For decades, just mentioning Article 23 or the National Security Law (NSL) would send Hong Kong people into a panic. The US and Western political propaganda machine had been remarkably successful at that fear-mongering. But now? The law is doing exactly what it was supposed to do – and that's precisely why the West is so upset about it.
When British Diplomats Showed Their True Colors
Let me share with you a personal experience that perfectly encapsulates Western hypocrisy. Back in 1985, as a junior reporter covering the Joint Liaison Group meetings between China and Britain, I had some eye-opening tea chats with British representatives in London. These guys were working overtime to convince everyone that Article 23 of the Basic Law – you know, the bit about prohibiting subversion, sedition, and liaising with foreign political organizations – would be an absolute disaster for Hong Kong's freedoms.
When I asked one British rep whether the UK had similar laws, he just shrugged it off with "we rarely use these laws." Classic deflection. Britain has had national security legislation for ages, but somehow Hong Kong wasn't allowed the same protection. The Brits couldn't stop Article 23 from making it into the Basic Law, but they did manage to slip in that "Hong Kong shall enact laws on its own" clause – essentially planting a legislative landmine for later.
And boy, did that strategy work. After 1997, the fear-mongering went into overdrive. Every mention of Article 23 sent people into panic mode, thanks to relentless Western propaganda painting it as some sort of totalitarian nightmare.
The Chaos That "Freedom" Actually Brought
Here's what really happened when Hong Kong had no national security framework: it became a playground for foreign operatives and local troublemakers. The 2019 riots weren't some organic pro-democracy movement – they were a carefully orchestrated mess with foreign fingerprints all over it.
Take the "Dragon Slaying Squad" – these weren't freedom fighters, they were wannabe terrorists planning to plant bombs in busy areas. And guess what? One of their confessed accomplices, Pang Kwun-ho, testified that he was shipped off to Taiwan in 2019 for military training, including firearms use. Does anyone seriously believe Taiwan's Military Intelligence Bureau was just casually unaware of people from Hong Kong getting firearms and military training on their soil?
Then there's Jimmy Lai and his merry band of foreign collaborators. Through his assistant Mark Simon – a former US naval intelligence agent, no less – they were running the "Stand with Hong Kong" operation, cosying up to Western politicians and actively promoting sanctions against mainland China and Hong Kong. This wasn't journalism or activism; it was straight-up foreign interference.
The saddest part: many of the young people throwing petrol bombs genuinely thought they were fighting tyranny. They'd been fed a steady diet of fake news about police beating people to death at Prince Edward Station and other fabricated "police brutality" stories. These kids weren't exercising freedom – they were being manipulated by forces that couldn't care less about their futures.
Both the US and Britain have robust national security laws of their own, yet they spent decades trying to convince Hong Kong people that having similar protections would be catastrophic. In fact, without proper national security legislation, Hong Kong's so-called freedom was just freedom for espionage activities, foreign manipulation, malicious rumours and political chaos. That's not the kind of freedom any society should want.
Why the Law Works, And Why That Terrifies the West
Xia Baolong, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, nailed it at the recent symposium that marks the 5th anniversary of the NSL implementation. The National Security Law didn't destroy "One Country, Two Systems" – it saved it. The implementation of the law became the watershed moment that brought Hong Kong from chaos to stability, fending off foreign attacks or intervention, enabling everything good from electoral system reforms to the current "patriots governing Hong Kong" aspiration.
That's what really keeps Western policymakers up at night: the inconvenient reality that Hong Kong is actually better off with proper national security protections. No wonder they're so keen to convince everyone otherwise.
It’s high time we recognised the importance of the National Security Law. The truth is, Hong Kong's National Security Law isn't restricting genuine freedom – it's protecting us from those who would abuse that freedom for their own political ends. No doubt that fewer foreign agents like Mark Simon operating in Hong Kong means less manipulation, less chaos, and more genuine stability.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Trump's Venezuela play just gave Western progressives a masterclass in American hypocrisy.
Steve Bannon, Trump's longtime strategist, told The New York Times the Venezuela assault—arresting President Nicolás Maduro and all—stands as this administration's most consequential foreign policy move. Meticulously planned, Bannon concedes, but woefully short on ideological groundwork. "The lack of framing of the message on a potential occupation has the base bewildered, if not angry".
Trump's rationale for nabbing Maduro across international borders was drug trafficking. But here's the tell: once Maduro was in custody, Trump stopped talking about Venezuelan cocaine and started obsessing over Venezuelan oil. He's demanding US oil companies march back into Venezuela to seize control of local assets. And that's not all—he wants Venezuela to cough up 50 million barrels of oil.
Trump's Colonial Playbook
On January 6, Trump unveiled his blueprint: Venezuela releases 50 million barrels to the United States. America sells it. Market watchers peg the haul at roughly $2.8 billion.
Trump then gleefully mapped out how the proceeds would flow—only to "American-made products." He posted on social media: "These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela's Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner."
Trump's demand for 50 million barrels up front—not a massive volume, granted—betrays a blunt short-term goal. It's the classic imperial playbook: invade a colony, plunder its resources, sail home and parade the spoils before your supporters to justify the whole bloody enterprise. Trump isn't chasing the ideological legitimacy Bannon mentioned. He's after something more primal: material legitimacy. Show me a colonial power that didn't loot minerals or enslave labor from its colonies.
America's Western allies were silent as the grave when faced with such dictatorial swagger. But pivot the camera to Hong Kong, and suddenly they're all righteous indignation.
The British Double Standard
Recently, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith penned an op-ed in The Times, slamming the British government for doing "nothing but issuing 'strongly worded' statements in the face of Beijing's trampling of the Sino-British Joint Declaration." He's calling on the Labour government to sanction the three designated National Security Law judges who convicted Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai of "collusion with foreign forces"—to prove that "Hong Kong's judiciary has become a farce." Duncan Smith even vowed to raise the matter for debate in the British Parliament.
The Conservatives sound principled enough. But think it through, and it's laughable. The whole world's talking about Maduro right now—nobody's talking about Jimmy Lai anymore.
Maduro appeared in US Federal Court in New York on January 6. The United States has trampled international law and the UN Charter—that's what Duncan Smith would call "American justice becoming a farce." If Duncan Smith's so formidable, why doesn't he demand the British government sanction Trump? Why not sanction the New York Federal Court judges? If he wants to launch a parliamentary debate, why not urgently debate America's crimes in invading Venezuela? Duncan Smith's double standards are chilling.
Silence on Venezuela
After the Venezuela incident, I searched extensively online—even deployed AI—but couldn't find a single comment from former Conservative leader Duncan Smith on America's invasion of Venezuela. Duncan Smith has retreated into his shell.
Duncan Smith is fiercely pro-US. When Trump visited the UK last September amid considerable domestic criticism, the opposition Conservatives didn't just stay quiet—Duncan Smith actively defended him, calling Trump's unprecedented second UK visit critically important: "if the countries that believe in freedom, democracy and the rule of law don’t unite, the totalitarian states… will dominate the world and it will be a terrible world to live in."
The irony cuts deep now. America forcibly seizes another country's oil and minerals—Trump is fundamentally an imperialist dictator. With Duncan Smith's enthusiastic backing, this totalitarian Trump has truly won.
Incidentally, the Conservative Party has completely destroyed itself. The party commanding the highest support in Britain today is the far-right Reform Party. As early as last May, YouGov polling showed Reform Party capturing the highest support at 29%, the governing Labour Party languishing at just 22%, the Liberal Democrats ranking third at 17%, and the Conservatives degraded to fourth place with 16% support.
The gutless Conservative Party members fear offending Trump, while voters flock to the Reform Party instead. The Conservatives' posturing shows they've become petty villains for nothing.
Lo Wing-hung
