A few days shy of the sixth anniversary of the "black-clad riots," Joshua Wong in jail was hit with another charge: "conspiring to collude with foreign forces" under the National Security Law. Predictably, the US State Department wheeled out its usual strong condemnation, demanding the charges be dropped. But as a friend in political circles told me with a cold laugh, this is the same US government that slammed the door in Wong's face when he came begging for help.
The US State Department's condemnation of Joshua Wong's arrest rings hollow. When Wong came knocking at their consulate begging for asylum, they slammed the door in his face. It's hypocrisy at its finest
When Wong sensed the law was closing in, he naively believed his American "masters" would swoop in to save him. He was wrong. Officials at the US Consulate General in Hong Kong flatly denied him entry, and a direct plea to the Secretary of State went unanswered. The US ruthlessly discarded its pawn then, so its outrage now, echoed by the shameless "feigned compassion" of figures like Marco Rubio, rings utterly hollow. Meanwhile, the foot soldiers of the riots who fled to the US are discovering their American dream is a waking nightmare, stuck in a years-long asylum limbo with no end in sight.
A 'Leader' Left Out in the Cold
This whole sorry affair has ripped the hypocritical mask right off the US government's face. On the eve of the National Security Law's implementation in June 2020, a panicked Wong arranged a meeting with US consular officials. He asked to enter the consulate to seek political asylum, but was met with a blunt "no." The official excuse—that asylum can only be sought on US soil—was a flimsy fob-off, barely concealing the real political calculations at play. It's a classic case of all talk, no action. Denied entry, Wong had no choice but to walk away.
He then fired off a desperate email to then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, again pleading for help. The response was silence. US media later confirmed what was obvious: the Americans were worried that sheltering Wong would risk the consulate being shut down. When it came down to it, American interests came first, and Joshua Wong was left to his fate.
No Room at the Inn
And if that's how they treat a supposed "leader" like Wong, what hope did the ordinary "foot soldiers" have? Take Tony Chung, former convenor of "Studentlocalism." When he found himself cornered in October 2020, he too made a run for the US consulate. He was similarly turned away and promptly arrested by National Security officers just outside. Then there's Tsang Chi-kin, who was shot after assaulting a police officer. He also tried the consulate, was ordered to leave, and ended up living like a fugitive for nearly a year.
These stories all point to the same grim reality: to the US government and its politicians, people like Joshua Wong are assets, not allies. They are judged purely on their utility, with no regard for loyalty. Senator Marco Rubio, who once championed Wong and hosted him in Washington, is a prime example. Now that Wong is arrested, the State Department issues its standard condemnation, but it’s just a convenient pretext to attack China. The words of support are empty; the "feigned compassion" is there for all to see.
"Senator Marco Rubio couldn't praise Joshua Wong enough when he was a useful political asset. His newfound 'concern' now? Textbook case of 'feigned compassion'.
An American Dream Turned Nightmare
The "brothers-in-arms" who managed to flee to the US are learning this lesson the hard way. Some applied for political asylum four years ago and are still waiting, without so much as an interview. They’ve watched as undocumented migrants from Mexico leapfrog them in the queue and gain asylum much faster. As long as their applications are pending, they have no official status. Now, with the looming possibility of a Trump presidency and a massive crackdown on "illegal immigrants," these activists are stuck in a miserable limbo.
Whether it's Joshua Wong being shown the door or his followers being left to languish in America, their six-year illusion of American righteousness ought to be well and truly shattered by now.
Lai Ting-yiu
What Say You?
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
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
