In December 2018, just last month, I paid a visit to Washington DC. I was invited by US Congressman Robert Pittenger to attend the Parliamentary Intelligence Security Forum whish was chaired by him. It was my pleasure meeting Congressmen, representatives from US business sectors and acclaimed experts who have deep exposure and expertise on countering terrorism financing and money laundering. Knowledge exchanged at the forum is certainly conducive to my work at Legco coping with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing.
 
I was given an opportunity to express Hong Kong’s eagerness in meeting international standards in this regard. For instance, a bill was duly passed in 2017 banning people from traveling to other jurisdictions for the purpose of receiving training on terrorism. This is something in line with international practice. I asserted that Hong Kong has long been committed to meeting international practice and standards for crackdown on terrorism and money laundering. Many keynote speakers nodded their heads upon hearing my views, and they were delighted to hear Hong Kong’s commitment to cope with international standards. Hong Kong is always an international city, the need to meet international standards runs deep in the city. The US representatives are well aware of that.
 
In the meantime, I had a chance to discuss with some business representatives from US, about Hong Kong’s latest development. Their companies have investments in Hong Kong. I asked them whether their confidence in Hong Kong would be shaken by rumours to the effect that our one country two systems was doomed to fail as wrongfully accused by the opposition camp in Hong Kong. They categorically denied any loss of confidence in Hong Kong, and they even went on to say that their investments in Hong Kong will remain unchanged. Over the years, we indeed saw growing foreign investments in Hong Kong. Actions speak louder than words, I think this is valid proof to dismiss opposition’s unfair and untrue accusations to Hong Kong. If their allegations were true, foreign companies would have moved away from Hong Kong with their money.
 
During my visit this time, I also met with the officials from Department of State too. I did raise public concerns over the recent report released by the US-China Economic and Securities Review Commission (the “USCC report”) suggesting that Hong Kong’s unique custom status should be changed. In responding to my question, the Department of State clearly explained to me that the USCC report was by no means official report released by the Department of State. Indeed I didn’t hear any statement made by the Department of state that they would change our special custom status. It was rather mutual understanding between us that Hong Kong-US trade relationship is of crucial importance to both of us, and Hong Kong, under one country two systems, our unique custom status is mutually beneficial to US and Hong Kong.
 
US direct investments to Hong Kong in 2017, just one single year, amounted to over USD 80 billion. There are roughly 1300 US companies in Hong Kong, with around half of them put Hong Kong as their regional headquarters. That is enough to explain how deep is our trade relationship with US. And the response from Department of State is more than enough to address people’s concern, so the opposition camp ought not to carry on with their scaremongering tactics.  
 
Subsequent to my visit to the US, US consul general in Hong Kong, Mr. Kurt Tong, wrote an article on local newspaper, reiterated the importance of Hong Kong-US trade relationship. I see eye to eye with Mr. Tong on the fact that trade co-operation between Hong Kong and US shall be maintained.
 
During my meeting with officials from Department of State, they did raise concerns over the incidents of Legco candidates being disqualified, the banning of Hong Kong national party and Mr. Victor Mallet’s incident. I explained to them the legal rationale behind actions taken by the government, and advocating Hong Kong independence or harming territorial integrity of China was against the basic law and one country two systems principle. It is all done strict in accordance with the law, nothing to do with political censorship. They responded that they would continue to pay attention to the human rights and freedom protection in Hong Kong.
 
Nobody would expect a paradigm shift straight after a single conversation, but fair enough that at least communications between two sides is always good thing to see. Agree to disagree, this is something vital in politics.
 
The US has enormous economic interests in Hong Kong, I look forward to stronger ties on trade and business between Hong Kong and US going forward, which is win-win to both of us.
 
Last but not least, I wish everyone a happy and prosperous new year ahead.