Latest News

Patten's interference finds little audience

Christopher Patten, the last UK governor of Hong Kong (1992-97), launched in 1994 a political reform proposal of "triple violations," in serious violation of the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law and the previous agreements by China and the UK. It was aimed at quickly lifting the rights and position of the local legislature before Hong Kong's return to China, which met with strong opposition from the Chinese central government.

Patten could do nothing but leave in a huff amid cheers of Hongkongers celebrating Hong Kong's return.

Lu Ping, then director of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, labeled Patten as a "sinner of a thousand years" at a press conference for the plight that his political reform package had caused for the smooth transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Now Hong Kong has been returned to China for 16 years, but it seems that Patten has not drawn lessons from this failure.

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, he commented on Hong Kong's political system: "The only thing [Hong Kong] doesn't have is the right to elect its own government, and sooner or later it will have... Anybody who tries to resist that is, I think, spitting in the wind," totally ignoring the fact that the Chinese central government is actively promoting universal suffrage for the chief executive.

The timing of the comments is subtle. Some hold that Patten attempted to engage pro-Britain Hongkongers in the political reform with his quondam influence, with the purpose of making his agents grip the political power of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Nevertheless, he has long lost the authority, eligibility and even opportunity to wield such impact, because Hong Kong is no longer a colony of the UK. What he and some other British politicians say or do will be spitting in the wind.

During the past 10 months, Hong Kong's pan-democrats have been making plans about the "Occupy Central" protest, purporting to cast away the Basic Law and the stipulations by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) on Hong Kong's political system and instead realize universal suffrage according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Various pan-democratic groups gathered to set up a "genuine suffrage union" who hail obstructions from external forces.

That has incurred suspicion toward their message "We love the motherland and love Hong Kong" after the NPC Law Committee Chairman Qiao Xiaoyang issued a speech indicating that it is "illogical for foes of Beijing to be chief executive" in March.

Hong Kong is ruled by law, and the Basic Law is regarded by its residents as the "constitution" of Hong Kong. However, such an appellation has its flaws.

Hongkongers without legal knowledge show their respect for the law by regarding it as the "constitution," but intellectuals among the pan-democrats deliberately deny the applicability of the Constitution of the State to Hong Kong.

When they need to emphasize that Hong Kong possesses some kind of autonomy, they will say that the Basic Law is the "constitution" of Hong Kong. They just try to get rid of the law when it comes to the universal suffrage. That is a blasphemy against the rule of law.

It should be noted that pan-democrats, though identifying with Patten's remarks in the interview with the Wall Street Journal, have not responded to him as passionately as they once did to the talk about interference into Hong Kong's political reform by Clifford A. Hart, consul general of the US to Hong Kong and Macau, and Hugo Swire, minister of state at the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

And the plain reaction is definitely related to the unpleasant history during Patten's governance over Hong Kong before 1997.

The central government is unswerving in advancing democratic politics, which is also a basic value orientation. And it is a fundamental principle that Hong Kong promotes universal suffrage by rule of law. Given these reasons, Patten had better make less provocative remarks.

The author is professor and deputy director of the Center for Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions, Shenzhen University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn