When Will the UK Release O'Rourke?

In a world rife with double standards, it is crucial to speak up against injustices. Silence only reinforces the notion that others are entirely right, while you are completely wrong.

During his recent visit to China, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy held discussions with Chinese State Councillor Ding Xuexiang and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Upon his return to the UK, Lammy was heavily questioned in Parliament by the opposition Conservative Party. Former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith demanded to know whether Lammy had condemned or pressured China on issues such as the Jimmy Lai case. Under this pressure, Lammy declared that the trial of Jimmy Lai, human rights in Xinjiang, and the Taiwan Strait situation are significant concerns for the UK.

On November 11, Jimmy Lai’s youngest son, Sebastien Lai, posted a photo of his meeting with Lammy on social media, urging the UK government to pressure for his father's release. Lammy swiftly echoed this call, asserting that the Jimmy Lai case remains a priority for the UK and pledging to “continue advocating for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release.”

Jimmy Lai stands accused under Hong Kong’s National Security Law of colluding with foreign forces. Even while the case undergoes judicial proceedings, foreign entities have exerted undue pressure, flagrantly undermining Hong Kong's rule of law.

Sebastien Lai and the so-called "International Legal Team for Jimmy Lai"—whose legitimacy has been refuted by Lai’s official legal representatives in Hong Kong—have been actively lobbying in the UK and beyond. On November 20, when Jimmy Lai is due to testify, this “legal team” and Sebastien Lai plan to hold a press conference in Washington, D.C., led by British barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher. Their objective is clear: to exert political pressure on Hong Kong authorities to secure Lai’s release.

Rationally, their efforts should focus on ensuring a fair trial for Lai—something Hong Kong is committed to upholding. Yet their demand for his unconditional release is entirely political, leveraging foreign influence to force Hong Kong to abandon its judicial process.

Firstly, such interference blatantly contradicts the West’s avowed principles of rule of law and respect for Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy.” Sebastien Lai has yet to present evidence of any judicial unfairness in Hong Kong toward his father. Furthermore, Western critics who claim to defend Hong Kong's autonomy now paradoxically call on the UK to pressure Beijing into intervening in Hong Kong’s legal system. Were Beijing to interfere and halt the trial, it would indeed compromise Hong Kong's judicial independence. This hypocrisy exposes the inconsistency of the West’s proclaimed values.

Secondly, the UK’s strict approach to offenses related to incitement makes its criticism of Hong Kong appear even more unjustified. Consider the case of Wayne O'Rourke, a 35-year-old arrested amid anti-immigrant riots in August this year, during which over 1,100 people were detained. British authorities swiftly prosecuted and imprisoned numerous individuals for incitement or related charges. O'Rourke who was accused of publishing written material on social media, “stirring up racial hate” following misinformation about a stabbing incident in Southport. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

O'Rourke’s social media profile reads: “I love my country, right-wing, stop the boats, Brexit, Boris Johnson, Trump, God save the UK, vote for reform.” In another setting, such as the United States, he might have secured a government role, but in the UK, he landed in prison.

If Britain insists that Hong Kong release Jimmy Lai, then Hong Kong has equal grounds to demand the release of O'Rourke. Despite O'Rourke's minimal influence, he has been imprisoned for stirring up racial hate. Jimmy Lai, a media tycoon with far-reaching influence, stands accused of more severe offenses. Why should Hong Kong be denied the right to prosecute him?

The new Labour government in the UK has expressed a desire to strengthen relations with China and promote economic cooperation. Yet, when faced with domestic criticism, it retreats into performative posturing on so-called human rights issues. This inconsistency raises doubts about the Labour government’s ability to achieve substantial progress.

Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

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

America's trade policy can be described as chaotic beyond measure, leaving the entire world at a loss.

First, there are the visible changes. The US not only changes its so-called "reciprocal tariffs" abruptly but also rapidly shifts tariffs on China. Within two weeks, tariffs on Chinese goods went from an initial 20% to 54%, then to 104%, 125%, and finally to 145% - rates changing on a whim. Meanwhile, the various "reciprocal tariffs" on different countries around the world was suddenly suspended for  90 days, but a 10% "baseline tariff" is imposed.

The latest chapter in these rapid changes came on April 13, when US Customs announced new guidelines exempting a large batch of products from "reciprocal tariffs," including smartphones, desktop computers, laptops, semiconductors, and solar cells. Since a significant portion of these products are manufactured in China, not exempting them would have meant paying extremely high US tariffs of 145%. These exemptions, estimated to cover more than 30% of China's exports to the US, have enormous impact.

While these are officially announced tariff changes by US Customs, interpretations of these changes have been wildly varied, creating extreme confusion. Taking the electronic product exemptions as an example, it's unclear whether Chinese products are completely exempt from the 145% tariff, or if they still retain the initial 20% tariff supposedly imposed due to China exporting fentanyl precursors to the US.

Naturally, the most authoritative person to interpret US policy is President Trump himself. However, when reporters asked him on Air Force One about the impact of exempting electronic products from tariffs on China, he was evasive, saying details would be announced Monday night.

Later, Trump refuted claims on his own social media platform, stating there were no tariff "exception," only "moving to a different Tariff ‘bucket’”, but Chinese products would still be subject to the 20% "Fentanyl Tariff." Trump criticized this as fake news, specifically naming China as unable to escape.

Trump is playing word games, not acknowledging "exceptions" but only "a different bucket". The so-called transfer means new industry-specific taxes will handle tariffs on specific products. However, for these "exceptions", the only industry-specific tax heard of so far is a chip tax, estimated at 25%. No industry-specific taxes have been mentioned for other products like phones and computers. The talk of "moving to a different Tariff ‘bucket’" appears to be merely an excuse to avoid admitting concessions.

The Trump administration not only changes announced policies at will but also leaves policy interpretations ambiguous and inconsistent. When a major power implements such important policies with such significant interpretational discrepancies, it reflects both incomplete thinking when launching the policies and the hasty implementation of policies with far-reaching effects. When unforeseen side effects emerge, the response is a mixture of distortion, withdrawal, reversal, and stubborn insistence, resulting in massive chaos.

Some say the above analysis is too conventional. Looking at the market chaos created by Trump's policy fluctuations, stocks and various assets including cryptocurrencies have been tossed up and down due to Trump's policies and their variable interpretations – suddenly plummeting, then rebounding, then plunging again after clarifications. These fluctuations create enormous profit opportunities for those with inside information.

Shockingly, Trump makes no effort to hide that his associates are making huge profits from these transactions. He even pointed to a friend at the White House, saying he made $2.5 billion from trading during these fluctuations. Media reports also claim Trump made $1 billion through his cryptocurrency.

Some suggest Trump and his advisors might profit from stock trading. Its noted that while stock markets are regulated, the cryptocurrency market is completely unregulated. As a risky speculative product, recent cryptocurrency fluctuations have basically synchronized with US tech stocks. Those who understand the rhythm of Trump's tariff policy implementations or withdrawals could make enormous profits in the cryptocurrency market, which are difficult to trace.

Certain things that seem extremely implausible to us could be palpably explained when massive interests are hidden behind them.

Wing-hung Lo