Policing the post-conflict society in Covid-19: security and social control in Hong Kong
The prolonged civil unrest in Hong Kong since June 2019 has drawn the attention of international media to China’s special administrative region. Reports and commentaries on policing episodes in Hong Kong have appeared in the headlines of most well-circulated newspapers. Hong Kong has been in the per...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Routledge international handbook of policing crises and emergencies
Year: 2025, Pages: 310-322 |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Summary: | The prolonged civil unrest in Hong Kong since June 2019 has drawn the attention of international media to China’s special administrative region. Reports and commentaries on policing episodes in Hong Kong have appeared in the headlines of most well-circulated newspapers. Hong Kong has been in the period of the ‘extraordinary’: territory-wide social disorder, confrontation between police and civil societies, and a drastic drop of public trust towards the government. Three issues frequently addressed in policing studies - legitimacy and accountability, protest management, and criminal procedural justice - gradually emerged as topical agenda in the territories. The Beijing authorities reshaped the political landscape of the SAR in early 2020. Her party leadership in Hong Kong was realigned, the line of commands of SAR’s security establishment and officials was re-institutionalised, and most importantly, the Hong Kong version of National Security Law (NSL) was promulgated, embedded to the Hong Kong Basic Law, and put into effect on 1 July 2020. The policing context in Hong Kong has been substantially changed. The ‘abnormality’ of Hong Kong was further plagued by the outbreak of a public health crisis in January 2020. The key strategy of the Hong Kong government was to contain Covid-19 by the partial lockdown of the city. Public services were suspended, facilities were closed, residents’ returnees were quarantined, and individuals deemed ‘high-risk’ because of prior contact with confirmed patients were taken to centralised quarantine facilities for medical observation and virus tests during the incubation period. A social distancing order was enacted after a substantial increase in the number of infections, prohibiting all forms of gathering for more than four people in public areas. Violations would be subject to fixed penalty, prosecution for a larger fine, and even immediate imprisonment. Enforcers of these measures included medical professionals, paramedics, civilian health and hygiene officers, and volunteers; however, the police, who are the most empowered unit, were still the backbone. In a society with public doubt towards the regime and police, the Covid-19 pandemic has all but added fuel to the scorch by embedding the force within the enforcement mechanisms of public health regulations. Set against this background, this chapter aims at unpacking the paradox that perhaps most non-Asian scholars and practitioners would be interested in: What are the changes of policing institutions during the pandemic? How does the regime empower the police to manage anti-epidemic measures? Why, under continual legitimacy crisis, do citizens still appear to be obedient to stringent Covid-19 legislations? |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 320-322 |
| ISBN: | 9781032207872 |
