A Hong Kong Fairy Tale:Nobody Lived Happily Afterwards.

"Fairy tales, have a really weird logic...the kind of logic that you only experience when you’re not feeling very well, or as a child."   Helen Oyeyemi

With Covid-19 consuming everyone's energies, the media and most of the politicians focus there. Although, the Pan-Democrats continue to wage their anti-police campaign by seeking to stop or delay a recommended salary increase. That move failed, with the usual baleful shouting and tantrums in LegCo.

While the 'five demands' that dominated the 2019 political scene recede from the headlines, these are far from forgotten. I expect once Covid-19 retreats; the demands will resurface. 

And, no doubt, the call for an independent inquiry into 'police brutality' tops the list. Taken at face value, an independent commission to establish the truth sounds like a sensible demand. Who could argue with that? To suggest it puts your opponents in a weak moral position. 

Except, it is a straw-man in a landscape of ever-changing demands. There have been many occasions in Hong Kong politics where a claim shifts, just after the apparent objective is met. It is the same with this protest movement.

Plus, it's clear that those making the demand fail to understand how a commission of inquiry operates. Nor what may come from its deliberations. 

For starters, you may not be able to the use the evidence adduced to punish alleged wrongdoers. And, it will take ages for any findings — 18 months at the least, but more like three to five years. And expect a substantial legal battle to then unfold over the results. 

To understand our situation — Hong Kongers bear with me — you need the background to the political and socioeconomic confluence of factors at play here.

The Pan-Democrat parties are the traditional opposition. In the main, they believe in a peaceful and rational debate — although, that may have changed recently. In 2014, they made a significant strategic mistake by refusing to enter negotiations with Beijing on electoral reform.

​With a substantial step towards democracy on the table, they rejected it, making 'perfection defeat the possible'. In effect, they painted themselves into a corner.

Trapped in the shrinking middle ground, they're desperate to keep supporters, who have deserted them for the radicals. This is why they'll remain silent or give tacit support to the violence while focusing exclusively on alleged 'police brutality'.

This deliberate strategy seeks to improve their electoral fortunes. In effect, the Pan-Democrats are 'brothers in arms' and co-opted into the radicals playbook. It worked for them at the district council elections, as they scored a victory. 

Accordingly, we've seen Pan-Democrat legislators obstructing police operations by posing as 'mediators'. Yet, they withdraw once the rioting starts, but re-appear to offer legal support to those arrested. 

Let's face it. These protests and the violence was never about the extradition bill. The trigger could come from national education proposals, the national anthem law or anything with a Mainland context. The real roots of the unrest lie in a tangle of issues.

Topping that list is xenophobia against Mainlanders, a loss of identity and a lack of social mobility. While Hong Kongers perceived themselves as unique, especially the educated classes; now, increasingly, lumped-in with the rest of China, they don't like it. 

Then you have to note that Mainland students outperform the locals. Given the massive pool of Mainland talent, with their hunger for success and strong work-ethic, mediocre locals struggle.

This resentment has built up over decades, and increased after the failed 'Occupy Central' movement of 2014. Then riots at Chinese New Year 2016, should have alerted the government to simmering unrest below the surface. Those signals went unheeded. 

Early in the protests, the extradition bill went on ice. By suspending the bill on June 15 2019, Carrie Lam followed the precedence set in 2003 where then Chief Executive Tung suspended his security bill and let it lapse. But Carrie's failure to utter the word 'withdraw' then became the excuse to carry on with the protest.

When Carrie eventually 'withdrew' the bill on September 4 2019, the protesters soon pointed out there were four other unfulfilled demands. 'Investigate police abuse' became the rallying cry.

To boost their case, the opposition fabricated stories. The 'one-eyed' lady, rapes, secret prisons and a fairytale that Police murdered three protesters at Prince Edward station. That then became the justification for vandalising more than 40 train stations.

On September 11 2019, Pan-Democrat legislator Claudia MO presented so-called leaked information as supporting evidence for events at Prince Edward station. It was nothing of the sort. A few miscommunications don't constitute tangible evidence. 

Not a single family member or friend of the three unnamed dead people has ever come forward. In response, the opposition asserts that the families and friends have either been spirited away or intimidated into silence.

​When asked why a wider circle of families and friends haven't noticed, we further spiral down the rabbit hole. Folks, fit your tin-foil hats because we are now in crazy conspiracy-theory land.

You'd like to think that Claudia Mo, a former journalist, would be able to investigate and produce the evidence. Yet, she can't provide a sliver of corroboration to support her claim. The inescapable conclusion is simple: She is wrong.

Still, by repeating lies and half-truths, hundreds if not thousands of times, the misinformation campaign stirs the pot of hatred.

So what is the real motive of this dogged pursuit of 'police brutality' despite the general restraint demonstrated by the Hong Kong Police as compared to their Western peers? (Consider these reliability ratings — Hong Kong Police came sixth, the Brits 18th ahead of Saudi Arabia and the US is not even in the top twenty. No surprise.)

The real aim is to demoralise the Police Force and weaken it's resolve. Police officers have been under tremendous pressure. Front-line officers have to endure hours of profanities and violence by protesters and sympathisers. Reporters shadowed them, to record every move to find fault. 

Police personal information has been hacked and leaked on the internet. Their kids are bullied in school or even subject to a kidnap plot. Their accommodation was attacked with petrol bombs, while one off-duty police officer suffered a knife attack.

Unlike the protesters and rioters, police officers have no choice. They are duty-bound to carry out their jobs of law enforcement. Yet, it's striking that under the new Commissioner of Police, morale is steadfast. You can see that the campaign to demonise the Police has backfired, with officers melded together under a hail of bile and vitriol. 

We know that shared pain produces the 'social-glue' that fosters cohesion and solidity in groups. Claudia Mo and her crew need to study the law of unintended consequences. Relentless attacks on the Police are forging a stronger outfit.

Having said that, I have no issue with a commission of inquiry. I made that position clear months ago. But be ready for the consequences, as it may not give the expected outcome.

As Justice J.H. Gomery of Canada noted commissions of inquiry don't always give what the public want… "I can tell you that we got a tremendous amount of feedback from individual members of the public and the general theme was "when are you going to stop listening to witnesses and start putting people in jail."

Under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, the Chief Executive in Council may appoint one or more Commissioners "to inquire into the conduct or management of any public body, the conduct of any public officer or into any matter whatsoever which is, in his opinion, of public importance". 

That's a pretty broad remit. Thus anything can be subject to a commission of inquiry, which is part of the problem. Crucially, unless the terms of reference of the investigation are tight and applied with rigour, the process can become untenable. Retired Justice Henry Litton made that clear.

Assuming that the government can find a judge to do the job, which is not guaranteed, any findings won't be quick. The proceedings could bog down due to the legitimate desire of attorneys representing interested parties to ensure that the rights of their clients are protected. In essence, interventions and delays are the norms. 

And here is the crux of the matter, it's not certain that the evidence taken can be used in civil or criminal proceedings. No one goes to jail nor are sanctions imposed from a commission of inquiry. Although the investigation may name and shame, the right to representation and reply can blunt even that.

Use of evidence in civil and criminal proceedings

Evidence given by any person before the commission shall not be admissible against him in any civil or criminal proceedings by or against him, except where he is charged with any offence under Part V (Perjury) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) or is proceeded against under section 8 or 9.

So why have a commission of inquiry? Well, it can help clear the air by fact-finding. All the falsehoods, the crazy stories of 'ghost trains' and secret detention centres evaporate as the harsh light of reality shines. You've got to say that's a good thing. 

Finally, the inquiry can make recommendations, which coming from an independent and impartial source, free from political bias may assist in restoring public confidence. Given the polarisation in Hong Kong, you can see the merits of that process if people are prepared to be open to the findings. That remains a big 'if'. 

In fairness to the Police, who faced this awful situation due to Carrie Lam's blundering, a broader inquiry into the political aspects of events should run in parallel. After all, why should front-line police officers carry the can while senior officials remain beyond reproach? That would be a monumental injustice. 

That's why we won't see a commission of inquiry. Any parallel investigations into the role of officials, local politicians and those who instigated the violence will open a whole new can of worms. 

Also, there is an argument that giving in again is solving the wrong problem. Soon the cave-in will be denounced as insufficient or insincere — a replay of the same script. And how about the other demands? How could you please a crowd with an ever-shifting mood, influenced by the unpredictability of their social media feed? And who is there to represent the mob, when they claim the protest to be leaderless?

Meanwhile, a whole host of new factors are about to come into play. Unemployment, bankruptcies, declining property values and an economy in retreat. How does this pan out? 

So, while the government will stick to their line of 'no inquiry', the Pan-Democrats will continue to vent. And, I have no doubt, that will help them at the ballot box in the coming LegCo elections. 

​Thus anyone hoping for a return to a rational, peaceful Hong Kong, is sure to face disappointment.