A Futtocking Mess

There is poison in the air and vitriol in every argument. For some, it's a vendetta with a passion that's an obsession. Even erstwhile defenders of the 'rule of law' — people who should know better — are calling for rioters to walk free.

At the same time, they've demanded the pillorying of the police for doing their job.

Anson Chan Fan On-sang, former Chief Secretary, is making such a call. You could argue Anson Chan always had loose respect for the law when it doesn't serve her interests.

In her earlier days, as Director of Social Welfare, she oversaw a break-in to private premises to release an allegedly abused child. At the time, many suggested her actions were illegal. A later enquiry cleared Chan, although her authoritarian manner didn't go unnoticed.

In effect, Anson Chan is calling for the suspension of the 'rule of law'. If the government accedes to this wanton request, then the next mob can demand the same.

​She's inviting the government to intervene in the independence of our legal system, the very thing she decries on the Mainland. Her hypocrisy is breathtaking. 

But, these are strange times. People ignore the facts, the evidence that is before them. I've heard protesters claim that the bricks that flew at police are fantastic fake images. Yet with glee, they'll accept any image of police actions as 'brutality'. 

You have to suspect that Anson Chan and other politicians are providing top cover for the rioters. They give tacit support through words of encouragement that go down to the street as justification for hurling bricks at police officers. 

​Then when the police respond, they're at fault for seeking to protect themselves while restoring order. 

It's inevitable we now have a deep level of instability in our society. The extradition bill was a catalyst to bring forth anger from a deep well of resentment over the repeated failings of our government. 

Poor housing, a dereliction in tackling environmental issues, reduced social-mobility and stagnant real wages are all factors. That the government appears to serve vested interests, especially leading business figures, feeds resentment. 

While Hong Kong is sitting on massive reserves of capital, old folks work collecting cardboard to survive. We have one of the highest Gini coefficients (a measure of inequality in society), and I'd long felt that must eventually give rise to unrest.

Now the police are the focus of the protester's ire, in part, because the anti-riot tactics worked so well. During the 2016 Mongkok riot, the police proved slow to respond. Since then, they've adapted and changed tactics. 

The new 'raptor squads' are mobile, use controlled aggression and have effectively shut down the aggressive elements. They've responded with allegations of brutality. Of course, with protestor violence neutered the opposition is seeking to blunt the police's options as a capable agent to restore public order.

Meanwhile, the trajectory of events is following a similar pattern to Occupy. After the initial engagement, with a fair amount of violence, each side is waiting for the other to move. While the police have taken a battering in the media, the protesters haven't had it all their way. 

​They've forfeited a degree of support with their siege of Police HQ, and the damage they did. Stupid tactics such as blocking doors on MTR trains will not endear them to the public. Moreover, the call for a general strike was a complete failure. 

Undeniably they've learnt that Occupy tactics don't work when society continues to function. Moreover, escalating the violence will not earn them the result they seek. Their dilemma is simple. Unless the majority of the public support them, they'll fragment and falter. 

They've adopted a leaderless movement model, a fantastic fluffy idea. I want to point out we know the history of leaderless movements. Sooner or later, these movements lead to internal frustration and failure, as the component groups jostle for ascendancy.

Rarely, if ever, does such a campaign, carry the momentum to endure long enough to see the change it desires. I'm reminded of Macbeth's cynical observation:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."