All Episodes
Previous Next
April 20, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
41:51
HONG KONG SHOCK! MARTIN LEE ARRESTED!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.
I am here with Mr.
Martin Li, Senior Counsel, who was key in implementing what is effectively Hong Kong's constitution, the Basic Law.
Thank you for taking the time today.
My pleasure. So for those outside of Hong Kong, the Basic Law, could you give us a little bit of where it came from and how it came into its current form?
It started with the St.
Louis-British Joint Declaration, which was the basis of the Basic Law.
Of course, China wanted Hong Kong back, not just the new territories which were leased to Britain under a 99-year lease, expiring at the end of June 1997.
But Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were actually ceded to Britain forever.
As a result of the Opium War.
But of course, China would like to take the whole thing back on the 1st of July, 1997.
And the British government, under the Margaret Thatcher at the time, negotiated with the Chinese government over Hong Kong.
And after two years of negotiation, The joint declaration was then announced to Hong Kong people and to the world on the 26th of September 1984.
Now, that joint declaration contained what was called China's basic policies regarding Hong Kong.
So apart from China taking Hong Kong back and Britain giving Hong Kong back to China on the 1st of July 1997, the Chinese government wanted to put into the joint declaration its own basic policies regarding Hong Kong, which were spelled out In the joint declaration with some details.
And that is what Deng Xiaoping called the one country, two systems policy.
Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.
Namely, apart from defence and foreign affairs, which are reserved to the central government, Hong Kong would be masters of our own house.
And so these were the basic promises enshrined in the joint declaration.
That joint declaration had a lot of support, not only from Hong Kong, in a way we have options choice, but it also received international acclaim.
I was surprised when so many countries came up to support it when it was first announced.
Later, I learned that that was the result of a lot of lobbying behind the scene by both the British and the Chinese governments, because both governments were afraid that if the Joint Declaration did not allay the fears of Hong Kong people, then this emigration tide from Hong Kong would not cease.
And more and more of a The brains of Hong Kong would leave Hong Kong.
So the British government was working with the communists in China to allay world fears to keep or to try to keep the population to stay in Hong Kong.
As many Hong Kong people as possible to continue to stay here.
So they needed international support, which was then given to China and Britain at the time.
So as a result, Hong Kong people actually Looked at the thing and thought it could work.
And so the immigration tide did cease.
And I was, of course, doing some things at the time.
I was able to persuade the Chinese government through their representatives in Hong Kong that Hong Kong should continue to have our common law, which is a different system from their law.
And so I got that agreement.
And I also got them to agree that the Court of Final Appeal should be set up in Hong Kong.
And not only that, but that A court of final appeal may actually invite some other judges from overseas common law jurisdictions to sit in that court.
And so we now have a foreign judge from some other common law jurisdictions like England, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia and now recently even a judge from Canada.
Wait, so the purpose of the foreign judges is that partly to reduce the influence that Beijing might have over the court system or is there some other reason for that?
Beijing should not have any influence at all in our courts.
Our existing judges should continue.
But that foreign judge It was there to, again, to let the Hong Kong people feel that it's not just Hong Kong judges, but you've got a foreign judge sitting at the top court.
And that is also to let overseas investors to remain having confidence in our judicial system.
And that was a very big concession actually at the time.
And so even today, whenever the court of final appeal sits, of the five judges, one of them will be drawn from some overseas jurisdictions.
So how has the common law evolved since it was first instituted in 94-97?
How has it changed? Because it certainly doesn't seem to be the same now, at least in its interpretation, as it was in the 90s.
You mentioned the word interpretation, and that's right.
Because under the common law system, only judges interpret the law.
All the laws, including the Constitution.
Now, this is so in the United Kingdom, this is so in the USA and Canada.
So when we were drafting the basic law, and when it was suggested that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, which is their parliament, Actually has a right to interpret the basic law, which is our constitution.
I said, no way. Because you already agreed with me that we should continue to have the common law.
And under the common law system, only the courts and nobody else can interpret the constitution and all the other laws of Hong Kong.
But they never agreed.
And their excuse was, in case...
The courts of Hong Kong get it wrong so that it could actually sour relations with, for instance, a friendly nation like the USA. And then what happens?
I said, well, if the judge interprets it wrongly, you can always go to the court of appeal of three judges.
And if you consider that they interpret it wrongly, then there could be another appeal to the final court of five judges.
But they say, but even if the court of fine, if you get it wrong, then what happens?
They say, then you can amend the constitution, the basic law.
But their argument is, but in the meantime, then, and if the case involves relationship between the USA and China, and that would put us in a very difficult position.
And I said to them, that's too bad.
And you find the same not only in Hong Kong, but in any common law jurisdiction.
You could make this case for any jurisdiction to say, well, other judges outside, you have final...
I mean, there's no sovereignty then.
The problem is, of course, Hong Kong is only a part of China.
And so whereas they were prepared to give a lot of power to Hong Kong, they wanted to control the final part of the appeal.
And that is why they say, well, but if you finally go to the court of final appeal, and if it involves some important articles of the Basic Law, which impinge on relationship between the central government and Hong Kong, for example, then we want to interpret it at the final stage.
And I fought with them all the way for all the five years.
of the drafting process, but finally they would not concede.
And that is why this has now opened up a hole in our common law.
Right. So how has it, your fears at the time, how have they played out in relations with Beijing?
As far as that part is concerned, it's very bad because now our courts, even the final court of appeal, have interpreted the basic law On the basis that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has the power and right to interpret every article of the Basic Law, even when there is no appeal.
So even then, even when there is no case before the court, the Standing Committee can just If it so desires, interpret any article of the basic law in any way it likes.
So it's not even reliant on precedent.
It's not reliant on there being a court.
They basically have an eraser and can rewrite the law as they see fit with no due process or control of the legislature or the judges or a case.
Indeed. When did you first see that begin to manifest from Beijing?
Well, it's gradually, but they make it worse and worse.
It's a trouble. And where is this rewriting happening the most?
In which areas? Well, it began gradually, but recently they make it worse.
Recently, they claim, in fact the Hong Kong government claims, That they don't actually need to interpret the basic law.
They could actually, the same standing committee of the National People's Congress, can actually make a decision, which is not involving, which does not involve the interpretation of the basic law at all, but they can make any interpretation, sorry, they can make any decision regarding Hong Kong, and our courts must give effect to that.
So they could actually make a decision formally, which is not in the nature of interpretation of the Bicillow at all, and that decision would be binding in Hong Kong.
In other words, even the judges would have to listen to them.
So effectively, they could decide a legal issue for the Hong Kong courts.
So they make it worse and worse.
Well, that's not, of course, how the law is supposed to evolve.
And it's certainly not, as you say, only the judges in Hong Kong should be interpreting the basic law.
But if you have judges outside Hong Kong who can dictate that basic law through no jury trial, through no local interpretation, then you've really lost control of the law.
And they don't even have, they could, for instance, effectively amend our laws without going through the legislative council.
Beijing can do that for them.
The Standing Committee can do that for them.
And so that is why it's so bad.
Now, unfortunately, it doesn't happen only to the law.
Under the Joint Declaration, we were promised and actually given this high degree of autonomy.
But five years ago, In June 2014, they published a white paper.
The Chinese government published what they call a white paper in seven different languages claiming that the central government has comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong.
So how does it sit with a high degree of autonomy?
What does comprehensive mean in this context?
That means everything. In other words, they have complete jurisdiction over Hong Kong.
But was there supposed to be any, because this is always confusing to me, looking from the outside.
So 1997, there's the one country, two systems.
But then there's supposed to be, of course, 2047, there is the merging, right?
The full merging. What was the path to try and bring these two systems closer together so that the merging could happen?
And is this part of that process or is this separate?
It didn't happen like that.
In the beginning, it was good.
Because when Deng Xiaoping sat down with Margaret Thatcher on the 19th of December 1984 in Beijing, they had a meeting.
That was an important day because on that day they actually initialed the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
And there was a conversation between the two, which was minuted by the British government, kept the secret for 30 years, They finally released in 2014, in December.
And Deng Xiaoping was explaining to Margaret Thatcher at that meeting that she need not worry about Hong Kong because China needs 50 years so that this economy can grow So that it could reach par with the leading economies of the world.
So he said to her, don't worry.
But when we come to the end of the 50th year, you have even less reason to worry.
Because by then, China and the world's leading economies would depend on one another.
So that was the assurance.
And then when we were drafting the basic law, On the 16th of April, 1987, Deng Xiaoping addressed the entire drafting committee of the basic law of 59 people, and I was there.
And he said famously on that occasion, if 50 years should prove not to be enough, you can have another 50.
Now, it took me quite a while to figure out why 50 to begin with, because my little boy, my little son asked me, said, Dad, why only 50 years?
It's good enough for you, but not good enough for me.
I didn't know why.
And then later, Deng Xiaoping said another 50.
China at that time, in the early 1980s, was opening up to overseas investments.
And my theory was that Deng Xiaoping Already decided not to follow Soviet Russia in continuing with the socialist policies under a socialist system.
I believe he was already trying to move away from that and he would rather go down the capitalism.
But he couldn't say that, and there was no need for him to say that.
And then all he said was, China would have socialism, but with Chinese characteristics.
Now that's what he said.
That's what the Chinese leaders do, continue to use those words.
So socialism with Chinese characteristics means what?
I mean, you've been to China. It means capitalism.
With some degree of state control.
And they even claimed to practice this market economy.
So now in those days, things were going well.
Deng Xiaoping obviously had been looking at Hong Kong, which is a capitalist system, with a Chinese community, with the rule of law, with freedoms.
And so he liked that.
And I'm sure he liked China to go down that Hong Kong way.
That is why 50 years no change.
In other words, he wanted Hong Kong to keep our core values in this capital system of ours and keep all these core values until China can catch up with us in 50 years time.
But if China still doesn't come up to our standards in 50 years time, He doesn't want to put Hong Kong down.
He'd rather give Hong Kong another 50 years for China to continue to move upwards, to reach our level, then convergence.
And of course, in those days, China had what was called the four modernization programs, and Hong Kong had a key role to play.
So Hong Kong was playing the role of an engine, leading the train forward.
So in those days, everything was rosy.
They make promises. And I'm sure they rather wanted to keep the promises so that China can go forward and let Hong Kong lead them forward.
Now, unfortunately, things didn't work out that way.
And the communist government wanted to control Hong Kong more and more.
Now, when the concept of one country, two systems was first raised by Deng Xiaoping, my comment at the time Well, it could work, but it would be very difficult to work because they are too vast and we're too tiny.
So I gave the example of the seesaw game which we all played when we were young.
Supposing the old man sits here and his little son sits there, it goes like this.
And the only way for this game to work It's for the old man, the bigger guy, to move towards the centre of the plank until an equilibrium is struck.
Then you've got a game.
So I said at the time, all right, one country, two systems, if you want that work, there are two key conditions.
One is that there must be democracy so that our leaders, the chief executive and all members of the legislature would find it necessary To defend the Hong Kong system.
Otherwise, they will not win the second term of office.
So you've got to build it in, into the system.
The system, do you mean the Chinese system?
The Hong Kong system. The Hong Kong system.
Okay, I want to make sure. But China must also oblige.
So democracy, so that our leaders will always side with Hong Kong.
And if there is any conflict of interest between Hong Kong And mainland, our leaders must stand on our side and defend our high degree of autonomy, defend our freedoms and so on.
The other important condition is that the central government must not interfere in our autonomy.
Leave it to the Hong Kong government, leave it to the Hong Kong legislature to decide.
But this is now the 23rd year after the handover.
Democracy is nowhere in sight.
It developed as planned during the first 10 years of the handover.
The basic law says that the ultimate aim is to have universal suffrage for the election of both the chief executive and all members of the legislature.
But the ultimate aim could not be achieved during the first 10 years after the handover.
So we were all waiting for 2007.
But this is now 2019.
This is already our 23rd year.
And we haven't got universal suffrage yet.
Nowhere in sight even.
I'm sure it will be delivered right after Brexit.
Yes. And then, as for interference, during the early years of the handover, there was little interference in Beijing, but it grew more and more.
Until now, they claim to have comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong.
So, if you look at Hong Kong as promised, and Hong Kong now, you'll find these two totally different things.
So up to now, Beijing has never allowed Hong Kong even one chance to really practice one country, two systems, as promised.
And that is why you've got such trouble.
You have a chief executive.
Carrie Lam is our fourth chief executive.
Each one of them was actually chosen by Beijing.
But it's not working.
Because a system doesn't help Under the Basic Law, the Chief Executive is answerable both to Beijing and to the Hong Kong people.
But the Hong Kong people have not elected her.
She has no mandate of Hong Kong people.
She got this job only because China gave it to her.
So, of course, whatever happens, if Beijing wants her to do something, she will do it.
If Hong Kong people want her to do something, if China approves, she will also do it.
But if China doesn't approve, she won't do it.
So the system It's a system which is at fault.
And we can't put too much blame on the chief executive.
We've got four of them. The system doesn't make it work.
What is, what they say, the end game?
What is the goal of China here?
Because it seems like if they're going to try and grab Hong Kong, they will break Hong Kong, which will break the East Asian economies, which will have massive ripple effects throughout the entire world economy.
What is their purpose in what it is that they're pursuing?
Why are they provoking, in a sense, these huge protests, this discontent, this anxiety, this fear, sometimes this flight?
What is their goal? I think they want to control Hong Kong.
But of course, this is the communist way of dealing with Hong Kong all these years.
Whenever there's a huge demonstration, a large demonstration in past years, say in 2003, because of the attempted legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, legislating against treason and secession and the theft of state secrets, that sort of thing. The bill presented to the Legislative Council would have seriously eroded three of our basic freedoms.
So Hong Kong people protested.
I was in the Legislative Council.
We protested. And on the 1st of July, 2003, which was the 6th anniversary of the handover, half a million people took to the streets.
And that caused the chief executive at the time, Mr.
Tung Chi Wa, to suspend the bill and later withdrew it.
So even today, there is no such legislation on our books, on our statute books, right?
Sorry, you mentioned three, freedom of speech, freedom of association, what...
And freedom of religion.
Okay. So...
Half a million people and then that's 2003.
And of course then five years ago the Umbrella Movement and there were a lot of people again taking to the streets.
This time even more.
First a million and then two million.
And so now What will China do?
You see, at the moment, we're still waiting for this key decision to be made by one man, President Xi Jinping.
Now, if you go by the past records of how Beijing would solve problems in Hong Kong of this nature, the answer is very simple.
Tighter control.
So they would say the comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong is not comprehensive enough.
That, of course, will kill Hong Kong as an international trading center.
No question about that.
You're built on the rule of law and particular contracts, and if there's outside interference, you can't trust it.
Indeed. I mean, you have seen what's happening to Kansas City Pacific, for example.
The executives being kicked out.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. They want to control even businesses now.
So if this is the way forward, Hong Kong will very soon, if not immediately, become just another Chinese city.
Now, I hope President Xi would...
See the attraction of the other alternative, which is really to change all that back to Deng Xiaoping's One Country, Two Systems.
We must learn to trust Hong Kong people and let us choose our leaders by democratic elections and allow us to run this place as we know how.
In other words, this is the blueprint for Hong Kong's future by Deng Xiaoping.
And I hope I really hope that the present leader, Xi Jinping, would have the wisdom, courage and conviction to go back to this blueprint.
And then everything will work.
There's no problem about that.
But you may need more than the time between now and 2047.
It may need to extend to some degree.
I think we can, if Xi Jinping were to decide that, Hong Kong can work very easily.
We can cooperate. I mean, Hong Kong was not a divided city before.
Now, this huge polarization only came about just in the last 10 years, when C.Y. Leung was chief executive, for instance.
And he introduced this topic of independence.
He somehow got an article in a university student's magazine published in Hong Kong University.
One contributor said, Hong Kong's future lies in independence.
And he actually read that in his policy speech in the Legislative Council.
And then complained about it.
If he hadn't mentioned that, nobody would have read that.
And there was...
You didn't hear anybody talking about independence during the first 10 years of the handover.
Because there was not this interference.
People were looking forward to elections.
Although not implemented, people were looking forward to it.
That's why Hong Kong was...
And there was huge harmony between our community.
Unlike now. Well, I guess one concern is that as Beijing's grip tightens on Hong Kong, there will be more resistance, there will be more protests, what have been, I think, inaccurately termed riots.
There will be a perception of instability, and then that is used as an excuse, this vicious cycle.
You tighten your fist, they punch back.
You tighten your fist, and then where?
But they're going to win, clearly.
I mean, their army is already here.
They don't even send in their army.
It's already here. And of course, the police can control the situation, even now.
But of course, Carrie Lam is just waiting for her orders to Beijing.
That's why the Hong Kong government is dysfunctional at the moment.
You see a lot of confusion, some violence.
Malicious damage of property.
These are criminal offences.
But then the protesters are arrested, brought to the court, and so on.
So certainly, these protesters, some of them, committed violence on property.
But on the other side, the police clearly used excessive force when they arrested these offenders.
Any excessive force constitutes a criminal offence under criminal law.
So the police were guilty of violence on the person of these protesters.
Worse than the property damage, I believe.
Exactly. But nobody cared.
See, they were not arrested because they don't want to arrest themselves.
Well, and the third, the independent body that is supposed to oversee this kind of police brutality seems to have lost all of its teeth.
Indeed. Indeed.
And of course, Carrie Lam would not Set up an independent commission of inquiry with a judge presiding, for example, than looking to these things.
She would not, because the police would object.
I mean, you cannot make decisions of this, important decisions of this kind, by following the wishes of the police force, particularly when they are also guilty and guilty of serious assault charges.
The tension to me is palpable in the city and the tension with mainland China to me is fundamentally philosophical, which is individualism versus collectivism, markets versus communism or central planning, freedom versus coercion.
So, Hong Kong to me is here.
There's good guys and bad guys.
Maybe it's too simple, but this is the way I see it.
Hong Kong is here, China is here as far as development goes.
The goal, as you say, was for China to reach some level of Hong Kong.
And then you have equilibrium and you can maybe have one system.
Did China rise or Hong Kong drag down?
And right now my concern is what I see is China is not rising, but China is pulling down.
China's rising when it comes to money.
That's the world's second largest economy.
But then what are the core values in the Chinese community back in China?
One, money.
But you know, a country cannot just have money as its only core value.
That's a problem. And that's why the Hong Kong students are fighting so hard and sometimes even they're prepared to risk their lives.
Why? To defend the city as they want it to continue to be.
And that's why so many students have now come forward defending our city.
Well, as the old saying says, man cannot live by bread alone.
Indeed. And I think in China, the deal from the government to the people is, we will let you get rich as long as you do not ask for freedom.
And I think here in Hong Kong, the freedoms...
Are more important than the wealth, as I believe they should be.
The values, the philosophical values that we live by are more important than the material things that we can have.
And I think this focus on freedom as opposed to just the focus on money is a fundamental tension and it's hard to say which way it will go.
Indeed. And our kids have experience in mainland China.
They have shut out from the internet, right?
I mean, whatever they don't want you to have access to, then you don't get it.
And then there's a lot of brainwashing.
So the kids know only too well.
And they don't like that.
Right. What do you think are the odds?
You said that they will lose.
It's just a hard thought to have.
I mean, militarily, of course.
I mean, there's no question, right? You have a huge army and a huge economy.
But I do believe that if you have right on your side and good allies in the international community, I think there's a chance to at least slow down the encroachment.
I hope that President Xi would see it that way.
He would see that it is ultimately in China's advantage, to China's advantage, by going back to Deng Xiaoping's blueprint.
Because Deng Xiaoping's one country, two systems, in my assessment, is not intended Just for Hong Kong or Macau or even Taiwan.
This one country, two systems was also meant to benefit mainland China so that China can reach our level.
China will then switch over to capitalist system, which is now happening, but with our core values.
So we must keep our core values high And that's what we are trying to do.
Keep them as high as possible, for as long as possible, and hoping China will catch up with us sooner rather than later.
But if we allow ourselves to be dragged down, then this conversion at a low level cannot benefit either mainland China or Hong Kong.
What do you think, if you could sort of say the top three things that you would really, really like to see occur in this conflict, in this tension, what do you think they would be if you could have your way?
World democracy is already long delayed, long overdue, and there's no reason to wait any longer.
Otherwise, this thing would continue.
And the other is for China really to live up to its own promise, which is contained in the basic law already, no interference from across the border.
And when these two things are there, I think Hong Kong will have a bright future.
And that was originally promised and planned for Hong Kong by Deng Xiaoping.
Now, of course, it would also be a good thing if there can be an independent commission of inquiry.
But I don't want that inquiry to find fault with either side.
I rather wanted to look forward We must find out what went wrong rather than which are the persons who should take the blame.
And I would like to see a general amnesty of the demonstrators and also of the police.
You cannot give it to one and not the other.
Yes, if both have committed crimes.
So let them all be forgotten and forgiven and go forward.
How has the response, in your view, been of the international community and its view of what's happening in Hong Kong and its support for the core values of the Hong Kong people?
I am pleasantly surprised by the support that we have received from overseas.
Members of the Congress or parliamentarians are extremely helpful.
Some government officials are extremely helpful.
They are speaking up for Hong Kong.
And of course, the communists in China would say, mind your own business.
But really, they can't ask people to mind their own business over Hong Kong.
Because They already internationalized the Hong Kong issue back in 1984 when they lobbied for international support of their agreement with Britain.
It's only their agreement with Britain, only two countries.
And yet they got so many other countries to come forward to support what is essentially their own basic policies regarding Hong Kong.
And so many foreign governments gave them their thumb up.
All right? So okay, they supported and still support 11032 systems.
And if things are going wrong, why can't they tell the Chinese government, hey, you lobbied for our support and we gave it.
But now it's not working. And why are you breaking your promises about democracy?
About not to interfere and so on.
Of course, these foreign governments owe Hong Kong people at least a moral obligation to speak up for us.
I'm not asking them to fight a war with China.
No. I'm not asking for independence.
I am supporting one country, two systems.
And if you support one country, two systems, there cannot be independence.
You see? Two systems, mainland and Hong Kong.
But if independence is to two countries.
So we continue to support one country, two systems.
We are opposed to independence.
But there must be, all the promises must be kept.
I think my concern is that one of the great weaknesses of the international community, this goes all the way back to the open wars, is desiring access to China's market.
And the fact that China can bar access to what people want to sell into this market.
I'm concerned that China's getting stronger, as you say, such a huge economy on the world stage that they can dictate terms based upon access or denial to Chinese markets.
Yeah. They're all looking at this huge China pie.
And everybody wants more contracts.
And of course, the Chinese government is very clever.
They play their hand very skillfully.
And a lot of governments believe that you must kowtow to Beijing to get a larger share of your pie.
But actually, facts don't prove that way.
Because China always wants people To work with them.
If they need your goods, they need your goods.
And if you kowtow to them, they'll give you some sweets to keep you in their pockets.
But the big one, you don't get.
The big one, they'd rather negotiate with a country which is standing on its principles.
So if we could, just at the end here, this is the camera that's going to get yours.
Forget about me. Just what would you like to say to the world as a whole and perhaps even to the Chinese who may end up watching this about what you want and what your greatest desire is for peace and security moving forward?
I think the vast majority of Hong Kong people do not want independence because they know this is not possible.
Unless China agrees to give independence to Hong Kong, and of course China will not.
But the vast majority of Hong Kong people want China to honour its promises, which are contained in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and then repeated in our basic law, our constitution.
And so that means Hong Kong people would have a high degree of autonomy, we'll be masters of our own house, we choose our own leaders by democratic elections, and China will not interfere in how Hong Kong runs its internal affairs.
So that is what I'm for.
And the outside world We, of course, should understand that we are not asking you to help us to fight for independence, because that's entirely up to China, which is a sovereign.
But we do want you to talk with the Chinese leaders that what they promised to Hong Kong and to the international community in this Sino-British Joint Declaration Which China has asked so many countries to support, and they still support it, then they owe Hong Kong people that moral obligation to speak up for us when something is going wrong, in breach of promises by China.
And the Chinese leadership, I was very struck when you said that you hope that they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
How will it benefit them to pursue this wise course?
Hong Kong is the only city in China which has the rule of law, although this is being eroded.
And so Hong Kong can only help China by remaining what we are, by keeping our rule of law intact, so that if our leader wants to pursue his one belt, one road, Hong Kong will become a very important city where all the arbitration can take place and people will trust our legal system and our judicial system.
And so Hong Kong is the only city which can play that particular role.
No other Chinese city can do it.
And Hong Kong will continue to be the window to the outside world.
And Hong Kong is too precious an international port For China to lose by converting it into just another Chinese city.
Thank you so much for your time today.
▲
Export Selection