Some Western countries can’t seem to stop lecturing others. All the efforts spent telling China to do this and that, while they themselves do things they would not want done to them. It is unclear what qualifications they have to go around acting as teachers.
On August 21 this year, a Hong Kong court concluded the case of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, involving incitement to subvert state power.
Rosie Winterton, the UK Foreign Office minister for Indo-Pacific affairs, issued a statement on the ruling in the Hong Kong Alliance case. She said the ruling further showed that even acts of peaceful commemoration are regarded by the Hong Kong authorities as a national security threat. She also criticized Beijing for widely using the Hong Kong National Security Law to "punish" and "restrict" peaceful expression, arguing that such practices undermine China's commitments to Hong Kong under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
The British side also reiterated its demand for the repeal of the Hong Kong National Security Law in order to respect the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
China has never recognized the three unequal treaties signed between the Qing government and Britain. After resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, Britain's role in Hong Kong came to an end, and it should not make irresponsible remarks about Hong Kong. As for Winterton's specific criticisms, looking at the words and deeds of the British government itself is just laughable.
Vague Definitions, Sweeping Police Powers
First, the legal definitions are vague.
Britain amended its National Security Act in 2023. After the new national security law was introduced, critics slammed it for vague legal definitions, excessive expansion of power, double standards, and sweeping convictions.
The law adopts broad grounds for conviction. Any act officials deem "harmful to national interests" can be illegal. That lets law enforcement flexibly target specific subjects and enforce the law arbitrarily.
Second, excessive police powers.
The new UK law lets British police arrest and search without evidence under specific circumstances, and detain suspects for up to 14 days. After strong criticism, that was cut to 48 hours. But the law still retains the power to detain someone immediately without bringing any charges.
British courts can also ban public hearings at any time on national security grounds. The Home Secretary has the power to impose restrictions even when the person concerned is absent.
These new UK national security laws have been accused of violating the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Double Standards in Court
Third, double standards.
The new UK national security law is more stringent than the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, and its scope is broader. For example, the UK legislation provides for a "foreign agent registration system," which Hong Kong does not have.
Britain's own domestic laws are stringent, yet it recklessly criticizes other countries' national security laws, and it has long been accused of double standards.
The UK's citing of stringent national security law examples is precisely relevant to Hong Kong.
In the case involving staff of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, British police for the first time fully deployed the new version of the national security law for prosecution.
They accused Yuen Chung-biu, then administrative manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, of being a "foreign power's agent in the UK," and of using the office's bank account to pay remuneration to other co-conspirators.
But in reality, Yuen was mainly responsible for the security of the Economic and Trade Office, and the office was constantly harassed by demonstrations by Hong Kong people exiled there. Yuen merely hired a third-party security company staff member, Wai Chi-leung, to assist him in studying how to strengthen the office's security.
As a result, the British police hyped it up as a "Chinese shadow policing operation in the UK."
In the end, under the jury's verdict, he was convicted of the offense of "assisting a foreign intelligence service," while the charge of "foreign interference" was not established.
As for that so-called offense of "assisting a foreign intelligence service," there was simply no evidence showing which foreign country's intelligence service was assisted, or what intelligence-gathering work was done. Yet he was convicted just like that, in a muddled manner.
Repeal Your Own Law
Now Britain tells Hong Kong to repeal the Hong Kong National Security Law. We turn that demand right back at London: repeal your own new national security law first. Respect Britain's own rights and freedoms, or the commitments Britain made under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are seriously weakened.
British officials apply double standards and point fingers at Hong Kong. Truly Revolting.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
On October 1, the nation celebrated its 77th birthday. Seeing the people's happy lives on the mainland truly gave one the feeling that a golden age has arrived.
A Golden Age on Display
The real scenes witnessed on the mainland and the image of the mainland projected by Taiwan are sometimes as different as heaven and earth. The gap has become laughable.
President Xi Jinping's recent visit to the United States came with a reception of the very highest order. US President Donald Trump stood at the bottom of the gangway of Xi's plane to welcome him.
The picture sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles and tolled a death knell for Taiwan's Pan-Green Coalition. America's policy of abandoning Taiwan is now plain as day.
But once President Xi wrapped up the visit, Taiwan's media filled up with all kinds of strange "news."
One offering: a spliced clip of Trump welcoming President Xi, used to claim that US First Lady Melania Trump was unwilling to shake hands with him. In truth, the whole thing was a rumor cooked up through video editing.
Check the full live broadcast and the story collapses. When the four said their farewells, they all shook hands with one another. The so-called "refused handshake" footage simply shows the standard choreographic positioning for a diplomatic group photo.
Melania did not just shake hands with President Xi. She also took an active part in the activities welcoming him. The entire state banquet, staged with red as the dominant color scheme, was designed by Melania herself.
Rumors Escalate to Health Smears
The most absurd part is who pushed the handshake rumor. It was not just Taiwan's internet trolls. Formal media outlets did it too.
From there it escalated fast. A Taiwan television station went on air and recklessly claimed that President Xi had health problems.
First, they zoomed in on video of Peng Liyuan holding President Xi's hand as he stepped off the plane. That, they said, "proved" he could not walk off on his own.
Then they spread word that when President Xi returned to the mainland, he was "carried off the plane for emergency treatment" . They cursed his health as already failing.
These fake reports collapsed within a day or two. On the morning of September 30, Xi Jinping and other Party and state leaders joined representatives from all walks of life to lay flower baskets to the people's heroes at Tiananmen Square.
That evening he appeared at the National Day banquet. More than a thousand Chinese and foreign guests saw that President Xi was in very good health.
Taiwanese media only spread rumors, by they never clarify them even after they are proven false. This habit of spreading rumors without debunking them has become a typical tactic of some Taiwanese media.
Rumor Mills, Obvious Motives
But check the comments under the rumor posts on their Facebook page. The verdict runs one way: readers overwhelmingly accuse the outlets of fabricating the stories. Hardly any Pan-Green Coalition figures even step forward to defend such fake news. The outlets publish it anyway.
Netizens not buying the rumor-mongering posts
The motive? Probably what some netizens already claim. Posting these rumors earns the outlets "dog food" from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government. Once the handouts arrive, whatever consequences the rumor-mongering triggers no longer matter to them.
Taiwan's rumor-mongering about Mainland China is nothing new. Today it burns hotter than ever.
Take Wang Yichuan, a former Taichung Transportation Bureau director turned Taiwanese talking head. On a political talk show in 2023, he claimed Ma Ying-jeou had been deceived during his trip to the mainland. Mainland high-speed rail seats have no backrests, Wang argued, and the dining table and place settings prepared for the photo were all faked by the mainland side.
Anyone who has traveled to the mainland naturally knows just how ignorant such claims sound.
Absurd Claims About the Mainland
By August, the rumor mill had recruited a fortune-teller. Liao Meiran was at it again on a Taiwanese political talk show, claiming that in Beijing's 42-degree-Celsius summer, the city has no refrigerators at all, and hotels have no refrigerators either.
Does Liao Meiran know that China is the world's leading producer of household refrigerators? Cumulative output reached 109.24 million units in 2025, nearly 60% of global production.
But none of this matters anymore. If you dare to spread rumors, someone will dare to believe them. And once they believe, the mainland looks utterly backward in their eyes. They conclude the mainland's leaders all have health problems, and that the mainland's system will collapse tomorrow.
The result? These believers brim with confidence in Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government and keep the "self-hype" going.
Even though Donald Trump has already abandoned Taiwan, they remain willing to serve as pawns of the United States in confronting the mainland.
The Cost of Living on Lies
That leads to a more fundamental question: Taiwan's democracy itself.
Taiwan brags about its electoral system every day, insisting the island has democracy.
But in this ballot-box democracy, when the public is misled day after day by internet trolls and even legitimate media outlets spreading completely false news, the image that takes shape is of mainland China as a demonic regime on the verge of collapse. Voters holding that image will naturally cast their ballots for the "vigorous" politicians of the DPP.
Is a system truly democratic when votes are cast on the basis of false information?
Western political scientists used to stress that democracy in the United States and the West prizes procedural justice, and that good procedures naturally produce good results.
But if voters reach their political judgments through fake news, is the procedure that elects a government really without problems?
The world offers far too many real examples of this pattern. These fame-stealing charlatans in politics dupe voters into casting their ballots and backing them into power.
The result? They drag an entire country or region into the abyss of disaster.
Ukraine's actor Zelensky is a textbook case. He conned his way into power and ultimately steered Ukraine into war with Russia.
Today Ukraine has lost 20 percent of its territory. On top of that, it pays the price of 30,000 deaths every month, a figure supplied by Trump.
Look at our country's development and the answer is clear. Striving for a good system is not about letting people "get a thrill" from a process that merely seems wonderful.
The ultimate goal is to secure good outcomes and let the people live happy lives. Our country has now achieved exactly that.
Lo Wing-hung
