Letter: The future of Hong Kong: Chris Patten's far-sighted approach; facts about the Governor's conduct
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I am appalled to read that Sir David Akers-Jones has been vilified and called a 'traitor' because he has chosen to be an adviser to China. Does the British public know who Sir David Akers-Jones is? He is one of the most senior public servants in Hong Kong. When he repudiates Chris Patten's claim that what he is doing is consistent with previous understandings with China, he speaks with authority, because he was one of the principal architects of them. Does the British public realise that all the British Sinologists (that is, everyone with special knowledge of the issue), almost the entire business community in Hong Kong and many more people of prominence share Sir David's view? Are all of these people sycophants and opportunists?
Does the British public know the facts about Mr Patten's conduct? For instance, that Mr Patten kept his key policy speech secret before presenting it publicly, and the following day replaced all but two of his Executive Council? That he then fostered a popular movement in support of his 'proposals', which (arguably) did not previously exist because in the first election ever, in 1991, only 18 per cent of the eligible electorate voted? That he then went round the world seeking international endorsement for his 'proposals', his plan being (arguably) to make them impossible for China to resist? So much for his being
prepared to negotiate 'without preconditions'.
Yours faithfully,
ANDREW CARVERHILL
Hong Kong
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments