Disaster strikes quietly. When catastrophe unfolds, people rarely grasp its magnitude until it's too late—unaware they're witnessing something unseen for decades.
October 1973. Saudi Arabia and Arab members of OPEC announced an oil embargo against nations supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The blow was swift and severe. My family ran a small leather trading business. My mother called it terrifying—in the year that followed, our shop completed just one transaction and nearly closed for good. That memory stays with me.
Today, the United States and Israel's assault on Iran has ignited a crisis matching 1973. The Strait of Hormuz is no longer navigable. Vast quantities of Middle Eastern oil cannot flow out. Oil prices spike globally. Southeast Asian nations with only 20 days of reserves already face shortages—long queues snake around petrol stations. Our country holds 200 days of strategic reserves, so prices have risen but supplies hold for now. The full horror of this disaster hasn't yet landed.
South Pars Bombed, Gas Flows Cut
Another sector facing a major crisis is natural gas. A significant energy event has quietly unfolded: Iran has completely halted its natural gas exports to Turkey, signaling that Iran's South Pars gas field — the world's largest natural gas field — has had its gas processing capacity essentially paralyzed following Israeli bombardment.
On March 18, the Israeli Air Force launched a missile strike on Iran's South Pars gas field and the Assaluyeh gas processing center, severely damaging two facilities with a combined processing capacity of 100 million cubic meters daily, affecting 20% of Iran's total natural gas processing capacity.
Since 90% of Iran's electricity comes from natural gas power generation, the remaining gas production capacity at South Pars must be prioritized to meet the electricity needs of Iran's 90 million domestic residents, leaving the country with no capacity for exports and forcing it to cut off natural gas supplies to Turkey.
Turkey imports 9.6 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Iran annually, accounting for 14% of its gas consumption. Turkish Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar said the country has increased pipeline imports from Russia and Azerbaijan, and is purchasing liquefied natural gas on the spot market. But global energy markets responded swiftly, with European spot natural gas prices rising 15% within days of the Iranian gas field attack.
Iran retaliated by striking Ras Laffan Industrial City, Qatar's energy hub, damaging 17% of Qatar's liquefied natural gas export production facilities, with repairs estimated to take 3 to 5 years. Thus, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens to shipping and liquefied natural gas can again be exported from Gulf states, both Qatar and Iran's natural gas output have suffered severe damage, reducing global supply and driving up prices.
IEA Warns of Unprecedented Energy Shock
Natural gas isn't just an energy source. Ammonia, a natural gas byproduct, fuels fertilizer production. Helium, extracted alongside it, powers chip manufacturing. When natural gas flows stop, fertilizer and semiconductor plants grind to a halt. Hospital helium supplies dry up. The ripple effects cascade across every industry.
On March 23, Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, warned that “At least forty… energy assets in the region are severely or very severely damaged across nine countries.”
Birol's assessment cuts deeper than the 1973 and 1979 oil crises—and sharper than the natural gas shock from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In both 1973 and 1979, the world lost roughly 5 million barrels daily, triggering global economic upheaval.
Today, daily losses hit 11 million barrels. (Though global oil consumption has doubled since 1973, the proportional impact remains comparable.) The math is stark: current losses exceed both crises combined.
Natural gas tells an even grimmer story. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe lost roughly 75 billion cubic meters of gas supply. And the current crisis has wiped out 140 billion cubic meters—nearly double.
Birol frames it plainly: the impact equals two oil crises plus one natural gas crisis hitting simultaneously. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz is the only key to breaking the deadlock.
Fragile Signals Point Toward Diplomacy
The situation is beginning to show some positive signs. Reports suggest the United States is negotiating with Iran through Pakistan as an intermediary.
A recent development offers a glimmer of hope. On the evening of March 23, a container ship called the SELEN departed the UAE bound for Karachi, Pakistan, attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission. As it transited the strait, Iran ordered it to turn back. Managed by Exceed Oceanic Trading LLC in Dubai, the SELEN faced a choice—but Iran chose restraint. Rather than strike it down with a missile, Iran simply advised the vessel to return. A measured response, signaling a de-escalatory posture.
Adding to this cautious optimism, China Ocean Shipping announced Wednesday it is resuming new booking services for routes from the Far East to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. The move suggests China has negotiated arrangements with Iran on how Chinese vessels can safely transit the Strait of Hormuz.
The window for diplomacy remains open—barely. The United States and Iran must sit down for talks before the global energy crisis fully detonates. The world needs them to press pause on disaster now.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The SAR government proposed amendments to Article 43 of the Hong Kong National Security Law's implementation details. Opposition figures quickly spread claims online that police could forcibly unlock citizens' mobile phones during inspections and search journalists' devices at will.
In today's complex geopolitical landscape, countries are tightening national security laws. Hong Kong opposition figures often cite Western democracies as models. In fact, device "unlock orders" already exist across multiple "Five Eyes" nations.
The Hong Kong government, in documents submitted to the Legislative Council, referenced laws from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Singapore—all containing similar provisions requiring mandatory disclosure of electronic device passwords. When these governments drafted their legislation, they all concluded that crime prevention outweighs privacy rights and the right to silence, leading them to establish such provisions.
First, the West Has Already Legislated
The UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Part III, sets a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment for violating an "unlock order."
Australia's Crimes Act 1914, Section 3LA sets a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
New Zealand's Search and Surveillance Act 2012 imposes a maximum penalty of 3 months' imprisonment.
Singapore's Criminal Procedure Code 2010, Sections 39 and 40 authorize the Public Prosecutor to direct police to obtain encrypted information. Non-compliance carries a fine up to S$10,000 (roughly HK$61,000) or imprisonment up to 3 years.
Across these jurisdictions, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Singapore all impose penalties significantly harsher than Hong Kong's.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Federal Constitution protects against self-incrimination. A phone passcode is a product of conscious thought; under the Fifth Amendment's logic, no one can be forced to reveal their thinking and thereby incriminate themselves, so no US law requires phone owners to surrender their passcode.
Yet the US government has found a workaround. Modern phones unlock via biometric features—facial recognition or fingerprints. A face or fingerprint is merely a biological characteristic, not language or conscious thought, and cannot represent a person's thinking. It involves no coercion of free will and thus requires no Fifth Amendment protection.
Today, provided a court issues a lawful warrant, US police can compel a phone owner to place their finger on the screen or open their eyes for facial scanning, forcing the device to unlock. Refusing a court warrant constitutes contempt of court.
Countries of the West require unlocking electronic devices to strengthen counter-terrorism efforts, investigate crimes, or address illegal immigration. Hong Kong's requirement is not unique.
Second, Hong Kong has court oversight
Hong Kong police officers seeking to unlock electronic devices must apply to the court for a warrant, with the court serving as the gatekeeper. If invoking Article 43 of the Hong Kong National Security Law, officers must demonstrate reasonable suspicion that the device contains evidence of crimes endangering national security under the law before a court warrant can be obtained. This directly contradicts opposition claims—police cannot arbitrarily stop citizens on the street and demand they unlock their phones.
Third, no exemptions for specific professions
On whether media outlets can refuse to unlock phones by citing "protection of news sources," Security Bureau Secretary Chris Tang Ping-keung was clear: everyone must comply with the law regardless of profession. No occupation receives exemption, and all individuals must provide materials related to national security cases in accordance with the law.
Press confidentiality enjoys no special privilege in countries like Britain and America, nor can it serve as a reasonable justification for refusing to unlock electronic devices—this is international practice.
Britain has imprisoned journalists for refusing to disclose their sources, while Australian police investigated in 2014 under the Proceeds of Crime Act whether Seven Network (Channel Seven) paid substantial fees in exchange for exclusive interviews with newly paroled drug trafficker Schapelle Corby, causing considerable controversy. Thus, even in Countries of the West, protecting sources is not grounds for refusing to unlock electronic devices or obstructing media searches.
The Jimmy Lai case is another apt example. On August 10, 2020, Hong Kong police searched the Apple Daily headquarters and arrested its founder Jimmy Lai and several company executives, ultimately prosecuting and convicting them. Police also successfully obtained a court order to unlock Jimmy Lai's mobile phone, obtaining crucial evidence of his violations of the Hong Kong National Security Law. This case precisely demonstrates that media figures can commit serious crimes and are not exempt from investigation.
In summary, even in the Western world, device unlock orders have become commonplace, with similar legislation prevalent in Countries of the West and often even more stringent than Hong Kong's. Endangering national security is the most serious crime, and law enforcement requires effective powers to investigate and combat it.
The amended regulations now include court oversight to safeguard human rights. On the other hand, national security legislation primarily targets the highest-level criminals, even state-level actors, who possess abundant resources and employ sophisticated tactics, making them extremely difficult to counter—they are not ordinary people like you and me.
Do not underestimate Hong Kong's national security risks. When facing state-level adversaries, Hong Kong is extremely vulnerable and must build strong legal safeguards to prevent serious breaches of national security.
Lo Wing-hung
