In the past month, works of two Japanese authors are driving Hong Kongers to wonder what has happened to the city.
Earlier this month, Haruki Murakami latest's novel, Killing Commendatore, was classified as "indecent" by Hong Kong's the Obscene Articles Tribunal because the novel contains passages depicting lovemaking. As a result, copies of the book had to be placed in a wrapper on which a warning stating the book is inappropriate for minors (18 I believe) and the book had to be pulled from the Book Fair held last week. Murakami's other works, meanwhile, can be sold without any wrapping or warning label. Indeed, booklets showing models posing in suggestive positions can be found without any wrapping or warning label and sold to anyone in the same book fair.
The problem is that the reviewers have little time to assess if an item, be it a book, movie, magazine, is indecent or obscene — in each session, they only have two or three hours to read through/watch multiple items and to determine the rating for each item. So the reviewers would have to rush to make a judgment and take passages within a novel at face value without considering the context. Worse, even though the reviewers examining the items are chosen from a list of volunteers, randomly, the moralists, especially those who have a lot of time on their hands and very low threshold on what is indecent, may stack the deck by volunteering en masse. Perhaps it would be better if the reviewers are selected in the same way jurors are selected.
During the same book fair, a Cabinet member of Hong Kong quoted a novel written by Higashino Keigo, a Japanese author known for his mystery novels, stating that "Criminals are not necessarily bad guys. There can be much objective reasoning behind a crime, and there may be areas we can sympathize on ... On the other hand, not every policeman is a good guy. I think this quote is realistic and says a lot." during a sharing session. The latter statement have drawn the wrath Hong Kong Junior Police Officers' Association, which issued an open letter criticizing the Cabinet member's statement, claiming the statement has "hurt the police officers' morale". The Cabinet member responded by saying that he had no intention of denigrating Hong Kong's police officers.
It is strange to see the reaction of the Police Officers' Association. (Had it remained silent, the Cabinet member's words would be forgotten by now.) There are bad apples in every police force, including Hong Kong's. So "not every policeman is a good " is simply a statement of fact. Is the police association certain that every member of the Force is good? Besides, the Cabinet member did not specifically mention the Hong Kong Police Force. With dozens of police officers being charged with crimes ranging from burglary to blackmail to rape, perhaps the association should have defend their peers by claiming that "the criminals (among us) are not necessarily bad guys".
The police association's letter may lead one into thinking that the association is more interested in defending the bad apples among its ranks than improving the public's perception on the Force. Considering that this association stated the conviction of seven officers who swarmed a subdued protester would hurt the officers' morale and held a rally where thousands, most of which are officers themselves, sent their "regards" to the mothers of those who question them in unison, perhaps the officers are convinced that they can do no wrong, care little about the public's perception on themselves or the Force in general, or have fragile psyche. If it is the latter, one would have to wonder what would happen when the officers encounter violent criminals.
With episodes like these, one may be inclined to think that Hong Kong is going in reverse, with many intent on keeping the course while reaching for the accelerator.