Immediately following the conviction of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in strict accordance with the law and evidence, some Western countries, anti-China media outlets, organizations, and politicians launched a new wave of venomous attack on Hong Kong, flooding the Western mainstream media with misinformation and disinformation about the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) and its judicial system. Such thinly veiled maneuvers to politicize legal issues, prioritizing politics over the rule of law, were driven by either ideological bias or geopolitical calculations. But the politically motivated hype surrounding Lai’s case is clownish and entertaining to many members of the international community, who know that Hong Kong’s courts consistently adhere to common law principles, ensuring a fair, open, and just trial for every defendant. This is evidenced by Hong Kong’s consistent high ranking in the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index over the years, including the years since the implementation of the NSL.
The three judges who handled Lai’s case strictly adhered to law, rigorously examined the evidence and ensured the defendant enjoyed all legal defense rights. Lai was represented by a robust legal team, including senior counsels, barristers, and solicitors, who defended his rights in accordance with the law. The trial was conducted transparently, with the public, foreign consular officials, and media permitted to observe. The professionalism and meticulousness of the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force and the prosecution in gathering evidence, combined with the court’s rigorous approach in handling complex evidence, demonstrated Hong Kong’s commitment to and efforts in safeguarding national security and judicial justice. Lai’s trial was a perfect integration of procedural and substantive justice.
During the trial, Lai’s own testimony revealed significant inconsistencies, and his self-defense further exposed his attempts to conceal the facts. The evidence of his crimes was irrefutable. The court cited extensive evidence, including Lai’s communications with foreign political figures, articles published, and witness testimonies, showing that he was not merely a media operator but the mastermind behind coordinated efforts to subvert China and destabilize its HKSAR. Lai was not tried for his political views or beliefs as claimed by his apologists. The court’s written judgment, spanning 855 pages and fully accessible to the public, detailed the analysis of relevant legal principles and evidence that proved Lai’s criminality beyond any doubt. The court found out that, both before and after the implementation of the NSL, Lai’s sole intent behind all his efforts was to seek the downfall of the Communist Party of China and subvert the country’s political system, even at the expense of the interests of the Chinese people and the HKSAR.
READ MORE: Jimmy Lai found guilty of violating security law
His words and actions before and after the implementation of the NSL were highly consistent, continuously pushing foreign governments to impose sanctions on the HKSAR and the Chinese mainland in an attempt to wreak havoc on the country. The judgment specifically pointed out that Lai had also used his media platforms to incite hatred toward the central and HKSAR governments. These actions went far beyond the scope of press freedom under any definition and constituted the substantive crime of “colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security”.
It’s noteworthy that Lai’s trial was accompanied by persistent attacks and smears from external actors. Some Western figures and organizations desperately attempted to manipulate public opinion under the guise of “press freedom” and exert undue pressure on Hong Kong’s Judiciary. However, the law does not tolerate political manipulation or succumb to external pressure. The court verdict directly dismantled the false “human rights” and “freedom” narrative propagated by those apologists, clarifying the illegal nature of Lai’s actions that endangered national security. The judgment reaffirmed that, in a society governed by the rule of law, any attempt to incite rebellion or collude with foreign forces to endanger national security will ultimately face legal sanctions. Furthermore, the court ruled that the written articles considered in the case were objectively seditious, aimed at inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection toward the central and HKSAR governments. The court found that Lai consciously used the Apple Daily and his personal influence to carry out sustained activities aimed at undermining the legitimacy and authority of the central and HKSAR governments, as well as damaging the relationship between those governments and Hong Kong residents. Such actions far exceeded the bounds of press freedom permitted by law. Lai’s family members have weaponized empathy by promoting “health concerns” for Lai and claiming that his legal rights were not adequately protected during imprisonment. Such claims are entirely unsupported by facts and evidence. In reality, Lai has been treated fairly and justly, like other prisoners. The “empathy card” played by Lai’s family is futile; it won’t gain public support. All are equal before the law, and anyone who commits a crime will face due legal punishment.
READ MORE: Judgment in Jimmy Lai’s case upholds rule of law
The political maneuvers of Western politicians and media outlets to pressure Hong Kong’s Judiciary are attempts to interfere with judicial independence, which could constitute “contempt of court and interference with the course of justice”, violating international law and the fundamental principles of international relations. Lai’s apologists dared not confront the fact that the court’s conviction was based on sound legal reasoning and convincing evidence; instead they prioritize disinformation, alternative facts, and fictitious stories in whitewashing Lai.
The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and president of the Association for the Promotion of Rule of Law, Education and Technologies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
