Having been refused permission to undertake their so-called inquiry into the United Kingdom's relationship with Hong Kong, the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) of the British parliament instead invited members of a group of protesters to testify before the committee on Dec 16. The committee's intention to meddle in China's internal affairs is patently obvious and the taking of evidence from protesters is definitely a sign of desperation. I do wonder if clutching this last straw will help the committee to redeem its conceivable failure.

These protesters, according to the FAC, are university students who have been demonstrating outside the British consulate-general in Hong Kong since November. A number of questions immediately emerged - why would they demonstrate outside the British consulate-general in the first place? Were they trying to seek help from the British government to intervene on their behalf in Hong Kong's ongoing consultation on constitutional reform? What could FAC members gain from the evidence of these two students?

One thing is for sure, the committee will definitely claim it has further information to support the conclusions of the inquiry. Could it be that the people of Hong Kong still appear to them as if the good old "colonial" administration never ended? Will they manage to prove that under the current administration, there has been an erosion of autonomy, freedom of speech, assembly and association in Hong Kong?

That's strange. Ask yourself these questions: Which other city in the world would allow illegal occupation of its major thoroughfares for over 70 days? Which other police force in the world would enforce the clearance with such professionalism and courtesy? New York? London? Ferguson, Missouri? I don't think so.

For the record, the freedom to exercise the right to free speech, assembly and association is still very much alive and kicking in Hong Kong.

Let me remind the honorable members of the Committee that its remit is to examine and I quote "the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)". Indeed if they have doubts about the contents of the foreign secretary's six-monthly report to the parliament on Hong Kong, all they need to do is to ask the foreign secretary to give an account of his observations or perhaps ask the British consul-general to give hers as well. They are responsible officials, not the two non-representative protesters.

I have yet to read the minutes of the evidence from these two protesters but I would imagine the members of the parliament will have echoes of meaningless slogans such as "we want real suffrage", "we want the withdrawal of the 831 decision" or "we want the resignation of the CE" ringing in their ears afterwards. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Instead of making its inquiry credible and adhering to its remit, I think the FAC has put its finger on the self-destruct button. It is evident that millions of citizens have been inconvenienced by the illegal occupation for over two months. It has also been proved that the Hong Kong Police Force has sufficient evidence about the illegality of the whole movement, including all the "weapons" they confiscated during raids and in the course of removing dangerous barricades while upholding the rule of law. Will the committee take all these tangible facts into consideration?

If the committee continues to rely on the flimsy evidence of Lord Patten, Anson Chan, Martin Lee - and now these two protesters, their inquiries will no doubt be a total waste of time. It will not add anything in their quest to monitor the UK's foreign policy responsibilities.

Of course asking the wrong people to provide evidence to assist their deliberation is nothing new to the FAC. In July this year, the committee invited Anson Chan and Martin Lee to do just that. The committee chairman did state in his opening remarks that the intention of the committee was to "look at the British government's policy toward Hong Kong". I do not know what qualifies these two people to comment on British government policy toward Hong Kong. Are they still on the payroll of the British government?

Then in early December it was Chris Patten's turn. It was laughable when he compared the Nomination Committee of 1,200 people (which will be consulted upon during the second round consultation) to the 12-member Guardian Council of Iran (whose job is to approve candidates qualified to run in its presidential election). He demonstrated his determination to undermine the introduction of universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

As far as Anson Chan was concerned, she claimed in her opening statement that the "insidious erosion of basic freedoms, in particular the freedom of the press, was by the withdrawal of advertising from independent news media". She could hardly wait and the cat was out the bag right away. Her paymasters must be proud of her.

Martin Lee, on the other hand, approved of judges in Britain and the United States swearing their allegiance to the sovereign and the constitution in his evidence to the committee, but felt it was inappropriate for judges in Hong Kong to pledge their loyalties to China, the state which holds Sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Double standards or speaking with a forked tongue? I'll leave it to you to judge.

The author is director of the Chinese in Britain Forum. He was the first-ever Chinese British citizen to be elected mayor of the Greater London Borough of Redbridge (2009-10) and served as a member of the city council for over 10 years.

(HK Edition 12/19/2014 page7)