My Take | Patten can speak out but reform is up to Hong Kong

Like many Hong Kong people, I am fond of "Fat Pang", our last governor. So unlike Beijing loyalists and others who are firmly in the pro-establishment and government camps, I am not ready to dismiss out of hand the many home truths that Chris Patten told a US commission last week - as well as statements he recently made to British lawmakers - about our city.

But on the other hand, he also takes a completely "pan-democratic" stance and makes some disingenuous statements difficult to square with realities on the ground here.

Who can argue with him when he said officials had failed to show "statesmanship"? It would be unfair to blame every major problem Hong Kong now faces on Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, but he has shown a singular lack of leadership and complete inability to communicate with the public. His weaknesses have been especially exposed by the Occupy movement, our worst political crisis since the handover. Unfortunately, you can say the same about pan-democratic leaders in the legislature who have completely failed to rise to the occasion and gain political capital out of the protests. In fact, they appear even more clueless and obstructive than before.

Patten also faulted officials for failing to engage student leaders. But the students are unwilling to compromise and the government is unable to move forward without Beijing's sanction. Any further talks would have been futile other than as a show of good will. Patten is right that Britain has obligations towards Hong Kong - honour bound as he puts it - under the Joint Declaration. But which obligations need to be honoured here? He is too seasoned and professional a politician to say Beijing has breached the joint treaty, yet he has certainly created that impression.

The alleged breach or breaches are taken as axiomatic without the need for proof in pan-democratic circles. This is a large topic that warrants a separate column. Suffice to say it would be very difficult and unrealistic for Britain to take action against China for alleged breaches even if it were so inclined. The real battle is over interpreting the Basic Law for political reform, but that is really a domestic matter in which Britain, or any other country, has no part.