Letter to home secretary

Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP Home Secretary Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SWIP 4DF 17th October 2016 Mr. Andrew Kwan-yuen Leung’s application to renounce British citizenship

Dear Home Secretary, I, Eddie Hoi-dick Chu, am a newly elected member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council (HK LegCo).

I am writing to you to urgently inquire and discuss an incident that may have involved dereliction of duty by officer(s) from the UK Home Office potentially under Chinese influence, which is of great concern to the people of Hong Kong – the application of renunciation of his British citizenship by Mr. Andrew Kwan-yuen Leung, who has been hand-picked by Beijing to run for the Presidency of the HK LegCo. This incident casts doubts over the autonomy of the Hong Kong legislature and the UK’s commitment to the “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” principle in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. As this is a matter of public interest in both the UK and Hong Kong, I urge that you provide the much sought after information and further clarifications as laid out below.

The following is a list of relevant facts in chorological order: 1)

Article 71 of the Basic Law of HKSAR states that: “(t)he President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a Chinese citizen of not less than 40 years of age, who is a permanent resident of the Region with no right of abode in any foreign country and has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 20 years.”

This is also a requirement stated in Section 2 of Article 4 within the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council.

2)

The intention of Mr. Andrew Kwan-yuen Leung, a British citizen until this month and a constituency member of the HK LegCo, to run for the HK LegCo Presidency has long been known.

3)

The Chief Executive of Hong Kong SAR specified that on 12th October 2016, the first meeting of the LegCo would be held, where the election of the LegCo Presidency would also take place.

The Sectary General of LegCo thus announced, per the Rules of Procedure, that the nomination period of the Presidency would be from 27th September to the midnight of 5th October 2016.

4)

There has been a long running albeit unconfirmed rumour that Mr. Andrew Leung had a foreign passport. On 3rd October, Mr. Leung informed the press that he had had the right of abode in the UK but has already renounced his British citizenship. On the same day, he submitted his application form to the LegCo Secretariat to run for the Presidency.

5)

On 5th October I emailed your honour the Home Secretary, the UK Home Office, as well as the British Consulate-General in Hong Kong, enquiring about the progress of Mr. Leung’s citizenship renunciation, but have unfortunately never received any response from any of the parties contacted. When the nomination closed on mid-night of 5th October, Mr. Leung was the only President nominee from the Pro-Beijing camp; he was contested by Mr. James Kun-sun To from the pan-democratic camp.

6)

In the morning of 11th October, at a special forum for Presidential candidates to present their platform and answer questions from fellow council members the day prior to the Presidency election, Mr. Andrew Leung was unable to provide any proof of his British citizenship renunciation, nor any response regarding this matter.

7)

On the night of 11th October, Mr. Leung announced that he would have two documents ready for members of LegCo to inspect by 9a.m. the next day, which should sufficiently prove the renunciation of his British citizenship.

8)

At 9a.m. on 12th October, I have noticed that both of the documents provided by Mr. Leung were letters from the UK Visas and Immigration Department.

9)

One of the letters provided by Mr. Leung, dated 30th September 2016, has had the undersigned person’s name and position anonymised. This letter mentioned that with it “(e)nclosed is the Declaration of renunciation bearing a stamp of registration”. However there was no mention of the declaration’s registration date; nor did Mr. Leung provide this alleged enclosure. When these questions were raised by reporters in the afternoon of 12th October, Mr. Leung indicated that the letter did not come with the aforementioned enclosure (see Attachment 1).

10) The second letter, dated 11th October, 2016, undersigned by a Mrs. C. S. Hughes (Deputy Chief Caseworker, Nationality), mentioned that Mr. Leung has successfully renounced his British citizenship on 30th September 2016, and that the Declaration of renunciation had been posted to Mr. Leung on 6th October, expected to reach him by post within five to seven working days (see Attachment 2).

11) The first LegCo meeting was conducted on 12th October amid disputes over this controversy. At around 4p.m. that day, Mr. Leung indicated that he had received the official document of his Declaration of renunciation, which he then showed to the press. The second page of that document was stamped, but there were a myriad of irregularities (including but not limited to its positioning), and there was no signature accompanying the stamp (see Attachments 3 and 4).

12) Soon after Mr. Leung’s announcement, the then-Chairperson of the Presidency election, Mr. Yiuchung Leung of the pan-democratic camp, suddenly withdrew from the chair. Pro-Beijing legislator Mr. Abraham Lai-him Shek then assumed the chair due to his tenure. The pro-Beijing members of LegCo summoned security guards, changed the voting venue, and conducted a shotgun vote soon afterwards to block the protest of pan-democratic LegCo members. The pandemocrats considered this vote unconstitutional (due to reasons including but not limited to the eligibility of Mr. Andrew Leung’s nomination), and boycotted the election. Mr. Leung as such had a landslide victory and was declared the new President of LegCo. In light of the above matters of public interest in the UK, and to address the concerns of Hong Kong citizens, I seek your kind provision of the following information: A.

We have suspicions over the identity of the undersigned officer for the letter dated 30th September, whose identity has been anonymised. Why was it necessary to disguise their identity if the officer was an ordinary member of staff, as demonstrated by the letter dated 11th October and signed by Mrs. C. S. Hughes? Was there a dereliction of duty by the officer issuing the first letter, and if so, would this matter and their identity not be within the scope of the UK public’s right to know?

B.

The letter issued on 30th September mentioned an enclosure of ‘Declaration of Renunciation’ and its being a “stamp of registration” from the Home Office; however this document was never disclosed by Mr. Andrew Leung. Can the Home Office confirm whether such documentation exists?

C.

If the abovementioned documentation exists, what is the reason for creating an alternate version (dispatched on 6th October based on the letter issued on 11th October)? What is the registration date of this document? Did it happen before or after 30th September?

D.

Is the letter issued on 30th September sent electronically, or as a hard copy via post? If it is the latter, when was Mr. Leung expected to have received the letter?

E.

Is Mrs. C.S. Hughes, who issued the letter dated 11th October, aware of the details of the whole matter? Why has the letter undersigned by her not mentioned any details of previous correspondences, in particular the letter dated 30th September?

F.

Had Mrs. C. S. Hughes been in contact with any officials of the People’s Republic of China (including officials from the Hong Kong Liaison Office)? Did she or her supervisors bend the rules or expedite Mr. Leung’s renunciation process at all, to ensure that Mr. Leung, the candidate appointed by Beijing, could become the President of HK LegCo?

G.

Must the position of the Home Office Stamp and the steel press not overlap with the position of the signature on a valid Declaration of renunciation? Why were the Home Office Stamp and the steel press not overlapping with the signature on the Declaration of renunciation dated 12th October shown by Mr. Leung (see Attachment 4)? Should the document be stamped and signed by the same person? Should no one be responsible for the steel press and the stamp on Mr. Leung’s Declaration of renunciation, is the document still valid?

H.

Was the Declaration of renunciation dated 12th October shown by Mr. Andrew Leung sent to him on 6th October?

I.

Has the Home Office issued two separate Declarations of renunciation to Mr. Leung? If so, what is the legal status of each document? If not, how should the content of the letter dated 30th September be accounted for?

J.

There are ample publicised communications from the Home Office indicating that the expected time frame of the renunciation process lasts from a few weeks to a few months. An example dated from 2015 being: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/regarding_renouncing_my_british “You should receive an acknowledgment letter between four to six weeks after we received your application. During busy periods this may even take seven weeks. If you have not received such a letter, please contact us for a duplicate acknowledgment letter.”

We understand that the UK government has, in its sovereignty power, the right to process or expedite renunciation applications based on specific circumstances, but the approval speed in Mr. Leung’s case is beyond extraordinary. By making an exception for an originally illegitimate candidate such that he could contest for LegCo Presidency, the UK government has in effect got itself involved in the Presidential election of HK LegCo. I demand clarification from your honour the Home Secretary, on whether, during the process of Mr. Leung’s renunciation application, your honour or the Home Office (including the UK Visas and Immigration Department) were in contact with Chinese officials (including the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong)? Is such extraordinary expedition, carried out to ensure LegCo Presidency for a pro-Beijing candidate, not in conflict with Section 3, Article 3 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which states that “(t)he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication”?

Following on from the above, we believe that the British Government/Home Office may have made the following mistakes:

1)

The letter issued by the Visas and Immigration Department to Mr. Leung on the 30th Sept indicated that there was an attachment to the letter. The Home Office may have first issued a Declaration of Renunciation for Mr. Leung, but then re-issued another Declaration of Renunciation without cancelling and destroying the first version. (If the original 30th Sept letter has no attachment at all, then it either reflects the chaotic practice of the Home Office, or that Mr. Leung has somehow been able to obtain documents from the Home Office that were never meant to be released)

2)

Because of the tremendous pressure faced by Mr. Leung from the Hong Kong people on 11th Oct, UK Home Office went beyond the scope of special consideration and sent out a letter which was completely tailor-made for Mr. Leung. In the letter, Home Office mentioned the registration date for the Declaration of Renunciation specifically, because Mr. Leung had made such request, worrying that he might not have received the Declaration of Renunciation before the LegCo Presidential election.

3)

For reasons unknown, the Home Office DID NOT SIGN on the stamp and pressed seal on the Declaration of Renunciation arrived on Oct 12th, leading to speculations that the document itself was a copy. The lack of the signature resulted in an unofficial, incomplete and strange document.

Our conclusion is that the Conservative government has been extremely efficient and take utterly extraordinary practice to ensure that Mr. Leung would be able to meet the election deadline for his renunciation. In short, the Conservative government has helped in putting a puppet for Beijing on the Presidential seat of the HK Legislative Council.

The Conservative government has shown its eagerness to please the PRC during this saga, or at the very least, they had been careful to avoid offending or angering the PRC. The attitude shown in this case is so different to the self-assured image set by PM Theresa May's recent scheduling to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. It appears as though Theresa May, of all people, has inherited David Cameron’s style of habitual kowtowing to Beijing.

The Conservative government’s flattery to Beijing, as well as the unfathomable mess by their civil servants in response to Andrew Leung's unduly reckless request may nevertheless embarrass UK people. The discretionary power exercised by the UK Government has been arbitrary, inconsistent and violated standard practices. These acts must be an embarrassment for the British people. While the British government’s forceful escorting of a Beijing assigned candidate, against concerns of legitimacy, to the throne of Chairmanship at the Hong Kong Legislative Council, is surely disappointing to the Hong Kong people.

We hope that the Home Secretary would appreciate that due to the history between UK and Hong Kong, there is a deep connection between their people, and the people of Hong Kong are hoping that UK will maintain a more neutral, fairer and be more open about its process, in matters and decisions relating to Hong Kong.

We are looking forward to your respond, providing us with key information to help the people of Hong Kong to understand the mystery surrounding Mr. Leung circumstance, and the current escalating constitutional crisis for the HK Legislative Council.

Yours faithfully, Eddie Hoi-dick Chu

th

th

Attachment 1ďźšLetter from Home Office dated 30 Sep 16, provided by Andrew Leung on 12 Oct 16

th

th

Attachment 2 : Letter from Home Office dated 11 Oct 16, provided by Andrew Leung on 12 O

ct 16

th

Attachment 3ďźšDoR provided by Andrew Leung on 12 Oct 16

Attachment 4: DoR sample provided by Hong Kong citizen