to China’s national day in 2019.)

----------------------------------------------------
Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on mobile app. To know more : https://bit.ly/2yMMfQE

Apple Daily mobile app latest version DOWNLOAD NOW