High Level of (Passive) Compliance in a Low-Trust Society: Hong Kong Citizens’ Response Towards the COVID-19 Lockdown

Two agendas emerged in the media and academic discourse in Western democracies soon after COVID-19, a highly infectious disease that registered its first outbreak in January 2020, trampled on the world. The first centres on debates over the appropriate control measures that governments ought to deploy to contain COVID-19’s spread (Boseley, 2020). Another relates to the legitimacy of lockdown and quarantine orders which are widely perceived as acting contrary to human rights such as freedom of movement and assembly (Staton, 2020). The police forces, tasked with enforcing such measures with questionable legitimacy, often encounter resistance that is antithetical to the effective containment of the pandemic. In the Western context, characterized by a strong libertarian tradition and desire to protect human rights, there is an emerging consensus among scholars and practitioners that despite such questionable legitimacy from a legal or societal viewpoint, the ability of the police to secure public compliance in the first-place rests on whether they have acted in line with the principles of procedural justice. Frequent media reports depicting non-compliance by the public in the West may, therefore, be attributed to the public’s suspicion that the police have failed to live up to such procedural standards. In other corners of the world, however, one can see another story that is markedly different from that in the West- an observably high degree of public compliance despite the questionable legitimacy of the control measures themselves. In this study, we investigate one such example, Hong Kong, a metropolis characterized by a hybrid of liberal democratic traditions and collectivist values (Lam, 2016). The ongoing pandemic has culminated in the enactment of a series of control measures under the slogan of ‘Together, We Fight the Virus!’. Among other actions, the government has drafted and gazetted a plethora of subsidiary legislations pursuant to its enabling ordinance, Cap. 599 Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance1 (hereafter collectively the ‘Regulations’), to achieve partial lockdown and compulsory mask-wearing. Through revisiting theories of compliance, we aim to unpack the blackbox of the high compliance level in Hong Kong despite widespread reports of erosion of police legitimacy. This was most recently triggered by public dissatisfaction towards how the police have managed the Anti-Extradition Bill (hereafter ‘anti-ELAB’) movement in various instances. In this study, we compile and present an original dataset consisting of multiple police–citizens encounters during the enforcement of Regulations, court-proceedings commenced against those who are suspected of violating the Regulations, and discussion and discourse emanating from informal social media channels. Our data confirm a high degree of compliance as exemplified by a low number of both fixed penalty notices issued to people who have violated provisions of Cap. 599G and proceedings commenced against people who have been found to breach other Regulations.2 All of these occurred amid an ongoing legitimacy crisis plaguing the police, which sees their authority being challenged once again as sceptics decry the considerable conferral of discretionary power in enforcement upon them by virtue of these Regulations. By contrasting the stories of public compliance with COVID-19 control measures from the West and Hong Kong and simultaneously unpacking the blackbox of Hong Kong’s peculiar experience, we hope this study can shed light on the prevailing debates on police legitimacy, which have become the spotlight of discussion at both the domestic and international levels. As observed by Farrow (2020), several new policing agendas have emerged since the COVID-19 pandemic forced governments into implementing a variety of pandemic control measures. Within policing organizations, concerns over methods to ensure internal accountability prevailed alongside the hierarchy of commands. How could senior police officers be procedurally fair and transparent when assigning these ‘additional and unpleasant’ duties to their junior counterparts in the exercise of their duties (Gau and Brunson, 2010). Scholars and practitioners have directed their attention to the issue of police legitimacy as well, suggesting the COVID-19 assignments would jeopardize public trust towards the police as the pandemic would ‘inevitably raise questions about where the appropriate boundaries of the policing mandate’ (Farrow, 2020). Jones (2020) suggested that the police’s response to the pandemic might result in further militarization and draw deeper divides between the police and communities.3 In the current literature (Braithwaite, 1989; Tyler, 1990; Mastrofski et al., 1996; Grace, 2020; Stott et al., 2020), there are two perspectives on why people comply with the law or orders of law enforcement agencies. The first perspective is instrumental in nature, taking the form of deterrence by either formal or informal sanctions (Braithwaite, 1989; Mastrofski et al., 1996). In short, it assumes people will calculate the loss and gain associated with compliance in a rational manner. If the gain of compliance is larger than the loss, they will comply without undergoing evaluation as the normative justifiability. Thus, the effectiveness of this approach depends on the ability of law-enforcement agencies to detect the offence and carry out the punishment. Another perspective focuses on the normative aspect, which can take a variety forms (Tedeschi and Felson, 1994, pp. 218–220; Reisig and Lloyd, 2009), such as distributive (justification of the demand), procedural (following standard procedures to protect citizens’ rights), and interaction (showing respect and proper manner), and ultimately, the legitimacy of the police and the state itself. Consequently, the public’s perception of whether the orders were fairly implemented became very significant. Law enforcement agencies have to be ‘impartial and just’ or act ‘without favouritism or discrimination’, instead of focusing on the ‘usual suspects’ (Medina Ariza, 2014). On the other hand, law enforcement officers must take an ‘engage and explain’ approach by indicating a willingness for open and direct communication with citizens, and clearly inform the public that they would listen to their views, explain the rationales of policing actions, and be procedurally just in implementation (Myhill and Quinton, 2011; Farrow, 2020). As suggested by the pilot research of Grace (2020), if compliance is achieved solely through ‘coercion or the threat thereof’, it would risk ruining the future legitimacy of law enforcement agencies, and consequently increase the future chance of non-compliance, especially when these actions are not detected. In the long run, the expense of ensuring compliance would become too high to be bearable (Stott et al., 2020), especially in countries in which people have low political trust towards the government. These were all the attributes for police legitimacy and public compliance with the laws as identified by a number of previous UK-based studies (Tyler, 2004; Myhill and Quinton, 2011; Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012; Terrill et al., 2016; Farrow, 2020; Jones, 2020). Since the declaration of a virus emergency on 25 January 2020, the key strategy of the Hong Kong government was to contain the COVID-19 outbreak by the partial lockdown of the city. All public sports and leisure facilities were closed (AFP, 2020; Government of Hong Kong SAR, 2020). Individuals deemed ‘high-risk’ as a result of prior contact with confirmed patients were taken to centralized quarantine facilities for medical observation and virus tests during the incubation period. Moving into February, the measures were expanded to include blocking all non-resident travellers, the imposition of a mandatory 14-day home quarantine period for those who have returned to or entered Hong Kong, and on-site virus tests at the airport. A series of Regulations were made pursuant to Cap. 599 Prevention and Control of Diseases Ordinance in mid-March after a substantial increase in the number of infections and because the Chief Executive in Council deemed the situation a public health emergency. Cap. 599F mandates private venues such as fitness centres, karaoke lounges, and mahjong parlours (Government of Hong Kong SAR, 2020) to shut down. Cap. 599G was enacted to prohibit all forms of gathering for more than four people in public areas. Restaurants and caterers were told to halve their original seating, conduct body temperature checks on patrons, and ensure a span of at least 1.5 m between tables. Violations of the Cap. 599G Regulation would entail the issuance of a $2,000 fixed penalty notice, payment upon which the liability would be discharged, and exempt one from further judicial proceedings. Violation of other regulations may, additionally, lead to a larger fine and even immediate imprisonment. Enforcement of these measures became the duty of medical professionals, paramedics, civilian health and hygiene officers, amateur volunteers, and disciplinary policemen. A civilian staff of over 2,000 people was deployed to gate-keep the borders, conduct virus screenings, and administer quarantine orders for overseas returnees. 1,000 volunteers guarded the centralized quarantine buildings, while the police were tasked with the inspection, and of the and (Government of Hong Kong SAR, 2020). The partial of and number of by and there was of that the have made more than 1,000 up on more than of mandatory and managed more than 2,000 quarantine in four A of of suspected of the quarantine were and four were taken to where the were for Government of Hong Kong SAR, 2020). The literature has suggested that the Hong Kong police have long been of the of as and to amid the of Hong Kong’s and political (2020) suggested since in in to the domestic of Law the Hong Kong police has a approach to This of interaction into a the police would act with during This however, been the loss of trust between police and exemplified for by the et (2020) have in a that the erosion of legitimacy and in has to state of such that policing is all and where the is by a widely for its The movement a of the as the police have to the strategy erosion of police legitimacy can be by data by the police a low of public dissatisfaction from to it to by about a since the in and In into the the dissatisfaction has an level of Kong while we have to a of trust towards police the COVID-19 pandemic has all to the by the the enforcement of public health Regulations. against this this to a perspective from Hong Kong that is markedly different from the in the of a legitimacy to be and are the This is the blackbox we to This study centres on two research we at the measures that have been implemented in Hong Kong and their we how the public has as a to a discussion of compliance and The to both questions is by a study of the reports of encounters during the enforcement of the Regulations and of judicial with an of the discourse from the and media the implementation of and compliance with the pandemic control measures. We have a on a all and social media in Hong Kong, a of We all of the enforcement of Cap. 599G by the police through the issuance of a $2,000 fixed penalty as as reports of judicial proceedings and by the against those who are suspected of violating the The of the from 2020, when Cap. 599G into to 2020, the government that Cap. 599G was to be to of up to which the chance of We have to data because the government has not data the law enforcement situation of the this we have to ensure the of in the number of fixed penalty by data with a by by the and which to have the number of issued up through government Our dataset a of which of the to be issued by the 2020). This high has the of In for a high level of compliance, we have from the discourse of the by of from a This is of high while has been a for communication between since out in 2020), in this it has instead been deployed to those suspected of violating the Regulations which has law enforcement by the of the as to despite in the police, there is a high level of This reports the from the research The to two of the peculiar Hong Kong story with the low legitimacy and high it the high level of compliance and to a as to why of partial enforcement of the Regulations have that further police legitimacy. we judicial discourse and informal to shed light on the issue of high public The law enforcement the of fixed penalty under Cap. 599G have been into either political or The political include and other forms of political such as that have among since as as such as suspected and those who were issued are further into of political and of such as suspected and of and the data after of the and an of such law of issuance of $2,000 by the police, The first and is that the low number of issued in a that over people is and of the citizens’ compliance with the control measures. the data present a of enforcement of Cap. In most of the were issued to of political at police–citizens encounters that are not as political out of of of suspected and In the On the of was from to there is in the of encounters that lead to the issuance of such for a from to The issuance of however, has become more at police–citizens encounters at political in which and political at and of political more were issued to of these In the fixed penalty issued to of by in both the political and to and very were The between the two further We the number of confirmed COVID-19 and the number of issued to political by their of The two of data are into The of the issued to of political while the the number of confirmed in was another in from travellers, during which the government the situation was under control and that the of public of more than four would be to a of of number of confirmed COVID-19 and number of issued to by This between the in and issued to can be attributed to the of when the COVID-19 pandemic in and at the various media reports of the enforcement have suspicion towards in law an which the have since the of and media reports as a of both their and in the of police–citizens the between the in COVID-19 and issued to of political with media reports partial enforcement into another of of in law further trust in the the judicial against those who have been found of various public health we can the the of law towards these law On a was of acting in of Cap. by the for a to the officers at the The the for and with a of towards further the for the in the COVID-19 The was to imprisonment. who failed to comply with the to have been for violating Cap. On an of a was and to with The the the of public which will become a for the spread of This is especially of the as a for that could become a for Two are from such judicial the number of that have been in the media period is the of the of the of has confirmed that there are people who have been in the of law for violating Cap. and the data the of Cap. is not this number be as it to these people through the judicial the number of is an for a high degree of compliance among the Hong Kong the have strong of directed against their that the of and medical for the it will be to such judicial discourse is of the of Hong Kong out against of a highly by the of especially in is to being as and the result of Since mid-March when overseas who are triggered a of public has against of the people who failed to the 14-day quarantine and during that period. In this these who the that up is a to This informal the of about those who the quarantine The are in their and social media most by Through the of public and the risk of to law This peculiar of the has the prevailing of since when it became the communication among and 2020). This of was widely perceived to be with other such as This instead of as a to and the government on it was as a to law enforcement by law into In of reports to the police emerged in the further explain the of the of the of the of is an strong of a high degree of compliance on their however, is their to law the not to this to directed by who are of the These can be from of the of that were example, in the the on that has in its contact of such and when this the of we will be to the of various media and the is of against the for with the police and the of those who of the These the with these the have been a in whether to if to views, why we if to without public health is of The of public health over political views, even that is often as the which values the of the of a story of compliance that is to Hong This will be in the discussion which we is that Hong Kong have a high level of compliance towards the lockdown measures. of the confirmed COVID-19 from January to out of were various studies et al., 2020; 2020; et al., 2020) that Hong Kong have their movement in the have been as by the in of those who are suspected of the quarantine and other Regulations on social media was Hong Kong citizens, in this act as of these lockdown measures. The of Hong Kong an the of would the to be to the control despite the low legitimacy and of the government and the compliance to a The number of of issued to of during period of study and to The issued to political to in the first of after a in In who on with their and to the Regulations as they in of than the in Cap. and an of 1.5 m between political and trust towards the government and police have on compliance, and widespread instrumental compliance is in the high degree of compliance with the lockdown measures in Hong The effectiveness of this deterrence at the on the ability of the authority to detect In Hong Kong, the pandemic control measures are by a number of law Hong Kong have a approach for soon after an of was through and even when the Government and not at first et al., 2020). is than the that the of is of the high level of compliance than solely the of law We that widespread towards the the government and police, in Hong Kong and 2020) to such and their compliance towards the lockdown measures. This as from the West a at the very of the pandemic and they challenged the government for and their and rights to an and degree (Farrow, 2020; Jones, 2020). Hong Kong citizens, in the government more lockdown measures at the of the in that about of the a of the Kong and of them a medical at the government to listen to their the of the The this is that a of Hong Kong citizens, after the movement in have their trust in the government in for their The perceived of the COVID-19 pandemic has such to an on the level of trust among Hong Kong people towards the government in since of not trust the government in a low since This was further by their of in in which the response of the Hong Kong government was and the government failed to pandemic at the of the to in the city. Thus, when there was a of an outbreak in in Hong Kong associated it with their and measures. for and in that low trust in the government has upon the ability of the government to the virus 2020). These are as to why the who an especially high level of in the a approach in with the pandemic. their during the into a civilian on to COVID-19 in social and in the and even law as by the The research of et (2020) that were in their response in of with not by and those who not with the not from their of the government in the pandemic. In an by the Hong Kong of at the of Hong Kong, the found among those who not their political for of the of them such dissatisfaction with the and the measures deployed to COVID-19 were Kong of of Hong Kong 2020; and 2020). the of Hong Kong not on compliance, which that if the authority power in that are perceived as would to the measures through (Stott et al., 2020). Hong Kong citizens, a high level of in the government and being of its the these lockdown measures in the pandemic. in a more context, even if the government and the police not a high level of legitimacy, people comply with of their without being that these are perceived as appropriate or their this of compliance is in the that the being that Hong Kong in not trust the authority itself. Thus, their compliance with the government is upon the very of the that public health under the threat of In they would not comply with the government once they the their or in other that their not especially when people are not being when the number of COVID-19 their while to the Regulations. By the the of Hong Kong several for the policing of COVID-19 and the of compliance in and state not be The authority and the police with instead of and 2020; and 2020). In Hong Kong, despite the lockdown measures being by a number of officers, very and at the such a in other countries with a and the of the government not be The effectiveness of Hong Kong’s upon not the of of the of the pandemic and their willingness to of their in other countries that have not a pandemic in their government to and with the the of these measures and their must and solely for the of public and their measures by the situation of the pandemic. The of Hong Kong that even if with the of the lockdown they when they deemed of the lockdown measures and between the police and is a issue of policing studies in democracies during the COVID-19 pandemic. the imposition of lockdown the and police the have become of a in their legitimacy when these Thus, research on police more how police the and how to the comply with the is a for policing and to these two questions to this study the of the from the Western democratic to an Hong Kong has a low up to The emergency hygiene control measures are and the police have been of in law it is that in their and or of was in the first of the By all the encounters between police and and the legal proceedings to the we that the response of Hong Kong was not by their of the of the loss of their trust in the government since and the and from the outbreak in The compliance of Hong Kong not a to of compliance out an in which their compliance was in and upon the between and the government for the of public Our research that a approach and the of is a that are about the of the disease and the measures are and when is The Cap. 599 on home quarantine and social by the Hong Kong government the of the centres, fitness centres, of of public that are to be social the of the and karaoke and in and parlours and the of all to 2020). of the measures implemented by the Hong Kong Government emergency response private and four control and a 14-day mandatory quarantine on all from compulsory quarantine for in Hong Kong from social and to all from through Hong a 14-day compulsory quarantine on all health tests on from the and other in are to to the for their and for the COVID-19 gathering from four to gathering from to gathering to four gathering to two made mandatory in all public Government Government of Hong Kong