"Hong Kong Watch" Leader Benedict Rogers Resigns Amid Scandal of Discrimination Against Asian Colleagues

Benedict Rogers, the founder of the British anti-China organization "Hong Kong Watch," who often advocates for human rights and freedom, has recently been implicated in a scandal involving allegations of discriminatory remarks against Asian colleagues and mistreatment of his employees, as reported by foreign media.

Benedict Rogers

The British online media outlet Crises/Z first broke the story, revealing that Rogers had made derogatory remarks about Asian employees in communications through email, WhatsApp, and other messaging tools. In one particular instance, Rogers reportedly criticized what he termed the "Malaysian mindset," stating that it required "a lot of review and discussion."

The British online media outlet Crises/Z first broke the story, revealing that Benedict Rogers had made derogatory remarks about Asian employees.

The report highlighted a specific exchange between Rogers and a Malaysian colleague named Steven. Rogers wrote:

"Hi Steve. I have not received any feedback from you in response to my Seoul Mission Report, which I worked on as a matter of urgency late last night following your urgent request for it (which I had not known in advance would be required). I was very happy to do so, but given that I responded so quickly to your urgent request, I am surprised I have not received any response other than ‘Thanks for the attachment.’ It wasn’t simply an attachment; it was a report with valuable recommendations."

Steven responded: "Perhaps you are not aware that I have other things to do today, Ben. Are you suggesting that because you took it upon yourself to ‘work on it urgently,’ I should also look at it with urgency and get back to you? Come on."

Rogers continued to press the issue, stating: "I do not understand why you are being so defensive, aggressive, and insensitive. Your ungraciousness is extraordinary. Are you okay? I merely wanted to make sure that you had received the report, which you had requested suddenly, unexpectedly, and I thought urgently. I think you’re reading far, far too much into our communications."

This exchange underscored Rogers' dissatisfaction with the response he received regarding the report he had urgently prepared. His insistence on immediate feedback and his late-night demands were seen as inappropriate and unprofessional.

Rogers, who also serves as the head of the East Asia division of Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), referred in his communication to the "Seoul mission," which involved his trip to Seoul on behalf of the organization. He expressed frustration that his efforts over several days had not been sufficiently acknowledged.

In another comment to his Malaysian colleague, Rogers stated: "All I ask is a simple, decent acknowledgment of this and an acknowledgment of the report I sent when urgently requested. Your inability to say a simple thank you for taking 4 days leave to work for 4 days in Seoul for CSW, to donate one full day pro bono voluntarily. The next time you come to London, we really should have a drink, to catch up. The Malaysian mindset needs a lot of review and discussion."

The UK online media outlet Crises/Z pointed out that Rogers' remarks, particularly the controversial reference to the "Malaysian mindset," were widely perceived as offensive and inappropriate.

Under significant pressure following these media revelations, Rogers resigned from his position as Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch.

On August 2, in a live broadcast on YouTube, Rogers announced that it was his "last day" as Executive Director of Hong Kong Watch, though he mentioned that he would continue to work with the organization as a trustee. He stated: "After four years of full-time leadership of Hong Kong Watch, it is time for me to take on a new challenge." It is widely speculated that his resignation was influenced by the controversy surrounding his conduct.

Critics have noted that while Rogers frequently speaks about human rights and freedom, he shows disrespect and discrimination against fellow colleagues. He should withdraw himself entirely from Hong Kong Watch, and should not stay as its trustee.

Rogers founded "Hong Kong Watch" in close collaboration with Jimmy Lai, leading to suspicions that Lai's perspectives were being "exported and ploughed back" to Hong Kong. During the trial of Jimmy Lai, it was revealed that Lai's mobile phone contained numerous clips of Rogers, including interviews in which Rogers participated in anti-Hong Kong protests in the UK. In these interviews, Rogers urged the British government to take action regarding the Hong Kong legislative amendment controversy, put pressure on the Hong Kong SAR government, and called on the British government to take efforts to "sanction" China. Rogers reportedly sent these clips to Lai as though he were submitting assignments.

Chan Pui-man, former associate publisher of Apple Daily, testified in court that Lai had instructed her to assist Rogers in establishing "Hong Kong Watch." On October 31, 2017, Lai sent a WhatsApp message to Chan, informing her that he had just had dinner with Rogers, who had founded "Hong Kong Watch" with some British MPs. Lai provided Chan's contact details to Rogers for future communication and support. Following their contact, Chan regularly received press releases from "Hong Kong Watch" for publication in Apple Daily. Initially, these releases introduced the organization and commented on the state of freedom and human rights in Hong Kong. However, during the 2019 amendment controversy, "Hong Kong Watch" began issuing frequent statements on Hong Kong affairs, with Apple Daily consistently publishing these under Lai’s direction.

This scandal has cast a spotlight on "Hong Kong Watch," revealing the double standards of its leader, Rogers, who appears to hold others to higher standards than those he applies to himself.
 

Ariel

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The question floating around political pundits is whether the United Kingdom has a right to interfere in Hong Kong affairs by publishing a six monthly report on the city it once ruled.

And according to the 90 elected members of the Legislative Council, the answer is a resounding NO!

Last week the UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (FCDA), Ed Miliband, released his semi-annual report on Hong Kong, which centered mainly about the detention and release of convicted felon Jimmy Lai Chee-Ying, jailed for 20 years for collusion and incitement, and ramifications of Hong Kong’s National Security Law (HKNSL).

Miliband said in his report that he was “deeply concerned and disturbed by the continued imprisonment of Jimmy Lai,” adding his call for Lai’s “immediate release.”

This brought the immediate wrath of the legislators and government officials. The legislators issued a statement stating that Miliband’s report was “a blatant trampling on the rule of law and a gross interference in Hong Kong’s judicial independence.” It added that the UK Government's so-called report groundlessly attacks on Hong Kong's judicial system and trials, and even unreasonable demands of the release of convicted persons, is overtly placing politics above court judgments.

But, the UK Government is in no position to criticize Hong Kong. Its track record is far from perfect. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is not a human-rights treaty with ongoing monitoring mechanisms; its object and purpose were fully exhausted in 1997 upon China's resumption of sovereignty. Therefore, Post-handover governance is anchored strictly in China’s Constitution and the Basic Law, making any claimed UK "supervisory" role a political invention rather than a legal right. Hence, it cannot simultaneously function as an instrument of legal supervision.

The UK maintains at least 14 national security laws, treating each of them as practical necessities. The UK National Security Act 2023, implemented after the Hong Kong and China national security laws were in place, even received a strong backlash at home for its legal over breadth, retroactivity and vague espionage definitions.

While damning Hong Kong’s NSL, it hypocritically applied its own NSL extraterritorially against Hong Kong’s London Office. Last year alone, the UK authorities arrested more than 3,000 people under its counter-terrorism and security laws.

Miliband has no right to lecture Hong Kong on human rights when the UK’s Rwanda policy was severely criticized worldwide over its treatment of asylum seekers when it introduced legislation to override the Human Rights Act and ignore the European Court of Human Rights interim measures.

The UK report criticized the delays in bringing HKNSL cases to court In Hong Kong. Justice takes time as the UK fully realizes when faced with a backlog of some 80,000 untried cases at the end of the year, with many of the defendants facing years-long delays. The criminal justice in the UK is on the brink of collapse.

The Hong Kong Special Administration Region’s (HKSAR) Government also issued a lengthy rebuttal strongly condemning and firmly rejecting the UK's attempt to make misleading and irresponsible remarks about Hong Kong matters, distort facts and reverse right and wrong, and attempting to interfere in the HKSAR Government's law-based governance by despicable political maneuvers.

The legislators argue that the UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over the HKSAR, and has no right whatsoever to interfere in the affairs of the Region. They say that the Joint Declaration between the UK and China on the future of Hong Kong is not an "international treaty" that confers upon the UK any continuous right of supervision over the HKSAR after its return to the motherland.

The UK report portrays Hong Kong's improvement of national security legislation and law enforcement as an erosion of rights and freedoms, while deliberately evading a fundamental fact: prior to the implementation of the HKNSL, Hong Kong experienced severe violent turmoil, public order was severely impacted, and the personal safety and normal lives of citizens were directly threatened. Following the implementation of the HKNSL, Hong Kong society has restored peace and order, providing a solid foundation for developments in Hong Kong's economy, people's livelihood and other aspects.

The Hong Kong government statement said Hong Kong did not authorise the UK to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs after its return to the motherland. It added that: “The HKSAR Government strongly urges the UK again to discern facts from fallacies, respect the international law and basic norms governing international relations, and immediately stop its long-arm jurisdiction and interference in Hong Kong matters, which are purely China's internal affairs."

The UK, like Hong Kong, introduced national security laws to safeguard its citizens. In Hong Kong’s case, national and local national security laws were introduced when the city was faced by wanton destruction during the 2019-20 riots, which resulted in 10,000 arrests made and more than 5,000 petrol bombs seized. The HKNSL successfully restored public order and halted widespread violence, proving its necessity against a public-order crisis that standard legal frameworks at the time it could not contain.

The British document did not give the basis or authority of the report. There does not appear to be any legal requirement for the FCDO to present the six-monthly Hong Kong report to the British parliament, but it does so as a matter of courtesy for members to debate the Hong Kong issue. It is also used by civil society organizations such as Hong Kong Watch, which explicitly rely on these reports to assess human rights conditions and the state of Hong Kong’s autonomy.

Perhaps it is time to give up the report and let the politicians do their own homework.