this is bbc news. the headlines: all the leading contenders for the american democratic party's presidential nomination are debating together for the first time. there were impassioned exchanges about healthca re, with former vice presidentjoe biden defended his version of president obama's healthcare plan against more radical and costly proposals put forward by his main rivals. britain's prime minister has denied lying to queen elizabeth about his reasons for suspending parliament. boris johnson was speaking after scotland's highest civil court ruled that the shutdown was unlawful because it was intended to hinder parliamentary debate. that verdict will be reviewed by the uk supreme court next week. doctors in syria have told the bbc that hospitals in rebel—held areas of idlib province are being deliberately targeted with air strikes by syrian government and russian forces. united nations investigators have said required precautions were ignored and war crimes may

have been committed. now on bbc news, hardtalk. stephen sackur talks to former chief secretary of hong kong anson chan. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. in hong kong, extraordinary events have become the norm in the last three months. the territory has become a cockpit of political protest and sporadic violence as many thousands of hong kongers continue to demand democratic reform. my guest is close to the centre of the storm. anson chan was the chief secretary of hong kong during the handover from british to chinese rule. beijing now accuses her of fomenting the protests. is hong kong's fragile status quo

irretrievably broken? anson chan, in hong kong, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. in your city, we have seen three months now of street demonstrations and protests. they have become increasingly violent. is your heart and your head still with the protest movement? yes, very much so. i think it is a pity that there is escalating violence, both on the part of the protesters, although involving a very small

number of people, but also on the part of the police. the police are increasingly brutal and unrestrained in exercise of their powers. but i'm very much behind the underlying causes of this movement. it is about hong kong's fight to defend basic freedoms, civil liberties and to demand political prime participation through fair and open elections on the basis of one man, one vote. all of which promised in thejoint declaration and hong kong's basic law, the basic law which is our mini constitution. you've just defined the protest movement's objectives in very broad terms, but it seems to me if i remember back tojune of this year, there was one very clear motivation and demand for the demonstrators, and that was to get the extradition bill that appeared to be about to be passed and which would have allowed, of course, criminals in hong kong, suspects, to the chinese

mainland for trial. the main objective was to get that quashed, and now the chief executive of hong kong, carrie lam, has withdrawn the bill. so why are people still on the streets? well, first of all, carrie lam has only accede after three months of continuing protest to one of the five public demands. you have to look at the underlying concern behind the people's objection to the extradition bill. the extradition bill removes the firewall between the legal system in hong kong under the rule of law and the legal system as it exists in the mainland. people felt that they were no longer even safe in their own beds because you could be extradited across the border, face unfair trials, no legal representation, trumped up charges and made to confess to crimes you did not commit.

understood, madame chan, but the good news is it's gone. this is a victory for you but you don't seem to be prepared to take victory for what it really is. that's why people are finding it hard to understand having one this victory you can't enter a dialogue and take your people off the streets. for a very simple reason. first of all, this withdrawal has come very late in the, after three months of protest. the public sentiment has moved from the extradition bill to an even more serious matter, and that is an enquiry, an independent enquiry by a reputablejudge into the root causes of this political crisis, unprecedented in hong kong's history since the handover, particularly at the excessive use of force by the police. the government insists on entrusting this task

through the independent police complaints council that is heavily loaded in favour of pro—beijing members. it can only investigate police complaints and not the root causes of this current trouble, much less look into, for example, even the protesters‘ increasing violence. there are accusations of foreign interference. well, an independent commission would look into that too. listen to me... besides that... let mejust finish, let mejust finish. there are two other demands. it may be difficult for the government to succeed. people are agitating for political participation, universal suffrage, something again that is enshrined in the basic law, our mini constitution. itjust seems to me, and you, after all, are a very experienced

administrator and may i say you have a reputation for being something of a pragmatist, but it seems to me the hong kong demonstrators and protesters at large have moved from one very practical and specific objective to a mentality of all—out confrontation. you've just listed things there, including the push for universal suffrage, that you know that beijing has no intention of compromising on. is it now your mentality that you're just going to go for an all—out confrontation? well, if you look at the way this protest movement has developed, it is not true. it is simply not true and not borne out by facts that we've moved our goalposts. the quest for an independent of enquiry has been there almost from the start. the universal suffrage thing off and on has been one of the public demands, but this protest movement has reinforced in hong kong people's minds that until and unless they have the right

to elect their own leaders, and with the dysfunctional legislative council, where the pro—beijing parties are in the majority, people have no choice other than to take to the streets to make their voices heard. this is what the movement is all about. i understand your objectives, but i am, in a sense, talking about the strategy of defiance. now, in 2014, we saw people on the streets, many of them students, young people, with their colourful umbrellas and in the end they kept the demonstrations going for a while. there was some sort of a dialogue, which seemed pretty unsatisfactory, but ultimately they went home and got on with their daily lives. this time the mentality seems entirely different. people aren't just carrying umbrellas, they are throwing molotov cocktails at times, hurling rocks at police. they appear intent on confrontation.

there is a very different mindset. i don't agree with your description that this is a movement of protest and confrontation. why is it protest and confrontation when all the protesters are asking for is for beijing to keep the promises they made to the people of hong kong in thejoint declaration and in the basic law, guaranteeing our freedoms, our civil liberties. let me just as you what you make of the words of some of the demonstrators. i refer to you as a veteran administrator and many people on the front lines are, of course, much younger and they seem to be carrying a very particular frame of mind with them. let me quote to you someone who has recently been in germany speaking for the protest movement.

he said, "am i ready to die for the cause we are going after? i would say after seeing a fellow protester and fellow hong kongers committing suicide to protest against the extradition bill, seeing other friends injured and families scared, i say that i am ready for all the consequences that may come with the fight we are now in." it almost sounds like some people on the front lines are now ready for martyrdom. well, mr sackur, if you put yourself in the protesters‘ position, particularly this generation of hong kong people, who have never known life under the british colonial rule, they've only ever known life under the chinese rule, to see every day their freedoms and civil liberties eroded by an sar government that does not defend two systems, and by beijing's which is intent on controlling and telling hong kong people despite thejoint declaration and the basic law what little autonomy we give you is for us to give and take away. if you were in their shoes and you were fighting for yourfuture, i'm sure you would do exactly the same thing

and say, "i am prepared to put my life on the line, because i am talking about my future." stop but i come back to the instances of violence, and of course much of the violence we've seen on video has been perpetrated by the hong kong police but some has been perpetrated by protesters and demonstrators as well. there was the infamous case of the video that showed the violent beating of a man that appeared to be a chinese journalist at hong kong airport. that plays into a narrative that beijing is pushing but ultimately there's a terrorism at work in hong kong and they have a duty, working off course with the special administrative region government in hong kong, to quash terrorism. you may be playing into their hands. that may be so. i don't agree with violence

and i certainly condemn violence. but i would point out that the sar government in beijing have a very easy solution to stop violence, and that is that you have to listen to hong kong people. which government, which responsible government refuses to listen to the voices of 2 million people taking to the streets? that's a quarter of hong kong's population. so if you want to stop the violence, the easy way out is for beijing to allow our chief executive some latitude. it is futile to assert that one country, two systems is working well when our chief executive doesn't even have the freedom to step down, to take responsibility, for this debacle. you've labelled carrie lam as incompetent and useless and being run effectively direct from beijing. you clearly think she has no credibility or legitimacy whatsoever.

well, mr sackur, those are your words, those are not mine. i originally said forcing carrie to step down, who would step into her shoes? since she has shown no indication of taking some of the very difficult positions to, as it were, lower the temperature and find a way through this current impasse, then she should make way for somebody else. let me ask you this... there is no leadership at the moment. effectively, hong kong, at the moment, is a rudderless ship and the captain has left the bridge. well, let me ask you this. everything you said to me so far, and the malign intent you've imputed to beijing's commerce suggests to me that you now see china as the enemy of hong kong. but you, i'm very mindful of the fact, served in that

transition period under the british colonial rule, but then you maintain your high—profile post under the first four years of chinese rule. you never used to beijing as the enemy, so what's changed? first of all, i do not think that maligning is quite the word i would use. i am simply pointing out facts. it is the case that in the publication of the white paper by the state council in 2014, beijing's made it abundantly clear that they have, and i quote, "comprehensive jurisdiction over hong kong despite the assurances in thejoint declaration and the basic law." furthermore, the white paper goes on to point out that the judiciary part of the administration, and therefore have to have regard to national development and security interests. now, this is completely contrary to the separation of powers that hong kong believed in under the rule of law and the practice

of the common law. to be blunt about it... i do not regard beijing as an enemy, but i am bound to point out that when they stepped all over one country, two systems and depart from their solemn promises, not only to the people of hong kong but the whole international community, then i have a duty to point that out. well... i take personal responsibility for this because i did lots of selling of the joint declaration and the basic law in the run—up to 1997 beyond. so i cannotjust simply stand by and see to systems disappearing under oui’ very nose. you may say that you don't see beijing as the enemy but it seems to me beijing certainly now sees you as their enemy. if one looks at the state press in china, mainland china, you have been fingered as one

of a "gang of four" very senior hong kong ers who are said to be orchestrating the protest movement. the highest legal enforcement body in china, the central political and legal affairs commission has accused you and the other three of "14 deadly sins" including "colluding with the us and uk, and inciting young people in the city." are you feeling intimidated and frightened right now? well, mr sackur, you clearly do not know me and you do not know my experiences and my history. but i hope you can see that this is all part of the state propaganda machinery. and simply because i don't hold toe the line and say things that they may not wish to hear, they have mounted a smear campaign, yes, intimidation, harassment, notjust only of myself but of my family members. but the more they do

of this sort of smearing, the more they convince hong kong people... if i may... ..that the only way they are going to have a future is to insist on the faithful implementation of two systems. a system that is entirely different from that in the mainland. madame chan, what do you mean by intimidation? intimidation? well, i have been harassed in the streets, they have written a pack of lies about me in youtube, and elsewhere, they give me far too much credit for being the prime mover behind this movement. i can tell you that the protesters, many of whom are young professionals, highly intelligent, they do not listen to an elderly person like myself. but it is true... but i do share their motives. you clearly do and it is also true that you have been to the united states. you had a meeting with the vice president, mike pence,

and you appealed to him for more active us engagement and support for the protesters. you have also appealed to the british government saying that they have a duty given their historical role in hong kong, "a legal and moral responsibility to deal with the current consequences." so you do want outside intervention of a sort, don't you? no, i wouldn't describe that as outside interference. britain has a moral and legal responsibility to hong kong, as the co—signatory to the joint declaration. britain, the united states, australia, canada and members of the eu are genuine stakeholders in hong kong. they have substantial investments in hong kong and they have their nationals living in hong kong. and they have a legitimate right to question when two systems is being eroded. but let us be honest, isn't it true that beijing holds all the cards here? it is going to be arguably the most powerful economy of the 21st century. admittedly it is in a trade war

with united states right now, but ultimately the international community is hardly going to see it in its interest to make a major intervention in the hong kong crisis, when it needs a very strong economic relationship with beijing. well, i sincerely hope that britain, the united states and other international communities are not simply going to capitulate and go on bended knees, simply because china is currently the world's second—largest entity. the world has to face up to how they are going to engage in and deal with this rising china. and surely, it is in the interest of the world as a whole but also i suggest in the interest of my country, that china should increasingly, sooner rather than later, embrace some universal values, particularly respect for human dignity, fundamental rights and freedoms. that would be good for the nation as a whole and for the rest of the world.

but if i may say so, madame chan, that is a very interesting proposition you've put forward to me because it seems to me you are getting very close to saying that you believe the pro—democracy demonstrations and protests in hong kong can be some sort of model to emulate some sort of inspiration for people in mainland china and that you want what you are doing to be a message to people across the whole country of china. is that what you are really saying? because that would be very inflammatory as far as president xijinping is concerned. those are again, your words. what i'm saying is, to the extent that beijing allows hong kong genuine universal suffrage, and we are seen to be making a success of liberal democratic hong kong, then beijing officials might like to use the hong kong model in terms of developing a model of representative government that would suit the country's interests as a whole.

you are entering very dangerous territory there though, aren't you? if beijing really does see hong kong as some sort of model, then surely the impulse from president xi on down is going to be to ensure that your pro—democracy movement does not succeed. well, i'm not forcing this upon mainland china, i'm simplyjust saying that if we are seen to be making a success of this, surely it is also a successful point that beijing can make in terms of making a success of one country, two systems. well, when you say success... and in the longer run, i hope that my country will learn to embrace some universal values. you say success... that is my hope. you say success but surely many people in hong kong will be looking at the current state of the economy

with tourist numbers down dramatically in august, as anti—government protests have swept through the city. credit ratings being downgraded, growth figures for hong kong being downgraded as well. a lot of hong kongers, even if they might support some of the principles you have outlined with me, they are going to be gravely concerned that the continued unrest is going to affect them very materially. in certain respects, yes, i would accept that perhaps the tourism industry is directly impacted because tourists are afraid to come to hong kong in view of what has been described as riots. but overall, as a small, externally oriented economy, hong kong cannot escape what is happening worldwide and surely, one of the main reasons for a slowing economy is the ongoing trade dispute between the united states and china. and there are other reasons.

it's very convenient to blame it all on the protesters. let me end with a big thought, throughout this interview, you have talked about the one country, two systems principle. isn't the truth that the one country principle will always trump the two systems? as we see china building literally, building a bridge between hong kong and the mainland, incorporating and integrating hong kong into the so—called "greater bay area" of 80 million people, it is clear that china is determined to fully integrate hong kong. the one country will always beat the idea of two systems. well, there are many forms of integration. the economic integration has already taken hold over the 22 years since the handover, but i choose to believe in deng xiaoping's vision for hong kong and for the nation as a whole. and that is that only by sticking faithfully to two systems,

allowing hong kong to practise the rule of law and ensuring basic freedoms, civil liberties and eventually universal suffrage, that is the best way, not only of securing hong kong's long—term stability and prosperity, but enabling hong kong in the longer run to contribute to china, mainland china's long—term sustainable economic growth. anson chan, we have to end there. it's been a pleasure having you on hardtalk. thank you very much. thank you.

hello there. over the last couple of days, the remnants of two different ex—tropical weather systems have been in charge of our weather. first we had the leftovers of what was hurricane dorian passing to the north of the uk. we saw outbreaks of rain and brisk winds and during thursday, it was ex—tropical storm gabriel that moved through. not much left of it. just a stripe of cloud moving southwards on a frontal system and as that cold front moves away from the south on friday, and high pressure builds in behind, we will be left with a lot of fine weather, good spells of sunshine but a significantly fresher feel. humid air that has been associated with that ex—tropical storm being pushed up to the continent. we start off with cloud in the channel islands and a bit of rain but that will clear quite quickly and then a lot of sunshine and dry for the majority. it will be windy in scotland but further south, the winds light. however, in the fresher air,

temperatures a bit lower. top temperatures of 20—21 degrees for plymouth, cardiff, london, more like 17 in aberdeen. through friday night, temperatures will dip away. particularly down towards the south where winds will remain light. further north, more in the way of a breeze and more cloud in northern ireland and scotland and some rain pushing back into the far north—west. the overnight lows seeing one or two spots down towards the south getting down to three or four degrees. high pressure still in charge for most of us as we go into saturday morning but notice frontal systems trying to squash in towards the north—west, bringing some outbreaks of rain and also some pretty strong winds. much of the rain on saturday is likely to be confined to the northern and western parts of scotland and a bit more cloud into northern ireland and the far north of england. further south, a lot more sunshine and temperatures creeping up in southern parts. 22-23.

always cooler and fresher across the north where it will be windy and particularly windy on saturday night through the far north of scotland and then into sunday, it looks like this frontal system will try to push a bit further south but uncertainty as to how far it will get. maybe patchy rain into northern england and north wales. to the north of the front, something fresher and to the south, we could get up to 25 degrees. but looks like all of us getting into fresher air for the start of the new working week. however, with high pressure in charge, it will be largely dry.

welcome to bbc news, i'm reged ahmad. our top stories: the top ten debate. democrat presidential hopefuls take to the stage in houston. and i'm laura trevelyan, in houston, where i'll be watching the debate and getting some early reactions. we have a special report from syria's idlib province, where government and russian forces are targeting hospitals with airstrikes. britain's prime minister is forced to deny claims that he lied to the queen in order to get parliament suspended. and we go inside the deadly, dirty world of myanmar‘s jade mines,