Government's New Framework
Most people are insensitive to terrorist threat, and often do not realise the danger is so close until after a large-scale terrorist attack happens.
The 2019 riots exposed how close Hong Kong had come to experiencing bombings in crowded areas. Court records reveal the scope: secondary school radicals manufacturing TATP explosives in a Tsim Sha Tsui guesthouse ("Returning Valiant" case), three separate factions plotting December bomb attacks in Wan Chai during a Civil Human Rights Front march ("Dragon-slaying" case), and ongoing trials for alleged hospital and border checkpoint bombing plans.
The government's response has been swift and systematic. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu announced a "three-tier prevention framework" in last year's Policy Address, creating new bureaucratic machinery across government departments specifically designed to coordinate counter-terrorism.
Tier 1 establishes Lee's own Counter-Terrorism Steering Group at the top. Tier 2 places operational coordination under the Secretary for Security's Counter-Terrorism Coordination Group. Tier 3 deploys seven interdepartmental working groups to execute counter-terror work at bureau and departmental levels.
The framework extends beyond traditional security boundaries. Home and Youth Affairs Bureau now handles counter-terrorism public education; Health Bureau, Education Bureau, and Labour and Welfare Bureau require medical personnel, teachers, and social workers to monitor and report suspected terror activity; Commerce and Economic Development Bureau tightens import-export controls on materials that could be weaponized.
Recent Drills and Global Context
On August 13, Lee's steering group held its inaugural meeting to assess "local and global threat trends". The meeting directed bureaux and departments to stage a large-scale counter-terrorism exercise, codenamed "BRAVELIGHT," which took place on August 28 at Kai Tak Cruise Terminal, simulating attacks on critical infrastructure.
Hong Kong has always had good law and order, and until the outbreak of the black riots in 2019, there were no cases of terrorist attacks in Hong Kong for many years. However, the global situation is turbulent, and terrorist attacks have broken out in various places almost every day in recent years. In addition to attacks launched by Islamic radical groups, far-right forces have also begun to launch attacks. The December 20, 2024 Magdeburg Christmas market attack in Germany—where a car plowed into crowds, killing six and injuring over 200—demonstrated how far-right extremism now complements traditional Islamist threats. China has also become a target. In October last year, the Baloch Liberation Army of Pakistan claimed responsibility for a suicide attack near Karachi airport that killed two Chinese nationals working on Pakistan's nuclear project and injured others in a convoy of Chinese engineers and investors.
The historical precedent offers little comfort. Terrorism as a systematic tool emerged from the French Revolution's Reign of Terror (March 1793 to July 1794), when Jacobin authorities executed thousands of political dissidents, nobles, clergy, and ordinary citizens. German-American scholar Walter Laqueur's definition remains authoritative: terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve political ends—a strategy that weaponizes fear to coerce state behavior.
Li Dongyan, a research fellow at the Institute of World Economics and Politics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, identifies three characteristics of terrorism: no fixed operational pattern, instrumental violence targeting political objectives, and fusion of causes with emotions like "hatred," "grievance," "frustration," and "resistance."
Why Past Safety Means Nothing
These features reveal terrorism as an asymmetric tool—the weak attacking the strong to erode advantages instead of conventional confrontation. Applied to Hong Kong's case,
the city's previous security record—no local terror cases for years before 2019—provides no guarantee of future immunity. In an era of acute geopolitical conflict, Hong Kong's strategic importance makes it a potential target for forces, both external and local radicals, seeking to pressure Beijing indirectly.
Hong Kong authorities maintain the city faces a "moderate" terrorist threat—meaning attacks are possible even without specific intelligence identifying Hong Kong as a target. The three-tier framework and regular exercises like "BRAVELIGHT" represent acknowledgment that prevention requires constant vigilance, not past performance.
Lo Wing‑hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.
Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.
On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.
Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."
Court Slams the Door Shut
The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.
The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.
Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.
Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.
1. Chow's passion for making requests
As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).
Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.
This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.
2. Burning public funds on the public's dime
Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.
Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.
3. Prison is not a holiday resort
Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.
Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.
How Prison Oversight Actually Works
I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.
The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.
Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.
I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Lo Wing-hung
