With its heavy-handed treatment of social activists and sex workers, is Hong Kong’s police force in need of a sweeping reform? By June Ng.

 Two years ago, University of Hong Kong student Icarus Wong took part in the protest against the destruction of Wan Chai’s Wedding Card Street. After his arrest, the sociology student was humiliated by being strip-searched while in custody. On another occasion, sex worker Cammy, who went to the police after being assaulted and badly injured by a client, was told that it was impossible to prove that as a prostitute she hadn’t been paid in exchange for allowing the client to beat her. The police refused to investigate.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the widening rift between the police and the public. Complaints made against police officers jumped to 2,714 cases in 2008, a seven percent increase from 2007. Among those figures, 20 percent of the complaints were about officers’ attitudes, and 10 percent were about shirking their duties. A survey by the University of Hong Kong shows that the public’s dissatisfaction with the police has tripled between 2007 and 2008—the scandalous year in which a police constable was charged with raping a young woman inside a Mong Kok police station.

Law Yuk-kai, director of the Human Rights Monitor, believes that one of the reasons for the rise in complaints is due to an increasing transparency, better access to information and a greater awareness of our rights. However, he also expresses concern that the use of excessive force on protesters has risen since the appointment of Tang King-shing as Commissioner of Police two years ago. ”The police are using much tougher measures on protesters, and as such, tension has developed between the NGO activists and officers. Each side is pitted against the other, and both take the matter personally,” he says.

One area in which this stronger use of police force has become apparent is in how the police deal with violent protest. In the past, when there was a physical altercation between officers and protesters, the offending party would—at most—have been charged under Section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance, with a maximum fine of $5,000 and six months imprisonment. But now, the trend is to prosecute under the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Section 36 instead. This carries a much more serious charge and the offender can be imprisoned for up to two years.

As for the policy on performing searches on protesters, Law states that the current guidelines are inappropriate and open to abuse. At present, the detainee has to be searched every time he or she enters the temporary holding area. “This means that police have to search them every time they re-enter the cell block, even if they are accompanied by police officers the entire time. It also depends on the individual officer how detailed the search has to be,” he says. “Strip searching, once a security measure, has become a threat or a form of punishment.”

One reason for this is that the police guidelines on strip searches are very vague. According to the Police General Orders, a strip search may be performed if it’s approved by any officer ranking at Sergeant or above. However, there are no guidelines at all outlining what criteria deem a strip search necessary.

Ziteng is another NGO concerned about the abuses of power by police officers. A non-profit organization that protects the rights of sex workers, they receive regular complaints of police abusing their power during undercover operations. “The most common complaints are that sex workers are sexually harassed by the officers, who demand sexual services from handjobs to intercourse,” says Ziteng spokesperson Lam Yee-ling. “Also, because prostitution itself is technically legal in Hong Kong, policemen often try to arrest prostitutes for other offences in order to get a conviction, such as living off the proceeds of prostitution, a law initially passed to protect sex workers from pimps.” However, policemen participating in an undercover operation are actually permitted to seek sexual favors such as handjobs, so long as the officer applies to their seniors in advance. This, and the ease with which policemen can perform strip searches, are the kind of gray areas that lend legitimacy to some of the force’s shadier practices.

Previous calls for police reforms have so far fallen on deaf ears. In 1992, the Law Reform Commission submitted a recommendation to the government entitled Report On Arrest. It’s a paper outlining a number of recommendations regarding the law enforcement agencies’ power to stop, search, arrest and detain people, and other matters related to the exercise of such power. Since then, the government has tried to push the police to follow the recommendations, but in reality, neither the government, nor any other group for that matter, has the power to make the police follow any reforms put to them. As of 2004, recommendations such as drafting a list of instances when the police can exercise power of arrest for non-imprisonable offences, have remained “under consideration.” The police refused to comment on our enquiries as to whether progress has been made since then.

Legislator Ronny Tong believes that the police are too defensive when they hear complaints from the public, and therefore turn down many suggestions when it comes to the rights of prisoners, for instance, allowing detainees to have family, priests or lawyers present during a strip search. “The government should do more to define what’s right and wrong in the police force, and use legislation to protect us,” he says. “It’s not just about setting clearer boundaries to the police; we need to implement a framework to ensure that officers are actually following the orders in the right way.”

Another shortcoming is the way in which complaints against the police are logged. Currently, the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) handles the investigation of all complaints and allegations of crime made against a police officer or civilian attached to the police force. However, as CAPO is a police department itself, its impartiality is in doubt. Legislator James To, who’s also the chairman of the Security Panel, says that he has never believed in the system. “We should scrap CAPO and form an independent body to lead these investigations,” he says.

Law, from the Human Rights Monitor echoes this opinion, saying that the practice of police officers investigating their own peers allows for a lot of cover-ups. While the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) does exist, it has no legal or investigative power. “Right now, all we can do is say when we’re not satisfied with the conclusion of an investigation and ask them to look again if we find inconsistencies,” says IPCC vice-chairman Joseph Lee. “We can’t really help with the police’s deeper problems.” But the IPCC will turn statutory from June 1, and while the council will still have no investigative or judiciary power, at least it can demand greater transparency from CAPO. “It’s better than nothing,” says Lee. “Currently, CAPO can deny us requested information, but once we turn statutory, they’ll be legally bound to submit requested documents to us.”

Tensions are running high this year. June 4 will mark the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and this, coupled with the economic crisis means that emotions are likely to spill onto the streets. To believes that the police crackdown on protesters is due to the government’s attempt to mute our protests, warning people not to get confrontational. But he worries that this plan might backfire. “We have 27,000 police officers, and hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs or their savings in the past year. Society has so many grievances, and one small trigger could lead to the situation getting out of hand. The police should loosen their grip and allow people to release their anger.”