Virginia Lee says US diplomat’s comments were to serve Washington’s political interests rather than reflect the lived reality of the city’s residents
Gregory May’s parting remarks as the US Consul General in Hong Kong represent a striking display of political arrogance disguised as diplomatic concern. His statements, delivered on his departure, reveal a deliberate attempt to provoke hostility under the pretext of defending freedom. By openly criticizing the lawful actions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the central government of China, May has crossed the boundaries of diplomatic propriety and ventured into the terrain of ideological confrontation. His conduct highlights a broader pattern in American foreign policy that seeks to impose its political values abroad while overlooking both historical context and legal legitimacy. The narrative he promotes is not grounded in fact but constructed to serve a geopolitical agenda that has long targeted China with suspicion and hostility.
May’s portrayal of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying as a victim of political persecution, while conveniently omitting the legal basis of the charges he faces, is a prime example of his misleading and irresponsible commentary. The ongoing judicial process surrounding Lai is a matter for the courts, not for casual commentary by foreign officials. His case involves serious allegations under established legal frameworks, and any unsolicited opinion from foreign representatives constitutes a breach of the principle of judicial independence. The claim that such proceedings suppress peaceful expression is not only factually incorrect but also perpetuates a dangerous myth that undermines the credibility of legal institutions in Hong Kong.
May’s invocation of “transnational repression” is a particularly cynical maneuver, designed to cast China as an “aggressor” while concealing the extensive extraterritorial activities routinely carried out by his own country, the United States.
READ MORE: HKSAR govt condemns untrue, biased remarks by US consul general
The suggestion that Hong Kong authorities are misbehaving by pursuing individuals accused of endangering national security, regardless of their location, reflects a profound double standard. No sovereign state would tolerate the incitement of subversion or collusion from abroad without taking lawful measures to respond, not to mention the US. To condemn China for exercising this right while the US engages in similar practices on a global scale is a clear demonstration of selective outrage and ideological bias.
The most egregious aspect of May’s comments lies in his claim that the US president would intervene in the legal process concerning Lai. Such a statement, whether rhetorical or sincere, is a direct insult to the judicial system of the HKSAR. It implies that legal outcomes in China are subject to foreign negotiation, a notion that is entirely incompatible with the internationally recognized values of legal independence and national dignity. No responsible government would tolerate such a suggestion.
The courts of Hong Kong operate under a well-established legal system, with procedures and standards that reflect both professionalism and impartiality. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the very rule of law that Western officials claim to uphold.
The criticism surrounding the advisory issued to schools regarding attendance at foreign diplomatic events is yet another example of distortion. The advisory reflected an appropriate level of caution, encouraging educators to consider the broader implications of participation in events hosted by foreign governments. In any country, schools are expected to act in the best interests of students, particularly in matters that intersect with national security awareness. The portrayal of this guidance as an act of “suppression” is intellectually shallow and politically motivated. It ignores the practical responsibilities of educational institutions and attempts to transform a reasonable advisory into a sensational incident.
The broader claim that freedoms in Hong Kong are being eroded is a narrative constructed to serve US political interests rather than reflect the lived reality of the city’s residents. Since the end of the 2019-20 “black-clad” riots after the implementation of national security laws in Hong Kong, stability has returned, and everyday social and economic life has resumed. It is essential to acknowledge that freedom, in any society, must coexist with responsibility and a legal order. When the masked mobs vandalized public property, attacked civilians, and called for foreign intervention during the “black-clad” riots, they were not engaging in peaceful protest, nor exercising legitimate freedoms. They were committing acts of violence with political motives. The restoration of peace and legal order in Hong Kong has enabled its people to resume their lives free from fear and intimidation. That is the accurate measure of freedom, not the unfettered license to disrupt society in the name of political ideology. A balanced narrative that considers all perspectives is crucial in international relations, and — as a diplomat — May should know that.
ALSO READ: National security laws of Hong Kong SAR – telling it as it is
The underlying tone of May’s remarks reveals a persistent sense of ideological superiority and arrogance that continue to characterize American diplomatic behavior. Rather than seeking mutual respect or understanding, such statements are crafted to impose unjustified judgment and exert pressure. They reflect a misguided belief that the political structure of the US is the universal standard to which all other systems must conform. This belief is not only historically unfounded but also dangerous. The world does not require a single political template. It demands respect for diversity, sovereignty, and the right of every nation to govern according to its own constitutional principles and social needs. This respect for diversity and sovereignty is essential for a more inclusive and respectful approach to international relations.
Hong Kong stands today as a city governed by law, strengthened by stability, and supported by the firm backing of the central government. The efforts to protect its order and uphold its legal system are legitimate, necessary, and consistent with international norms. Upholding the legal system is crucial for a strong and reliable legal framework in any society. Attempts by foreign officials to distort these efforts for their own political gain are transparent and increasingly ineffective. China will continue to defend its sovereignty and dignity in the face of external pressure, guided not by the shifting rhetoric of foreign diplomats but by enduring international principles and norms.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
