Hong Kong: Ng-hao big-naug or you are dead!

On Tuesday, March 18, a local police shot at a Nepali homeless man twice at close range and one of the bullets end up in the head, leading to the man's death.

The police report soon after the shooting said that the police officer went to check out the hillside in Ho Man Tin (何文田) after receiving nuisance complaint from local resident and that the Nepali failed to show his identity card and attacked the police with a wooden chair. Police source claimed that the officer had used up his pepper spray, dropped his baton and warned the Nepali before he opened fire.

Before the police confirmed the Nepali's identity as a Hong Kong citizen the next day, police source told the reporters that the Nepali was suspected to be an illegal immigrant, crazy and dangerous. And that the police officer had followed through all the procedures concerning open fire. However, did the homeless really pose a threat to the police with a wooden chair? (And it seems that the Nepali hadn't even tried to get hold of the police dropped baton.) More questions were raised after a citizen upload an eye-witness video to youtube as all the warnings given to the suspect were in Cantonese instead of English.

Ng-hao big-naug, Don't force me!

In the video clip, one can see the police officer was confronting with the suspect, yelling all in Cantonese: Fong-dea Muo-hei, Ng-hao Yuk, Ng-hao big-naug. Meaning: drop the weapon, don't move, don't force me. But we cannot see how the police dropped his baton, nor the distance between the police officer and Nepali when the shooting took place.

Upon seeing the video, Matthewdaily wonders:

點解佢唔係對果位南亞裔人仕講:”FREEZE!” 或者 “STOP!”
而係選擇對佢講廣東話架呢 ……?

又, 唔知一支胡椒噴霧有幾大容量.
噴晒成支都無效, 會唔會係過左有效期……?

Why didn't the police tell the South Asian to “freeze” or “stop” and chose to speak in Cantonese…?
And, I wonder what is the size of a pepper spray can, how could he use up the whole can with no effect. Or the pepper spray had expired…?

The animal is dead!

Hungonebean doesn't want to debate about whether or not the police violence was justified as she considers him an agent of “Keep Hong Kong Clean” ideology.

Keep Hong Kong Clean的方法,較人道的︰把subject投進到收容所或瘋人院,由社工/醫生進行再教育。當然更便捷 (也合乎成本效益)的方法,就是把「它」徹底處理掉,正如我們這種城市人,只有把擅闖民居的曱甴徹底幹掉,才得安枕無憂。否則,誰知道「牠」會做出什麼事來?﹗萬一出了什麼意外,責任(法律上與賠償上的)你來負嗎?﹗一句扔過來,如天廷聖旨,還誰有個屁放。

Keep Hong Kong Clean, a more humane way is to put all “subjects” to campus for insane people, to be re-educated by social workers and doctors. A more effective way is to eradicate “it”, like the way city people kill the trespassing cockroaches to keep the house in peace. You never now what “it” will be doing. If there is accident, are you going to take the responsibility (legally and in monetary term)? Such sentence is like and imperial decree, no one else dare to utter a word.



To sleep in the hillside, is an absolute detachment from the city, from people. Then he was named an “animal”, the man then becomes an animal. We can shoot at the thing with animal nature.

Oh, please, we are talking a living man's life. Who lived as a man and then died as an animal.

The dead cannot speak

On the other hand, spacehole said that now the so-called truth is all one-sided from the police and is very unfair to the dead:

但各種矛盾都被重重的論述埋葬,對於「無話可說」的死者極為不利。對於真相,我們好像已經死無對證。案發現場的山路,除了一段紀錄到後半情況的含糊影片外,知道發生過程的只有死者與警員兩者。但是,當天即時的報導及立日的新聞,卻引述了很多「在場消息」的透露,描述了整個案件2-3分鐘的過程。其實探 本究源,那些襲警、發狂的消息是否就是來自警方公共關係科?

All the conflicting details have been buried by the police and expert discourses and it is very unfair to the “voiceless” dead. The dead could not come back to speak the truth. The scene is in the hillside and all we got is a video for the second half of the confrontation. Only the dead and the police officer know the truth. But the news reports came out with a great due of “on the spot” sources which depicted in details what had happened in the 2-3 minutes. After all, isn't the information concerning police assault and the guy being crazy come from the police PR department?


Worse still, a pro-government media had twisted the shooting of homeless to a discussion about “illegal snake being damaging to social security” and claimed that they were in Hong Kong to “seek cash”. Another newspapers even had a headline “courageous police officer shot dead a hillside villain”. The report is so shameless. Only Ming pao and Economic Daily quoted from a hiker who said that he never perceived the homeless dangerous to others. He also said the dead Nepali knows very simple Cantonese and once showed a passport to others. Sometimes he would ask for cigarettes, there wasn't any conflict.

Discrimination towards homeless

The blogger also comments on the cleaning-up ideology in Hong Kong:

一種對露宿者的誤解及歧視,並非是一朝一夕產生的,我們都經歷過一場都市化進程。回想我們50、60年代的光境,根據一些灣仔街坊的訪問,當露宿者在 冬天睡進了他們唐樓的樓梯,居民不僅不會趕走他們,並會提供綿被保暖。70年代的新市鎮工程,香港全面引入理性規劃,建立了一種住歸住、工作歸工作、休閒 歸休閒的空間使用想像,露宿者這種在公眾地方居住生活的形態開始受到排斥。配之以80年代的「城市清潔運動」,全城都以趕走露宿者為己任,正式確立一種對 露宿者空間上的排斥。直到今天,我們連一些遠距離的「視覺污染」也需要消滅,透過向區議員投訴,由其他人趕走他,總之眼不見為乾淨。可是,有沒有想過被你 投訴後,他們會被趕到哪裡去? 趕走他到不在你視線範圍以內後,問題就是否解決? 整個都市化的過程,除了環境的確淨潔外,有否耗盡了我們對空間使用的容忍與氣量?

Misunderstanding and discrimination towards homeless is accumulated in the process of urbanization. Looking back at our 50s and 60s, according to old residents in Wanchai district, when homeless people sheltered at the stair of their building, residents wouldn't kick them away, some would even give them blanket to keep warm. In the 70s when Hong Kong started building new towns, the concept of rational planning was imported. Our imagination of space has changed: residential area, commercial and industrial areas, recreational areas are divided. Homeless people who occupy public space became a problem. In the 80s we had the city cleaning campaign, the whole city was eager to get rid of homeless. Now we want to eradicate “visual pollution” even though they are in a distance by filing complaints to district council. We want someone else to get rid of them from our eyesight. However, we never ponder where would they end up? Whether the problem had been solved. In the process of urbanization, apart from keeping our environment clean, we have lost all our tolerance in the use of space.

Next time, when Hong Kong police officers yell at you: Ng-hao big-naug! Be aware!

Of course this is a joke, the whole issue is related with racial stereotype of South Asian and discrimination against homeless and poor. If you are a lighter color foreigner or Chinese, or for darker skin people, with proper clothing, no one will treat you like an animal even if you are crazy, drunk and aggressive.

1 comment

  • Dear Readers,

    Firstly, the organisation of a peaceful rally taking place at Wan Chai in the afternoon on Sunday, 29th March 2009 is I wholeheartedly supported for the sentimental of the people supporting and their participation.

    No matter what people are saying, expressing their feelings, thoughts or describing about the shooting incident in which an innocent, homeless young Nepali, Dilbahadur Limbu succumbed to a bullet fired by a Police Officer from a 9mm pistol.

    There are influential people from the Police side who are continuously propagating and invoking daily on all Chinese newspapers asking and making every effort to influence and convince the local Chinese people to construe that the Nepali man was shot and killed in an act of self defence. People also have stated that this Nepali man posed a great threat and was dangerous to the public and he deserved to be shot.

    Sooner or later the truth will be revealed and it is just a matter of time that we have to wait and see. The coroner’s inquest has already begun conducting the investigation according to the information received from a Police Department which stated that it will be conducted with fair, just and impartial manner.

    I dared not to have said this but anyone who thinks that the Nepali was a dangerous man and deserved to be shot, I surely like to challenge them!


Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »


  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.