Opinion | Article 23: Western critics sharpen knives

By Grenville Cross

On Feb 16, the convenor of the executive council, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, said there had been no official statements from foreign countries opposing or discrediting the Article 23 legislation consultation paper. She said she believed they were still studying the proposals and would hopefully reach balanced conclusions.

This, however, may be wishful thinking. The US and its allies, despite having robust national security laws of their own, are unlikely to forego the opportunity to criticize China. In all likelihood, they are keeping their powder dry until the consultations are over and the bill is finalized.

However, one veteran Sinophobe immediately broke cover on Jan 30, the day the consultation paper was published. According to Voice of America, the British security minister, Tom Tugendhat, told a meeting of Hong Kong people in the United Kingdom that the proposed legislation would achieve nothing. It would, he claimed, destroy the city's prosperity by damaging the rule of law, freedom and opportunities.

Although Tugendhat would not have had time to absorb the proposals, this did not stop him from claiming it was absurd for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government to claim the legislation would guarantee the city's prosperity.

As a home office minister, Tugendhat lacked the authority to pontificate on foreign policy issues and was apparently on a frolic of his own. It was, therefore, extraordinary his superiors did not reprimand him for overstepping the mark. Their acquiescence in his outburst was highly suspicious and does not bode well for rational responses from London.

Although Tugendhat has form for gibberish of this sort, most of it predated his appointment as a government minister in 2022. Before that, he was just another anti-China propagandist bent on whipping up hysteria, hoping it would boost his standing among the China hawks. Indeed, he cannot have been too surprised when he was sanctioned by Beijing in 2021 for spreading what it said were lies about China.

After Boris Johnson resigned as prime minister in 2022, Tugendhat, despite his lack of experience (he had never held ministerial office, with Johnson, like his predecessors, excluding him from government), threw his hat into the ring as his successor. Once the absurdity of his candidacy dawned on him, he pledged his support for Liz Truss, notwithstanding their ideological differences. Almost the only thing they had in common, careerism apart, was their hostility toward China.

Once Truss began her ignominious seven-week prime ministership, she rewarded Tugendhat with an appointment as the security minister. Even then, she had the good sense to make him only a middle-ranking minister of state rather than a fully-fledged cabinet minister, the status he craved. He has remained in that position ever since and is currently one of the two ministers of state serving under the Home Secretary, James Cleverly.

With his political baggage, Tugendhat can only be seen as a viper in the British government's nest. His anti-China credentials helped secure his current appointment, but they will hopefully take him no further. He is no friend of Hong Kong and has had the city in his sights for many years.

On Nov 6, 2019, for example, when black violence was gripping Hong Kong, and the "one country, two systems" policy was imperiled, Tugendhat tried to harm the city. As the then chairman of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, and long before the enactment of the National Security Law for Hong Kong, he stoked concerns over the role of British judges in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA).

At the very time when Hong Kong was struggling to uphold its legal system in the face of unprecedented violence, he targeted its judges. He declared the presence of the British judges in the CFA gave the appearance of complicity "in a system that is undermining the rule of law," and called for their position to be reviewed.

Although delusional, Tugendhat's comments were the tip of a nasty iceberg. On Feb 1, 2022, for example, when he met the convicted felon and national security suspect, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, he said he was "honored to meet a political hero of mine". However bizarre, he was echoing the assessment of the serial fantasist Benedict Rogers, who runs Hong Kong Watch, the anti-China machine, and with whom he is closely associated.

On Sept 21, 2021, Rogers had not only called Law his "hero" but also praised his "quite extraordinary decency".

Although Law must have been flattered by the plaudits of Tugendhat and Rogers, his victims will have been disgusted for reasons nobody should ever forget. In 2017, Law and his cronies were convicted over their involvement in what the Court of Appeal called "a large-scale unlawful assembly, involving violence". Their forced invasion of restricted government premises in Admiralty in 2014 left 10 security guards injured, with one, Chan Kei-lun, sustaining bruises, swelling and a fracture, and having to take 39 days' sick leave.

Law has still not apologized to any of his victims, let alone paid them compensation. By describing him as their "hero", Tugendhat and Rogers not only demeaned themselves but added insult to his victims' injuries. By lionizing a political thug, they also exposed their own perverted agenda.

As Law had faithfully served Western interests in Hong Kong for many years, they were happy to whitewash his criminality, and they were not alone. After he fled from Hong Kong in June 2020, his handlers arranged his political asylum in the UK. When the then US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, visited London on July 21, 2020, one of the first things he did was to summon Law to meet him at the US embassy, presumably to thank him for his services (the other patsy Pompeo summoned that day was the ex-governor, Chris Patten).

Since joining the government, Tugendhat has continued to attend Hong Kong Watch functions, where he is warmly received. Rogers undoubtedly views him as "his man" in the British government, and the pair have much in common. Whereas Rogers founded Hong Kong Watch in 2017 to spread Sinophobic propaganda in the community, Tugendhat established the China Research Group in 2021 to perform a similar function in the British parliament.

Thus, when Tugendhat made his ill-judged comments on Jan 30, Rogers could not resist following suit. Without bothering to study the proposals, he said they "would be a death knell to Hong Kong's fundamental freedoms and human rights which are guaranteed under international law".

It is remarkable that, while slagging off Hong Kong's Article 23 proposals, Tugendhat and Rogers have countenanced the harsh nature of the UK's own recently enacted National Security Act (2023) (NSA). Apart from giving the police extra powers of detention and curbing the pretrial rights of suspects, the NSA introduced a package of national security laws covering espionage, sabotage, foreign interference and influence. Indeed, as the security minister, Tugendhat would have been closely involved in fashioning the NSA (described in parliament as "draconian"), and his demonization of the Article 23 proposals was all the more contemptible.

If, moreover, Tugendhat and Rogers are genuinely concerned over the rights and freedoms of others, their failure, as ex-journalists, to take a stand against the merciless US persecution on British soil of the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, demonstrates their rank hypocrisy. Although Assange was a journalist who exposed grave US abuses around the world, they have done nothing to protect him from its revenge. Nor have they deplored his inhumane treatment during his prolonged detention at London's notorious Belmarsh prison, as he resists extradition to the US. These two prize hypocrites are loath to say or do anything that might upset their backers in Washington DC.

In its eagerness to diss the Article 23 proposals, on Feb 19, Hong Kong Watch published a condemnatory letter it claimed was "signed by 86 civil society organizations from around the world". Apparently drafted by Rogers, it bore the signatures of a ragtag band of ludicrous entities, many likely bogus. They included "Britons in Hong Kong," "Hongkongers in Deutschland," "Lady Liberty Hong Kong," "Hongkongers in Leeds," and "Students for Falun Gong" (no kidding).

Although the letter's lineup was farcical, its message was sinister. Rogers urged "concerned governments" not only to "publicly oppose the introduction of Article 23", but also to impose "targeted sanctions on officials responsible for introducing Article 23". Everybody who cares for Hong Kong will hope the day is not long delayed when this debased individual's malevolence proves his undoing.

When the Hong Kong government condemned Rogers' vile letter, he cynically called in the rabid ideologue Lord (David) Alton, whom he had previously appointed a Hong Kong Watch patron (together with Patten). Alton obliged and issued a statement on Feb 23 saying he stood "in solidarity with these courageous organizations". He claimed to be "deeply concerned" that the Article 23 proposals would "exacerbate Beijing's oppression in Hong Kong, and further undermine basic rights and freedoms", which must have titillated Rogers no end.

Indeed, Alton would have been happy to help out, given that he is a leading light in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, which is funded by "Stand with Hong Kong", a subversive entity linked to the black violence of 2019-20 (and with ties to Hong Kong Watch). When Alton visited Hong Kong as an "observer" during the 2019 district council elections, all his expenses were covered by "Stand with Hong Kong", so he has been in its pocket for many years.

Only time will tell if the paranoia peddled by Tugendhat, Rogers and Alton is the shape of things to come, but there will be many in the West who will blindly oppose the Article 23 legislation. Even if it mirrors their own laws and is entirely reasonable, they can be counted upon to oppose it. That, unfortunately, is the nature of the beast, and for many of China's antagonists the proposed legislation is simply another stick with which to beat Beijing. There is little prospect of them giving the proposals a fair hearing.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon the government to stay focused and not to obsess over foreign reactions. While adapting relevant models from elsewhere, it cannot bend over backward to please inherently hostile Western countries, many of whom relish mythmaking at Hong Kong's expense. In the UK, for example, the foreign secretary, Lord (David) Cameron, on Dec 17, and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, on Jan 3, issued grossly inaccurate statements about the national security trial of the former media magnate Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, and there is no reason to suppose they will now objectively analyze the Article 23 proposals.

Although the government should allay global concerns wherever possible, the likes of Tugendhat, Rogers and Alton would want to confront China on any pretext. They have already poisoned the UK's political atmosphere, urging everyone to sharpen their knives. With a general election pending, Sunak and Cameron know there are no votes to be had in being reasonable over Hong Kong (the same goes for the US president Joe Biden, who is up for reelection in November). They must be expected to traduce the Article 23 legislation.

It is, therefore, important to be realistic, and Hong Kong must concentrate on doing whatever is necessary to protect its motherland.

 

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The article was first published in China Daily.