Should the UK continue meddling in Hong Kong affairs?

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.

Mark Pinkstone

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

The appointment of a second New Zealand retired judge to the city’s Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has shown up just how naive some of the critics can be when commenting on the appointment.
Earlier this month, the Chief Executive John Lee appointed retired New Zealand Judge Sir Terence Arnold as a non-permanent judge to the Court of Final Appeal. He joins fellow New Zealander, William Young who joined the list of foreign judges serving Hong Kong on a part-time basis last year. The pool now consists of two New Zealanders, two Australians and three from the UK.

Sir Terence was Solicitor-General in New Zealand before serving on the country’s Court of Appeal and later on the Supreme Court. His appointment comes in the wake of Australian jurist Sir William Gummow, who passed away in September.

The practice of bringing in eminent overseas jurists to sit on Hong Kong's highest court has historically been seen as a pillar of the city's common law framework and a reflection of its judicial independence.

However, the appointment of retired foreign judges in a non-permanent capacity to Hong Kong’s CFA has had a fair amount of controversy, mainly from the UK. Lord Jonathan Sumption, who shares his place in Westminster Palace with rabid China/Hong Kong hater Lord Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, has spearheaded this criticism.

Sumption resigned as a non-permanent judge in June, 2024 claiming that Hong Kong was slowly becoming a “totalitarian state” where the rule of law is “profoundly compromised.” This came only three months after then UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss declared that it was “no longer tenable” for UK Supreme Court justices to sit on the CFA and that their continued presence “would risk legitimizing oppression.”

The UK government, and others from around the world, were reacting to the introduction of China’s national security law in Hong Kong in June 2020. A subsequent local law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (often referred to as Article 23 legislation), was passed by Hong Kong’s Legislative Council in March 2024. This newer ordinance works in tandem with the 2020 law, covering additional offenses such as treason, insurrection, and external interference.

The national security law was enforced in Hong Kong after the city was rocked by violent riots causing death and destruction in 2019-20. Hong Kong was on the brink of anarchy and something had to be done to ensure there is no repeated attempt to disrupt the city.

What Hong Kong and China had done is what any country, except the US, would do under the circumstances. The US appears to condone violence as indicated in the storming of the nation’s Capitol Building in January 2021 and the pardoning of all perpetrators who were jailed for rioting related offences. Also, annual reports from the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) catalogue its funding to organizations involved in the Hong Kong demonstrations and violent riots of 2019-20.

The UK has also recently introduced its own national security laws, which mirror the Hong Kong’s laws. It is in no position to criticize Hong Kong’s security laws when similar laws apply to Britain.

The pressure from the UK government was intense causing other judges from that jurisdiction to resign. But, some remained with six British jurists issuing a joint statement that their “continued participation was in the best interest of the people of Hong Kong.”

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee sharply rebuked Lord Sumption’s public criticisms, accusing the British government and media of attempting to "weaponize UK judicial influence" against China and Hong Kong.

The integrity of Hong Kong’s legal system remains intact with publication of the World Justice Project released the Rule of Law Index 2026. Hong Kong's overall ranking remains high and unchanged, ranking 6th in East Asia and the Pacific and 24th out of 143 countries and jurisdictions globally. Hong Kong's ranking continues to be ahead of some western countries, including the US, which often unreasonably criticise the rule of law and human rights situation of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong continues to maintain its position within the top 10 globally in respect of "Absence of Corruption" and "Order and Security", with the global ranking in relation to "Order and Security" rising to 7th. This demonstrates that the successive implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance and other relevant laws safeguarding national security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has provided better protection for the security of the city and maintains it as an excellent environment for business and investment.

Hong Kong has long been renowned as one of the safest cities in the world and consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt places in the world. Hong Kong has achieved remarkable results in fighting against graft and promoting integrity, as well as preventing and combating crimes. All these have injected strong stability to Hong Kong, fully demonstrating that security is a clear advantage for Hong Kong's development.