Preposterous: Martin Lee Wants Hong Kong to Explain Itself to US

Just what is there for Hong Kong to explain when it followed its laws and procedures in the Snowden affair? More tellingly, however, the U.S. could never claim the moral high ground in this ordeal, since it was illegally hacking into the territory’s computer systems. America is, in fact, the one who needs to come clean and apologize. Yet Martin Lee, himself a holder of the Hong Kong Identity Card, thinks the territory owes the U.S. an explanation. Can this the kind of stuff credibly come from a Hong Kong person’s mouth? What ineffable nonsense.

And where were Audrey Eu, Anson Chan, Martin Lee and Cardinal Joseph Zen from the opposition last week, when this column criticized the U.S. for hacking into Hong Kong’s computer systems? Their absence speaks to their double standards on human rights and freedom while they cower in the face of American abuse. Yet Mr. Lee and others stayed mum and recused themselves from answering the many doubts of popular opinion. It was only after Snowden left that, having waited out the whole affair, Martin Lee wasted no time firing back in newspaper editorials, claiming he was indeed interviewed, though only by foreign media. Mr. Lee wrote that he was interviewed by a number of foreign media outlets about the Snowden affair. Among items discussed were legal procedures involved should America request Snowden’s extradition; he added his belief that the courts would act according to law. But Mr. Martin Lee’s so-called “act according to law” merely means sending Snowden back to the U.S. for trial. This not only reflects Lee’s actual stance on the issue, but also collectively debases all arguments against extradition as though they asked for [America’s displeasure] themselves. Small wonder that Martin Lee only accepts interviews by foreign media; he has long been a mouthpiece for the United States.

Martin Lee Goes to Great Lengths to Serve Master America

Snowden’s departure from Hong Kong greatly infuriated the U.S.; naturally, being America’s spokesman, Martin Lee was once again a pawn for that country. When interviewed by an Internet radio station about political reform, Mr. Lee unilaterally turned the topic to Snowden. He criticized the “dimwitted” decision by Hong Kong’s government to release him and fretted how the territory could deal with the American government henceforth. Martin Lee said that, while the Americans treated Snowden’s case seriously, Hong Kong didn’t even bother to return any of their calls. The way in which Hong Kong handled this case is a casus belli for future retribution from the U.S. and other countries. Mr. Lee also pointed out that, according to the territory’s extradition treaty with America, Hong Kong should first bring a case against Snowden and decide whether to release him after coming to a verdict. Martin Lee’s absurd statement turns a blind eye to reality and goes against the spirit of the law. At the same time, he also resembles a White House spokesman indiscriminately threatening Hong Kong citizens. Mr. Lee demands that the local government admit to and amend for its guilt, thereby putting his inferiority complex on full display. This clearly shows that, for a long time, Mr. Martin Lee has only been a loyal servant to his master America, and dutifully complies with whatever the U.S. commands him to do.

Like a parrot, Martin Lee speaks about the United States’ displeasure in Snowden’s release again and again. But Hong Kong’s Secretary of Justice Rimsky Yuen already explained the events in detail, that the American government’s work was “sloppy” and they even had Snowden’s name spelled wrong amid incomplete documentation submitted. Snowden, who later asked for political asylum from Ecuador, left Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while the local government had yet to receive additional information from the U.S. At no point during the sequence of events did Hong Kong intentionally let Snowden go. Instead, since the U.S. did not get its documents ready, Hong Kong could not, as Martin Lee prescribed, arrest first and ask for documents later. The territory must follow procedures sanctioned by the rule of law. That Snowden left Hong Kong was solely of his own planning and execution, with help from Assange. What role could Hong Kong’s government have had? Martin Lee, Albert Ho and others from their gang falsely accuse the local government of intentionally letting Snowden leave so the U.S. could have an excuse to pressure Hong Kong. Any ulterior motives here?

The U.S. is certainly not amused in failing to have Snowden extradited, but Martin Lee proves to be more flustered and exasperated than his American master. He points out that the U.S. government is deeply concerned about the incident and that Hong Kong must come clean to the U.S. But such a statement is comical at best as the local government was steadfast in observing all its laws and procedures when handling the case; it is only reasonable that authorities act only after receiving all supporting documents. Is there anything wrong with that? Furthermore, Martin Lee should not mix up the cause and effect of this incident, for America never acted in good faith in the first place. By issuing an arrest warrant for Snowden, the U.S. implicitly admits to the veracity of everything revealed by him, that it has long been illegally hacking into Hong Kong and other jurisdictions’ computer systems. Instead of explaining itself and apologizing, however, the U.S. turned the heat up on Hong Kong, making clear that [this episode] would damage Sino-U.S. and Hong Kong-U.S. relations and hinting at repercussions. Such a hegemonic display of “thief crying thief” should be condemned. The spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hua Chunying, advised to certain U.S. officials that they should mend their own fences first before tending to their neighbor’s.

Playing Jackal to Tiger in Tandem with U.S. Intimidation of Hong Kong

Yet, with regards to the interests of Hong Kong’s 7 million people, Martin Lee plays jackal to the tiger and intimidates Hong Kongers in tandem with America. He stated that if the local government did not explain its actions, the U.S. and even other countries may take revenge on Hong Kong at any time. Coincidentally, the U.S. State Department spokesperson also said yesterday that Hong Kong’s decision to let Snowden go will be factored into its qualification for the visa-free access program. It seems that both master and servant repeat the same lines ad nauseam to show Hong Kong that it cannot go against America’s dictates. But what’s wrong with Hong Kong following its laws in handling Snowden’s case? What makes Hong Kong citizens deserve U.S. punishment? Absolutely nothing. Yet notwithstanding American violation of Hong Kong citizens’ rights and privacy, Martin Lee conversely wants the territory to apologize. Is this fair? From the Chinese embassy’s bombing by NATO in Yugoslavia, to demanding American pressure on China over the Beijing Olympics, to the Snowden affair now, Martin Lee treads America’s line diligently. This speaks volumes about Martin Lee’s undivided loyalty to America and his concern for U.S. interests above all else. If America were to exact revenge on Hong Kong, no doubt Martin Lee would be the first one to cheer it on.

The Snowden affair gave us some insight into a conspiracy. Unusual behavior from Martin Lee, Albert Ho, Audrey Eu, Anson Chan, Cardinal Joseph Zen and Jimmy Lai makes it clear that Hong Kong is harboring such a group of American agents. They brandish the slogan of so-called “democracy” when all is calm and peaceful while pretending to fight for the rights of local citizens. But whenever something involves America, these people immediately change their rhetoric. There are among them those who keep a low profile, who side with the bully, who are deliberately ambiguous and who secretly sell out. Can these people stand up for Hong Kong if they are forever aligned with promoting the American agenda? Can we seriously trust these people to run the show in Hong Kong?