Unfinished business With the “anti-Hong Kong triangle”?

Jimmy Lai is now convicted of colluding with foreign forces, and the court’s reasons for verdict run a staggering 855 pages — packed with testimony, evidence, and step-by-step findings. Beyond Lai’s list of “offences,” the judgment also traces his dense web of ties to political figures in Hong Kong and overseas.

What jumps out is how it revisits Anson Chan Fang On-sang and Martin Lee Chu-ming, detailing their contacts with US political heavyweights and “intermediaries,” and pointing to their significance in the overall picture. Read the courtroom testimony and track what they did before and after the 2019 unrest — especially those repeated US trips for “closed-door meetings” — and the old accounts still look jaw-dropping.

This anti-HK triad, even if the “two corners” pulled back in time and slipped away, one question still hangs: is there unfinished business left to follow up?

Coaching, then headlines

The judgment says Chan doesn’t just show up in Washington — she gets coached for the mission. Before travelling to the US in March 2019 to meet then Vice President Mike Pence, she is “coached” by former US Consul General in Hong Kong James Cunningham, who advises her to make thoroughly defeating the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance the core message.

Chan moves before the chaos: Pence, Miles Yu — and a foreign-collusion trail that starts earlier than Lai.

Cunningham then relays this to Jimmy Lai, who forwards it on to Martin Lee, Democratic Party senior figure Albert Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan, Lee Wing-tat and others. After Chan meets Pence, Lai quickly instructs Cheung Kim-hung and others to “make the news as big as possible.”

Then comes the “international front” pitch — and it’s explicit. On March 26, 2019, the judgment says Lai messages Martin Lee saying he hopes Cunningham can help the democrats lobby overseas on the “international front.” Lai adds that Cunningham should stay in Washington to work, especially to push Congress to intervene over the anti-extradition campaign.

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg — and the timeline matters. Based on what I’ve checked in public materials and courtroom testimony, Chan and Lee are meeting senior US officials even earlier than Lai, and their ties look deeper than this slice suggests.

Martin Lee opens doors for Lai: Pelosi and other US power players — a heavy hitter on the “international front.

Washington doors swing open

Mid-March 2019 is when the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance controversy heats up — and Chan is already on a US invite. She is invited by the White House National Security Council to visit the US, first holding a closed-door meeting with NSC officials to discuss the anti-extradition situation. Three days later, she meets Vice President Pence one-on-one, going deeper on how to “defeat” the bill.

The meetings don’t stop at Pence — they fan out across the US system. After that, Chan meets Democratic congressional leader Nancy Pelosi and State Department officials involved in drafting reports under the Hong Kong Policy Act. At that closed-door meeting, the judgment notes Pompeo’s senior adviser Miles Yu (Yu Maochun) is also present — later sanctioned by Beijing as a major traitor to China.

Two months later, it’s Martin Lee’s turn to carry the baton — and he runs straight to the same power center. He leads a pan-democrat delegation to Washington to attend a seminar hosted by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — dubbed here the “second CIA” — and to appear at a hearing held by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) on Hong Kong issues.

The climax is a face-to-face with Pompeo — the “hawk among hawks.” Lee gets an audience with then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, described as Pompeo’s first meeting with Hong Kong opposition figures after taking office — a signal that the US already treats Lee as a useful chess piece.

Two months, two heavyweights

Here’s the uncomfortable contrast: Chan and Lee get into Washington’s inner rooms fast — and ahead of Lai. Within two months, they separately meet two US heavyweights and discuss next steps, about two months earlier than Jimmy Lai. Not long after, the anti-extradition riots erupt in full, making it hard to deny they play significant roles in that upheaval.

During the unrest, the links extend to key operatives on the ground. They maintain close ties with several major figures, including Andy Chan Tsz-wah and Tony Chung (Lee Yue-hin). In testimony, Lee Yue-hin discloses he meets Anson Chan three times, and in one meeting they even discuss a “grand plan” for anti-extradition actions — with Chan asking whether the movement has an “end game,” and if so, how to reach it, effectively demanding a “roadmap.”

And the networking goes beyond talk — it becomes introductions across foreign channels. Chan brings Lee Yue-hin to the British Consul General’s residence in Hong Kong and introduces him to Consul General Andrew Heyn, described as evidence she actively acts as a go-between linking key unrest operatives with the UK and US governments.

Martin Lee plays a similar connector role, too. In July 2019, he invites Andy Chan — leader of the “Glory to Hong Kong” team — to a dinner and introduces him to Jimmy Lai. After that, Andy Chan becomes a key operative for Lai’s “international front,” often using Martin Lee as the channel to stay in contact with Lai.

A WhatsApp “war room”

Then it gets even more operational — literally a chat-group command setup. Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai and James Cunningham set up a WhatsApp group that functions as an “operations command centre,” shaping strategy as circumstances shift — and underscoring, that Lee sits at the core of both the local and international fronts.

By June 2020, the mood tightens as Beijing moves to enact the Hong Kong National Security Law — and they sense the risk. At the last moment before the law takes effect, Chan and Lee “turn the wheel” and hurry to announce they are stepping back: Chan claims she will no longer touch politics, while Lee distances himself from “Hong Kong independence” and “radicalism,” and quits Lai’s group, temporarily avoiding the legal net.

Now they go quiet — and that silence becomes part of the story. After Lai’s conviction, the two “comrades-in-arms” say nothing and effectively vanish from view. But those shocking old accounts don’t simply disappear, and whether — and when — they might be “settled” remains unknown.

What Say You?

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Jimmy Lai has been convicted of colluding with foreign forces. Because he holds a British passport, and because the anti-China hawks in the UK are circling like hungry wolves, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper’s reaction was even louder than Marco Rubio’s. She slammed the verdict as "politically motivated," demanded Lai’s immediate release, and insisted Beijing scrap the Hong Kong National Security Law. 

A classic case of do as I say, not as I do. CY Leung and the Foreign Ministry just KO’d this thick-skinned hypocrisy with a sharp reality check that exposes the West's double standards as total nonsense.

CY Leung’s reality check for London: Would a UK media mogul begging Russia for help to topple the UK political system be a "freedom fighter" or a convict?

London’s Blatant Double Standards

Former Chief Executive and Vice-Chairman of CPPCC CY Leung wasn't having any of it. He fired back on Facebook with a "counter-question" that completely dismantled London’s double standards. Meanwhile, the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the HKSAR took the Wall Street Journal to task with a similar reality check. Both responses are pitch-perfect, exposing the sheer hypocrisy of Western critics who suddenly lose their voices when the same logic is applied to their own backyards.

Leung’s hypothetical is simple: imagine a British press baron who controls a massive media machine—think Apple Daily but on Fleet Street. This tycoon pours over 100 million into the pockets of UK lawmakers, organizes mass protests, and jets off to Moscow to plead for foreign intervention to overthrow the British political system. Does anyone honestly think the British government would just sit back and watch?

If such a character existed in the UK, he wouldn’t be a hero; he’d be a target. Under the UK’s own National Security Act 2023, his activities would be shut down in a heartbeat. Law enforcement would swoop in, seize the assets, and the "freedom fighter" would be looking at the inside of a high-security prison for foreign interference and subversion.

Leung’s point is devastatingly clear: the UK would never tolerate someone undermining its national security from within while colluding with foreign states. Yet, London has the gall to canonize the real Jimmy Lai and demand his freedom. It’s an absurd contradiction that reveals the British government’s stance for what it is—political grandstanding with zero consistency.

West’s Blatant Security Hypocrisy

The irony reaches a fever pitch when Yvette Cooper demands the repeal of Hong Kong’s security laws while ignoring Britain's own draconian 2023 National Security Act. Specifically designed to hammer foreign interference, this hard-hitting law requires anyone acting on behalf of a foreign power to register. If the Lai case happened in London, he’d be hit on both counts. Why is it "security" for London but "oppression" for Hong Kong?

Double standards in high definition: Yvette Cooper slams Hong Kong while ignoring Britain’s own aggressive, no-nonsense security laws.

Look at the new MI6 chief, Blaise Metreweli. She’s already sounding the alarm about multi-directional threats to British security, vowing that the UK will never yield to opponents like Russia. Well, newsflash: that’s exactly the kind of foreign interference Hong Kong has been dealing with, particularly from the US. Britain claims the right to be tough to protect its sovereignty, but when Hong Kong does the same, it’s a "human rights violation." Blatant double standards.

Stateside, the media narrative is just as warped. The Wall Street Journal has been busy whitewashing Lai as a "freedom-loving media figure" and calling the trial a sham. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson didn't pull any punches in response, asking the WSJ editors one simple thing: would your paper ever dare call for foreign sanctions against the US, claiming to "fight for a foreign country"?

We all know the answer. If the WSJ did that, the FBI would be through their doors before the ink was dry. The editors would be tossed into a federal hell hole, and Trump’s political hammer would smash the paper into oblivion.  

These "counter-questions" have exposed the truth, and the silence from London and New York is the only answer we need.