If you were taking part in a demonstration that you were well aware was unlawful, and were ordered by police to disperse peacefully or else, would you not immediately realize that unless you complied with such a lawful order your personal well-being would be at risk within a minute or so? And, having noticed that the policemen confronting you were equipped with batons and gas-masks, would not the thought flash through your mind that a) a baton is a truncheon for delivering painful blows, and b) gas masks are to protect the wearer against harm during a gas attack?

If you then made a conscious decision not to disperse as ordered, but to stand your ground and thereby dare the police to take physical action, do you not expect that in a subsequent skirmish with police you might receive a blow or be sprayed with tear-gas or pepper-spray?

If indeed you suffered one or the other, it is truly regrettable, and we sincerely lament your sufferings - but with the qualification that had you dispersed as ordered, nothing would have happened. No doubt you have strong feelings about the pain you have suffered, but - be honest with yourself - it was your choice. You chose defiance. The police gave you clear and ample warning before performing their duty.

A policeman is a member of the disciplined services - which means he follows orders to help maintain public order and safety. When given an order he does not have a choice of agreeing with it or refusing to carry it out. It is his job. He is trained to carry out a range of duties, and he does it at no small risk to his own personal safety, even his life.

Grim testimony that indeed some of our police have made the ultimate sacrifice can be seen among the headstones at Gallant Garden in the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery, the final resting place of Hong Kong's public heroes.

The best and most thankful thing that can be said about the wildcat demonstrations that have caused such widespread disruption to life in Hong Kong is that no life has been imperiled, nor has anybody suffered serious injury. This is extraordinary when compared to incidents of similar magnitude overseas.

Given the concern and public discontent about the use of tear gas, police have given a detailed explanation of the operational reasons for its use, which essentially boil down to one of safety for both demonstrators and police. A critical factor was the volatility of the situation, with the crowd - doubtless pushed from the rear - surging towards police lines. While the billowing smoke may seem intimidating to a lay person, tear gas actually is very effective in dispersing a charging mob without causing serious bodily injuries. In the process, the danger of a crush to colliding bodies is significantly reduced. Indeed this is the standard practice which riot control experts learn from painful experience.

Here in Hong Kong, our police can draw on the unforgettable lessons of the Lan Kwai Fong stampede at midnight on New Year's Eve, 1992, when an uncontrollable surge by 15,000 revelers along a narrow street resulted in 20 people being crushed to death underfoot and 71 others injured - mainly because of the frenzied pushing of those at the back of the mob. Such "pushers" always take up positions at the rear in demonstrations, selfishly using their strength to bring about physical contact between protesters in the front rows and the police confronting them.

Compared with the methods used by some overseas law enforcers to curb an angry mob's defiance, Hong Kong police's restraint is most commendable in view of the small number of light injuries sustained by the protagonists. But the bottom-line is that if police get pushed into a corner they must act to protect their own safety and those charging at them using the most humane means at his disposal.

Caught up in the fervor of the climax of the week-long student class strike action, "Occupy Central" instigator Benny Tai capitalized on the momentum generated by the students to launch his long-promised campaign ahead of schedule, and presumably was delighted to see the disruption quickly spread to Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. While exercising his right to protest, he markedly failed to live up to his promise of a campaign to be conducted with "peace and love", as his protesters' occupation of Hong Kong's busiest urban thoroughfares has caused gridlock, paralyzing public transport, thereby inconveniencing millions of citizens. In short, Tai is not waging a campaign of civil disobedience, but a campaign of civil coercion.

Not surprisingly, "Occupy" co-organizer Chan Kin-man took a provocative attitude both to the tear gas and the fast-spreading congestion and chaos, stating, "Hongkongers are fearless towards tear-gas, and think it is manageable, so I would not suggest protesters retreat at this moment." His comments contrast sharply with former Secretary for Security Regina Ip, who undoubtedly is more conversant with such matters. Ip said the use of tear gas was justified in the circumstance.

The author is an seasoned observer of Asian affairs.

(HK Edition 10/01/2014 page7)