A Tale of Two Riots
This week marks a rather awkward anniversary. It’s been six years since the "612" incident kicked off the "black riots" in Hong Kong, plunging the city into months of chaos. Across the globe, some of the self-styled "brothers and sisters" of that movement, now living in exile, will dutifully commemorate the event, chanting the old slogans about their "revolution."
Trump deployed three hard-line tactics against the Los Angeles riots, using extreme high-pressure control and implementing a strike-first strategy. While controversial, it can effectively quell unrest
But here's the kicker. At this very moment, Los Angeles is engulfed in its own major riots. And guess who's in charge of the crackdown? None other than Donald Trump, the very same man who once championed Hong Kong's "resistance." He’s now the one unleashing a barrage of tough measures, promising to crush the unrest without mercy. This glaring double standard has got people talking. A friend of mine put it best: those Hong Kong activists who loved marching with American flags—do they dare take their protest to Los Angeles now? They might just get a real-time lesson in what American-style authoritarianism truly feels like. If the Hong Kong government had opted for the “American way”, the riots would’ve been snuffed out in weeks, not months.
Let's break down Trump's riot-control playbook and see how it compares to Hong Kong's hesitant response six years ago.
Move #1: Define the Narrative—Harshly.
Trump didn't hesitate for a second. He immediately branded the protests as "riots," driven by "professional agitators," and is even preparing to label them an "insurrectionist." His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, calls the participants "mobs."
By refusing to define this as a legitimate protest, the government gives itself the green light to send in the National Guard. He’s even escalated it to a "foreign invasion" because protesters were seen waving Mexican flags, framing it as an attack on national sovereignty.
Now, cast your mind back to Hong Kong in 2019. The authorities dithered, umming and aahing over whether to call it a "riot." This vagueness sent a clear signal to the troublemakers that the government was weak. As a result: They only got bolder. And let's not forget the sea of American and British flags at those protests. Yet the charge of "foreign invasion" was never levelled, a courtesy Trump certainly isn't extending now.
Move #2: Overwhelming Force—Immediately.
Trump's second move: Hit them hard and fast. He invoked powers under Title 10 of the United States Code to bypass the California governor and directly mobilize the National Guard and even the Marines. The strategy is clear: strike first with overwhelming force before the chaos can spread.
The Hong Kong police, in the early days, were constantly on the back foot, playing a city-wide game of whack-a-mole. They were purely reactive, rushing to put out fires wherever they flared up, leaving them exhausted and outmanoeuvred. It wasn't until December of that year, when Tang Ping-keung took over as Commissioner of Police, that the strategy shifted, culminating in the decisive victory at the siege of PolyU which finally turned the tide.
Compared to Trump's methods, the Hong Kong government had several strategic problems in the early stages of the black riots, causing the chaotic situation to continue until later strategic and attitudinal adjustments finally turned the tide.
Move #3: Lockdown and Control.
Trump's third tactic is the lockdown. He forced Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to declare a curfew, allowing police to launch mass arrests and clear the streets entirely—journalists included. It’s a hardline tactic that stops looting, sure, but more importantly, it prevents protesters from gathering and organizing.
The Hong Kong government talked about imposing a curfew, but ultimately got cold feet. They were worried about the economic fallout and, crucially, damage to Hong Kong's international image. So, the idea remained a "backup option" that was never used.
A practical lesson for Hong Kong
Looking at Trump's strategy, it’s unapologetically authoritarian. He’s chosen to apply thunderous force to extinguish the flames before they can become an inferno. As for what the world thinks of America's commitment to democracy and human rights? Frankly, he doesn't seem to give a damn.
And here's the uncomfortable truth: from a purely operational standpoint, he's probably right. Had the Hong Kong government adopted such a harsh approach from the get-go, the "black riots" of 2019 might have been a much shorter, and less destructive, chapter in the city's history.
Lai Ting-yiu
What Say You?
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Trump's trade war has hit walls everywhere, shattering his strategy. Now, with fires literally erupting in his own backyard, the deportation of undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles has triggered massive riots, with protesters and police clashing in the streets. Fearing things might spiral completely out of control, Trump swiftly deployed the National Guard and urgently banned troublemakers from wearing masks – his moves both swift and ruthless.
Trump, feeling the pain when the needle pricks his flesh, unleashed heavy-handed tactics to suppress Los Angeles riots to prevent his backyard fires from spiraling out of control – one harsh measure being his order banning people participating in protest activities from wearing masks.
It's funny how quickly things change when the tables turn. Legal professionals watching Trump's uncompromising crackdown can't help but recall Hong Kong's 2019 protests when the Hong Kong government urgently enacted the Anti-Mask Law. Back then, Alan Leong and Johannes Chan immediately jumped out to fiercely condemn it, calling the law draconian and claiming it violated citizens' freedom and privacy. Their righteousness was blazing, their moral outrage palpable. Now that Trump's approach is several times more severe, they should logically stand up to strongly condemn him – yet they're completely absent, revealing their true colors.
Trump's Heavy-Handed Response
It's interesting how perspectives shift when situations reverse. During Hong Kong's street chaos, American officials and politicians called it a "beautiful sight to behold" and fabricated claims that police were suppressing peaceful protesters while fanning the flames behind the scenes. But now that riots have erupted in Los Angeles, Trump – suddenly facing his own crisis – is unleashing heavy-handed measures in rapid succession, with tactics disproportionate to the scale of unrest.
The scale of his response is frankly disproportionate to the unrest itself.
When the Shoe's on the Other Foot
First, he rapidly deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles for riot control – a move that completely broke convention. As president, he decided to deploy military forces without receiving a request from California's governor, something unprecedented in decades. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have even stated that 500 Marines have been put on "prepared to deploy" status (while 700 Marines from Twentynine Palms already heading to the city.) The message is clear: this administration means business.
Third, Trump issued an order effectively banning people from wearing masks during protests. His explanation was typically blunt: "Also, from now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why???" The implication being that anyone covering their face during protests must be up to no good.
Trump says protesters will not be allowed to wear masks.
The Hong Kong Parallel
Sound familiar? A legal professional friend of mine, seeing this news, immediately recalled October 2019, when street violence kept escalating and black-clad protesters wore masks while assaulting police officers and vandalizing property. Chief Executive Carrie Lam, watching the situation deteriorate, invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to implement a mask ban.
A group of pan-democratic legislators immediately jumped out in fierce opposition. Civic Party Chairman Alan Leong penned angry op-eds claiming the ordinance violated international human rights law and aimed to intimidate peaceful protesters. Meanwhile, Johannes Chan – then Dean of HKU's Faculty of Law – represented 24 pan-democratic legislators in challenging the legislation through judicial review. In court, he argued passionately that the government wrongly assumed citizens wore masks for illegal purposes, when people at peaceful assemblies might simply want to protect their identities.
The Hong Kong High Court eventually ruled the mask ban unconstitutional, saying it "goes further than necessary" in restricting fundamental rights. Chan and Leong's legal victory was complete – or so it seemed.
The Deafening Silence
But here's where things get interesting. Those same legal minds who gnashed their teeth over Hong Kong's Anti-Mask Law, extensively discussing freedom, human rights, and democracy, are now completely silent about Trump's far more heavy-handed approach.
Where's Alan Leong's fiery New York Times op-ed condemning Trump's "draconian" measures? Where's Johannes Chan's principled legal challenge to protect Los Angeles protesters' rights to anonymity? The silence is deafening – and telling.
Alan Leong and Johannes Chan once fiercely criticized the Hong Kong government's Anti-Mask Law as violating human rights and freedom, now remain completely silent and invisible regarding Trump's current ban.
You'd think these champions of human rights would be first in line to condemn Trump's deployment of military forces against civilians, his bypass of state authority, and his blanket ban on masked protesters. After all, if Hong Kong's measured response to actual rioting was "authoritarian overreach," what does that make Trump's response to relatively minor unrest?
The truth is, these legal eagles were never really about principles – they were about politics. Now that it's Trump doing the heavy lifting, suddenly their moral compasses have gone quiet.
Lai Ting-yiu
