Three hidden stories expose Chris Patten's political machinations – from offering Knighthood to planting a “Trojan Horse”

A bunch of pro-democracy supporters, alongside a group of hawkish British politicians, held a gathering two days ago to celebrate the 80th birthday of Chris Patten, the last Governor of Hong Kong. Patten, known for his deep addiction to political manoeuvring, has never stopped doing his bits to stir unrest in Hong Kong. For instance, after the recent conviction of two Stand News executives on charges of incitement, Patten resurfaced, voicing his dissatisfaction and indulging in self-promotion. A senior media figure, who has followed Patten’s political activities for over 30 years, vividly recalls how, during his tenure as Governor of Hong Kong, Patten employed a series of cunning political tactics that left long-lasting issues for Hong Kong after the handover. This media colleague revealed three hidden stories to me, each highlighting Patten's high level of political craftiness.

The First Story: A Knighthood as Bait

The late former Executive Council member Lee Peng-fei disclosed the first secret in his memoirs. According to Lee, less than 10 days after Patten’s arrival in Hong Kong in 1992, he invited Lee to breakfast. After a round of flattery, Patten abruptly suggested recommending Lee for a knighthood. Since Lee only held a Certificate of Identity (CI) and was not a British citizen, his first reaction was disbelief: "Can I really be a knight?" Patten quickly reassured him, “No problem. I will recommend you to the Queen.”

Lee, however, suspected ulterior motives. At the time, he was leading the Co-operative Resources Centre, the precursor to the Liberal Party, which held 25 solid votes in the Legislative Council. It became clear to Lee that Patten intended to secure his support by offering him a knighthood, thereby gaining control over the Legislative Council.

Nevertheless, Lee did not take the bait. He refused to be manipulated, leading to a confrontation during an Executive Council meeting. The meeting was meant to review relations with China. Lee pointed out that most issues had already been resolved under Patten's predecessor, Sir David Wilson, but Patten and Chief Secretary David Ford disregarded him, clearly seeking to undo past agreements. Lee stood his ground, resulting in a heated and unproductive meeting.

As a result of his defiance, Lee not only lost the opportunity for a knighthood but was also removed from the Executive Council.

The Second Story: Consolidating Power

The second story revolves around how Patten skilfully restructured the core decision-making body of the Executive Council. Former Chief Secretary David Akers-Jones revealed in his memoirs that shortly after taking office, Patten decided to restructure the Executive Council to align with his new policies. Senior Executive Council member Lydia Dunn suggested that, to allow Patten to govern freely, all current members should resign. In the end, only Dunn was reappointed, and no Legislative Council members were included in the new lineup.

Akers-Jones noted that this was a calculated move by Patten to eliminate troublesome Executive Council members who had been involved in drafting the Basic Law. These individuals would have undoubtedly opposed Patten's future political agenda had they remained on the Council.

The Third Story: Luring Martin Lee into the “Trojan Horse Scheme”

Patten not only controlled the Executive Council but also strategically aligned himself with pro-democracy leaders. One of his key manoeuvrers was forming an alliance with Martin Lee, chairman of the United Democrats of Hong Kong (the precursor to the Democratic Party). This was part of Patten’s broader strategy to cultivate pro-Western forces in Hong Kong to counter Beijing after the handover, a so-called "Trojan Horse" strategy.

A senior media colleague recalls that shortly before Patten assumed his role as Governor of Hong Kong, he met in London with Martin Lee and Yeung Sum, vice-chairman of the United Democrats of Hong Kong. They discussed disbanding the Executive Council, which operated similarly to a cabinet, and replacing its members with a new group.

One week earlier, Lee Peng-fei and other members of the Co-operative Resources Centre had also visited the UK but were met with a cold reception. In stark contrast, Lee and Yeung were warmly welcomed by British government officials, indicating that they had already been identified as key players in the political strategy being formulated.

Upon Patten’s arrival in Hong Kong, he treated Martin Lee as a key ally. Patten’s vocal advocacy for "democracy" and his willingness to confront China impressed Lee, who saw Patten as a different kind of Governor. After Patten’s first policy address, Lee was even more encouraged by his rhetoric. In private, he reportedly told a British journalist, “Chris Patten has come up with a brilliant idea to bring real and full democracy to Hong Kong... the comrades were ecstatic last night!” Patten’s psychological tactics eventually drew Lee and his allies into close collaboration.

These three hidden stories reveal Patten’s skilful use of political deception, leaving Hong Kong with lasting problems. The damage caused by his actions has resulted in significant turmoil. However, after enduring these painful experiences, the public has seen through his schemes, and his influence has significantly diminished.

Nevertheless, Patten’s nature as a “political player” is unlikely to change. He doesn’t want to be left alone and will continue to engage in political games, and it remains crucial to remain vigilant against such manipulative politicians.

Lai Ting Yiu

What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Legal experts have consistently emphasized that in evaluating the merits of any issue, a balanced perspective free from preconceived biases is essential. However, in responding to the verdict of the online “Stand News” court case, the U.S. and U.K. governments, along with foreign media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, have taken a one-sided position and bombarded Hong Kong severely. In a piece published on Thursday (5 September), former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of Hong Kong, Ian Grenville Cross, sheds light on how the Western powers play double standards by strongly criticizing Hong Kong while ignoring what is happening in other countries. It’s all because of their political agenda, he says.

Cross delves into the historical and contemporary applications of sedition laws, highlighting the inconsistency displayed by the U.S. and the U.K. governments. Both did not hesitate to voice criticism on Hong Kong’s handling of the "Stand News" case, while remaining silent on the frequent use of similar laws in countries like India and Malaysia.

Using India as an example, Cross notes that since Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed office, the number of sedition cases has surged by nearly 30%. Since 2014, Indian authorities have brought over 500 sedition cases to court, with 149 individuals charged for making remarks deemed disrespectful to Modi. Despite this apparent weaponization of sedition laws in India, the British government, European Union, and Western politicians have never said a word.

Cross further explains that India's sedition laws are a colonial legacy introduced by the British in 1870 to suppress dissent against the government, and these laws have survived India's independence and remained intact today.

Similarly,  Cross points to Malaysia, where former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, now the opposition leader, was recently charged with incitement under sedition laws for his criticism of the former king. If convicted, Muhyiddin could face a three-year prison sentence. Yet, Western governments and media have largely downplayed this incident.

The sedition laws in Hong Kong also originate from the British. The British Hong Kong government enacted the Sedition Ordinance in 1938, criminalizing expressions of hatred toward the British monarchy. This law was later incorporated into Hong Kong’s Crimes Ordinance in 1971. Cross highlights the irony of former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten’s criticism of Hong Kong’s recent sedition cases, noting that Patten never addressed the colonial roots of these laws during his tenure.

Sedition laws are not exclusive to its colonies, the U.K. also enforces stringent national security and public order regulations in their home land. For instance, under the National Security Act passed last year, a media organization will be found in violation of the law if information it disclosed deemed "materially helpful" to foreign intelligence agencies. Severe penalties will be imposed.

Moreover, a recent investigation by British online media uncovered the existence of a secretive entity known as the "Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee," composed of representatives from the government’s security and intelligence agencies, military, and some senior media figures. In the case that certain information is considered detrimental to UK’s national security, the Committee will issue a “D Notice” to the media and ask the media refrain from publishing the information. Although compliance with the "D Notices" is not legally obligatory, that media outlets would risk prosecution under the Official Secrets Act if they defy these notices.

These revelations show us that true face of the West. Despite the U.K. government's loud criticism of Hong Kong for allegedly suppressing press freedom, it exerts even greater control over its own media., albeit in a more covert manner.

Lai Ting Yiu