To understand the world, watch what Western politicians do—never mind what they bluff.
The Jimmy Lai verdict has landed in the court of Hong Kong, the Alliance case is rolling forward, and right on cue, Western politicians start throwing their weight around. The European Parliament fires off statements. American lawmakers grandstand about judicial independence. But two recent incidents expose just how hollow that moral posturing really is.
Ten Bullets, One Phone
Minnesota just gave America another grim lesson in how it really treats protesters. On January 24, federal agents hunting undocumented immigrants in Minneapolis pinned male nurse Alex Pretti to the ground and shot him ten times from behind. His weapon? A smartphone. The entire execution played out on camera for everyone to see.
Officers had already disarmed Pretti before they killed him. That didn't stop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from declaring—without a shred of evidence—that Pretti had committed "domestic terrorism". Border Patrol commander John Bovino piled on, claiming Pretti intended to "massacre" law enforcement officers, justifying the kill shot.
American public opinion erupted. The New York Times published a blistering editorial accusing Trump administration officials of outright lying and demanding Justice Department intervention. The Times pointed out something even more disturbing: this wasn't an isolated incident.
The Pattern Repeats
Earlier in January, another Minneapolis resident—Renée Good—was shot dead by a federal agent. Good's same-sex partner was filming federal officers arresting undocumented residents when agents interfered. As Good attempted to drive away, an ICE agent fired three shots, killing her. The Trump administration demonized Good as well, and actively obstructed the state government's investigation.
Remember Nancy Pelosi calling Hong Kong's Black Riots a "beautiful sight to behold"? Hong Kong police never killed a single protester who showed no intention of resisting. Compared to Hong Kong's extreme restraint, America operates in a completely different universe. Back in 2021, a Capitol security officer shot and killed a female protester on camera during the January 6 riot.
America enforces harsh national security laws with brutal methods—what standing does it have to lecture Hong Kong? Why doesn't the European Parliament dare condemn America's violent tactics?
Allies Abandoned in Syria
Syrian government forces just seized the country's largest oil field—the Omar field—and surrounding gas facilities in Deir ez-Zor province. The operation delivered a crushing blow to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), America's former battlefield partners. While Syrian forces celebrated victory, horrific footage emerged online showing Kurdish female fighters massacred.
The 1949 Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits torture, retaliation, or intimidation of prisoners of war. Syrian government forces' actions blatantly violate international law. Yet Trump stays silent on the slaughter of America's Kurdish allies.
The Kurds number 30 million, spread across four countries, and have pursued independence for decades. The SDF once controlled 25% of Syrian territory in the north and east—including oil fields that form the country's economic backbone. Washington backed the SDF to fight ISIS while opposing Assad's regime. The SDF did America's dirty work.
Friends and Enemies
Syria's current president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was once on America's wanted list. But al-Sharaa is politically astute. After taking power in January 2025, he moved aggressively to improve relations with Washington, even secretly negotiating with the US and Israel to cede parts of the Golan Heights. That won Trump over. The administration now welcomes this former designated terrorist to the White House.
Russia, meanwhile, suffered a heavy blow in the Syrian reshuffling. Moscow had strongly backed the Assad regime, using Syria as a crucial Middle East base. Russian troops were stationed throughout Deir ez-Zor province, but after the SDF's defeat, Russian forces had to hastily withdraw from the region.
The Syrian massacre exposes this world's true operating principles: naked interests and raw power, nothing more. Al-Sharaa took power through the barrel of a gun, without any democratic election. He follows extreme Islamic teachings that fundamentally contradict America's professed principles of democracy and freedom. But operating on the logic that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Washington now allies with President al-Sharaa.
The West has completely lost any moral high ground. Stop commenting on Hong Kong's affairs. If American politicians have time, they should focus on the male nurse shot dead at home and the massacred Kurds in Syria. Hong Kong is doing just fine—we don't need your concern.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Western “democracy” loves to lecture the world. The reality is its own systems sometimes spin into such obvious dysfunction that even Western media can’t pretend it’s normal.
On 21 January, The Wall Street Journal ran a piece titled “Britain’s Buffoonery Puts Mr. Bean to Shame,” bluntly saying the British government may be as incompetent as the comedy icon—just nowhere near as likeable.
The Journal’s example isn’t theory or ideology. It’s a real-world case file: a newly arrived migrant asking the state for “protection,” and a government machine that can’t—or won’t—say no.
Even the Wall Street Journal is calling it out—Britain’s dysfunction, in print.
In October 2024, a 27-year-old American landed in London claiming the US government persecuted him because he was Black, Jewish, and Mormon. He also said he needed “humanitarian protection” to avoid anti-gay violence, alleged sexual assault by US law enforcement, and then applied for political asylum in the UK.
What a “sensible” state does
The Journal asks the obvious question: what would any sensible government do with a claim like this? The truth is Britain did the opposite of “sensible”—it bankrolled the entire saga. Olabode Shoniregun, a US resident from Las Vegas, was put in a London Holiday Inn for eight months on the taxpayer tab; when told to leave, he refused, so the state moved him into government-provided housing—again paid by taxpayers.
Fourteen months after arrival, Shoniregun was still in the UK. He rotated through various taxpayer-funded providers; at one point he even slept rough, yet he kept collecting £400 a month (about HK$4,200) in housing and living support.
What exposed the story wasn’t some heroic internal audit. Shoniregun documented it himself on social media—videos unboxing designer clothes in a taxpayer-funded hotel room, ordering room service, and drinking on nights out—handing the British public the evidence, directly.
Shoniregun says £400 a month isn’t enough—and demands more welfare.
The Journal then steps back and explains why people laugh at something that should make them angry: comedy often comes from incongruity—when reality clashes with what we’re supposed to expect. Like the classic parent trick: put a random object on your head and ask a child, “Is this a hat?” The child laughs because it’s obviously not.
“Absurd farce,” paid in cash
British media repeatedly called Shoniregun’s experience an “absurd farce.” And it is: forcing taxpayers to fund a prolonged, looping stay is infuriating—yet it also triggers that uneasy laughter, because you don’t expect a modern state to operate like this.
The Journal’s label for the pattern is “Mr Bean authoritarianism.” It borrows from Rowan Atkinson’s famous character—childish, incompetent, constantly creating chaos through basic lack of common sense. The point isn’t that Britain is cute and clumsy; it’s that the government performs Mr Bean-level blunders without any of Mr Bean’s harmless charm.
The Journal points to another case with the same signature: the “most expensive email in history.” In 2022, an anonymous British military staffer emailed—by accident—the identities of about 18,700 Afghans who had worked with British forces. The government response was a relocation plan costing billions of pounds, plus a court “super-injunction” that blocked reporting—and even blocked mentioning the injunction—for nearly two years. Clumsy error, heavy censorship: that’s the model.
From the government’s point of view, the Shoniregun spotlight is terrible timing, because hotel housing for asylum seekers has already triggered public fury and even unrest. In 2024, despite repeated local objections, the government spent £3.1 billion placing tens of thousands of asylum seekers in hotels; last year at least 200 residents were charged with criminal offences, including a sexual assault case in Epping that set off protests for months.
When “funny” isn’t funny
The Journal is clear: none of this is actually funny. It only feels funny because it’s so absurd—because people don’t expect a country to be governed this way, and yet real people are trapped inside the consequences.
And it wasn’t only the Journal. British media broadly followed the Holiday Inn episode, including Shoniregun’s background: father Nigerian, mother Grenadian, parents migrated to the UK; he was born in the UK but didn’t end up with UK residence rights and moved to the US at age five.
In interviews, Shoniregun didn’t exactly sound embarrassed. He argued: “I've been born in the United Kingdom, so I think that it's crazy for me not to receive some kind of benefit. So I'm not too surprised. And I don't think that £400 is a lot of cash. I deserve that and more, in my opinion.”
A country that allows this kind of Mr Bean-style episode—burning £3.1 billion on hotel placements—looks politically beyond rescue. But the real issue is the double standard: while many Britons protest the UK government approving China’s new embassy, people like Shoniregun are draining the system in plain sight.
Hong Kong fixed its loopholes
Hong Kong once had its own costly problem: a large group of “fake refugees.” With one-stop arrangements from human-rights lawyers, they filed non-refoulement claims in Hong Kong; even after rejection, they dragged cases out through legal aid and judicial reviews.
Hong Kong tightened the system: after improving the electoral system in 2021, it amended the Immigration Ordinance in 2022 to tighten vetting time limits. If the Court of First Instance refuses a judicial review, removal can be enforced even while an appeal is pending.
To stop these Mr Bean-style disasters, the key point is political structure: start by changing a system long monopolised by the opposition camp.
Lo Wing-hung
