After 1997, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office started producing six-monthly reports on Hong Kong. Although they were initially objective, their quality degenerated over time. A low point was reached once Boris Johnson became prime minister (2019-22). He appointed two lackluster foreign secretaries, Dominic Raab and Liz Truss, who treated the reports as propaganda tools, and this has continued ever since.
The current Labour government, led by Sir Keir Starmer, has indicated its desire to pursue a mature foreign policy and improve Sino-British relations. He recently dispatched both his foreign secretary, David Lammy, and his chancellor of the exchequer (finance minister), Rachel Reeves, to Beijing on good will visits. He seemed sincere, and hopes were raised of better times ahead.
It is, therefore, surprising that the UK has continued to use its periodic reports to besmirch Hong Kong and irritate Beijing. The latest report, issued by the foreign secretary, David Lammy, on March 27, covered the period of July to December 2024, and was no exception. Although various reasons for this paradox have been mooted, two stand out.
Firstly, Starmer’s overtures toward Beijing have triggered a backlash from the country’s vocal anti-China lobby, and he has been regularly accused in Parliament of “going soft on China”. What better way, therefore, for him to pacify the bigots than by slagging off Hong Kong in a report that nobody in China takes seriously. Even if it annoys Beijing, he imagines, probably correctly, that no long-term damage will result.
Secondly, there are now reportedly over 200,000 Hong Kong emigrants living in the UK, some of whom dislike Hong Kong’s current governance system. As his predecessor, Rishi Sunak, enfranchised the adults, hoping they would vote for him in last year’s general election, Starmer is keenly aware of their electoral clout. If a few cheap shots at Hong Kong’s expense can help secure their votes for the Labour Party, then so be it. Although contemptible, this is now the shape of British politics.
Like its predecessors, Lammy’s latest report played fast and loose with the truth, but delighted the Sinophobes. Although the UK’s consul general in Hong Kong, Brian Davidson, presumably warned him that Johnson-era propagandizing served no legitimate purpose and demeaned his government, Lammy, egged on by Starmer, paid no heed, sensing political advantage.
When Lammy recalled the 40th anniversary last year of the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration (JD) in 1984, he claimed to find “the erosion of rights and freedoms impacting Hong Kong’s way of life particularly concerning”. In the next breath, presumably to back up his claim, he highlighted the convictions of 45 “activists” under the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL).
Like its predecessors, Lammy’s latest report played fast and loose with the truth, but delighted the Sinophobes. Although the UK’s consul general in Hong Kong, Brian Davidson, presumably warned him that Johnson-era propagandizing served no legitimate purpose and demeaned his government, Lammy, egged on by Starmer, paid no heed, sensing political advantage
However, he did not mention that the 45 defendants were convicted of conspiring to subvert State power by paralyzing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, provoking a confrontation with Beijing and wrecking the “one country, two systems” policy (that Lammy professes to revere). He also disregarded the guilty pleas of 31 of the defendants, for which they were given credit at the sentencing stage. It is unimaginable that Davidson had not briefed him fully on the case, and his slur debased his office.
Lammy also trotted out his predecessors’ discredited myths concerning the former media magnate, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who is undergoing trial for allegedly colluding with foreign powers to endanger national security. Without producing any evidence, he claimed Lai was the “victim of a politically-motivated prosecution”. He even suggested that Lai should be set free because of “concerns for his health and international calls for his release”, which was risible.
As a barrister, Lammy knows better than most that, in common law systems everywhere, people accused of grave crimes cannot suddenly be released for health reasons or because of foreign pressure. He should also realize that it is invariably unwise for the pot to call the kettle black. After all, the UK detained the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, for over five years in its notorious Belmarsh prison for his journalistic work, despite his declining health, and ignored global demands for his release (had it done so, the US, which sought his extradition, would have been furious, which it was desperate to avoid).
As if this were not bad enough, Lammy then bemoaned the convictions of two Stand News editors “for merely doing their jobs”. As Davidson must have told him, there was far more to the case than that. The two journalists, Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam, were convicted of sedition, but not, as Lammy implied, under the NSL.
They were prosecuted under the British-era sedition law, which the UK’s local government enacted in Hong Kong in 1938 and used periodically thereafter, invariably against journalists. However, Lammy skipped over this aspect, realizing (correctly) that it blunted his invective. Far from indulging in customary journalistic activity, the trial judge concluded that Chung and Lam used Stand News to incite hatred of the local and national governments, as well as of the administration of justice (a far cry from the picture Lammy painted of innocent journalistic activity).
After citing the three prosecutions, Lammy announced that, “In protecting national security, Hong Kong authorities are obligated to respect human rights in accordance with the Basic Law, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).” This beggared belief, and demonstrated either that he had not read the NSL, or that Davidson had not briefed him properly on its contents (unlikely).
At the NSL’s outset, as Lammy should have known, it is stipulated that “Human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (Art.4). Moreover, it provides that the “rights and freedoms” contained in the Basic Law, the ICCPR and the ICESCR “shall be protected in accordance with the law”. By contrast, the UK’s equivalent legislation, the National Security Act 2023, contains no references whatsoever to protecting human rights, let alone to the ICCPR or the ICESCR, an inconvenient truth Lammy buried.
Having got the bit between his teeth, Lammy then lamented the arrest warrants issued by the Hong Kong authorities for national security suspects living in the UK. He claimed they had been targeted “with arrest warrants for exercising their protected right to freedom of speech”, which was bizarre. The individuals concerned stand accused of endangering national security by plotting to split China, colluding with foreign forces to harm China and threatening the “one country, two systems” policy, a toxic combination in anybody’s book.
Indeed, it was little short of grotesque for a qualified barrister to describe subversive conduct designed to harm another country as a “freedom of speech” issue. It is anything but, as any lawyer worth his salt should know. For the UK to provide safe haven to national security suspects accused of trying to destabilize China is not only contemptuous of the legal order, but also an affront to the comity of nations.
One passage of Lammy’s report was especially revelatory. Entitled, “Timeline of significant developments,” it provides the dates of particular events. However, there is no entry for Oct 23, 2024, which was a remarkable omission. This was the date on which the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2024 was published, and in which Hong Kong excelled. It ranked Hong Kong as 23rd out of the 142 jurisdictions surveyed (ahead of the United States, at 26th), and cried out for inclusion.
However, as the Index drove a coach and horses through Lammy’s slurs, its publication date (and its very existence) was suppressed. Nevertheless, the truth will out, and the Index comprehensively debunked his claims that the criminal justice system is no longer delivering justice. However, all is not lost, and it is not too late for Lammy to remedy his omission by issuing an addendum (Davidson will hopefully urge him to do so as a matter of urgency).
After all, if Lammy values the UK’s once vaunted reputation for fair dealing, it is the very least he can do.
On April 4, it will be the 35th anniversary of the adoption of the Basic Law by the National People’s Congress in 1990. It absorbed the JD’s principles, and, since 1997, has ensured the smooth implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy. Instead of playing cheap politics at its expense, it must be hoped that at some point Lammy will level with everybody and acknowledge the success story that is modern Hong Kong.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
