OnPoint Subscriber Exclusive

Longer Reads provide in-depth analysis of the ideas and forces shaping politics, economics, international affairs, and more.

op_patten3_ ISAAC LAWRENCEAFP via Getty Images_hong kong protest

en English

Longer Reads

The Lonesome Death of Hong Kong

May 25, 2020 Chris Patten

It is no surprise that COVID-19 has pushed Hong Kong and the protests that have roiled the territory out of the public eye in recent months. But out of sight should not mean out of mind, because the city’s fate will tell us much about the sort of China the world will be dealing with in the decades ahead.

LONDON – The sword of Damocles that has been hanging above Hong Kong since Chinese President Xi Jinping came to power has finally dropped. By taking advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the COVID-19 pandemic to impose draconian new security laws on the city, Xi has in effect annulled the agreement that has governed the relationship between China and Hong Kong for almost a quarter-century.

A Compromise That Worked

Hong Kong’s prospects hang on whether or not a single agreement concluded nearly four decades ago can still be salvaged. In the 1984 Joint Declaration regarding the United Kingdom’s future handover of Hong Kong to China, the city was promised that it would be run after 1997 on the basis of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” formula. Although this model probably was devised as much, if not more, with Taiwan in mind, it helped both the UK and China to evade a tangle of moral and political problems concerning Hong Kong.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Unforgettable Tiananmen
Peter Charlesworth/LightRocket via Getty Images

Politics 44

Unforgettable Tiananmen

Chris Patten explains why the Chinese authorities are still afraid of their country's recent history.
Liberal Democracy and Its Enemies
Laszlo Balogh/Getty Images

Politics 16

Liberal Democracy and Its Enemies

Chris Patten pinpoints the internal and external threats to the long-established Western system of government.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 34 Comments on this article

Accidental Autobiography Jun 21, 2020

As one of the 'lost generation' who is ethically Chinese but born under British rule and finally found refuge in my 'adopted parent', Australia, I have a certain sensibility and perspective on this subject.

There is very little doubt that Australia is home to me now and I love the land of the kangaroos and koalas with a fervent passion. I value democracy and unlike some native Australians here, I delight in turning up at voting booths and exercising my democratic rights. Notwithstanding my love for democracy, I really had to do some serious soul-searching early in the piece to understand why I knew very little about politics and the answer to that question became apparent to me when I reflected on the reality that I was born without any democratic right, albeit the governance of Hong Kong was founded on democratic principles. Whenever I was asked about my nationality, I could not readily answer the question and would eventually come up with ‘British’ or ‘Hong Kong’ in the most unconvincing manner. While I recall us enjoying much freedom in the former British colony as I was growing up, we were British subjects who were governed by British-appointed governors. When I started school in Australia and civics were discussed as part of the curriculum, the concept of having any kind of democratic right was utterly foreign to me.

Having said all that, I have to take my hat off to you, Chris, for your tremendous effort in trying to institute seeds of a democratic framework in Hong Kong during your tenure and before the handover, despite all the vitriolic nonsense that was thrown at you. In my view, rhetoric such as “the people in Hong Kong really don’t care much about politics - all they care about is to make money” is regressive and represents a defeatist attitude that is borne out of sheer helplessness. They are essentially saying, “One could never win in conflict with a powerful bully, so why should we even bother trying?” While this may be a pragmatic view, harbouring these views precludes the possibility of any democratic progress, which culminates to the current state of affairs in Hong Kong.

As to the obligations of the United Kingdom, it is my view that Britain owes the Hong Kong people something but I don't necessarily know how to define 'something’. All I know is that not having any choice of my own, I was born under a regime and political ideology that were founded in democracy and it was vulgar for the British to leave me shackled in the shadow of the horrors of communist China that was utterly at odds with how I was brought up and educated had I not been able to escape the colony before it was handed back to a power-hungry regime that has little regard for human rights and democratic values. It was tantamount to adopted parents letting a child’s natural parents resume their parental duties while knowing full well that the natural parents were prone to child abuse.

The lack of the British Government's insistence and muscle-flexing to safeguard democracy for the people of Hong Kong and the empty gesture of handing out those impotent BN(O) passports that do not grant any right of abode in Britain to those who were born as British subjects have not relieved the British Government of their moral obligation and duties, which ultimately led to the 'Hong Kong diaspora'. But that need not be the legacy upon which the United Kingdom will be judged in the history books. There is still time for the British Government to do what is morally decent (thanks to British Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who recently started a constructive dialogue about varying the rights of the holders of the BN(O) passports), even if that demands political courage and resilience. With the exception of your efforts as Governor, Chris, the British Government has certainly not done nearly enough to discharge its moral duties to date but it is not too late for it to start doing so.

I found myself re-watching your last speech on 30 June 1997 on YouTube last night with a tremendous sense of gratitude to you and an equal measure of sadness. As the band played on after your speech and the camera captured scenes of Hong Kong and all its splendour, I was overcome by the sudden realisation, perhaps 23 years too late, that the Hong Kong I once knew had been lost forever as the HMY Britannia solemnly sailed away into the darkness, which coincided with the realisation that it was precisely then when I became an orphan.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Aragorn Ho Jun 16, 2020

There are two facts that Lord Patten may have chosen to neglect: 1. China is not trying to turn HK into Shenzhen or Shanghai, but Xinjiang/Tibet. 2. China, the new Nazi, would not stop with Hong Kong or Taiwan, and boycott China wouldn't be enough. The West is repeating the same mistake of letting Hitler grow in the early 1930s.

And, I'd like to advise Lord Patten to pay attention to the Education Bureau, Department of Justice, and judgements from lower courts, including magistrates and district courts, though judges from High Court and above are found to be deviating from impartiality.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Guthrie Stewart Jun 5, 2020

Commentators like Patten seem to focus on only the second half of the « one country / two systems » agreement and ignore the reality that Hong Kong is no longer a British territory and now in fact part of China. Hard to imagine any other country sitting idly by while a part of its territory protests national involvement of almost any kind. And perhaps he could comment on the very real social issues also underlying the protests - such as local students continuing to be educated primarily in Cantonese over Mandarin - in an expensive city where many employers (especially in the city’s large financial sector) are seeking international fluency. My final thought is that it would be nice to hear from today’s Hong Kongers in this discussion - and less from former emissaries of a bygone era.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jeff Meller May 28, 2020

For a long-term and intimate view of "one country, two systems" and Mr. Patten's role bringing Hong Kong to its current troubles see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tusxlvSa2a0&feature=youtu.be
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yi F May 28, 2020

How beautiful and impressive these words are in this article. Even after 23 years after departure from the office, Mr. Patten still keeps the deepest caring towards HK people. When black-shirted young people flood to UK with BNO passports, please welcome them with your open heart and they will become a beautiful sight to behold in the United Kingdom.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
twood May 27, 2020

Hilarious! Death from what? UK ruled Hong Kong without a trace of democracy or human rights before its exit. Political opposition regardless of color were routinely extradicted back to where they were born, ie , mostly "Communist China".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen May 26, 2020

Chris Patten accuses China of imposing a new “draconian” security law that will give the Communist regime greater powers to prevent and punish dissent in Hong Kong, sounding the death knell for its freedoms. This audacious move is a further erosion of Hong Kong autonomy, which should allow its citizens to enjoy rights that are not seen in mainland China. The timing could not have been more convenient, as the whole world is preoccupied with Covid-19, pushing Hong Kong and the protests “that have roiled the territory out of the public eye in recent months.”
The National Security legislation, announced last week, was submitted at the delayed annual National People’s Congress (NPC), which largely rubber-stamps decisions already taken by the Communist leadership. The author says, “Xi has in effect annulled the agreement that has governed the relationship” between China and Hong Kong since its 1997 handover, which meant to guarantee the “one country, two systems” in the former British colony until 2047.
Protests began in June 2019 against plans to allow extradition to mainland China, which could undermine judicial independence and endanger dissidents, they have gripped Hong Kong for the past year. Started as peaceful marches, protests became increasingly lawless and violent. Critics fear one day China would bring in its troops to restore law and order. Now it has come in the form of National Security laws.
What is so perfidious with the new legislation is that it will give Beijing the legal justification to act directly and quash the protests, criminalising any act of treason, secession, sedition or subversion of the Communist regime, and it seeks to prevent foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting business in Hong Kong. As one of the most ominous parts of the new law, Chinese security forces will be allowed to operate on the streets of Hong Kong, marking their presence there.
In the short term, the security laws will inflame the protests. To make matters worse, a bill is currently going through the Hong Kong legislative council which seeks to make disrespecting the Chinese national anthem a crime punishable with up to three years in jail.
Chinese State Media described the new laws in Hong Kong as an opportunity to put an end to the turmoil, seeing no reason why there should be two systems in the same country, condemning pro-democracy activists and lawmakers of poisoning the city’s atmosphere and blaming a warped sense of right and wrong for the violence.
Xi Jinping, emboldened by his victory over the virus, is seeking to further consolidate his leadership and show Hong Kong that he will no longer tolerate any dissent. The pandemic has presented him with the toughest set of economic and political challenges China has faced since Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms at the end of the 1970s. Under the pressure to boost growth, and attack from the US, he has moved to shore up his domestic position. He seems to be running out of patience with the one country, two systems and speeding up the process of taking full control of Hong Kong.
The author does not urge the West “to boycott China or try to cut it off from the international community.” Yet how can Beijing be “encouraged to play by the same international rules” as the rest of us. He says our “world would be safer for liberal democracies if we created a values-based framework for our dealings with China. We should do this together and not allow ourselves to be picked off one by one by mercantilist intimidation.”
Given Britain’s moral and legal duties as co-signatories of the 1997 agreement, Boris Johnson should be leading the way in rallying support for Hong Kong. But the UK has much at stake to confront China over Hong Kong, wary of alienating Beijing as the UK seeks trade deals in the post-Brexit era. “Behaving in a way that corresponds with our political values does not threaten economic catastrophe. The idea that you can do business with China only if you say and do what its leaders want has always been nonsense – including in the case of the UK.”
Indeed, the West “should not be browbeaten into embarrassed silence in the face of China’s violation of its obligations regarding Hong Kong……. Around the world, liberal democracies must stand up for themselves if governance based on the rule of law is to survive. The West therefore has a vital stake in the ongoing struggle in Hong Kong.”
Mike Pompeo said the US “strongly urges Beijing to reconsider its disastrous proposal, abide by its international obligations, and respect Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy, democratic institutions, and civil liberties.” His intervention must have infuriated Beijing, whose relations with the US have been strained by disputes over trade and allegations of a Chinese coverup of the spread of Covid-19. It is still too early to say which of the two – China and the US – will emerge stronger in the post-pandemic world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
About Face May 26, 2020

In this 21st century, to cite Emperor Xi, as a talking point is misalign to the realpolitik of the day. As a strongman in China, he has to deal with which pose a more detrimental threat to China's development - corruption or corrupt democracy as institutionalised in the US model? Fermenting discord is as old as Mao's doctrine of encirclement. Has China changed the face of US or UK democracy ?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ofer Desade May 26, 2020

"The sword of Damocles has been hanging above Hong Kong" since HSBC made it the base of operations for the opium wars. china has not forgotten or forgiven, especially considering the fact that england has neither ASKED for fogiveness nor made reparation. i'm guessing singapore will be next.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
donald quixote May 26, 2020

Helpfully Mr. Patten brought up “the current and former sovereigns of HK” but then ignored the problematic legal repository of sovereignty, that for over three-and-half century after the Peace of Westphalia, whether sovereignty can still be argued as residing with a parliament as purported by John Austin, or by extension as the “popular sovereignty” as in the American Constitution where “we the people” referred only to the elites but not congress certainly not the American public. The legal debate is still unsettled today especially when it is forced to apply to the self-styled “democracies” as to where it should reside.

Up to now the best go-to construct was that from Joseph Bodin and Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. China today with its ever morphing reigning-party, fits that bill perfectly. Covid19 governance [ability to any sovereign state to suppress and arrest the pandemic infections] has proven that China’s Bodinian Hobbesian sovereignty works, in fact by performance China trumps those so called “democracies” or the liberal-order US and UK claim they are, in battling a pandemic-flu.

Nowhere in this 2,800 words article has Patten argued whether as the current sovereign of HKSAR could, that for whatsoever reasons it has not been able to complete and enact the mini-constitution Basic Law, enact it in full on behalf of HK's dysfunctional democratic legislature. By default we also cannot expect Patten to truthfully concede in his HK death-certification, that it is fully within the sovereignty of China to ensure the Basic Law is enacted in full [it has been without Article 23 on seditions since 1997], so as to ensure its full compliance with the 1984 Joint Declaration lodged with the UN.

Incidentally when it comes to international relations the UN Charter is based on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members, not propaganda, or, by conflating the media-grandstanding, glorification of HK mob rioting as international justification that China is somehow not deserving or the rightful sovereign of HKSAR.

Chris Patten the last governor of HK lowered and took away the rain-soaked Union Jack, and left HK at midnight on June30, 1997, clearly he’s still grinding an axe...
- About Face May 26, 2020
  
  Well argued. Patten is disingenuous in positing that China, has no sovereignty over Hong Kong to complete and make perfect the mini constitution under Article 23. Preposterous.
  - P. Kamath May 26, 2020
    
    As I see Chris Patten is NOT arguing that China has no sovereignty over Hong Kong, but only is mourning the impending demise of democracy in HK. He is pointing out that China has broken its promise when Great Britain left Hong Kong.
    
    The British have always played a well rehearsed gestures of face saving ritual of drums and bugles. In that sense, Brits. are always good at it, compared to other European colonial powers like the French, Dutch, Belgians.....and Portuguese. The last one claimed that Goa in India were simply overseas territory of Portugal until they were imprisoned and kicked out by Police action of the Indian Army.
    
    It is all over now. Soon, the the red flag of China will be flying over Hong Kong.
    - About Face May 26, 2020
      
      China broke no promises. She is perfecting the unfinished legislation. Chris Patten's idea of democracy - what exactly is that? Rule of Law against civil disruption, property damage, violence, not to be enforced? Thuggish behaviours, senseless beatings of others ? If they are demonstrating against wealth inequality, wealth disparity, poor housing, yes valid and they will have support. The young protesters have lost it. They really don't understand the word democracy and how hard, their parents have been working their butts off in the last 30 years.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Simon Cox May 25, 2020

This bleating would be more convincing if the UK colonists had made any realistic moves towards introducing democracy in HK before running way. But they didn't.
- Ofer Desade May 26, 2020
  
  "The sword of Damocles has been hanging above Hong Kong" since HSBC made it the base of operations for the opium wars. china has not forgotten or forgiven, especially considering the fact that england has neither ASKED for fogiveness nor made reparation. i'm guessing singapore will be next.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Lentz May 25, 2020

A little closer to home U.K. number 2 in COVID deaths after its beloved USA. Hmm and majority of Americans want universal healthcare the polls say but they cannot have it. So much for democracy which in America is just a lot of noise
Speech without results
So what does all this finger pointing and bloviating mean. It’s a standard trick criticize the other so don’t look in your own household
Then maybe go fight them for your House of Lords
Hilarious
And U.K. still has a Queen bizarre
- Nancy zhang May 25, 2020
  
  When America broke the laws no one said anything.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Federico Boeykens May 25, 2020

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACKS
¿por que opinan que el capitalismo es mejor que el comunismo para hong kong ?
¿derecho monarquico de un gobernador imperial de una casa real alemana ?
a opinar sobre una isla de una republica soberana 15 000 kilometros de distancia .
PS: son estas opiniones las que hacen que el progresismo americano solo es un disfraz.
why do you think capitalism is better than communism for hong kong?
Monarchical right of an imperial governor of a German royal house?
to comment on an island in a republic 15,000 km away.
PS: it is these opinions that make American progressivism only a disguise.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael James May 25, 2020

I am a bit surprised that the Hong Kong protesters don't make more of the fact that it is Deng Xiaoping's agreement that Xi Jinping is dishonouring. In so doing he is dishonouring Deng whose standing only grows as the one true Chinese hero since the revolution. It is one thing for Xi to flagrantly show his personal word cannot be trusted and that he has no honour but to traduce Deng is really too offensive, surely, for most Chinese patriots? My guess is that there are plenty of Chinese high in the inner circle who find Xi's behaviour distasteful and less than honourable, and not creating the impression in the world that Deng wanted for his nation. Does China's word in formal agreements mean so little?

Deng suffered three accusations, purges and exiles based on his honourable stand against the then destructive policies of Mao that brought misery and death to so many of his countrymen. The prosperity of modern China owes most to Deng who would have introduced his 1970s reforms almost 2 decades earlier if it were not for resistance by the old guard and Mao's culpability in sowing disorder. Deng's attempted liberalisation of agriculture in the late 50s, a forerunner of his later transition to a market economy, was one of his actions/policies that got him exiled by the party. It was only his widespread admiration and reputation for honour and modesty by his fellow Long Marchers, and indeed Mao, that saved him from worse.

Even I feel offended on behalf of Deng and I have no particular links to China or Hong Kong. The Hong Kong freedom fighters should press this case to the Chinese people because, while nationalism is rife and rising, I doubt Xi and his attempt to create a cult around himself and of course to make himself president-for-life, both things abhorrent to Deng, are truly admired. It is not Xi who created this modern miracle though he seems to either believe he is, or is attempting to take the credit.

Given a choice between Deng and Xi, I doubt there is any contest in the hearts of most Chinese.
- William Ng May 25, 2020
  
  Deng's legacy is just as bright if not brighter for those of us not in the system. But the sheer amount of brainwashing that takes place within the system cannot be discounted. This after all is a system built by robbers and mercenaries on the promise of wealth, who had always been hostile towards culture and independent thought for the populace at large. If you had interacted with those they call "little pink", ie millenials and gen z who are so thoroughly wired in the beliefs of the current party and often even after exposure to western society (usually by being sent overseas for studies), still promotes the ccps talking points with maximum conviction. Never mind that their parents originally sent them out because many of them are secretly wary of the system. Governor Patten is correct in pointing out that the entire line of thinking regarding profiting off of the China is but a mirage. Not to even mention one belt one road, there were even earlier evidence from early HK businesses' forays into China back in the late 80s. One only need to look at how most of those enterprises turned out to shatter any disillusionment they might still have over dealing with China "on their terms"
  - Michael James May 25, 2020
    
    Right, but I'm saying that the Hong Kong peace protesters should exploit this intrinsic tension between the genuine feeling towards Deng that even the millenials and gen z must have, and the transparent personal power-building by Xi (itself an age-old Chinese or universal behaviour but which Deng himself tried to diminish, eg. in suppressing any nascent attempt to build a personality cult around himself). It has the power of being correct from almost all points of view, mainlander or Hong Konger or foreigner.
    
    Incidentally, one should be careful about assuming that "millenials and gen z who are so thoroughly wired in the beliefs of the current party and often even after exposure to western society" is genuine, rather than merely a defensive ploy. A bit of public theatre. Even when they are overseas students they know they must be very careful re their public behaviour due to surveillance and potential repercussions to themselves and their families back home.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jay Kay May 25, 2020

Hong Kong was doomed the moment that either the UK decided it would take Chinese Communist Party at their word, or more likely, the moment the UK decided to pretend that it took the Chinese Communist Party at their word.

Everyone knows that.

Anyone with any means and brains in HK got out the moment the UK started to tango with the CCP.

Anyone that is still there was prepared to trade their freedom for the promise of money, and as happens in such situations they will end up with neither.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis au yeung May 25, 2020

I fully agree with everything Chris Patten wrote in this article. I would just add one thing. It seems to me that the prospects of the young generation are very slim. On the one hand, the economic structure of Hong Kong (which Chris Patten tried to amend when he was Governor) does not provide sufficient opportunities for the young generation. And at the same time, the political system is blocked, with civil liberties constantly under threat (as the article perfectly shows). So, it creates a generation of youngsters with no hope -- they have nothing to lose. This is an element that neither the Central or the HK government have understood. The possibilities they try to offer to these young people (e.g. Greater Bay area) are not attractive enough. I have developed this point (with an emphasis on the economic situation) in my book: "the economic roots of the umbrella movement"
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/T0aZXhQ

OnPoint Subscriber Exclusive

The Lonesome Death of Hong Kong

A Compromise That Worked

Subscribe to PS Digital

Unforgettable Tiananmen

Liberal Democracy and Its Enemies

New Comment

Contact us

More
PS OnPoint

The Lost Liberal Legal Imagination

Keyu Jin on Chinese regulation, innovation, finance, and more

The Quad’s Big Moment

India’s Law-of-the-Jungle Raj

Log in/Register

The Lonesome Death of Hong Kong

A Compromise That Worked

Subscribe to PS Digital

More PS OnPoint

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification

More
PS OnPoint