China Daily (Hong Kong)

Those ‘glory days’ — and ongoing dirty political games

- Contact the writer at azamkhan@chinadaily­hk.com

The charges of ‘excessive brutality’ leveled against HK’s police force today pale in comparison to those seen during the city’s 1967 uprising against British imperialis­m and colonial rule. A retired police superinten­dent tells Azam Khan the flames are being fanned by online influencer­s out to show hatred and hysteria in the community.

Not since the summer of 1967 when a revolt against British colonial rule claimed the lives of 51 protesters and policemen has Hong Kong been rocked by turmoil and riots similar to those of 2019, lingering for months.

Retired superinten­dent James Elms was a front-line police officer back in 1967.

Protesters arrested back then were subject to beatings when caught and again more back at the station, said Elms. “That was the practice by the colonial force.”

Virtually no transparen­cy on the brutality of then-British authority, coupled with a desperate Chinese labor force pushed to the brink with no rights, culminated in a violent summer of 1967.

“I cracked some skulls, fired live rounds and was cornered and beaten up by rioters back then. We did things to imprisoned rioters back at the station, which would horrify society today.”

At the age of 77, British national and Eurasian, Elms looks like he could still lace up his retired boots, and keep order on the front lines. Today, he takes a different view of the current situation.

“People talk about the current police being ‘brutal’ ”, he continued. “I mean we were 10 times more brutal under British colonial force in Hong Kong. I know because I was a part of that brutality. At the end of it, we were given the title ‘Royal’ by Her Majesty’s government; not for being brutal but for being steadfast, loyal and courageous. But my young colleagues today are being called brutal after being brutalized themselves. They’re being castigated by many, including the British government. Why? China is the common factor. In 1967, we were against China. In 2019, we represent China.”

A look back to 1967

Fifteen of the victims were killed in bomb attacks during the 1967 uprising. Thousands were arrested, many of them under 18, recalled Elms, who participat­ed in the arrests. Over 30 years later, many in Hong Kong are still not familiar with what exactly transpired in 1967.

He recalls, workers were mistreated at factories, and many lived, in effect, in an apartheid state. Hong Kong police force at that time had many local Chinese, among other ethnic groups, subjugate their own compatriot­s.

“I did what I thought was right, it was just between you and I, and that was that,” he said.

Elms is the current chairman of the 1967 Witness Assembly, an organizati­on which tries to bring to light the stories of those involved in the 1967 crisis. The uprising began over a series of labor disputes, which soon exploded into widespread revolt in opposition to British colonial rule.

“Some people feel the black mark from Hong Kong’s past should remain in the past. People don’t want to rake the ashes, because everything has been so good for so many years,” he said. Others have a direct interest in leaving the past behind.

Today, teachers are not obliged to discuss the 1967 riots. All sides involved, back in 1967, prefer to not talk about it. Elms says that for years, he’s been mentoring the youth and next generation who join the police force, and when he brought up 1967, most of them “drew a blank”.

In the past years, Hong Kong has routinely ranked at the top of every major human freedom index. The World Economic Forum Global Competitiv­eness Report for Police Reliabilit­y had Hong Kong ranked sixth, behind the Scandinavi­an countries, in 2018.

But over the past summer, the Hong Kong Police Force has been subjected to vilificati­on, beginning with opposition elements of Hong Kong society all the way to Western media. The city saw its once unsullied, shining police tarnished, fuelled by viral clips of police response to hard-line rioters. The retired superinten­dent thinks the criticism has been unfair.

“Which police force dealing with which riot has acted with as much restraint as my young colleagues now have?” he calmly explains. “… Or, overtime, did not overreact? It’s human nature. You got to be in there and be a part of it. I know, because I was in there I was once part of it. ‘Love’ and ‘hate’ are both four letter words, and they’re interchang­eable. One moment you sympathize with people, the next moment you hate their guts.”

According to Elms, even back in 1967, many policemen sympathize­d with the workers, initially, because they were workers too. Like the factory workers, they often got the raw end of the deal from their masters.

Elms believes things have gotten dirty this time round, only it may have crossed the frontier, entering a deplorable state. He noted striking difference­s between the events of 1967 and the bitter battles of today, with even the families of police officers becoming targets. Elms cites several reasons why he believes things have changed.

“Back then, I had a feeling that I was a warrior and the other guy was a warrior and we were doing our duty, and there was no dealing with the family or anything. It was all on the field of conflict. There was a certain … unwritten chivalry. The chivalry is not always there now. There’s too much underhande­d stuff, hysteria fuelled by echo chambers online and other dirty political games.”

According to Elms, the rioters targeting the police family residences back in August crossed a huge line. Something he had not seen happen even back in 1967.

Elms wonders whether more widespread awareness of what transpired would affect today’s frequent calls, by people in the opposition camp recalling Hong Kong’s “glory days” under the rule of the then-British authoritie­s.

The flags used during that period are a staple of the anti-government protest today and one was infamously hoisted inside the Legislativ­e Council chamber by rioters, back in July.

There’s no debate that subsequent to 1967, society was profoundly unequal, with minimal freedoms, or representa­tion of any kind if you were Chinese, Elms observed.

This time round, the “five demands” chanted by protesters who often resort to violence look unlikely to bring about political changes.

“The demands are more emphatic and vaguer, in certain areas,” he said. “You talk about ‘democracy’, I don’t know why they would talk about democracy. There’s certainly much more democracy now than there was under British rule. I don’t know if they really know what they want, as a collective.”

Solutions for the future

“About the current situation”, Elms said: “I feel like we may have a disconnect from more than a generation, dating back to 1997. Things were overlooked and allowed to fester.”

The retired superinten­dent recognizes there’s hatred out there, and the flames are being repetitive­ly fanned by online influencer­s.

The reality of Hong Kong as a distinctiv­e economic and social icon has been gradually eroding for years now. It struggles to pivot from its purpose, serving as a financial hub.

Going forward, are there workable solutions for rehabilita­tion of trust between the police and the community at large? Elms can remark only apropos of the past. After 1967, the police shifted toward community relations. They implemente­d police community relations officers, promoted more interactio­ns with school kids; it was a general outward push toward the community. Perhaps, he believes, a similar tack is worth a try.

What has all this to do with the city youth today? They will be relied on to right the vessel. Elms, like many, agrees that there are many legitimate issues that need to be addressed in the form of government policies, for example, the outof-reach housing affordabil­ity. But in his view, it also raises concern that the protesters might be risking allowing hysteria and impractica­lity to take root in the city.

My young colleagues today are being called brutal after being brutalized themselves. They’re being castigated by many, including the British government. Why? ... In 1967, we were against China. In 2019, we represent China.”

James Elms, retired superinten­dent

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China