The District Court has sentenced Editor-in-Chief Chung Pui-kuen and acting Editor-in-Chief Lam Siu-tong to imprisonment for conspiracy to publish seditious materials through Stand News, concluding a nearly two-year trial.
As the U.S. and Western nations criticize Hong Kong for allegedly suppressing press freedom, it is essential to take a critical view to see whether Stand News is simply a media organization.
First, the promotion of nativism is paramount. The nativist movement aims not only to incite hostility toward the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong SAR Government but ultimately to pursue Hong Kong's independence. District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kan, referencing evidence including Stand News' inaugural edition, three editorials, and its physical publication "Lizhi," concluded that Stand's political philosophy is nativist, serving as a tool to disparage the Central and SAR Governments during the anti-amendment to the extradition law protests.
Second, there are significant ties to Jimmy Lai, owner of Apple Daily. Stand News was founded by Tsoi Tung-ho, one of the ten key figures of the Occupy Central movement, who received considerable support from Lai. While Apple Daily operates its own online media and competes with Stand News and its predecessor, The Home News, Lai has shown support for various local media, even financially assisting his rivals. Notably, Lai contracted out to Home News a section called "Financial Center" in Apple Daily's financial edition, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly to aid Choi during a financial crisis. This kind of direct funding in support of a rival is difficult to explain and reflects a complicated relationship of the two media organizations.
Third, there is an alarming influx of undisclosed funding. Following police action against Stand News in 2021, the Secretary for Security froze its assets under the Hong Kong National Security Law, revealing that Stand had over $61 million in funds. Due to the organization’s lack of financial transparency, this amount might have gone unnoticed without police disclosure. An organization claiming to be non-profit yet possessing substantial assets raises questions about the true source of its funding. It remains unclear whether the $61 million was accrued through public support during protests or other undisclosed means.
Additionally, Stand News has intriguing overseas connections. Reports indicate that Evan Fowler, an overseas director of Stand News, co-founded the Hong Kong Free Press (HKFP), known for its anti-China stance, and is an associate fellow of the Henry Jackson Society, a British think tank with close ties to the U.S. and U.K. governments. Recent media coverage suggests that the U.S. and U.K. are leveraging think tanks like the Henry Jackson Society to shape public opinion against China.
Fourth, the Stand News case has not jeopardized legitimate media. The evidence presented in the Stand News case illustrates that it does not function as a typical media organization. The judgment noted that eleven articles published by Stand News incited hatred without objective basis, undermined the Justice Department's prosecution efforts, and spread falsehoods to encourage anti-government sentiment among protesters.
Judge Kwok emphasized that journalists must adhere to Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that media freedom is not absolute and does not shield one from legal responsibility. The judgment highlighted that journalists bear "special responsibilities and duties," including safeguarding national security, public order, and public health. Citing the European Convention on Human Rights, it reiterated that journalists must operate in good faith, based on accurate facts, to warrant protection under freedom of expression. The European Parliament's Code of Conduct for Journalists also stresses the importance of factual verification and impartiality.
In summary, legitimate media organizations conducting normal interviews and commentary—even critical of the government—would not face sedition charges. It is reasonable to conclude that typical news organizations do not embrace nativism as a core principle, possess vast financial resources, or publish a multitude of incendiary articles in a politically charged atmosphere, as noted by Judge Kwok.
In conclusion, Stand News was not operating as a normal media outlet.
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
