New Content Daily Sign Up Here

Adam Clermont Solicitor, Hong Kong and Attorney, United States

GUEST POST

A Letter to Hong Kong: Seeing Clearly Through the Fog

Today, the High Court delivered its verdict in the case of Jimmy Lai. By tonight, the world will be full of reaction. Some will call it justice. Others will call it persecution. Social media will overflow with outrage, vindication, grief, and triumph. And Hong Kong will feel, once again, like a city at war with itself.

Before you react, I ask you to pause. Just for a moment. Not to change your mind, but to see the full picture.

I need to tell you who I am, because it matters for what follows.

Who I Am

I am American by birth and a Hongkonger by choice. I hold legal qualifications in both jurisdictions. I have practiced in American courts and Hong Kong courts. I have studied constitutional law in both systems. I understand, at a technical level that few possess, how free speech is actually protected in the United States and how it compares to protections elsewhere.

I have spent my career representing underdogs. Whistleblowers. Workers wrongfully terminated. Individuals crushed by institutions larger than themselves. I have stood up for human rights when it was inconvenient, when it cost me clients, when it would have been easier to look away.

I tell you this not to boast, but because I need you to understand something. I am not a mouthpiece for any government. I am not pushing propaganda for Beijing or Washington. I am someone who has lived in both worlds, who understands both systems from the inside, and who has grown exhausted watching them tear each other apart while ordinary people suffer.

And right now, I feel completely alone.

I look at my American friends and family, and they see only one side. I look at my Hong Kong community, and they are split into camps that cannot hear each other. I try to explain that both systems have strengths and weaknesses, that what works in one place may not work in another, that the truth is more complicated than any headline. And I am met with silence, or suspicion, or accusations that I have chosen a side.

I have not chosen a side. I have chosen Hong Kong. And Hong Kong is not a side. Hong Kong is a bridge.

The Pattern We Are Trapped In

There is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when societies divide. It begins with fear. Not irrational fear, but legitimate fear rooted in real concerns. One group fears chaos, instability, the collapse of order. Another group fears control, suppression, the loss of freedom. Both fears are valid. Both come from love of the same place.

But here is what happens next. Each side begins to see the other not as fellow citizens with different concerns, but as enemies with malicious intent. Psychologists call this hostile attribution bias. We stop interpreting the other side’s actions charitably. Every move they make confirms our worst suspicions. Every word they speak is evidence of their true, hidden agenda.

Then comes dehumanisation. Subtle at first. We use labels instead of names. We speak of “them” as a monolith rather than as individuals. We stop imagining that they might have families, doubts, hopes, or legitimate grievances. They become abstractions. And abstractions are easy to hate.

Finally, we enter a loop. Each side’s reaction to the other’s reaction escalates the conflict. We call this a conflict spiral. No one remembers who started it. Everyone believes they are merely responding to what was done to them. And the cycle continues, feeding on itself, growing stronger with each turn.

This is where Hong Kong has been for years. This is the fog we are living in.

The Story We Have Been Told

Let me walk through the major events that have brought us to today. Not to relitigate them, but to examine the narrative we have constructed around them.

We have been told that Hong Kong’s freedoms were stolen. That Beijing imposed its will on an unwilling population. That the National Security Law was an act of authoritarian overreach designed to crush dissent. That Jimmy Lai is a hero of press freedom, persecuted for telling the truth.

This narrative is not entirely false. There are elements of truth in it. But it is incomplete. And incomplete narratives are dangerous because they feel true while leading us astray.

What Democracy Actually Means

Much of the anger in Hong Kong has centered on the question of democracy. The demand for universal suffrage became a rallying cry. The perception was that Hong Kong was denied something that Western democracies take for granted.

But let us examine what democracy actually looks like in the nations that lecture Hong Kong most loudly.

In the United States, the President is not elected by popular vote. The Electoral College system means that a candidate can win the presidency while losing the popular vote by millions of ballots. This has happened twice in recent memory. Furthermore, the candidates who appear on the ballot are selected through a primary system controlled by two private organizations, the Democratic and Republican parties, which are under no legal obligation to hold fair or transparent selection processes. The Supreme Court, which wields enormous power over American life, consists of unelected judges appointed for life.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords remains an unelected chamber with the power to delay and amend legislation. The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people but is chosen by the ruling party. The monarch, while largely ceremonial, remains the head of state by birthright. The voting system, first-past-the-post, regularly produces parliaments where the governing party holds a majority of seats despite winning a minority of votes.

Now consider what Hong Kong was offered in 2014. The proposal was for universal suffrage in the election of the Chief Executive. Every eligible citizen would have the right to vote. The candidates would be vetted by a nominating committee. This was criticized as “fake democracy” because Beijing would have influence over who could stand for election.

But pause and consider. Is this fundamentally different from the American system, where two private parties control access to the ballot? Is it fundamentally different from the British system, where the Prime Minister emerges from internal party dynamics rather than direct public choice? The Hong Kong proposal was, in fact, more transparent. The nominating committee’s role was explicit and acknowledged. In Western democracies, the filtering of candidates happens behind closed doors, through fundraising requirements, party endorsements, and media gatekeeping.

This is not to say the proposal was perfect. Reasonable people could disagree about its merits. But the framing that Hong Kong was denied something the West enjoys was, at minimum, incomplete.

Free Speech: The American Myth

Because I am qualified to practice law in both the United States and Hong Kong, I can speak with authority on this point. The American conception of free speech as absolute and unlimited is a myth.

American law contains numerous restrictions on speech. Incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected. True threats are not protected. Speech integral to criminal conduct is not protected. The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires registration for anyone acting on behalf of a foreign government. The Logan Act prohibits private citizens from conducting unauthorized diplomacy. The Espionage Act criminalizes the disclosure of national defense information, with penalties up to death. Seditious conspiracy remains a federal crime, actively prosecuted as recently as the January 6th cases.

The difference is not that America protects speech and Hong Kong does not. The difference is in where each society draws the line. And reasonable societies can draw that line in different places based on their history, their vulnerabilities, and their particular circumstances.

Hong Kong is not America. What works in a continental nation of 330 million people, buffered by two oceans, may not work in a city of seven million people navigating a complex relationship with a nation of 1.4 billion. Systems must be adapted to context. This is not a betrayal of principles. It is the application of wisdom.

The Role of Social Media

We cannot discuss the polarization of Hong Kong without addressing the platform that accelerated it.

Social media has fundamentally altered how information spreads and how opinions form. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement have learned that outrage generates clicks. Content that provokes anger, fear, and tribal identification spreads faster than content that promotes nuance, understanding, or complexity. We are all subjects in an experiment we never consented to, our attention harvested and sold, our emotions manipulated for profit.

The evidence of harm is now undeniable. Australia has banned social media for children under sixteen. The United Kingdom is considering similar measures. Governments around the world are waking up to the reality that these platforms are not neutral town squares but architecture designed to divide.

During the 2019 protests, social media poured fuel on the fire. Misinformation spread faster than fact-checkers could respond. Echo chambers hardened. People who might have found common ground in person became enemies online. The platforms profited while Hong Kong burned.

This is not to excuse any side’s behavior. It is to recognize that we were all manipulated. We were fed content designed to make us angry, and we consumed it eagerly, and we shared it widely, and we lost friends and family in the process. The puppet masters were not in Beijing or Washington. They were in Silicon Valley, optimizing for engagement, indifferent to the wreckage.

The Actions of Elected Legislators

When Hong Kong did have elected representatives in the Legislative Council, how did some of them use that platform?

Rather than focusing on housing, healthcare, education, or the economic pressures facing ordinary Hong Kong citizens, a number of legislators chose to use their positions to insult the nation. They altered their oaths of office to include derogatory terms. They waved colonial flags. They threw objects and disrupted proceedings.

This was framed as resistance. But resistance to what end? What legislation did they propose to improve the lives of the elderly living in subdivided flats? What policies did they champion for young people unable to afford homes? What concrete plans did they offer for Hong Kong’s economic future?

There was talk of using the legislature to veto the budget, to create a constitutional crisis that would force Beijing’s hand. This was not a strategy aimed at improving governance. It was a strategy aimed at confrontation for its own sake.

I am not suggesting that all opposition legislators behaved this way. Many served with dedication and integrity. But the loudest voices, the ones that captured media attention, often seemed more interested in symbolic conflict than in the hard work of representing constituents.

The Case of Jimmy Lai Under American Law

Today’s verdict will be interpreted through the lens of press freedom. Jimmy Lai will be portrayed as a publisher punished for journalism. But let us examine whether this characterization withstands scrutiny.

The charges against Lai center on allegations of collusion with foreign powers and conspiracy to undermine the state. His communications with foreign officials, his advocacy for sanctions against Hong Kong and its officials, his coordination with foreign governments to pressure his own city’s administration, these are the basis of the prosecution.

Now consider how the United States would treat similar conduct.

American law is far more expansive in its restrictions on coordination with foreign powers. The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires anyone acting on behalf of a foreign government to register with the Department of Justice. Failure to do so is a federal crime. The Logan Act prohibits private citizens from engaging in unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments in disputes with the United States. The Espionage Act criminalizes the transmission of national defense information to foreign powers, with penalties up to death.

American courts have consistently held that advocacy for foreign sanctions against one’s own country, combined with coordination with foreign governments to achieve political change domestically, crosses the line from protected speech into criminal conduct. The prosecution of individuals who coordinated with foreign governments during the 2016 election demonstrates that the United States takes such matters seriously.

If an American publisher had communicated with Chinese officials, advocated for Chinese sanctions against American officials, and coordinated with Beijing to pressure the American government, that publisher would face prosecution. Not as a matter of speculation, but as a certainty. The charges would likely be more severe, and the potential penalties harsher.

This is not to say that prosecution is inherently just. It is to say that the framing of Lai’s case as uniquely authoritarian, as something that could only happen in an unfree society, does not survive comparison with American law.

When American Courts Chose Hong Kong

There is another story that rarely makes international headlines.

In multiple cases, American courts have dismissed lawsuits and deferred to Hong Kong’s legal system on the grounds that Hong Kong provides a more adequate forum for justice. These are not trivial matters. In one 2025 case, allegations were made that an American Fortune 500 company created pretextual reasons to terminate up to two thousand employees in order to avoid breaching its no-layoff policy. American courts, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determined that Hong Kong’s courts were better suited to adjudicate the claims.

This is worth sitting with. American courts, when faced with the choice, have repeatedly concluded that Hong Kong’s legal system is fair, competent, and trustworthy. This was true before 2019. It remains true today.

The legal system that the world condemns in the context of national security cases is the same legal system that the world relies upon for commercial disputes. Either the system has integrity or it does not. We cannot have it both ways.

Bridges, Roads, and Belt

When we speak of China’s role in the world, the dominant narrative in Western media focuses on threat. Military expansion in the South China Sea. Surveillance technology. Debt trap diplomacy.

But there is another story.

The Belt and Road Initiative has financed infrastructure across the developing world. Ports, railways, highways, power plants, hospitals. Nations that were ignored by Western investment for decades now have roads connecting their cities, bridges spanning their rivers, electricity reaching their villages.

The “debt trap” narrative, upon examination, is difficult to sustain. The largest holder of American debt is not China, it is Japan, but China remains among the most significant creditors to the United States government. If debt leverage is a weapon, then America is more exposed than most.

Meanwhile, what has American foreign policy delivered to the developing world? Military bases. Arms sales. Sanctions. Regime change operations that left nations in chaos. Libya. Iraq. Afghanistan. Syria.

This is not to idealize China’s approach. There are legitimate criticisms of Belt and Road projects, including concerns about environmental impact, labor practices, and loan terms. But the contrast is stark. One approach builds. The other destroys. One creates dependencies through infrastructure. The other creates dependencies through weapons systems.

Taiwan and the Question of Consistency

Taiwan presents another case study in narrative inconsistency.

The island’s economy is deeply integrated with the mainland. Taiwanese businesses have invested billions in Chinese factories. Taiwanese workers live and work across China. The economic relationship generates enormous wealth for Taiwan.

That wealth is now being used to purchase weapons. Taiwan is arming itself against the very nation that has made its prosperity possible. And the weapons come from America, a nation that officially maintains a One China policy, acknowledging that Taiwan is part of China.

The logic is difficult to follow. America sells weapons to a territory it officially considers part of China, while condemning China for asserting sovereignty over that territory. Taiwan buys those weapons with money earned through trade with China, while positioning itself as a potential adversary. The situation is less a coherent policy than a tangle of contradictions sustained by selective attention.

How the Verdict Will Be Reported

By the time you read this, the media cycle will be in full motion. Depending on which outlets you follow, you will encounter different realities.

Some reports will lead with condemnation. Quotes from human rights organizations. Statements from foreign governments expressing concern. Analysis framing the verdict as the final nail in Hong Kong’s coffin.

Other reports will lead with justification. Emphasis on the legal process. References to similar laws in Western nations. Commentary on the threat of foreign interference.

Both sides will present their narrative as obvious truth. Both will omit information that complicates their story. Both will use language designed to trigger emotional responses rather than thoughtful analysis.

This is how the pattern sustains itself. Media coverage does not merely report reality; it constructs it. And the reality being constructed is one of irreconcilable division.

Hong Kong’s Unique Position

Here is what the world seems to have forgotten.

Hong Kong is not a battlefield. Hong Kong is a bridge.

For over a century, this city has stood at the intersection of East and West. We have absorbed British legal traditions and Chinese cultural values. We have facilitated trade between nations that could not speak to each other directly. We have translated, mediated, connected.

This is our heritage. This is our gift. And we are squandering it.

When Hong Kong is divided, the world loses something precious. It loses a place where different systems can meet, where different values can be exchanged, where understanding can be built across civilizational lines. Every time we tear at each other, we weaken the bridge. And without that bridge, the world becomes a more dangerous place.

The Choice Before Us

Here is what I know to be true.

Hong Kong is home to people who love this city with everything they have. Some of them marched in 2019. Some of them supported the government. Some of them tried to stay out of politics altogether. They are neighbors. They are family. They are colleagues and classmates and childhood friends.

The forces pushing us apart are powerful. They include foreign interests that benefit from a weakened China. They include domestic interests that benefit from a mobilized base. They include media organizations that profit from conflict and outrage. They include politicians who gain power by pointing to enemies.

But we do not have to cooperate with those forces.

We can choose to see each other as people rather than positions. We can choose to ask questions before making accusations. We can choose to acknowledge the legitimacy of fears we do not share. We can choose to build rather than destroy.

This is not about agreeing. It is about understanding. It is about recognizing that the person on the other side of the divide is not evil, not brainwashed, not irredeemable. They are someone who arrived at different conclusions for reasons that made sense to them. And we might learn something by listening to those reasons.

An Appeal From the Heart

I am tired.

I am tired of watching people I love tear each other apart over politics. I am tired of dinners where certain topics are forbidden. I am tired of checking social media and feeling my stomach clench. I am tired of the anger, the suspicion, the grief.

I know both systems. I have lived in both worlds. And I can tell you with certainty that neither is perfect. America has freedoms that come with a price, mass shootings, opioid epidemics, homelessness on a scale that would shock any Hong Konger. Neither model can simply be imported. Neither is the answer to everything.

But here is what I also know. People are fundamentally the same. American parents want their children to thrive. Chinese parents want their children to thrive. Hong Kong parents want their children to thrive. We argue about means, not ends. We disagree about how to build a good life, not about whether a good life is worth building.

The woman next to you on the MTR who thinks differently than you, she is not your enemy. She is someone who wants Hong Kong to flourish and has a different idea about how to get there. The uncle at Chinese New Year who posts things that make your blood boil, he loves this city as much as you do. He is just afraid of different things.

I cannot do this alone. I have prepared materials, frameworks, research. But papers do not heal cities. People do.

If you are a mental health professional, a therapist, psychologist, counsellor, or social worker, I am looking for collaborators. People who understand the mind well enough to help Hong Kong heal.

If you are simply a citizen who is tired of the fighting, I am looking for you too. The work of reconciliation does not require credentials. It requires courage. The courage to reach across the divide and say: I want to understand you.

Hong Kong made me who I am. It gave me a home when I was searching. It showed me that different worlds can coexist, can learn from each other, can build something beautiful together. I owe this city everything. And I cannot stand by while it tears itself apart.

The verdict is in. The reactions are coming. The cycle is ready to spin again.

But we get to choose what happens next.

Different fears. Same love. One city.

Boots off. Let’s talk.

Educate: tinyurl.com/EducateHK
Inoculate: tinyurl.com/InoculateHK
Facilitate: tinyurl.com/FacilitateHK