Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Professionalism versus democracy? Historical and institutional analysis of police oversight mechanisms in three Asian jurisdictions

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Should police be checked by the police or by representatives with public mandates? This article aims to respond to this frequently asked question by comparing two sets of institutional arrangements in police oversight mechanisms under three Asian regimes with different levels of democratization: Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan. “Professionalism” and “transcendency” are often prioritized by the Hong Kong authorities as the merits of the internal affairs model, over independent investigation capacity or elected appointees. Paradoxically, its police oversight counterparts under two neighbouring constitutionally democratic Asian jurisdictions still face critiques, given their institutional proximity with the civilian control model prevailing in the Western countries. What kind of institutional setting better oversight the police? We conducted a historical-institutional analysis by making use of publicly accessible documents, examining the evolution, reviewing the missions and format of empowerment, and weighing the strength and key insufficiencies of these three police oversight mechanisms. Our study primarily finds that historical conjunctures and regime values appear decisive in the evolution of these bodies. The police oversight mechanisms in Japan and Taiwan place more emphasis on public representation and legal empowerment to check police power, which provides longer institutional stability than that of Hong Kong, which was credited on personnel capability or transparency of the investigation process. The study also finds that the competence of personnel and the transparency of the investigation process appear not comparable to the importance of the public representation and legal authorization of the oversight agencies in determining public trust towards the oversight mechanism.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ho et al. [7] conducted a review on the most recent academic studies on Asian policing issues published in the SSCI policing journals. Most articles concern policing issues or survey public perception by quantitative methods, but limited attempts have been made from the historical and institutional angles. Language barrier, information accessibility and unfavourable socio-political context are possible explanations for this phenomenon.

  2. The public mandate can also be shown in the oversight bodies’ composition. The members of the IPCC, all appointed by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Government, include 1 chairman, 3 vice-chairmen, 14 council members, and 29-member secretaries. In Japan, members of the NPSC and PPSC are also appointed by the Prime Minister with the consent of both Houses of the Diet, together with the consent of the governor of the respective prefecture and the Prefectural Diet. The NPSC is composed of the chairman and 5 members, while the PPSC consists of the chairman and 2–5 members.

  3. The Control Yuan of Taiwan could launch proactive investigation by complaints, and the NPSC or PPSC can assign one of their own members or appoint overseers within the police system to directly oversee a particular investigation.

  4. The case detail was included in the press release of government https://cybsbox.cy.gov.tw/CYBSBoxSSL/edoc/download/38107

  5. For detail, please see: https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?s=4511

References

English references

  1. Chappell, A. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Applying social learning theory to police misconduct. Deviant Behavior, 25(2), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chiu, H., & Fa, J. (1994). Taiwan’s legal system and legal profession. In M. A. Silk (Ed.), Taiwan trade and investment law (pp. 21–38). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Den Heyer, G., & Beckley, A. (2013). Police independent oversight in Australia and New Zealand. Police Practice and Research, 14(2), 130–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferdik, F. V., Rojek, J., & Alpert, G. P. (2013). Citizen oversight in the United States and Canada: An overview. Police Practice and Research, 14(2), 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fioretos, O., Falleti, T. G., & Sheingate, A. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of historical institutionalism. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ho, L.-k. (2020). Rethinking police legitimacy in post-colonial Hong Kong: paramilitary policing in protest management. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice., 14, 1015–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ho, L.-k, Chan, Y. T., & Tsang, A. (2020). Emerging issues of policing studies in Asia: From the civil unrest in Hong Kong 2019. Contemporary Chinese Economy & Strategic Relation: An International Journal, 6(3), 1129–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hong Kong Police. (2021). Hong Kong Fact Sheet—The Police. Retrieved March 28, 2021 from https://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/11_useful_info/facts.html.

  9. Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (HKPORI). (2019). People’s satisfaction with the performance of the Hong Kong Police, half-year average, 7-12, 1997 – 1–6, 2019). Retrieved March 28, 2021 from https://www.hkupop.hku.hk/chinese/popexpress/hkpolice/halfyr/hkpolice_halfyr_chart.html.

  10. Hopkins, T., & Flemington, P. S. (2009). An effective system for investigating complaints against police. Victoria Law Foundation, Grants Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  11. IPCC, Hong Kong. (2020). Handling procedures by CAPO. Retrieved August 12, 2020 from https://www.ipcc.gov.hk/en/complaints/procedure_chart.html.

  12. IPCC, Hong Kong. (2020). Report of the Independent Police Complaints Council, 2018–2019., SP 2019/2020-067.

  13. Kelling, G. L., Wasserman, R., & Williams, H. (1988). Police accountability and community policing (Vol. 7). US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Krasner, S. D. (1984). Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical dynamics.

  15. Legislative Council, Hong Kong. (1997). Official Record of Proceedings, 23 June 1997, 970623fa, LegCo.

  16. Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, 28, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McNeilly, G. (2014) Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved August 14, 2020, from https://www.ipcc.gov.hk/doc/en/report/Other/GerryMcNeilly.pdf.

  18. Ministry of Justice, Taiwan. (2012). Act of the establishment and management of the government employee ethics units and officers. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=I0070001.

  19. Nalla, M. K., & Mamayek, C. (2013). Democratic policing, police accountability, and citizen oversight in Asia: An exploratory study. Police Practice and Research, 14(2), 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Porter, L. E., & Prenzler, T. (2012). Police oversight in the United Kingdom: The balance of independence and collaboration. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(3), 152–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Prenzler, T. (2011). The evolution of police oversight in Australia. Policing and Society, 21(3), 284–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Prenzler, T., & Ronken, C. (2001). Models of police oversight: A critique. Policing and Society: An International Journal, 11(2), 151–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pyo, C. (2008) December. Background report examining existing police oversight mechanisms in Asia. In Workshop: Improving the Role of the Police in Asia and Europe. Delhi (pp. 3–4).

  24. Seneviratne, M. (2004). Policing the police in the United Kingdom. Policing & Society, 14(4), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith, G. (2004). Rethinking police complaints. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith, G. (2010). Every complaint matters: Human Rights Commissioner’s opinion concerning independent and effective determination of complaints against the police. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 38(2), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Simth, G. (2013). Oversight of the police and residual complaints dilemmas: Independence, effectiveness and accountability deficits in the United Kingdom. Police Practice and Research, 14(2), 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Macpherson, S. W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty. Retrieved March 28, 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf.

  29. Torrible, C. (2018). Reconceptualising the police complaints process as a site of contested legitimacy claims. Policing and Society, 28(4), 464–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Chinese & Japanese references

  1. Chen, W. (2007). On the role and function of “inspectors” in Taiwan’s Police System—An empirical study of Yilan County Government Police Station (in Chinese) (Dissertation). Fo Guang University.

  2. Control Yuan, Taiwan. (2020). The control Yuan functions & powers—Receipt of people's complaints. Retrieved August 10, 2020. https://www.cy.gov.tw/EN/cp.aspx?n=238.

  3. Hou, H.-T. (2012). The function of ethics organizations in Police Institutions—A case study of Kaohsiung City Police Department (in Chinese) (Dissertation). National Sun Yat-sen University.

  4. Judicial Yuan, Taiwan ROC. (2020). The history of the Judicial Yuan and its epochal significance. https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1961-211307-0cd8f-1.html.

  5. Law and Regulations Database, Taiwan ROC. (2021). Retrieved March 28, 2021 from https://law.moj.gov.tw/index.aspx.

  6. Lian, J-R. (2012) The study on the correlation among role conflict, organizational commitment and coping strategies of police agency inspectors (in Chinese) (Dissertation). National Taitung University.

  7. National Diet Library, Japan. (1948). Official Record of Proceedings, 3 June 1948, House of Representatives Public Safety and Regional Institution Committee, 34 (in Japanese). Retrieved August 11, 2020 from https://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/#/detail?minId=100204398X03419480603&spkNum=10&current=80.

  8. National Police Agency, Japan (2016) National Police Agency—Police System. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from https://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/ct?xItem=92894&ctNode=12994.

  9. National Police Agency, Japan. (2019). (Notice) Regarding appropriate handling of complaints on police officers’ performance on duties (in Japanese). Retrieved August 11, 2020 from http://www.npa.go.jp/laws/notification/kanbou/jinji/jinjikansatsu.kujyou20190329.pdf.

  10. Nation Public Safety Commission, Japan. (2000). Police reform summary—In response to “Emergency proposal regarding police reform” (in Japanese). Retrieved August 11, 2020 from https://www.npsc.go.jp/kaikaku/youkou.pdf.

  11. Personnel Office, National Police Agency, Taiwan ROC. (2019). Statistics of current personnel. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from https://www.npa.gov.tw/NPAGip/wSite/lp?ctNode=12902&nowPage=3&pagesize=15.

  12. Wu, H-L. (2006). An analysis on the orientation of the control Yuan’s powers in future (In Chinese). Journal of National Development Studies, 6(1), 29–66.

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Policy Innovation and Coordination Office of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government under Public Policy Research Fund (Special Round) SR2020.A5.023.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10, Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong

    Lawrence Ka-ki Ho, Jason Kwun-Hong Chan, Ying-tung Chan, Garth den Heyer & Jen-Shuo Hsu

  2. Rm325, Nishiwaseda Bldg, 1-21-1 Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-0051, Japan

    Arata Hirai

Authors
  1. Lawrence Ka-ki Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Kwun-Hong Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ying-tung Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Garth den Heyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jen-Shuo Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arata Hirai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Ka-ki Ho.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ho, L.Kk., Chan, J.KH., Chan, Yt. et al. Professionalism versus democracy? Historical and institutional analysis of police oversight mechanisms in three Asian jurisdictions. Crime Law Soc Change 77, 1–25 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09981-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09981-y

Search

Navigation