Chris Patten, the former British governor of Hong Kong, has waded into a heated debate about the territory’s relationship with Beijing by accusing China of trying to undermine judicial independence in the global financial centre.
Lord Patten has generally avoided commenting on Hong Kong since he oversaw the handover to China in 1997. But he said he felt compelled to speak out because of a recent Chinese “white paper” that said Hong Kong judges should be “patriotic” – which critics interpret as being loyal to the Communist party.
“Judges under the rule of [Hong Kong] law are independent and there shouldn’t be any question of them being instructed or pressed to subordinate their views of due process and what is legal to some other political considerations,” Lord Patten said in an interview.
China published the controversial document last month in a move that critics saw as an attempt to stifle a mounting movement for genuine universal suffrage. The Hong Kong bar association criticised the white paper and hundreds of lawyers, many dressed in black,recently held a silent rally in protest.
Anson Chan, the former head of Hong Kong’s civil service, said the white paper had made some business people “sit up and take notice” because “they can now clearly see even the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are not protected under this white paper”.
While pro-democracy activists will welcome Mr Patten’s comments, Martin Lee, the founder of the Democratic party and a prominent barrister, accused the UK of failing to stand up for Hong Kong.
Prime Minister David Cameron made no public mention of the white paper when Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited London recently. But despite China’s insistence that other countries should not interfere in its domestic affairs, Mr Li felt comfortable expressing opposition to Scottish independence.
“How can the British government sell the Hong Kong people down the river?” said Mr Lee.
Mr Lee and Mrs Chan recently visited the US,where they met vice-president Joe Biden. Mr Lee said that when asked what the UK position was on Hong Kong, he replied: “The British government’s policy on Hong Kong can be summarised in three words – ‘more China trade’.”
Asked if he agreed that Mr Cameron should criticise the white paper, Lord Patten said he had no idea what was discussed with Mr Li.
But he said Hong Kong visitors to London would get “a very strong welcome both in parliament and outside”.
The UK foreign office declined to comment on the interview with Lord Patten or questions about judicial independence, but repeated the government’s position that it welcomes the election of Hong Kong’s chief executive through universal suffrage.
The white paper has also sparked debate about multinationals in Hong Kong, which rely on the rule of law, but are wary about angering Beijing because they could lose lucrative China-related business.
HSBCand Standard Chartered have both recently denied claims that they pulled advertising from an anti-Beijing newspaper under pressure from China. The big four global accounting firms – EY, KPMG, Deloitte and PwC – recently ran joint ads in Chinese-language media in Hong Kong opposing the democracy movement.
Mr Lee and Lord Patten both said they were surprised that business groups were not speaking out more loudly against the white paper.
“It is surprising that professional bodies . . . appear to have taken the line that they have publicly,” said Lord Patten. “I can only assume that they haven’t had the agreement of their global headquarters for what they have been saying. I would imagine that their global heads would have been surprised and slightly embarrassed.”
Lord Patten also criticised the white paper for suggesting that the Sino-British Joint Declaration that paved the way for the handover of the territory was not “joint”, and he suggested that the people of Hong Kong had every right to protest.
“The Joint Declaration was an international agreement . . . between China and Britain guaranteeing Hong Kong’s freedoms and pluralism under the rule of law for 50 years,” said Mr Patten. “It is wholly reasonable for Hong Kong citizens to express concerns to both signatories if they think the terms of that Joint Declaration are being questioned or undermined.”
The white paper said “outside forces” were interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs, which came after China criticised the UK and US consuls-general for speaking about democracy in the Chinese territory.
Patten has evaded the responsibility of the British Government (being one of the signees of the Sino-British Joint Declaration) and only emphasizes the right of the people of Hong Kong to voice their wish for universal suffrage. The current British Government has absolute moral obligation to fend that right for Hong Kong people, but instead she chooses to remain silent, succumbing to the enormous economic benefit from China. The massive turnout on 1st July seems to be in vain, the government is as uncompromising as ever. The frustration and helplessness overhanging the city are suffocating but in this crucial moment, we must turn them into resolve. The fight must go on.
〝The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.〞--- Jack London
