09/12/2018

Forget China, Taiwanese voters care about bread-and-butter issues too

Originally published by the Hong Kong Free Press on 09/12/2018.

There is more to Taiwan elections than cross-strait relations. Taiwanese voters, like people in any other democracy, go to the ballot box to register their approval or disapproval of domestic policies and leadership. The quick comeback of the nationalist Kuomintang (KMT), after the 2014 “green wave,” and the drubbing of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) does not necessarily mean Taiwanese voters are warming to China.

Read full article here

27/11/2018

Review: The Once and Future Liberal

Prompted by the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election, Mark Lilla’s latest book The Once and Future Liberal takes on identity politics. 

According to Lilla this pseudo-politics, as he pointedly puts it, is a self-indulgent betrayal of the American liberal and progressive agenda. Worse still, it’s electoral toxicity is downright dangerous.
It has allowed the Republicans to successfully persuade much of the American public that they are the party of Joe Sixpack while the Democrats represent Jessica Yogamat.

But make no mistake this isn’t a gleeful attack on modern liberals. Lilla believes that Trump is a demagogue, unfit to hold high office, and now liberals need to fight back. It is this rallying call which sets this book apart from those which simply sneer at millennials. 

Naturally, there are a few jibes at campus liberals and the odd incendiary phrase, “Identity is Reaganism for lefties” being just one. 

Lilla is fed up of marches not because he doesn’t value the contribution of movement politics to America’s history, he cites the important contribution of the Civil Rights Movement for example, but because right now it’s not doing the Democrats any good. Lilla wants to see more Democrat mayors not marchers. More Democrat governors and state legislators, for that matter, and in every part of the United States, representing all of the country’s citizens. 

In this spirit, the book is prefaced with a quote from Senator Edward Kennedy:

“We must understand that there is a difference between being a party that cares about labor and being a labor party. There is a difference between being a party that cares about women and being the women’s party. And we can and must be a party that cares about minorities without becoming a minority party. We are citizens first.” (1985)

The idea of citizenship is key to Lilla’s response. Liberals, he argues, need to forge a grand narrative for all citizens - a story about what America is and what duties are bestowed by being an American. 

This is something which technocratic policy wonks cannot deliver. Nor can identity or movement politics. Lilla believes a new dispensation is needed to replace the Reaganite narrative which has prevailed since the 1980s. However, this new dispensation cannot fall back on the New Deal agenda which preceded Reaganism, the times have moved on he acknowledges. 

Yet this is not to say nothing can be learnt from the past. Lilla channels the ethos embodied by FDR and subsequent Democratic leaders. As he puts it, what ever happened to JFK’s challenge to the sixties generation: “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”. 

Today, according to Lilla, we have ended up with a liberal ethos of: What does my country owe me by virtue of my identity? Worse still this identity politics has placed self-expression over persuasion whereby preaching purity is prioritised over coalition building. 

Lilla cites the example of religious feminist groups being disinvited from the 2017 Women’s March, because of their anti-abortion stance, as another bridge unnecessarily burnt. Better to keep them on side by civilly agreeing to disagree and by making a few compromises, than drive them into the hands of the radical right he argues. Who could disagree? 

Yet it is not as simple as Lilla suggests. Even those who prefer big-tent, pragmatic politics must acknowledge a commitment to civility and inclusivity raise a number of challenges. 
How inclusive should liberals be? Naturally, there has to be limits to who you make alliances with, some groups will be morally beyond the pale or will have too many differences to make cooperation practical. 

When and how should you speak out over differences? Most people would agree that fiery condemnation is unnecessary but divisions cannot simply be ignored. Additionally, including a group you have disagreements with in a march, or giving them a platform at a conference, is all well and good but involving them in the policy making process is different thing all together. 

More importantly, what compromises? Take for example Lilla’s abortion case, as a self-declared pro-choice absolutist what restrictions could he actually agree on in order to keep his political coalition together. Will his strategy work, and keep pro-lifers in the liberal tent and supporting other liberal causes? And even if it did is it morally justifiable? 

No one set of concrete guidelines can be established. Each issue will have its own unique set of circumstances, but going forward liberals will need to set out some rules of engagement. 

Lilla does not believe that this is his job. In public book talks he has put on record his reluctance to write the book’s last chapter on the way forward. He wanted to diagnose a problem not write a manifesto. He therefore admits what he provides is a rough sketch and that it is the task of liberals, if they choose to take his advice, to build on it and flesh out an election winning program. 

Review of The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics by Mark Lilla (London, C.Hurst & Co. Ltd., 2018).


13/11/2018

China at UN: Deflection, dirty tricks

Originally published by the Taipei Times on 14/11/2018.

China’s underhand tactics at the UN Human Rights Council are a serious problem, but should come as no surprise.

China has undergone a third review of its human rights record at the UN Human Rights Council as part of the organization’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

This is a process all UN member states must go through every five years and gives other countries the opportunity to question and put forward recommendations. With the input of civil society groups, the UPR is supposed to be an opportunity to raise serious concerns, monitor progress and hold governments to account.

Naturally, Chinese officials faced robust questioning about a number of issues, including political prisoners, torture and freedom of expression.

Read full article here

11/11/2018

Mind your language: how words are weaponised when discussing human rights and China

Originally published by the Hong Kong Free Press on 10/11/2018. 

Last month, American Vice-President Mike Pence gave a speech at the Hudson Institute which has been touted as signalling the biggest shift in US-China policy since Nixon met Mao.

Hyperbolic analysis, no doubt. The speech identified problems but did not flesh out Washington’s new approach to Sino-American relations. Nevertheless, the speech has produced a flurry of “new Cold War” pieces across the media.

Read full article here

27/10/2018

The expulsion of Victor Mallet has rightly caused an international outcry

Originally published by Hong Kong Watch on 27/10/2018. 

""From now on journalists, if they want to keep out of trouble, will feel pressure to self-censor. Not only will this damage Hong Kong’s politics and civil society, as a free and vibrant press holds the powerful to account, but also tarnishes Hong Kong’s image across the world as an open global city."

Read full piece here.

20/10/2018

Hong Kong losing its reputation

Originally publsihed by the Taipei Times on 18/10/2018. 

The expulsion of the Financial Times’ (FT) Asia editor from Hong Kong is yet another sign that the territory is closing itself off from the rest of the world.
Since the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to the People’s Republic of China in 1997, the question has been: Will the newly acquired territory change the mainland or will Hong Kong become just another Chinese city?
Read full article here

10/10/2018

Petition demanding explanation for Victor Mallet visa rejection handed to Hong Kong government

Earlier this week it was announced that Financial Times Asia Editor Victor Mallet had been denied a visa by the Hong Kong authorities. There has been no formal explanation for this decision which effectively expels him from the city where he has worked as a journalist for several years. 

Many people, including the British Foreign Secretary, have concluded that this act was politically motivated. A few weeks ago, despite pressure from Beijing, the Foreign Correspondence Club (FCC), of which Mallet is Vice President, hosted an event featuring pro-independence leader Andy Chan. 

A petition has been set up by the FCC, and other free press advocacy groups, calling for this decision to be reversed (the full details can be found here - and the petition can still be signed). 

The expulsion of Mr Mallet from Hong Kong sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, academics and political activists in the future - particularly those dealing with 'sensitive' issues such as democracy, human rights and identity. 

09/10/2018

Belabouring a Love: to stay or go?

Originally posted on Medium on 30/09/2018.

I am occasionally asked, by friends or acquaintances, if I am still a member of the Labour Party. ‘Technically’ is typically my reply — usually followed by my customary criticisms of the current state of the party.

Read full blog post here.

24/09/2018

The Xinjiang Initiative


Xinjiang, in north-west China, is home to a number of ethnic groups including the Uyghur, Kazakhs and Hui. Like those in Tibet, another so-called Autonomous Region, these minorities face levels of repression much higher than those living in the rest of the People’s Republic. Sadly, in Xinjiang’s case there has been little international attention.

Over the past year I have learnt a lot about Xinjiang and heard some harrowing stories.  The Chinese Communist Party’s rule in Xinjiang  is truly totalitarian.

Earlier this month, it was good to see the issue put on the front page of the New York Times as such attention is long overdue. I was also pleased to be emailed about another project relating to the region.

The Xinjiang Initiative seeks to create a community of academics to raise awareness of the situation in Xinjiang through public talks. The model statement reads as:

“I am one of over one hundred scholars and others who have agreed to make the following statement at public events. We would like to bring to everyone’s attention to the fact that several hundred thousand, possibly over a million, Uyghurs and members of other ethnic minorities are being held indefinitely in extra-judicial internment camps in Xinjiang, China. These are arbitrary detentions, based not on suspicion or proof of any crime, but rather solely on religious and ethnic persecution. These detentions not only violate international human rights standards, but also have no proper basis even in Chinese law. Facing a situation like this, China scholars and the broader academic community cannot remain silent.”

More information about the Xinjiang Initiative can be found here.


23/09/2018

Review: Ten Years in the Death of the Labour Party


Ten years ago Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and David Miliband was his main rival. In 2018, Mr Brown is speaking out, against his party’s leadership, to warn about the threat antisemitism poses to the Labour Party’s soul. While David Miliband resides in New York in self-imposed exile after leaving the Commons in 2013 for the presidency of the International Rescue Committee. When he lost the 2010 Labour leadership election to his brother it was by just over one percentage point. If today David stood again for the leadership the defeat would not be so narrow given the change in the party’s membership. In fact, if he wanted to make a British political comeback he would struggle to find a constituency party eager to nominate him to fight a winnable parliamentary seat! How did it come to this?

Tom Harris, the ex-Labour MP for Glasgow South, seeks to explain in his book Ten Years in the Death of the Labour Party.

Ten Years describes the key events from Brown’s elevation into No.10 to the rise of, fringe far-Left backbencher, Jeremy Corbyn. It includes every key election, vote, decision and bar brawl which led to this fundamental realignment.

While the change has been huge it should not have been a surprise, according to Harris, given the party’s determined efforts to shift away from New Labour after Tony Blair ceased to be its leader. As Harris puts it:

The contention of this book is a simple one: that the definitive moment that sent Labour into its self-destructive spiral can be traced back ten years, to Saturday 6 October 2007, when Gordon Brown, having blatantly encouraged speculation that he would go to the country, beat a humiliating retreat and tried, implausibly, to make his U-turn look like firm leadership.”

However, it was the leadership  of Ed Miliband (the Brownite preference) which really aided the ascent of the party’s far-Left. It was not just revisions to the party’s rulebook, that changed the way a leader was elected, which caused this but also shifts in policy. On tax, rail renationalisation, Syria and Iraq Ed Miliband sought to distinguish himself from Blair. Each step, a step further to the Left of the party.

Once again Harris does not mince his words: “It is Miliband, not Brown or even Corbyn, who must shoulder the largest share of the blame for what has happened to the Labour Party.

In the preface, Harris declares that the book is not neutral. However, much of its content is simply a factual account of events - although naturally the events of the past decade which he picks fit his narrative and overall argument.

Where he chooses to make a specific argument, like in the case of Brown’s failure to call a snap election in 2007, he does so convincingly. It is also a book not without self-criticism (or rather criticism of the party’s ‘Right’). The failure to challenge Gordon Brown for the premiership and David Miliband’s complacent leadership campaign are two early events which Harris highlights as consequential failings of the party’s progressives.

Some would argue that the Blairites bear more responsibility for these failings and others. These same people would no doubt cut Ed Miliband, and his team, more slack. Meanwhile no one book will ever resolve debates about the 2007 election that never was. Future histories and biographies will help answer these questions but for now Harris offers his thoughts on ten transformative years for the Labour Party.

The issue currently confronting the party is whether it can stay together and survive. Here too Ten Years offers some insights.

While the question of Corbyn’s electoral viability remains open, after Theresa May’s terrible election campaign and loss of the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority. However, Harris’s disgust at the return of Militant-style politics, the leaderships response to terrorism and the far-Left’s open alliance with anti-Semites suggests he already believes the Labour Party has already died morally.   

If this moral decline results in splits and electoral devastation, Harris has pre-emptively written the post-mortem: “And if, in the next few years, Labour’s death certificate needs to be issued, the cause of death will be a single word: suicide.

Review of Ten Years in the Death of the Labour Party by Tom Harris (London, Biteback, 2018).

Stepping up support for Taiwan

Originally published by the Taipei Times on 20/09/2018.
With military maneuvers and fierce rhetoric, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is seeking to intimidate Taiwan. At the same time, Beijing has redoubled its efforts to isolate Taiwan even further on the world stage by coercing other governments and businesses, as well as international culture and sports bodies, to comply with its “one China” principle.
Recently Panama, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador established diplomatic ties with the PRC — leaving only 17 nations that officially recognize the Taiwanese government.
However, a lack of diplomatic recognition need not mean diplomatic isolation. While most countries, including influential liberal democracies, have chosen to establish formal relations with Beijing, this has not precluded flexible interpretations of their “one China” policies.
Read full article here.

16/09/2018

Quail or Quinoa: England's Two-Party System


Much derided, Essex man has been a staple of British general elections for the past four decades.

Within the county the parliamentary seats of Harlow and Basildon have long been seen as political bellwethers. It was voters in these places, often from working class backgrounds, who turned to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and who Tony Blair did so much to reach out to a decade later.

Famously, the early declaration of a Conservative hold from the Basildon count in 1992 signalled that John Major was going to be returned to power. Five years later Labour reversed its fortunes and won the seat with 55% of the vote and a majority of 13,280.

However, today Essex is solid blue. Despite a terrible campaign by Theresa May the Tory majority over Labour in Harlow is 7,031 while in South Basildon and East Thurrock (the successor seat to the Basildon, which should typically be a marginal) it stands at 11,490. In Thurrock, a constituency which Labour won in every General Election between 1945 and 2005 (with the exception of 1987 when it was narrowly captured by the Conservatives), in 2017 sent a Tory to represent them in parliament for the third consecutive time.

No doubt many will sneer at the people in these areas, particularly those in the less affluent parts of south Essex, for being too stupid to know what’s good for them. Spitting Image’s ‘stupid voter’, whose support for the Tories only increased the more the Major cabinet chastised him, was after all from Essex Road and spoke with a heavy estuary accent.

This is often, euphemistically, referred to as false consciousness. However, far from being delusional what many on the Left failed to grasp is that these voters were aspirational. They were people who wanted to build their own businesses and buy their own homes. After all, it was Mrs Thatcher’s Right to Buy which well and truly flipped Basildon blue for over a decade.

Winning towns like Harlow, Basildon and Thurrock remains key for Labour, if it hopes to form a government. Yet it is not just economics which is holding Labour back in these areas – it also has an image problem.

Earlier this month the Guardian reported on new research conducted by Britain Thinks which showed:

Participants in the focus groups, which in Crewe were 18-44 year olds, and in Thurrock, older voters, repeatedly mentioned the fancy grain quinoa when asked what food best represented the Labour party of 2018.”

These voters view of Labour as a party of student protest and hippie communes went hand in hand with their belief that the party had abandoned what they considered to be ‘real’ Labour values.

This perception of Labour as overly metropolitan is not new. As for the Tories they have their own image problems too. One older Thurrock voter told Britain Thinks that: “They’d [the Conservatives] make pheasant and quail for dinner.”

While neither of these views are necessarily true they will matter come election time. In the meantime this is yet another indication that there is a political re-alignment going on in England at the moment whereby traditional class based voting is being flipped on its head.

30/08/2018

Would Britain allow separatists to give a speech in parliament? …well, yes!

Originally published by Hong Kong Free Press on 19/08/2018.
Whenever the issue of Hong Kong independence is raised there is a good chance that comparisons with other separatist movements will pop up in the debate. Scotland is just one of the more popular examples which can be used in this game of whataboutery.
The point is not even half as clever as those who use it think it is. The genuine and ever-expanding devolution settlement for the Scottish Parliament is a world away from the ever eroding ‘one country, two systems’ formula imposed on Hong Kong by China.
Read full article here

13/08/2018

Better Left Unsaid?

Originally posted on Medium on 13/08/2018.

A blog which pleases nobody.

Read full post here.

As Hong Kong’s freedoms fade, expect ‘business as usual’ from Britain’s new envoy Jeremy Hunt

Originally published by Hong Kong Free Press on 31/07/2018.

Mr Hunt went to China and little has changed.

When it came to Hong Kong, the new Foreign Secretary claimed to have had ‘extensive’ and ‘frank’ discussions about the implementation of One Country Two Systems. Such talk is welcome providing serious issues such as the banning of the Hong Kong National Party and the misuse of Public Ordinance Orders were wholeheartedly condemned. However, if it was part of a human rights box-ticking exercise then the British Foreign Secretary’s words are even more meaningless than they already appear to be.

Read full article here.

Trump’s playing a dangerous game in the Taiwan Strait

Originally published by Asia Dialogue on 26/07/2018.

Earlier in June 2018, the United States (US) government unveiled their new office compound for the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), their de-facto embassy. Despite the Trump administration’s propensity for upturning protocol it was uneventful. It was unlikely that the opening ceremony in Taipei was ever going to draw the attention of the world media away from the historic summit in Singapore between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un. While at this moment in time tensions on the Korean peninsula are in the international spotlight, the volatility of the Taiwan Strait should not be forgotten. What exactly would spark a crisis across the Strait is unknown, but Beijing persistently threatens retaliation against any act which pushes Taiwan further away from reunification with the mainland.

Read full article here.

Trump still a wild card for Taiwan

Originally published by The Taipei Times on 27/07/2018. 

Last week, US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver underlined Washington’s commitment to supply Taiwan’s security needs.

In a welcome speech for Taipei, Schriver stressed Taiwan’s importance as a partner in promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific.

He branded China, which has stepped up military maneuvers toward Taiwan, as the “most aggressive” player in the Taiwan Strait and urged Beijing to renounce its use of force.

Read full article here.

13/05/2018

Mahathir’s back: are we going to see a revival of the Asian Values debate?

Originally published by Hong Kong Free Press on 12/05/2018.


The return of Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia means we may see a revival of the Asian Values debate.

Earlier this week Malaysians went to the polls and voted into power the 92-year-old former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. In many respects the removal from power of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and its political allies is welcome news for democrats across the world.

 This is the first time that this coalition will be out of power since the country’s independence in the late 1950s. This prolonged one-party rule has no doubt encouraged illicit practices like gerrymandering and corruption in Malaysian politics. Yet, while voters gave the corrupt Prime Minister Najib Razak a kicking, his successor is no liberal democrat.

Read full article here

10/05/2018

Up the Workers?

A few news pieces have struck me on the back of last week’s local elections in England. All of which focus on the demographic changes in Labour's support base from working class voters to more affluent and educated ones.

Polls from the beginning of the year show a substantial swing from Labour to the Conservatives among people in the C2DE social grade - with the Tories overtaking Labour over the course of the past four months. Ipso defines C2's as skilled manual workers, D's as semi and unskilled manual workers and E's as state pensioners, casual or lowest grade workers and the unemployed with state benefits only. All of who make up C2DE. Since the beginning of the year there has been a seven-point swing pushing the Conservatives up from 35% to 43% and Labour down from 46% to 40% among C2DE voters. 

On the flip side, yesterday the Guardian has published a piece from Ian Warren, Director of Election Data, entitled 'Watch out, Tories. Your southern strongholds are turning red'. Warren argues that ex-Londoners moving out of the city into the Home Counties accounts for why the Conservatives did not do as well in these parts of Southern England during last year’s General Election. This, he says, explains Labour gains in Bedford, Brighton and Canterbury. Labour is currently attracting these suburban "affluent young families" who would typically be in the ABC1 group (the opposite of C2DE) and would normally vote Tory.

It is an irony that when Jeremy Corbyn came to power he promised to reconnect the Labour Party with its traditional working class base who had become disillusioned by New Labour. Yet, Tony Blair enjoyed far more support among C2DE voters from 1997 and beyond. I have no doubt that in recent weeks Corbyn's response to the Russian attack fed into these voters’ already unfavourable image of the Labour leadership as unpatriotic. However, there are of course other bigger and long-term factors including Brexit and the global backlash against globalisation all of which have pushed less affluent voters towards the political Right.

As a Labour campaigner in Essex I’ve put up with plenty of working class Tories on the doorstep. It looks like the national party will also have to get used to hearing from them too.

08/05/2018

Parking not Putin

Originally posted on Medium 04/05/2017.
Voting for a local Labour councillor is not a vote for Corbyn.

Fearing a Labour landslide in liberal London the Tories went door to door telling voters yesterday’s local elections were about “Bins not Brexit”.

In a similar vein I voted for my local Labour councillor despite the national leadership. In fact, I even helped my local party ‘get out the vote’ in Southend, as I have done for the past eight years.

I cannot say that I have played a particularly critical role in these set of elections. I really have embraced a backseat mentality since stepping down as Chair of Southend Labour. In fact I have become even more disillusioned and angry with the party recently. All I did prior to Election Day was a round of leaflets for my friend who was standing. Even then I could not quite reconcile my actions with my feelings about Jeremy Corbyn and his associates.

I am sure I am not the only Labour activist or voter trying to justify my actions to myself.

Read full post here.

Theresa May must not sacrifice Hong Kong for trade favours from the People’s Republic

Originally published on Hong Kong Free Press 01/02/2018.
The Foreign Office and its ministers have talked tough when it comes to the Sino-British Joint declaration.
Last summer, they quickly rebutted Beijing’s claims that this legally binding agreement was a mere historic piece of paper. What is more, in early January, the Minister for Asia Mark Field told British parliamentarians:
Please be assured that there is and must be no trade-off between human rights, whether in Hong Kong or in any other part of the world, and any Brexit-related trade matters. I know that there will be ongoing debates in the House, but please be assured that that is my position as Minister and that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Yet the general expectation is that this is exactly what will happen. Brexit Britain needs trade deals and Beijing knows it. According to academics in the UK, China views the British Prime Minister as a “biddable leader” and a “paper tiger”.

Read full article here.

Paradise or prison: Hong Kong is a city with an image problem, and a warning to liberal world order


Originally published on Hong Kong Free Press 31/12/2017. 

Hong Kong has always had a global reputation but after a year of banning foreign scholars and activists, while disqualifying and locking up pro-democracy legislators and leaders, its image across the world is souring.

Once a beacon of global capitalism and a booming Asian Tiger throughout the latter half of the 20th century, Hong Kong gained a reputation as a global city. Both open and connected. Somewhere where East met West. Far from just another Chinese city.

In fact, it was separation from the mainland which meant that Hong Kong citizens could thrive while the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spread chaos and brutality throughout the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Read full article here.

Stepping Down but Not Quitting

Originally posted Medium 24/08/2017.

Last week I stood down as Chair as Southend Labour Party’s Local Campaign Forum. After two long years it is somewhat of a relief. As anyone who has spent long enough in local Labour politics will admit it can be demanding stuff. But it was tinged with a bit of sadness as this will be the first time in seven years where I will not be taking a leading role on the LCF or on the executive of my Constituency Labour Party (Rochford and Southend East CLP).

Read full post here.

Britain should speak up – don’t let China get away with ripping up Hong Kong’s Handover treaty

Originally published on Hong Kong Free Press 08/07/2017.

“When the facts change, I change my mind” the saying goes. Yet, here in Britain, this phrase does not appear to be part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) lexicon.

When it comes to Hong Kong the facts on the ground have changed. They have changed quite dramatically over the past couple of years. Yet despite such events, the UK rolls out the same old line committing itself to the policy of “One Country, Two Systems.”

This week the British Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, published a statement to mark the 20th anniversary of the handover which did exactly this. This statement, like the FCO’s six-monthly reports, underestimates the threat posed to Hong Kong’s autonomy and does not offer a serious evaluation of Hong Kong’s political situation since 1997.
Read full article here.

As China Cracks Down on Hong Kong's Freedoms, Britain Cannot Stand Idly By

Originally published on Disclaimer Magazine 01/07/2017.

We have approached the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), yet few in Britain are aware of the dire situation in its former colony. Memories appear to be short and only a handful of Westminster politicians regularly raise concerns about the crackdowns on freedoms in Hong Kong. Now it’s time for Parliament to wake up and fulfil our obligations to Hong Kongers.

The question of Britain’s right to speak out on matters relating to Hong Kong is clear cut. The Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed in 1984, is a legally-binding international agreement. It promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy after it was handed to the mainland in 1997. This established Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the PRC and established the principle of ’One-Country Two-Systems’ until 2047.

Read full article here.

Why is this Tory minister writing propaganda for the Chinese dictatorship?

Originally published on Left Foot Forward 21/03/2017.

China Daily is not a real newspaper - MPs should boycott it.

Members of parliament should steer clear of the propaganda pumped out by oppressive regimes. Fortunately, more often than not, MPs are rightly condemned when they give such outlets legitimacy.
Sadly, this doesn’t appear to be the case when a foreign minister – in this case, Alok Sharma MP, Foreign Office Minister for Asia and the Pacific – writes for China Daily...

Read full article here.


Do we have no honour? Britain should wake up to what is happening in Hong Kong

Originally published on Hong Kong Free Press 11/02/2017.

The twentieth anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover should be a wake-up call for Britain. The Sino-British Joint Declaration isn’t being honoured by Beijing, and now Britain must stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for democracy.

Sadly, many in the Westminster bubble seem relatively unaware of Britain’s lasting legacy in Hong Kong. Other parts of the world seem to draw their attention. Take for example Kashmir and Palestine, two hotly contested regions and two peoples whose human rights are perpetually undermined by their new occupiers. Two nations which have suffered injustices throughout Britain’s imperial rule and beyond, and both areas of the world which rightly receive much attention from UK parliamentarians. Yet Hong Kong does not.
Read full article here