Talk:Hong Kong Police Force

No references

The fact that this article cites no references that I can see holds it to B class, it is otherwise a very good, informative article.--SGGH 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Ach. I find it amusing to edit this page.

Revert

Everytime I try to add/edit some objective content with respect to a truly subjective perspective, there must be someone who revert the edits and render this page full of discontent to the HKPF.

Like what?

Content like the charge does not necessarily be convictive. The decision has to be made in the courts.

would become It should be noticed that such charges (and most criminal chrages being brought by HKP) are usually convictive as the defendants are not properly represented in courts, mostly due to high legal costs.

I sometimes wonder, where comes the evidence? And even so, is it authoritative?

Soul1337 15:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Nazi logo

Khdfyh9t added Nazi logo over the HKPF's logo (I'm too green to know what to do about it).

jermdeeks 20:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the image (clear your browser's cache), protected the image, and banned the account as one created solely for the purpose of vandalism. Func( t, c, @, ) 20:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Legal Cost in Hong Kong

I wonder whether you have ever tried to get access to Hong Kong Legal Services - the man-hour cost of legal representation is one of the highest over the developed countries. At the meanwhile legal Aid is mean-tested with tight income caps and half of the defendants are being forced to defend themselves on various levels of courts.

The court is authorised to exempt you from mean testing, but only if you are unfortunate enough to be charged with murder, high treason or piracy [1].

I wonder given the enormous power being held by the state against a member public, who is being denied for legal aid and therefore forced to defence him/herself in law court, can it be constitute a proper way to carry out justice? If someone being convicted only because of lacking legal representation as he/she cannot pass the mean-test, can we call it "justice has been done"?

ID cards

This power is generally considered controversial. Whether or not Suspicious manner is solely on the determination of the police officer, and members of public in blonde hair, 'suspicious' dress style, new immigrants who don't look like locals, and ethnic minorities are much more likely subject to intimidation by rogue police officers. However, in the book Criminal Procedure in Hong Kong (Published by Longman, ISBN 962-00-4013-9), the writer suggested that the police officer must be able to articulate how the person was behaving such that it could be reasonbly suspicious. Also to note is that-

the only things police are authorized to do by s54 PFO is to seek production of proof of identity, detain for a reasonble period while police records enquiries are bing made, and search only as appropriate. Quite litmited search powers only may be exercised under S54 PFO.

(Page 23, Criminal Procedure in Hong Kong)

Don't you think that statement Quite litmited search powers only may be exercised under S54 PFO. is too ideal? In fact in order to get one in trouble, the police officer can simply land him/her an arrestable offence (e.g. "obstructing police operation") and the whole story will be different.

In fact HKP police officer has vested so much power on their own discretion without accountability - remember in such case they are the one who decide who is "reasonably suspicious" without the need to answer / explain it to anybody except him/herself.

Partial quotation(s) from the textbook can never be a true reflection of the reality.

Removed content

I've removed the following material because it seems like one long rant, probably from a Falun Gong sympathizer. I have nothing against Falun Gong, but WP is not the place for these kinds of tirades. --Lee Hunter 02:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) <begin edited content>

n the surface many perceive that local residents trust and respect the police force since the locals often call a police officer (even police constables) "Ah Sir" or "Madam". However such "trust" and "respect" to the Hong Kong Police could be only due to the fear injected into the local population by their brutal way of policing, which is comparable to their counterparts in police states. A "distrust" and "disrespectful" attitude to a police officer could immediately lead to a charge of "obstructing police operation", which is used casually as a tool to bully members of public.

It should be noticed that the conviction rates of charges brought by HKP are exceptionally high, due to their expertise on abusing court procedures and fabricating (or destroying evidence). Their "expertise" is confirmed by an ICAC officer, who is in charge of investigation of police-related corruption cases, in a testimonial during an interview by local media ([2] Traditional Chinese website). Not to say suspects are usually not properly represented in courts, mostly due to high legal costs and lack of available legal aid.

Thus local residents, especially those in working class, refer to the police officers as "licensed thugs" (有牌爛仔 ) privately. Indeed, many members of the force do have some improper behaviors. A book published by the Police fellowship revealed that foul language is prevalence, and habitual gambling is wildspread. Most police officers speak English with a heavy local accent (It is worth noting, however, that the degree of the accent depends on the English Proficiency of that officer. Some could speak well) and fluent Cantonese. Some also speak Putonghua.

" Accountability "

The Hong Kong Police has nearly no accountability at all. Unlike their counterpart in democratic countries like United Kingdom where all regional police forces are being governed by a police authority which consists of elected local councilors and local members of public, HKP only reports to the Security Bureau of HKSAR government, headed by appointed civil servants. Members of public have no influence on their local policing policy, and at the meanwhile HKSAR government is not being formed by any democratic mean.

Complains to police are NOT being conducted by an independent body but only by Complaints against Police Office (CAPO), which is part of the HKP institution (Chapter 26, Police General Orders [3]. The Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) is being setup to independently review every case handled by CAPO.

" Human Rights Abuses "

On a lesser level, the abuse of search warrant (issued by magistrates) in raiding (aka Snap Checks) nightclubs are not uncommon and famous for their "fun-spoiler" status, which turned out only gaining resentment across the clubbing community.

Heavy-handed and extremely violent tactics is being used on peaceful protesters (see photos [4] [5]. There the HKP PTU Z-Company members applied the hypoglossal nerve pressure technique that causes pain to the person to overcome resistance against arrest.) who either protest against local government's policy, or causing embarrassment to the central government of Communist China (e.g. Falun Gong).

There are sayings that the HKP's suboridination to the HKSAR government is the very fact that HKP has to use forces on protestors in a bid to maintain their status or, to a lesser extent, avoid being rebuked by the government. It is also said that the use of tactics are being instructed by the highest hierarchy of government, which is politically motivated.

Suspects are often subjected to the use of torture or perhaps to bluff suspects with charges in order to obtain confessions. Cases on torture and death in custody [6], while increasing in numbers, are not being properly investigated even in face of heavy criticism by United Nations Commission on Human Rights ([7]Chinese language version). At the meanwhile violent police officers involved are let go lightly by court [8], assisted by prosecution who intentionally NOT to treat such cases seriously.

After the riot in 1967, HKP gained a sweeping power for its officers to stop the person for the purpose of demanding that he produce proof of his identity for inspection by the police office, when he/she finds any person in any street or other public place, or on board any vessel, or in any conveyance, at any hour of the day or night, who acts in a suspicious manner (Cap 232 s 54 Police Force Ordinance(PFO), see [9]for details.).

This power is generally considered controversial. Whether or not Suspicious manner is solely on the determination of the police officer, and members of public in blonde hair, 'suspicious' dress style, new immigrants who don't look like locals, and ethnic minorities are much more likely subject to intimidation by rogue police officers. However, in the book Criminal Procedure in Hong Kong (Published by Longman, ISBN 962-00-4013-9), the writer suggested that the police officer must be able to articulate how the person was behaving such that it could be reasonbly suspicious. Also to note is that-

the only things police are authorized to do by s54 PFO is to seek production of proof of identity, detain for a reasonble period while police records enquiries are bing made, and search only as appropriate. Quite litmited search powers only may be exercised under S54 PFO.

(Page 23, Criminal Procedure in Hong Kong)

Compliants being made to CAPO are being handled casually and outcomes are mostly biased towards HKP. While the official mission of Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) is to independently review every case handled by, in fact it only acts as a de facto rubber stamp - it has no investigative power, nor even hear appeals to CAPO rulings. The rulings of CAPO is seldom being challenged by IPCC.

Calls for reform [10], from both local non-government organisations, political parties as well as the UNCHR, have gone into deaf ears of HKSAR government. These calls are strongly opposed by the police officer trade unions, who view civil liberty and human rights with utter contempt from the very beginning.

<end edited content>

Licensed Thugs

The term "Licensed Thugs" (有牌爛仔) has no POV issue, is a matter of fact where many people who are being harassed by rogue police officers.\

And also please don't simply delete those you "thought" there is a POV issue - leave it, discuss it instead of simply remove it in sense similar to big mama.

The material I removed above is largely a POV rant with many sweeping general statements that can't possibly be supported. I have no problem with well-documented criticisms but you have to do better than quoting Chinese language websites (which can't be verified by the English editors of this encyclopedia) or Falun Gong sites (which obviously have an agenda). --Lee Hunter 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with "thinking" it was POV. It blatantly was POV, and therefore Lee was perfectly justified in removing it. This is an encyclopaedia. It provides hard fact. There are other places for rants and opinions. -- Necrothesp 18:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sheer radical POV. Had better delete. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is Lee Hunter is advocating censorship here by protraying only the positive side of HKP and filtering out everything which deemed to be negative

Lee Hunter and all other users must come clean on whether you're a big mama who is responsible for such censorship activities.

I might be a skinny papa but I'm not a big mama. :) Believe me, I couldn't care less about the reputation of the Hong Kong Police, but anything that goes into this article must be properly sourced. If there are human rights violations, quote sources like Amnesty International and I promise that I won't remove it. But you can't just put it stuff that you heard on the street or that "everyone knows". It's not encyclopedic. --Lee Hunter 17:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to prove I'm not a big mama I've added an example of a sourced (Amnesty International) criticism of the force.--Lee Hunter 17:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not Chinese and I personally couldn't give a monkey's about the reputation of the HKP. But I do care about whether Wikipedia gives information or opinion, and the stuff that was removed was a blatant unsubstantiated rant. There are plenty of websites for ranting on; many that welcome it in fact. This is not one of them and your opinion is not fact. -- Necrothesp 20:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whitewash in the name of NPOV

I wonder who is responsible to judgewhat is NPOV in this page. It is outrages that a non-Chinese who have no local knowledge, Necrothesp, acting as a (pretentious English) judge on ruling what is NPOV and what is not.

Necrothesp, you're not Chinese, you're not Hong-Konger, you have no local knowledge on this topic so it is entire inappropriate for you to judge what is NPOV in this page or what is not.

Or should I say now English don't care about human right abuses in other places because they simply locked terrorist suspect in their own home without trial. Sort of British version of Guantanamo Bay, huh?

Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone in the world. Race and nationality should be irrelevant. Local knowledge can be helpful to someone editing a topic, but the editorial guidelines are very clear that the actual content *must* be based entirely on verifiable third party sources. The material that was removed was not well-sourced and amounted to nothing more than a lengthy rant about police brutality. If police brutality is as common and widespread as was written, simply provide some reliable, independent sources to substantiate this claim. However, if you're simply looking for a platform where you can express your disapproval of the police you should just create your own web site. --Lee Hunter 29 June 2005 15:59 (UTC)

I really think you should examine Wikipedia's policies and aims before you instruct me as to what it is appropriate for me to edit and what is or is not NPOV. It is not necessary to have local knowledge to know what is and is not a rant. Neither is it necessary to have local knowledge in order to copyedit an article in my own language - you are reverting everything because a few revisions do not conform to your own political views. -- Necrothesp 29 June 2005 16:46 (UTC)

"licensed thugs" (有牌爛仔 )

The term "licensed thugs" (有牌爛仔 ) could be added back to the article, as it is a common derogatory nickname and it reflects the "bad old days" of the HK police force. For other human right issues, it is just as common as that of other police forces. -wshun 04:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Opinion, Not Encyclopedic Knowledge

Stuff like HK being "the safest in the world" isn't substantiated, nor can it be proven. Safest according to what parameters? i love Hong Kong but this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Also, asking "Reasons?" when beginning to elaborate on corruption is not in keeping with encyclopedic style, where the authors are supposed to be authoritative and therefore needn't ask questions.

firearms

What models of firearms are used by the HK police?

They still use the good old revolver.......S&W Model 10 i think --124.177.179.74 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And last week when I was talking to an officer on the street I noticed that his revolver still bears the stamping RHKP on the grip! Still using ROYAL Hong Kong Police firearms obviously.Tom M. 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar to the case of bank notes and coins issued before 1997 bearing the image of QE2 still in circulation. Medals and ribbons conferred by the British Souvereign before the re-unification are still authorized for wearing on uniform. As regards firearms - S&W Model 10 Heavy Barrel for normal uniformed duties. Colt Detective Specials (1970's variant)by detectives, to be replaced by SIG Sauer P250 Dcc (9mm) in mid 2007. Glock 17s are used by special units. Other firearms currently in use are H&K MP5s (both full-auto and semi-auto), Colt AR15s, Remington 870s, Knights Armament M4s plus a number of different sniper rifles (WilsonC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhongkongpolicelogo.png

Image:Rhongkongpolicelogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong equipment

Hong Kong police don't use Beretta and Walter pistols. I have deleted your mistakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.193.160 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal HK PF

The Royal crest should be added to the history section. 70.51.9.25 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Major history missing

Hong Kong's police force was notoriously corrupt in the 60s and 70s, until ICAC was established. ICAC's establishment almost caused a police rebellion in Hong Kong as well, but this is not mentioned in the article. Perhaps someone needs to add this in. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! Finally, way down here near the bottom, somebody has a sensible thing to say! This article is a shambles.

Added NPOV tag

The current introduction of this article gushes on and on about how professional, well-respected, etc. the Hong Kong Police Force is. I have no doubt this is the case, but the language goes beyond a neutral point of view, with no objective citations to support it. From what I can tell, most of the citations are from the official Hong Kong Police Force and Hong Kong Government websites.

Gordon Jones (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)