Grenville Cross

Earlier this month, the former governor, Chris Patten, testified about Hong Kong before the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. It was, however, far from being his finest hour. Always in his element when disparaging China, Patten painted a picture of Hong Kong which was divorced from reality. However, although insiders know his evaluations are informed by prejudice, the concern must be that his audience, deferring perhaps to his supposed insights, might have taken him at face value.

The sooner people appreciate that Patten has long since forfeited any claim to serious commentary the better, particularly if they want to understand modern Hong Kong.

Having told the committee that the pro-democracy activists who occupied Hong Kong’s streets in 2014 were “extraordinarily moderate”, “very patriotic” and believers in “the rule of law”, Patten left matters there, without once mentioning their criminality. His audience, for example, was not informed of the unlawful assembly which triggered the occupation, when leading activists violently stormed a restricted area, leaving 10 security guards with injuries.

Nor did he mention that some of those same activists had previously shown their true colors when they turned their backs during the National Day flag-raising ceremony at Bauhinia Square. As even Patten must appreciate, such conduct is not only a calculated insult to the Chinese people, but also highly unpatriotic, and should be called out accordingly.

Although Patten, as someone who holds himself out as a friend of Hong Kong, could have usedhis appearance before the committee to provide some reassurances about The author is a senior counsel, a law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the director of public prosecutions. recent developments, he squandered the opportunity.

He could, for example, have explained that, although several legislators have recently been disqualified from serving in the Legislative Council, this was simply because, as the judges themselves decided, they failed to take their oaths of office in the prescribed manner, as required by law.

Such oaths, of course, are common around the world, including the United Kingdom, where newlyelected members of parliament must swear allegiance to the Queen, or else face exclusion.

Instead, however, of setting the record straight in that way, Patten chose to stoke up concerns over what he ominously called a “general tightening of control”.

For good measure, Patten even