|
Human Rights Issues -- April 2002
Police policy on installation of closed-circuit television
systems at Lan Kwai
Fong (April 9, 2002)
Police employ excessive force to stop the public meeting (April 25, 2002) (Article 21)
Use of handcuffs to calm down reporters (April 25, 2002) (Article 19)
Police policy on installation of closed-circuit television systems at Lan
Kwai
Fong (April 9, 2002)
The Security Bureau of Hong Kong SAR Government considered to install of Close
Circuit Television System (CCTV) in a few public locations. The government claimed
that the plan is part of the Police's public order and security management system
for the purpose of sustaining Hong Kong as one of the world's safest and most
stable societies. The Police Force has been using temporary CCTV to assist crowd
control
operations at selected locations in order to enhance public safety during major
festivals and events. However, the proposed pilot scheme last for six months
for 24-hour and the Government would extend the scheme to another location if
it was found successful.
However, legislators generally opposed the scheme. Democrat legislator Mr.
CHEUNG Man-kong argued that as mentioned by the Government document, Lan Kwai
Fong was a safe place with low crime rate, which showed not necessary for introducing
the scheme. He spectacled the motive for installation of the CCTV at public
place and worried that it would cause the whole society under full surveillance
by the Government. Legislator of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment
of Hong Kong, Mr. LAU Kwok-wah, also worried that everywhere would be under
surveillance, while Ms. CHOW Leung Suk-yee, the Legislator of Liberal Party,
commented that citizens enjoyed their freedom in public places that no one would
like to be videotaped every minute at every place. Under the strong opposition
from the society, the Police agreed to adjourn the scheme.
Police employ excessive force to stop the public meeting (April 25, 2002) (Article 21)
In order to seek for discretion to staying at Hong Kong, more than 100 abode-right
seekers and their relatives staged at the Charter Garden since March 2002. On
April 26, the Government assigned over 300 police officers to the Garden and
terminated the meeting in accordance with section 9 of the public order ordinance
(Cap. 245). The Police claimed that as some over-stayers have been participating
in the public assembly, the Commissioner of Police may prohibit the holding
of the public meeting.
It was the first time that the Government to terminate the public meeting by using public order ordinance.
Hong Kong Human Rights Commission condemned the Police for employing excessive
force to terminate the assembly and queried whether the Commissioner of Police
had sufficient reasons to argue the meeting was related to in the interests
of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.
Use of handcuffs to calm down reporters (April 25, 2002) (Article 19)
Besides, before taking any action, the police had prepared a designated area for the reporters. However, it was too distant from the area of the incident happened that the reporters resisted to stay at there. Two of the reporters, including photographer of the Cable TV and the reports of Mingpao, were handcuffed by the police and moved into the designated area. The Commissioner of Police commented that it was normal and reasonable practice to employ the handcuffs whenever conflicts occurred.
On the other hand, there are wide spreading criticisms from the journalists and human rights groups. The Hong Kong Journalist Association condemned for the police to employ excessive power to the reporters which destroyed the freedom of press. Moreover, both Cable TV and Minpao news declared that they strongly condemned the police's actions and the police should regret on it.
Moreover, Mr. HO Hei-wah, the chairperson of the Hong Kong Human Rights Commission,
commented that handcuffs could only be used on person with violent behavior
and it was definitely inappropriate to employ on the reporters who merely enforced
their duties.