“People are blessed and don’t know it” sounds like a cliché, but truly grasping it is anything but easy.
China’s Victory Day parade rolled out world‑leading new weapons that left foreign political and military circles stunned, and it stirred pride across China too. Yet next to one young Iraqi’s reaction, that pride felt almost restrained.
Tears on Tiananmen
He’s in his twenties and his Arabic name is Amin Obadi, but Chinese audiences know him as Fang Haoming, a Beijing‑based correspondent for Chinese Arabic TV who took a Chinese name.
Cameras caught him covering his face in tears as the parade concluded, and when interviewed afterward he admitted he was overwhelmed, saying he couldn’t calm down for a long time and that once the doves and balloons were released, he just couldn’t stop crying.
He added that he wished the Middle East could finally find peace — He especially hope people in the Middle East can live like the Chinese do.
If his own country had such military armament, he said, it wouldn’t be living under the shadow of war. And with China inviting so many partners to co‑develop, he hoped the world could become one family — just like the slogan on Tiananmen proclaims: “Long live the great unity of the world’s peoples.”
The Contrast of Peace and War
The Middle East he comes from is still riven by conflict today, and Iraq — invaded by the US in 2003, which toppled Saddam Hussein — never truly rebuilt in the 14 years that followed despite elections and a sustained American military presence.
His words inevitably summon memories of China more than a century ago, when in 1894 the Qing fought Japan with modern German‑built battleships like Dingyuan and Zhenyuan — only to see them sunk soon after hostilities began and to suffer a crushing defeat that forced the humiliating Treaty of Shimonoseki.
Who would have imagined that a century on, China would develop military capabilities that shock the world — not only far outpacing Japan, but formidable enough to counter the United States — such that if conflict erupted tomorrow in the Asia‑Pacific, it’s hard to envision America winning.
Stability Before Strength
China carved this path through brambles and hardship, and the crucial ingredient was political stability and a sound environment that allowed over four decades since 1978 to focus relentlessly on economic development — the long road to prosperity and strength.
At the parade, some fellow attendees from industry shared hard‑earned lessons about investing overseas: for lagging regions, the West once dangled preferential tariffs, and with low labor and production costs, manufacturers were lured to build plants.
But as one seasoned industrialist put it, overseas investment boils down to the “PEST” equation: P for political stability, E for economic conditions, S for social conditions, and T for industrial technology — and P trumps everything, because without stability, nothing else matters.
When Instability Burns Capital
Building a factory in a developing country easily means pouring in hundreds of millions to construct facilities and buy machinery, and only after a decade of operation — once the equipment has fully depreciated — can the investment be counted as a win.
The catch is obvious: if turmoil erupts three to five years in, the whole bet can go up in smoke.
Several industrialists pointed to Madagascar: a decade or two ago, many firms built plants there, but after the large‑scale unrest in 2009, long‑term political turbulence took hold — a HKD 300 million‑level investment was wiped out, the factory shut, and even the machinery couldn’t be recovered.
Many, having swallowed a Western narrative, judge development chiefly by “democracy and freedom,” but too often that’s just a tool to prop up pro‑US regimes, and importing such systems doesn’t guarantee long‑term political stability.
Once politics destabilize, investments vanish, scars remain, and capital doesn’t come back — as seen in recent years in Myanmar, where half the country has fallen into rebel hands and factory investors have taken painful losses.
The Air We Breathe
Political stability is like air — invisible when present, suffocating by its absence — and it brings to mind Warren Buffett’s blunt reminder at his May shareholder meeting. Asked by a Shanghainese attendee how to face setbacks, he said: “You were born in the best era China has seen in a thousand years; you waited in the womb for thousands of years and were born today — how lucky you are; don’t dwell on the bad, focus on the beauty of life.”
For Chinese born today, that good fortune is real.
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
