The One Diplomat Rocking the Boat
You wouldn’t think a foreign diplomat would directly undermine their own president’s grand diplomatic strategy, but that’s exactly what’s happening in Hong Kong right now. Trump has made summit-level diplomacy with China his priority—calling President Xi Jinping multiple times this year to ease tensions and discuss key issues like trade and TikTok.
Under this high-level engagement, US-China relations have been stabilizing. Trump even announced plans to meet Xi again at the upcoming APEC summit in South Korea and hinted at future reciprocal visits. It’s the kind of positive momentum no one wants to see wrecked—yet that’s the risk with the current US Consul General in Hong Kong.
In August 2025, Julie Eadeh took over as US Consul General in Hong Kong and Macau. She’s no rookie—she was the political chief at the US Consulate during the chaotic 2019 protests. Back then, she was snapped meeting Nathan Law and Joshua Wong in Admiralty, and later that same day chatting with opposition heavyweights like Alan Leong, Martin Lee, and Anson Chan at the American Club.
No wonder Chinese media dubbed her “the subversion expert.”
The US would never stand for foreign meddling like this. Earlier this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested a Columbia University student with a green card who supported Hamas, revoked his green card, and ordered his deportation.
Imagine if China’s Ambassador in the US was caught supporting such a figure. Would Trump let that slide? Of course not.
Old Habits Die Hard: Julie Eadeh’s Provocations
Fast forward six years, and US-China relations have shifted to dialogue instead of confrontation. But Julie Eadeh seems stuck in the past. She’s throwing reception after reception with major opposition figures in Hong Kong— prominent anti-government players Anson Chan and Emily Lau to official events.
This isn’t by accident; it’s provocation.
On arrival, Eadeh pulled out the usual diplomatic charm, saying she’d engage with all sectors of Hong Kong society. But in reality, she’s normalizing foreign interference, portraying calls for a color revolution as simple democracy promotion.
This is just the first chapter of a renewed foreign meddling playbook in Hong Kong—testing the limits of the city’s national security laws. If left unchecked, she’ll write chapters two and three and more.
Some might argue, why ban the US Consulate from meeting local figures? Well, Chinese diplomats in the US face the opposite problem—many Americans who once met them now avoid contact, fearing the Trump administration’s repercussions.
Imagine if Ambassador Xie Feng threw a party inviting Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or even Antifa members -- would Trump be okay with that?
Playing With Fire
Julie Eadeh’s risky political games may not be ordered by Trump himself—he’s got bigger geopolitical fish to fry—but if she crosses a line, triggers Beijing’s fierce reaction, and wrecks the narrative of strong US-China leadership ties, she’ll have to face the consequences.
At the end of the day, American diplomats shouldn’t work outside the president’s strategy.
Hong Kong’s stability didn’t come easy. The city is now at its best, and foreign forces trying to mess with it won’t succeed.
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
