To the uninitiated reader, the United Kingdom’s most recent Six-monthly Report on Hong Kong (the report) will give the mistaken impression that Hong Kong is a repressive, dull and sectarian city. In real life, nothing is further from the truth. Most Hong Kong residents have learnt to ignore the report, considering it far too biased and unreal, and some even privately refer to it, perhaps unfairly, as the “cloud cuckoo land report”; but there is still a vast number of people worldwide who might take the report seriously, so much so that some issues of principle still need to be put right in public.

First, one needs to truly understand what the Sino-British Joint Declaration (the Declaration) is all about. In the foreword to the most recent report, British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Cameron boldly describes the enactment of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) by Beijing as a “breach of that treaty”.

It is hard to imagine that Cameron has not read the Declaration; or has he forgotten what Article 1 of the Declaration unambiguously states? It said China was to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. What does that mean? It means it is within the legitimate interests of China to protect that sovereignty and its territorial integrity, so that when China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is being challenged by, say, a call for independence for Hong Kong or a reversion to its “colonial” status, such conduct is plainly incompatible with the aim and purpose of the Declaration to say the least.

READ MORE: China rejects UK report concerning HKSAR

Not only did Cameron fail to address this most salient point in the report, but the UK government has also singularly failed to uphold the Declaration in the face of extreme violence in 2019 in Hong Kong. By unduly emphasizing the “loss of rights” under the NSL and complaining that the law was “in breach of” the Declaration (which obviously is not true), the report might give the mistaken impression that the Declaration gives people the “right” to oppose the exercise of sovereignty by Beijing over Hong Kong. That, for want of a better expression, is simply turning the Declaration on its head.

It is difficult to imagine Cameron has got all these things wrong by way of ignorance or mistake. Perhaps one should give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps all these baseless attacks on Hong Kong and its national security laws are not intentional; but don’t blame anyone who might have concluded otherwise

Cameron also falsely accused the recent passage of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s legislature as falling short of “international standards”. It may be unfair to assume Cameron has not read either the consultation paper preceding the passage of the ordinance or the ordinance itself, but the fact of the matter is, in proposing the bill, the HKSAR government had widely drawn experiences from various common law jurisdictions, including the UK experience, before opting for a moderate and reasonable approach to safeguarding national security.

A very good example is the provision of a public interest exemption from the offense of unlawful disclosure of national secrets, something the UK government refused to do despite being urged to do so by its law reform committee. The Hong Kong exemption is also considerably wider in scope than, say, the Canadian public interest defense. Surely Cameron knows that accusing the Hong Kong legislation of “falling short” of international standards is simply a travesty of the facts.

There is another very important aspect which the report failed to address, and that is the role of Hong Kong’s fiercely independent judiciary in the application of both the NSL and the city’s own ordinance. All our trials are open to the public. All the evidence presented in court is presented publicly for all to see. All decisions are supported by detailed and reasoned arguments which are again open to public scrutiny. Again, surely Cameron must know that there are UK judges sitting on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, and they will fearlessly safeguard the rule of law in Hong Kong.

More importantly, in the three years since the passage of the NSL, there has not been a single incident of the law being abused or used as a tool to get rid of dissenting political views contrary to rule of law principles. To turn a blind eye to this reality but insist on political rhetoric as the basic premise of the report is most regrettable in the eyes of the people in Hong Kong.

The report also one-sidedly referred to the seemingly subdued reaction of the public and the media in the aftermath of the passage of the NSL. This is rather superficial. It is natural and often the case that the public will react cautiously to any new law. Similarly, self-censorship in the face of a new law is quite common, as was the case with the newly introduced drink-driving legislation. It is thus important not to conflate temporary cautious reaction with possible severity of a law. Time will tell if it is the former or the latter. In any event, if one has to compare, both the NSL and the city’s new ordinance can certainly hold their own in face of similar legislation in the UK, the United States, or any other country.

ALSO READ: UK’s slanderous remarks on HK reek of double standards

Last but not least, Cameron complained about the extraterritorial effect of Hong Kong’s national security laws, and indignantly said, “We will not tolerate any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass, or harm individuals in the United Kingdom.” But does he not know that the UK’s national security laws, and indeed all national security laws in practically every country, claim to have extraterritorial effect? Isn’t it a bit pretentious to complain about this? No one is attempting to harm or intimidate anyone. It is in line with international practice to issue warrants for criminals who have escaped to other countries. Cameron might have conveniently forgotten that that also applies to the UK.

It is difficult to imagine Cameron has got all these things wrong by way of ignorance or mistake. Perhaps one should give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps all these baseless attacks on Hong Kong and its national security laws are not intentional; but don’t blame anyone who might have concluded otherwise.

The author is a former chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, a member of the Executive Council, and convener of the Path of Democracy.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.