This year marks the 28th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China, as well as the fifth anniversary of the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. The city celebrated these milestones with much fanfare—and predictably, it didn't take long for the usual suspects to rain on the parade.
The EU's Predictable Intervention
Some foreign governments seized the occasion to target Hong Kong, because apparently they can't help themselves. The European External Action Service issued a statement on June 30, claiming:
"The past five years have seen a continuous erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong, and a severe restriction of the space for the political opposition and independent civil society. … The European Union urges the authorities to shift their emphasis towards reconciliation in Hong Kong society and again strengthen what has made Hong Kong so unique and successful by fostering openness, diversity and the respect for fundamental freedoms."
China wasn't having any of it. In response to the EU's meddling, Beijing struck back forcefully. The Chinese Mission to the EU issued a statement, declaring, "China strongly deplores and firmly opposes the EEAS’s unwarranted comment in its statement on the Hong Kong National Security Law and its blatant interference in China’s internal affairs." The mission further stated, "Hong Kong affairs are purely China's internal affairs and brook no external interference. We urge the EU to abide by the principles of international law and the basic norms governing international relations, respect China's sovereignty and Hong Kong's rule of law, and stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs and China's internal affairs in any form."
The National Security Law has effectively severed the channels for foreign interference in Hong Kong's politics, which naturally draws strong opposition from the US and the West. Former Foreign Minister Qian Qichen once remarked, "Those who oppose Article 23 national security legislation—do they have something to hide?!"
America's Blacklist, China's Honor Roll
As I've noted before, in the eyes of central leaders, "Anyone who ends up on America's blacklist is, in fact, on the nation's honor roll. Their unyielding spirit of struggle embodies the integrity of the Chinese people. The US sanctions list is the list of those supported by the nation."
Take a look at this year's July 1st honors list in the SAR—it reads like a who's who of Washington's most wanted. Nine current and former national security officials who have been sanctioned by the US became the focus. Secretary for Justice Paul Lam, former Commissioner of Police Siu Chak-yee, National Security Committee Executive Director Edwina Lau, National Security Committee Secretary-General Au Chi-kwong, and Deputy Commissioner of Police Kan Kai-yan received the Gold Bauhinia Star; Director of the Police National Security Department Kelvin Kong received the Silver Bauhinia Star; Assistant Commissioners of Police responsible for national security, Dick Wong and Margaret Chiu, as well as Chief Superintendent of the National Security Department Li Kwai-wah, received the Bronze Bauhinia Star. Chief Executive John Lee praised these nine officials for remaining steadfast and fearless in fulfilling their duties despite external targeting and malicious suppression.
Awarding honors to these nine courageous officials sanctioned by the US perfectly illustrates the saying, "To be on America's blacklist is to be on the nation's honor roll."
The Reconciliation Trap
As for the EU's call for social reconciliation, it's highly misleading—and frankly, a bit naive. There's always a group of moderates in Hong Kong society who advocate for grand reconciliation. On the surface, the idea of reconciliation appears open-minded, politically correct, and harmless—perhaps even a tactic to win over opponents. Yet, the underlying implication of reconciliation is to halt all robust law enforcement actions. This is where calls for amnesty arise. Those who oppose reconciliation are then branded as politically incorrect, stubborn, or even villainous.
Let's look at the current EU foreign minister, whose official title is "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy," Kaja Kallas. She's the former Prime Minister of Estonia and a politician who champions political correctness, with a distinct anti-communist, left-liberal stance. The EU's statement fully reflects Kallas's political views—it's basically her ideological fingerprint all over it. Behind it lies a rejection of the National Security Law and Hong Kong's law enforcement actions, an attempt to open the door for foreign interference in Hong Kong, and to "support" local radical elements.
Many advocates of reconciliation are so-called moderate opposition figures, some of whom are my friends. In private political discussions, I often ask them: when political violence in Hong Kong reached a fever pitch in 2019—such as the horrific act of setting a person on fire in Ma On Shan on November 11—why didn't you speak out against it? Most of them have no answer, and that silence is pretty telling.
Beijing's Hard Line Makes Sense
Those who support reconciliation often do so out of a desire to avoid confronting conflict—it's the path of least resistance. Yet, the side effect of reconciliation is to embolden opposition forces. Like wildfire, they're never truly extinguished—when unrest flares up again, will the reconciliation camp step forward to stop the violence? Or will they call for reconciliation today, only to shrink away when trouble arises tomorrow?
Beijing doesn't buy into the idea of social reconciliation, and frankly, you can see why. Instead, it believes that safeguarding national security must be an ongoing effort, and that economic development must proceed in parallel. With determined action, these two seemingly contradictory goals can be achieved simultaneously—there's no need to choose one over the other.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
“He preaches water and drinks wine.” This Western proverb could not be more apt in describing those “honorable” members of the US Congress sitting atop Capitol Hill.
The US Senate and House just greenlit the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. Sure, it hikes defense spending. Buried in there are special provisions targeting China that would make any objective observer squirm.
The law mandates that the US Director of National Intelligence publish a public report disclosing the global financial status of Xi Jinping and other top Chinese leaders – plus their relatives. We're talking about all Politburo and Standing Committee members, their family members, including the so-called "white gloves" – financial agents managing assets on their behalf.
It’s specified that the report must be unclassified, available online for anyone with an internet connection to read. A similar clause appeared in the 2023 NDAA but got dismissed as superficial. However, this version is detailed, explicit, and loaded with congressional pressure to expose what the US lawmakers claim is hidden Chinese wealth.
Capitol Hill's Shameless Overreach
Watching these American legislators operate is infuriating. They slip targeted clauses against Chinese leaders into a domestic bill, essentially broadcasting to the world that China's leadership sits on vast private fortunes – corruption implied. Since the law requires public release, this isn't about genuine investigation. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
First question: what right does the US have to do this? If Congress passes a bill investigating American citizens' assets, nobody can object. But investigating foreign leaders' finances? That's a different story entirely.
Another country's leadership finances should be handled by that country's own institutions – not Washington's long arm. This arrogance stems from "American Exceptionalism," a concept that still drives US foreign policy today.
The term "American Exceptionalism" was coined back in 1831 by Alexis de Tocqueville. It expresses the notion that America is unique – founded on liberty, individualism, equality before the law, and laissez-faire capitalism. Through this lens, America stands stable, prosperous, and incomparable to any other nation – an ideal constitutional republic.
When Kitchens Became Battlegrounds
From this belief emerged a foreign policy where the US sees itself as a chosen nation entitled to impose its "perfect" system on others – even launching color revolutions to topple governments and force them to replicate American democracy. During the Cold War, Americans framed this ideological struggle as "freedom and democracy" versus "Communist tyranny." The famous "Kitchen Debate" perfectly captured this mindset.
In July 1959, at the American National Exhibition opening in Moscow, 46-year-old Vice President Richard Nixon sparred with 65-year-old Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev inside a model American kitchen on display. The exhibit showcased washing machines, refrigerators, and household appliances as symbols of capitalist prosperity.
Before the cameras, Khrushchev remarked that Soviets cared only for practicality, not luxury. Nixon shot back that under capitalism, Americans enjoyed the freedom to choose how they lived – to buy or not to buy. Most observers concluded Nixon won that round, largely because America's material abundance stood in stark contrast to Soviet austerity.
But today? Time has turned the tables. If Donald Trump visited China and rode a high-speed train, we might witness a new "High-Speed Rail Debate" – one where US capitalism would find itself at a distinct disadvantage.
Yet American politicians still cling to "American Exceptionalism," believing they hold the right to meddle everywhere. Now that America's strength has waned – its system corroded, its manufacturing hollowed out, its infrastructure decayed, its streets filled with drug-addled zombies – US lawmakers' persistence in policing the world reeks of dark comedy.
America's Fading Exceptionalism
Second question: what moral ground does the US stand on? Washington claims to expose corruption by investigating Chinese leaders' wealth, yet it ignores rampant corruption among its own politicians.
Take Trump. During his campaign, he enthusiastically championed cryptocurrency, promising to promote the sector once elected. Then, on the eve of taking office, he launched his own meme coin – "$Trump." By Chinese Mainland standards, that's textbook corruption: promoting a policy and, before assuming power, issuing a financial product that would benefit from that same policy. It's retail investor fleecing, plain and simple.
Here's the damage: $Trump launched before Trump's inauguration and peaked at USD 49.26. As of December 19? It's plunged to USD 5.07 – a brutal 90% collapse. Retail investors got ruthlessly fleeced, yet no one dares speak up.
The Stock Goddess Retires
Then there's Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker – the real "Goddess of Stocks," outperforming even Warren Buffett. In 2023, Pelosi's family achieved an 84.3% investment return, crushing Buffett's numbers. Their fortune ballooned from USD 41 million in 2004 to USD 120 million in 2023, with some holdings soaring 96% in just a few years.
Market observers almost universally believe Pelosi trades on insider information – how else could anyone consistently outperform world-class fund managers? Her trades became so influential that investors created tracking tools and even an ETF fund mirroring her stock picks.
Pelosi denies any wrongdoing and dismisses accusations that lawmakers profit from nonpublic information. But she can't explain her uncanny market timing – a godlike ability that defies rational explanation.
Even some American progressives find this intolerable. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) proposed multiple bills to ban congressional stock trading. But as a minority voice, her proposals failed. No one can stop Capitol Hill's "Stock Goddess." Now that Pelosi announced plans to retire in 2027, investors mourn as if the market lost a guiding star – with no more Pelosi trades to follow for profit.
In the end, this is what "American democracy" has become – a system that openly permits abuse of power. Yet these very same legislators have the audacity to pass laws investigating the wealth of Chinese leaders. They preach water but drink wine – a hypocrisy so absurd it chills the spine.
Lo Wing-hung
