In a world rife with double standards, it is crucial to speak up against injustices. Silence only reinforces the notion that others are entirely right, while you are completely wrong.
During his recent visit to China, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy held discussions with Chinese State Councillor Ding Xuexiang and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Upon his return to the UK, Lammy was heavily questioned in Parliament by the opposition Conservative Party. Former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith demanded to know whether Lammy had condemned or pressured China on issues such as the Jimmy Lai case. Under this pressure, Lammy declared that the trial of Jimmy Lai, human rights in Xinjiang, and the Taiwan Strait situation are significant concerns for the UK.
On November 11, Jimmy Lai’s youngest son, Sebastien Lai, posted a photo of his meeting with Lammy on social media, urging the UK government to pressure for his father's release. Lammy swiftly echoed this call, asserting that the Jimmy Lai case remains a priority for the UK and pledging to “continue advocating for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.”
Jimmy Lai stands accused under Hong Kong’s National Security Law of colluding with foreign forces. Even while the case undergoes judicial proceedings, foreign entities have exerted undue pressure, flagrantly undermining Hong Kong's rule of law.
Sebastien Lai and the so-called "International Legal Team for Jimmy Lai"—whose legitimacy has been refuted by Lai’s official legal representatives in Hong Kong—have been actively lobbying in the UK and beyond. On November 20, when Jimmy Lai is due to testify, this “legal team” and Sebastien Lai plan to hold a press conference in Washington, D.C., led by British barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher. Their objective is clear: to exert political pressure on Hong Kong authorities to secure Lai’s release.
Rationally, their efforts should focus on ensuring a fair trial for Lai—something Hong Kong is committed to upholding. Yet their demand for his unconditional release is entirely political, leveraging foreign influence to force Hong Kong to abandon its judicial process.
Firstly, such interference blatantly contradicts the West’s avowed principles of rule of law and respect for Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy.” Sebastien Lai has yet to present evidence of any judicial unfairness in Hong Kong toward his father. Furthermore, Western critics who claim to defend Hong Kong's autonomy now paradoxically call on the UK to pressure Beijing into intervening in Hong Kong’s legal system. Were Beijing to interfere and halt the trial, it would indeed compromise Hong Kong's judicial independence. This hypocrisy exposes the inconsistency of the West’s proclaimed values.
Secondly, the UK’s strict approach to offenses related to incitement makes its criticism of Hong Kong appear even more unjustified. Consider the case of Wayne O'Rourke, a 35-year-old arrested amid anti-immigrant riots in August this year, during which over 1,100 people were detained. British authorities swiftly prosecuted and imprisoned numerous individuals for incitement or related charges. O'Rourke who was accused of publishing written material on social media, “stirring up racial hate” following misinformation about a stabbing incident in Southport. He was sentenced to three years in prison.
O'Rourke’s social media profile reads: “I love my country, right-wing, stop the boats, Brexit, Boris Johnson, Trump, God save the UK, vote for reform.” In another setting, such as the United States, he might have secured a government role, but in the UK, he landed in prison.
If Britain insists that Hong Kong release Jimmy Lai, then Hong Kong has equal grounds to demand the release of O'Rourke. Despite O'Rourke's minimal influence, he has been imprisoned for stirring up racial hate. Jimmy Lai, a media tycoon with far-reaching influence, stands accused of more severe offenses. Why should Hong Kong be denied the right to prosecute him?
The new Labour government in the UK has expressed a desire to strengthen relations with China and promote economic cooperation. Yet, when faced with domestic criticism, it retreats into performative posturing on so-called human rights issues. This inconsistency raises doubts about the Labour government’s ability to achieve substantial progress.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
“He preaches water and drinks wine.” This Western proverb could not be more apt in describing those “honorable” members of the US Congress sitting atop Capitol Hill.
The US Senate and House just greenlit the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. Sure, it hikes defense spending. Buried in there are special provisions targeting China that would make any objective observer squirm.
The law mandates that the US Director of National Intelligence publish a public report disclosing the global financial status of Xi Jinping and other top Chinese leaders – plus their relatives. We're talking about all Politburo and Standing Committee members, their family members, including the so-called "white gloves" – financial agents managing assets on their behalf.
It’s specified that the report must be unclassified, available online for anyone with an internet connection to read. A similar clause appeared in the 2023 NDAA but got dismissed as superficial. However, this version is detailed, explicit, and loaded with congressional pressure to expose what the US lawmakers claim is hidden Chinese wealth.
Capitol Hill's Shameless Overreach
Watching these American legislators operate is infuriating. They slip targeted clauses against Chinese leaders into a domestic bill, essentially broadcasting to the world that China's leadership sits on vast private fortunes – corruption implied. Since the law requires public release, this isn't about genuine investigation. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
First question: what right does the US have to do this? If Congress passes a bill investigating American citizens' assets, nobody can object. But investigating foreign leaders' finances? That's a different story entirely.
Another country's leadership finances should be handled by that country's own institutions – not Washington's long arm. This arrogance stems from "American Exceptionalism," a concept that still drives US foreign policy today.
The term "American Exceptionalism" was coined back in 1831 by Alexis de Tocqueville. It expresses the notion that America is unique – founded on liberty, individualism, equality before the law, and laissez-faire capitalism. Through this lens, America stands stable, prosperous, and incomparable to any other nation – an ideal constitutional republic.
When Kitchens Became Battlegrounds
From this belief emerged a foreign policy where the US sees itself as a chosen nation entitled to impose its "perfect" system on others – even launching color revolutions to topple governments and force them to replicate American democracy. During the Cold War, Americans framed this ideological struggle as "freedom and democracy" versus "Communist tyranny." The famous "Kitchen Debate" perfectly captured this mindset.
In July 1959, at the American National Exhibition opening in Moscow, 46-year-old Vice President Richard Nixon sparred with 65-year-old Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev inside a model American kitchen on display. The exhibit showcased washing machines, refrigerators, and household appliances as symbols of capitalist prosperity.
Before the cameras, Khrushchev remarked that Soviets cared only for practicality, not luxury. Nixon shot back that under capitalism, Americans enjoyed the freedom to choose how they lived – to buy or not to buy. Most observers concluded Nixon won that round, largely because America's material abundance stood in stark contrast to Soviet austerity.
But today? Time has turned the tables. If Donald Trump visited China and rode a high-speed train, we might witness a new "High-Speed Rail Debate" – one where US capitalism would find itself at a distinct disadvantage.
Yet American politicians still cling to "American Exceptionalism," believing they hold the right to meddle everywhere. Now that America's strength has waned – its system corroded, its manufacturing hollowed out, its infrastructure decayed, its streets filled with drug-addled zombies – US lawmakers' persistence in policing the world reeks of dark comedy.
America's Fading Exceptionalism
Second question: what moral ground does the US stand on? Washington claims to expose corruption by investigating Chinese leaders' wealth, yet it ignores rampant corruption among its own politicians.
Take Trump. During his campaign, he enthusiastically championed cryptocurrency, promising to promote the sector once elected. Then, on the eve of taking office, he launched his own meme coin – "$Trump." By Chinese Mainland standards, that's textbook corruption: promoting a policy and, before assuming power, issuing a financial product that would benefit from that same policy. It's retail investor fleecing, plain and simple.
Here's the damage: $Trump launched before Trump's inauguration and peaked at USD 49.26. As of December 19? It's plunged to USD 5.07 – a brutal 90% collapse. Retail investors got ruthlessly fleeced, yet no one dares speak up.
The Stock Goddess Retires
Then there's Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker – the real "Goddess of Stocks," outperforming even Warren Buffett. In 2023, Pelosi's family achieved an 84.3% investment return, crushing Buffett's numbers. Their fortune ballooned from USD 41 million in 2004 to USD 120 million in 2023, with some holdings soaring 96% in just a few years.
Market observers almost universally believe Pelosi trades on insider information – how else could anyone consistently outperform world-class fund managers? Her trades became so influential that investors created tracking tools and even an ETF fund mirroring her stock picks.
Pelosi denies any wrongdoing and dismisses accusations that lawmakers profit from nonpublic information. But she can't explain her uncanny market timing – a godlike ability that defies rational explanation.
Even some American progressives find this intolerable. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) proposed multiple bills to ban congressional stock trading. But as a minority voice, her proposals failed. No one can stop Capitol Hill's "Stock Goddess." Now that Pelosi announced plans to retire in 2027, investors mourn as if the market lost a guiding star – with no more Pelosi trades to follow for profit.
In the end, this is what "American democracy" has become – a system that openly permits abuse of power. Yet these very same legislators have the audacity to pass laws investigating the wealth of Chinese leaders. They preach water but drink wine – a hypocrisy so absurd it chills the spine.
Lo Wing-hung
