Editor’s note: Following are excerpts from an interview with Senior Counsel Grenville Cross, who is also Hong Kong’s first post-handover director of public prosecutions. This exclusive interview launched China Daily Hong Kong Edition’s multimedia series That’s How It Is, which presents expert views on the city’s political, societal, economic issues and more, in videos, soundbites, and texts.

Grenville Cross (right), senior counsel and former director of public prosecutions of Hong Kong, sits down with China Daily reporter Azam Khan to dissect the city’s political landscape as electoral reform gathers pace. (WILSON CHEN / CHINA DAILY)

I. Electoral reform

Q: Two major changes — the National Security Law for Hong Kong and the adoption of changes to the city’s electoral system — are intended to help plug loopholes that opened the way for antagonistic politics. What loopholes do you see in Hong Kong’s system?

A: Well, Hong Kong, of course, has been through a very traumatic period in recent times. And the democratic experiment itself was being threatened and undermined by people who didn’t see it as a great opportunity, but rather saw it as a means of undermining China. I mean, many of these people actually paid lip service to Hong Kong, but they were using “one country, two systems” in order to paralyze the governance of the city to ensure that important legislation could not be passed and, indeed, to pursue the foreign policy agendas of powers elsewhere. 

Against that background, it was obvious that something had to be done. And now the mainland has stepped in and produced a system in accordance with the Basic Law, which will give us some hope for the future, and which will give us a new direction in terms of the electoral system — at the same time, recognizing that universal suffrage remains the aspiration. And the pace of development now will be determined in a new way. 

The central authorities could well have taken the view that because of the insurrection that we saw two years ago, they would have taken the view that “Well, we’ve tried this democratic experiment and it’s failed. It’s a pity it’s failed, and nonetheless we’ve tried it. So it’s time to call a day on ‘one country, two systems’.”

But fortunately, they didn’t take that view. They said we will keep faith, despite all these problems, we will keep faith with the “one country, two systems” formula, and see if alternative methods can be used to ensure that it succeeds. So that really is the situation in which we find ourselves now. 

II. Democracy

Q: Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said recently there’s no “one size fits all” system of democracy. How significant is the electoral reform as it pertains to the development of Hong Kong’s democracy?

A: Obviously, it is a change of direction. I mean, it’s been referred to as a democracy Hong Kong-style. We initially started out with a pure Western-style experiment. But it failed after some people, instead of grasping that opportunity, were using it as a method of undermining Hong Kong’s governance, of weakening its standing internationally, and of forming links with foreign powers in order to try to harm the country.

So quite clearly, if democracy was being used in that way, then it can have no future within Hong Kong. But (with) a more regulated type of democracy in which people understand what is expected of them, in which the basic red lines are indicated, then you have to respect the social system in the mainland. And you have the best interests of Hong Kong at heart. Provided the parameters are set in that way, then there’s no reason at all why what is envisioned for the future should not be successful. 

And that is precisely why the ultimate aim of universal suffrage has been retained inside the Basic Law. And this now gives us real hope for the future. It’s now Hong Kong’s responsibility to show that it can live up to its responsibilities and that it was worth saving. And that it can perform what is required of it, in terms of not only helping the city itself, but in terms of helping the country as a whole.

III. Opposition members

Q: Some Western media have portrayed certain opposition members as “champions of democracy” who are being specifically targeted with the electoral change and the National Security Law for Hong Kong. Do you think that’s the case? 

A: It’s been a great pity that the so-called “champions of democracy” and their supporters have brought a halt to the democratic process, through their antics in the Legislative Council, by their support, tacit or otherwise, for the violence on the streets and by actually, in some instances, engaging in violence themselves. 

Don’t forget that some legislative councilors have been held to account for violence within the Legislative Council chamber. And others have actually been convicted of attacking police officers on the streets. So when these types of things happen, it affects the standing of the entire democratic movement, and brings it into disrepute. 

Therefore, a new direction is now required. Obviously, if people have transgressed the law, then they will be prosecuted. Not because of Beijing’s say-so, but because the law of Hong Kong must be respected.

Our rule of law is such that nobody is above the law, and they must expect to be prosecuted if they break our law. It doesn’t matter who they are, how senior that position in society may be, or how important their foreign friends may be. They must expect to be prosecuted if they break the law of Hong Kong and that is precisely what is happening. 

IV. Foreign intervention

Q: Both the United States and the European Union have accused Beijing of undermining the “one country, two system” principle by initiating these changes. How do you view their criticism? 

A: Whatever Hong Kong and China does is criticized these days. You have to take everything they (the US and the EU) say with a great, big pinch of salt. You just have to see what’s been happening in the United States recently, which is almost turned into a failed state. Look at what happened in the recent presidential election. It resulted in Congress being attacked and occupied by armed men, with people actually being killed. And of course, the former president, Donald Trump, whipped up people by telling them they should not respect the outcome of the election and it was all a fraud. So when the United States has finally got its own system sorted out, perhaps that’s the moment at which they could consider lecturing other people.

And since then, things have actually gone from bad to worse. There’s now a huge outcry in the United States because the electoral system is being changed in some states, and the state of Georgia has recently changed its electoral system. It’s even becoming an offense to give people food or water where they stand in line to vote. The present measures are designed to deter people from turning out to vote. And it’s being done by people in charge who think that this will help their political party and deter voters for the other political party from turning out to vote.

So these are all very concerning developments in the United States, and against this type of background, for the United States to be lecturing Hong Kong and China, just beggars belief. It’s hypocrisy writ large. Once, as I say, they have sorted out their own situation, then maybe they could start lecturing other people. But from what we’ve seen recently, they are a long way short of that.

They even gave sanctuary to at least one person who took part in the trashing of our own Legislative Council, and welcomed him in the United States. But when it happens on their own turf, they see things completely differently.

We may not have a perfect democracy, but the democracy that we have was trashed on July 1, 2019, by the mob who invaded it. And of course, they showed their contempt for our democratic norms by what they did inside the chamber, and they showed the contempt for China generally. 

And the United States and the European Union expect China to just sit back and accept that when it would be wholly intolerable in their own places. 

V. BN(O) passport

Q: What do you make of the UK government’s move to offer a pathway to citizenship to Hong Kong holders of the British National (Overseas) passport?

A: It’s all part and parcel of the same movement trying to undermine Hong Kong by encouraging people to leave. Australia, in fact, seems to have gone slightly further. They’ve not only encouraged people to leave, but they’ve also encouraged businesses to leave Hong Kong and go to Australia. 

If these countries really do have lots of space and lots of money to welcome people from other regions, they should be concentrating on the places that actually do need the help. And yet, for political reasons, the doors are just being opened up to people from Hong Kong, and I think the hypocrisy is apparent.

VI. Hong Kong Bar Association 

Q: The Hong Kong Bar Association is chaired by Paul Harris, who until January was an elected city councilor of a political party in England. How will Harris’ political affiliation and his personal political persuasion affect the body’s neutrality and credibility?

A: Because of those political connections, when he says things, when the Bar Association says things, they won’t be taken seriously. There will always be a concern that it’s not the Bar Association speaking, it’s the Liberal Democrats party in England. 

And indeed, when he first became the bar chairman, one of the first things he did was (to) start to criticize the National Security Law. And his party had also been criticizing the law last year. 

And this is particularly concerning because his party, in the last two months or so, has come out with a whole lot of statements which are very hostile to China. The party leader, a man called (Ed) Davey, has called for the United Kingdom to boycott the 2022 (Winter) Olympic Games in Beijing. 

Just last month, his party’s foreign affairs spokesman, a lady called (Layla) Moran, called for sanctions to be imposed upon Carrie Lam and on a mainland official in relation to the electoral reforms. So that’s the official policy of his party. 

So where does he stand on these issues? Does he distance himself from those hostile initiatives? Or does he buy into those hostile initiatives? What is his position on them? I mean, who is he? Who is he representing? These are real concerns.

And as I say, as long as he remains there, people will have very little faith in the credibility of the Hong Kong Bar Association. And it will undermine its position generally, and it will feed into the narrative which has developed in recent times that the Hong Kong Bar Association, instead of being a professional body, representing the legal interests of the barristers, is actually a quasi-political party with a political agenda of its own.

VII. Law and order 

Q: Some UK politicians are calling publicly for foreign judges on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal to quit. Do you think they are upholding or undermining Hong Kong’s rule of law? What can we tell from the CFA judges’ refusal to surrender to the political pressure?

A: As I said just now, there is this overall strategy to try to harm Hong Kong in every possible way, in terms of its trade, in terms of encouraging its people to leave, in terms of giving safe haven to its criminal fugitives, in terms of trying to dissuade British barristers from conducting cases here, and this is a facet of the same strategy.

They know that so long as these foreign judges are sitting on the Court of Final Appeal, the judgments of the court will enjoy international stature, and it will undermine their claims that the rule of law in Hong Kong is failing. It is very difficult for them to argue that when there are distinguished foreign judges from their own countries sitting on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and making sure the system doesn’t fail.

So this really sticks in their craw. They want to do all they can to undermine our legal system. But very fortunately, the obstacle they have is that the judges themselves refuse to be pushed around. They know that the judicial system is fair, and that they know that they’re able to do their job as they would wish to do their job, and that as things stand, there’s no reason for them to withdraw.

These are people who are not going to be bullied into doing things that they believe to be wrong by people who have political agendas of their own.

And indeed, Lord Sumption, who has made the headlines recently, made it very clear that he was very concerned that the judiciary in Hong Kong was being used as a means of putting pressure on Beijing in relation to electoral matters. And he refused to be used as a political football in that way and made it clear that his duty is to serve the people of Hong Kong. And it seems to me, from what I see, that all the other overseas judges from common law jurisdictions take the same view, so that is profoundly reassuring for our system of justice.