Donald Trump's stint in office unleashed a global tariff war, built on a foundation of economic fallacies that sought to penalize trade partners across the globe. Hong Kong, as a bastion of free trade with minimal tariffs, found itself in the crosshairs, slapped with punitive duties by Washington.
Trump consistently argued that nations enjoying a trade surplus with the US were "cheating and exploiting" America, a narrative he wielded to justify imposing "reciprocal tariffs."
Yet, the reality flips Trump's claims on their head: the US enjoys a substantial trade surplus with Hong Kong. US Trade Representative data from 2024 reveals a US$21.9 billion surplus in Washington's favor. Trump's logic would suggest the US has been "cheating and exploiting" Hong Kong for years. Nonetheless, on April 2, the US declared sweeping "reciprocal tariffs" on China, including Hong Kong, ballooning rates to a staggering 145%. Such measures flout WTO regulations and disregard Hong Kong's status as a distinct customs territory, separate from mainland China.
Even with the preliminary trade accord of May 12, which offered a 90-day reprieve on most tariffs, a 30% levy remained on goods from both mainland China and Hong Kong. This move is not just inequitable for Hong Kong; it undermines Trump's own rhetoric of "reciprocity."
《Bastille Post》(巴士的報) commissioned a professional polling agency to conduct a survey to gauge the public’s sentiment on the tariff conflict. Between May 6 and 14, the agency interviewed randomly selected 702 Hong Kong residents over 18 by phone. The poll revealed that: A resounding 79.7% of respondents deemed it unfair for the US to impose high tariffs on Hong Kong, while the US benefits from a trade surplus and faces no tariffs in return. A mere 5.8% found it justifiable.
A clear majority, 72.2%, concurred that Trump's tariff war would inflict severe damage on the global economy, including the US, branding it a self-defeating strategy. Only 13.2% disagreed.
An overwhelming 73.9% denounced Trump's tactics of extracting concessions through tariff threats as blatant bullying. A mere 13.9% dissented.
The Hong Kong public's sentiment is unequivocal: the unilateral tariffs imposed by the US are met with strong disapproval, seen as an act of aggression with counterproductive consequences.
US politicians often posture as champions of Hong Kong, advocating on its behalf. Now, it's time to relay a clear message: nearly 80% of Hong Kong residents vehemently oppose Washington's tariff bullying. If the US truly seeks to represent Hong Kong's voice, it should heed the will of its people.
Central government officials have long exposed the hypocrisy of Washington's stance. On April 15, Xia Baolong – Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office – condemned the US's imposition of tariffs reaching 145% on tariff-free Hong Kong as "absurd" (this was before the preliminary agreement to reduce tariffs). He highlighted that the US had amassed a US$271.5 billion trade surplus with Hong Kong over the past decade, yet it persisted in levying such tariffs – a display of "sheer arrogance and shamelessness." This underscores that the US cannot bear to see Hong Kong prosper and is the primary force undermining its freedoms, rule of law, and economic stability. The US “isn’t just after our tariffs—it’s after our very lifeblood.”
Xia's words cut to the core: the US, masquerading as a benefactor of Hong Kong, is in reality attempting to suffocate the city. The temporary tariff truce brokered in Geneva on May 12 should not lull anyone into complacency. On the same day, the US Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security moved to revoke some Biden-era export controls on advanced computing semiconductors, but simultaneously issued new AI chip export guidelines, stating that “using Huawei Ascend chips anywhere violates US export control regulations.” Despite minor revisions to the wording, the move was severely condemned by Beijing. The US campaign to contain China continues unabated.
It's no surprise that mainland netizens have wryly dubbed Trump "Chuan Jianguo" – "Trump the Nation Builder", here “Nation” refers to China. The one good thing abut his returning to office is showing the world that the US is a wolf in sheep's clothing, with only its own resurgence in mind. America's constant meddling in Hong Kong affairs is akin to a fox offering New Year's greetings – a facade for ulterior motives. Our poll confirms that Hong Kong people are not fooled: they recognize the bullying nature of the US regime.
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.
Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.
On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.
Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."
Court Slams the Door Shut
The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.
The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.
Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.
Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.
1. Chow's passion for making requests
As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).
Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.
This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.
2. Burning public funds on the public's dime
Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.
Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.
3. Prison is not a holiday resort
Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.
Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.
How Prison Oversight Actually Works
I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.
The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.
Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.
I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Lo Wing-hung
