Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Survey

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Order Policing in Hong Kong

  • 395 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter investigates how the general public in Hong Kong think and feel about confrontation, social conflicts and the Mongkok Riot (MKR). It is based on public surveys. These cover a range of issues concerning the conduct, impact and fallout of the MKR, including views on social conflicts, police violence and participants’ use of force, for example. The chapter is organized into four parts. Sections I to III report on three surveys (listed below); Section IV draws conclusions about what we have learned. The surveys are:

  1. (1)

    “MK Police and Citizen Confrontation Survey” (旺角警民衝突) (February 11–14, 2016). Commissioned by Third Side (新思維).

  2. (2)

    “Survey of Views on Social Conflict in Hong Kong” (April 6, 2016) by CUHK.

  3. (3)

    “MK Incident Opinion Survey Report” (旺角事件意見調查報)Commissioned by Future@Hong Kong (未來@香港).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Third Side Party was first established on January 7, 2015. “Third Side (Chinese: 新思維) is a ‘middle-of-the-road’ political party in Hong Kong. Headed by former Democrats Tik Chi-yuen and Wong Sing-chi, the party claimed to offer an alternative “moderate approach” in the increasingly polarized politics between the pan-democracy camp and the pro-Beijing camp.” Third Side Web.

  2. 2.

    Tabulation of survey findings to “Survey of Views on Social Conflict in Hong Kong”.

  3. 3.

    旺角事件意見調查報告(MK Incident Opinion Survey Report)—呈交未來@香港嶺南大學公共管治研究部 submitted to Future@Hong Kong by Lingnan University Public Governance Programme) 2016年4月(April 4, 2016) (Report.)

  4. 4.

    There are few ways in which to find out how many civilians were injured, except by using hospital records. Even then, it is clear that many people, especially protestors, preferred not to seek medical help. Gary Cheung, image Mong Kok riot. “‘An inquiry into the Mong Kok riot would only create a new battleground’: former Central Policy Unit chief compares Star Ferry and Hong Kong riots,” SCMP February 16, 2016 (In the Mong Kok unrest, about 130 people, including 90 police officers, were injured.).

  5. 5.

    I thank Professor Victor Zheng, Principal Investigator for this research at HKIAPS, Chinese University for permitting “Survey Findings on Views on Social Conflict in Hong Kong” (2016) to be used for (re)analyzing and reporting of findings for this book project. (E-mail permission dated June 22, 2016 is on file with author).

  6. 6.

    “Survey Findings on Views on Social Conflict in Hong Kong”. Released by Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at CUHK (April 6, 2016).

  7. 7.

    “Survey Findings on Views on Social Conflict in Hong Kong” (2017). Released by Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at CUHK (August 1, 2017). (Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, CUHK a telephone survey July 13 to 18, 2017 to gauge public views on social conflict in Hong Kong. 721 respondents aged 18 or above were interviewed, with a response rate of 37.7%. The sampling error is + or −3.65 percentage points at a confidence level of 95%.

  8. 8.

    Wan Po-san, Timothy Ka-ying Wong, “Social Conflicts in Hong Kong 1996–2002,” HKIAPS, Occasional Paper Series, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, CUHK.

  9. 9.

    Simon S. M. Ho & Raymond S. Y. Chan “Social Harmony in Hong Kong: Level, Determinants and Policy Implications,” Social Indicators Research, Volume 91(1): 37–58 (2009).

  10. 10.

    “2014 Hong Kong Social Harmony Survey Report.” HKPSEA Survey. Commissioned to: School of Business, Hang Seng Management College (December 2014) (The survey fieldwork was conducted July 28 to August 13, 2014. A sample of 1051 local residents aged over 18 were interviewed in 30 systematically selected locations throughout Hong Kong. There were 1012 Usable return (96.29%), with a confidence level of 95% and sampling error of ±3.14%).

  11. 11.

    LCQ19: Survey conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong. HKG, Press Release. April 28, 2010 (Following is a question by Dr. Hon Priscilla Leung and a written reply by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr. Henry Tang, in the Legislative Council (April 28).

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Tony Cheung, ‘Political conflicts dividing Hong Kong are “such a pity’ says former finance chief Antony Leung,’ SCMP November 25, 2015.

  14. 14.

    LeBaron, Michelle. “Culture and Conflict,” Beyond Intractability, July 2003. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Robert Ardrey. The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry Into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations (1986).

  17. 17.

    Wokler, Robert. “Perfectible Apes in Decadent Cultures: Rousseau’s Anthropology Revisited.” Daedalus Vol. 107, No. 3, Rousseau for Our Time (Summer, 1978), pp. 107–134.

  18. 18.

    Robert Ardrey, The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder (Atheneum, 1970).

  19. 19.

    Mae-Li Allison & Tara M. Emmers-Sommer, “Beyond Individualism-Collectivism and Conflict Style: Considering Acculturation and Media Use,” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 40:2, 135–152 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Matt Schiavenza, “Hong Kong Protests: A Fraught Word Reveals Chinese Government’s Old Fears Of ‘Chaos’,” International Business Times October 2, 2014.

  21. 21.

    Editorial: “Cherish positive growth: Defend Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability,” People’s Daily October 1, 2014.

  22. 22.

    I thank Professor P. K. Li, Director of Lingnan University Public Governance Programme for making available the “MK Incident Opinion Survey Report” with published survey instrument and data for further analysis and reporting of findings for this book project. (E-mail permission of June 27, 2018 is on file with author).

  23. 23.

    旺角事件意見調查報告 (MK Incident Opinion Survey Report)—呈交未來@香港嶺南大學公共管治研究部 submitted to Future@Hong Kong by Lingnan University Public Governance Programme) 2016年4月 (April 4, 2016) (Report.).

  24. 24.

    For analysis, the respondents were classified by age, education, income, occupation, political orientation and birthplace: (1) Age: 18–29/30–49/>50; (2) Education: primary/high/higher education; (3) Income: no income (0)/low (<$9999)/middle ($10,000–29,999)/high (>$30,000); (4) Occupation: work (full time or part time)/no work; (5) Political orientation: establishment/pan-democrat/localist/none of the three; (6) Birthplace: HK/non-HK.

  25. 25.

    “旺暴襲警動武 市民不接受-民調:近半人「0容忍」批評「乘機搞事」” (“MKR assault on police and engaged in violence, Citizens do not accept—Survey: Over half with “zero tolerance” and critical of “opportunistic trouble making”) WenWeipo June 19, 2016.

  26. 26.

    Translated by EastSouthWestNorth (ESWN ESWN an English-language China-focused blog written by Roland Soong (宋以朗) a Hong Kong-based blogger.

  27. 27.

    Report at 2,1.1.

  28. 28.

    Report at 2,1.1 (2).

  29. 29.

    Report at 2,1.1 (3).

  30. 30.

    Report at 2,1.2.

  31. 31.

    “市民對香港警務處表現的滿意程度”—“People’s Satisfaction with the Performance of the Hong Kong Police Force” Rating of HKP, HKU—POP (2012 to 2017) at 60 plus% annually.

  32. 32.

    See “Stark racial and partisan divides in favorability toward police, but no group is “anti-cop”. Emily Ekins, “Policing in America: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Police. Results from a National Survey Results from the Cato Institute 2016 Criminal Justice Survey” CATO Institute, December 7, 2016.

  33. 33.

    Report at 2,1.2.

  34. 34.

    Zhang, H.,1 Wong ,W.C., Ip, P., Lai, G.W., Lam, T.H., Lam, K.F., Fan, S., Lee, A., Cheung, D.Y., Zhang, Y., Yip, P.S., “A Study of Violence Among Hong Kong Young Adults and Associated Substance Use, Risky Sexual Behaviors, and Pregnancy,” Violence Vict. 2016;31(5):985–996. Epub August 12, 2016. (“Abstract: This study aimed to estimate the self-reported prevalence of violence perpetration and victimization among Hong Kong youths and the associated health risk behaviors using a representative sample of 1126 young adults aged 18–27 years. Perpetrating physical and emotional violence was common in Hong Kong, with prevalence ranging from 20.8% to 38.3% in males and from 6.4% to 21.3% in females. Victimization of physical and emotional violence was also common for both sexes, with prevalence’s ranging from 16.4% to 36.3% in males and from 6.6% to 19.2% in females.”).

  35. 35.

    Wing Hong Chui and Kevin Kwok-Yin Cheng,” Criminal sentiments and behaviours among young people in Hong Kong,” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22:1, 57–67 (2017).

  36. 36.

    Sonia Lam-Knott, “Understanding protest “violence” in Hong Kong from the youth perspective,” Journal Asian Anthropology Volume 16 (4): 279–298 (2017) (“But by bringing the youth views and interpretations of protest conflicts to the forefront, this article shows that different understandings of ‘violence’ currently exist in the city. It also argues that dominant frameworks used to make sense of these protest clashes are based on antiquated Chinese cultural categories of 暴力 baoli (mindless force) and 武力 wuli (authoritative force), respectively used to describe the actions of youth protesters and the police, and cannot adequately encapsulate the complex motivations and manifestations of the conflicts observed in contemporary HK. The discussion then reviews how different groups have responded to protest violence, with emphasis on the instrumental uses of violence by the SAR government and by political youths.”)

  37. 37.

    Michael E. DeGolyer, “Protest and Post-80s Youth Sources of social instability in Hong Kong,” Hong Kong Transition Project (2010).

  38. 38.

    See Chapter Four: “Riotous Opportunities”, Michael Adorjan, Wing Hong Chui, Responding to Youth Crime in Hong Kong (Routledge, Mar 21, 2014), pp. 48–67.

  39. 39.

    Report at 2,1.2 (1).

  40. 40.

    Report at 2,1.2 (2).

  41. 41.

    Report at 2,1.2 (3).

  42. 42.

    Report at 2,1.2 (4).

  43. 43.

    Report at 2.1.2 (5).

  44. 44.

    Professor Cecilia Lai-Wan Chan, “The Cultural Dilemmas in Dispute Resolution: The Chinese Experience.” Presentation at the Conference of Enforcing Equal Opportunities in Hong Kong: An Evaluation of Conciliation and Other Enforcement Powers of the EOC. CENTRE FOR COMPARATIVE AND PUBLIC LAW (CCPL), FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG, Saturday, June 14, 2003, University of Hong Kong.

  45. 45.

    Gene Lin, “CUHK survey finds nearly 40% of young Hongkongers want independence after 2047,” HKFP 25 July 2016 14:30.

  46. 46.

    From Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan, Mao Zedong on War and Revolution, Asia For Educators, Columbia University.

  47. 47.

    Report at 2.1.2 (5).

  48. 48.

    Blood on the Streets: The Use of Excessive Force During Bangladesh Protests HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (August 1, 2013); Timeline: Ian Tomlinson’s death, August 5, 2013.

  49. 49.

    Chris Cheung, UN Committee Against Torture urges gov’t to ‘duly prosecute’ police who used excessive force during Occupy,” HKFP December 10, 2015.

  50. 50.

    Report at 2.1.3.

  51. 51.

    Report at 2.1.4.

  52. 52.

    “Politics as a Vocation” by Max Weber, p. 1.

  53. 53.

    Egno Bittner, “Capacity to Use Force as the Core of the Police Role.” P. 25 of Moral Issues in Police Work, Fredrick A Elliston and Michael Feldberg (eds) (1987).

  54. 54.

    Clifford Lo, “Judge’s niece slaps officer after crash,” SCMP January 28, 2010.

  55. 55.

    HKSAR vs. LEUNG TAK WING (梁達榮). CACC 411/2013.

  56. 56.

    Prof. Siu Ki NG (吳紹奇), “論「勇武抗爭」” (Discussion of “Valiant Resistant Struggle”) 文化研究@嶺南. (Cultural Studies @ Lingnan), 51 (2016); Christopher Dunn, Column: Defending Against Police Assaults: Self-Defense, Rescue, and Videotape (New York Law Journal) NYCLU August 6, 2015.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Xavier University (Emeritus), Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Kam C. Wong

Authors
  1. Kam C. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix I

Views on Social Conflict in Hong Kong, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong (April 6, 2016).

  • Q1a. Is the conflict between the government and the citizens serious?

    • 66.5%: Serious

    • 24.2%: In-between

    • 6.6%: Not serious

    • 2.8%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q1b. Is the political wrangling in Hong Kong serious?

    • 71.4%: Serious

    • 21.8%: In-between

    • 4.3%: Not serious

    • 2.5%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q2a. When struggling with the government to fight for our demands, we should always adhere to peaceful, rational and non-violent means.

    • 69.5%: Agree

    • 20.5%: In-between

    • 8.1%: Disagree

    • 2.0%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q2b. Nowadays in Hong Kong, taking radical actions such as physical clashes or traffic blockage is the only way of making the government respond to people’s demands.

    • 15.9%: Agree

    • 23.2%: In-between

    • 57.8%: Disagree

    • 3.1%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q2c. Taking radical action is the only way to make the government respond to your demands.

    • 9.1%: Agree

    • 23.9%: In-between

    • 63.6%: Disagree

    • 3.4%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q3. In fighting for public interests, you prefer to

    • 22.3%: Stick to your principles and not compromise

    • 66.9%: See both sides make concessions in order to coexist

    • 2.0%: Neither

    • 8.8%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4. During a demonstration, are the following actions acceptable or not?

  • Q4.1. Physical clashes

    • 18.6%: Acceptable

    • 23.0%: In-between

    • 56.9%: Unacceptable

    • 1.5%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4.2. Throwing eggs at government officials

    • 18.9%: Acceptable

    • 17.6%: In-between

    • 61.0%: Unacceptable

    • 2.5%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4.3. Lie-down protests

    • 41.7%: Acceptable

    • 17.6%: In-between

    • 37.2%: Unacceptable

    • 3.5%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4.4. Traffic blockage

    • 3.9%: Acceptable

    • 10.9%: In-between

    • 82.2%: Unacceptable

    • 2.9%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4.5. Throwing hard objects at law enforcement officers

    • 3.9%: Acceptable

    • 10.9%: In-between

    • 82.2%: Unacceptable

    • 2.9%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4.6. Vandalism

    • 2.9%: Acceptable

    • 13.5%: In-between

    • 81.0%: Unacceptable

    • 2.5%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4.7. Burning tires or rubbish bins

    • 3.9%: Acceptable

    • 8.7%: In-between

    • 84.6%: Unacceptable

    • 2.8%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q5. Do you expect social conflict to become more serious over the next three years?

    • 45.5%: More serious

    • 25.5%: About the same as now

    • 13.2%: More moderate

    • 16.0%: Don’t know/hard to say.

Appendix II

Views on Social Conflict in Hong Kong, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong (August 1, 2017).

  • Q1. Estimation on protest and confrontation in the next five years?

    • 10.2%: More serious

    • 36.9%: About the same as now

    • 40.4%: More moderate

    • 12.6%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q2. Is the conflict between the government and the citizens serious?

    • 49.1%: Serious

    • 33.0%: In-between

    • 13.6%: Not serious

    • 4.3%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q3. Is the political wrangling in Hong Kong serious?

    • 66.7%: Serious

    • 23.7%: In-between

    • 6.4%: Not serious

    • 3.3%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q4. When struggling with the government to fight for our demands, we should always adhere to peaceful, rational and non-violent means.

    • 73.4%: Agree

    • 17.1%: In-between

    • 5.8%: Disagree

    • 3.7%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q5. Taking radical action is the only way to make the government respond to your demands.

    • 15.0%: Agree

    • 22.1%: In-between

    • 59.1%: Disagree

    • 3.9%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q6. Do you personally agree that taking radical action is the only way to make the government respond to your demands.

    • 6.0%: Agree

    • 21.3%: In-between

    • 66.0%: Disagree

    • 6.4%: Don’t know/hard to say.

  • Q7. Principles adopted in fighting for public interests:

    • 20.7%: Stick to your principles and not compromise

    • 66.5%: See both sides make concessions in order to coexist

    • 2.5%: Neither

    • 7.4%: Don’t know/hard to say.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wong, K.C. (2019). Public Survey. In: Public Order Policing in Hong Kong. Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98672-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98672-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98671-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98672-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation