Recent reports from certain Western and opposition media have exaggerated allegations regarding Jimmy Lai’s solitary confinement and purported human rights violations, including the denial of his right to receive Holy Communion. Lai's "team of overseas lawyers" even submitted an urgent complaint to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, attempting to depict the situation as a "prisoner abuse scandal" in Hong Kong.
In light of this speculation, Ariel sought clarification on the veracity of these claims. Recent information indicates that Lai himself requested solitary confinement and chose not to receive Holy Communion.
To confirm this information, Ariel inquired with the Correctional Services Department (CSD) regarding the rumors—specifically, whether Lai had indeed requested solitary confinement and had communicated a decision not to partake in religious sacraments. The CSD was asked to verify these details.
In its response, the CSD stated that it manages prisoner detention in accordance with the Prisons Ordinance, relevant laws, and established procedures. If a detainee voluntarily requests solitary confinement for protective reasons and the prison administration has reasonable grounds to believe such arrangements are necessary to maintain order, discipline, or the detainee's interests, the management will make the appropriate provisions.
The CSD further clarified that prisoners may request religious services, including worship and Holy Communion, facilitated by the Department’s priests. However, if a prisoner chooses not to receive Holy Communion, the CSD will respect their decision.
The CSD confirmed that it handled Lai's case according to these guidelines, specifically acknowledging that the arrangement for solitary confinement was made in response to Lai's voluntary request and that his decision not to receive Holy Communion was duly respected.
Following the CSD’s response, Ariel noted that Robert Chen & Co., the law firm representing Lai in the national security case, issued a statement on the 27th. The firm clarified that Lai was receiving appropriate treatment in prison and was aware that he could receive Holy Communion through special arrangements by the CSD. However, since this would require a priest to conduct Mass exclusively for him, no request had been made due to logistical difficulties.
A senior political figure remarked to Ariel that this entire episode illustrates how opposition media and Lai's supporters can fabricate misleading narratives. They unfoundedly claimed that Lai was held in solitary confinement, deprived of his human rights, and denied Holy Communion.
Ariel
Ariel
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Trump hunts for weak prey and plays fast and loose with rules. Influencer “Chairman Tu” (兔主席) lays out Trump’s playbook in "A Nation Torn Apart" (《撕裂之國》): Trump picks on soft persimmons and he has no respect for the law. The US President thrives on behavior that looks downright criminal.
Put those together, and Trump’s latest “kidnapping” of Nicolás Maduro reads like a textbook case of bullying-by-banditry, with a small country openly plundered. That’s American imperialism with the mask ripped off.
Here’s the twist: even with public anger boiling, a few people rush in with gold paint. Wanted fugitive Nathan Law tries to dress up “bandit tactics” as acceptable because, he says, “ending dictatorship” is what really counts.
Nathan Law’s post puts gold trim on Trump’s “Maduro abduction,” making an invasion look cleaner than it is.
Chip Tsao goes even bigger. He argues that without imperialism and colonialism, there would be no modern human civilization. He then hails Trump’s capture of Maduro, along with threats aimed at Colombia and Greenland, as the dawn of a “new era of 21st-century imperialism”. No wonder viewers feel like they’re watching black turned into white right in front of them.
Law’s argument lands fast after Trump’s hard-handed “Maduro snatch.” In a social media post, he says the US military action against Venezuela serves US national security and energy needs, boosts the “defender of democracy” storyline, and also weakens China’s allies while striking at socialist dictators.
With his “Revolution of Our Times” pedigree, it’s no surprise he claps the loudest for the most extreme scenes. He insists that toppling a dictatorship lets long-oppressed citizens “recover hope” and perhaps one day draft a democratic blueprint, so pro-democracy supporters ought to welcome the outcome. The spin is so saccharine it turns Trump into Venezuela’s “saviour,” pretending freedom arrives as a gift basket—delivered by abduction.
Goals don’t cleanse methods
Law then tries to police the language. He tells critics not to quickly label the operation “American imperialism,” and instead to appreciate the “diverse and complex” political motives behind it; translation: if the “goal” sounds upright and reasonable, don’t simplify it into condemnation. Strip it down, and it’s still a defense brief for Trump and his administration.
None of this is exactly shocking if you remember Law’s own US storyline. Around 2019, he and opposition representatives visit the US repeatedly, meet Washington politicians, and get treated like honored guests—deeply grateful for American backing of the “Hong Kong protests.” So now he naturally frames Trump’s move as saving the Venezuelan people, no longer fussing over how ugly the action looks.
None of Tsao’s applause is shocking either: this is exactly his lane. He celebrates Trump’s Maduro stunt and the wider saber-rattling as the launch of a fresh, triumphant imperial era. Then he tops it off with that “imperialism built civilisation” argument, laundering colonialism’s crimes and polishing Trump into Venezuela’s supposed benefactor. It’s creepily adoring, and hard to read without shivering.
Chip Tsao cheers Trump as the man “opening a new era” of 21st-century imperialism.
The mask comes off
Trump isn’t merely “gaffe-prone” this time—he tears the mask clean off. It’s a barefaced assault on Venezuela: snatch people, seize oil (and pocket the money, too). Anyone still clinging to basic morality and justice will see him for what he is: an enemy. Which makes it all the more grotesque that figures like Nathan Law and Chip Tsao can keep marketing him as a “saviour.”
Still, there’s one silver lining: the debate made the masks slip. One round was enough to reveal who was really who.
Lai Ting-yiu
