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?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Think back to Hong Kong's turbulent years. Jimmy Lai had three brothers-in-arms, comrades he bankrolled through thick and thin – Cardinal Joseph Zen, Martin Lee, and Anson Chan. But their bonds weren't just ideological. Money changed hands, and plenty of it. Anson Chan pocketed HK$3.5 million from Lai's war chest. Cardinal Zen took in far more – at least HK$26 million in secret donations that the Hong Kong Diocese never knew about and never investigated. Where did all that cash go? That's the million-dollar question. Or rather, the 26-million-dollar question that remains unanswered.
Cardinal Zen met Pope Leo XIV in Rome, reportedly pushing for Jimmy Lai's release – but Vatican intervention looks unlikely.
Word broke earlier that Cardinal Zen just made a pilgrimage to the Vatican for a sit-down with the newly minted Pope Leo XIV. The private meeting lasted about an hour. On the agenda: the conviction of "Catholic" Jimmy Lai. Sources say Zen pressed the pontiff hard to "save Lai." What did the Pope say? Nobody's talking. But you can bet the Vatican knows all about the questionable financial ties between Zen and Lai – a relationship the Cardinal has never properly explained to his own Diocese. Did personal interests play a role? The doubts are real.
A Vatican Gambit
Cardinal Zen's "612 Humanitarian Relief Fund" case is still grinding through the courts, and authorities had confiscated his passport. But when the Vatican called its recent "Special Consistory" – bringing cardinals from around the world to Rome – the court granted him temporary travel privileges. During the gathering, Pope Leo XIV carved out time for a private one-on-one with Zen after a breakfast session. The topics? Whether the China-Vatican agreement should be renewed, and the fate of Jimmy Lai, now convicted under Hong Kong's National Security Law. But whether the Pope took any position on Lai remains under wraps.
Zen views Jimmy Lai as both a close friend and a comrade-in-arms, so naturally he's pushing the Vatican to intervene. But here's the Vatican's dilemma: it's not just about China-Vatican relations. It's about the unresolved financial relationship between Zen and Lai – a relationship that has seriously damaged the Cardinal's credibility.
The Secret Pipeline
October 2011 brought a massive leak. Jimmy Lai's secret donations to political parties, politicians, and organizations spilled into public view – and Joseph Zen, then Bishop of Hong Kong, was on that list. Between 2006 and 2010, he received HK$20 million from Lai over four years. From 2012 to 2014, another HK$6 million landed in his hands. The total: a staggering HK$26 million.
When the news broke, Zen went silent. Only after relentless media pressure did he offer an explanation, claiming the money went to support underground churches in the Chinese Mainland and other charitable organizations. With a casual smile, he described himself as a "spendthrift," saying most of the money had already been spent with only a few hundred thousand remaining – and even expressed hope that Lai would keep the donations coming.
Talk is cheap. He provided no concrete evidence to back up his claims. The Hong Kong Diocese knew nothing about his receipt of this massive sum from Lai – the entire "money pipeline" operated in secret. To this day, he has never given the Diocese a complete accounting.
Because this financial channel remained so deeply hidden, suspicions naturally arose that personal interests were involved. But given Cardinal Zen's position, the Diocese refrained from investigating him. The true destination of the funds? Still shrouded in doubt.
HK$26 million from Jimmy Lai to Cardinal Zen – Diocese in the dark, money's whereabouts still a mystery. The trio behind Hong Kong's unrest!
Vatican Cold Shoulder
Cardinal Zen's questionable relationship with Jimmy Lai, combined with his overly hawkish stance toward China, put him in the Vatican's bad books after Hong Kong's National Security Law took effect in late June 2020. Around that time, Zen traveled uninvited to the Vatican, demanding a meeting with then-Pope Francis to discuss Hong Kong's bishop selection and issues facing underground churches in the Mainland. The Pope gave him zero face. Francis refused to see him. After cooling his heels in Rome for four days with nothing to show for it, Zen returned to Hong Kong empty-handed.
Later, Zen and Lai joined forces on Jimmy Lai's "Live Chat" livestream program to blast the Vatican, accusing it of staying silent on underground churches, Tibet, and Hong Kong human rights issues. This clearly shows how the "Zen-Lai duo" consistently conspired to incite underground church activities in the Mainland, stir up religious conflicts, and undermine China-Vatican relations.
Cardinal Zen's latest Vatican trip for a private papal audience, where he lobbied to "save Lai" and reiterated his opposition to renewing the China-Vatican agreement, proves one thing: at 94 years old, the cardinal's anti-China, pro-chaos heart hasn't changed one bit.
Long Odds
The new Pope's willingness to meet him represents a slight thaw from his predecessor's icy attitude. But the chances of Vatican intervention to "save Lai"? Extremely low. The unresolved questions about Zen's financial relationship with Jimmy Lai have significantly diminished his influence with the Vatican.
From a legal perspective, his cardinal status currently shields him from serious consequences. But risks remain. Perhaps it's time for him to follow Anson Chan's example and retire from such activities while he still can.
Lai Ting-yiu
