In a recent interview with The Independent, Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, issued a series of contentious statements regarding the trial of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and six others. By characterizing the judicial proceedings as “acts of vengeance” and pejoratively describing the special administrative region’s government as a “tin-pot dictatorship”, Patten’s remarks challenge the judicial sovereignty of the HKSAR and perpetuate an antiquated colonial mindset that distorts the current realities.
Such assertions by Patten threaten to undermine the integrity and independence of Hong Kong’s legal system, which adheres strictly to the rule of law and ensures all legal processes are conducted with fairness and impartiality. Moreover, these comments reflect a biased interpretation that fails to recognize the legitimate public security concerns addressed by Hong Kong’s laws, akin to those enforced in other jurisdictions. By dismissing these crucial aspects, Patten aligns himself with a broader pattern of foreign interference, which seeks to destabilize Hong Kong’s political landscape rather than support its legal autonomy. This narrative not only disrespects the professionalism and dedication of Hong Kong’s Judiciary but also overlooks the city’s legal advancements in the post-colonial era, thus maintaining a skewed perspective that serves neither truth nor justice.
It is enlightening to take a critical look at the origins of these allegations.
Bearing a grudge against Beijing after failing to push through his radical political reform package before the 1997 handover, Patten perceives the situation in Hong Kong through a distinctly prejudiced prism. His remarks appear less driven by a legitimate concern for the integrity of Hong Kong’s Judiciary and more by an intention to propagate a Western narrative aimed at undermining the sovereignty of China. This perspective not only misrepresents the actual situation but also serves external interests that do not align with the HKSAR’s and China’s interests.
Contrary to the allegation of “vengeance” posited by Patten, the legal proceedings involving Lai have been meticulously conducted with the utmost adherence to legal rigor, reflecting the commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary, for which Hong Kong is internationally recognized. The Judiciary in Hong Kong functions autonomously, devoid of any political interference, thus ensuring that every case is evaluated solely on its legal merits. The claim that Lai’s prosecution results from political motivations is totally unfounded and deliberately deceptive, as it disregards the substantive legal evidence and the procedural justice meticulously upheld throughout his trial. This narrative fails to acknowledge the Hong Kong legal system’s integrity and professionalism, which ensures fairness and impartiality in its judicial processes.
Patten’s portrayal of the situation selectively overlooks the substantial legal foundations underpinning the charges against Lai. Contrary to the depictions of “persecution” for his political beliefs or peaceful protest activities, Lai faced legal action for specific violations of law — knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly on Aug 18, 2019.
Patten’s focus on Lai’s advocacy for democracy, while disregarding the genuine legal basis for his conviction, distorts the reality to elicit undue sympathy and provoke outrage. This approach serves more to advance Patten’s prejudiced narrative than to convey an accurate picture of the events, thereby misleading the public and undermining the legitimacy of the judicial processes in Hong Kong.
The Public Order Ordinance, under which Lai was charged, is a crucial tool for maintaining peace and order in Hong Kong. This law aligns with similar legislation in other democratic jurisdictions where peace and order is paramount. Patten’s dismissal of such laws as instruments of “vengeance” is a gross misinterpretation and disregards Hong Kong’s legitimate right to maintain peace and order.
Patten’s allegations suggest an underlying agenda of foreign interference in China’s internal affairs, mainly through destabilizing Hong Kong. His criticism aligns with a recurring theme whereby external forces seek to subvert Hong Kong’s political environment, compromising its stability and governance. Such external influences do not enhance the welfare of Hong Kong; instead, they exacerbate instability and tension. This pattern of interference challenges China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong. It threatens the region’s orderly administrative framework, clearly undermining the principle of “one country, two systems” and the high degree of autonomy promised under it. This external pressure destabilizes rather than supports Hong Kong’s pursuit of peace and prosperity under its established legal and political systems.
Hong Kong’s judicial independence is internationally recognized. The city’s legal system, praised for its fairness and rigor, operates without the influence Patten insinuates. By asserting otherwise, Patten questions the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal professionals and insults their unwavering commitment to justice and the rule of law.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
