Article 23: Hong Kong slams ‘malicious’ ex-governor Chris Patten, accusing security law critics of ‘fact-twisting’

Hong Kong Free Press

Hong Kong’s government has lashed out at foreign critics of its new national security law, describing the city’s last British governor – Chris Patten – as a “malicious” anti-China figure, accusing him and others of twisting the facts.

A spokesperson said the government “firmly opposed and strongly condemned” what it called slanders and smears about the new homegrown security law from the US, some Western countries, “anti-China” organisations and politicians, foreign media and wanted persons based overseas.

A statement singled out NGOs Hong Kong Watch and Amnesty International, and Patten – who was claimed to harbour “malicious intentions to harm Hong Kong.” Patten was governor from 1992 till the city’ s Handover to China in 1997. In recent years, he has spoken out strongly against what he sees as encroachments of the city’s promised freedoms.

The comments from overseas critics completely disregarded the city’s constitutional duty and practical need to pass the legislation, the government said in a Wednesday statement: “Not only are those remarks totally unfounded and fact-twisting, but they also entirely disregard the constitutional duty and practical needs of the HKSAR to legislate, and the positive effects brought by the enactment of the legislation on economic development and protection of human rights,” the statement read.

article 23 — Legislative Council president Andrew Leung and lawmakers address reporters after the passing of Article 23 on March 19, 2024. Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP.

It came a day after Beijing slammed the European Union and the UK for adopting “double standards” and interfering with China’s internal affairs by criticising the new law.

Separate to the 2020 Beijing-enacted security law, the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, and theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of to up to 16 days, suspects’ access to lawyers may be restricted, and penalties can involve up to life in prison. Its legislation failed in 2003 following mass protests and it remained taboo until 2024 when it was fast-tracked at the city’s opposition-free legislature.

The law has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and “regressive.” But authorities cite perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to “close loopholes” after the 2019 protests and unrest.

‘Nail in the coffin’ of human rights

Patten, on Tuesday, decried “another large nail in the coffin” of human rights and the rule of law, claiming the Joint Declaration – which gave rise to Hong Kong’s Handover – had been breached again: “Why should anyone believe any promises from Xi Jinping’s totalitarian regime on anything? Governments and parliaments around the world will take note and so will international investors. Meanwhile the wonderful and talented Hong Kongers who have taken refuge to our benefit in Britain and elsewhere will be confirmed in their decision. They are witnesses to the way in which real Chinese patriots believe in freedom and a decent life for their children.”

Vedant Patel, spokesman for the US Department of State, said on Tuesday the US was “alarmed” by what it termed vaguely defined provisions. The US was reviewing potential risks to its citizens and other American interests, he said.

“We believe that these kinds of actions have the potential to accelerate the closing of Hong Kong’s once open society,” he said.

Sarah Brooks, China director of Amnesty International, also raised concerns over the “inherent vagueness” of the new law. She said Hong Kong authorities needed to give NGOs clarity about the risks they may face, and clear guidelines that would allow them to mitigate any real or perceived risks.

“Whatever claims the government may make in respect of the credibility and legitimacy of the [new security law], it is clear that there is a critical role for human rights experts, including those monitoring UN treaties signed by China and Hong Kong, to raise red flags about its shortcomings and monitor how it may be used to violate rights in practice,” she said.

CGO — Central Government Offices in Admiralty. Photo: GovHK.

In response, the Hong Kong government said the ordinance was the “aspiration of the people” and had been given “diligent and prudent scrutiny” by legislators. It would prevent Hongkongers from being exposed to violent destruction and pro-independence movements.

The spokesperson said in the statement the new law had given “due consideration” to the protection of normal business activities, the media and the need to engage in international exchanges.

”Turning a blind eye to the facts and making exaggerated remarks, the anti-China forces maliciously smeared the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, demonstrating typical political hegemony and hypocrisy with double standards.”