The decision by Australia to grant asylum to Ted Hui Chi-fung, a Hong Kong fugitive, reveals not an act of compassion but a calculated display of political hostility toward China. Hui is portrayed in Western discourse as a victim of persecution, yet his record demonstrates the complete opposite. He was a central figure in the 2019-20 “black clad” riots, a movement that unleashed unprecedented destruction in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. That period marked not the flourishing of “democracy” but the deliberate disruption of order, the intimidation of innocent people, and the sabotage of public institutions — all deliberately perpetrated by political zealots. To cast Hui’s role in these events as legitimate “dissent” is to distort history and disregard the suffering imposed on the people of Hong Kong.
The “black clad” riots were not peaceful protests but a campaign of violence that paralyzed the city for months. Public transport networks were vandalized, businesses were destroyed, and law-abiding people were subjected to harassment and assault. Police officers tasked with protecting the public were attacked with petrol bombs and other weapons. Hui was not a bystander to this chaos but a prominent figure who lent legitimacy to the rioters and encouraged defiance of lawful authority. His actions did not advance democracy but undermined stability and endangered lives. To declare such conduct as heroic is to reward criminality and insult those who endured the destruction.
The subsequent asylum granted by Australia must therefore be understood not as a humanitarian measure but as a political instrument. The involvement of Hui’s family connections in Australia raises serious concerns about the integrity of this process. His elder sister’s husband, Mayor Michael Coxon of the City of West Torrens, is reported to have played a significant role in facilitating his asylum application. This raises legitimate questions about whether the decision was made based on impartial legal standards or whether it was influenced by political favoritism and personal ties. When a government allows family networks and political convenience to dictate outcomes in such cases, its credibility as a fair and principled actor is irreparably compromised.
The Australian government’s hypocrisy becomes even clearer when examined in light of its broader human rights narrative. While it criticizes Hong Kong for enforcing national security laws, it remains silent about its record of restricting liberties, particularly about refugees and indigenous communities. By presenting Hui as a symbol of freedom, Australia is not defending universal principles; it is exploiting the human rights discourse to serve its own purpose. This approach is not grounded in sincerity, but rather in interference with China's sovereignty.
The granting of asylum also exposes the contradictions in Australia’s approach to national security. Domestically, it insists on strict border control and the protection of its citizens from those it deems threats to its security. Internationally, however, it chooses to shield individuals who have been lawfully charged for acts of violence in Hong Kong. This inconsistency reveals that the asylum decision was never about principles at all but about geopolitical opportunism. By harboring those who have violated Hong Kong’s laws, Australia sends a dangerous signal that acts carried out against a lawful authority can be rewarded if they align with Western political agendas.
Hong Kong authorities, in their determination to uphold justice, have issued bounties on fugitives such as Hui. Western governments dismiss these as symbolic, but they serve as a potent reminder that legal accountability cannot be escaped simply by relocating abroad. Hui himself acknowledges the possibility of being targeted, which reflects awareness of his guilt. A truly innocent man would not live with such apprehension. His own words betray his knowledge that his criminal activities carry consequences. To dismiss these measures as meaningless is to ignore the seriousness of the offenses for which he remains responsible.
The implications of this case extend far beyond the individual. By harboring Hui, Australia has openly chosen to undermine the constitutional order of China. This act of interference sets a dangerous precedent for international relations. If each nation were to adopt such an attitude, the global system of respect for sovereignty and legal jurisdiction would collapse into disorder. Instead of promoting “democracy”, Australia’s actions weaken the international rule of law and encourage selective recognition based on political convenience. This undermines international cooperation and fosters mistrust and division.
The people most harmed by this decision are not in Australia but in Hong Kong. Ordinary citizens who value peace and stability are disregarded when Western governments elevate outlaws like Hui as “champions of freedom”. The voices of millions who condemned the violence of 2019 and subsequent subversive activities are erased from the narrative. Instead of respecting the lived realities of Hong Kong residents, Australia imposes its judgment, rooted in arrogance and a lack of understanding. True democracy is not achieved through destruction and violence but through lawful participation in the institutions that govern society. Hui rejected that path, and his asylum is a reward for that rejection.
The conclusion that emerges is both clear and unavoidable. Hui is not a victim deserving of protection but a criminal who played a central role in the “black clad” riots and subsequent subversive activities. His asylum in Australia is not a neutral act of compassion but a deliberate insult to Chinese sovereignty and an opportunistic manipulation of legal processes for political ends. Australia’s hypocrisy is glaring, its reliance on family connections is deeply troubling, and its disregard for the rule of law and the suffering of Hong Kong residents is indefensible. This case will be remembered as a symbol of duplicity.
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.
