U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–340 PDF 2017

WILL THE HONG KONG MODEL SURVIVE?: AN 

ASSESSMENT 20 YEARS AFTER THE HANDOVER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE 

COMMISSION ON CHINA 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 3, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

Senate House 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

ANGUS KING, Maine 

CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Cochairman 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota 

TED LIEU, California 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

Not yet appointed 

ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Staff Director 

PAUL B. PROTIC, Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

CO N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS

Page 

Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Chairman, 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 1 

Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey; Chairman, 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 3 

Patten, Rt. Hon. Lord Christopher of Barnes CH, 28th Governor of Hong 

Kong, 1992–1997; Chancellor, University of Oxford (Appearing live via 

video teleconference) ............................................................................................ 5 

Wong, Joshua, Umbrella Movement Leader and Secretary-General Demosisto ̄ 16 

Lee, Martin, Barrister, Founding Chairman, the Democratic Party of Hong 

Kong; Former Member of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law; and 

Former Member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (1985–2008) .......... 21 

Lam Wing Kee, Founder, Causeway Bay Books; One of five victims of the 

forced disappearances of Hong Kong booksellers .............................................. 22 

Bork, Ellen, author .................................................................................................. 25 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Wong, Joshua ........................................................................................................... 38 

Lee, Martin ............................................................................................................... 40 

Lam Wing Kee ......................................................................................................... 41 

Bork, Ellen ............................................................................................................... 47 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Chairman, CongressionalExecutive Commission on China ........................................................................ 48 

Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey; Cochairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ...................................... 49 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Witness Biographies ................................................................................................ 51 

(1) 

WILL THE HONG KONG MODEL SURVIVE?: 

AN ASSESSMENT 20 YEARS AFTER THE 

HANDOVER 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2017 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in 

Room 138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Marco Rubio, 

Chairman, presiding. 

Also present: Cochairman Christopher Smith; Senators Steve 

Daines, Angus King, and Tom Cotton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Chairman RUBIO. All right, good morning. Good morning. This is 

a hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. 

The title of the hearing is ‘‘Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An 

Assessment 20 Years After the Handover.’’ 

We are going to have two panels testifying today. The first panel 

will feature the Right Honorable Lord Patten of Barnes, Christopher Patten, testifying via video link from London. 

Lord Patten, in addition to serving in the House of Lords, was 

the last British governor of Hong Kong and oversaw the transfer 

to China 20 years ago this July. 

The second panel will include Joshua Wong from the Umbrella 

Movement, its leader, now the secretary-general of the new Hong 

Kong political party Demosisto ̄. Demosisto ̄? Did I pronounce that? Great. 

Martin Lee, barrister, founding chairman of the Democratic 

Party of Hong Kong, former member of the Drafting Committee for 

the Basic Law and former member of the Legislative Council of 

Hong Kong from 1985 through 2008. 

Lam Wing Kee, founder, Causeway Bay Books, one of the five 

forcibly disappeared Hong Kong booksellers. 

And Ellen Bork, a writer whose work on democracy and human 

rights as a priority in American foreign policy, has appeared in the 

Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Financial 

Times, among other publications. 

I would also note that translating for Mr. Lam is Ms. Mak Yinting, a journalist and veteran of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the territory’s leading defender of press freedom. 

2 

As has already been noted, today’s hearing is timely, given the 

20th anniversary this July of the British handover of Hong Kong. 

As we rewatch film footage and commentary of that historic day, 

we cannot help but take note of the pageantry, the raising and lowering of flags, the solemn handshakes, the national anthems. 

Many observers describe the handover as signifying the sunset of 

a once-great colonial power and the ascent of a rising China. But 

there was and remains far more at stake. 

On that day in 1997, Lord Patten, who we will hear from momentarily, spoke of Hong Kong’s unshakable destiny, a Hong Kong 

governed by and for the people of Hong Kong. And it is that destiny 

that animates today’s gathering. 

However, in recent years, Beijing has consistently undermined 

the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ principle and has infringed on the 

democratic freedoms that the residents of Hong Kong are supposed 

to be guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which 

is an international treaty, and Hong Kong’s Basic Law. 

The rise of localist politicians and activists who call for greater 

political and legal self-determination for Hong Kong has drawn 

harsh reprisals from the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. 

The Chinese Government’s November 2016 interpretation of 

Hong Kong’s Basic Law effectively prohibited two recently elected 

Hong Kong legislators from taking office and was viewed as a blow 

to Hong Kong’s judicial independence. 

The Hong Kong Government is currently seeking the removal 

from office of four other pro-democratic legislators all along the 

same lines. 

In March of this year, nine activists were arrested for their participation in the Occupy Central protests in 2014, including two sitting pro-democratic lawmakers. Their arrests came less than 24 

hours after the undemocratic ‘‘election’’ of Carrie Lam to serve as 

Hong Kong’s next chief executive, which drew widespread condemnation and accusations of a retaliatory campaign aimed at punishing leaders of the Hong Kong democracy movement and suppressing dissent prior to her taking office. 

In late 2015, five Hong Kong-based booksellers, including one of 

today’s witnesses, were disappeared or abducted to mainland 

China. One of these booksellers, Gui Minhai, a Swedish citizen abducted from Thailand, remains in custody in China where he will 

mark his 53rd birthday this coming Friday. 

The disappearances and abductions of the booksellers and their 

coerced, ‘‘confessions’’ which were broadcast on Hong Kong television, sent shockwaves through the city and are reflective of a 

larger, troubling trend in the area of press freedom and freedom of 

expression. 

Today happens to be World Press Freedom Day and it bears 

mentioning that the recently released Reporters Without Borders 

index ranking, which ranks countries for their press freedom environment, had Hong Kong slipping four places in a single year. 

In February, Senators Cardin and Cotton joined me in introducing the bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy 

Act, which would renew the United States’ historical commitment 

to Hong Kong at a time when its autonomy is increasingly under 

assault. 

3 

The legislation also establishes punitive measures against government officials in Hong Kong or mainland China who are responsible for suppressing basic freedoms. 

Looking ahead, Congress will be closely watching how Hong 

Kong authorities and the mainland handle the 20th anniversary as 

well as whether Ms. Lam moves to reintroduce Article 23, widely 

despised anti-subversion and anti-sedition legislation first proposed 

in 2002, which triggered massive protests in which half-a-million 

Hong Kongers took to the streets. 

And for all these reasons is why we look forward to today’s hearing, because without question there are many layers and complexities to our relationship with China as evidenced by the questions 

during yesterday’s hearing for Governor Branstad to serve as U.S. 

Ambassador to China. 

Despite the multitude of challenges, Hong Kong’s future, indeed 

its destiny, must not be sidelined. China’s assault on democratic institutions and human rights is of central importance to the people 

of Hong Kong and to its status as a free market, economic powerhouse and hub for international trade and investment. 

We cannot allow Hong Kong to go the way of Beijing’s failed 

authoritarianism and one-party rule. 

At this time, I would turn to Congressman Smith. And I would 

note that the congressman has another important bill up for markup. At some point, he will have to leave early, but we, as always, 

are appreciative of his incredible leadership on this commission 

and on this cause. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rubio appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY; COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Representative SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank you for convening this extremely important 

and timely hearing. 

Two-and-a-half years ago, tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents peacefully gathered in the streets, yellow umbrellas in hand, 

seeking electoral reform and greater democracy. 

Joshua Wong was at the forefront of that movement along with 

Nathan Law and Alex Chow and so many other young student 

leaders. 

The Umbrella Movement was not only composed of students, but 

included veterans of the democracy movement in Hong Kong, including the incomparable Martin Lee. 

It is good to see Joshua and Martin here today, bringing together 

the generations of advocates committed to Hong Kong’s freedom 

and autonomy. 

Joshua Wong and all those associated with the Umbrella Movement have become important symbols of Hong Kong’s vitality and 

its freedoms. They are now part of Hong Kong’s unique brand. And 

any effort to detain, censor, or intimidate them dangers that brand. 

Over the past two years, Senator Rubio and I along with other 

members of the China Commission have introduced the Hong Kong 

Human Rights and Democracy Act. And we have worked in ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\26340 DIEDRE
4 

gress to maintain the State Department’s annual report on Hong 

Kong. 

We have issued strong statements of solidarity with and concern 

for the political prosecutions of Joshua and other Umbrella Movement leaders, the unprecedented interventions by the Chinese Government in Hong Kong’s courts and political affairs, and the abductions of Hong Kong booksellers and other citizens. 

We have also discussed the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and 

freedoms with both U.S. and Chinese officials. 

I especially want to commend Senator Rubio for his leadership 

on human rights issues and on Hong Kong. We have worked together closely and I am honored to work with him on this commission. Senator Rubio is a true champion of the globe’s oppressed and 

persecuted. 

As long as I have the privilege of serving as chair of the China 

Commission, the House chair, I promise to continue shining a light 

on Hong Kong. 

Maintaining Hong Kong’s autonomy is a critical U.S. interest. 

The United States also has a clear interest in Beijing abiding by 

its international agreements in Hong Kong and elsewhere. 

The democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong cannot be 

indefinitely suppressed. My colleagues and I promise to stand with 

Hong Kong and call attention to violations of basic human rights 

as they have occurred and, sadly, are still occurring. 

Through Beijing’s increasingly rough oversight of Hong Kong, 

though it may not be as brutal as that pursued on the mainland, 

it is no less pernicious. The ultimate goal is eroding Hong Kong’s 

guaranteed freedoms and the rule of law and intimidating those 

who try to defend them. 

This year will be the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong 

Kong. And I think it is very important that Lord Christopher Patten will be testifying. He has provided insights to this commission 

before, always timely and always very, very incisive. 

Unfortunately, it seems the territory’s autonomy now looks increasingly fragile. Again, all the more reason why we need to hear 

from him. 

We are coming up on another anniversary as well, the 25th anniversary of the Hong Kong Policy Act. At this juncture, we should 

be examining both the health of the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ 

model and examining the very assumptions that underline U.S.- 

Hong Kong relations, what can be done differently, what new priorities should be set. 

The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 is based on the assumption 

that freedom, the rule of law, and autonomy promised to Hong 

Kong would be protected and respected. It was also based on the 

assumption that time was on the side of freedom, that trade and 

investment would eventually bring political liberalization and 

human rights to mainland China. 

As Chairman Rubio and I have been saying for some time, one 

can no longer base U.S. policy on the fantasy that China’s future 

will be more democratic and more open. 

Mainland China has become more repressive under Xi Jinping, 

not less. Prosperity has turned a poor authoritarian country into a 

rich authoritarian country with predictable results for China’s 

5 

rights defenders, ethnic and religious groups, labor and democracy 

advocates, foreign businesses, and Hong Kong’s autonomy. 

Some will argue that the best course of action would be to retreat 

into a hard realism, recognizing China’s interests and spheres of 

influence to protect U.S. interests. 

We could ignore what is happening in Hong Kong and shift responsibility, say, to the British or some undefined international 

body. I strongly disagree. 

We do not need a new realism to govern our China policy. Instead, we need a new idealism, a renewed commitment to democratic ideals, to human rights and the rule of law in ways that compete directly with the Chinese model in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. 

Chinese leaders need to know that the United States stands for 

freedom of expression, religion, Internet freedom, the rule of law, 

universal suffrage, an end to torture, and other fundamental 

human rights. 

Again, I want to thank you and would ask unanimous consent 

that my full statement be made a part of the record. 

And I do regret we have a markup at 10 o’clock on the House 

side. The first bill that is up is my bill on combating human trafficking, so I have to be there to defend it. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Smith appears in the 

appendix.] 

Chairman RUBIO. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. Thank 

you for your leadership. 

And we will proceed here quickly via our videoconference with 

Lord Patten. 

We thank you for joining us today. We look forward to your testimony and our questions. And I am hoping that you can hear us 

clearly. 

Lord PATTEN. I can indeed. 

Chairman RUBIO. Well, thank you for joining us today. You are 

recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE RIGHT HONORABLE LORD PATTEN OF 

BARNES, CHRISTOPHER PATTEN, 28TH GOVERNOR OF HONG 

KONG, 1992–1997 (APPEARING LIVE VIA VIDEO TELECONFERENCE) 

Lord PATTEN. First of all, I would like to thank you very much 

indeed for giving me the opportunity of speaking to you again. I 

spoke to you last in 2014 in November. And we spoke then principally about the extraordinarily moving demonstrations that were 

taking place in Hong Kong. 

Since then, as you have said, we have had two lots of elections 

which give a peculiarly Chinese meaning to the word ‘‘election’’ and 

are not quite the democratic events that you, Senator, and I are 

used to. 

I will not go through all that again. I explored those issues at 

some length in 2014 in relation to the Joint Declaration, the Basic 

Law, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

And all that is on the record. 

6 

I can go back over it again if you would like, but it is perfectly 

clear that Hong Kong has not been given what it was promised by 

the new sovereign power. 

Perhaps I can just, by way of introduction, make four or five 

points. 

The first is one I made before, namely that Beijing, the Chinese 

Communists consistently argue that what happens in Hong Kong 

is nobody else’s affair and that others should avoid interfering. 

Well, that is not true on two levels and indeed on a third. 

On the first level, Hong Kong’s autonomy and way of life for 50 

years, guaranteed under the Joint Declaration, which is an international treaty between Britain and China in which first Britain 

undertook that it would deliver some things to the people of Hong 

Kong and report on that to China. 

And today, the situation is reversed. China is supposed to keep 

its word to the people of Hong Kong and Britain has every right 

to interfere in that and argue about whether that has actually happened. 

Now, whether or not China keeps its word on the Joint Declaration over time is plainly a matter of considerable interest, which 

is the second reason why we have to be concerned, to the rest of 

the international community. Because if China breaks its word 

over the Joint Declaration and, by extension, the International 

Covenant and the Basic Law, if China breaks its word on those 

things, where do we trust it on other international agreements? 

And the third point is a straightforward one about Hong Kong’s 

development. Hong Kong is a huge important international trading 

and economic hub. And an example of that is that there are 1,200 

American companies, or perhaps more now, based in Hong Kong. 

So it is in America’s interest and the international community’s interest that Hong Kong should be well-governed and should have a 

reasonable balance between economic and political freedom. 

The other points I would like to make very briefly are these, that 

most of the people I respect in Hong Kong have argued that there 

has plainly been an erosion of autonomy and of the rule of law over 

the last few years, direct attacks on autonomy with the abductions 

that you referred to, and most recently the abduction of a billionaire who was plainly a bag carrier for some of the wealthiest members of the Chinese leadership in Beijing. 

There has been pressure on the independence of the judiciary, 

which I suppose the most outrageous example of that was an intervention by the National People’s Congress in a case which was already before the Hong Kong courts and was being properly dealt 

with. 

Third, there are real worries about pressure on the institutional 

and academic autonomy of universities. I think the view on the 

part of the Chinese Communist Party is that the democracy movement came out of students and came out of universities, particularly from law faculties, which has encouraged them, the Joint Liaison Office in Hong Kong and others, to interfere in university autonomy. 

And freedom of speech, as you said, continues to be a problem. 

We have not had anything as outrageous as the appalling machete 

attack on a very brave journalist, Kevin Lau, in the early part of 

7 

2014. But there is still the sense of financial and physical intimidation of the press. 

The other points I just wanted to make very briefly are, first of 

all, we have seen, partly because any dialogue with the democracy 

movement and with young people and with not-so-young people in 

Hong Kong, any dialogue has been cut off. I think it is not unfair 

to say that Carrie Lam did not give the impression when she was 

talking to the students of being very interested in what they had 

to say. 

And I think as a consequence of that, we have seen what I believe to be an unwise development of what is called, politely, localism, the attempt to argue the case for Hong Kong’s not just autonomy within China, but for Hong Kong’s independence. 

And I think a lot of people who are totally supportive as I am 

of greater progress toward democracy, of standing up for the rule 

of law, are very, very doubtful about the wisdom of arguing for 

Hong Kong to have independence as a sovereign state. I simply 

think that that plays to the hardliners in Beijing. And I do not 

think it has been terribly wise. 

The last points I want to make are there. There is a lot of talk, 

not least on the part of political scientists, distinguished geopolitical experts like Graham Allison in the United States, about 

what they call the Thucydides Trap, about the almost inevitable 

way in which, or they say the inevitable way in which great powers 

are pushed into dealing aggressively with powers that are on the 

rise. And that obviously is a backdrop in some respects to the way 

we handle China in the next few years. 

But the way we handle China in the next few years will largely 

depend on the way that China handles us and the way that China 

handles its responsibilities. And I think that Hong Kong, to that 

extent, exemplifies some of the biggest issues that we will face in 

the century ahead, how China takes its part in the international 

community, how we balance economic and political freedom, how 

China copes with its regional relationships. 

Now, if China cannot even handle the reasonable democratic aspirations, as it promised to do of people in Hong Kong, it does not 

give one a huge amount of confidence in its ability to handle wider 

issues. 

We are told that President Xi Jinping may well be going to Hong 

Kong at the beginning of July to swear-in Carrie Lam and to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China. 

I hope that if that is true he takes the opportunity to reassure 

people in Hong Kong that China still stands foursquare behind 

what it promised back in 1984 and 1985 and later and that he, like 

Deng Xiaoping, believes that people in Hong Kong are perfectly capable of running their own affairs. It was a very important remark 

that Deng Xiaoping made back in 1984 to set the minds and hearts 

of people in Hong Kong at rest. 

Well, I have to say, though I think that there is much good that 

is still happening in Hong Kong, people’s minds and hearts are not 

exactly at rest at the moment. 

[The prepared statement of Lord Patten appears in the appendix.] 

Chairman RUBIO. We thank you for your testimony. 

8 

And I know that you are pressed on time. And we have a substantial time difference. So I will be brief unless any of the other 

members of the commission appear during your time on our video 

screen. 

And I think you have touched on this already. But how would 

you assess the British and Chinese Governments with regard to 

fulfilling their respective obligations under the Joint Declaration? 

As you looked 20 years into the future, is this what you thought 

it would look like? Is this what you had envisioned from both sides 

20 years ago? 

Or if someone had told you this is the way it was going to look 

like 20 years later, how would you have felt 20 years ago? 

Lord PATTEN. I would have been pleased that the worst that 

some people anticipated did not happen. There are many, Milton 

Friedman was one, who thought that ‘‘one country, two systems’’ 

was impossible. There were others who thought that, for example, 

even I would be leaving in a helicopter from the ballroom roof in 

Government House and that sooner or later there would be violence in Hong Kong. And that has not happened, though there has 

occasionally been some pretty rough policing. 

When I was in Hong Kong, we would occasionally have a few 

hundred people demonstrating. It has been rather different from 

that. 

But there has been, I think, a steady and growing erosion as 

Anson Chan and as Martin Lee and others have said of Hong 

Kong’s autonomy. And I think that is much to be regretted. And 

Hong Kong and China will be the losers from that. 

I do not want to exaggerate and I have never set myself up as 

a day-to-day commentator on everything that goes wrong in Hong 

Kong. 

The Taiwanese, of course, not least because ‘‘one country, two 

systems’’ was designed for them as well, keep a very beady eye on 

things and have suggested that there have been 169 breaches of 

the Joint Declaration. Well, I would not say that myself. 

What I would say is that the British Government has not always 

been, and let me choose my words very carefully, has not always 

been very robust in drawing attention to breaches, whether large 

or small, of the undertakings, both the letter and the spirit, made 

by China. And I rather regret that. 

The House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs did 

produce itself quite a robust report in 2015 having been banned 

from going to Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities. 

I just hope that we will speak out, the British Government will 

speak out rather more loudly over the coming months and years. 

I have always felt that we, and I blame myself a bit, but I blame 

British Governments over a long period of time, I always felt that 

we let down the generation before Joshua Wong, his parents’ generation. And I hope that we do not let down Joshua Wong’s generation as well. 

Because the most exciting and important thing I think to have 

happened is there remains in Hong Kong a sense of citizenship in 

a free society, which is exemplified by the brave way in which 

Joshua and his colleagues have behaved. 

9 

Chairman RUBIO. I believe Senator Daines, who happened to 

have lived in Hong Kong at the time when you were governor, he 

says it was very well run. [Laughter.] 

But I wanted to give him an opportunity to speak to you across 

the Atlantic. 

Senator DAINES. Governor Patten? 

Lord PATTEN. Hello. 

Senator DAINES. How are you? 

Lord PATTEN. I am very well. I am now running a great university, Oxford University, where we have a lot of Chinese students 

and a lot of Hong Kong students. And that means that I now enjoy 

the cut and thrust of the politics of a university rather than the 

real thing. Universities are sometimes a bit rougher. 

Senator DAINES. Well, it is an honor to engage with you today 

here, Governor Patten. 

Just by way of brief introduction, my wife and I moved our family to Guangzhou actually in January 1992. So I watched the transition, and was there as an expat working for Procter & Gamble 

at the time. 

Lord PATTEN. Wow. 

Senator DAINES. And in fact, we used to travel back and forth 

to Hong Kong quite frequently. It was where two of my children 

were born pre-handover, while you were governor in fact, there at 

that Matilda Hospital there on top of Victoria Peak. 

Lord PATTEN. I know it well. 

Senator DAINES. So does my wife. [Laughter.] 

But we had a very good experience there, truly. 

Lord PATTEN. See, despite some of the criticisms that I have been 

making, the five years I spent there as governor were the best five 

years of my life and the best five years of my family’s life. 

Senator DAINES. Well, I will say, I thought you managed the 

transition with great honor and dignity at a time there were a lot 

of people wondering what was going to happen after July 1, 1997. 

I was there in Hong Kong on June 30, 1997, and watched the 

Union Jack come down for the last time. It was kind of a dreary 

day, like a London day perhaps, when that occurred. But I remember it well. 

Lord PATTEN. Certainly like today, it is raining today. 

Senator DAINES. Not that it is always dreary in London, but you 

know what I mean. 

I just returned from Hong Kong. In fact, I led a congressional 

delegation visit to China. We were in Beijing. We were in Hong 

Kong and we were also in Tokyo. So we had a chance to interact 

with the LegCo there. We had a chance to have a good conversation 

with Chief Executive-designate Carrie Lam. And I think it was a 

constructive conversation. 

The change that I have seen, certainly since we moved there in 

1992, we returned back to the states shortly after the handover, 

has been nothing less than profound as I look at Hong Kong as 

well as the rest of China. 

When we moved over there, the Chinese GDP was $500 billion. 

Today, it is somewhere north of $11 trillion. I believe Hong Kong’s 

percentage of the overall China GDP in 1997 was around 18 percent, I believe. 

10 

Lord PATTEN. Yeah. 

Senator DAINES. Does that sound about right? And I believe 

today it is around—— 

Lord PATTEN. Seventeen, 18, yeah. 

Senator DAINES [continuing]. Seventeen to 18 percent. And I 

think today it is around 3 percent, I believe. 

Lord PATTEN. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. A function really of just a bigger denominator 

now. So we have seen the incredible transformation of the economy 

in China. 

My question to you as you have watched this for many, many 

years, as have I, is, what do you think will be the long-term competitive differentiator between Hong Kong and Shenzhen or Hong 

Kong and Guangzhou? 

Lord PATTEN. The rule of law, above all, which is at the heart 

of the sense of citizenship, which I think is the standout quality in 

Hong Kong, which differentiates it from Shanghai or Shenzhen or 

Guangzhou or the mainland cities. And I think it is an extraordinarily precious sense of Hong Kong-Chinese identity, not just 

Chinese identity. 

What I have often been struck by is the extent to which Chinese 

officials parrot Deng Xiaoping’s expression ‘‘one country, two systems,’’ but never actually think through what it means. 

Marxists, if such they are, though I think Leninist is a better description, should understand the relationship between economics 

and politics. And the system in Hong Kong is one in which people 

have an inherent understanding of the balance between economic 

and political freedom. 

So I do not believe that is going to be stamped out when young 

men and women like Joshua Wong still feel it as intensely as they 

do. I certainly do not think it is going to be stamped out. And it 

will remain a principal reason for Hong Kong’s ability to perform 

successfully so well. 

Of course, it is helped by the fact that it is part of the Pearl 

River Delta economy. Of course, it is helped by the fact that it has 

both helped to trigger and enjoyed some of the benefits of the extraordinary period of growth in China. 

But nobody should underestimate what Hong Kong contributed 

to that. And I think it is of some relevance that so many Chinese 

businesses will still come to Hong Kong to arbitrate disputes between them because they can trust the system in Hong Kong, but 

cannot trust it in mainland China. So I think Hong Kong will continue to have an advantage. 

And I would add to that, for a community of its size, and this 

is something which Hong Kong should be very proud of, for a community of its size, say, 7 million, it is extraordinary that it has 2, 

maybe 3 of the 50 best universities in the world. It has more universities in the top 50 than Germany or France. That is an outstanding achievement. 

And we all know that while there are other reasons for the academy, that it is part of a free society, it also has economic spinoffs 

which we should not underestimate. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. And I want to make sure I promote 

you to your proper title as Lord Patten. 

11 

Lord PATTEN. Only my wife calls me that. [Laughter.] 

Senator DAINES. Well, it was just I still remember you so well 

as governor. But you recently stated, Lord Patten, that the actions 

of some Hong Kong democracy activists have actually diluted support for democracy. 

Could you elaborate on that? And what advice would you offer 

these activists? 

Lord PATTEN. The advice I would offer them, and I do it with a 

considerable sense of humility, because they are on the spot, they 

are taking the risks, they are being much braver than I have ever 

had to be, let us be clear about that, and the demonstrations in 

2014 were an astonishing example to the rest of the world, to all 

the world, except mainland China where the news was blacked out, 

they were an extraordinary example of how direct action in promoting democracy can be conducted in a way which is, by and 

large, nonviolent, particularly unless local triad gangs were let 

loose on the demonstrators. They behaved, on the whole, with exemplary, peaceful intention. 

My worry is that the argument for democracy becomes confused 

if you start arguing for something which simply is not going to happen. 

I cannot think of a large country, of any country which would 

support Hong Kong becoming an independent, sovereign state. It is 

just not going to happen. 

And what does happen is that people in China are only fed stories about Hong Kong wanting to be independent of the rest of 

China. They do not know about the struggle for democracy within 

Hong Kong itself. 

I can understand why people feel so frustrated by the lack of 

democratic progress that they think they have got to go for something bigger. But I think it really does risk reducing support for 

what is a powerful, a very powerful cause in democracy. 

Now, when I was in Hong Kong last November, I made that 

point to a big meeting of students at Hong Kong University. And 

they were wonderfully polite; I do not think they agreed with me. 

I mean, Joshua will know what the figures were, but probably 

6(00), 700 people present. And I do not think there was a single 

question which was supportive of the position I was trying to 

argue. 

But I really did think that I had some skin in this game. And 

I think that people were likely to listen to me because they knew 

I was so strongly in favor of the principal objective, which is Hong 

Kong people running Hong Kong. 

Senator DAINES. Lord Patten, we had a conversation with Chief 

Executive-designate Carrie Lam when I was there a few weeks ago. 

There were four U.S. Senators and two Members of the House of 

Representatives that joined that discussion. 

One of Carrie Lam’s most prominent opponents during the election process was former financial secretary John Tsang who was 

widely popular—— 

Lord PATTEN. Yes. 

Senator DAINES.—widely popular among the Hong Kong residents. Given his popularity, what is your sense about what his future prospects would be in Hong Kong politics? And how likely do 

12 

you think Carrie Lam might consider him to be a part of her government? 

Lord PATTEN. Well, I think it is uncomfortable for me to make 

this point. But commendation from the former colonial oppressor 

may be the kiss of death for some Hong Kong officials. [Laughter.] 

I know John Tsang extremely well. He was my private secretary 

when I was governor. He then represented Hong Kong in London. 

He is an outstanding public servant and I think that was recognized by the people in Hong Kong who gave him a lead over Carrie 

Lam of, I think, something like 30 percent. I mean, he had a huge 

lead in the opinion polls. 

I guess he got the thumbs down from the ayatollahs because he 

counseled on the case for dialogue with the democracy activists 

whereas Carrie Lam did not seem to think that they needed to be 

talked to at all. So I think that probably, as far as Beijing was concerned, sank his chances. 

But Hong Kong, of course, has a huge amount of talent, not least 

in the public service. But the talent pool is not so overflowing that 

you could ignore people like John Tsang. And I hope he will continue to have an active role in the public life of Hong Kong. 

But I repeat: I am certainly not going to write him any references because that would sink his chances like a dose of the 

plague. [Laughter.] 

Senator DAINES. Final question for you, Lord Patten. As you look 

at the relationship between the United States and Hong Kong, 

what opportunities do you see for greater economic and perhaps political engagement between the United States and Hong Kong? 

Lord PATTEN. Well, I want to make one point very strongly. 

When I was governor of Hong Kong, I had a huge amount of support from the State Department, from senators and congressmen 

and, which was particularly gratifying, huge support from the 

American business community. 

I think I can say that I had more support from the American 

business community than I had from any other, and that includes 

my own nationality. 

And there seemed to be a more instinctive understanding of two 

things. First of all, of the relationship between prosperity and all 

the freedoms that we take for granted in our democracies. That 

was important. 

And second, I think there was a much smaller, slighter inclination, though it exists a bit everywhere, a much smaller inclination 

to think that the only way you can do business with China is by 

kowtowing to China. I think it is complete dribble. 

When you actually look at runs of figures, it looks pretty obvious 

that the Chinese do business on the same basis as everyone else. 

They try to get the best deal they can at the best price. And I suppose we should not blame them if they take advantage of the fact 

that a lot of Western governments and even companies seem to 

think that in order to get a deal or get business you have to bend 

the knee to Chinese politicians. And I simply do not think it is 

true. 

So I got a huge amount of support from the American business 

community and American politicians. And I think that continuing 

13 

to provide that support is very important. I think it is in America’s 

interests as well as Hong Kong’s. 

And I think that the more the American administration, American politicians make it clear that a very good litmus test of how 

we all think China might behave in the next few years is how it 

behaves in Hong Kong. It is not an unreasonable test to apply. 

They are bound by international treaties and we should hold them 

to that. 

Senator DAINES. Lord Patten, thank you for your insights. My 

wife and I were together on our last visit to Hong Kong a few 

weeks ago. And I will tell you, we had a quiet evening walk in Central, reflecting on the Hong Kong of many, many years. We had our 

two babies there. 

And again, I want to thank you for your leadership and your 

steady hand of leadership during that transition time as the entire 

world was watching on July 1, 1997. 

Thank you, Lord Patten. 

Lord PATTEN. Thank you very much. And I hope your Hong Kong 

babies have grown up into, I am sure they have, into handsome, 

successful adults. 

Senator DAINES. They are, but I will tell you their Cantonese 

skills are quite weak. [Laughter.] 

Chairman RUBIO. Lord Patten, I have two observations before we 

thank you for your time. 

The first is, if your cousins over here across the Atlantic 241 

years ago had not been so rebellious in their revolution, both Senator Daines and I would be members of the ‘‘U.S. House of Peers’’ 

and he would be Lord Daines and I would be Lord Rubio. [Laughter.] 

And this is a joke and I am not suggesting it. 

Lord PATTEN. And I might have fetched up as governor of Ohio. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman RUBIO. Yes, sir. Well, it is like that title ‘‘supreme allied commander,’’ it is just such a good title, you know? But ‘‘senator’’ is great. 

And the second is, as we look at Hong Kong, the one thing that 

strikes me is it really, in many ways, is an example of what China 

can and should be, a greater China. 

You know, there is this notion out there that somehow democracy is incompatible with the culture, which is absolutely false. 

And the second is, just think, this is one of the greatest civilizations in the history of mankind, which has made extraordinary contributions across millennia. Imagine that, that creativity, that 

thousands of years of culture and tradition and science and all 

these contributions that the Chinese people have made to the world 

was unleashed in an environment where there was political freedom, academic freedom, economic freedom. 

It would be an extraordinary contribution to the world. Hong 

Kong, a small, little sliver of land with a limited population, has 

done so much. It punches above its weight economically. Imagine 

if that were true for over a billion people in the mainland and what 

that could mean. 

And so for us, as much as anything else, Hong Kong is and remains, and it is why it is so important to us, an example of the 

14 

extraordinary contributions that I believe the people of China have 

an opportunity to make in the 21st century to add to the extraordinary tradition of what they have contributed to the world for 

thousands of years. 

I am personally a huge admirer of the Chinese culture, of the 

Chinese history, of Chinese civilization and of the contributions 

they have made to all of mankind. And I am excited about what 

they are going to be able to do, if only over a billion of their people 

had both the political and economic freedom to truly fulfill their potential. 

And I think Hong Kong is a model of what that could look like 

if only these conditions were not to be eroded moving forward. 

Senator DAINES. Chairman Rubio, if I might. 

Chairman RUBIO. Absolutely. 

Senator DAINES. Maybe I should just say Lord Rubio. 

Chairman RUBIO. I thought you were going to, yeah. [Laughter.] 

Senator DAINES. Yeah, Lord Rubio. 

Chairman RUBIO. This was a joke and the media is watching. I 

am not actually suggesting you call us ‘‘Lord.’’ 

Senator DAINES. And the governor of Ohio here who is now on 

the—yeah. 

Chairman RUBIO. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. You know, Marco, you brought up a good point. 

And, Lord Patten, you mentioned the rule of law as being one of 

the primary differentiators for the long-term competitiveness of 

Hong Kong to prosper and to grow. 

The other point that I saw, again, when I was in Hong Kong was 

freedom. And we have seen the freedom indexes that Heritage puts 

out that Hong Kong is ranked number one. Of all the nations in 

the world, Hong Kong is ranked number one. 

And that was always such an example to me as a young manager 

for Procter & Gamble moving from the United States to Asia, to 

see a rock, a chunk of land there with no natural resources and tremendous prosperity and growth. And it was based on freedom, free 

markets, free trade. 

And it should always be a good role model and a case study for 

us as we look to the future. Thank you. 

Lord PATTEN. I agree with everything you have just said. And I 

agree with everything that Senator Rubio said before about Chinese civilization. 

I would just add one point, that it does seem to me that China 

faces a serious dilemma. And it should perhaps look to Hong Kong 

to find ways of dealing with it. 

On the one hand, there are those in China who say that unless 

the party gives up control over more of the economy, it will not 

grow so fast and sooner or later the party will lose control over the 

state, and others who say that if the party does give up control 

over the economy, it will certainly lose control of the state. 

And I think China’s dilemma is, both those propositions are entirely true. And finding a way through those dilemmas, finding an 

answer to that paradox, well, you might start by getting Hong 

Kong right. 

15 

Chairman RUBIO. Again, we appreciate very much the time you 

have taken with us and your willingness to use this video conference to do so. 

And let us know when you are back in Ohio. [Laughter.] 

Lord Patten, thank you so much. We are really grateful to you. 

Lord PATTEN. I meant no disrespect for the admirable governor 

of Ohio, who I saw debating during your interesting presidential 

election campaign. 

Chairman RUBIO. Yes, I went to a few of those debates myself. 

[Laughter.] 

That is another hearing, another time. 

Well, thank you. Thank you so much. We appreciate your time. 

Thank you. 

Lord PATTEN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman RUBIO. Alright. 

Lord Daines, thank you for being here today. [Laughter.] 

We have got to stop the ‘‘Lord’’ thing, we are going to get in trouble. 

Alright. So we are going to move on. And we are going to make 

a special kind of accommodation here if the witnesses are alright. 

Joshua Wong needs to be on an airplane to Toronto. Assuming 

we are still going to get through the hearing, but what I would like 

to do is recognize him for his testimony. 

I would encourage you to be brief so we can get to questions and 

then we can get you to the airport. I can get you through this hearing, I cannot help you through TSA [Transportation Security Administration]. No one can, to be frank. [Laughter.] 

But Joshua, we are grateful that you are here today and we look 

forward to your testimony. I know I have a number of questions. 

Some of my colleagues could not be here today, they do have some 

questions in writing, I believe, and we will get those to you and you 

will answer them when you have some time. 

You are one of the busiest young people I have ever met in my 

life. You must have a lot of frequent flyer miles on your airline as 

well. 

But thank you, Joshua, for being here. We are honored you are 

here. 

Mr. WONG. Alright. Can you turn the mic? The echo sounds, is 

it possible to turn it—— 

Chairman RUBIO. That is just for effect to make it more powerful. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WONG. Alright. 

Chairman RUBIO. No, I am kidding. I am joking. We will figure 

that out. 

Mr. WONG. Alright. Still use this? 

Senator DAINES. Try Martin’s. 

Mr. WONG. Testing, testing. Yeah, I think. 

Senator DAINES. Try Martin’s. Can you move Martin’s over? 

Chairman RUBIO. Let us slide over Martin’s. 

Mr. WONG. Hello? Yeah? 

Chairman RUBIO. Yeah, that one works well. 

We also have an autotune one which changes your voice a little 

bit. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WONG. Alright. 

16 

Chairman RUBIO. There we go. 

Mr. WONG. Testing, testing. 

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA WONG, UMBRELLA MOVEMENT 

LEADER AND SECRETARY–GENERAL, DEMOSISTO ̄

Mr. WONG. Thank you for the invitation from CECC. This is the 

first time for me to attend a congressional hearing. 

You may have known about Hong Kong’s political arrangements 

as ‘‘one country, two systems,’’ but it has now become one country, 

one-and-a-half systems. And potentially, one country, one system, 

in the future if conditions continue to worsen. 

I was born less than a year before the handover of Hong Kong 

from the U.K. to China in 1997. Now I am 20 years old. 

In the same time, the Hong Kong Government is preparing for 

its 20th handover anniversary celebration. July 1st will be the first 

time Xi Jinping visits Hong Kong as the Chinese president. 

To pave the way for that, we now face massive political persecution while the government intends to disqualify democratically lawmakers in the oppositional camps, including the core Umbrella 

Movement student leader, Nathan Law, who was elected last year 

as the youngest-ever legislator at the age of 23. 

Unfortunately, Hong Kong remains far away from democracy 

after the Umbrella Movement. 

Some people think it is a failure because we cannot achieve the 

goal of universal suffrage. But I am here to tell you guys today that 

the spirit of the Umbrella Movement is in the hearts of Hong Kong 

people. 

That is why I have been trying to get more support at the international level by strengthening our collaboration around the world. 

I am glad to see the reintroduction of the Hong Kong Human 

Rights and Democracy Act by Senators Rubio, Cotton, and Cardin. 

Bipartisan support for the bill is proof that protecting Hong Kong’s 

political rights, freedom, and autonomy can be and ought to be a 

consensus across the political spectrum. 

That is why I hope the legislation ensures those who have participated in non-violent assembly in Hong Kong would not be denied American visas on the basis of their criminal record. 

Alex Chow, who is in the audience this morning, is another core 

Umbrella Movement student leader. He was found guilty last July 

for participating in unlawful assembly, sentenced to three weeks of 

imprisonment with one year of suspension. 

Because of Alex’s criminal record, he has faced significant barriers in obtaining a student visa last year for his master’s degree 

in London. He was recently accepted for Ph.D. study at U.C. Berkeley this coming August, which means he will soon apply for a U.S. 

student visa. And I cannot stress the importance for this legislation 

for many of those like Alex who may potentially face difficulties entering free countries. 

China’s suspension against us is helped by its growing regional 

domination. Last year, I was invited by a Thai university, but was 

not allowed to enter the country and locked for 12 hours in a detention cell. 

My request to contact a lawyer or at least notify my family in 

Hong Kong were both rejected. I was very worried to be the next 

17 

Gui Minhai, one of the five booksellers abducted from Thailand to 

China. 

Luckily, I was finally released. But the Thai Government later 

said that I will be forever banned to enter the country at request 

by China. 

If the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passes, the 

proposed legislation, I hope it will place human rights and democracy at the center of future American policy toward Hong Kong. It 

will send a strong signal to Beijing that, as a world leader, the beliefs of the United States are just as important to protect political 

freedom in Hong Kong as it is to protect economic freedom. 

The support of the proposed legislation is also in the American 

interests. Hong Kong is home to around 85,000 U.S. citizens and 

1,400 U.S. companies. Two-way Hong Kong and U.S. trade was 

around 42 billion U.S. dollars last year. And most American media 

outlets, including CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine have established an Asian office in Hong Kong. 

This is all evidence that, despite all the difficulties it is facing, 

Hong Kong remains the freest city under Chinese administration. 

In conclusion, I hope Democrats and Republicans alike can work 

together to defend the fundamental human rights value that they 

share. We Hong Kongers will continue to fight, hear our heart, 

against the Communist regime for the day to come for us with democracy and to exercise the right of self-determination. 

I started to fight for democracy six years ago when I was 14 

years old. The father of Hong Kong’s democracy sits next to me, 

Martin Lee. He is turning 79 years old this year. After four decades 

of struggle, I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to 

see democracy? 

My aspiration and our generation’s challenge is to ensure that 

Hong Kong continues as the beacon of human rights and freedom 

for China and the world. 

To sum up, today the authoritarian regime dominates my generation’s future. But the day will come when we decide our future. No 

matter what happens to the protest movement, we will claim that 

democracy belongs to us and continue our fight because time is on 

our side. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wong appears in the appendix.] 

Chairman RUBIO. Thank you, Joshua. 

Thank you. We are grateful that you are here, and have tremendous admiration for your advocacy. And I have often spoken about 

you to university students that I teach at Florida International 

University and in other places as an example of political engagement under quite difficult circumstances. 

We take, sometimes I should say, our freedoms for granted here 

in the United States because we have extraordinary freedoms. But 

we are reminded through you and others that there are incredible 

people around the world that are confronting this, as some of the 

panelists have as well. 

And again, I know you need to get to Canada, so I wanted to ask 

you a couple of questions. 

First, can you tell us how the Hong Kong Government’s legal actions against democracy advocates and members of the opposition 

18 

have influenced your thinking about the future of Hong Kong’s democracy movement? 

Mr. WONG. Last year, September, was the Legislative Council 

election. Four newly elected legislators upholding civil disobedience 

entered the Legislative Council from the civil society. And later, 

the government just issued a court case to four of them, including 

two others advocating Hong Kong independence. 

Even if I am not the one advocating Hong Kong independence, 

but disqualifying the democratically elected legislators just proves 

that the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments will try to override 

the judicial independence and rule of law in Hong Kong. And it is 

totally not respectful to the current election system. 

And at the same time, political persecutions happen and also 

prove the hard line of President Xi. It is just following by newly 

elected chief executive Carrie Lam. 

After the 26th of March, the election day of the chief executive— 

the day after—the Hong Kong Government just arrested and prosecuted nine Umbrella Movement leaders. And it is just proof that 

in the future it will not be an easy time for us to fight for democracy. 

At the same time, the 3rd of July will be another court case and 

a trial for many to face. And the sentence is contempt of court. And 

in the worst case, I may be sent to prison for a few months or even 

a few years. 

But I will say that now, in fact, the fight for democracy is a longterm battle. In the last battle three years ago in the Umbrella 

Movement, even we cannot achieve a concrete political system reform, but at least we raised a new generation’s political awareness 

and keep the international community’s eyes on Hong Kong. 

That is why in this long-term battle, the new generation is ready 

for this fight until the day we get back democracy. 

Chairman RUBIO. Well, explain to me, in your view, what does 

self-determination for Hong Kong mean? 

Mr. WONG. Self-determination to Hong Kong means that the political system, political status, and future constitutional arrangement of Hong Kong should be decided by Hong Kong people. 

According to the Sino Joint Declaration, it is proof that Hong 

Kong can implement ‘‘one country, two systems’’ from 1997 to 2047 

under the 50 years unchanged policy framework. After 2047, I will 

be 51 years old. At that moment, I am not sure whether Hong 

Kong will turn to be one country, one-and-a-half systems or in a 

worse case, one country, one system. 

And what we hope is to let people realize that it is time for Hong 

Kong people to rule Hong Kong. And it is time for Hong Kong people to determine their own future. 

Chairman RUBIO. Finally, what recommendations, and you 

touched on it a little bit when you talked about the hope that we 

could come together in a bipartisan way on some of these issues, 

do you have any recommendations on things we can do, whether 

it is this commission, the Congress, President Trump’s administration, on what we can do here from the U.S. Government side to 

promote continued protections in Hong Kong for democracy and 

human rights and the rule of law? What is the best thing we can 

be doing? 

19 

Mr. WONG. I hope the Hong Kong issue can get a higher priority 

in the political agenda of the United States toward China policy. 

We know that the South China Sea, Taiwan issue or others are 

always the main issues or the incidents that we need to tackle or 

face. But the fact is, I believe supporting democracy in Hong Kong 

just relies totally on the international treaty, Sino-British Joint 

Declaration. 

So what I hope is, in the future, supporting democracy in Hong 

Kong should be a bipartisan consensus. And I believe it is also an 

achievable goal for the international civil society. 

In the future, apart from having op-eds, press release statements 

before the 1st of July, to let people realize that while Xi Jinping 

has to approve everything that is under his control, we will still organize and hold large-scale demonstrations in Hong Kong to let 

him and the Chinese Government know that we are still continuing 

our fight to democracy. 

And at the same time, we just hope people around the world, especially in the international community, no matter senator or congressman, apart from op-eds and press releases, we hope will have 

the possibility to figure out a chance of organizing a delegation to 

Hong Kong and also pushing forward the Hong Kong Human 

Rights and Democracy Act. 

In the global effort, the international community can realize that 

supporting Hong Kong democracy is the only gateway or the window for us to push forward on the Chinese Communist regime to 

respect human rights, democracy, and rule of law. 

That is why, according to the U.S. business interests which care 

about the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, according to what 

I have mentioned about the citizens and U.S. companies in Hong 

Kong, I hope in the future the new administration can also take 

Hong Kong as a higher priority agenda. 

Chairman RUBIO. And I just want you to know that both in our 

private meeting and yesterday at our hearing, we have discussed 

with the president’s nominee to be Ambassador to Beijing, Governor Branstad of Iowa, the importance of Hong Kong and of your 

cause. 

And my hope is that we can facilitate an opportunity for you and 

members of your political party to meet with him, if not here before 

he leaves, certainly once confirmed by the Senate. 

My final question for you, Mr. Wong is, I know that last week 

several Legislative Council members had been targeted for removal, but several of the party members were arrested last week. 

Can you update us on their status. 

Mr. WONG. The disqualification of the legislators’ court case was 

issued in May, which means that a few weeks later, maybe two or 

three weeks later, we will know the results, including the Umbrella 

Movement student leader, Nathan Law, the youngest lawmaker in 

my hometown, whether they can still keep their seat in the Legislative Council. 

In the worst case, due to the current legal system in Hong Kong, 

if those legislators lose their court case, they need to pay the legal 

fees of the government side worth 3 million. So it will have the 

chance of facing bankruptcy for Nathan Law and other legislators. 

20 

That is why it is time for us to face the prosecution and also the 

disqualification of legislators. 

Chairman RUBIO. Were several members of your political party 

arrested last week? Where are they now? 

Mr. WONG. Yes. At the same time on Friday, two days later, the 

political movement activists, including two party members from my 

political party, Demosisto ̄, Ivan Lam and Derek Lam, they will face 

a trial in the courts due to their participation in the assembly last 

November against the reinterpretation of the Basic Law from the 

National People’s Congress. 

Chairman RUBIO. But of the ones that were—how many were arrested last week? 

Mr. WONG. Nine. 

Chairman RUBIO. Nine. 

Mr. WONG. Yes. 

Chairman RUBIO. Of the nine that were arrested, do any remain 

in custody? 

Mr. WONG. They still get a chance to get bail and now they will 

wait. They are waiting to go to the courts on Friday and to face 

a trial. 

Chairman RUBIO. But they are still in jail right now? 

Mr. WONG. No. 

Chairman RUBIO. They are out. 

Mr. WONG. They are not in jail. 

Chairman RUBIO. Oh, they are not. They were released. 

Mr. WONG. Yes, they were released and got a court bail. 

Chairman RUBIO. And now they are awaiting trial. 

Mr. WONG. Yes, awaiting the trial. 

Chairman RUBIO. Well, we appreciate very much, Mr. Wong, 

your being here today. We have seen you quite a bit in the last few 

months. I encourage you to continue to do what you are doing. 

Know that this commission, my office, the members remain at your 

disposal to continue to highlight your cause and the greater cause 

of democracy and rule of law in Hong Kong. And I wish you continued success, both on your trip now and as you work your way 

through. 

Which airport are you going through, Reagan or Dulles? 

Mr. WONG. I am not sure, I need to check my ticket. Sorry for 

that. 

Chairman RUBIO. Yes. Maybe we should not announce which one 

you are going to. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WONG. Yes, thank you. 

Chairman RUBIO. He is leaving from Baltimore. [Laughter.] 

So anyway, Mr. Wong, thank you very much for coming and we 

look forward to continuing to talk to you more and more about this 

in the weeks and months to come. 

Mr. WONG. Thank you. Yes, I appreciate it. And thank you to the 

CECC in their previous few years, especially since the Umbrella 

Movement, continuing to put effort to support universal suffrage, 

democracy, and the democratic camps in Hong Kong. 

Chairman RUBIO. Well, we are just getting started. We are going 

to continue to press on the case. So we thank you so much. 

Mr. WONG. Yes, it is a long-term battle. Thank you. 

21 

Chairman RUBIO. We are going to move on now to our panel. 

And again, thank you for your indulgence because of the flight situation. 

So, Mr. Lee, I guess we will begin with you. And we thank you 

for being here and thank you for letting us use your microphone. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN LEE, BARRISTER; FOUNDING CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF HONG KONG; FORMER MEMBER, DRAFTING COMMITTEE FOR THE BASIC LAW; AND 

FORMER MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF HONG KONG 

(1985–2008) 

Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling me as 

an expert witness. 

I remember the first testimony I gave to Congress was 1989, 

shortly after the massacre in Tiananmen Square. In a way, Hong 

Kong has been a miracle, because it is a tiny dot at the coast of 

China, and yet, even today, according to Lord Patten, with whom 

I agree, there is still the rule of law which separates Hong Kong 

from every other Chinese city. But that rule of law is now under 

threat, more than ever before. 

Chinese leaders have been asking our courts to cooperate with 

the government. And in June 2014, the Chinese state department 

issued a white paper in seven languages saying that all our judges 

are administrators, like other civil servants; and therefore, in trying cases, they must safeguard China’s sovereignty, security, and 

development interests. 

The judges are extremely worried. Judges are human beings. You 

cannot expect judges alone to defend the rule of law without giving 

them the support of the community via democracy. 

And democracy has been delayed; delayed many times already. 

Under the Basic Law, our mini constitution, we were supposed to 

have full democracy after 10 years of the handover. This is now almost 20 years after the handover, still I cannot tell you when we 

will have genuine democracy. 

So Hong Kong is undergoing a very serious threat at the moment. That is why we are here. We are here to tell the world that 

things are going wrong. They are going wrong because China has 

not been honoring her obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration promising us democracy and the rule of law. 

Now, we have a window of opportunity because Mr. Xi Jinping 

will come to Hong Kong on July 1 to celebrate the 20th anniversary 

of Hong Kong going back to China. Mr. Xi must be told, politely, 

of course, but firmly, that the eyes of the world are on China, the 

eyes of the world are on Hong Kong. 

I think the administration here must realize that in dealing with 

China and hopefully making treaties with China over many issues, 

your administration must bear in mind that Hong Kong is now 

part of China. And if China can break an international agreement 

over Hong Kong with impunity, how much confidence can you have 

over new treaties to be made with China over other issues? 

So when I look at Hong Kong’s future, I have confidence, in particular, because of the young leaders, like Joshua Wong and others. 

They have been fighting for democracy. They are now in trouble. 

They are prepared to pay the price for it. 

22 

Of course, I would appeal to you, Mr. Chairman and your colleagues, to think of Hong Kong whenever you are dealing with 

China. 

I thank you for giving the Hong Kong people the support over my 

years of fighting for democracy in Hong Kong. I hope you will continue to give encouragement to the young leaders because they 

need your support more than we did, because the threat on Hong 

Kong’s freedoms and the rule of law is now greater than ever before. 

But I must take a little time to thank your staff members. In 

fact, I do not understand why you want me to be an expert; they 

are experts on China and Hong Kong. 

And I thank you for the attention that, Mr. Chairman, you and 

your colleagues have continued to give to Hong Kong. And may the 

Hong Kong miracle continue. Thank you. 

Chairman RUBIO. Thank you. We, too, are very proud of our staff 

and of the work that they do. And I appreciate your thanks. 

I do not require any thanks. I was raised in a community of people that lost their freedom, which makes me incredibly sensitive to 

people all over the world who are losing theirs. 

And with that, I turn to Mr. Lam for his testimony. 

And I thank you as well for being here. Your case and your work 

is inspiring to all of us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF LAM WING KEE, FOUNDER, CAUSEWAY BAY 

BOOKS, ONE OF FIVE VICTIMS OF THE FORCED 

DISAPPERANCES OF HONG KONG BOOKSELLERS 

Ms. MAK [Interpreter]. Hi, I am Mak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Mak, a veteran journalist for over three decades and have 

been a witness to the erosion of Hong Kong’s press freedom after 

the handover. 

The abduction of Mr. Lam Wing Kee, which I am going to translate for, is a case in point. 

The interference of the Chinese Government and its agents to 

press freedom in Hong Kong has changed from indirect to direct. 

Now is the time for us to listen to Lam Wing Kee in his own words. 

Lam. 

Mr. LAM. [Through interpreter.] Between October and December 

2015, the disappearance of five persons of Causeway Bay Books in 

Hong Kong was investigated and confirmed by the Hong Kong 

media. The five were suspected to have been arrested or abducted 

by the Chinese Government. 

On October 17, Gui Minhai, a shareholder, was taken away from 

an apartment in Pattaya, Thailand by men. 

Lui Bo, another shareholder, was arrested by public security people in Shenzhen, China while having lunch in a restaurant. 

Cheung Jinping, an employee, was taken away from his home in 

Dongguan, China by armed policemen on the 23rd of October. 

I, myself, an employee, was detained by customs when I entered 

Shenzhen via the Lowu border on October 24 and secretly taken to 

Ningbo the next day. Lee Bo, also a shareholder, was abducted on 

December 30 in a warehouse parking lot in Chai Wan and forcibly 

taken across the border to the mainland of China by nine persons. 

23 

Prior to the Causeway Bay Books incident, an elderly publisher 

named Yao Wentian, publisher of Morning Bell Press in Hong 

Kong, was lured to Shenzhen and arrested in October 2013, because he had been preparing to publish a book that was critical of 

Xi Jinping. 

In May 2015, he was charged for the crime of smuggling general 

cargo and sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years by the Shenzhen 

Intermediary People’s Court. 

The owner, Wang Jianmin, and editor, Guo Zhongxiao, of another 

company that published the magazines New Way Monthly and 

Multiple Face, were consecutively arrested in their homes in 

Shenzhen. Two years later, they were sentenced to imprisonment 

of five years, three months and two years, three months, respectively. 

This string of events demonstrates not only brutal intervention 

in the freedom of expression in Hong Kong by the Chinese Government, but also how increasingly unscrupulous they are. They have 

arrested people at will with utter disregard for the law. 

According to Article 22 of the Basic Law, no department of the 

Central People’s Government and no province, autonomous region 

or municipality directly under the central government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong special administrator administers on his own in accordance with the Basic Law. 

According to Article 27 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents 

shall have freedom of speech, of the press, and of publication. 

According to Article 34 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents 

shall have the right to engage in literary and artistic creation and 

other cultural activities. 

From the events described, it can be seen that at least the above 

three articles of the Basic Law have been violated by the Chinese 

Government. Undoubtedly, the Chinese Government has violated 

legal provisions and seriously contravened its promise of allowing 

a high degree of autonomy to Hong Kong people. 

Chairman RUBIO. If I may for just one second, Mr. Lam. 

If you will translate for me so he will understand. 

Here is our predicament. We only have you until 11:30. The Senate, as democracy works, has called a vote. And if I leave, the commission has to stop. 

Here is what I would propose, if this is possible. I would need 

to adjourn for five minutes so I can go to the floor, vote and come 

back. We can submit the entirety of the testimony into the record 

so he does not have to sit and read. 

And when I return, we can get to Ms. Bork and then to our questions so that I can still get you out by 11:30. But if there were 

other members here, we could trade. I am the only one here. So if 

I leave, apparently everything stops. 

And I am truly apologetic. I do not control the vote schedules. So 

if this is alright with Mr. Lam. Is that fine? 

Mr. LAM. Alright. 

Chairman RUBIO. So it will probably take me about seven minutes, maybe eight if there are a lot of reporters in the hallway and 

I have to fight my way through them, and I will be back here so 

we can continue because I do want to get to Ms. Bork and I want 

to get to our questions. 

24 

It is important that the answers get on the record because we 

use this with our colleagues to advocate policy. 

So we are going to stand for a quick recess of no more than 10 

minutes while I vote and return. 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m. the hearing was recessed and resumed back on the record at 11:08 a.m.] 

Chairman RUBIO. Alright, thank you for your indulgence. 

So I think we have a little bit of time left to finish the conclusion 

in English of Mr. Lam’s testimony, then we can get to Ms. Bork 

and we can get to our questions. 

I do not believe there will be any other votes in the next 30, 45 

minutes. 

Ms. MAK. Alright. Let me just read out the statement by Mr. 

Lam. 

Being a victim in the Causeway Bay Books incident, I was illegally detained at first in Ningbo and then in Shaoguan for eight 

months. During that period, I was subjected to intimidating interrogation and was deprived of the rights to hire a solicitor and to 

inform my family. 

They also intended to force me into becoming an accomplice in 

carrying out continuous surveillance on the people of Hong Kong 

and the mainland of China. 

I earnestly urge the U.S. Government and Members of the Congress to pay heed to the notion of universal values, safeguard justice and human rights, freedom and democracy and exert pressure 

on the Chinese Government to release Gui Minhai, publisher of 

Mighty Current publishing, and Mr. Lee Ming-che, human rights 

advocate of Taiwan, who has been detained by the Chinese Government recently. 

Mr. Gui Minhai is the only person of the Causeway Bay Books 

incident still detained. Like myself, he was also forced to confess 

on television. His daughter, Angela Gui, had testified before this 

same commission last year. 

It would be most helpful if this commission can urge President 

Trump to bring attention to the cases of Mr. Gui and Mr. Lee when 

he visits China and President Xi Jinping later this year. 

In regard to the fact that Mr. Gui is a Swedish citizen and Mr. 

Lee Bo is a British citizen, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, stated that they are first and foremost Chinese. And in fact, he is 

claiming that, regardless of their citizenship, the Chinese Government has the right to assert its control over all ethnic Chinese in 

the world. 

In respect of the Chinese Government’s increasingly severe intervention in Hong Kong’s administration, I appeal to the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China to implement stipulations in the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 as soon as possible 

to compel the Chinese Government to fulfill its assurance to Hong 

Kong people. Otherwise, Hong Kong would degenerate into a second-rate Chinese city way before year 2047. 

Now I would like to speak on behalf of Hong Kong Journalists 

Association to say it is a critical time for freedom of the press and 

publishing to survive. 

25 

We will continue our fight in Hong Kong. I would like to urge 

the commission to act now to back journalists, publishers, and freedom of information in Hong Kong. And thank you for your concern 

and support. 

Chairman RUBIO. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Bork, thank you for your patience. And thank you for being 

here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lam appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN BORK, AUTHOR 

Ms. BORK. Not at all. Thank you for inviting me and giving me 

this opportunity to underscore what the people of Hong Kong are 

saying through elected representatives and the leaders of their democracy movement. 

The last time Congress took a really serious, in-depth look at policy and making law in Hong Kong was well over 25 years ago. A 

lot of things have changed since then. 

We have heard about the steady erosion of its autonomy and assaults on its civil liberties, interference in the courts. 

A good discussion could be had about whether there really was 

a meeting of the minds between Great Britain and China at the 

time. In any case, I do not think the Joint Declaration and its implementing legislation, which was passed by the National People’s 

Congress, does justice to the people of Hong Kong. 

Hong Kong’s freedom depends mostly on the support of the international community. That support has been, I think, quite strong 

in some ways, but too deferential to the arrangements that were 

written by China or agreed to by China with an eye toward keeping China’s control through its control of the chief executive, giving 

it the right to reinterpret law and not allowing full democracy, as 

we have seen several times over the last few years. 

The arrangements that were made, and the U.S. policy based on 

them, were aspirational. Today, I think we have to take a much 

different approach to see what China is doing in Hong Kong and 

also how Hong Kong relates to its more assertive role around the 

world in challenging democratic norms. 

We hoped that Hong Kong would exist as an island in the midst 

of a huge autocratic system. That was unrealistic. If we want to 

protect Hong Kong, we have to look at China’s role more broadly 

in undermining democratic norms around the world. 

That is why I think the Hong Kong Democracy and Human 

Rights Act is extremely important. It changes the outlook that Congress is taking, no longer hoping that Beijing will recognize its interest in Hong Kong’s survival. 

Americans, I think, tend to project optimism onto other countries. We hope to find common ground and support for democracy, 

even in unlikely places, that is among the leaders of the Chinese 

Communist Party. Our Hong Kong policy was really based on that. 

Now we have to be a little bit hardnosed and realistic. 

The existing U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act does not have much of 

a penalty, or enforcement. It does not impose consequences for 

what China has done in Hong Kong. It allows the president to 

change Hong Kong’s status in some aspects of law, but that actually hurts the people of Hong Kong. It does not put the penalty 

26 

where it belongs, which is on Chinese officials and their proxies 

who might be taking these steps. 

Some of the steps that they are taking are increasingly alarming 

as we have heard from my fellow witnesses here today. 

The most important thing about the Hong Kong Democracy and 

Human Rights Act is that it responds to interference, that long 

reach of China into Hong Kong. That is an extremely worrisome 

development, but it is also not an isolated one. 

The party has acted to seize dissidents in other countries. It has 

acted to repatriate Uyghurs. And frankly, this has gone relatively 

unopposed. We need to find ways to stand up to that. 

Also, we notice the criminalization of dissent, the prosecution of 

Hong Kong democrats. It is clear the party is going to go after 

Hong Kong democrats the way they go after dissidents and 

Uyghurs and, if they could, the Dalai Lama. China, I think, is behind Russia in manipulating the red notices of the Interpol system, 

but we can see from the way they are beginning to prosecute Hong 

Kong people that they have that in mind. 

The most important thing Congress can do right now is begin to 

treat Hong Kong as integral to a response to China’s assertiveness. 

Congress should also consider China’s assertiveness on democratic 

values as related to its military assertiveness as well. 

As long as the United States does not articulate support for democracy in Hong Kong and in China, I do not think we will be very 

convincing in our rejection of their aggression elsewhere. 

Thank you. 

Chairman RUBIO. Thank you. 

And are you prepared for questions, Senator? 

Senator KING. Sure. 

Chairman RUBIO. I will defer to my colleague, Senator King, for 

the first round of questions. 

And you were not here, but Joshua Wong was here a moment 

ago. He had to leave for Canada, not permanently, just he is receiving an award, so we took his testimony and his questions ahead. 

But thank you for coming. 

Senator KING. Yes, sir. 

This is a question for anyone on the panel. I visited Hong Kong 

some time ago and it was one of the most vital and energetic cities 

I have ever visited in the world. 

My question is, today’s hearing and the materials that have been 

submitted have documented, I think, the diminution of the democratic ideal in Hong Kong. My question is, has that in turn affected 

the economy, vitality, energy, and forward-looking economy of the 

city? 

Mr. Lee, you want to start? 

Mr. LEE. Of course, it is very difficult to translate that in terms 

of dollars and cents. But it is the effect of the mood of the city and 

the mood of the people. 

Now, at the moment, after almost five years of governorship as 

it were or stewardship under the outgoing chief executive, Mr. CY 

Leung, the city, the population there is split. Now, that is a tactic 

deliberately employed by him and his minders who are in the central government liaison office. That is the Communist people in 

Hong Kong. 

27 

And so when you have got a split community, it is very difficult 

to get things done. And I think the best person whom I quote is 

the last president of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, who, in 

fact, belonged to their group, but is a very fair person. And he said 

that unless there is democratic reform in Hong Kong very soon, 

Hong Kong is ungovernable. And that is from the outgoing or the 

last president of the Legislative Council. 

So the new one, the chief executive-elect who will take office in 

a couple of months’ time, now, Carrie Lam, in fact, before she won 

the election, said in public that she intends to continue with the 

policy of her predecessor. 

So everything now hinges on the president of China. If he does 

not intervene and correct this direction that has been going on in 

Hong Kong for almost 20 years now, then Hong Kong will soon go 

down the drain. We cannot afford to have another five years of this 

policy. This policy must be reversed. 

Senator KING. Others comment on my observation or question, 

whether the de-democratization is leading to a diminution of economic activity? 

Mr. LEE. As I said, it has to be negative. But of course, I cannot 

give you dollars and cents at all. Because I remember, before the 

handover, there was a poll conducted among U.S. businesspeople in 

Hong Kong asking them, what would cause them to leave Hong 

Kong after the handover? 

There were two things. The environment, if the air is polluted to 

such an extent, they would rather run away from Hong Kong. 

Senator KING. I remember the problem with the air. 

Mr. LEE. And the other one is the loss of the rule of law. So that 

is very important to businesspeople. If they see the rule of law not 

there, why should they do business in Hong Kong? 

But at the moment, the good news is our judges are still holding 

out. But how long can they last when they are subjected to such 

pressure from the central authorities? 

Senator KING. Ms. Bork, do you have any observations? 

Ms. BORK. I do not have numbers, but I do think the question 

is what kind of economic activity. And as Martin says, whether the 

rule of law is affecting the way business is done. So I do not have 

any information on the volume of business. 

My sense anecdotally is that people feel the climate not only in 

freedoms of society has changed, but that the business climate also 

has changed. But I am honestly not the best person to comment on 

that. 

Senator KING. I think it would be helpful to this commission if 

either other witnesses or staff could perhaps present some data—— 

Ms. BORK. Sure. 

Senator KING [continuing].——in terms of GDP of the city, employment, population—— 

Mr. BORK. And corruption. 

Senator KING [continuing].——corruption, indicia of activity. 

What I am trying to get at is, does the change in the governing system translate into a loss of economic opportunity for the residents. 

That is what I am looking for, so perhaps someone could think 

about that or our staff. I think that would be very helpful to look 

28 

at the data and compare it with other areas, Shanghai for example, 

other areas of China. 

I think I am—yes? 

Mr. LEE. Can I perhaps have a follow up? And it is this. I entirely agree, figures could help. But one must remember that even 

if the figures show an improvement, one does not know how much 

more improvement there would have been—— 

Senator KING. Sure. 

Mr. LEE [continuing].——but for the erosion of the rule of law. 

But I agree with you, figures would certainly give some guidance. 

Senator KING. Right, thank you. 

Chairman RUBIO. Senator Cotton, are you prepared or did you 

want me to ask a question while you get ready? 

Senator COTTON. Always prepared. 

Chairman RUBIO. Alright, good. 

Senator COTTON. I apologize to the witnesses, including the witnesses that had to leave. I was presiding over the Senate, which 

these two relatively junior Members of the Senate also know is a 

duty, not an honor. [Laughter.] 

So thank you for your patience. 

And I do want to thank you all for taking the time to testify 

today, but, more importantly, for the work you do to inform the 

world about Beijing’s continued encroachments on human rights 

and basic freedoms in Hong Kong. 

This summer, Xi Jinping will mark the 20-year anniversary of 

Chinese control over Hong Kong with a visit to the city. One cannot 

be faulted for likening Mr. Xi’s impending arrival to Hong Kong to 

that of a Roman emperor inspecting what he views as conquered 

lands. Because since his ascendance to power, Xi has accelerated 

Beijing’s campaign to suppress all avenues of dissent in Hong 

Kong. 

First, he has targeted members of Hong Kong civil society to include the most vibrant members of civic life in the city, its publishers, journalists, and students, who now must fear being abducted in the middle of the night. 

When Chinese security forces are not conducting cross-border 

snatch-and-grab missions, they instead rely on Hong Kong Government loyalists to round up opposition figures on false charges. 

Suppressing civil society, though, is not enough for Mr. Xi. The 

specter of Beijing’s authoritarianism has now fallen on Hong 

Kong’s legislative branch as well. Last year, China’s National People’s Congress barred pro-independence legislators from taking 

their seats in the city’s Legislative Council. 

The incident only highlights Beijing’s view that Hong Kong’s 

independence is a convenient fiction, one that can be swept aside 

when it feels the need to rule by dictate. 

In July, Hong Kong’s news chief executive, Ms. Carrie Lam, will 

take office. While I sincerely hope that Ms. Lam will act as an 

independent voice to stand for the basic freedom of all Hong 

Kongers, I certainly am not holding my breath. After all, Ms. Lam 

was Beijing’s preferred candidate in this year’s closed-door election 

by committee. 

How far we have come from the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ construct agreed to by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. How far we have 

29 

come from the fiercely independent government that Lord Patten 

envisioned when he handed over control of Hong Kong on that 

rainy night 20 years ago in 1997. 

Slowly, but surely, Beijing has revealed that it never intended to 

honor its promises in Hong Kong. In the mind of the Communist 

Party leaders, to accept a true Chinese democracy would endanger 

Communist rule. 

I believe Beijing has this exactly backward. Instead of viewing a 

flourishing and autonomous Hong Kong as a threat, to see it as a 

shining example of what is possible in China and for the Chinese 

people. Instead of clinging to a system built on autocratic control 

and endemic corruption, centralized planning, Beijing should look 

to Hong Kong as a herald of reform. 

But unfortunately, Beijing has not followed that path. Instead, it 

increasingly resorts to gross human rights violations to quell dissent in Hong Kong. I believe the United States should not quietly 

accept the state of affairs. 

I am pleased to have introduced with Senator Rubio and Senator 

Cardin the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act which 

would require the president to identify and sanction persons responsible for suppressing basic freedoms of journalists, activists, 

and others in Hong Kong. 

Chinese Communist cadres who order the kidnapping and torture of members of Hong Kong civil society should not be allowed 

to stash their immense wealth in New York high-rises and Malibu 

beach homes. 

Now, some may say these sanctions are harsh or inappropriate 

for an issue that China deems an internal matter. I do not see that 

as the case. Hong Kong’s autonomy is not a domestic Chinese issue 

after all, but a matter of Beijing honoring a longstanding international commitment. And if it will breach that commitment, which 

commitment will it not breach? 

Thank you all again for appearing before us today. And I want 

to turn to an impending question that many of us have on our 

mind, the accession of Carrie Lam to be the chief executive for 

Hong Kong. 

As you know, she served as Hong Kong’s government representative in a two-hour televised debate with the Umbrella Movement 

leaders over Hong Kong’s system of government. Given her history, 

I would like to ask each of our witnesses, do you believe she is willing or able to engage constructively with Hong Kong’s pro-democracy groups, act independently from Beijing, and support rights legally granted to all Hong Kongers? 

And I will start from my left and move to my right. 

Mr. LEE. First of all, Senator, thank you for co-sponsoring this 

important bill. 

Now, right after her victory, Ms. Carrie Lam actually said that 

she would engage the democrats and talk about livelihood issues. 

But she also said on democracy issues, that would have to wait. 

Now, the trouble that we find ourselves in today in Hong Kong 

is because democracy, which was promised, has been delayed again 

and again. So she must not put democracy on the back burner and 

expect to work with the democrats. 

30 

So the democratic camp and legislators in the democratic camp 

are not going to talk with her simply on livelihood issues. Of 

course, that is important, too. But she must start a dialogue with 

the democratic camp on democracy. Because without it, then the 

rule of law cannot be guaranteed. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Bork, if you would like to start. 

Ms. BORK. I am skeptical about how much a chief executive of 

Hong Kong can do, mainly because of the system that is set up 

where, in this case, she is chosen by a small committee of people 

of largely pro-Beijing sentiments. So I do not think it is sort of entirely up to her. 

And I do not think any of the chief executives have had great 

success, in a way because they are limited by this. They have to 

represent a people who do not get to pick them, but they are really 

carrying out, ultimately, Beijing’s wishes, certainly on political 

matters. So I am not optimistic that she has any interest or latitude to advance democracy during her term at all. 

Senator COTTON. Mr. Lee. 

Mr. LEE. May I just elaborate a little more on that? I think Ms. 

Bork is entirely right. 

I think even if Carrie Lam wants to do good things for Hong 

Kong, she can only do so if Beijing permits her to do so. She is now 

the fourth, she will be the fourth chief executive in Hong Kong. 

And each one of them is actually handpicked by Beijing, because 

this so-called election committee consists of over 75 percent of their 

people. 

Senator COTTON. Mr. Lam. 

Mr. LAM. I am afraid that, in terms of freedom of expression, 

there might be a threat that this group of freedom of expression 

may be narrowed down further because of the enactment of the Article 23. 

So if such a legislation was enacted, whoever is talking about the 

independence of Hong Kong, independence of Taiwan, of Tibet, 

Mongolia, will not be allowed it. And even research in this regard 

will be limited, so that will hurt the freedom of publications. 

And I am worried that the chief executive to be will just follow 

the wish of mainland China and enact the Article 23 of the Basic 

Law separately, not in monolithic legislation, but separately, which 

will limit the freedom of Hong Kong people. 

That is all. 

Senator COTTON. And one final question that I would like to get 

your perspective on if you care to share. 

Given the recent arrests and crackdowns on pro-democracy activists and lawmakers, many analysts say this is in anticipation of 

Mr. Xi’s visit later this year, do you agree? And if so, do you expect 

that to intensify in the coming weeks? 

Mr. LEE. There are two ways of looking at it. One way is that 

Mr. Xi certainly would like his visit to be welcomed by the people 

of Hong Kong. 

Now, the other way of looking at it is the Hong Kong administration would like to suppress more demonstrations and free expressions of views in order to let him come to Hong Kong without hearing too many noises. So I do not know what the outcome is. 

31 

Now, if Mr. Xi knows what may happen in Hong Kong, I think 

the only good advice for him is to make sure that during the next 

two months or so that democracy would be given the go-ahead, because that would convey the message to the Hong Kong people that 

if democracy can start now, then confidence, mutual confidence can 

also develop. And Hong Kong, in the eyes of China, will become a 

totally different picture. 

Now, we are all prepared to work toward that direction. The 

question is, how much does Mr. Xi want that to be? 

Ms. BORK. Yeah. I think, regardless of what happens in the next 

several months, the trend is very bad. I think these arrests that 

came up, that Joshua Wong responded to earlier, are an extremely 

bad sign. 

And I think also, the Congress needs to be aware of the developing sense of taboo topics and, as Mr. Lam said, the importance 

of being able to speak about things is vital. 

Although Lord Patten talked about independence as an unrealistic objective, I think he neglected to say that the way the party 

treats ideas it does not like as taboos is a real problem. And regardless of whether Hong Kong people can achieve or should 

achieve independence, the fact that any particular political idea is 

not going to be allowed or will be persecuted or prosecuted, like 

independence, a referendum, self-determination and even democracy, is very troubling. 

And if Congress can find ways, frankly, even just speaking about 

it, we have to begin to not allow the distortion of terms or the outlawing of terms in Hong Kong or anywhere else. 

Senator COTTON. Alright, thank you all again. 

Chairman RUBIO. And I have a couple of brief questions. I know 

the senators may need to go. 

I just want to say this on the record, because I know, Mr. Lam, 

that eventually you are going to find your way back toward home 

in Hong Kong and just know we are going to continue to keep tabs 

on you and on your situation very carefully. 

And I just want to be very clear. After your appearance here 

today, our view is that if any hostility comes your way upon your 

return, we will directly attribute that to your appearance here 

today and your willingness to speak truth before this commission 

and I believe should have a direct impact on the way we interact 

with the Chinese Communist Party and their government if, in 

fact, there is retribution sought against you for your appearance 

and your testimony here today. 

We would take it as a deep personal affront to members of this 

body that you would be treated in such a way if, in fact, that is 

the case. We hope that it would not be the case. 

We are limited on time. I promised you I would get you out of 

here by 11:30. I am pleased that members were able to come in the 

midst of everything that is going on. 

I have three quick questions that I want to make sure are on the 

record. 

And, Mr. Lee, what impact do you believe the reports under the 

Hong Kong Policy Act have on the situation? 

32 

Mr. LEE. I think the reports are important. And I am happy that 

they will be continued, because that would then give Members of 

Congress a clear picture as to what is happening in Hong Kong. 

Now, of course, the Chinese Government will say mind your own 

business. But do not be deterred by that, Mr. Chairman, because 

you must remember that when the Sino-British Joint Declaration 

was first announced on the 26th of September, 1984, the U.S. Government strongly supported it, even though it was none of your 

business, to use the same language again. 

It was a treaty between the British Government and the Chinese 

Government. But both governments actually worked very hard lobbying for international support. So your government was lobbied 

hard and gave its support. So that gives your government every 

justification to say, ‘‘Well, you wanted our support, we still support 

‘one country, two systems.’ And if it is not working well because of 

your default, why should we not be allowed to comment on it and 

ask you to deliver what you already promised? ’’ 

Chairman RUBIO. Well, let me assure you, there is at least a 

dozen or so countries around the world that have told me to mind 

my own business just in the last month, and I do not. 

And I would also say that the human rights of our fellow brothers and sisters around the world is our business. It should be all 

of our business. 

And, Ms. Bork, I have read extensively the things you have written over the years on a number of issues, including this. I would 

just ask, and I think you touched on it briefly, but do you have any 

specific policy recommendations for the commission or the Congress 

with regard to the Hong Kong Policy Act, given the ongoing challenges to the autonomy and so forth? 

I mean, we are always looking for what can we do beyond holding these hearings and I think it is very powerful, the forum of the 

U.S. Senate. Beyond that, what? 

And if you do not, perhaps for the record later, some specific suggestions. 

Ms. BORK. Certainly, but I do think the Democracy and Human 

Rights Act that you are working on is major in that it would completely change the outlook toward Hong Kong policy, which has 

been to let things move along, let China see the value of Hong 

Kong staying the way it is, when, frankly, I do not think a Communist party really can quite do that, certainly not without being 

encouraged to do so by the world’s most powerful democracy. 

So I would not, in any way, underestimate the importance of that 

addition of sanctions for misbehavior in Hong Kong. I think that 

is huge. And I will certainly be happy to think of some others. 

I think focusing on changes in Hong Kong’s law enforcement culture is really important. What is going on that they can act this 

way? Can you begin to focus more on the autonomy of specific institutions; the courts, the police, law enforcement, other institutions? 

I think that is really vital, as well. 

Chairman RUBIO. And I would just say, it is a very broad question, but I think to the point you just heard Mr. Lee discuss where 

we are going to be told mind your own business, why is this our 

business? Why should, at the most basic level, why should the people who sent me here from the State of Florida support my involveVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\26340 DIEDRE
33 

ment on this issue? Why does it matter to them, why does it matter 

to the country? 

Ms. BORK. The United States has both an interest and an obligation to pursue these universal values. I mean, I think people often 

define them as though it is America foisting its own values. In fact, 

I think America, as the most powerful democracy, has the ability 

and the obligation to defend universal rights and freedoms for people who cannot. 

There is no doubt in my mind that it benefits the United States 

to function in a world with more democracies, more respect for freedoms, more respect for rule of law. 

And in all of my experience visiting and talking to dissidents, 

they welcome it. Democracy activists around the world always welcome it. They do not see it as an intrusion. 

So let us think about who is saying this is interference and who 

is not. I really think the world’s democrats struggling for their own 

rights and freedoms do not see it as interference at all. 

Chairman RUBIO. And, Mr. Lam, I ask you, given everything that 

you have confronted. We hold this hearing today, it is a commission. A number of my colleagues were able to come. Others, I know, 

follow carefully, but because of scheduling conflicts could not. 

And oftentimes, there is a feeling that what we do here is we 

hold these meetings and it is busywork, but it does not really make 

a difference because it is not a law or a program we are putting 

money behind. 

From your perspective as someone who has been persecuted, as 

someone who has been harassed, as someone who has been jailed 

because of your advocacy for these universal principles that we all 

believe in or should all believe in, when we speak about these 

issues, when we highlight cases like yours, when we have someone 

like Mr. Wong here, when we talk about these issues, can you tell 

us what that means to someone half a world away who is confronting these challenges and is often told by the tyrants that you 

do not matter, no one cares about you, no one, you are on your own 

and you are on a losing side? 

What does it mean that we do this? Is what we do here meaningful to people in your situation? 

Mr. LAM. I was encouraged by more than 6,000 people going to 

the street to support me. So when I heard the news, I desired to 

come out and speak about my case. 

My coming out demonstrates that all those, if we voice out the 

injustice, against the injustice, show that we oppose it, it will have 

effect and the cumulative effect will be more explicit. 

If everyone who faces this oppression of China will stand up, this 

will have an effect to fight against such suppression. So such kinds 

of hearings will be definitely beneficial to a situation like mine. 

Chairman RUBIO. And I agree and I thank you for being here 

and all of you for being here. 

And I would close by telling you two examples of why this work 

can be rewarding. One of the cases we have discussed often in the 

commission, in hearings, in meetings has been the case of an 

American citizen, Sandy Phan-Gillis, who was unjustly jailed in 

China under ridiculous accusations. And we continue to raise her 

34 

case, that and of her family, and that led to a positive outcome. 

One case among thousands that we are facing. 

The other is the case in a different part of the world of Aya 

Hijazy who was an employee at a nongovernmental organization 

working on a number of very important issues on the ground in 

Egypt. She was jailed under ridiculous charges. 

And I can tell you, when President el-Sisi of Egypt visited, there 

was not a meeting he had on the Hill where her case was not 

brought up, and that was true at his meetings in the White House, 

to the point where by the end of his visit he was a little annoyed. 

But Aya Hijazy is now in the United States along with her husband. 

And one of the stories that she shared with us, that, while still 

imprisoned, somehow someone was able to allow them to view videos of a speech that I was able to give on the Senate floor, and others, about their cause. And it certainly emboldened them and it 

made them understand that they mattered. 

The thing that tyrants and dictators and oppressors tell people 

all over the world is no one cares about you anymore, they have 

forgotten about you, they do not even talk about you. We are having meetings with presidents, we are cutting deals, we are doing 

all kinds of things, no one speaks about you. And I imagine it is 

designed to demoralize. 

As long as the people of Florida allow me to serve here there will 

be at least one senator that will continue to talk about you and everyone like you in Hong Kong, in China, and all over the world. 

And frankly, I think there is more than just one, there are numerous of my colleagues. 

And, you know, our hope is to continue to highlight human rights 

as a key pillar of our national security and our foreign policy. Because here is what I know, the more a country oppresses its own 

people, the likelier they are to create chaos and havoc and uncertainty everywhere else in the world. 

Meanwhile, for the most part, free people who choose their own 

leaders and have economic freedom do not have time for wars. 

They are interested in running a business. And if their leaders go 

too far, they vote them out of office, because they want peace and 

prosperity. 

Everybody has a different idea of what democracy and freedom 

may look like, maybe a parliamentary system, some have a house 

of lords, some have a senate. But the bottom line is that the greater role people have in choosing their leaders and the direction of 

their nations, the less likely those nations are to wage war against 

their neighbors and destabilize the world. And to retreat from that 

in this new century would not just be catastrophic, it would be 

tragic. And history will not be forgiving. 

And so your cause is a critical component of this broader strategy. And we will continue to raise it everywhere we can. And we 

are just grateful that we were able to have individuals like yourselves and, in particular, you, Mr. Lam, given the risks you run 

being here today. 

And I reiterate what I said at the outset, and I think I speak for 

every member of the commission and hopefully for every Member 

of the Senate in which I serve, that we will keep tabs and watch 

35 

very closely how you are treated upon your return. We are glad you 

are returning. Hong Kong needs you. 

And we will watch very closely. And if, in fact, retribution is 

taken against you, we will attribute that to your presence here 

today. And it will impact everything that I do and hopefully everything that the Senate does when it comes to our interaction with 

the Chinese Communist Party and their government. 

So I thank you all for being here. I appreciate your indulgence. 

I apologize for the interruption, but we are grateful to you, to all 

of you, for your time. 

And with that, the meeting of this commission is adjourned. [Applause]. 

Ms. MAK. And Mr. Lam would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and the Congress. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

38 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSHUA WONG

MAY 3, 2017

You may have known about Hong Kong’s political arrangement as ‘‘One Country, 

Two Systems.’’ But it has now become ‘‘One Country, One-and-a-Half Systems,’’ and 

potentially ‘‘One Country, One System’’ in the future if conditions continue to worsen. 

I was born less than a year before the handover of Hong Kong from the U.K. to 

China in 1997. I am 20 years old now. At the same time, the Hong Kong government is preparing its 20th handover anniversary celebration. July 1 will be the first 

time Xi Jinping visits Hong Kong as the Chinese President. 

To pave the way for that, we now face massive political prosecution, while the 

government intends to disqualify democratically-elected lawmakers in the opposition 

camp, including the core Umbrella Movement student leader Nathan Law, who was 

elected last year as the youngest ever legislator at age 23. Unfortunately, Hong 

Kong remains far from a democracy after the Umbrella Movement. 

Some people may think it is failure because we can’t achieve the goal of universal 

suffrage but I am here to tell you today that we the spirit of the movement is in 

the heart of Hong Kong people. That’s why I have been trying to gather more support at the international level by strengthening our collaboration around the world. 

I am glad to see the reintroduction of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act by Senators Rubio, Cotton and Cardin. Bipartisan support for the bill 

proves that protecting Hong Kong’s freedoms and autonomy can be—and ought to 

be—a consensus across the political spectrum. The legislation ensures those who 

have participated in non-violent assembly in Hong Kong would not be denied American visas on the basis of their criminal records. 

Alex Chow, who is in the audience this morning, is another core Umbrella Movement student leader. He was found guilty last July for participating in unlawful assembly, sentenced to three weeks of imprisonment with one year of suspension. Because of Alex’s criminal record, he has faced significant barrier in obtaining a British student visa last year for his master’s studies in London. He was recently accepted for Ph.D. studies at U.C. Berkeley this coming August, which means he will 

soon apply for a U.S. student visa. I cannot stress the importance of this legislation 

for many of those like Alex, who may potentially face difficulties entering free countries. 

China’s suppression against us is helped by its growing regional domination. Last 

year, I was invited by top Thai universities, but was not allowed to enter the country and locked up for 12 hours in a detention cell. My requests to contact a lawyer 

or at least notify my family in Hong Kong were both rejected. I was very worried 

to be the next Gui Min Hai, one of the five booksellers abducted from Thailand to 

China. Luckily I was finally released, but the Thai government later said that I 

would be forever banned to enter the country, as requested by China. 

If passed, the proposed legislation will place human rights and democracy at the 

center of future American policy toward Hong Kong. It will send a strong signal to 

Beijing that as a world leader, the U.S. believes it is just as important to protect 

political freedom in Hong Kong as it is to protect economic freedom. 

The support of the proposed legislation is also in the American interests. Hong 

Kong is home to around 85,000 U.S. citizens and 1,400 U.S. companies. 

Two-way U.S.-Hong Kong trade was around $42 billion last year. Most American 

media outlets, including CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and TIME Magazine establish their Asian offices in Hong Kong. 

These are all evidence that despite all the difficulties it is facing, Hong Kong remains the freest city under Chinese administration. 

In conclusion, I hope democrats and republicans alike can work together to defend 

the fundamental human rights values they share, which Hong Kongers will continue 

to fight hard against Communist Regime for the day will come for us with democracy and exercise our right of self-determination. 

I started my fight for democracy six years ago when I was 14. The Father of Hong 

Kong’s Democracy, Martin Lee, is turning 79 years old this year, after four decades 

of struggle. I wonder, if I come to the age of 79, will I be able to see democracy? 

My aspiration, and our generation’s challenge is to ensure that Hong Kong continues as a beacon of human right and freedom for China and the world. 

39 

To sum up, today the authoritarian regime are dominating our future, but the day 

will come when we decide the future of Hong Kong. No matter what happens to the 

protest movement, we will reclaim the democracy that belongs to us, because time 

is on our side. 

* * * * * 

[New York Times, May 3, 2017] 

STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY IN HONG KONG

(By Joshua Wong and Jeffrey Ngo) 

HONG KONG—The selection in March of the Beijing loyalist Carrie Lam as Hong 

Kong’s next leader is the latest sign that China will continue to tighten its grip on 

this city. Political divisions will deepen and mistrust of the government will rise. 

Ms. Lam, who was picked to be chief executive by an election committee stacked 

in Beijing’s favor, has long taken a hard-line approach to suppressing dissent. As 

the former No. 2 official under the unpopular outgoing leader, Leung Chun-ying, she 

presided over the political reform process that ignited the Umbrella Movement of 

2014, in which tens of thousands of Hong Kongers occupied major thoroughfares for 

three months demanding democratic rights. 

With Hong Kong’s autonomy plummeting to a 20-year low, it’s more important 

than ever for Washington to affirm its commitment to freedom in Hong Kong. The 

Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, introduced by a bipartisan group of 

senators in February, would put the Hong Kong people’s rights at the center of 

United States policy toward the semiautonomous Chinese territory. 

The legislation, an update to a 1992 law governing relations between the United 

States and Hong Kong, would authorize the president to freeze United States-based 

assets of individuals who have suppressed freedoms in Hong Kong and deny them 

entry to America, require the secretary of state to issue an annual report on Hong 

Kong’s political situation until at least 2023 and guarantee that Hong Kongers who 

have participated in nonviolent assembly would not be denied American visas on the 

basis of their arrest. 

Our freedoms in Hong Kong have been increasingly squeezed since 2014, when 

the Chinese leadership in Beijing decided against democratizing the process for selecting our leader, inciting the months of protests. 

A renowned legal scholar and former law school dean at Hong Kong University 

was denied a promotion to a top leadership post at the university because of his 

pro-democracy positions. Five Hong Kongers working for a bookseller that sold 

books critical of Beijing were abducted and taken across the border to China, where 

one was coerced into confessing to crimes on national television. Democratically 

elected lawmakers in the opposition camp have been facing costly lawsuits filed by 

the government to disqualify their seats. Democracy activists have been rounded up 

for leading protests against the government. 

Beijing’s fear of separatism and President Xi Jinping’s uncompromising leadership 

style mean the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. The Hong Kong 

Human Rights and Democracy Act would put much-needed pressure on American 

presidents to stand up to Beijing for its aggression against the people of this territory. 

No United States president has visited Hong Kong since Bill Clinton in 1998. The 

State Department stopped issuing periodic assessments of Hong Kong’s political situation in 2007. Former President Barack Obama showed only tepid support for the 

Hong Kong democracy movement. 

President Trump hasn’t spoken much yet about Hong Kong, but his China policy 

has been disappointing. He showed some early signs of hope when, as presidentelect, he seemed willing to challenge the unjust ‘‘One China’’ policy on Taiwan, but 

he has since backed off from his tough talk against Beijing. 

Congress should do its part to renew White House interest in Hong Kong, sending 

a message that the United States is concerned about our political freedom. Hong 

Kong, in spite of all the difficulties it is facing, remains the freest territory under 

Chinese control. For dissidents in the mainland, Hong Kong’s social movements 

have long been sources of hope. Safeguarding what has made Hong Kong unique 

is in Washington’s interest, especially if Americans wish to someday see a free and 

democratic China. 

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act—recently introduced in the 

Senate by Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton, along with Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin—has received bipartisan backing at this early 

stage. American conservatives and liberals alike should support the bill and help 

uphold their shared values of freedom and democracy for this corner of the world. 

40 

Joshua Wong is the secretary general and a co-founder of Demosisto, a political 

party in Hong Kong. Jeffrey Ngo, chief researcher for Demosisto, is a master’s degree student in global histories at New York University. 

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign 

up for the Opinion Today newsletter. 

A version of this op-ed appears in print on May 4, 2017, on Page A12 of the National edition with the headline: Stand up for democracy in Hong Kong. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN CHU-MING LEE

MAY 3, 2017

On the night of July 1, 1997, my home, Hong Kong, a territory of then-7 million 

people was handed over from Britain to the People’s Republic of China. Twenty 

years later, we have come to a critical moment: Promised democratic development 

has been totally stopped, and the autonomy and core values we have worked hard 

to preserve under both British and Chinese rule are in serious danger. 

I am 78 years old, and have been working for four decades as a lawyer and advocate for Hong Kong. I have been the bar chair, an elected legislator, a pro-democracy 

political party founder, and a member of the Basic Law drafting committee, working 

for the mini-Constitution agreed by China that was supposed to protect the rights 

of Hong Kong people. 

In all of these roles, my goal has been to preserve Hong Kong’s freedoms, core 

values, and way of life. My generation has fought hard. But it is the future generation you have heard from today, represented by Joshua Wong, whose members are 

even more adamant that their rights be preserved and enlarged. 

The framework for the transfer of Hong Kong’s sovereignty and people was established by the 1984 Joint Declaration, an international treaty registered at the 

United Nations. In that treaty, Hong Kong people were promised ‘‘one country, with 

two systems,’’ that we could rule our affairs with a ‘‘high degree of autonomy,’’ and 

that our rights, freedoms, rule of law, and way of life would continue for at least 

50 years after Britain ceded Hong Kong to China 

Beyond these assurances, after 150 years as a British colony, we Hong Kong people were promised that we would gradually progress toward elections based on universal suffrage. This arrangement has protected free political speech in the city and 

kept alive hopes for a degree of electoral democracy that we were also denied under 

British rule. 

Twenty years ago, the ‘‘one country’’ part of this agreement was completed, when 

China assumed control over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997. 

But I am here to tell you today that we are still waiting for the ‘‘two systems’’ 

promises to be upheld. 

Until we are masters of our own house, you cannot say ‘‘two systems’’ is a reality. 

And without democratic elections, not one of our freedoms is secure. 

Let me be clear: Hong Kong people are not challenging Beijing. We are merely 

asking that China uphold its pledge to let us freely choose our leaders by universal 

suffrage, and exercise the ‘‘high degree of autonomy’’ promised in the 1984 SinoBritish Joint Declaration as a condition of the handover of Hong Kong. 

Since the July 1, 1997 handover, Hong Kong journalists, lawyers, students, religious leaders, teachers, business executives, and other citizens have fought hard 

against every encroachment by Beijing. Our society is as free as it is today because 

of those efforts. 

But much more needs to be done if Hong Kong is to remain a model for people 

seeking democracy and opposing authoritarianism. 

We have fought to preserve our core values, including the rule of law, transparency, a free flow of information, and free markets—the values that have long 

been a beacon for China and beyond. 

But the past three years have seen an acceleration of worrying encroachments: 

• Beijing’s extrajudicial abductions of publishers and a businessman from Hong 

Kong; 

• The removal of elected Hong Kong leaders, by Beijing’s interpretation of the 

Basic Law; 

• A surge in arrests of peaceful critics; and 

• Attacks on our independent judiciary. 

These developments spotlight the failings of the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ model 

and the need for democratic elections to preserve basic rights and freedoms in our 

territory of 8 million people. 

41 

This trend also spotlights the role of the US, and the international community. 

The US approach in Hong Kong is governed by the US–Hong Kong Policy Act, 

which is rooted in the Joint Declaration, and gives the US Congress the right and 

obligation to speak up when freedom in Hong Kong is under threat. 

Over the past four decades, Hong Kong’s resilient people have weathered the announcement Hong Kong would be handed over to China, Tiananmen Square’s dashing of the hope for democracy both in China and Hong Kong, and the race against 

time to create Hong Kong’s own political institutions despite China’s opposition. 

This means we cherish our freedoms more, and we recognize how important their 

example is to any hope of a rights-respecting China in the future. 

For our young people, this long road to ensuring the rights we were promised is 

a reminder that as Americans know from their own history, freedom is not free— 

it takes vigilance and persistence, a battle that sometimes extends over multiple 

generations. 

When Hong Kong was promised by paramount leader Deng Xiaoping that we 

would keep all of our freedoms for 50 years after 1997 unchanged, we understood 

that we have to insist that every single freedom is kept intact—100%. If we do, 

there is a chance for those freedoms to some day come to China. 

But 20 years after the handover, China’s Central Liaison office in Hong Kong has 

gone from being a representative office to issuing pronouncements that undermine 

the integrity of our system. 

Last week, the legal chief of the China’s liaison office claimed that ‘‘one country’’ 

must come before ‘‘two systems,’’ and suggested abrogating the treaty if Hong Kong 

people protest. This undermines confidence in the system, and further alienates the 

youth who are our future. 

It is a deeply unwise statement guaranteed to generate yet more protests—obviously the opposite of what Beijing wants. 

It is increasingly our young people who are literally on the frontlines of protests 

for democracy in Hong Kong. This includes many who weren’t even born at the time 

of the handover in 1997. 

These young people understand very well what makes Hong Kong special and different from mainland China. They have a life ahead of them based on ‘‘two systems.’’ They don’t want to live in a Hong Kong that becomes ever more like China’s 

system of cronyism and corruption. They value academic freedom, press freedom, 

and the ability to protest, speak and write freely. 

The young generation has now seen 20 years of the older generation trying to get 

Beijing to carry out its promise of two systems. They have more reason than their 

parents and grandparents not to trust Beijing’s promises because the promises of 

the Basic Law have been broken. 

They don’t trust the present and won’t wait another 20 years. 

There is still a roadmap to restore relations between Hong Kong and China, 

which would involve Beijing discovering better judgment, as it has done before. 

China needs to make sure that the ‘‘two systems’’ survives—both as a model for 

Taiwan, but also as an incentive for younger generations to stay and build on our 

successes. When Xi Jinping comes to Hong Kong for the anniversary of the handover on July 

1 this year, I hope he will personally reverse the dangerous course of the last two 

decades, and confirm that our freedoms and way of life are good for China too. 

It would be helpful if the US Congress and administration reminded him that mature countries respect treaties such as the one lodged at the UN through which 

China pledged rights for Hong Kong if Britain agreed to give up control. 

Now is the time when the world is wondering if China will be a responsible member of the global community, and the US is trying to develop a good strategic relationship with China. 

Thus China needs to show the world it can be trusted to uphold international 

agreements and play by the rules. 

What better place to start than Hong Kong—where it already obliged to do so? 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAM WING KEE

MAY 3, 2017

MY TESTIMONY REGARDING THE ‘‘CAUSEWAY BAY BOOKS’’ EVENT

PROLOGUE: 

Between October and December 2015, the disappearance of five persons of Causeway Bay Books in Hong Kong was investigated and confirmed by the Hong Kong 

media. The five were suspected to have been arrested or abducted by the Chinese 

42 

government. On 17 October, GUI Minhai (shareholder) was taken away from an 

apartment in Pattaya, Thailand by a man. LUI Bo (shareholder) was arrested by 

public security people in Shenzhen while having lunch in a restaurant. CHEUNG 

Chiping (employee) was taken away from his home in Dongguan by armed policemen on 23 October. I myself (employee) was detained by Customs when I entered 

Shenzhen via the Lowu Border on 24 October, and secretly taken to Ningbo the next 

day. LEE Bo (shareholder) was abducted on 30 December in a warehouse carpark 

in Chai Wan and forcibly taken across the border to the mainland of China by nine 

persons. 

I, LAM Wing Kee, provide my testimony below: 

At 11 a.m. on 24 October 2015, I crossed the border at Lowu, Shenzhen, to meet 

my girlfriend in Dongguan. I was detained by Shenzhen Customs, taken onto a 7- 

seater car and driven to a Shenzhen police station the same day. I asked those who 

were taking me what crime I had committed and nobody gave any answer. Sometime after 7 o’clock in the evening, two investigative officers came to interrogate me. 

I had met one of them in 2012, when I was found carrying a book across the border 

for postal delivery to a reader. The officer taking records on that occasion was surnamed LEE, in his mid-twenties, while the person asking me questions was also 

surnamed LEE, in his early-fifties. On that occasion I was interrogated for over six 

hours and it was eventually confirmed that I really operated a bookshop in Hong 

Kong with no other intent. 

Then the older one left the room to handle procedural matter for my release and 

I had a conversation with the recording officer. Because of the prior encounter, the 

younger Lee and I recognized each other immediately when we met again that 

evening. I felt a little delighted and was rather naive in thinking that China Customs had mistaken me for someone else because I thought that the recording staff 

in his early-thirties could prove that I ran a book shop and I would be released in 

no time. 

However, when I nodded and smiled at him, he roared at me saying that I was 

unrepentant even till death. I thought he was mistaken. Ever since I was held up 

and investigated last time, I no longer help others in bringing books across the border. Through the iron bars of the custody room, I took a look of the other officer 

who was somewhat older. I told the one whom I recognized that I had not committed wrongdoing again. Furthermore, I signed a letter of remorse last time and 

gave my word. Yet, upon hearing my explanation, he got even angrier. He banged 

on the table and rebuked: ‘‘Do you know who you are? Your sending books is intended at overthrowing the Chinese government. We are the Central Task Force. 

It is our task to impose proletariat dictatorship rule over Hong Kong people like 

you.’’ I was extremely surprised, not quite believing what I heard. I know that the 

Central Task Force was a tool used in the Cultural Revolution to tackle class enemy 

and that many people were put to death by it. I sensed the seriousness of the situation, but at the same time I was rather confused. To make sure, I asked him to 

repeat what he said. But he seemed to be aware that he had given something away. 

He merely stared at me, still in anger. At that time the one next to him opened 

a note book, signaled his colleague to sit down, and started interrogation. 

The next morning, sometime past 7 am, I ate the bread given to me by the guard. 

I was then handcuffed, blindfolded, got a cap on my head; taken on a 7-seater car 

to Shenzhen train station, and changed onto a speed train. Roughly 13–14 hours 

later, we arrived at Ningbo Station. Throughout the journey I was anxious and restless, eager to know where I was being taken. Though I was tied to the iron seat 

and despite the fact that I had not slept the night before, I tried hard to keep up 

spirit and paid attention to the stops made. When we got off the train, I peeked 

through the fringe of the eye mask and saw an illuminated station sign: Ningbo station. The car used after we got off the train was probably also a 7-seater. I was 

placed in the middle seat at the back with people by my two sides. After 40 minutes 

or so, I was held to go up to the 1st floor of a building and then into a room. When 

the handcuffs, eye mask and cap were taken away, sudden exposure to light prevented them from opening fully. Before I could see the environment clearly, I was 

told to go to a corner where there was a half-translucent screen, six-and-a-half ft. 

high and serving as partition for a squat-type latrine. I was told to take off all my 

clothes, squatted and stretched out my arms and feet for examination. Then I 

changed into prisoner top, orange in colour, and cotton sweat pants in cement-like 

colour. What crime have I committed? As my glasses were taken from me when I 

boarded the train blindfolded, I was directing my question at people with blurred 

faces. Again I got no reply. 

I was waken up at 7:30 in the morning. I washed and brushed up; and later had 

breakfast at 8 a.m. It included congee of corn which had been grinded like sesame, 

a bun, fried egg and pickle etc. As I was about to eat, the guard standing by the 

43 

screen came close for fear that I might take some other action. As I ate, I made 

observation of the surrounding. The previous night I was so tired that when they 

pointed a bed to me indicating I could lie down, I tumbled into it and readily fell 

asleep. Once I finished eating, the guard immediately removed the plastic meal box 

and plastic spoon and handed them to another guard at the door. The one sitting 

at the door kept staring at me with his arms crossed. I knew that there would be 

interrogation later, so I made use of the time gap to think things over and figure 

out the situation. From where I was merely a day ago, I was taken to this place 

a thousand miles away. I picked up one of the plastic slippers they gave me and 

inspected the sole. It bore the place of manufacture: Ningbo. Is this place Ningbo? 

I showed the slipper to the guards. Both of them were still young and had an air 

of innocence, apparently not yet nurtured into ‘‘angry youths.’’ Although I repeatedly 

asked many times what crime I had committed, no answer was given still. I turned 

my head and saw that the other guard behind was also staring at me. At that moment two persons entered. 

One was a tall big guy who did not identify himself. He later said that he surnamed SHI. He was the chief interrogator. The other one, who had about the same 

height as mine, should be the assistant. They started by asking my name, address 

in Hong Kong, job, position and why ownership of the bookshop was transferred to 

Mighty Current etc., which were about the same questions asked during the interrogation in Shenzhen. Then I was asked about the mailing of books: when did it start, 

the kind of books sent, how many had been sent, the means of sending etc. I gave 

factual answers while SHI, who remained expressionless on his face throughout, 

made record on computer. At that point I made further attempt to ask: what crime 

had I committed? The tall guy kept on typing without any response. I looked at the 

other one. Leaning against the back of chair, he looked at me with a strange expression in his eyes, surprised that I was unaware of a serious disaster to come. Mr. 

SHI gave me a piece of paper and told me to sign. It included two statements: one 

was to voluntarily give up the right to notify my family, another was to voluntarily 

give up the right to employ a lawyer. 

Interrogation continued like that, from 4 or 5 times a week in November to 2 or 

3 times a week in December. They brought up questions about co-workers in the 

bookshop: GUI Minhai, LEE Bo, CHEUNG Chiping and how I got to know them. 

I answered factually to the best of my knowledge. At that time, I had no idea of 

their lock-up yet. GUI Minhai, in particular, was abducted in Thailand on 17 October 2015. LEE Bo disappeared in the evening of 30 December 2015, whereas LUI 

Bo and CHEUNG Chiping had their mishap even earlier than me: LUI Bo on 14 

October 2015 in Shenzhen and CHEUNG Chiping on 23 October in Dongguan. 

(CHEUNG Chiping himself told me about the date of his mishap when the four of 

us met over dinner in ‘‘Unicorn Hill’’ in Shenzhen, under the arrangement of the 

Chinese investigative staff handling our cases. It was in the same evening that I 

was told by LUI Bo that his arrest took place in a restaurant in Shenzhen.) In midDecember 2015, the guy surnamed SHI showed me some computer records which 

startled me. Those were records of postal purchases with the book shop from September 2013 to October 2015. Names, telephone numbers and addresses of all subscribers, overseas and in mainland China, and even the number of books ordered 

and postal record numbers were there. Everything was shown clearly. As I viewed 

the screen, I quietly wondered how they managed to get the information of readers’ 

book orders. Did they get hold of my key and sent people to the book shop to steal? 

Could they be so audacious and reckless as to engage in cross-border jurisdiction? 

Indeed they were audacious and reckless enough to carry out cross-border jurisdiction. In an interview with ‘‘Initium Media’’ in Hong Kong before his disappearance, LEE Bo had clearly indicated that he would not enter mainland China. The 

interview was conducted in November 2015. Yet he suddenly disappeared on 30 December. Two days later, his wife found his Home Return Permit in a drawer. LEE 

Bo returned to Hong Kong in March 2016 to cancel the case which had been reported to the police. He met the media and said that he smuggled into China so 

as to assist the mainland authority in some investigation. He was clearly not telling 

the truth It was merely because his child was in Fujian that he was compelled to 

cooperate. Furthermore, when I went to LEE Bo’s office on 14 and 15 June 2016 

to get hold of the computer (with records of postal-order subscribers) at the request 

of SHI, LEE privately told me twice that he had been taken away and escorted to 

the mainland by some people. Although he denied this afterwards, it is really not 

difficult to infer from various details of the case that LEE Bo was forced to go to 

the mainland against his wish. Obviously, the Chinese government has inflicted 

damage to the One-country, two-systems and violated its assurance to Hong Kong 

people under the Basic Law. 

44 

I was alone and helpless. I am not sure if it was the endless interrogation or infinite custody without charge that made me start to consider suicide in just 3 months. 

Whenever I looked carefully, I could see that the four walls were covered with soft 

pads. Obviously, any attempt to break my neck by knocking against the wall would 

not work. The ceiling was close to 20 ft. high, and there was no way I could twist 

my pants into rope for hanging on it. There was a big inaccessible window, with 

iron bars blocked by barbed wire which could not be opened with bare hands. The 

shower head, installed high up, was arc-shaped and could not hang anything. The 

more one looked at the set-up of the room, the more one got frightened because, 

clearly, long-term solitary confinement and isolation must have resulted in nervous 

breakdown for somebody and led to suicide in the past. All the measures in the 

room were aimed at preventing suicide. I was probably in such a state of mind when 

the idea of suicide came up. I think I did not feel too frightened of death itself because, after all, every person must die. It is the fear of death that I feared. All of 

a sudden, I seemed to be experiencing the inner feelings of someone with desire to 

die. 

Around the middle of January 2016, they brought a document for me to read. It 

was a letter of confession regarding a charge against me: ‘‘Selling books illegally.’’ 

The letter head was The People’s Republic of China. The date—in year, month and 

day—was given at the bottom. I held my head up. The assistant staff wanted me 

to sign, similar to the day when I was imprisoned in Ningbo and asked to sign those 

statements of giving-up my rights. I thought that since I had signed on the previous 

occasion, there was no way not to sign this time although I knew that such method 

in handling the case was illegal. Fine. Upon signing, Mr Shi had a more relaxed 

expression on his face. Then he turned on the computer and asked me to identify 

some people. I leaned forward to view the screen. It was information relating to 

postal delivery for readers. Some readers placed orders via email. I never met them. 

Some people came to the shop to make purchases for postal delivery. ‘‘Who is this 

person, do you know? ’’ I saw the names against the cursor. They were ordinary 

readers, I told him. I did not know their background. Then a few more were pointed 

out to me to see if I were familiar with them. I kept shaking my head. They knew 

I would cooperate. 

Several days later, I was asked to write a letter of remorse. Actually I had not 

committed any crime. I did not know how to write such a letter. Somehow I began 

like this: ‘‘Because I have committed a crime, I now sincerely express regret to the 

Chinese government . . .’’ With difficulty I waffled on and managed to fill up an 

A4 sheet. The next day the assistant staff came to take the sheet away, probably 

to be handed to SHI for inspection. I thought my half-hearted confession would 

work. I went to the window and viewed up the sky again. The opposite building was 

visible from this side. Sometimes I gave the excuse of using the toilet and tip-toed 

on the raised step of the squatting toilet to look outside. I counted 20 big windows 

on the opposite building. It had 5-stories, probably the same for the building where 

I was. There were a few more buildings on the right. If there was no mist, I could 

see the top of several hills. Later, when there was arrangement to make video recording of me, I was moved to another room along the corridor. There, I could see 

that next to another building at the back was also a small hill. I reckoned that I 

was detained in a place surrounded by hills on three sides. Misty in the morning 

and at night, it should be a basin. Furthermore, when I was taken outside during 

that period, blindfolded, and driven by car to another place for taking my confession 

video, both exit and return entry were made through the right-hand side at the 

back, which means there must have been only one entrance. Therefore I was even 

more certain about it. Later on, news reports in Hong Kong said that we were kept 

in custody in Ci Xi Detention Centre of Ningbo. That was probably a mistake. As 

seen from photos of the Ci Xi Detention Centre, the place does not appear to be a 

basin. Besides, I had subtly taken a peep at the entrance which was only an electric 

gate with no sign whatsoever. 

Around January to February, I signed the letters of confession and remorse. I 

thought the case would soon be over. With all procedures completed, one only has 

to wait for sentencing by the Court. SHI provided a case for my reference. In 2011, 

a person from north-eastern China had also committed the crime of ‘‘Selling books 

illegally,’’ involving a sum of over three hundred thousand dollars. In the end he 

was given a jail term of five years. SHI said that if the Chinese government held 

me responsible for the criminal guilt since the change in ownership of the book 

shop, and because the sum involved in mail delivery of books was not high, somewhat over a hundred thousand dollars only, most likely the sentence would be two 

years. At that time I had already given in to fate. I know that the Court is merely 

for show. The so-called courts in China are only responsible for passing sentences, 

as all suspects are already regarded as convicts once the trial procedure is comVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 U:\DOCS\26340 DIEDRE
45 

pleted. Solicitors are employed merely for the purpose of making pleads. Little did 

I know the situation was more complicated than that. They later showed me some 

books, about eight or nine of them, all being publications of Mighty Current. SHI 

picked a few and asked me about the contents, source of information and whether 

I knew the authors. I explained to him that I was only engaged in the selling of 

books and was not knowledgeable about the things he asked because those were 

publication matters. Only the bosses GUI Minhai and LEE Bo knew all about the 

publications of Mighty Current. Not long afterwards, I was told I could get a bail 

but before that, I had yet to wait for people from Beijing to examine my behavior. 

By then confession videos had already been taken. The recording process took 

place six or seven times in the room where I was imprisoned, and three times in 

another place where they took me there in a 7-seater car. After leaving the building, 

the drive took about 45 minutes, passing through an express highway and ending 

up in a big complex with many low-rise houses. All the recording of so-called confession was conducted in accordance with the script they gave me which I followed. 

Mr. SHI doubled as the director. The weirdest incident happened on one occasion 

when I was taken to a building. After getting off the car in the carpark, there was 

a staircase. Probably to save trouble, they removed my eye mask to let me walk the 

stairs myself. After getting down to the lowest floor and along the passage way, a 

policewoman walked past by, facing me directly. On her shoulder was the badge of 

Ningbo Public Security Bureau. Same as on the previous occasion, I got into the 

same room and took the prisoner seat. While preparation was being made for recording, the policewoman came in too, having changed into civilian clothing, and sat 

by the wall. ‘‘Miss Fong? ‘‘asked Mr. SHI, who was seated in an interrogator’s stand 

like that in court. The policewoman nodded. He opened the document on the desk 

and briefly examined it. Then he said it was fine for Miss Fong to remain seated. 

She nodded. Camera was turned on by the assistant at the back and with the two 

sitting side by side, questions and answers progressed in sequence, following prior 

rehearsal. When recording was finished, I asked SHI out of curiosity, ‘‘What was 

the seated lady doing there? ’’ He removed the recording equipment and answered 

me at the same time, ‘‘She is a witness.’’ I could not withhold my surprise. She was 

undoubtedly a policewoman, with no connection to my case whatsoever. They found 

themselves a so-called witness just like that? It was utterly unbelievable how reckless they were, not to mention that the case had been handled in an unlawful manner all along. 

I could not help worrying because of what happened afterwards. For the purpose 

of making application for bail, a remorse video had been made. It was submitted 

to Beijing along with the letter of remorse. While waiting for news about the outcome, one day I heard SHI said that the higher authority was not satisfied. What 

was to be done? I was terribly anxious. If no approval forthcoming, I would be in 

jail for the Chinese New Year. Several days later, further news was heard. Beijing 

would send people here. To observe me, it was said. Right away I felt that it was 

ominous. One afternoon, two persons came in. I was squatting by the toilet and 

washing clothes. I hurriedly returned to my seat. I waited till they were seated. I 

was about to sit down when one of them suddenly banged the table and said I was 

not allowed to sit. I was startled, and had to remain standing. The other person 

started to talk, ‘‘Do you know who we are? ’’ I shook my head, still in shock. Then 

the other person banged the table also. ‘‘We belong to the Central Task Force from 

Beijing. The kind of books you publish defame our national leaders. People like you 

are vicious to the extreme, not worthy of pardon. We can impose proletariat dictatorship over you for ten, twenty years, even till death. No one in Hong Kong knows. 

We can even pinch you to death like a bug.’’ I was dumbfounded by such sudden 

abusive outbursts and did not know what to do. I could only stare blankly, incapable 

of any reaction but to let them continue their rounds of relentless cursing. I had 

no idea how long the outbursts lasted. I kept standing there. Not until two guards 

entered later did I realize that they had left. Very clearly, release on bail was out 

of the question. 

Let’s make another videos; write another letter of remorse, said SHI later. So the 

video was re-made, and a letter of remorse written again for submission. By then 

the Chinese New Year was drawing near. SHI knew I was so worried that I suffered 

from insomnia. Maybe he wanted to help. He showed friendly gesture. I am not sure 

if it was due to similarity in our sentiments or interests, or whether there was some 

other reason. I understood that he was following orders to interrogate me. He was 

a little sympathetic towards me, hoping that I could get released on bail. Later, he 

even said to me that he would be ready to write a letter of plead and be my guarantor, as long as I cooperate in the future. At that time I had no choice but to believe him. 

46 

Strangely, SHI came several days later to say that approval from the higher authority had come; our fates were tied together; that he would be ruined by me if 

I jumped bail. I felt relieved and my heart was at ease. I certainly felt grateful for 

Mr SHI’s assistance from the bottom of my heart and promised that I would definitely cooperate with him in the future. However, as I recall the matter now, things 

looked somewhat suspicious. Based on my observation of Mr SHI, I still believe in 

him. He was only used as a pawn in a situation that bundled him and me together. 

That had been deliberately arranged by others, it seems. 

I am not groundless in saying the above. Why did Beijing suddenly send people 

to berate me like mad? While release bail seemed very remote, somebody knew that 

Mr SHI would righteously give a hand. That somebody could well be his boss. He 

understood Mr SHI. And Mr SHI was both a police officer and an educated person. 

Educated people have their own mentality and at the same time sympathy for others. They tend to be more sympathetic than ordinary folks. If Mr SHI and I were 

somehow bundled together on the same boat, the risk of me jumping bail would be 

reduced, because I could not flee on my own and forsake someone who had helped 

me. The situation was even more obvious if my case was compared with the three 

others who had been taken to the mainland. They all had relatives in the mainland 

whereas I only had a girlfriend there. That was how I viewed Mr SHI then. Apart 

from that, facts which I observed later on indicate that the whole affair involved 

some scheme even more horrid. 

One afternoon SHI came over and said that a half-length photo was to be taken. 

The person who came along was not the assistant but the person surnamed LEE 

whom I previously knew in Shenzhen. When I got up, he held the camera with one 

hand and pushed me towards the wall with the other. He told me to keep a good 

standing posture, and held up the camera to take photos. Every time a photo was 

taken, the camera flashed. I blinked my eyes at the flare, and he examined the 

image. It did not seem to work because every time a photo was taken, I blinked 

and my eyes were closed in all the photos. Seeing that LEE could not manage, Mr 

SHI took over the camera, made some adjustment and turned off the flash. He took 

several photos consecutively, examined them and nodded to indicate the job was 

done. I returned to my seat. Mr SHI went to the door, looked back over his shoulder 

and told me I could leave in a few days but would have to stay for a while in 

Shaoguan first. As I saw him disappear, I realized that he too also belonged to the 

Central Task Force. 

I could not leave China when I was I on bail. After the Chinese New Year i.e. 

in end-March 2016, they placed me in Shaoguan. I worked in a library for free until 

June. Then arrangement was made for me to return to Hong Kong to report to the 

police to cancel my case. I would visit my family and bring back the computer hard 

disk storing records of subscribers. I asked them why was the hard disk required 

when they already had all the software information. SHI said it was because the 

books were posted by me and the data had been input by me. Therefore I would 

have to bring it back to serve as evidence in court, to make prosecution against 

those subscribers more forceful. Such a request by SHI obviously meant that they 

wanted me to betray other people. At that time I had no choice but to agree involuntarily. On 14 June 2016, I took express rail to Shenzhen under the surveillance of 

accompanying people. Besides SHI, the other one was Supervisor CHAN. They 

asked me to cross the border first because they didn’t want to be seen crossing border with me, lest exposing themselves in conducting cross-border surveillance. Later 

on, when I made statement at the police station in Wanchai and viewed the recorded video, I could see that I crossed the Lowu Bridge at 11:25 whereas they could 

be seen at 11:55. At 12:15:30, they appeared at the exit of immigration. 

After careful thought, I met the press on 16 June 2016 accompanied by Mr. Albert 

HO Chun-yan of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong. The event was made public. 

All to be said has been said, but I have one thing to add. In the middle of November 

2015, the Central Task Force asked a local gangster surnamed CHAN, to acquire 

ownership of Causeway Bay Books from Lee Bo, pre-paid the rental for two years 

with over HK$ 1 million, with the intention that I would resume work there. (Mr. 

SHI said to me in Shaoguan that arrangement would be made for me to return to 

the book shop and that I would have to remain in touch with him.) Hong Kong people or people from the mainland of China making purchases in the book shop would 

be monitored. In other words, the book shop would be a point of surveillance. Undoubtedly, the whole affair shows that the Chinese government tries to restrain the 

freedom of speech and freedom of publication in Hong Kong. Such illegal activity 

has been carried out with elaborate planning and careful arrangement throughout. 

LAM Wing Kee 

Manager of Causeway Bay Books (ex-owner of the book shop) 

10 April 2017 

47 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELLEN BORK

MAY 3, 2017

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, it is an honor to appear before 

you alongside leaders of Hong Kong’s democracy movement. Thank you for including 

me in today’s hearing. 

As we approach the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to mainland Chinese 

rule, a great deal has changed. 

Beijing has dropped the pretense of respect for Hong Kong’s autonomy and the 

‘‘one country, two systems’’ arrangement. The Party is not only preventing Hong 

Kong from moving forward toward full democracy, it is also advancing communist 

political culture and taboos within Hong Kong’s society. Even words like ‘‘referendum’’ and ‘‘self-determination’’ are being treated as taboo. 

Hong Kong’s democracy movement has responded in ways that few expected. Beijing’s refusal to allow democratic election of the chief executive sparked the Umbrella movement protests of 2014. The movement’s young leaders have eclipsed the 

established leadership that started the movement in the 1980s. The old guard is 

thrilled. They have happily given way to the new generation, many of whom were 

infants, or not yet born when the movement accelerated after the 1989 Tiananmen 

crackdown. 

Unlike their parents and grandparents, young Hong Kong democrats don’t have 

firsthand experience of living under mainland communist rule. They see no reason 

for their futures to be constrained by arrangements reached by Great Britain and 

China without input or assent of the Hong Kong people—particularly now that the 

UK seeks to be Beijing’s ‘‘best partner in the West.’’ They raise an issue that has 

been largely overlooked by the U.S. and the world’s other democracies: even the inadequate guarantees of the Joint Declaration will expire in 2047. 

Hong Kong people’s identity has changed—or been revealed—under communist 

rule. Fewer identify as Chinese or as citizens of the PRC. Their outlook is shaped 

by their experience living in Hong Kong’s free society, as well as their expectation 

that they would be allowed preserve it, and establish full democracy. 

U.S. policy has not changed in response to these developments. Adopted in 1992, 

before the handover, the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act was a product of optimism 

about Hong Kong’s future and a belief that Beijing would tolerate ‘‘two systems’’ 

within its borders. The approach to Hong Kong was part and parcel of the ‘‘engagement’’ approach toward China. At the time, the US was enjoying victory in the Cold 

War with the Soviet Union. American policymakers were taken by Francis 

Fukuyama’s famous essay, The End of History. The triumph of democracy over communism, fascism, marked ‘‘ the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the 

universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.’’ Confrontation could be avoided. Trade and investment, and integration into 

the world system would change China. 

It wasn’t a big jump from that idea to a belief that that China’s Communist Party 

would accept Hong Kong’s rule of law, capitalism, and civil liberties. The hope was 

expressed that Hong Kong would change China, not the other way around. At the 

very least, people argued, Beijing would want to keep Hong Kong as it was for economic reasons. The Party would not, the argument went, want to ‘‘kill the goose 

that laid the golden egg.’’ 

If Beijing did interfere in Hong Kong, lawmakers contemplated that the president 

could downgrade Hong Kong’s separate status in some areas of U.S. law. However, 

the executive has been understandably reluctant to take that step. Denying Hong 

Kong separate treatment would penalize the people of Hong Kong, not Beijing’s 

Party leaders or even their proxies in Hong Kong. The act’s approach toward Hong 

Kong has lasted well after conditions for which it was adopted changed. 

New legislation proposed by members of the commission, the Hong Kong Human 

Rights and Democracy Act, would take an important step by shifting the consequences for the most egregious violations of Hong Kong’s autonomy from the people of Hong Kong to those who are actually responsible. 

Members should consider broadening this provision. China’s seizures of the booksellers are not isolated incidents. Beijing has also reached across borders to pursue 

Tibetans in Nepal and Uighurs in Central and Southeast Asia. It has coerced Thailand to repatriate Chinese dissidents. When the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary sought to intercede on behalf of Lee Bo, a British citizen and one of the Hong 

Kong booksellers, the Chinese foreign minister rebuffed him, saying Lee is ‘‘first and 

foremost a Chinese citizen.’’ This is an alarming distortion of norms of sovereignty 

and citizenship, but one that so far seems to have elicited little response from the 

countries involved or from Washington. Although Great Britain declared a ‘‘serious 

48 

breach’’ of the Joint Declaration in connection with the booksellers, it’s not clear 

what that means since London has gone on to conduct business as usual with 

China. 

For a long time, the U.S. has treated Hong Kong as a discrete issue. We hoped 

that Party leaders would tolerate freedoms there that they would not allow in the 

mainland. On America’s behalf, Secretary of State Albright insisted that there 

would be U.S.-China relations would suffer if Beijing didn’t live up to its promises 

under the Joint Declaration. However, we effectively, and probably deliberately sidelined ourselves by taking the position that the U.S. could not express an opinion 

on violations of a treaty to which it was not a party. 

It is clear now, even more than it was in 1997, that America has the leading role 

in support for Hong Kong’s democracy, rule of law and civil liberties. Hong Kong’s 

fate will be determined not by arguments over a treaty signed by a disinterested, 

fading colonial power, but by the confidence and commitment to democratic norms 

and institutions by the U.S. and its allies. 

From support for the Helsinki movement in the Soviet bloc, to the defense of Taiwan, to the battles over MFN for China, Congress has long played an indispensible 

role in making democracy and human rights a priority in America’s foreign policy. 

Considering the Trump administration’s affinity for autocrats, Congress’s responsibility to maintain principled support for democracy around the world is even greater 

now and in the years ahead. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA; 

CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

MAY 3, 2017

Good morning. This is a hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on 

China. The title of this hearing is ‘‘Will the Hong Kong Model Survive?: An Assessment 20 Years After the Handover.’’ 

We will have two panels testifying today. The first panel will feature the Right 

Honourable Lord Patten of Barnes—Christopher Patten—testifying via video link 

from London. Lord Patten, in addition to serving in the House of Lords was the last 

British Governor of Hong Kong, and oversaw the transfer to China twenty years ago 

this July. 

The second panel will include: 

• Joshua Wong, ‘‘Umbrella Movement’’ Leader and Secretary-General of the 

new Hong Kong political party, Demosisto ̄; 

• Martin Lee, Barrister, founding Chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong 

Kong, former Member of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law, and former 

Member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (1985–2008); 

• Lam Wing Kee, Founder, Causeway Bay Books, one of five forcibly disappeared Hong Kong booksellers; and 

• Ellen Bork, a writer whose work on democracy and human rights as a priority in American foreign policy has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the 

Washington Post and the Financial Times among other publications. 

• I would also note that translating for Mr. Lam is Ms. Mak Yin Ting, a journalist and veteran leader of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the territory’s leading defender of press freedom. 

Thank you all for being here. As has already been noted, today’s hearing is timely 

given the 20th anniversary, this July, of the British handover of Hong Kong. Rewatching film footage and commentary of that historic day, we can’t help but take 

note of the pageantry: the raising and lowering of flags, solemn handshakes and national anthems. 

Many observers described the handover as signifying the sunset of a once great 

colonial power and the ascent of a rising China. But there was and remains far 

more at stake. 

On that day in 1997 Lord Patten—who we’ll hear from momentarily—spoke of 

Hong Kong’s ‘‘unshakable destiny’’—a Hong Kong governed by and for the people 

of Hong Kong. And it is that destiny that animates today’s gathering. 

However, in recent years, Beijing has consistently undermined the ‘one country, 

two systems’ principle and infringed on the democratic freedoms that the residents 

of Hong Kong are supposed to be guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration—an international treaty—and Hong Kong’s Basic Law. 

The rise of ‘‘localist’’ politicians and activists who call for greater political and 

legal self-determination for Hong Kong has drawn harsh reprisals from the Chinese 

and Hong Kong governments. 

49 

The Chinese government’s November 2016 interpretation of Hong Kong’s Basic 

Law effectively prohibited two recently elected Hong Kong legislators from taking 

office and was viewed as a blow to Hong Kong’s judicial independence. The Hong 

Kong government is currently seeking the removal from office of four other prodemocratic legislators along the same lines. 

In March of this year, nine activists were arrested for their participation in the 

Occupy Central protests in 2014, including two sitting pro-democratic lawmakers. 

Their arrests came less than 24 hours after the undemocratic ‘‘election’’ of Carrie 

Lam to serve as Hong Kong’s next Chief Executive, drawing widespread condemnation and accusations of a retaliatory campaign aimed at punishing leaders of the 

Hong Kong democracy movement and suppressing dissent prior to her taking office. 

In late 2015, five Hong Kong-based booksellers, including one of today’s witnesses, 

were disappeared or abducted to mainland China. One of these booksellers, Gui 

Minhai, a Swedish citizen abducted from Thailand, remains in custody in China, 

where he will mark his 53rd birthday this Friday. 

The disappearances and abductions of the booksellers, and their coerced ‘‘confessions’’ which were broadcast on Hong Kong television, sent shockwaves through the 

city and are reflective of a larger troubling trend in the area of press freedom and 

freedom of expression. 

Today is World Press Freedom Day and it bears mentioning that the recently released Reporters Without Borders index ranking countries for their press freedom 

environment had Hong Kong slipping 4 places in a single year. 

In February, Senators Cardin and Cotton joined me in introducing the bipartisan 

Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which would renew the United 

States’ historical commitment to Hong Kong at a time when its autonomy is increasingly under assault. 

The legislation also establishes punitive measures against government officials in 

Hong Kong or mainland China who are responsible for suppressing basic freedoms 

in Hong Kong. 

Looking ahead, Congress will be closely watching how Hong Kong authorities and 

the mainland handle the 20th anniversary as well as whether Ms. Lam moves to 

reintroduce Article 23, widely despised anti-subversion and anti-sedition legislation 

first proposed in 2002, which triggered massive protests in which half a million 

Hong Kongers took to the streets. 

I look forward to today’s hearing. Without question, there are many layers and 

complexities to our relationship with China as evidenced by the questions during 

yesterday’s hearing for Governor Branstad to serve as U.S. ambassador to China. 

Despite the multitude of challenges, Hong Kong’s future, indeed its destiny, must 

not be sidelined. China’s assault on democratic institutions and human rights is of 

central importance to the people of Hong Kong and to its status as a free market, 

economic powerhouse and hub for international trade and investment. 

We cannot allow Hong Kong to go the way of Beijing’s failed authoritarianism and 

one-party rule. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW JERSEY; COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON

CHINA

MAY 3, 2017

Two and half years ago, tens of thousands of Hong Kong’s residents peacefully 

gathered in the streets, yellow umbrellas in hand, seeking electoral reform and 

greater democracy. Joshua Wong was at the forefront of that movement—along with 

Nathan Law and Alex Chow and so many young student leaders. The Umbrella 

Movement was not only composed of students, but included veterans of the democracy movement in Hong Kong, including Martin Lee. 

It is good to see Joshua and Martin here today, bringing together the generations 

of advocates committed to Hong Kong’s freedom and autonomy. 

Joshua Wong and all those associated with the Umbrella Movement have become 

important symbols of Hong Kong’s vitality and its freedoms. They are now part of 

Hong Kong’s unique brand and any effort to detain, censor, or intimidate them damages that brand. 

Over the past two years, Senator Rubio and I, along with other members of the 

China Commission, have introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy 

Act and we have worked in Congress to maintain the State Department’s annual 

report on Hong Kong. 

50 

We have issued statements of concern about the political prosecutions of Joshua 

and other Umbrella Movement leaders; the unprecedented interventions by the Chinese government in Hong Kong’s courts and political affairs, and the abductions 

Hong Kong booksellers and other citizens. 

We have also discussed the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedoms with 

both U.S. and Chinese officials. 

I want to commend Senator Rubio for his leadership on human rights issues and 

on Hong Kong. We have worked together closely and I am honored to work with 

him on the China Commission. Senator Rubio is a true champion of the globe’s oppressed and persecuted. 

As long as I have the privilege of serving as a Chair of the China Commission, 

I promise to continue shining a light on Hong Kong. Maintaining Hong Kong’s autonomy is a critical U.S. interest. 

The U.S. also has a clear interest in Beijing abiding by its international agreements—in Hong Kong and elsewhere. 

The democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong cannot be indefinitely suppressed. I promise to stand with Hong Kong and call attention to violations of basic 

human rights as long as I serve in Congress. 

Though Beijing’s increasingly rough oversight of Hong Kong may not be as brutal 

as that pursued on the Mainland, it is no less pernicious. The ultimate goal is eroding Hong Kong’s guaranteed freedoms and the rule law and intimidating those who 

try to defend them. 

This year will be the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong. Unfortunately it seems the territory’s autonomy looks increasingly fragile. 

We are coming up on another anniversary as well, the 25th anniversary of the 

Hong Kong Policy Act. 

At this juncture we should be examining both the health of the ‘‘one country, two 

systems’’ model and examining the very assumptions that underlie U.S.-Hong Kong 

relations. What can be done differently, what new priorities should be set? 

The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 was based on the assumption that freedom, 

the rule of law, and autonomy promised to Hong Kong would be protected and respected. 

It was also based on the assumption that time was on the side of freedom—that 

trade and investment would eventually bring political liberalization and human 

rights to Mainland China. 

As Chairman Rubio and I have been saying for some time, one can no longer base 

U.S. policy on the ‘‘fantasy’’ that China’s future will be more democratic and more 

open. 

Mainland China has become more repressive, not less. Prosperity has turned a 

poor authoritarian country into a rich authoritarian country with predictable results 

for China’s rights defenders, ethnic and religious groups, labor and democracy advocates, foreign businesses and Hong Kong’s autonomy. 

Some will argue that the best course of action would be to retreat into a hard 

realism, recognize China’s interests and spheres of influence and protect U.S. interests. We could ignore what is happening in Hong Kong and shift responsibility to 

the British or some undefined international body. 

I disagree. 

We don’t need a new realism to govern our China policy. Instead, we need a new 

idealism—a renewed commitment to democratic ideals, to human rights, and the 

rule of law in ways that compete directly with the Chinese model in Asia and Africa 

and elsewhere. 

Chinese leaders need to know that the United States stands for freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, Internet freedom, the rule of law, universal suffrage, 

and an end to torture as critical interests, necessary for bilateral relations, and 

linked to the expansion of mutual prosperity and integrated security. 

The U.S. should also push back hard against the erosion of freedom and autonomy 

in Hong Kong. 

It is in everyone’s interest that Hong Kong remain a free and prosperous bridge 

between China and the West, but the city’s unique vitality and prosperity are rooted 

in its guaranteed freedoms. If Hong Kong is to become just another Mainland Chinese city, we will have to reassess whether Hong Kong warrants special status 

under U.S. law. 

The arc of history does not bend toward justice without concerted action from all 

freedom-loving peoples. If the U.S. and the international community does not defend 

the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong’s citizens now, there is little hope that freedom can take root in China’s future. 

51 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

WILL THE HONG KONG MODEL SURVIVE? AN ASSESSMENT 20 YEARS AFTER THE

HANDOVER

MAY 3, 2017

Witness Biographies 

The Rt. Hon. the Lord Patten of Barnes CH, 28th Governor of Hong Kong, 

1992–1997 

Lord Patten of Barnes (Christopher) was a Conservative Member of Parliament 

from 1979 to 1992, was a Minister in the Governments of both Margaret Thatcher 

and John Major, and was Chairman of the Conservative Party from 1990 to 1992. 

From 1992 to 1997 he was the last British Governor of Hong Kong. In 1998 and 

1999 he chaired the independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland and 

from 1999 to 2004 was the European Commissioner for External Affairs. He helped 

to organize Pope Benedict’s visit to the United Kingdom in 2010 and became Chairman of the Vatican Media Advisory Committee for Pope Francis in 2014. From 2011 

to 2014 he was Chairman of the BBC Trust. He was elected Chancellor of Oxford 

University in 2003—a post he still holds. He is the author of several books including 

‘‘East and West’’ on his experiences as Governor of Hong Kong; ‘‘Not Quite the Diplomat’’ on his experience as a European Commissioner; and ‘‘What Next—Surviving 

the 21st Century’’—a book on international politics. 

Martin Lee, Barrister, founding Chairman of the Democratic Party of 

Hong Kong, former Member of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law, 

and former Member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (1985–2008) 

Martin C.M. Lee is a veteran political leader and rule of law advocate in Hong 

Kong. He is the founding chairman of the territory’s first political party, the Democratic Party (1994–2002), one of the largest and most popular political parties in 

Hong Kong. Mr. Lee is a Senior Counsel (formerly Queen’s Counsel). He has been 

chair of Hong Kong’s Bar Association, and was an elected member of the Legislative 

Council from 1985 to 2008. Mr. Lee has been a champion of democracy in Hong 

Kong for four decades, insisting that the territory’s freedoms, human rights, and the 

rule of law must be underpinned by democratic institutions if the territory is to continue to prosper as part of China. He has not been allowed to visit Mainland China 

since the Tiananmen Massacre on 4 June 1989. The European People’s Party and 

European Democrats in the European Parliament named Mr. Lee the first non-European recipient of the Schuman Medal in 2000. In 1997, the National Endowment 

for Democracy presented Mr. Lee its annual Democracy leadership Award. In 1996, 

Liberal International awarded Mr. Lee the Prize for Freedom. 

Joshua Wong, ‘‘Umbrella Movement’’ Leader and Secretary-General, 

Demosisto ̄

Joshua Wong is the secretary-general of Demosisto ̄, a new political party he cofounded in Hong Kong. He came to world attention as the 14-year old convener of 

the student group Scholarism, a student-led movement opposing the Chinese government’s efforts to interfere in school curriculums through the government’s 

planned ‘‘patriotic education’’ policy. Against long odds, Scholarism succeeded in getting the government to withdraw its pernicious plan, a story shown in the new 

award-winning documentary film, ‘‘Joshua: Teenager vs Superpower.’’ Joshua Wong 

joined other youth and civic leaders in Hong Kong as a core student organizer of 

the 2014 Umbrella Movement, pressing the government to honor longstanding 

promises of democratic elections. Joshua Wong was nominated for TIME’s 2014 Person of the Year, named one of the 25 Most Influential Teens by TIME, one of the 

World’s 50 Greatest Leaders by Fortune, and one of the 100 Leading Global Thinkers by Foreign Policy. 

Lam Wing Kee, Founder, Causeway Bay Books, one of five forcibly disappeared Hong Kong booksellers 

Lam Wing Kee is one of five booksellers who were forcibly disappeared in 2015 

and later paraded on Chinese television. Mr. Lam founded Causeway Bay Books in 

1994 and sold it to Mighty Current publishing house in 2014. On October 24, 2015, 

he entered China and was detained. After almost eight months, on June 14, 2016, 

he was released back to Hong Kong with instructions to contact Hong Kong police 

to drop his missing person case, retrieve evidence for Chinese authorities, and reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Dec 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 U:\DOCS\26340 DIEDRE
52 

turn to China to be under residential surveillance. Instead, on June 16, he decided 

to go public about his ordeal. 

Ellen Bork, writer 

Ellen Bork writes frequently about democracy and human rights as a priority in 

American foreign policy. She worked for the U.S. Department of State in the mid1980s. In the late 1990s, she served on Capitol Hill as a legislative assistant to Senator Connie Mack and as the senior professional staff member for East Asia and 

the Pacific on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Chairman Jesse 

Helms. She has worked most recently at the Foreign Policy Initiative and at Freedom House. She is writing a book about America’s strategic interest in Tibet. She 

contributed the article ‘‘The Rise of Taiwan,’’ about Taiwan’s democratic civic identity and the challenge it poses to the ‘‘one China’’ policy, to ‘‘The Rise of China’’ 

(Gary Schmitt editor, Encounter Books, 2009). Her articles have been published the 

Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, World Affairs Journal, and other publications. Her article ‘‘Let One Hundred Flowers Be Crushed,’’ 

about visiting dissidents in China, appeared in the Weekly Standard (December 31, 

2007). She has testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Ms. Bork graduated from Yale University and Georgetown University Law Center. 

Æ