Mark Pinkstone/Former Chief Information Officer of HK government
So, US President Donald Trump is going to ask China to release former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, currently facing sedition and collusion charges in Hong Kong, during the trade negotiation talks in Switzerland this weekend, according to international news agency, Reuters.
There is little chance of that ever happening. In the whole scheme of world conflicts and international trade negotiations, the trial of a Hong Kong man on sedition charges pales into insignificance. Just a leaf in a tea cup. And even if it did come up during the hard talk negotiations, the Chinese side will simply ignore it.
British-based Reuters boasts a readership of more than one billion people a day and is used by some 750 television broadcasters covering 115 countries. Yes, it does have reach and is influential. But it is also biased, like most of the western media towards China and Hong Kong.
Indeed, the Reuters release was picked up by most of the world’s media. Bloomberg quoted Trump from the release’s account of a radio interview: “I think talking about Jimmy Lai is a very good idea. We’ll put it down and we’ll put it as part of the negotiations.”
Trump was responding to a question put by Republican political commentator Hugh Hewitt on his Hughniverse podcast on May 7.
During the negotiations on Hong Kong’s future in the 1980s, Reuters moved its regional headquarters from Hong Kong to Singapore as it had no faith in Hong Kong’s future. It still doesn’t, even though Hong Kong has fought off adversaries and doomsday prophets with a shield of truth and perseverance. The story of Hong Kong’s triumphs and successes have been retold many times.
Reuters reports: “The trial of Lai – a long-standing critic of the Chinese Communist Party – has shone a spotlight on a sweeping crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong following China’s imposition of a national security law in Hong Kong in 2020.”
The writers, both Hong Kong residents, were in Hong Kong and witnessed the bloody riots that prevailed at the time, but chose to side with the dissidents and their reportage thereafter has been colored by their own emotions. Gone are the days of balanced, unbiased reporting, especially with such a reputable news organization.
But the story is continually fuelled by Lai’s son, Sebastien and his public relations team of barristers at Doughty Street Chambers in London.
On World Press Freedom Day last week, Fox News devoted a segment to Sebastien who noted that in 1995 Lai senior founded Apple Daily…which quickly “became a beacon for free speech.” Every Hong Konger knows that Apple Daily was launched on a platform of sex, gossip and more sex. It was a sleaze newspaper, known in the west as the “yellow press.” In its early days it had no political bias. It was not until he ran foul with the Beijing authorities over regulations concerning his Giordano store that his attitude changed towards Beijing and anything relating to authority.
Sebastien summed up his father as “an immigrant who never quite fit in.”
In this final plea, Sebastien sought the release of his father, even before a verdict has been reached in his trial, so that he “can leave Hong Kong and be with his family.”
Lai faces three charges: two counts of collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security and one count of conspiracy to publish a seditious publication.
Jimmy Lai wrapped up his testimony on March 6 after taking the witness stand for 52 days. The trial is set to hear closing arguments on August 14, which are expected to last eight days.
But again, the western press smeared the judiciary before the trial even began. The infamous BBC lauded: “Mr Lai cannot expect a fair trial in today’s Hong Kong…”
It quoted Doughty Street barrister Jonathan Price, a member of Lai’s so-called international legal team saying that the fundamental principle of the rule of law in Hong Kong has eroded and that “everybody knows there’s only going to be one result.”
Mr Price, his colleagues in Doughty Street Chambers and the BBC should be reminded that Hong Kong’s judiciary ranks No.23 out of the 142 jurisdictions in the authoritative World Justice Project last year and even higher ratings in World Economic Forum earlier findings.
Mark Pinkstone
** 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 crippling Hong Kong and especially its law-making process, it can cripple 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.
