Police must be held accountable for error

According to the local police bureau, the officer issuing the detention had been suspended for “inappropriate application of the law” and the local police branch was ordered to re- examine its policies to prevent a recurrence.

Complaining about the unappetizing but expensive dishes at a hospital’s canteen is a common practice for customers. However, the complaint was regarded as a “rumor” by the police and eventually led to the patient’s detention. Local police were wayward in the enforcement of the law. The random detention may have violated the justified right of supervision over the authorities.

It is a basic right for citizens to criticize and supervise the local government, celebrities, enterprises and other institutions via different platforms.

As long as it is not a malicious rumor or defamation, a complaint about a meal is justified supervision of the hospital. It is an effective way for customers to protect their rights. “I wanted to faint” at the scant amount of food in the meal, the customer complained. Even if the wording was too harsh, the event falls within the realm of civil disputes, in which the police have no right to interfere.

Allegations that hospital meals are insipid and overpriced are legitimate, as the hospital canteen acknowledged that it would modestly accept the criticism. Whether the meals are terrible depends on individual taste, and customers have the right to make judgments based on their own feelings. While the canteen was magnanimous in accepting the criticism, why did the police overreact to the complaint and even accuse the customer of “fabricating facts” and “disturbing social order?”

The local police’s attitude to the complaint is not surprising. On the surface, the police were wayward in the enforcement of the law, but in essence, they were craving for “performance” at the cost of customers’ rights.

Local television news had praised the police branch for having cracked down on two cases of “spreading falsehoods” and “disrupting public order” within the previous 100 days. Anxious for quick success and instant benefits, the police randomly detained the innocent netizen to bolster their performance.

In the era of the Internet, law- enforcement authorities should learn to squarely face negative remarks and be open to criticism. Undoubtedly, the detention is highly inappropriate, and the police should respond to public concerns. An accountability mechanism should be established to prevent similar cases from happening again.