Time for Patten to face reality and show balance
Peerage has not improved HK’s last governor’s judgment, especially when it comes to taking aim at decisions by the Bench, Grenville Cross notes
As Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten invariably displayed poor judgment, which still continues. Intolerant of the views of others, he chose to confront China, rejecting the advice of those who believed a smooth transition would benefit Hong Kong. Instead of building upon the foundations laid by his immediate predecessors, Sir David Wilson and Sir Edward Youde, he squandered his chances. By treating the Chinese government with the cynical disdain he once reserved for his political opponents in Britain, he generated mistrust and uncertainty at a critical juncture.
More recently, Patten has again reverted to type, this time confronting the British government. The British people voted decisively in a referendum in 2016 to leave the European Union and take back control of their affairs but Patten has used his House of Lords seat to try to throw a spanner in the works. In May, when the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was being debated, he took an active part in inflicting successive defeats upon his own government, even removing March 29 next year as Britain’s exit date. The government reversed all 20 defeats when the bill returned to the House of Commons but Patten’s conduct was extraordinary, and speaks volumes about his democratic credentials.
Whereas he endlessly preaches the virtues of democracy in Hong Kong, he had no qualms in seeking to frustrate Brexit, notwithstanding the democratic vote of the British people. This, by any yardstick, is humbug of the first order. Although, as a former EU commissioner, he receives a generous pension from the EU, Patten’s duty was to respect the referendum result. If he felt unable to actively support his government, he should at least have abstained. Instead, he chose to cause maximum difficulty for Prime Minister Theresa May, notwithstanding his membership of her Conservative Party. His conduct, however, will have surprised nobody in Hong Kong, where he has recently indulged in self-justification.
Following his ill-judged comments on our legal system last year (after the “Occupy Central” offenders were sentenced), and again this year (after the Mong Kok rioters were sentenced), Patten has now sought to cast himself in a positive light in the media, claiming to have been misrepresented.
Patten describes as “mendacious” the suggestion that he was critical of the Court of Appeal judges who imprisoned the three “Occupy Central” activists for unlawful assembly last year, claiming his actual target was then secretary for justice, Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, who sought reviews of sentence. However, what Patten actually told the Financial Times (on Aug 22 last year), was that the imprisonment of the three activists was “a serious error on the part of Hong Kong’s government”, adding that “responsibility for this deplorable decision rests clearly on the Hong Kong government’s shoulders”.
What Patten seems unable to grasp is that what he calls the “deplorable decision” to imprison the activists was taken not by the government, as he alleged, but by the judges. Yuen applied for review but the judges could have rejected his arguments, had they disagreed. So long as the English language retains its meaning, the import of Patten’s remarks was unmistakable.
An astonishing feature, moreover, of Patten’s intervention was its bias. He oozed concern for the three activists but had no words of sympathy for their victims. Ten security guards were injured; one had to take 39 days’ sick leave, yet Patten was silent on their plight.
This year, after Edward Leung Tinkei and two co-accused received substantial jail terms for their involvement in a riot, which the judge said involved “organized violence” that was “extremely serious”, Patten again held forth. This time, he lambasted the Public Order Ordinance, which contains the riot offense, saying it was “disappointing to see that the legislation is now being used to place extreme sentences on the pan-democrats and other activists”. Once again, Patten’s remarks were ignorant and ill-informed.
It was, obviously, not the legislation that sentenced Leung to six years’ imprisonment, but the court. The judge, of course, could have imposed a far more lenient sentence, had that been justified. The evidence, however, showed that streets were set on fire by protesters, police officers were attacked with bricks, bottles and other missiles, and many people were injured. Leung even admitted to attacking a police sergeant by kicking and hitting him with a wooden board. The duty of the judge was clearly to punish the offenders appropriately, and thereby deter any such future conduct by others.
Although some 90 police officers were injured by the rioters, together with several journalists, Patten again expressed concern for the offenders, without regard for their victims. This beggars belief, not least because mob rule and thuggery are no less acceptable in Britain than they are in Hong Kong, and there can be no room for double standards.
If Patten wishes to be taken seriously, he must be objective. Violence against others should always be condemned, irrespective of the motives of its perpetrators. The rule of law is sacrosanct, and anyone who cannot see this is no friend of Hong Kong.