Remorse
Hong Kong needs to give some serious and creative thought as to how best we, as a community, are going to draw a line under the events of 2019.
That this was a serious and sad episode in our history cannot be denied or avoided. Thousands of well-meaning ordinary individuals were drawn into joining public protest demonstrations, many for the first time in their lives. Whatever the merits or flaws of the extradition legislation and undoubted missteps in its political execution, and however genuine the motives of most demonstrators may have been, the fact is the situation spiralled out of control. Violence was practised on ordinary citizens – one was beaten up in the street for speaking Mandarin, one set on fire for daring to hold a different opinion, one killed by a brick – and on the police who we rely on to keep us safe. Hostile foreign forces saw an opportunity to exploit the trouble here to undermine our country. Hundreds were injured, many tens of millions of dollars of damage done to both public and private property.
When the dust finally settled and the violence had ceased, emotions gradually subsided. Where did it all leave us?
Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung recently gave a useful update in an interview with this newspaper. A total of 10,286 people of all ages had been arrested of whom just 2,978 have been charged with specific offences. That means over 7,000 remain in a kind of legal limbo. They have not been charged with any offence, but in theory their cases remain open because they have not been resolved. Although Tang did not say so explicitly, it may be inferred that those concerned remain on bail granted under the Police Force Ordinance. That means they are not incarcerated but are subject to various restrictions on their freedom, for example requirement to put up a surety and abide by reporting requirements, and sometimes restriction on travel.
Moreover although the bare numbers are large enough by themselves, they underestimate the full effect on stability and tranquillity of the community. For every person on long term bail, there is the larger family -- parents and siblings and children. Other indirect effects include a potential partner deterred from marriage by the prospect of the spouse’s ongoing scrutiny from the police, leading to children unborn; a career not pursued; a course of study not undertaken; a new business not opened. The total impact is large indeed.
Clearly this situation is unsatisfactory. Those in respect of whom there was strong evidence of a criminal offence must have been charged and brought before the courts already. Others may have run away to other countries before evidence against them could be found. So those that remain must, by definition, be those against whom there is no sufficient evidence to charge and bring before the court, and with no desire (or ability) to leave. What is to become of them bearing in mind they must all be presumed innocent. Tang mooted the idea that those arrestees who showed remorse could have their cases reviewed earlier. But it was unclear what these terms mean in practice. There was no indication of how exactly an individual should repent or show remorse; and what benefit that person would gain from the early review. These questions are worth exploring.
Start with the 7,000 in legal limbo. They have spent the last six years denying any involvement in criminal activity. To show remorse, one option might be to require them to confess, perhaps name others involved and promise to give evidence for the prosecution. What would those confessing receive in return? By itself an early review would not mean much if it meant immediate prosecution, so to make the deal attractive they would presumably look for a promise of no prosecution, or, at the very least, some kind of indication of a lighter penalty. It is not clear how credible such an offer would be bearing in mind the final decision would be up to the court. In any event, there must be a suspicion that all such tactics have been tried already and failed to work.
Each arrestee of course has the final power not to accept police bail, and instead to demand immediate unconditional release. That would invite the possibility of prompt laying of charges and incarceration pending a judicial decision on bail. So at the individual level it would be risky. But collectively? If all 7,000 went down this route simultaneously the court system would be overwhelmed.
But instead of looking for flaws or negatives in any such scheme I think we should spin round and look for a positive way forward. Hong Kong is right now engaged in preparation of its first five-year plan to spell out the development of the SAR. That plan must slot seamlessly into the five-year plan for the whole country. This effort is hugely important for our future and requires the undivided attention of the administration and the community at large.
How about a simple statement confirming that the individual has been reminded by the police of the importance of maintaining national security in the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. A signature to that effect and the case is closed.
That is not the same as an amnesty. It does not preclude re-arrest in the event further evidence comes to light of a previous heinous offence (a word deliberately borrowed from the police force amnesty of 1977) in future. A bold Tang could be tempted to devise such a formula to boost his statesmanlike credentials and enhance his prospects for more senior office. Or he could leave it to the incumbent John Lee Ka-chiu who pipped him last time.