Trump shoots from the hip, and people treat his words like ironclad promises—big mistake. Wait until he delivers.
The fresh proof hits close to home: heading to South Korea, reporters grill him on raising Taiwan and Jimmy Lai with President Xi. He fires back, "Yes." But post-Trump-Xi summit, he owns up—no Taiwan talk at all. On the "Lai case," details stay fuzzy, yet officials' vibes scream it got sidelined too. Trump had no choice but to square up with the Chinese side this round, so he tackles the heavy hitters and brushes off the footnotes.
Still, folks misread his playbook and prod him to act—Jimmy Lai's godfather, William McGurn, leads the charge. He drops an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal pre-summit to twist Trump's arm, and the pitch? Just a joke.
Jimmy Lai's "godfather" William McGurn wrote in The Wall Street Journal urging Trump to raise Lai's release with President Xi during their meeting – his arguments were laughable, and it all came to nothing.
Days before takeoff to South Korea, a reporter corners Trump: Will Taiwan and Jimmy Lai make the agenda? He blurts out, "I'll be talking about it" On Lai, he tosses in, it was "on my list," then hedges fast—Lai's Xi's top foe, "I'm going to ask… We'll see what happens," buying himself an escape hatch.
Post-meeting, Trump spills to reporters mid-flight home: he didn't mention Taiwan. U.S. officials whisper to Reuters that beyond trade, rare earths, and Russian oil buys, Trump had zero plans to broach extras with President Xi. By that measure, no plea for "releasing Lai" hit the table.
If that's the straight dope, the "Save Lai crew's" pre-summit circus flops hard—total zilch impact. Prime ringmaster? Jimmy Lai's baptism godfather as a Catholic, Wall Street Journal scribe William McGurn.
Summit Stakes Rise
McGurn times his strike perfectly, penning "The Trump Card That Could Free Jimmy Lai" in The Wall Street Journal right as Trump wheels up. It kicks off bold: Trump's the sole savior who can spring Jimmy Lai from jail, and this Trump-Xi huddle is prime time—top of the list, no less, since "it’s hard to think of another prominent Asian in the media world as pro-American as Mr. Lai".
McGurn spins it from Beijing's angle: If Xi Jinping craves a hassle-free U.S. trip next year, dodging Western media grillings on Jimmy Lai mid-tour, freeing Lai nips that in the bud. Trump floating the release hands China an elegant off-ramp from the bind.
I devour McGurn's piece and land here: utter bunk! A media vet like him, blind to Chinese thinking—it's laugh-out-loud naive. Post-Hong Kong National Security Law, Western nations hammer away from every flank, pressuring China without mercy. The central government steels itself to shift Hong Kong from chaos to order, shrugging off the barrage—how could they fold easy on Jimmy Lai?
The reality is, Lai ranks as a prime national security violator; zero give there, and Trump gets it cold. The other side won't twitch a muscle for any "deal," so when crunch time hits for hashing big-ticket items nose-to-nose, Lai stays off the board.
Jimmy Lai's "godfather" William McGurn wrote in The Wall Street Journal urging Trump to raise Lai's release with President Xi during their meeting – his arguments were laughable, and it all came to nothing.
Pragmatism Trumps Pleas
Bottom line, Trump's a hardcore pragmatist—chasing max payoff, he skips the moral high ground or buddy favors. So McGurn's bet that Trump saves Lai for being "pro-American"? Dead wrong. In Trump's worldview, Jimmy Lai's a dead-end card now; if playing it torpedoes the trade, it stays buried. No shock if the summit truly ghosts the Lai file.
McGurn rode high once as George W. Bush's wordsmith, shining in White House poli-circles, and he's long cozied up to Lai—one of the shadowy forces fueling Hong Kong's turmoil. But today? Zero pull on Trump's calls. With The Wall Street Journal branded enemy press by the White House, in the "Trump emperor's" gaze, he's just a dim-witted has-been blowing smoke—useless for any "Save Lai" push.
So let the circus roll on; Lai's endgame locks in. Everyone, snag your popcorn and catch the finale.
Lai Ting-yiu
What Say You?
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Today, December 7, marks the second election since the Legislative Council finally got back on track. Today, I can’t shake the memory of how a "deformed democracy" ravaged this chamber for years. It was a malignancy—a tumor growing from within—that trapped us in endless chaos and nearly destroyed Hong Kong. This nightmare remains burned into my mind.
Let’s look at the receipts from those insane years. Three absurd realities prove how a tidal wave of radicalism washed away a functioning Council. First, post-"Occupy Central," a crop of "political stars" rode a wave of extremism to besiege LegCo, degrading election quality for years. Second, during the "Black Violence" era, District Councils devolved into a "destroyers' paradise" of unprecedented disorder. Third, to appease radical voters, Pan-democrats hijacked the House Committee election for six months, paralyzing governance. The Council became an endangered structure on the verge of collapse, dragging government operations down with it. Without the Central Government stepping in to restore order, Hong Kong was finished. To stop history from repeating, everyone needs to vote on December 7.
The truth is, this "deformed democracy" was rotting the soil of Hong Kong politics long before "Occupy Central." The British government deliberately planted "election landmines," allowing politicians using unorthodox methods to rise. They realized the game: be radical, be outrageous, be uncouth, and you get votes. Figures like Wong Yuk-man, Albert Chan, and "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung seized power this way. Once that door opened, the Council’s normal operations were destroyed, turning the chamber into a mud-wrestling pit.
That was just the prelude. The subversion peaked with the 6th Legislative Council election following the 2014 "Occupy Central" movement. Driven by a passion for "rebellion," masses of young people blindly voted for fresh faces who built their brands on radicalism, ignoring their complete lack of ability or track record. The result? First-time winners included "Localist" figures dripping with "Hong Kong Independence" sentiment like Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, alongside "Occupy" student leader Nathan Law.
Oath-Taking Circus: Post-"Occupy" radicals Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching stormed the chamber advocating independence, turning solemn oaths into a disgraceful farce.
The "Open House" of Radical Chaos
Worse still, opportunists within the Pan-democrat camp saw this worked and jumped into the fray. The prime examples were the notoriously "uncouth and aggressive" Ted Hui and the self-proclaimed radical environmentalist Eddie Chu.
When Baggio Leung, Yau Wai-ching, and Nathan Law stormed the Council, political insiders told me the candidacy door had been flung too wide. It became an "unguarded open house"—easy to enter, hard to clear out—guaranteeing chaos. Fortunately, their greed for victory blinded them to the risks. They played games with their inaugural oaths, effectively playing themselves into a corner and getting disqualified (DQ).
Even after they were ousted, the "miracle" of their election accelerated the degradation of our politics. Fanatical voters continued to back incompetent politicians just to vent rebellious angst. Even younger members of the traditional Pan-democrats started acting out to cater to this new taste. Ted Hui is the textbook example: violently snatching a female civil servant's phone and throwing foul-smelling filth in the Chamber. It became a competition of who could be the most radical, obstructing bills and making livelihood administration nearly impossible.
By 2019, when the anti-extradition bill unrest broke out, the Council became a disaster zone. Then came the second absurdity. During the November District Council elections, held amidst turmoil, radical candidates swarmed to grab seats. At the same time, "black-clad people" physically attacked Establishment opponents with beatings, arson, and intimidation. They won the majority, reducing the District Councils to a "destroyers' paradise." Long-serving community councilors were wiped out, marking an unprecedented and unbearable degradation of our institutions.
Filth in the Chamber: "Uncouth" politician Ted Hui proved his disruptive intent by literally throwing foul-smelling rot during a Council meeting.
Paralyzing the System From Within
Inside LegCo, Pan-democrats brought the street riots into the Chamber, competing to perform "radical shows." The most absurd spectacle was Civic Party member Dennis Kwok holding the House Committee Chairman election hostage. He "played games" for over half a year. Sixteen meetings passed without electing a chairman, blocking massive amounts of government bills. Forced by the situation, even moderate Pan-democrats joined the madness, turning the Chamber into a real-life version of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."
Recently, some claim the reformed Legislative Council has lost its monitoring function. This is 100% a fallacy. The Council back then was thoroughly wrecked; normal operations were paralyzed. What monitoring was there? Government administration was dragged down, pushing us to the brink of "mutual destruction" (laam caau).
Thankfully, the Central Government stepped in at the critical moment to pull the Council back on the right track. If "deformed democracy" had continued, Hong Kong would have derailed and fallen off a cliff, destroyed in a single day.
To prevent this painful history from repeating, everyone must vote enthusiastically on December 7. Support the Legislative Council moving forward on the correct track.
Lai Ting-yiu
