tim's experiment

Well it seems almost everyone concerned now agrees that using teargas on peaceful protesters was a mistake. This brings us to an interesting question: who is going to get the blame? The Post’s compendious exploration of the subject, the work of no less than four reporters, was populated by a surprising number of anonymous people.
An unnamed government spokesman was quoted as explaining that the riot police had been withdrawn because people had calmed down, which was a funny way of putting it. Another anonymity, dubbed only “the source” (may the source be with you, political reporters) said that top officials had discussed how to ease the tension and noticed that the situation was less fraught in places where tear gas had not been used. So in this version the riot police were not withdrawn because people had calmed down, but because the tear gas barrage was stirring them up.

This suggests that we may feel a certain anxiety about the career prospects of the commander at the scene, who was also among those not named. A rare person with a name, Police assistant commissioner Cheung Tak-hei, said the commander at the scene “decided to use tear gas and the force deemed it appropriate at the time”. I take this to mean that the man on the spot asked his superiors for permission before giving the fatal order. Mr Cheung presented the barrage as a safety measure: “After repeated warnings police used the minimum force in order to maintain a distance between the protestors and the police so as to prevent injury. We used pepper spray, but the situation did not improve, so that was why we used tear gas.” This is a puzzling version. There seems no reason on the face of it why not having a distance between the protesters and police should be dangerous, at least to the police. I realise the police may not have a ready-made banner for this purpose but I would have thought that a loud request to leave a bit of space might have been tried. One notes also that tear gas was fired no less than 87 times. This seems a lot of gas if, as Mr Cheung conceded, the gas was “ineffective”. We are also left to wonder why this simple tactical explanation was not offered on the night of the outrage by the Commissioner of Police, whose explanation then was that police were “resuming social order”. This is important because it seems the decision was widely shared. According to “the government source” the Chief Executive and the Commissioner of Police were “informed of the decision”, presumably before it was implemented.

Clearly both of these people could, had they thought fit, have asked the commander to think again, or if so minded ordered him to keep his tear gas to himself. According to our source “The Chief Executive was of the view that it was better not to use tear gas on the protesters. But he respected the judgment made by the commander on the scene.” This is the sort of weasel explanation we expect from the Chief Executive in person – he was against it but he was for it… The underlying message, though, is clear. Mr C.Y. Leung was asked. He could have said “no” or “yes”. He said “yes”.  He consented. No wonder people want him to resign. Actually it seems a variety of motives were at work here. The commander on the spot thought he was in danger of being pushed backwards into Central, a fear which may have been justified. The Commissioner of Police wanted to assert the Force’s right to control the streets, which does not justify instant collective punishment. If the police think people are breaking the law they should arrest them. That is the way our legal system works. As for the Chief Executive, who knows? There is a price to be paid for predicting six months in advance that protests will lead to violence, if your side is the one which cuts loose with the chemical weapons. Were there is some small corner of Mr Leung’s brain a few cells leaping up and down below conscious thought level saying “this will show them I was right”?

No doubt this matter will be subject to further exploration. During that process I hope someone will ask Mr Cheung what he implied by the term “minimum force”. Does this mean that the police had some further goodies which they might have unleashed on harmless citizens if they had not been so Gandhian in their self-restraint. Were we spared only by the nameless pacifist at the scene from rubber bullets, real bullets…? What is the maximum level of force which the police feel appropriate for use against peaceful protesters? I’m not sure I want to know the answer to that question.