Once the National Security Law was promulgated in Hong Kong on June 30, the situation immediately settled down. Protests were scaled back, secessionist groups disbanded, colluders with foreign forces repented, and local malcontents went to ground. Although the new law is not retrospective, some people, for reasons best known to themselves, hastily packed their bags.
On July 1, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, a professional agitator, appeared by video-conferencing before a United States congressional committee, to misrepresent the new law, and malign his home country, which delighted his audience. His confederate on this occasion was none other than Brian Leung Kai-ping, who helped to vandalize the Legislative Council Complex on July 1, 2019, and then fled abroad. Although Leung and his confederates caused HK$50 million (US$6.45 million) worth of damage, which would be unreservedly condemned in most places, he was eagerly welcomed in the US, and even invited to Capitol Hill.
Law has long been a darling of America’s hard right wing, and, as a reward for doing its bidding, he was invited by US Senator Rick Scott to attend the annual State of the Union Address in Washington D.C., delivered by President Donald Trump, on Feb 4. Scott, who joined the Senate late in life, is a fanatical Sinophobe, who tries to advance himself by patronizing not only the likes of Law, but also world leaders. On July 2, following border clashes between Chinese and Indian troops in the Galwan Valley, he obsequiously wrote to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to commend his “fight against China’s aggression”, adding that if Modi needed anything he had only to “reach out” to him.
By early July, Law turned up in the United Kingdom, where he declared he was now a “global facing activist”, in self-imposed exile. When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited the UK on July 21, he duly summoned Law to see him at the US embassy, along with his other proxy, the former governor Chris Patten, now one of Washington’s most useful idiots. Wanting to thank them both for furthering his anti-China agenda, Pompeo gave each of them 20 minutes of his presumably valuable time. Whereas Law has pursued US policy interests within Hong Kong itself, by spreading discord and dissent, Patten has done his bit from London, by misrepresenting every development, and they both richly deserved Pompeo’s head-patting.
Whereas Law (Kwun-chung) has pursued US policy interests within Hong Kong itself, by spreading discord and dissent, Patten has done his bit from London, by misrepresenting every development, and they both richly deserved Pompeo’s head-patting
Patten, by whipping up opposition to both the fugitive surrender proposals and the Basic Law’s Article 23 national security legislation, fanned the concerns being spread on the ground by the likes of Law, and thereby contributed directly to the chaos which gripped Hong Kong over the past year. Indeed, by misleading people over the fugitive offender bill, and opposing the government’s earlier very mild national security proposals, Patten did as much as anyone to create the poisoned environment in which the enactment of the National Security Law became inevitable. His contribution to its birth, however ironic, will undoubtedly fascinate historians, not least because it is a classic example of delusional politics producing unintended consequences.
Unsurprisingly, Pompeo was not the only one to be grateful to Patten for his mischief-making. Patten has recently been appointed a patron of Hong Kong Watch, the grouping of British China bashers, founded in 2017 by the serial fantasist, Benedict Rogers, whose activities led to his exclusion from Hong Kong. Rogers, who now wishes to be known as its “chief executive”, uses Hong Kong Watch as a vehicle to churn out calumnies about the city, which is why he wanted Patten on board. Both will, therefore, be delighted that Law, their protege, has got off to such a good start in their world of make-believe. Serious China watchers, however, may not be quite so overjoyed, particularly once they get his measure.
When interviewed by the UK’s Daily Telegraph, on July 18, Law claimed that he had been “in the first batch of political prisoners to receive prison for a peaceful demonstration”, and that he “didn’t intend to harm or damage anything, we were just crossing a line”. This attempt to pose as a martyr may have impressed some, but anyone familiar with the case recalls that he was convicted after a fair trial by an independent judge, who was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Law’s guilt, and that there was nothing “political” about the proceedings. The evidence, moreover, showed that what Law did was distinctly less angelic than he now likes people to believe.
In 2016, Law was convicted of inciting people to take part in an unlawful assembly, at the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Offices in Admiralty, a restricted area, on Sept 26, 2014. The evidence showed that he, and others, orchestrated a mass invasion of the forecourt, with several hundred people trying to smash their way in, and several dozen doing so. By forcing the gate, overturning barriers and scaling the fence, the crowd battled their way in, injuring 10 security guards who were protecting the area. Although most of the injuries were, no thanks to Law, relatively minor, one guard, Chan Kei-lun, sustained bruises, swelling and a fracture. Of the 10 injured security guards, five had to take sick leave for between four and six days, while Chan himself had to take 39 days sick leave, for which Law has yet to apologize.
Indeed, the Court of Appeal later described Law’s crime as “a large-scale unlawful assembly, involving violence”. However, Law disclosed none of this to the Daily Telegraph’s readers, many of whom will have been hoodwinked. But if his 10 victims ever find out that he claimed his conduct was “peaceful”, and that he was only “crossing a line”, they may be less than amused. After all, it is one thing for an offender to deny his victims any sympathy, but quite another for him to try to airbrush them out of history altogether.
By any yardstick, Law’s was a shameful interview, designed to mislead the readers, though one of which Hong Kong Watch will have heartily approved. After all, Rogers, on Oct 18, 2017, bizarrely described Law as one of his “heroes”. This shows that, just as the US Congress is prepared to ignore Leung’s vandalism, so also is Hong Kong Watch happy to whitewash Law’s criminality, and that all that really matters is the duo’s hatred of China.
Since Law left Hong Kong, it has been reported that two sets of criminal proceedings have been instituted against him, one involving national security and the other public order. Although he is currently a fugitive, enjoying safe haven abroad, criminal justice has always been very patient. Indeed, as they say in England, “time does not run against the Crown”.
The author is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
