A formidable team: the devil and the snake to decide our destiny

The American people have chosen their leader for the next four years – Donald J. Trump – much to the anxiety of the rest of the world.

To some, Trump is regarded as a cowboy shooting from the hip. To others he may become hero of the world if he restores world peace.

But for Hong Kong and China his presidency could spell disaster if he goes ahead with a promise of imposing 60 per cent tariffs on all goods manufactured in Hong Kong/China.

And not only that, the front runner for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is anti-Hong Kong, anti-China and pro Taiwan independence. He naively listens, and believes, to every word uttered by Hong Kong activists in exile. His mind is clouded by the false narratives relating to Hong Kong’s national security laws, which are less stringent than the laws of the USA.

One redeeming factor for Trump though, is his dislike for wars and his promises that he will cease the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. How he plans to do this is anyone’s guess, but the press has reported that a meeting with Russian president Putin is high on the agenda. Trump was also quoted as saying he will bring Chinese president Xi Jinping to the table.  That would be easier said than done. First, he would have to change his attitude dramatically towards China and that would entail freezing all US-imposed tariffs on Chinese goods.

To end the war in Gaza, it would be a simple matter of stopping the shipment of arms to Israel. But then he would face the wrath of both the war-mongering Republican-held Congress and Senate.

Trump also said several times that he would talk to Xi about freeing media mogul Jimmy Lai, currently facing charges of collusion and subversion and “take him out of the country”. That is also nonsense and impossible, even for the president of the United States. Hong Kong has an independent judicial system guaranteed by the Basis Law and the hearing is still ongoing. Lai is expected to present his defence on November 20. But again, that’s just plain Trump-talk with another broken promise to Lai’s son Sebastien.

It is very likely that Trump will go ahead with the tariffs at the expense of losing friendship with Xi. But they never learn. Tariffs are not the answer in trade, wars as incumbent president Joe Biden has found out. Tariffs are passed on to the consumer, thus increasing inflation, which has become the breaking point for Biden and presidential candidate and loyalist Kamala Harris. Harris admitted in a press interview that she would follow Biden’s philosophies if elected. And that was her downfall. Since then, during his campaign Trump came up with the slogan “Are you better off now than four years ago?” America was suffering and they wanted a better life. Harris offered them nothing.

The one to watch in the new regime is Florida senator Marco Rubio, who, thankfully does not have the crudeness and brutality of the previous foreign secretary under Trump, Mike Pompeo, but  he still has the venom of a viper. But Rubio is an important voice on U.S. foreign policy as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the most senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It was Rubio who planned closing down the Hong Kong Economic Trade Offices in the US and accused them of spying; it was Rubio who introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2019 and ensured it was continued year after year; it was Rubio who sought to stop our CE John Lee from attending an APEC meeting in San Francisco. It was Rubio (and others) who nominated Hong Kong activists Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, Tonya Chow Hang-tung, Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam, Lee Cheuk-yan, and Joshua Wong Chi-fung—for the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize for attempting to destroy Hong Kong; it was Rubio who wrote in Fox News, “Now multiple citizens of Hong Kong have tragically ‘lost their lives’ amid the crackdown. Thousands more have been detained, and we have seen reports of others interrogated and tortured for their participation in the protests”, and it was Rubio who introduced the “Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act” which would provide those Hong Kongers who “peacefully protested Beijing’s corrupt justice system”, and have a well-founded fear of persecution, to be eligible for Priority 2 Refugee status”.  The list goes on and on.

On Taiwan, Rubio introduced the Taiwan Peace Through Strength Act. The bill would increase the level of critical technologies provided to Taiwan by fast-tracking the transfer of capabilities and increasing joint training and planning. The bill would also increase coordination between the U.S. and Taiwanese militaries to ensure Taiwan is equipped to defend itself against an attack and ‘invasion’ by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

At a recent press interview, Rubio said he expected Trump to continue to back Taiwan should he win the White House, even though Trump said Taiwan should pay for its own defence. How Trump handles the Taiwan situation remains to be seen.

And when you think the lineup couldn’t get worse, it can. Tipped to take over as Secretary for Defence is Trumps former Secretary of State and rabid China hater Mike Pompeo. If he gets the post one can expect US activities in the South China Sea and around Taiwan to be intensified.

Immediately after the US imposed sanctions on 11 Hong Kong and Mainland citizens, China retaliated and imposed unspecified sanctions against 11 US politicians and heads of organisations promoting democratic causes.

China’s then Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at the time in 2020, the 11 had "performed badly" on issues concerning Hong Kong.

"The relevant actions of the US blatantly intervened in Hong Kong affairs, grossly interfered in China's internal affairs, and seriously violated international law and the basic norms of international relations," Mr Zhao said.

As for the future, it is not so much watching Trump and what he does to Hong Kong/China but watch his expected foreign secretary Marco Rubio who has only one ambition in life, and that is to destroy China by crippling Hong Kong.

Mark Pinkstone

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Mark Pinkstone/Former Chief Information Officer of HK government

Overseas protests by Hong Kong dissidents over the appointment of foreign judges on the SAR’s Court of Final Appeal are defeating the purpose for which the appointments are made, that is, to ensure an open and fair trial for defendants.

The Court of Final Appeal was established in 1997 to replace Hong Kong appeal cases heard by the UK’s Privy Council which, naturally could not continue after the handover. But as Hong Kong judges had not had previous experience in handling appeal cases, a system was devised to import judges with such experience from overseas common law jurisdictions on a temporary bases. They became known as non-permanent judges (NPJs). The appointments added creditability to Hong Kong’s legal system by providing a clear separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive (government). The judiciary shall always remain independent without fear or favour.

However, since the enactment of the national security laws in 2020, overseas dissidents have turned the tables on the legitimacy of the appointments saying they were made to purely bring credibility to the legal system and called for the judges to resign. Yes, they do bring their expertise and credibility to the table but without their presence the dissidents will claim the trials are biased towards the administration. They can’t have it both ways. Most of the judges have ignored the requests from the dissidents and the support they get from the countries of their new domiciles. However, some judges have acceded to the harassment by their respective governments while a few others have resigned for personal reasons.

The recent, small-scale protests in Australia rekindled the plight of NPJs being harassed for doing their job in Hong Kong. Would they dare harass a judge sitting on a trial in the UK, US, Canada or Australia? No way! They would be immediately charged for various offences ranging from interfering in the judicial process to contempt of court.

The Hong Kong Free Press noted the protest was a small peaceful demonstration, inferring why would the authorities even bother to comment on the issue. The size of the protest is not an issue, its purpose is. Australian judge Patrick Keane was giving an address at Sydney’s Banco Court in late October on “Christian inspiration and constitutional rights” when he was confronted by the protesters.

The protest may have gone unnoticed had it not been for the Guardian newspaper bringing the issue to the fore. Other media followed-up. Besides badgering Judge Keane about his giving a speech and preventing him from attending a cocktail reception, the dissidents displayed placards calling for the release of media mogul Jimmy Lai facing national security breaches.

But it was the Guardian that chose to run the otherwise non-event story as part of its Sinophilia campaign.

The Guardian has become the clarion call for the dissidents and has become the main vehicle for their disinformation.

In its relentless onslaught against China/Hong Kong, the Guardian carried some 20 anti-China stories in the last two weeks of October alone, about one a day.

The paper claims that it is independent, from advertisers, corporate manipulation and government interference. But is it? Senior Guardian editors and journalists attend regular background briefings offered by the foreign affairs officials in their respective countries of publication – UK, Australia, US and Europe. This is not uncommon and applies throughout the world for the government to brief the press on changes to policy, legislative proposals to test the waters of the electorate etc. It is also an effective tool to spread disinformation and propaganda.

For a publication not to print what they have been told by the government means they face possible disqualification from attending future briefings and thus missing out on a good story. So, the plot thickens. The press is being blackmailed into accepting what the government gives them without question or face the possibility of being ostracized from attending future briefings.
What is seen on television of White House “briefings” are not briefings, but actual press conferences, that is, the host is identified, and the content is reality. But “briefings” are non-attributable and only the editor knows who the source is. Also, the subject matter is non verifiable. But because the informant is an unidentifiable senior government official, the gullible press laps up the information and spreads this disinformation to the unsuspecting public.

There is nothing to stop this and it will continue for centuries to come. The press has become the lap dog of government and will continue in this role as the “fourth estate” by being the watchdog over the government. [The estates, dating back to medieval times, refer to the separation of power into the legislature, administration, the judiciary and the press. Sometimes, the church is included.] The media will cry that it does criticise the government, but only the administration. When it comes to foreign policy, the media relies on the handouts from the government. So, if a foreign government official says Hong Kong dissidents are good boys and girls and should be protected from evil, then the media has no choice but to agree.

This is the case of Jimmy Lai and the possible reason why he and other accused dissidents are being tried by a panel of three judges and not by a jury. The propaganda machine is so powerful that a court would not find a fair-minded person who had not heard of Jimmy Lai, his cause and his detention. There would be biase.

Millions of dollars are being spent by Lai’s son Sebastien and his legal team to release Lai before the trial resumes on November 20. Instead of seeking a release after the trial, the team have chosen to step up pressure for an immediate release before Lai takes the stand and could further incriminate himself with his own evidence based on his beliefs, thereby lengthening his jail time.