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?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The League of Social Democrats (LSD) went out with a bang recently, shouting "Rather be ashes than dust” " as they dissolved – a rather theatrical exit that reminded me of the fictional character Ah Q and his delusional heroics. Political insiders I know just sneered at this performance, saying bluntly: "They've been causing chaos for years, damaging rather than helping Hong Kong's democratic development. Now that it's all over, they should be remembered as 'democracy sinners.'" I couldn't agree more.
Recently, Civic Party founding member Ronny Tong posted on Facebook about the LSD's demise, echoing similar sentiments. He pointed out how “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and "Mad Dog" Wong Yuk-man brought their "struggle culture" into the legislature, corroding the political ideals of the democratic camp and ultimately causing the complete failure of the pan-democrats. He also admitted quite candidly that the "blue blood" Civic Party got sucked into this dark vortex, and his inability to save it led to his disheartened departure from the party. Having dug into some insider information from that period, I find myself deeply sympathizing with his words.
Ronny Tong delivered his Facebook verdict on the LSD's dissolution, pointing out how leaders Wong Yuk-man and Long Hair's radical culture "eroded" traditional pan-democrats, leading to their ultimate complete failure – even dragging the "blue blood" Civic Party into the dark vortex.
From Gentle Protests to Legislative Mayhem
Tong wasn't surprised to see the LSD dissolve after the Civic Party and Democratic Party had already folded, but it brought back memories of the old days. He recalled how back in 2004, when he and Long Hair were both elected as New Territories East Legislative Council members, the most intense behavior of Long Hair in the legislative Council was standing up to shout his protests. Council President Mrs. Fan would respond like a patient parent teaching her child: "Long Hair, please sit down," and Long Hair would obediently comply, never actually disrupting the meeting order.
But things changed dramatically after Wong Yuk-man (the LSD chairman) entered the Legislative Council in 2008. He brought what you might call a "new culture" of foul language, verbal abuse, and physical confrontation into the chamber. It was quite the transformation.
The Civic Party's Descent Into Chaos
Tong noted that while it was understandable for the LSD to establish a distinctive image, he never expected the "blue blood" Civic Party to be gradually sucked into this dark, bottomless vortex of struggle politics. Later, they even became a main force behind the "Five Constituencies Referendum." The traditional democratic camp's inability to stick to their own governing philosophy was the primary cause of their ultimate complete failure.
Looking back at insider information from that time, the Civic Party being dragged into Wong Yuk-man's "Five Constituencies Referendum" was indeed the beginning of their radical turn. The LSD already harbored ambitions to seize leadership of the democratic camp at that point. Mad Dog vigorously pushed for five district legislators to resign, followed by by-elections, using this as a "de facto referendum" on political reform. The Civic Party was dragged along as if blind-folded, while Democratic Party heavyweight Szeto Wah (Uncle Wah) strongly opposed it, firmly resisting the LSD's "invasion" and blocking Jimmy Lai's behind-the-scenes manipulation.
Internal Warfare and Prophecies of Doom
Within the Civic Party, core member Ronny Tong consistently opposed the "Five Constituencies Referendum" and even organized a party member forum, inviting Uncle Wah to attend and analyze the harm this action would cause. But his honest advice fell on deaf ears, and he became a minority voice within the party, suffering severe ostracism. During one internal discussion, after he voiced his opposition, a scholar colleague tried to speak in support, only to be pointed at and verbally abused by other party members present, while the chairman failed to intervene. At that moment, he first sensed that the Civic Party would eventually perish. Subsequent developments proved his prediction completely correct.
In his Facebook post, Tong mentioned that by 2016, the universal suffrage proposal was rejected due to unanimous opposition from pan-democratic legislators, because they insisted that universal suffrage must include "civic nomination," which contradicted Article 45 of the Basic Law. He remembered that when Long Hair first proposed "civic nomination," all traditional pan-democrats opposed it, but as "struggle culture" gradually eroded democratic ideals, they eventually became the main force opposing the universal suffrage proposal.
The proposal failed and died in the womb, universal suffrage progress stagnated, and a golden opportunity for democratic reform vanished into thin air. Tong lamented that every pan-democratic figure bore responsibility for the failure of universal suffrage. He himself, having failed to persuade the Civic Party, ultimately resigned from the party and his position in accountability.
When Mad Dog and Long Hair pushed the "Five Constituencies Referendum," Tong fought hard against it within the Civic Party, resulting in his ostracism and eventual angry departure from the party.
The Real Reason Behind the Pan-Democratic Collapse
As someone who lived through it all, Tong hit the nail on the head about why pan-democratic parties fell one by one: they were continuously "eroded" by the "radical struggle culture" of groups like the LSD, causing their original political ideals to crumble. As a result, they were led by the nose and ultimately walked down a dead-end path.
Before its "death," the LSD shouted "Better be ashes than dust," appearing heroic but actually embodying a "mutual destruction" mentality. They didn't just self-destruct – they dragged other traditional pan-democratic parties off the cliff with them, taking the universal suffrage proposal to the grave as well.
When we're recording historical merits and faults, radical organizations like the LSD, including leaders such as Mad Dog and Long Hair, are all sinners who destroyed Hong Kong's democracy. That's the harsh truth of it.
Lai Ting-yiu
