Singapore Dodges a US-Orchestrated Trap: Nathan Law's Failed Entry Exposed
Nathan Law is a fugitive wanted by the Hong Kong Police. His botched attempt to slip into Singapore, ending in a swift deportation, has grabbed headlines worldwide, with fresh details trickling out that make the whole thing even more intriguing. Independent journalist Kris Cheng spilled the beans that the invite came from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), a big-name American think tank. Their China Policy Center is parked right in Singapore, and the local partner for the event was the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University.
Nathan Law denied entry to Singapore – behind it all, America’s Carnegie think tank and a co-hosting Singapore institution.
The real head-scratcher here is why CEIP would roll out the red carpet for Law, fully aware he's a wanted fugitive on the run. Critics like Leung Chun-ying are calling it out as a blatant ploy to corner Singapore into a tough spot. And honestly, when you dig into the backgrounds of CEIP's top brass, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow at the potential ulterior motives.
This independent journalist pointed out that RSIS had posted online about CEIP visiting their campus on October 1 afternoon, strictly for invited guests only. Since Law got his invite from this think tank and the co-host was a respected Singaporean academic outfit, he initially scored a visa. But once he hit immigration, Singapore's higher-ups clocked the political minefield and slammed the door shut. The analysis is that with Singapore's fugitive handover deal with Hong Kong, letting him in could've sparked a massive international mess—sure, denying him draws attention too, but at least it keeps China and the Hong Kong SAR from blowing up.
Unmasking CEIP's Shady Ties
Even though the organizing group is now out in the open, the burning question remains: why invite Law knowing he's a notorious anti-China disruptor and wanted man? The journalist didn't crack that one, but I dug into CEIP's background—it's not some hardcore right-wing operation like the Heritage Foundation, leaning more centrist without obvious political ties. Because it's not extreme, it even collaborates with Chinese academics, running the Tsinghua-Carnegie Global Policy Center in Beijing. They also set up a China Policy Center, with new director Rick Waters based in Singapore.
CEIP’s past and present leaders have backgrounds tied to U.S. intelligence and diplomacy, raising suspicions about hidden motives.
That said, the past and present leaders at this think tank have some seriously eyebrow-raising resumes. Former chairman William Burns got tapped by President Biden in 2021 to head the CIA, and during his watch, he rolled out the "China Mission Center," openly ramping up recruitment of Mandarin-speaking spies to boost intel ops against China. It's clear from this that CEIP's stance on China is layered with complexities and some shadowy hidden agendas you can't quite pin down.
As for their China Policy Center in Singapore, the new director Rick Waters started in March this year. He used to be a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and led the newly formed "Office of China Coordination" by late 2022—from these creds, it's obvious his current role isn't as straightforward as it appears on the surface.
The Bigger Geopolitical Game
CEIP's decision to invite Law despite knowing full well his status feels like a deliberate move, and the real motives are still up for grabs—those leadership backgrounds offer some juicy leads to follow. Leung Chun-ying reckons the outfit was straight-up trying to sabotage Singapore by dragging it into this mess.
If Leung's take is spot on, it begs the question: why target Singapore like that? A friend in political circles speculated that if Law had made it in and joined the event, the forces behind him could spin it to paint Singapore as quietly backing anti-China troublemakers from Hong Kong.
But Singapore, with its long-standing reputation for pragmatism and diplomatic finesse, didn’t bite the bait. By shutting the door and sending Law back, the authority performed a political high-wire act—avoiding an eruption with Hong Kong and China while also signaling that Singapore won’t be manipulated into games orchestrated elsewhere.
What Say You?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
As the Year of the Horse approaching, Hong Kong BNO holders in the UK are bracing for a gut punch. The festive season brings no joy—only anxiety. Mid-February marks the deadline for the UK government's consultation on raising permanent residency thresholds, and the verdict on whether BNO holders get a pass is about to drop.
The Home Office floated immigration reforms that would keep the "5+1" rule intact—five years of residence before you can apply—but the bar just shot up, with higher English proficiency requirements and stable income. For many, these hurdles are insurmountable.
Mahmood's stonewalling to BNO holders' demands signals bad news. The February verdict looms.
Hong Kong BNO holders fired off "five demands" to the authorities, pleading for relief. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's response was ice cold. Zero acknowledgment of their demands. Her dismissive tone signals one thing: exemptions for BNO holders look dead in the water.
If the final call goes all the way, thousands who waited five years will crash at the finish line. A return wave to Hong Kong is inevitable. The Hong Kong government needs to get ready.
The Dual Knockout Blow
The UK government didn't just raise the bar—it installed a double gate that slams shut on 60,000 people. First gate: English proficiency must hit B2 level, equivalent to A-Level, practically university standard. Second gate: annual income over the past three to five years must reach at least £12,570, with tax records to prove it.
Surveys by Hong Kong migrant organizations paint a grim picture: if these "dual requirements" become reality, 30% of BNO holders—roughly 60,000 people—will fail to qualify and get filtered out. No wonder panic is spreading.
While anxiety mounts, the UK government plays coy. Ambiguous statements. Equivocal attitudes. Nobody can read their hand. Now, with just one month until the announcement, BNO holders are reaching peak agitation. A group of Hong Kong voters in Mahmood's constituency drafted a joint letter, restating the "five demands" and requesting a face-to-face meeting to apply pressure.
Mahmood responded quickly—but only to say Hong Kong BNO holders could apply for permanent residency after five years. As for the "five demands"? Crickets. Instead, she reiterated that those granted permanent residency must meet three criteria: being "well-integrated," "economically self-sufficient," and "committed” to the communities they join.
Mahmood Goes Silent
One Hong Kong BNO holder who signed the petition decoded those three phrases: "integration" and "commitment" are code words for English proficiency and income levels. Translation: BNO holders applying for permanent residency must also clear these two hurdles.
These Hong Kong residents sent a follow-up letter to Mahmood, requesting a meeting to present their case in person. Her response? Radio silence. Phone calls to her constituency office go unanswered. She's clearly ducking any face-to-face encounter.
Mahmood is stonewalling, and nobody can do a thing about it. Frustrated BNO holders vent to yellow media outlets, angrily branding her "heartless." But here's the reality check: the Labour government's approval ratings are tanking. Reform UK is breathing down their necks on immigration. Immigration policy will err on the side of restriction, not relaxation. Naturally, they're inclined to treat BNO holders the same as everyone else. No special treatment. No "sentiment." The "five demands" might as well be whispers in the wind.
Two Paths Forward
Friends living in the UK lay out the scenario: if the UK government announces "no relaxation" next month, BNO holders who can't meet the requirements face two choices.
First option: return to Hong Kong and start over. After all, life in the UK hasn't been entirely rosy—living day after day in anxiety. "Returning home" might actually be a relief.
Second option: continue to "temporarily reside" in the UK on a BNO visa, becoming long-term temporary residents. But they'll remain in an unstable state, which won't be comfortable.
There's also a thornier complication: some BNO families migrated to the UK with their parents, and one spouse hasn't worked or earned any income for several years. If these family members don't meet the criteria for applying for permanent residency, it could trigger family separation or force the entire family to return to Hong Kong. They'll face an agonizing decision. Quite a mess.
No exemptions? Brace for the return wave.
My friend predicts that if the worst-case scenario materializes, a return wave is sure to come. For Hong Kong, there will be upsides and downsides. Either way, the government needs to get ready and figure out how to handle it.
