Chris Patten, the last colonial governor of Hong Kong prior to the handover, never fails to create controversy every time the SAR is set to take an important step forward. After the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) reached a decision on implementing universal suffrage in the 2017 Chief Executive (CE) election in the Hong Kong SAR, as expected, Patten published an article in the Financial Times (FT). In it he accused the NPCSC of breaching the Sino-British Joint Declaration with the resolution on Hong Kong's constitutional reform.

In the article, Patten tells one falsehood after another to demonize the Chinese government, accusing the NPCSC resolution of causing the recent political turbulence in Hong Kong. He argues it will prevent "pan-democrats" and others - who do not agree with Beijing - from running for CE office by popular vote. Patten also claims recent mass protests were not triggered by a desire for democracy - but by the rejection of democracy.

The first lie Patten told was that universal suffrage for Hong Kong was the result of the British government's insistence upon it in the joint declaration. The second was that recent mass protests were triggered by Beijing's "rejection of democracy"; and the third is that the NPCSC resolution caused the current political turbulence in Hong Kong. The truth is the Sino-British Joint Declaration contains no mention of universal suffrage for Hong Kong. Nor did the British colonial administration ever promise the city universal suffrage. This was in the Basic Law thanks only to the National People's Congress.

The last governor's lies were immediately debunked by many in Hong Kong. Former Legislative Council (LegCo) President Rita Fan suspects Patten has never read the joint declaration. LegCo member Ma Fung-kwok noted Patten never intended to ensure the steady transition of Hong Kong's administration as the joint declaration dictated when he came to the city as the last colonial governor. Patten, instead, breached the joint declaration by unilaterally introducing highly controversial legislative reforms in the early 1990s.

The second lie the former Conservative politician told is further proof of his dishonesty. Patten did not bother backing his claims with facts when he accused the NPCSC decision of being responsible for triggering recent mass protests in Hong Kong. The fact is these "mass protests" were organized by the opposition camp with the encouragement and help of foreign anti-China forces (of whom Patten is a tactless spokesman). They aim to derail Hong Kong's constitutional development toward universal suffrage.

Patten will tell as many lies as he wants to justify his meddling in Hong Kong affairs and by supporting opposition attempts to blackmail the central government with mass protests. Countless press reports show "Occupy Central" was initiated last year. It had at least one scaled-down "rehearsal" in addition to several much-hyped protests before the NPCSC decision was announced late last month. Despite this, Patten insists in his FT article that these protests were triggered by the NPCSC resolution.

Patten apparently assumes people will believe whatever he says without checking the facts. The truth is there has been overwhelming public rejection of "Occupy" in Hong Kong - which was already well established in July. This was in response to opposition threats to paralyze Hong Kong's financial business hub with the illegal movement. It prompted the anti-"Occupy" petition which was signed by more than 1.5 million Hong Kong residents and included a march from Victoria Park to Central by about 200,000 supporters of universal suffrage. The NPCSC decision served as further affirmation of what the vast majority of Hong Kong society wants from constitutional reform. As a result, the opposition has actually changed tactics, by inciting college students to boycott classes later this month instead of launching the "Occupy" campaign immediately.

Let's see what Patten did as the last governor of Hong Kong before the 1997 handover. In his first policy address, the London-appointed governor introduced legislative reforms in total disregard of the joint declaration. The joint declaration had pledged support by both sides to maintain the political status quo for the sake of a steady transition of Hong Kong's government. Patten's measures, despite their fancy democratic label, turned Hong Kong's political situation on its head. They split society to the detriment of the "through-train" arrangement hoped for by those in LegCo. The political bickering triggered by his "democratic reforms" also led to widespread panic on the stock market. It gave overseas speculators the perfect opportunity to steal huge amounts of wealth from local investors and from the government's reserves.

Also, thanks to his government, a strategic plan for waste disposal originally scheduled for completion in April 1997, was only started that year after wasting HK$8.3 billion. The project became such a money burner the inaugural SAR government had to suspend it in October 1999. A HK$6.8 billion sewage treatment fund set up in 1994 lost nearly HK$5 billion in two years and forced the government to end its run on March 31, 1998. Waste treatment operations have been subsidized by the government ever since.

Patten probably thinks people will believe whatever he says about Hong Kong. But this time even his most loyal followers (such as former chief secretary Anson Chan) chose not to support his lies - not that they stood any chance of success if they tried. As a matter of fact, he is so unpopular in the United Kingdom even the current British government does not care to support him.

The author is a veteran journalist based in Hong Kong.

(HK Edition 09/12/2014 page10)