HONG KONG SAR: Legitimate
protests against threatened livelihoods and police responsibility to remain
within legal parameters
A Statement by the Asian
Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
December 22, 2005
The past two weeks saw Hong
Kong become a theatre in which the conflict between free trade and human
rights played out very visibly, with broadcast and other media conveying the
interventions of all those involved in this conflict: namely, those inside
the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference, and those outside
on the streets.
The WTO ministerial
conference itself reflected the conflict. The thorniest issue amongst the
delegates was when the agricultural subsidies in the world's richest
countries would end so that the world's poorest countries may have access to
more affluent markets. While there is an overwhelming conclusion that the
issue of poverty in developing countries--where the majority of the world's
population livescannot be resolved without addressing this problem, the
date for such a decision was postponed to 2013. As far as the WTO is
concerned, the debate on human rights and free trade is therefore suspended
until that time.
For those debaters who were
on the streets, the WTO had little legitimacy to debate issues affecting
their lives. These debaters comprised protesters from Hong Kong as well as
many other countries, particularly neighboring Asian countries. Though small
in number, those who gathered on the streets were determined to voice their
arguments loudly and be noticed. The protesters included men and women,
young and old, all of whom spent long hours braving the cold.
The sympathy of the Hong
Kong people was clearly with those on the streets. Not only were there no
complaints of the city being unduly disturbed by protesters, but the Hong
Kong community took sympathetic note of the arguments made by the protesters
against those conducting their discourse in comfort. This in itself
indicates the legitimacy of the cause fought in the streets. It also
indicates that the
Hong Kong population has an interest in the issues raised; the
concerns of ordinary people in this relatively affluent Asian city are
perhaps not so different from those in other places. The tolerance
demonstrated by the
Hong Kong people showed a politically mature population, who are well
informed and aware of the key debates taking place in the global community.
At times when great social
debates are fought fiercely, the work of law enforcement agencies is made
more difficult. The management of a law abiding citizenry in normal times
may be much easier. The task faced by the
Hong Kong police was therefore not an enviable one. It is at such
times however, that law enforcement agencies are tested.
In the absence of a willing
dialogue between WTO delegates and members of social movements, the
protesters were merely expressing their right to speak and be heard by those
making decisions affecting their lives. Under these circumstances, the
police's job to maintain law and order is not easy and limited measures
taken to control the situation and to ensure the protection of others, such
as those participating in the WTO ministerial conference are understandable.
All measures however, must be taken in accordance with the law. In
particular, the use of force must be a proportionate response to the
situation. The behavior of the Hong Kong police--particularly from the
evening of December 17 to the morning of December 18--has raised many
questions regarding principles of law enforcement. Was it legitimate to
arrest over 900 persons when even according to police reports, only about 14
are considered to have violated Hong Kong law? Why were these persons kept
in detention for such a lengthy period of time? It is the duty of the police
to release persons in the shortest possible time after arrest. Concerns have
been raised that the protesters--who had not violated any laws--were kept in
detention to prevent them from participating in protests on the final day of
the WTO meeting. This must be looked into by the authorities, as it
constitutes a serious violation of the protesters' fundamental rights to
assembly and expression. While all violence on the part of any of the
demonstrators must be condemned, it must be stressed that even in responding
to such violence, the police are under obligation to act within the law.
Other concerns raised by the
protesters regarding police behavior--through the lodging of complaints--are
as follows:
The police did not inform
protesters the reason for their arrest or their rights as persons under
arrest. After their arrest, persons were kept on the streets for several
hours. During this time they had no one to make complaints to or to seek
permission to attend to any personal matter, including going to the toilet.
The weather during this time was cold and they were not given any blankets.
Even after being taken to various police stations they were not clearly
instructed about their situation and there was no facility for making
complaints. The absence of interpreters made the situation much worse. For
detainees of foreign nationalities, there was no notification that they had
the right to contact their respective consulates. There were also no
provisions for detainees to contact lawyers. While in some police stations
there were displayed notices that persons are allowed to make telephone
calls and even write emails, these facilities were never provided. Only two
persons out of about 600 detainees questioned by some civil groups were
allowed to call or email their families. Nor was there any attempt by the
police to inform their families of their arrest. Even requests for drinking
water and medical facilities were not heeded. Female detainees were body
searched in the presence of male detainees. One female arrestee complained
of being slapped when she resisted being handcuffed without being given any
reason of arrest. Others complained that the contents of their bags were
removed with force and intimidation. Several women also complained of having
their hands tied when they used the toilets. In many places the cells were
overcrowded, resulting in further problems relating to toilets, drinking
water and other basic facilities. More complaints will likely come to the
fore as the released protesters document their experiences. The stories
being shared raise many fundamental questions regarding the legitimate
behavior of law enforcement officers. There can be no excuse or
justification for such behavior.
The Asian Human Rights
Commission joins other organizations in calling for a thorough and
independent inquiry by the Hong Kong SAR government and Legislative Council
into the police actions against the WTO protesters on December 17-18. The
authorities must take the large number of complaints into serious
consideration and explain to the public their position on these complaints.
The Hong Kong people must also urge for inquiries to take place.
