Abstract
The book is an interesting addition to a relatively small but growing collection of specialized treatises on the police in China (see Bakken, 2005; Biddulph, 2007; Dutton, 1992, 2005; Kuiken, 1993; Trevaskes, 2010; Wong, 2009). It fits perfectly well with the proclaimed theme of the series editor Dilip K. Das to “foster better communication between researchers and practitioners” (Das, 2012, p. xv). Indeed, one of the most commendable strengths of the book is its chronic documentation of the reform efforts and the changes of police practice in China since 1979 without any professional jargons. By the same token, the downside of such an approach is its lack of theory and devoid of the nature of the police as a highly politicalized tool for its regime in China.
Wong based this book on his 10-year investigation of police reform in China. It is a follow-up to his other book Policing in China: History and Reform (Wong, 2009), which offered an introduction to the origin, history, culture, education, and reform of policing in China. This current volume is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1 covers the history of the police reform from 1979 to the present, and focuses on the defining issue of how to change the police organizational culture.
Chapter 2 lists the obstacles to understanding Chinese policing and Wong advocates the approach of “cultural relativism”—this phrase is my interpretation. In his own words, Wong states that, “we need to discern how the Chinese people (including the police) see, think, and feel about and evaluate their police” (p. 64). This should have been a perfect place to discuss some theoretical concepts, such as ethnocentrism versus relativism, or within criminological and legal field, legal orientalism (Ruskola, 2002). Instead, Wong chooses to eliminate any theoretical sophistication and to use the language that is more appropriate for the rank-and-file police practitioners.
From Chapters 3–6, Wong subtly divides the issues and discusses all aspects of the police development in details. No stones are left unturned: from police education to leadership, from the highly sensitive issue of Fa-lun Gong to the ordinary issue of police cynicism, from police authority to police accountability, from Wang Li-jun’s police museum to Yang Jia’s sensational killing of police officers, and from police legitimacy to constitutional supervision. Many well-publicized cases are used to illuminate the issues and their dilemma facing police reform. Official documents and government regulations are cited extensively. Laws on the books are described better and more than the laws in action. Police opinions and the public opinions on critical issues are sometimes contrasted. The most interesting is to summarize and cite selectively online discussions. All sources are indexed well, which is another high mark of the work. Most Western scholars on the police in China, especially those who do not read Chinese, do not make much use of articles published in Chinese while Wong almost solely relies on these sources for his book. The goal is to discuss all police-related issues openly and frankly instead of finding a solution or seeking a theoretical understanding. The book enables readers to gain an appreciation of all police reform efforts and a realization of the distinctiveness of Chinese police reform. It is precisely because it offers such an extensive survey of all issues that it often fails to ask the type of intellectually stimulating questions that may have raised the intellectual edge.
Wong uses a lot of pin-yin in his writing, which gives foreign readers a sense of “Chinese taste.” The problem is that he is from Hong Kong and that has an impact on his accurate documentation of the pronunciation in Putonghua (Mandarin) or the phonology of Standard Chinese. In addition, some typos may make it harder for bilingual readers to understand these pin-yin. For example, on page 101, Wong wrote that “More simply, the police are expected to excel in both morality and ability (de cai jian bi) … ” In pin-yin system, it should be written decai jianbei. On the same page, “Police leaders must learn to think and operate in a systems way (xitung lun) … ” The pin-yin should be xitong lun. Many of the pin-yin usages in this page and its following two pages are quite problematic.
Chapter 7 is the final chapter where Wong summarizes the current status of police reform, raises the prospects of police reform in the future, and presents the problems of police reform in China. None of these three issues are new and the opinions in these pages represent a “second look” after 3 years (Wong, 2012, p. 365). Because the purpose is descriptive in nature, there are not much new information and new thinking. Limited by his choice of approach typified as the traditional/Confucian Chinese intellectuals’ approach of remonstration, the conclusion is sadly an ironic and grim view that simply regurgitates the same sentence word by word 3 years ago that “studying policing in China is perhaps better suited for cultural anthropologists than lawyers or social scientists” (Wong, 2012, p. 375).
Overall, the book is a fine addition to the practitioners’ scholarship in the “police of China.” It provides a vantage point to view the unfolding reform of Chinese economic/political system, for which the police reform is a part. Readers interested in the study of the contemporary police in China and even experts in China’s law and police will benefit from reading it and will find some illuminating insights in the substantive chapters of this book.