2024 RT Amination Banner.gif

China Daily

HongKong> Opinion> Content
Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 20:03
Truth finding: Separating fact from fiction
By Grenville Cross
Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 20:03 By Grenville Cross

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”, said the novelist, Sir Walter Scott.

Whatever else, the saga of the United Kingdom Consulate General’s former employee in Hong Kong, Simon Cheng Man-kit, is pretty odd. He was convicted, on his own plea, of consorting with prostitutes while on a private visit to Shenzhen in August, and ordered to undergo 15 days of administrative detention. Prostitution is illegal in the mainland, and Cheng, a Hong Kong resident, aged 29, and one of the consulate’s junior trade officers, must, if guilty as charged, have known the risk he was running.

After his release, Cheng’s case attracted some publicity, but quickly blew over. However, three months later, on Nov 20, he suddenly re-appeared, outside of Hong Kong. He posted a statement on Facebook, and gave a BBC interview, claiming he had been maltreated during his custody in Shenzhen. This included physical and psychological abuse, something which was vehemently denied by the Chinese embassy in London.

In circumstances which suggest that Cheng’s re-appearance was carefully orchestrated, his allegations were immediately taken at face value.  China’s UK ambassador, Liu Xiaoming, was hastily summoned to the Foreign Office, to be told of its “outrage” over the allegations.

Although Cheng claimed he only confessed to the minor offence of soliciting to avoid a heavier sentence on national security charges, it seems there is more to it than that. When asked specifically by the BBC if he had indeed been visiting prostitutes in Shenzhen, he refused to answer. When, moreover, CGTN broadcast the video of Cheng’s confession to soliciting prostitution, which presumably came as a shock to his former employers, he claimed it was a fabrication, and lodged a complaint with the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom).

At this point, the story took another twist. Far from giving Cheng — and his girlfriend — the British passport he apparently craved, the UK foreign office only offered him a two-year visa. This, however, does not provide a path to permanent residency, which requires five years residency, and here the mystery deepens.

It appears, therefore, that the unfortunate Cheng has been taken advantage of by people who wish to ignite anti-China fervor, leading to sanctions against Hong Kong. Although the exact details may never be known, it seems that, once his former employers realized he was “damaged goods”, they decided to distance themselves from him

Although Cheng had certainly sung for his supper, relations had apparently soured with his former employers. He told the British media that, after his release, he had been told that he was now regarded as a “security risk”, and asked to resign. This, however, according to the UK Consulate General in Hong Kong, was untrue, and it claimed “Simon’s decision to resign was his own”. It is unclear who is telling the truth, but Cheng clearly felt he had not received the support he expected, which may explain the falling-out.

The campaign group, “Stand with Hong Kong”, however, perhaps privy to insider information, unequivocally backed Cheng’s version of events. It announced that for “Cheng to be effectively fired by the UK government, is horrific and twisted”. If Cheng was indeed dismissed, his employers may have decided he was unreliable, and had become an embarrassment. If so, it provides an important perspective on his allegations, as well as a context.

What is, perhaps, most intriguing is why Cheng was suddenly trotted out at this particular time, when he could have made his allegations three months previously. A little digging, however, reveals a lot. Just prior to Cheng’s announcement, a junior Foreign Office minister, Heather Wheeler, disclosed plans to introduce legislation enabling the government to impose sanctions against people who commit serious human rights violations or abuses around the world. Although this had been in the pipeline for a while, what was completely new was Wheeler’s suggestion that it could also be used against Hong Kong.

It appears, therefore, that the hapless Cheng was being used to create a climate of opinion favorable to the imposition of sanctions against Hong Kong, and, right on cue, the China bashers mobilized.

First out of the traps was David Alton, an obscure member of Britain’s House of Lords, who revels in telling the Hong Kong government what it should and should not do. He works closely with the anti-China think tank, Hong Kong Watch, and is closely aligned to the Hong Kong protest movement, having served as one of its so-called “election monitors” in last month’s District Council elections. He called on the UK government to “begin immediately preparing targeted sanctions”, which was presumably music to Wheeler’s ears.

Not to be outdone, Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) of the UK’s House of Commons, denounced “a pattern of autocratic behavior”, against which “Britain must step up and defend itself”. The FAC, of course, distinguished itself just last month with its release of one of the most biased reports ever on Hong Kong, which even called on the UK government to review the arrangement by which British judges sit in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

In Hong Kong itself, following the enactment of the US “Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act”, hostile forces quickly jumped on the bandwagon. Leading the pack was the professional agitator, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, who said his Demosisto grouping would “continue our efforts in other countries to encourage similar legislative efforts and sanctions mechanism”. Hard on Wong’s heels came Sunny Cheung Kwan-yang, from the shadowy Hong Kong Higher Institutions International Affairs Delegation, who said he hoped that Britain — and Canada  — would now follow the US example, and impose sanctions on Hong Kong.

It appears, therefore, that the unfortunate Cheng has been taken advantage of by people who wish to ignite anti-China fervor, leading to sanctions against Hong Kong. Although the exact details may never be known, it seems that, once his former employers realized he was “damaged goods”, they decided to distance themselves from him. It is a dismal tale, involving the cynical manipulation of a junior consular employee, and nobody emerges from it with any credit. The biggest loser, however, is Cheng himself, who is now accused of lying by both China and the UK, and has only a short-term visa to show for his efforts.

The author is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily. 



Share this story

CHINA DAILY
HONG KONG NEWS
OPEN
Please click in the upper right corner to open it in your browser !