Nathan Law’s Ambiguous Response to “Sexual Assault Scandal” Fails to Clarify Allegations

Fugitive Nathan Law, after losing support in the UK, recently traveled to Taiwan, where he received backing from pro-independence groups and was seen with a local woman. However, his most pressing issue now is not the Hong Kong police’s cross-border pursuit but rather allegations of sexual assault involving a former female assistant from several years ago. The scandal has continued to gain traction, with members of the pro-democracy "Yellow Camp" openly criticizing him, significantly damaging his reputation. In an apparent attempt to address the issue, Law posted on social media yesterday, vaguely alluding to past incidents that might have caused "embarrassment" to the "involved party." He characterized it as a misunderstanding, denying any "violent intimate behavior."

Political insiders who reviewed his statement argue that this is merely a rhetorical maneuver. They point out that the assistant, who is the alleged victim, confided in members of the Yellow Camp at the time, and there are multiple witnesses. Despite Law’s attempts to explain, they believe he cannot fully exonerate himself. Furthermore, as the victim has not publicly disclosed the incident, it remains a metaphorical time bomb that could detonate and ruin Law’s reputation at any moment.

The alleged incident reportedly took place during Law’s peak period when he served as Chairman of the now-dissolved Demosistō and as a member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. At the time, he employed a female assistant, referred to here as "X," known for her linguistic skills and international engagement. In 2018, during a visit to Belgium, Law allegedly acted inappropriately towards X after consuming alcohol. According to sources within the Yellow Camp, X later confided in a close friend, but Law dismissed her claims, accusing her of seeking fame and attention.

Since X chose not to make the matter public, it gradually faded from public view. However, a month ago, the Hong Kong Democratic Committee suddenly severed ties with Law without explanation. Rumors soon surfaced suggesting the decision was linked to the sexual assault allegations, reigniting the controversy. The scandal even reached Oxford University, which cited Law’s misconduct as the reason for rejecting his application to a master’s program. The controversy then spread further, becoming a focal point of discussion among both the pro-democracy ("Yellow") and pro-establishment ("Blue") factions.

This controversy has significantly tarnished Law’s image and dealt a severe blow to his political career. His recent social media post appears to be an attempt to frame the incident as a "misunderstanding." In his statement, he acknowledged that he may have mishandled past relationships but insisted he had "never engaged in any intimate conduct against someone’s will or with violence." This statement suggests that some form of interaction occurred with X, but he claims it was consensual rather than non-consensual. In a previous interview with the online media outlet Notus, he described the encounter as "romantic."

A political insider remarked that in many sexual assault cases, men often claim that the other party was "willing," but judges rarely accept such defenses without credible testimony from the victim and corroborating evidence. Therefore, Law’s one-sided defense is seen as unconvincing.

Law also claimed in his post that he had engaged in "friendly and positive communication" with the "involved party" at the time and had kept relevant records. However, he added that he would not publicly clarify the matter unless absolutely necessary, citing multiple complicating factors. Political observers criticize this as another example of his "rhetorical maneuvering," suggesting he wants to appear as though he has evidence proving his innocence but is either unwilling or unable to disclose it, thereby creating an image of being unjustly accused.

In closing, Law issued an apology to X, expressing regret for any embarrassment or misunderstanding he may have caused her in the past. He also invited her to contact him directly to resolve any lingering issues. Political insiders interpret this as his attempt to downplay the incident as merely a "misunderstanding" and to reach a settlement with X.

The same insiders suggest that Law’s eagerness to address the scandal stems from his understanding that these sexual assault allegations are a severe threat to his career. Despite his efforts, his explanations remain weak, and the stigma of sexual misconduct continues to haunt him. They conclude that the unresolved allegations are like a ticking time bomb, poised to destroy his reputation completely when it explodes.

Lai Ting Yiu

What Say You?

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

Ninety legislators will be sworn into office this week, 35 of whom will be taking the oath of office for the first time. It will be a combined act of patriotism, a far cry from the swearing in ceremony in 2016 when four potential lawmakers created their own oaths advocating self-determination and were subsequently disqualified from office.

The western media, including some in Hong Kong, brand “patriotism” as a bad thing for Hong Kong, inferring that there is no “opposition” in the legislature. But they are wrong. The legislators have their own mind and will vote according to their conscience.

Four pieces of legislation proposed by the government have not passed the test and were voted out while many others were heavily debated by the legislators. Regardless of what London’s Guardian newspaper and others say, Hong Kong does have a meaningful opposition.

It is unfortunate that the local Democratic Party, seen by the west as the “opposition,” did not field any candidates in the recent elections and eventually closed down. The choice was theirs and their recent actions indicate they did not intend to follow the rules of the council.

The Legislative Council is a place where lawmakers are elected to serve the people, not to use it as a platform for subversion as had happened in the past.

In 2017 four lawmakers – Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu – were stripped of their seats for failing to take their oaths of office in a “sincere and solemn” manner. They used props and amended the oath to suit their purpose. Others followed, including student Agnes Chow who also failed taking the oath of office but later jailed on subversion charges. The quartet’s disqualification followed the highly publicized ousting of two localist lawmakers, Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, whose oath-takings involved anti-China banners and usage of derogatory wartime slurs for China.

Together, the quartet had mustered 185,727 votes in the 2016 elections and their selfishness left their followers void of leadership. Their actions were that of self-interest, to achieve their own hidden goals, and not to serve the people who put them in the seats of power. They abused their positions.

Obviously foreign forces had infiltrated the legislature and political unrest ensued as attempts were being made to unseat the base of Hong Kong’s parliament. In July 2020 the government announced that the nominations for 15 candidates were declared invalid due to their objection to the national security law or were sincere in statements involving separatism. And on November 11, 2020, Dennis Kwok, a founding member of the Civic Party and a representative of the legal profession in the council, was accused of delaying the legislative proceedings and passage of bills and was subsequently disqualified along with follow lawmakers Alvin Yeung, Kwok Ka-ki and Kenneth Leung. Just hours later 15 fellow lawmakers resigned in protest.

Kwok was later charged with collusion and fled to Canada and then to the US with a HK$1 million bounty on his head.

The festering germ of dissent even spread to the local district councils who also used their positions to undermine the government.

It had to stop and in March 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (SCNPC) approved changes to the Hong Kong’s electoral system allowing only patriots to serve the government and the people of Hong Kong.

What publications like Hong Kong Free Press, The Washington Post, London’s Financial Times etc. don’t understand is that Hong Kong is a target by the five-eyes network of spies and clandestine operators, led by the US and including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The ultimate target is, of course, China. By crimppling Hong Kong and especially its law-making process, it can crimpple China and hamper its progressive growth.

These publications will continue to use Hong Kong “Patriots only” legislature as a slur, not as a compliment. It’s in their DNA to be anti-Hong Kong/China. They are the vehicles of the west to bring discord to Hong Kong with total disregard to fact.

But “patriots only” apply to every democracy in the world. No place could be more patriotic than the US where the stars and stripes (the US flag) hang from the porches of almost every household. And legislators in all democracies have to swear allegiances to the country and their constitution. And like Hong Kong, they are vetted to ensure their allegiances are true to the country before standing for election.