Important question: what do you call people who try to bomb innocent civilians?
This is an amazing story.
I'll give you the facts – you decide on the answer.
A group of individuals, extremely well-financed by persons unknown, committed horrendous crimes – running bomb factories, gathering explosives for terrorist grade mass casualty attacks designed to kill Hong Kong people in Mongkok and Wan Chai, and plotting to kill "popo", slang for murdering police officers.
This is not in question. Most quickly admitted the crimes, and asked for bail, promising not to flee. Hong Kong has an unusually lenient legal system, so they were duly released. This was in the late summer of 2020.
But here's what happened next. Mysterious persons paid a fortune to people-smugglers to help them jump bail, and they got on a boat to go to Taiwan, a Chinese island province.
When they were rearrested, in the last week of August, the media had to think of a label for them.
Now we all know that if people planning terrorist-grade mass casualty attacks on innocent people had my color skin, looking something like this, they would be called terrorists, wannabe cop-killers, bombers and so on.
But here's the key fact. They weren't dark-skinned. Moreover, they were anti-China people associated with Hong Kong anti-China groups financed by the United States.
So here's how they were actually labelled.
The New York Times called them "activists".
The Washington Post called them "protesters"
The BBC called them "democracy activists".
The Wall St journal called them "Hong Kong residents" as if it's perfectly normal for residents of this city to blow it up!
The Hong Kong Free Press said they were "Hongkongers trying to flee".
Reuters said they were "young men".
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated they were heroes. They "deserved a hero's welcome". He added: "America stands with them."
So there we have it – people who literally tried to blow up innocent Hong Kong people with bombs in a mass casualty event are presented to the world as activists and "hong kong residents" and even "heroes".
Now coming up to date, a related trial has opened, in which gang leaders have fully admitted their plan to create a mass casualty event in my home city – a dramatic plot to kill large numbers of innocent Hong Kong people. It was foiled by police, literally hours before it was due to take place.
Guess what?
The western mainstream media outlets have chosen not to cover the trial. So no one around the world is hearing about it.
Why not? Let's be honest here.
Most mainstream journalists covering Hong Kong and mainland China have abandoned journalism. They have become propagandists with an agenda to demonize China to justify a planned American war, and the trial doesn't fit that narrative.
But you know what? Journalism is too important to let these people kill it.
The truth is important. A lie is still a lie even if the whole world believes it, and the truth is still the truth if even just one person believes it.
So you and I have to step in and do that job. We are the media now.
by Nury Vittachi
Lai See(利是)
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Dr. Celeste Lo (Solicitor (Hong Kong), Greater Bay Area Lawyer (PRC), Postdoc Fellow at the School of Law of City University of Hong Kong)
With the release of its latest White Paper, Hong Kong: Safeguarding China’s National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems, China’s State Council has delineated a comprehensive blueprint for the metropolis’s future. Issued in February 2026, the document provides a granular retrospective on the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the recently enacted national security laws. Far exceeding a mere policy review, the White Paper serves as a definitive pronouncement on the recalibrated constitutional nexus between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, firmly establishing national security as the indispensable bedrock of Hong Kong’s enduring prosperity.
The central thesis of the White Paper is unambiguous: security and development are not competing interests, but symbiotic imperatives. The document contextualizes the severe turbulence of 2019 not merely as a localized political dispute, but as an existential vulnerability that challenged the sovereign integrity of the state. From Beijing’s perspective, the ensuing legislative interventions were constitutional necessities, urgently required to seal long-standing statutory loopholes. By restoring social equilibrium and erecting a formidable security architecture, the White Paper contends that the central government has successfully safeguarded the “One Country, Two Systems” framework, insulating it against external subversion and internal destabilization.
A substantial portion of the White Paper is devoted to elucidating the institutional refinement of Hong Kong’s governance apparatus. At the heart of this transformation is the fundamental principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong.” The White Paper details how the reformed electoral framework ensures that the city’s executive and legislative branches remain harmonized to align with the broader national interests. This alignment is championed as a vital corrective to overcome historical political deadlocks, thereby cultivating an efficient, executive-led administration uniquely equipped to resolve entrenched socioeconomic challenges. According to the White Paper, this high-caliber, orderly governance paradigm supersedes partisan gridlock with constructive policy formulation, ultimately advancing the tangible wellbeing of the city’s 7.5 million residents.
Equally salient is the White Paper’s sophisticated overture to global capital. Recognizing Hong Kong’s irreplaceable role as a conduit between the Chinese mainland and the global economy, the White Paper introduces the nuanced concept of “open security”. The document marshals an array of compelling economic indicators, surging GDP growth, premier global IPO rankings, and a proliferation of family offices, to illustrate that capital flourishes within a secure, predictable ecosystem. The central government reaffirms its steadfast commitment to preserving Hong Kong’s distinct institutional advantages, notably its esteemed common law jurisprudence, its enduring status as a free port, and the unimpeded circulation of international capital and data.
Ultimately, the White Paper cements a resilient paradigm for Hong Kong. It explicitly asserts that the “highest principle” underpinning the “One Country, Two Systems” policy is the absolute safeguarding of national sovereignty, security, and developmental interests. Within this recalibrated architecture, the contours of the “Two Systems” are precisely demarcated and robustly shielded by the overarching strength of the “One Country”. By projecting a vision wherein ironclad legal safeguards precipitate an open, dynamic, and globally integrated business ecosystem, the White Paper charts a confident vision for Hong Kong to navigate an increasingly complex global landscape with renewed stability and vigour.
