British politicians display post-colonialism syndrome

Chan Tak-leung reminds politicians from former colonial power that Hong Kong is doing fine without their interference

The year is nearly over and in the past 12 months one finds it difficult not to have noticed that British politicians and political activists have displayed collectively what one can only term “post-colonialism syndrome” since they have all attempted to search for a role from Britain’s imperial past to have a say in Hong Kong’s affairs, despite the former colony having returned to China’s sovereignty 20 years ago.

The breakup of the British Empire throughout the last century — from Afghanistan to Palestine, Sri Lanka to Nigeria, Uganda to Zimbabwe — over 60 countries in all must have helped to create this syndrome. History has shown that even if Britain might want to intervene in the political and governance situations of some of these independent nations, the results were, in most cases, disastrous rather than helpful. It has proved one thing — meddling in other nations’ governance believing it was Britain’s duty to do so might lead to only adverse and destructive consequences for both parties.

Returning to Hong Kong, the handover of sovereignty from Britain to China was formally registered with the United Nations in 1985 and the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as it is commonly known, declared to the world what will happen to Hong Kong after the handover in 1997. The Joint Declaration clearly spelt out the governing policies of the special administrative region under the “one country, two systems” principle. The fact Hong Kong’s capitalist system will remain unchanged for 50 years was clearly stipulated in the Basic Law.

So why do these British politicians, activists and their “pan-democratic” supporters, 20 years after the handover, still believe Britain has a “duty to Hong Kong” or if Britain fails to intervene in the SAR’s affairs, she will be “selling her honor”?

Were these signs of kindness toward Hong Kong’s residents symptoms of collective amnesia or just a case that they refused to accept the fact that Hong Kong is part of China — a state which practices socialism with Chinese characteristics and not a capitalist state like Britain? Why when they claimed “the rule of law is valid in the SAR” did they in the same breath declare they “have to be vigilant”?

One suggests they might have failed to recognize two fundamental facts.

Firstly, sovereignty means sovereignty. China, as a nation state, is accountable to the SAR and vice versa. Any interference and intervention under whatever guises by any other sovereign state would be considered as an infringement of China’s sovereign rights over the SAR.

Secondly, while China has fully observed her obligations under the Joint Declaration for the past 20 years and one believes will continue to do so without fail in the next 30 years, it was those local “pan-democratic” legislators, activists and other external subversive elements who have continued to promote more freedom and democracy on the one hand, which they are enjoying in abundance, and independence for Hong Kong on the other, which is both non-constitutional and subversive to say the least. They were the ones who caused disruptions in the SAR’s legislature and beyond.

Such people as the last governor Chris Patten, Paddy Ashdown, Malcolm Rifkind, David Alton and Benedict Rogers together with their supporters in Hong Kong and a whole host of other “pan-democratic” activists, both young and old, must understand that they were the perpetrators of all the controversies and disunities. If nothing else, they were the ones who ruined the opportunities for more democracy in Hong Kong over the past few years.

A catalog of havoc motivated by these so called “courageous and principled” activists can be found in the annals of Hong Kong. For they were the ones who breached the public offenses ordinance by inciting others to storm the government offices which resulted in the illegal occupation of Central district for 79 days in 2014. Failure to enact the national security act according to Article 23 of the Basic Law, the opportunity to enact universal suffrage for the election of the chief executive abandoned, valuable time to serve their constituents wasted in filibustering, nonattendances by legislators and failures to follow oath-taking rules were all self-inflicted acts that delayed more democracy for Hong Kong.

There is no need for Britain to set up a body such as the Hong Kong Watch, which was launched on Monday in the United Kingdom, to ensure more democracy in the SAR. It would be better for Britain’s political elite to channel their energy and attention to deal with the fallout from Brexit, to build more affordable homes for the homeless and the younger generation, better education, health, social welfare and jobs, for its citizens.

Hong Kong is well and will stay this way without your unwanted and unnecessary interference. The future is bright and the future belongs to Asia.