Paul Harris, a former British politician and current chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association (HKBA), spouted some uneducated theories that fully exposed his hypocritical self in a recent interview, in which he questioned the legitimacy of the National People’s Congress’ (NPC) decision to improve Hong Kong’s electoral system, claiming that the vetting of candidates by a review committee may violate voter rights by limiting their choices. However, he failed to mention the fact that vetting candidates is a common practice around the world to ensure national security or other national interests. Would Paul Harris, who served as a councilor of Oxford city in the past, cast the same human rights abuse suspicion over the relevant laws of his country — Great Britain? He has clearly hijacked the HKBA, causing damage to the professional association’s credibility and reputation by uttering slanderous remarks against the National Security Law for Hong Kong and the NPC’s constitutional authority on improving Hong Kong’s electoral system by amending Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law. Given his repeated attempt to mislead the public and challenge China’s sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hong Kong, the HKBA had better come clean with Paul Harris’ qualification as its leader.
He chose ideological bias and a double-standard approach toward the rule of law over decency and professionalism just to serve his own ideological/political conviction in total disregard of the overall interest of Hong Kong society. He has clearly lost every bit of morality and integrity as a legal professional
Many countries in the world have set clear requirements for election candidates to ensure administrative and/or legislative efficiency. Britain also has specific requirements on who can stand in elections and supervisory arrangements of elections. According to British law, the Election Commission is in charge of supervising elections, including reviewing the eligibility of candidates. If a candidate is seen with serious legal liability or questionable character, they would be barred from standing in elections.
In fact, all forms of human rights, including the right to vote, are fully protected by the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR, which guarantees constitutional rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents. The National Security Law implemented in Hong Kong stipulates that the rights and freedoms, which the residents of the HKSAR enjoy under the Basic Law and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights where they apply in Hong Kong, shall be protected in accordance with the law.
It should be noted that some of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) are not absolute entitlements. Article 12 of the Covenant states that these rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.
Paul Harris is a British barrister crowned by some people as a “defender of human rights” of some sort. He served in the ward of St Margaret’s on Oxford City Council, a role he had to relinquish in a hurry when British media linked him to potential conflict of interest arising from his jobs in both Britain and the HKSAR of the People’s Republic of China. As a senior barrister, he should have full knowledge of the relevant provisions in the Covenant pertaining to national security and vetting mechanism during elections. Yet, he chose ideological bias and a double-standard approach toward the rule of law over decency and professionalism just to serve his own ideological/political conviction in total disregard of the overall interest of Hong Kong society. He has clearly lost every bit of morality and integrity as a legal professional.
With the decisive actions to enact the National Security Law for Hong Kong and improve Hong Kong’s electoral system, the central authorities in Beijing have plugged the loopholes in safeguarding national security in Hong Kong, thereby ensuring social stability and protecting the well-being of Hong Kong residents from the existential threats such as those posed by organized violent rioters and separatists during the months-long insurrection in 2019. The Central People’s Government maintains overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong, meaning it is the central authorities’ constitutional right to take the above-mentioned measures in Hong Kong for the sake of national security and the well-being of Hong Kong residents as a whole. Such constitutional authority and rights are beyond challenge by foreign entities and individuals like Paul Harris. It is truly self-exposing of Harris to turn a blind eye on such basic political knowledge when he repeatedly abused his role as HKBA chairman and bad-mouthed the National Security Law implemented in the HKSAR as well as the NPC decision to improve Hong Kong’s electoral system through legislation. In doing so, he challenged not only the constitutional order established by China’s Constitution and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR but also China’s national sovereignty by misinterpreting “one country, two systems”.
Paul Harris, a biased politician, pursues his anti-China agenda under the guise of legal profession. His attempts to confuse right and wrong regarding Hong Kong’s constitutional status as a special administrative region of China are meant to deceive the public for the benefit of the Western powers he serves. The HKBA should dissociate itself from Harris if it does not wish to be dragged down by him.
The author is a current affairs commentator.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
