Trump's obsession with winning the Nobel Peace Prize had reached pathological levels.
At 5 p.m on October 10, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced Venezuelan opposition figure María Corina Machado as this year's winner, citing her "tireless efforts to fight for democracy for the Venezuelan people." Trump missed out yet again. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung didn't mince words: "The Nobel Committee has proven that they put politics above peace."
Now, I rarely find myself nodding along to White House statements, but this one? Dead on target. The Nobel Committee is absolutely politicized.
When Obsession Takes Over
Trump's desire for this award has evolved into something resembling a fixation. Perhaps he's desperate to cement his legacy. Winning the Nobel would be like minting coins with his face on them—a permanent stamp on history. Just before the announcement, he rushed out a 20-point Gaza peace proposal, frantically creating an award-worthy atmosphere while boasting he'd mediated seven wars.
Two American presidents have won before—Carter and Obama. But Carter wasn't sitting in the Oval Office when he got his, and Obama? He won after doing essentially nothing, merely by "creating an atmosphere." So naturally, Trump thinks: I've actually stopped wars—why shouldn't I get the prize?
This obsessive fixation makes you wonder: when he posted that thousand-word tirade targeting China just hours after losing the prize—threatening a 100% tariff on Chinese products starting November 1—was this just "president having a bad day, needs to blow off steam"? It makes American decision-making look embarrassingly childish.
A Prize Built on Politics
Obama's award was genuinely absurd, and it convinced many that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee—primarily appointed by Norway's Parliament—naturally leans toward white-left politicians like Obama. Which perfectly explains why Trump can't win. He's practically Obama's polar opposite: one white-left, one far-right. How could the Norwegian Nobel Committee possibly award the prize to a far-right American president? Norwegian officials even joked they needed to take a few days off when the prize was announced to dodge American phone calls.
Choosing Machado reveals the Committee's calculated game. Trump has been relentlessly attacking Venezuelan President Maduro, even threatening to invade Venezuela under the guise of fighting drugs. America naturally backs Venezuelan opposition figure Machado. Awarding her at least ensures Trump can't attack the winner.
CBS reported that a senior White House official revealed that Trump called Machado to congratulate her, saying she deserved the award. This confirms the Nobel Committee made a purely political decision—giving the prize to someone Trump couldn't oppose. Whether Machado actually deserves a peace prize? Nobody bothers asking that question.
What About Jimmy Lai?
Exiled figures overseas keep nominating Jimmy Lai and Chow Hang-tung for the Nobel Peace Prize, with plenty of cheerleaders beating the drums for them. But now they're competing with Trump for the award. I doubt any US official would dare support Jimmy Lai and Chow Hang-tung for this prize —at least not before Trump gets his.
Given the Nobel Committee's white-left tradition, awarding Jimmy Lai wouldn't be shocking. But a peace prize, by definition, should promote peace. Yet Jimmy Lai used his Apple Daily newspaper to aggressively support the 2019 violent opposition movement. He wasn't advocating for peace—he was advocating for violence to overthrow the government. The peace prize certainly shouldn't go to someone who endorsed the "no difference between peaceful and valiant protesters" slogan and backed militant factions in violent anti-government movements.
Regardless, this latest Nobel Peace Prize spectacle further proves that this award is merely a Western white-left prize. Trump's competition for the prize has fully exposed the hypocrisy of this award.
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
