Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Why Voice of America depicts a story of a HK political activist turned a rodent exterminator in England

Blog

Why Voice of America depicts a story of a HK political activist turned a rodent exterminator in England
Blog

Blog

Why Voice of America depicts a story of a HK political activist turned a rodent exterminator in England

2024-09-09 21:40 Last Updated At:21:40

Recently, I came across a report from Voice of America that I believe is worth sharing.

The subject of the story is Vincent Lam, a Hong Kong resident who moved to the UK and now works as a rodent exterminator—a profession some have described as demeaning. However, Lam strongly disagrees with this portrayal, expressing his appreciation for the job, which he claims has deepened his understanding of life.

Lam was formerly an active opposition figure in Hong Kong. Between 2016 and 2017, he served as the deputy convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front and later worked as an assistant to former Legislative Council member Claudia Mo. He also ran for a seat in the 2019 District Council elections. Fearing arrest when the police started investigation into the "35+ subversion case," Lam fled Hong Kong within a day.

For the past three years, Lam has worked for a pest control company in London. The Voice of America report primarily seeks to counter the narrative that he took up this "lowly" exterminator job out of sheer necessity.

The article notes that Lam, once afraid of cockroaches as a child, overcame this fear as he grew older and now handles rat corpses with ease. He described the experience: "When you touch them, they’re stiff and cold, just like the hamsters I used to raise when they died. So I don’t feel disgusted or scared at all."

From a third-party perspective, it is clear that most people would find such work unpleasant.

Voice of America also emphasized that Lam studied social policy at Baptist University and holds a university degree, dismissing claims that his current job is beneath him. The report further highlights a common issue faced by many Hong Kong immigrants in the UK—the difficulty of securing employment in their original fields due to the non-recognition of academic and professional qualifications.

However, Lam noted that the pay for exterminators in the UK, after tax, is higher than that for similar jobs in Hong Kong, and the working hours are shorter. This makes the job more than acceptable to him. "Honestly, I’ve never felt bad about it from the beginning," he said.

Honestly, it is evident that immigrants often face challenges in having their foreign qualifications and work experience recognized, making it difficult to secure ideal jobs.

I once saw a discussion on a local forum about the challenges of finding employment in the UK. While the UK’s unemployment rate is 4.4%, not particularly high, a person joining the forum, likely a Hong Kong immigrant, commented: "White-collar jobs are hard to come by; blue-collar jobs are easier. It’s tough to find senior and middle management positions, while entry-level jobs are more accessible. But for even low-level white-collar jobs, you need time to prepare resumes and go through interviews, whereas for blue-collar jobs, you just need to show up for a trial, and get hired."

Quite a number of my friends who have relocated to the UK now work in bakeries or warehouses. Night shifts, in particular, are easier to find, as locals often avoid these jobs.

The Voice of America report continued to highlight Lam’s story, challenging the notion that a former pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong is now living in misery working as a rat exterminator in the UK. Lam remarked, "They make it sound as if I’m living in despair, unable to afford three meals a day, and full of regret. I see this as part of their propaganda."

For a person of sound intellect, handling dead rats may not seem like an ideal job, but it is certainly not driven by Chinese propaganda, as Lam implied. On the contrary, it seems that Voice of America is misrepresenting the situation, portraying it as an aspiration to deal with dead rats, thus suggesting a stronger U.S. propaganda narrative.

Even the report’s headline was politically charged: "Hong Kong Immigrant Exterminator in the UK Laments Britain Treats Rats Better Than the Hong Kong Government Treats Political Prisoners." The so-called British kindness to rats refers to animal welfare laws that prohibit the inhumane treatment of rats, such as boiling them alive.

From a neutral perspective, it is important to acknowledge that Hong Kong also has laws preventing cruelty to animals. That Voice of America could elevate these incidents to suggest that Britain’s treatment of rats is superior to Hong Kong’s treatment of its citizens seems like a significant exaggeration.

Lam’s story reminded me of an experience I had decades ago. I once visited a relative and noticed that the building’s security guard—a gentle, middle-aged man—was reading during his shift. After chatting with him, I learned from his heavily-accented Cantonese that he was a new immigrant from mainland China. He had been a doctor in China, but after moving to Hong Kong, his qualifications were not recognized, and the only job he could find was as a security guard.

He explained that in the 1970s, incomes in mainland China were low, and working as a security guard in Hong Kong get paid more than being a doctor back home. Realistically, in his colloquial Cantonese, he said: "If the horse dies, get off and walk!" He wouldn’t say it was a great job, but it was the best he could get. His conclusion was that being an immigrant means relying on others, and that’s just the reality.

When I reflect on this now, the situation for Hong Kong people emigrating abroad is not much different from that of mainlanders moving to Hong Kong in the past. Only a small fraction can return to their original professions, while the majority must accept lesser jobs.

Lam’s story reminds me of Lu Xun’s The True Story of Ah Q. When I first read it as a young man, I thought that if Ah Q hadn’t embraced his peculiar mindset, his life would have been much more difficult.

Wing-hung Lo




Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Trump's Venezuela play just gave Western progressives a masterclass in American hypocrisy.

Steve Bannon, Trump's longtime strategist, told The New York Times the Venezuela assault—arresting President Nicolás Maduro and all—stands as this administration's most consequential foreign policy move. Meticulously planned, Bannon concedes, but woefully short on ideological groundwork. "The lack of framing of the message on a potential occupation has the base bewildered, if not angry".

Trump's rationale for nabbing Maduro across international borders was drug trafficking. But here's the tell: once Maduro was in custody, Trump stopped talking about Venezuelan cocaine and started obsessing over Venezuelan oil. He's demanding US oil companies march back into Venezuela to seize control of local assets. And that's not all—he wants Venezuela to cough up 50 million barrels of oil.

Trump's Colonial Playbook

On January 6, Trump unveiled his blueprint: Venezuela releases 50 million barrels to the United States. America sells it. Market watchers peg the haul at roughly $2.8 billion.

Trump then gleefully mapped out how the proceeds would flow—only to "American-made products." He posted on social media: "These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela's Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner."

Trump's demand for 50 million barrels up front—not a massive volume, granted—betrays a blunt short-term goal. It's the classic imperial playbook: invade a colony, plunder its resources, sail home and parade the spoils before your supporters to justify the whole bloody enterprise. Trump isn't chasing the ideological legitimacy Bannon mentioned. He's after something more primal: material legitimacy. Show me a colonial power that didn't loot minerals or enslave labor from its colonies.

America's Western allies were silent as the grave when faced with such dictatorial swagger. But pivot the camera to Hong Kong, and suddenly they're all righteous indignation.

The British Double Standard

Recently, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith penned an op-ed in The Times, slamming the British government for doing "nothing but issuing 'strongly worded' statements in the face of Beijing's trampling of the Sino-British Joint Declaration." He's calling on the Labour government to sanction the three designated National Security Law judges who convicted Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai of "collusion with foreign forces"—to prove that "Hong Kong's judiciary has become a farce." Duncan Smith even vowed to raise the matter for debate in the British Parliament.

The Conservatives sound principled enough. But think it through, and it's laughable. The whole world's talking about Maduro right now—nobody's talking about Jimmy Lai anymore.

Maduro appeared in US Federal Court in New York on January 6. The United States has trampled international law and the UN Charter—that's what Duncan Smith would call "American justice becoming a farce." If Duncan Smith's so formidable, why doesn't he demand the British government sanction Trump? Why not sanction the New York Federal Court judges? If he wants to launch a parliamentary debate, why not urgently debate America's crimes in invading Venezuela? Duncan Smith's double standards are chilling.

Silence on Venezuela

After the Venezuela incident, I searched extensively online—even deployed AI—but couldn't find a single comment from former Conservative leader Duncan Smith on America's invasion of Venezuela. Duncan Smith has retreated into his shell.

Duncan Smith is fiercely pro-US. When Trump visited the UK last September amid considerable domestic criticism, the opposition Conservatives didn't just stay quiet—Duncan Smith actively defended him, calling Trump's unprecedented second UK visit critically important: "if the countries that believe in freedom, democracy and the rule of law don’t unite, the totalitarian states… will dominate the world and it will be a terrible world to live in."

The irony cuts deep now. America forcibly seizes another country's oil and minerals—Trump is fundamentally an imperialist dictator. With Duncan Smith's enthusiastic backing, this totalitarian Trump has truly won.

Incidentally, the Conservative Party has completely destroyed itself. The party commanding the highest support in Britain today is the far-right Reform Party. As early as last May, YouGov polling showed Reform Party capturing the highest support at 29%, the governing Labour Party languishing at just 22%, the Liberal Democrats ranking third at 17%, and the Conservatives degraded to fourth place with 16% support.

The gutless Conservative Party members fear offending Trump, while voters flock to the Reform Party instead. The Conservatives' posturing shows they've become petty villains for nothing.

Lo Wing-hung

Recommended Articles