08/11/2026
當受害者開始不相信制度，我們真正應該擔心的是什麼？
最近我們就 Railway Greenway 一名70歲長者聲稱先後兩次遭到青少年襲擊的事件發聲，列治文市長參選人 Henry Yao 公開點名 ARCA，也直接引用我 Kevin Lai 在影片中的說話，質疑我們對警方處理這宗案件的評論，甚至認為政治候選人透過社交媒體和公眾壓力討論一宗個別案件，可能影響警方調查。
既然 Henry 直接點名我，我也不迴避。我願意為自己說過的話負責，也把我的立場說清楚。我從來沒有要求警方拘捕任何人，沒有要求警方認定任何人有罪，更沒有要求警方按照我們的政治立場辦案。我所質疑的，是一名70歲長者報稱自己第二次受到襲擊之後，為什麼案件在她報案當天就已經結案？當她後來繼續提供資料、向警方主管反映之後，為什麼最後仍然覺得自己沒有被制度聽見？這是公共問責，不是政治干預。
Henry 說，如果受害者認為案件處理有問題，可以向警方主管反映，也可以使用正式的投訴機制。問題是，她已經找過警方主管。根據受害者提供給我們的資料，她在6月8日報案，到7月13日回去查詢案件狀況時，才發現案件的結案日期竟然也是6月8日，也就是報案當天。她之後向 Watch Commander 表達自己的不滿，但仍然認為問題沒有得到解決。當然，她仍然可以繼續使用其他正式投訴機制，我也支持她這樣做。但是制度裡還有下一個投訴程序，並沒有回答最重要的問題：為什麼一個受害者走過這些程序之後，最後會對制度失去信心？
Henry 特別引用我在影片中質疑警方沒有採取適當行動或調查。既然對這句話有意見，那我們不要爭論用字，直接回到最簡單的時間線：6月8日報案，6月8日結案。那麼一天之內，到底完成了多少實質調查？有沒有尋找附近可能存在的監控？有沒有了解同一地區是否有類似報案？有沒有尋找其他目擊者？有沒有了解受害者所說對方拍攝的影片是否可能在社交媒體流傳？如果這些事情警方當天全部做過，那麼很簡單，把做過什麼向受害者解釋清楚，我願意接受事實。但是如果沒有，公眾當然有權問：究竟是經過調查之後沒有證據，還是因為一開始沒有現成證據，所以沒有進一步尋找證據？
根據受害者後來向我們補充，她在報案之後還曾經到警局提供更多資料，包括事發時被不明液體弄髒的褲子，卻被反問她知不知道那是什麼液體。她原來提供的書面資料也記錄了警方曾詢問她「不明液體是什麼」，而她對這個問題感到非常不解。一名70歲的普通市民不是刑事鑑證專家。她的責任是報案、保存她認為可能有用的東西，把自己知道的事情告訴警方；至於是不是證物、能不能檢驗、還能不能找到其他線索，本來就應該由專業人員判斷。警方當然可能有專業理由認為某件物品沒有法證價值，但至少應該向受害者解釋，而不是讓她離開警局之後更加覺得沒有人願意幫她。
「沒有證據」可以是調查之後的結論，但不能成為不去尋找證據的起點。同樣重要的是同理心和溝通。對警方來說可能只是一個 file number，對一名長者來說，卻可能是她下一次走在同一條路上，都要擔心會不會再次受到攻擊的恐懼。即使最後真的沒有足夠證據起訴任何人，至少也應該讓受害者知道：有人認真聽過她、有人嘗試查過、有人告訴她為什麼案件走不下去。
而且還有一個問題不能忽略。這名受害者第一次聲稱被一群青少年吐口水的時候，根本沒有報警。她當時選擇忍耐和原諒，覺得對方只是年輕人。那我們怎麼知道其他人有沒有做過同樣的選擇？我沒有說一定還有其他受害者，因為我們不知道。但正因為不知道，公開討論才有意義。如果真的有其他受害者或者目擊者，我希望他們不要再選擇沉默，而是把資料交給警方。警方不可能從一件從來沒有被報告的事情裡面找到犯罪模式。
這也直接回答 Henry 最後問我的問題：「公開這段影片，到底為受害者做到什麼，是正常警方及投訴程序做不到的？」我的答案是：讓其他可能的受害者和目擊者知道應該站出來，提醒附近居民注意安全，也讓我們開始討論怎樣避免下一個受害者出現。這不是叫公眾自己查案，更不是叫任何人去尋找或者懲罰未成年人。鼓勵受害者和目擊者把資料交給警方，怎麼會是干預警方調查？
而這正是我和 ARCA 為什麼一直把加強 Richmond 治安放在這次選舉的重要位置。我們不能永遠等到事情發生之後，才問為什麼沒有抓到人。Railway Greenway 這類公共步道如果存在視線或治安死角，而同一地區又出現居民受到騷擾或攻擊的投訴，市政府就應該認真研究在適當地點增加攝像頭、改善照明，並與警方研究是否需要加強巡邏。政治人物不應該指揮警方抓誰，但是政治人物絕對有責任找出公共安全的漏洞，然後想辦法改善。這才是我們介入這件事情真正應該做的工作。
還有一點我認為值得警方考慮。受害者聲稱第二次事件中，對方除了向她噴灑液體和拍攝之外，還刻意使用普通話向她叫喊和嘲弄。我沒有證據說這一定是種族歧視或者仇恨犯罪，也不會在沒有調查結果之前替事件定性。但是當一名亞裔長者受到攻擊，而過程中又出現針對她語言背景的嘲弄，是否存在因族裔背景而被針對的可能性，至少值得被問、值得被考慮，而不是一開始就排除。
Henry 花了相當大的篇幅擔心涉事未成年人可能被辨認，甚至可能受到網絡欺凌。這一點我理解。我支持無罪推定，也反對任何人起底、騷擾或者在沒有證據的情況下公開判定一名未成年人有罪。但是我也必須很直接地問一句：保護弱小不是我們社會一直強調的價值嗎？小孩是弱小，難道70歲的長者就不是？
保障一個被指控者的基本權利是公義，保護受害者同樣是公義。兩件事情根本不應該互相衝突。保障一個人的權利，不等於保障他不需要承擔責任。如果沒有做過，就應該受到無罪推定的完整保護；如果真的做過，尤其是年輕人，越早介入、教育、讓他知道界線和行為的後果，反而越可能避免將來發生更嚴重的事情。當我們不斷提高社會對不當行為的容忍度，那不一定是在保護一個孩子，有時候反而是在害他。
所以 Henry，你可以不同意我的說法，也可以批評 ARCA 的做法。既然你公開點名我，我也接受這場公開討論。但是如果因為政治上要反對我們，最後花更多時間討論如何保護尚未被確認身份的嫌疑人，卻沒有用同樣的力氣問一句「眼前這名70歲的受害者，誰來保護她？」那我也要很直接地問：我們到底是在保護弱勢，還是只是在為反對而反對？
我不希望這件事情最後變成 Henry Yao 和 Kevin Lai 誰在 Facebook 上贏了一場辯論。真正重要的是，下一個 Richmond 居民受到傷害、走進警局報案的時候，他還相不相信有人會認真聽他說話？下一個長者走在 Railway Greenway 的時候，他還能不能安心走回家？
這才是我和 ARCA 真正關心的事情。我們要的是一個治安死角有人處理、需要的地方加強巡邏和安全設施、可能涉及種族針對的事件得到認真考慮、警方與受害者之間有更好的溝通、被指控者得到程序保障，而受害者同樣不會被制度遺忘的 Richmond。
我支持警方，也支持程序公義。但是支持一個制度，不代表這個制度不能被質疑。相反，當人民開始失去對制度的信任，我們更加有責任問為什麼。
因為一個司法制度最大的危機，不只是有人犯法沒有被抓到。
而是守法的人開始不相信，這個制度還會保護他們。
When Victims Start Losing Faith in the System, What Should We Really Be Worried About?
Recently, we spoke out about the case of a 70-year-old senior who says she was attacked on two separate occasions by a group of youths along the Railway Greenway. Richmond mayoral candidate Henry Yao publicly named ARCA and also quoted me, Kevin Lai, directly from our video. He questioned our criticism of how the case was handled and suggested that political candidates using social media and public pressure to discuss an individual case could interfere with police work.
Since Henry chose to name me directly, I am not going to avoid the discussion. I stand behind what I said, and I want to make my position clear. I have never asked police to arrest anyone. I have never asked police to declare anyone guilty, and I have never asked police to conduct an investigation according to our political views. What I questioned was much simpler: when a 70-year-old senior reports what she says was a second attack, why was the file concluded on the same day she reported it? And when she later provided more information and raised her concerns with a police supervisor, why did she still come away feeling that the system was not listening to her?
That is public accountability. It is not political interference.
Henry said that if the victim believed the case had been mishandled, she could speak to a police supervisor or use the formal complaint process. The problem is that she already spoke to a supervisor. According to the information she provided to us, she reported the incident on June 8. When she followed up on July 13, she discovered that the file had been concluded on June 8 — the same day she made the report. She later raised her concerns with the Watch Commander but still felt that her concerns had not been resolved.
Of course, there are further formal complaint processes available, and I support her right to use them. But telling someone that there is another complaint process does not answer the more important question: why did a victim go through these steps and still end up losing confidence in the system?
Henry specifically quoted my criticism that police had failed to take appropriate action or investigate. If he disagrees with that statement, then instead of arguing over words, let’s look at the timeline: June 8, report made. June 8, file concluded.
So I think it is entirely reasonable to ask: how much meaningful investigation could have been completed in that time?
Were possible surveillance cameras in the area checked? Were similar reports in the area reviewed? Were potential witnesses sought? Was there any attempt to determine whether the video the victim says was recorded by the youths might have appeared on social media? If these investigative steps were completed that day, then explain that clearly to the victim. I am prepared to accept the facts.
But if they were not, then the public has every right to ask a very different question: was there insufficient evidence after an investigation, or was there no further investigation because there was insufficient evidence available at the beginning?
There is an important difference.
According to additional information the victim provided to us, she later went to the police station with further potential evidence, including the pants she says were stained by the unknown liquid. She says she was asked whether she knew what the liquid was. Her earlier written account also describes her frustration at being asked what the unknown substance was.
A 70-year-old member of the public is not a forensic investigator. Her responsibility is to report what happened, preserve something she believes may be relevant and provide the information she has. Whether an item has evidentiary value, whether it can reasonably be tested and whether other investigative avenues exist are professional decisions for investigators to make. Police may have legitimate professional reasons why a particular item cannot or should not be tested, but that should be properly communicated to the victim rather than leaving her with an even stronger feeling that nobody is willing to help.
“Lack of evidence” can be the conclusion of an investigation. It should not become the reason not to look for evidence in the first place.
This is also about empathy and communication. To the system, this may be another file number. To a senior who says she has been attacked, it may mean wondering every time she walks down the same path whether it will happen again. Even if there ultimately is not enough evidence to recommend charges, a victim should at least come away knowing that somebody listened, somebody made a reasonable effort to investigate, and somebody explained why the case could not proceed.
There is another part of this case that should not be ignored. The victim says she never reported the first incident, when she says a group of youths spat at her. At the time, she decided to tolerate it and forgive them because they were young.
So how do we know other people haven’t made the same decision?
I am not claiming there are other victims. We simply don’t know. But that is exactly why public awareness has value. If there are other victims or witnesses, I want them to come forward and give their information to police rather than remaining silent. Police cannot identify a pattern from incidents that were never reported.
That also directly answers Henry’s question: “What was actually achieved for the victim by publishing this video on social media that could not have been achieved through the appropriate police and complaint processes?”
It encourages other potential victims and witnesses to come forward. It warns residents to be aware of safety concerns in the area. And it starts a public discussion about what we can do to prevent another person from becoming a victim.
We are not asking members of the public to investigate the case themselves, and we are certainly not asking anyone to identify, confront or punish minors. Encouraging victims and witnesses to provide information to police is not interfering with an investigation.
This is also exactly why ARCA and I have consistently made improving public safety in Richmond an important part of this election. We cannot simply wait until something happens and then ask why nobody was caught. If public trails such as the Railway Greenway have blind spots or areas where residents feel unsafe, and there are reports of harassment or attacks, the City should seriously examine appropriate measures such as additional cameras in identified safety blind spots, better lighting, and working with police to determine whether increased patrols are needed.
Politicians should not tell police whom to arrest. But politicians absolutely have a responsibility to identify gaps in public safety and work to fix them. That is where our involvement should be.
There is another aspect that I believe deserves consideration. The victim says that during the second incident, the people involved not only sprayed her with an unknown liquid and recorded her, but deliberately shouted and mocked her in Mandarin. I do not have evidence to say this was definitely a racially motivated attack or a hate crime, and I will not label it as one without an investigation. But when an Asian senior says she was attacked and her language or ethnic background appears to have been deliberately referenced during the incident, the possibility that she was targeted because of her background deserves to be considered rather than dismissed without examination.
Henry also spent a significant part of his response worrying that the minors involved could potentially be identified and subjected to cyberbullying. I understand that concern. I support the presumption of innocence, and I oppose doxxing, harassment or publicly declaring any minor guilty based only on an allegation.
But I also have to ask a very direct question: protecting the vulnerable is supposed to be one of the values our society believes in. Children can be vulnerable, but isn’t a 70-year-old senior vulnerable too?
Protecting the fundamental rights of an accused person is justice. Protecting a victim is also justice. These principles should never be mutually exclusive.
Protecting someone’s rights does not mean protecting them from accountability. If they did not do it, they deserve the full protection of the presumption of innocence. If wrongdoing did occur, especially involving young people, early intervention, education and appropriate consequences can help prevent something more serious from happening later. Continually increasing our tolerance for harmful behaviour is not necessarily protecting a young person. Sometimes it can do exactly the opposite.
So Henry, you are free to disagree with what I said, and you are free to criticize ARCA’s approach. Since you named me publicly, I am prepared to have this discussion publicly as well.
But if political disagreement leads us to spend more time worrying about how unidentified alleged offenders might potentially be harmed than asking who is protecting the 70-year-old victim standing in front of us, then I think we also need to ask ourselves a difficult question:
Are we really protecting the vulnerable, or are we simply opposing each other for the sake of opposition?
I don’t want this to become a debate about whether Henry Yao or Kevin Lai wins an argument on Facebook. What actually matters is whether the next Richmond resident who is victimized and walks into a police station still believes somebody will seriously listen to them. What matters is whether the next senior walking along the Railway Greenway feels safe enough to get home without fear.
That is what ARCA and I are concerned about. We want a Richmond where public-safety blind spots are addressed, where patrols and appropriate safety infrastructure are strengthened where needed, where possible racial targeting is taken seriously, where police communicate properly with victims, where accused individuals receive due process, and where victims are not forgotten by the system.
I support our police, and I support due process. But supporting an institution does not mean that institution can never be questioned. In fact, when people begin losing confidence in that institution, we have an even greater responsibility to ask why.
Because the greatest danger to a justice system is not only when someone who breaks the law is not caught.
It is when law-abiding people start believing that the system will no longer protect them.
