The trial of the "35+" subversion case has concluded, with Hong Kong's judiciary sentencing 45 individuals. Among them, Benny Tai, the key architect of the plot, was given a 10-year prison term—a sentence that underscores the city's commitment to the rule of law and met public expectations.
Yet, international criticism, particularly from organizations like Human Rights Watch, sought to distort the case. The group misleadingly claimed, “Participating in and attempting to win elections is now a crime punishable by 10 years in Hong Kong.” Such comments, either calculated misinformation or reckless ignorance, trivialize the serious nature of the case. As a Cantonese adage reminds us, “One does not feel the pain until the needle pricks their own skin.” Tai’s agenda, if successfully implemented, would have plunged Hong Kong into chaos and destruction.
1. Subversion in Plain Sight
Benny Tai’s "10-step Lan Chao (all burn) plan" openly called for actions to destabilize Hong Kong. This plan sought to paralyze governance by orchestrating the indiscriminate vetoing of the annual government budget by opposition lawmakers, forcing the Chief Executive to resign, and prompting Beijing to declare a state of emergency. Tai envisioned violent street clashes, crackdowns, and Western sanctions against China—all designed to push Hong Kong into turmoil and ultimately topple the government.
Instead of averting potential bloodshed, Tai aimed to provoke it, revealing his calculated strategy to undermine the region’s stability. To ensure the participation of all opposition lawmakers, Tai organized an illegal primary election coupled with the infamous “no regrets” pledge, coercing candidates into committing to vetoing the government budget. This pressure tactic forced even moderate opposition figures into an irreversible course of illegality.
To reduce this conspiracy to mere "participation in and attempting to win elections," as Human Rights Watch did, is profoundly misleading. Imagine a similar "10-step plan" after Trump has resumed his presidency, aimed at shutting down the federal government, instigating violent uprisings and bloody repression, and forcing the removal of the president. Such actions would undoubtedly lead to arrests and prosecutions.
2. The Fallacy of "Achieving Justice Through Breaking the Law"
Tai’s political ideology centres on "achieving justice through breaking the law." From leading the 2014 Occupy Central movement to supporting the violent riot of 2019 and devising the "10-step Lan Chao plan" in 2020, Tai consistently weaponized this concept to undermine government authority.
Western media, such as Deutsche Welle, portrayed Tai as a "legal scholar" handed a harsh sentence. But can a true legal scholar promote illegal actions? Can they serve as the mastermind behind movements designed to destabilize society?
Tai’s interpretation of the rule of law included four principles: (1) laws must exist, (2) laws must be obeyed, (3) laws should limit power, and (4) laws can achieve justice—even if violated. By elevating this fourth principle to the highest ideal, Tai propagated a dangerous fallacy. He misled students and educators, and was even invited to government’s civic education events as an instructor.
Warnings against Tai’s ideology emerged as early as 2017, cautioning that his distorted philosophy undermined the rule of law and misled teachers and students. While these warnings were dismissed at the time, Tai’s actions have since brought Hong Kong to the brink, necessitating a return to order. His conviction vividly illustrates the consequences of his misguided beliefs.
3. Shifting Blame and Avoiding Responsibility
In the "35+" case, the court noted that most defendants pleaded ignorance of the law as a mitigating factor. However, Tai and Civic Party leader Alvin Yeung, both possessing legal expertise, were fully aware of the implications of their actions. Tai’s decision to plead guilty further demonstrated his awareness of the illegality of his scheme, as he sought to reduce his sentence by leveraging a one-third reduction for early admission.
Tai’s defense arguments during sentencing bordered on absurdity. First, he claimed the plan was unfeasible, suggesting it was a mere political stunt. If true, this would amount to deliberate deception. More likely, Tai genuinely believed in the plan’s success until its failure. Second, he downplayed his role, asserting he was merely a minor participant warranting a lighter sentence. This disingenuous claim ignored his position as the plot’s architect and insulted the court’s intelligence.
Western Narratives and Lessons for Hong Kong
Western media and human rights organizations have painted Tai and his co-defendants as martyrs for democracy, framing the case as an attack on electoral participation. Such narratives aim to embolden like-minded activists to continue subversive activities against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the central government.
This case should serve as a cautionary tale. The West’s support for Ukraine against Russia, for example, has come at great cost to the Ukrainian people, turning the country into a land of rubbles. With Donald Trump returning to power, the dire future of Ukraine is all but expected. Hong Kong must avoid becoming another pawn in these kind of geopolitical struggles.
Wing-hung Lo
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
