Who benefits from activist’s ‘ordeal’?

Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu on Monday told reporters that investigators had not found any evidence supporting the abduction and torment claims by Democratic Party (DP) member Howard Lam Tsz-kin over the weekend. He added that Lam would not attend a scheduled meeting with police investigators on Monday afternoon but police would continue investigating the case. Not surprisingly, Lam soon explained on social media that he was too tired to answer police questions and accused the police of “unfair treatment” by “leaking” information potentially damaging his credibility. The fact is people needed no “leaks” to be suspicious of his story or character.

This bizarre incident has no doubt grabbed public attention, but Lam has provided nothing worthwhile to police investigators or convince Hong Kong society of his story. One can see many holes in Lam’s tale of pain and confusion that simply cannot be fixed. Even more unbelievable is the way DP leaders, who are practicing lawyers no less, chose to take Lam’s words without a slight doubt and held a press conference with Lam instead of sending the injured man to hospital for treatment and alerting the police as soon as he contacted them.

Ever since the sensational story broke many people have raised questions on social media concerning Lam’s thrilling account of being abducted by Putonghua-speaking men in broad daylight in busy Mong Kok, taken to an unknown place and tormented for some “political activities” he claimed to have been involved in before being dumped in Sai Kung. The most popular questions include why he decided against calling the police as soon as he came to and realized his phone was intact; why he went back home, showered, dined and went to bed instead of seeking medical attention for staples still stuck in his legs despite the shower and other movements; and why he washed the clothes he was wearing throughout the “ordeal” instead of giving them to police as evidence.

There are quite a few more questions raised by ordinary netizens and analysts alike regarding Lam’s inconceivably illpresented misadventure, but most people cannot but marvel at how timely it was for such a fantastic excuse to fall right in the opposition’s laps, literally, when it needed “facts” to back its “fear” for the integrity of Hong Kong’s rule of law when the colocation arrangement at the West Kowloon terminus for the cross-boundary express rail link takes effect next year. In that sense it has been an epic blunder on the DP’s part to completely ignore the law-enforcement authorities to begin with and refuse to fully cooperate with the police afterwards. One has to wonder what exactly the DP, or the whole opposition camp for that matter, intends to gain from Lam’s story?